Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

And if you want to have a real discussion, remember we have some outstanding topics.

You claimed that it was not possible to make optically pure sequences. I gave you a refernce that shows otherwise. Will you either withdraw the claim or show that they really did not make optically pure sequences as claimed.

----------------------

You claimed that banded iron was found in basement rock. I showed instead that such iron was actually found in formations about half the current age of the earth and represent a transition from anoxic to oxidizing conditions. I then showed that rocks older than this contain materials such as uranite that only form in anoxic conditions.

WIll you either show that there are no rocks older than the banded iron formations and that the oldest rocks do not contain materials formed under reducing conditions or will you withdraw the claim.

 

Whoa! There is a lot there.

First off, you must know that I was once a firm young earther myself. It was the failings of YEism itself that led me to explore a wider view.

My personal opinion would be that God designed the laws of this universe in a way that they help to accomplish His will. The evidence, in my opinion, indicates that the laws were so well setup that much, most, of what happened did not need help.

Think of an analogy. Does God have to work to keep a plane in the air or does it stay there because of the physics He created?

Now, having said that, I think that it was also necessary for intervention at times to get a particular outcome. But the laws that govern astronomy and geology and biology seem to have been created well enough to handle most of it.

Again, my opinion is that the laws that govern the processes are efficient enough to have allowed what we see to happen. So, no, that evolution has happened does not point any more for or against God than does the observation that we have gravity.

In other words, the two are separate issues. They are not mutually exclusive. You can accept either, neither or both in any combination. (Please do not misinterpret that to meant that I think that it is OK to reject God. That is NOT what I am saying.)

And such a thing would be dumb. Life is just chemistry. Chemistry following the rules of this universe. There is no metaphysical force necessary to make chemistry work. And my opinion is that God set up the rules of chemistry to make life likely given little more than liquid water. (Of course, having only known of one kind of life, this may not even be needed.)

No one, or few at least, do believe that.

I doubt you could find many biologists who attribute life to some vague, metaphysical force.

However, you will find that many scientists, somewhere around half in the USA, do believe in God. So it is only a fraction that deny God while about an equal number have no problem accepting both God and the findings of science.

To paraphrase someone, the world is not only stranger than you think, it is stranger than you can think.

It seems quite possible that given a few favorable conditions, that life may be an inevitable result. It is just chemistry and the chemistry of this universe seems ready made for life.

The hammer analogy fails because it is not like reality. It sounds absurd because it is. Evolution mainly sounds absurd to those who know little about it. Those who learn more about it tend to find it more convincing the more they learn.

While I disagree with your conclusion here, I do agree that it is an area that can be harmful.

Before I continue, I feel the need to say something. I hope I don't come across the wrong way and feel free to take it or leave it. You start a lot of threads that seem to boil down to you finding something that goes so far against what you believe that you have trouble accepting it but at the same time you also wonder if it might be true. It sounds like you may spend a lot of time reading skeptic websites and the like. To me, it seems like this may be a dangerous thing for you to be doing. You get very worked up of them and it appears that some of these things may be causing you doubt in your faith. It might be helpful for you to avoid such things unless your faith is strong enough to not buy into it. It is just a matter of why should you challenge yourself more than you can handle.

One reason I find the need to post on this topic is because of what you describe. It is easy to find anecdotes of people who have lost their faith after being exposed to the truth of the matter. Many feel like they have been led astray and wonder what else they may have been led astray about. Others are convinced that evolution and the Bible are incompatible and therefore reject God when they can no longer deny the evidence.
Hopefully, some of these people would benefit from seeing that it is possible to reject YEism and accept the truth without rejecting the Bible and God.

Furthermore, when I was going through the process of rejecting YEism, I got very angry over the dishonest tactics of the YE leaders. So I hope that by explosing these, that I can help weed the repeatition of such from the debate.

 

#1. I can not be blamed for the fact that you don't understand the definition of "Basement rock".

#2. I can not be blamed for the Smithsonian exhibit showing a basement rock sample - in the form of banded iron.

Your constant dark ages tactic of trying get "history revised" by urging people to "recant" does not work in real life.

Get it?

 

In this case you could easily reword that as "UTEOTW you TELL STORIES about RNA POPPING into existence before PROTEINS"...

It is always good to keep that clearly in mind when dealing with UTEOTW.

#1. UTEOTW utterly DENIES the word of God in Roman 1 about "the attributes of God CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been MADE" -- SEEN by unbelieving pagans as God claims in Romans 1.

UTEOTW claims that the Atheist POV here is the right one when considering what God DID in creating life!

UTEOTW admits that atheist darwinists have no problem with their "non-God" solution - their particular brand of evolutionism.

 

More assertion from you?

Surely you can do better.

The banded iron formations are in rocks about 2 - 2.5 billion years old. Older rocks contain materials formed under anoxic conditions.

If you disagree, and you assert that you do, then offer something that supports your position. Show that banded iron is found in the oldest of formations. Show that there really are not materials formed in anoxic conditions in formations older than those contining the banded iron.

If you are going to insist that there is some Smithsonian exhibit that proclaims these things, well you might have to offer some support for that.

As far as "basement rock" goes, I assume that you realize that this refers to the layers under the sedimentary layers of the continents. You are not trying to pull off some sort of equivocation fallacy where you try and confuse the basement rocks of some continent as being the oldest rocks around are you?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
#1. I can not be blamed for the fact that you don't understand the definition of "Basement rock".

#2. I can not be blamed for the Smithsonian exhibit showing a basement rock sample - in the form of banded iron.

Your constant dark ages tactic of trying get "history revised" by urging people to "recant" does not work in real life.

Get it?

Ok I can be blamed for your failures as you pointed out - but I can't not be "reasonably and rationally blamed" for them.

I stand corrected. Please consider this edit as my position.

 

Is that comparison your definition of "basement rock"??

My previous post stands.

Now back to the topic.

Your utter failure to produce the compenants of the single celled creatures that you "imagine" to have spontaneously generated in your abiogenesis myths.

Your failure to own up to the Romans 1 fact God applies EVEN to unbelieving pagans.

Your failure to comprehend even the most basic principles of probability and your attacks on Dr. Borel!

Having fumbled so many times on this thread - just like you did on the Patterson thread and the "quote" thread -- I don't see how you have the endurance to come back with more failed tactics popular among atheist darwinist's.

BTW you are already on record as saying "ALL wrong" and "HAD to be discarded" can be "revised and wrenched" into "Nothing fundamentally wrong with it" by you!!:laugh: :type:

 

Nope. I gave you the definition for basemet rock. " As far as 'basement rock' goes, I assume that you realize that this refers to the layers under the sedimentary layers of the continents."

Since you have no response, I guess that this means that you concede that you have no ability to show that my assertion is false that the banded iron is found in formations that are preceeded by formations containing materials formed under anoxic conditions.

Another Bob assertion disproven. We'll add it to the list.

Oh, wrong again.

I have given you the outline of a probable path. I have given you lab data that supports this path. I have given you references to folks who have made protocells that contain RNA, that reproduce and that grow.

You are the one who cannot respond to this and instead keeps making up a story to which no one subscribes, debunking your own story, and then pretending that oyu have addressed what science actually says.

[/quote]Having fumbled so many times on this thread - just like you did on the Patterson thread and the "quote" thread -- I don't see how you have the endurance to come back with more failed tactics popular among atheist darwinist's.[/quote]

The only thing failing here are your strawmen.

And you know deep down that you are beat on the Patterson quote. Patterson himself says your interpretation is "wrong." You are forced to pretend that you can tell us better what Patterson meant than Patterson.

 

There is NO lab "data" that supports a path for building a one celled creature!

There is NO lab "data" that tells thinking mankind that the myths and fairytales of atheist darwinists about events that CAN NOT be fabricated in the lab regarding A SINGLE celled organism -- could be remotely demonstrated WITH DATA!

Atheist darwinists BELIEVE in SPITE of the data not BECAUSE of it!

And they do so in blind service to their primary world view "There is NO God"!

Obviously.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to discredit ACTUAL sciences like stastics and probability studies - exchanged for his devoted service to the junk science religion we call atheist darwinism - are well documented on this thread.

UTEOTW's utter 52 card failure on this thread is available for all to read. Much as he might wish to hide it.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to interpret basement rock in any part of earth as the "oldest rock on the planet" is well documented here.

UTEOTW's failed attempts to INSERT his own quotes in Christian posts AS IF his inference was "data" in the post is as transparently flawed AS IS his claims that the pausity of data in support of abiogenesis is "a good thing"

UTEOTW's failed argument that the atheist darwinist confessions that that the horse series was "all wrong" and "had to be discarded" and was "a lamentable fact" for having hung around in textbooks so long -- should be blindly "revisioned and wrenched" into "YEAH but nothing fundamentally wrong with it" is also well documented by his participation in the false quotes thread.

With failure after failure mounting for UTEOTW -- how does he keep posting in that SAME model as if he is "doing a good thing"??

That UTEOTW - is the question that is going unnanswered on this thread.

 

I opened a thread entirely devoted to your own bogus claims about PAtterson and you ran away and fled from it.

How "transparent" that when a wide open door is open for you to take your OWN test case (that would supposedly show me to be in error) -- you RUN from it instead of going there and drawing all eyes to your wise choice in making that a test case!

How sad that you are so easily and quickly exposed in these blunders of yours UTEOTW!

Why not cross over to the light? Why not join truth and leave the darkness of error and failed argument after failed argument?

Why be in a position where you have to run away from your OWN selected test cases?!!

I pray that you will wake up to reason some day.

 

You might want to check that statement.

I said that banded iron formations exist and that there are formations with rocks formed under anoxic conditions in older settings.

You are the one who tries to claim that the banded iron formations are found in "basement rock," suggesting that they are in the oldest rock.

But it is not true. And you still have not supported your assertion at all that the banded iron formation indicate a non-reducing environment at the beginning.

You cannot refute the evidence that actually shows that the banded iron formation were laid down as single celled life began to realease oxygen which reacted with the dissolved, reduced iron in the sea and precipitated out.

You cannot explain why banded iron formations are rare after this point.

You cannot explain why materials produced under anoxic conditions are found in older strata.

You seem to be confusing your own arguments here.

 

A bit of revisionist history?

I showed that Patterson quoted the very passage that you quote and then procalims the very interpretation of this passage that you give as " wrong" and the one I give as "correct."

Pretty simple.

Except you seem to think that you and not Patterson knows what he meant.

I finally quit the thread after it became apparent that you would not even accept the words of the person you were quoting when he calls you "wrong."

There is no possible way to argue against that kind of delusion. The point was well established so I moved on.

I am surprised that you continue to call attention to such a clear cut case of deception.

 

You completely ignored the text of YOUR OWN quote. I highlighted in the MANY colors of the rainbow the text where Patterson HIMSELF endorsed HIS OWN WORDS and then showed that the VERY part he was PROMOTING was the part I quoted.

You pretended to completely fail to comprehend english at that point and would not be compelled to even LOOK at the text YOU brought up -- you even fled the thread!!

Now here is my point - if your imaginary scenario presented here for statistics OR for abiogenesis OR for Patterson were even HALF TRUE we would see YOU actually HAVING facts to support your wild stories instead of watching you fail time after time after time. Instead of seeing you run from your OWN choice examples we would see you trying to GET ME to go to those very test cases that you CLAIM are supporting your views!!

Why is it you don't seem to get this basic part of real life? Is it that your devotion to junk science has made you immune to cold hard facts??

 

Again you are caught using your OWN INFERENCE as "data" as you simply "make stuff up" to cover for your own lack of understanding.

I stated that the Smithsonian in D.C SHOWS an example of banded iron as a basement rock sample IN The museum.

YOU then try to make ME the author of the exhibit.

YOU then show your own ignorance about what constitutes basement rock.

I THEN point out that I can not be blamed for your own bogus tactics here!

You might want to check that out on this very thread.

-----------------------

And then there is your totally discredited example of the 52 card sequence. Classic failure on your part -- thanks for creating that here for all to read -

YOU jumped off that cliff in an attempt to attack all of statistics and probability science as you attack the Nobel winning matmatician Dr. Borel. Congrats on exposing yourself like that to the entire board!

Congrats on admitting that you have NO SOLUTION for the proteins needed to build the cell structures in the first cell!!

Congrats on resorting to blind attack tactics instead of dealing with the data presented here.

Congrats on ignoring the basic fact of Romans 1 as even FLEW was compelled to admit to the bogus myths and failed arguments of the atheist darwinists who way "there is NO GOD" and in service to that religion "imagine" stories about abiogenesis.

Congrats on your published opposition to Romans 1 on this board!!

You have done so well in your service to atheist darwinism here - no one can charge that you failed to fully represent them here EXCEPT when you twisted THEIR OWN statements about the failed, discredited horse series stated by them to be "ALL WRONG" and "NEVER happened in nature" and "HAD to be discardeD" and "LAMENTABLE" that it was still in text books -- you twisted that around to "YES but still nothing fundamentally WRONG with that " discredited and ALL WRONG story telling!!

IF ONLY you had stood firm with your atheist darwinist masters THEN as well as you have in other areas you would not be quite as exposed as you are to this point.

Please consider crossing over to the light so that you don't have to go down dark blind alley after dark blind alley!

 

I already told you what a basement rock is. It is the rocks that underlie the sedimentary rock of the continents. You seem to be trying to pull an equivocation fallacy where you equate the basement rock at some location to the oldest rocks anywhere. Well it is just not true.

Try this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

I bolded the key parts of that for you.

 

And I am still at a loss as to why you would wish to highlight those sections.

It is a key part of my reasoning to show how Patterson quotes back the very part that you are quoting before proclaiming your interpretation "wrong." This ensures that there can be no doubt that we are talking about the same quote.

I think that you think that all you have to do is get the words in the right order to have a valid quote. You could not be more wrong.

A very simple analogy shows this. An atheist could quote the Bible as saying "There is no God." And by your criteria, it would be an accurate quote. Those words are there and in that order.

But we all know that it is still not a good quote. The original intent and meaning is lost.

And that is what you consistently do with your quotes. You remove the context and present the quotes as if they mean something that the author did not intend of with which he would not agree.

That is dishonest.

Patterson says in your highlighted parts that he really did use those words.

So what?

He also says, with no ambiguity, that your interpretation of what he meant was wrong.

End of story.

You have either deluded yourself into thinking that you can tell us what he meant better than he can himself or you have no intention of being honest with your quotes.

 

That is the accusation I already made against you. You need to find your own to make against me.

 

After I point out IN BOLD and colored highight that Patterson is ENDORSING HIS OWN WORDS in the very area that I Quote him -- I ALSO add here on this thread

Quote:
You completely ignored the text of YOUR OWN quote. I highlighted in the MANY colors of the rainbow the text where Patterson HIMSELF endorsed HIS OWN WORDS and then showed that the VERY part he was PROMOTING was the part I quoted.

If you were not so married to vaccuous arguments and glossing over "inconvenient details" you would have seen this long ago.

The only reason you are "in the dark STILL" on your OWN selected illustration is your die-hard aversion to facts when those facts destroy your own transparently flimsy arguments.

Your own Patterson quote is a perfect illustration of your blunder in this area - which is why you keep running from that thread.

Patterson ENDORSES the very part of HIS OWN QUOTE that I am quoting in the thread!!

Get it??

Yet??!!

You simply "blindly" take a letter where Patterson complains about SOME of HIS OWN words being quoted and you then pretend He is complaining about ALL or ANY of his words being quoted. He is NOT! He actually LIKED some of what HE said and HE SHOWED that part "preferred" in the letter you quoted.


But you "glossed over the detail".

Which is why you comitted the blunder of taking such an exposed and shallow position regarding that quote.

I am merely holding your feet to the fire - so to speak. Trying to get you to pay attention to your OWN selection ofa test case.

But as with all other facts so devastating to your atheist darwinist views - you avoid them.

Wrong "again".

By inserting your own wild imagination as though that which is merely "imagined" is fact -- you enter your dream world and can not be brought back to reality EVEN when we deal with something YOU SELECTED as a test case.

How Sad.

Sadly in the quote you gave - Patterson makes NO REFERENCE AT ALL to "my interpretation" of ANYTHING!

Sadly in the quote YOU gave from Patterson HE DOES show that a few sentences IN That LOOOOONG quote do represent an area that CLEARLY SHOWS his view!!

Sadly for you - all these details are merely "more stuff for you to run and hide from"