We often discuss such things as evolution and creation, but I doubt that many pro evolutionists examine closely the actual probabilities of intelligent life spontaneously forming by chance.

Enter the.....

MONKEY SHAKESPEARE SIMULATOR which is unfortunately off line now.. apparently having decided the issue?

The proposition is "Given_enough monkeys,typewriters and enough time, eventually one of them will type a complete_work of William Shakespere.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1520006
The first post explains how the experiement was carried out.

RESULT.
It was 24 character matches from Henry IV part 2. Certainly higher totals were achieved, but unfortunately, they were not documented.

It took 2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years for them to achieve this record.

I doubt the undocumented 'higher totals' would be much more striking than the documented one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Is worth a read also.

Considering the time/number of monkeys needed to produce just the result mentioned above..and the probability issues being:

<<In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small they can barely be conceived in human terms. Say the text of Hamlet contains 130,000 letters (it is actually more, even stripped of punctuation), then there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10183,946.[4]

Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing for all time, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10183,800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…">>

I'd add to this, that if just to produce something rather simple is 'beyond human comprehension'...then the idea of producing something very complex..which has the capability to RE-produce... produces just one reaction in me...

ROFwgwL .. for about a year :) (wgw= With Gut Wrenching)

Please note.. I'm not laughing at those who believe such rubbish..but at the rubbish itself. Those who believe it.. well I'm sure they are sincere...but uninformed......until now :)

Polycarp there is a fatal flaw in your argument. Namely you assume that there is intelligent life anywhere in the universe. We have yet to find any signs of it here on earth so why should there be any elsewhere?

But suppose I let just one monkey type random characters until it's typed the first character of the complete works. Then I keep that character, and set the monkey onto the task of typing the second character. And so on. It will still take a while, but nothing like as much as the experimental result.

If I use lots of monkeys, I can get the required result quite quickly.

So all that I really need is a way of choosing preferred outcomes. Evolution does that by killing off the less desirable outcomes, and keeping the good ones.

The evolution of human level intelligence on Earth may indeed be a low probability event. It appears to have required a number of occasions when our ancestors went through an evolutionary bottleneck that could easily have just wiped them out completely. But since there is human level intelligence on Earth, we know it's not impossible. We might one day discover that we're the only such intelligence in the Galaxy, or even the Universe. But there'd be no one on all those other planets wondering about the lack of intelligence, so nothing much turns on that.

If this is meant to be some sort of back-handed attack on the notion of evolution, it should be noted that processes in nature are not totally random so the argument, while colourful, is basically flawed.

One analogy is that if you periodically delete everything the monkeys type that isn't Hamlet, eventually they would indeed produce Hamlet.

Another problem is that you've started at the singular conclusion of Hamlet and worked backwards when in fact at the beginning there were a vast number of possible outcomes of which Hamlet was only one.

BD, the problem here we have here with you religous types, is
that apart from a few anti evolution websites, based on
your religious views, you refuse to inform yourself about
the mountain of information that is fact is available out
there.

At least learn the basics if you are serious about understanding
what we know. Yes its more then "God did it".

If you are serious about informing yourself, then all credit
to you, otherwise you will argue from ignorance for the rest
of your life.

There is a very readable book that was published by Penguin
in 1990, called "Blueprints"- solving the mystery of evolution.
Its authors are Maitland Edey and Donald Johanson.

If you are really serious about unterstanding just a bit of
the information, go and inform yourself, otherwise you are
peeing in the breeze.

The intelligent design argument was refuted by David Hume over 200 years ago and well before Charles Darwin did his stuff. Any close look at evolutionary theory shows that the odds are stacked against any particular development it is only with hindsight that it looks like a steady, dare i say inevitable, progression. As far the search for intelligent life is concerned it is needle in a haystack type stuff.
People tend to forget that it has been only about 80 years that we have had the technology to send and receive signals. What if contact was made 120 years ago? Chances are that we would have had no idea. Similarly we could be making contact with a planet where the sentient beings are so far advanced that our signals will only be picked up by the odd antiquarian or so early in their advancement that they do not have the capacity to make sense of our signals.

Hi Sylvia

the flaw in your argument is that you used the words "then 'I' keep"....

i.e.. you are assuming the existence of an intelligent overseer :)

Baygon.. good call!

Wobbly...this is not 'my' position.. if you look at the articles you can see who's it is.

You also used the same flawed argument as Sylvia "If you periodically delete" again.. assumes an external intelligent supervisor.

It is not a back handed attack, it is a full frontal assault with rocket launched granades :)

The focus is on just ONE aspect of existence. "Origin of life" not.. repeat NOT 'how things developed' once intelligent life was produced/created.

I think it is just tooooo easy for people to spill out cliche's "If you have enough this and enough time.. sureeeeee LIFE comes into existence." Now..that puts me back on the floor..

Yabby *NIP*.... no mate.. it's not about the general theory of evolution...its about ORIGINS of life and the probabilities thereof.
Here is a new theory....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm

But with ALL these exotic theories.. I have a HUGE problem intellectually. If the probabilities (lack thereof) are as the initial post suggests (from the article) of just ONE intelligent outcome with all that work... just think.. lets call it 'one cell' of the most simple nature.

http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=rna+molecule&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

You don't have to be any smarter than 1+1=2 to work out that if the probabilities for ONE successful protien of 200-500 amino acids strung to gether.

Ok.. fifty trillion years has past since the big bang..and VOILA..we now have ONE ...... 1 protein molecule.

Does it occur to anyone that to get TWO.... 2.. the probabilities are MULtiplied? not just added?

There I am..back rolling around the floor... sorry but it's ludicrous to think of 'origin of life by chance'
http://www.blinkx.com/video/michael-behe-probability-of-a-single-protein-molecule/sj7w0SBgQxWcSOMK8ERaYg

P.S. this thread might be called "How atheists got religion" i.e.. the religion of rejection of the Creator.

You cannot arrive there by honest intellectual inequiry.. so that leaves 'religion'.. u know... "belief in something you have no evidence for" :)

I know this will bring all the usual 'but but but.. arguments out of the woodwork...but I suggest NARROW your focus onto just ONE thing...

ORIGINS.... ORIGINS... ORIGINS... of just 1 complete living cell.

What is the SMALLEST living cell?

Nanoarchaeum equitans

Its genome is only 490,885 nucleotides long;

HUH?! ONNNNNNLY? FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE nucleotides?

Oh wow..that makes sense then...

WONDERFUL SCIENCE

The split genes of N. equitans most probably represent the ancestral evolutionary stage from which modern non-fragmented genes might have evolved: an example from the genes codifying only for the 5&#8242; and 3&#8242; halves of the tRNA molecule.

Notice the abundance of words like:
"most probably"
"might have"

Like I said..belief in spontaneous origin of life by chance is not science..but religion.

Polycarb,

It's clear how nature keeps some mutations and removes others - animals with some mutations live and reproduce. Animals with others don't live, and don't reproduce. The process of selection of pro-survival mutations is automatic. No intelligent selection is required.

I wish there had been an intelligent designer - I wouldn't have had to have my appendix and excess teeth removed as a teenager, and my eyes would be working rather better than they are.

Ah Poly, but you are overlooking the very fundamentals, due to
lack of information. Lets just look at a couple of basic points.

"Life" is basically a cell that replicates itself, using dna.
Now when Stanley Miller did his primitive flask experiments,
containing the basic elements that we know were on planet earth
in the original days, what he basically got was short strings of
rna. Rna and dna are very much related and rna is involved in
dna replicating itself.

Now Stanely fooled around with a tiny sterile flask. Earth was
a huuuge sterile "flask".

What he also got were some amino acids, which are the building
blocks of life. Chains of amino acids, using rna-dna, form
proteins, as they string together. Life is basically anything
from one cell upwards, cells replicating themselves using
amino acids and rna-dna. That is the simple story just for you :)

The intelligent design was refuted 200 years ago! drrr! and replaced with unintelligible crap with next to no chance of happening. All many have done is replaced a rational faith (creation) with a totally irrational faith (evolution) and then claim science backs them.

Poly,

To become PM, one doesn't need to compete against 22 million folk. Maybe twenty people, four or five times. That said, from a quantum mechanics perspective, where one has the coalascencing of infinite interminancy, one would think the monkey number very small indeed.

As I might have mentioned before, the set of infinity for all rational numbers is infinity less than the set of infinity for irrationally numbers.

Regards,

Oly.

Hello Runner,

I have replied to your post on the other thread. Please return.

Oly.

Personally, I think the fact that Porky sits at his computer typing out seemingly infinite permutations of gibberish - some of which vaguely resemble English prose - rather supports the Monkey/Shakespeare hypothesis.

If he keeps it up he may even post something eventually that is simultaneously rational, truthful and expressed in correct English.

What sort of monkeys are we talking about here? Are we talking the more advanced primates like chimpanzees or are we talking colobus monkeys?

Apes are pretty much like people really. It took one Shakespeare to write Hamlet but I wonder how many lesser men it would take to do it? Or women?

Yeah but, Chainsmoker, it didn't take just one man to write Hamlet if we get right down to it, did it?

First there was the traditional story which originated in Europe - one version of which somehow got translated into English and crossed the channel. Then there was the story that was passed around and turned into the original play - of which there were as many different versions as there were companies to perform it. Then there was the version Shakespeare just happened to know and to choose upon which to base his play. There were also the collaboraters - e.g. other members of the company - who put in their ten cents worth. Then there was the play as written and the play as performed. And finally the different versions of Shakespeare's which were published. Only one of which was be to replicated by monkeys.

So, into this equation we must also take cognisance of the fact that the play "Shakespeare's Hamlet" also went through a long period of evolution, including many variables and chance occurrances before that particular version appeared.

Maybe the monkeys have been typing the original version, in Danish, all along and no-one ever realised?

Romany take your thought further...Shakespeare STOLE Hamlet from those poor monkeys! Little things had been wearing their digits to the bone creating a Danish masterpiece - of course inventing the typewriter along the way and along comes Shakespeare and translates it and makes a fortune. What a charlatan that Shakespeare; but he did come home with the Bacon. Is it any wonder that they stopped typing drama and switched to advertising?
By the way I understand they were capuchin monkeys on account of their fondness for a certain type of coffee.

Polyboaz,

As Yabby suggested, you should learn a thing or two before you continue to make such a fool of yourself.

<<We often discuss such things as evolution and creation, but I doubt that many pro evolutionists
examine closely the actual probabilities of intelligent life spontaneously forming by chance.>>

Who are these people you’re talking about?

I don’t know anyone who claims that life “spontaneously” appeared by chance. Misrepresenting the views of others is dishonest and a clear breach of the 9th commandment.

<<Please note.. I'm not laughing at those who believe such rubbish..but at the rubbish itself.>>

Yes, what you are laughing at certainly is rubbish. Maybe you should tell other Creationists that too?

<<Those who believe it.. well I'm sure they are sincere...but uninformed......until now :)>>

Uninformed until now?

Sorry, Polyboaz, but most people know about that argument, and the fact that it has been debunked over and over and over.

<< Like I said..belief in spontaneous origin of life by chance is not science..but religion.>>

I suggest you look-up the definition of "religion".

There are credible (albeit incomplete) explanations about how the first complex cells arrived. Just because we can’t yet explain it entirely, that doesn’t mean that a magical being must’ve done it.

Interesting though, that to denigrate science, Creationists need to call it a religion - the very thing they practice.

Creationist arguments are naive at best, and dishonest at worst. But It seems that lying is alright, if you’re doing it for God.

Boaz, if Creationism is true, then why do Creationists have to stoop to the level of selectively quoting people out-of-context to help their case?

funny how evolutionist can writes libraries of books but still can't come up with one plausible explanation for the beginnings. Why anyone should even listen to their fantasies beats me. Their dishonesty in failing to give any plausible answers knows no bounds. At least those who believe in creation admit that they have taken a reasoned step of faith (unlike the totally unreasoned step of faith taken by evolutionist). Evolutionist would have us believe that something comes from nothing which breaks every scientific law their ever was. One would have to be totally naive and ignore every scientific principle not to see design written all over the earth and mankind. How desperate man must be to deny his Creator in coming up with such rot!

In my youth I was if in Sydney drawn to the Domain, sprookers corner some called it.
I liked to read everything about Hide park corner in London too.
Every one who had an opinion about anything spoke in the Domain.
I stood and listen to most.
The net is a bit like that.
True it is a sprookers corner and the ideas are nearly the same.
My youth was my pre Christian stage, Hamburgers on good Friday just to prove I did not believe.
In that park and on the net extreme left views and Christianity drew the smallest crowds.
Yet had the most sprookers.
Those Monkeys poly could in time, write the story of yet another God.
Or maybe given time write about unions in a more flattering way.
I would set them a task, to unite all men, to develop understanding of how great life is.
And to teach us as we face death, we do not need props we have had heaven in our life, that it is both pain and joy trouble and peace.

Dear Polycarp,

On the subject of evolution, I'll keep it simple.

You were conceived, then you were born, you went to
school, and you became a man ... Then you were
David Boaz, and then became Polycarp. That is evolution.

Simple isn't it?

As for apes, chimps, et al, and what they can or can't
do - they are still going through the process.
But I'm sure that Jane Goodall could amaze you with what
they are capable of doing. Especially as far as using tools
is concerned, and the hunting and eating of larger animals.

Runner,

<<funny how evolutionist can writes libraries of books but still can't come up with one plausible explanation for the beginnings.>>

There are a few. They just don't know the finer details yet.

<<Why anyone should even listen to their fantasies beats me.>>

Because there's mountains of evidence to back them up. Everything in the natural word actually.

<<Their dishonesty in failing to give any plausible answers knows no bounds.>>

So it's "dishonest" to not be able to give a full explanation, is it?

That's some pretty screwed-up logic and reasoning there, Runner. No wonder you're religious.

For someone who pays so much lip-service to honesty, you sure have a difficult time practicing it. You continuously make false claims such as "All beliefs based on evolutionary teaching end up being fraudulent." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2293#50229) Yet you can't give any examples when asked (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=49348).

That's dishonesty.

<<At least those who believe in creation admit that they have taken a reasoned step of faith...>>

There is no reason is believing in a magical being.

<<...unlike the totally unreasoned step of faith taken by evolutionist>>

It's not unreasonable if there's evidence behind it.

<<Evolutionist would have us believe that something comes from nothing which breaks every scientific law their ever was.>>

Which "evolutionists" would have you believe that?

<<One would have to be totally naive and ignore every scientific principle not to see design written all over the earth and mankind.>>

You mean like the the fossils, DNA and Geology and Geography that completely support an ancient Earth and evolution?

Oh, and complexity does not imply design. Complexity in design arises from either carelessness or necessity. And a God would not be careless, nor would it be necessary for them to make living organisms so complex.

<<How desperate man must be to deny his Creator in coming up with such rot!>>

I hate to break this to you, but DNA shows us that a God need not be involved in creating Humans. You see, when a man and a woman really, really love each other...

Oh stuff it! Go read "Where Did I Come From?"

Good grief polycarp.

This experiment has nothing to do with monkeys but with the notion of randomly striking a set of keys with the probability of anything intelligible being written whether it be monkeys or anything else.

The chances of this randomness actually producing a Hamlet manuscript is infinitesimal but it has nothing to do with evolution. Can you explain your reasoning? Evolution was not/is not an 'instant' event it takes years to evolve a language, culture, technology and for change to occur via natural selection - so I am not sure what you are trying to demonstrate.

As for the notion the idea that the theory of evolution is implausible - as opposed to what? The theory that there is a big God in the sky who made us in 7 days and that we all evolved from two people in varying colours, sizes and characteristics from such a limited gene pool. And acceptance that God exists without any evidence (only blind faith via mass indoctrination) is more plausible?

pelican if we discount the theories of beginnings associated with evolution the idea of a seven day creation which occurred some thousands of years ago is just one of many unlikely remaining stories to be considered as an alternative.

I have managed to find some resources with a number of stories of creation which are historically and culturally more relevant to Australia than David's middle eastern myth.

http://www.upfromaustralia.com/dreamabstoro.html
http://www.dreamtime.net.au/dreaming/storylist.htm
http://indigenousaustralia.frogandtoad.com.au/story.html

If I have to choose story of a beginning with a religious element then I'll have to go with those.

Robert

What's even more amazing is that runner has written hundreds of posts over more than two and a half years and yet has still only managed to write one very simple idea.

Thanks pelican. I've been waiting for someone to state the obvious.

One reason that this is just another dumb Porkycrap thread is that he doesn't actually understand the rational principle that he thinks he's debunked. The "infinite monkey theorem" has nothing to do with evolution, or even monkeys (as others have pointed out).

Wikipedia explains it quite well:

<< The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey; rather, it is a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum. The theorem illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number, and vice versa. The probability of a monkey typing a given string of text as long as, say, Hamlet, is so tiny that, were the experiment conducted, the chance of it actually occurring during a span of time of the order of the age of the universe is minuscule but not zero. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

That various religionists and atheists have misapplied the theorem by treating it as analogous to evolution does nothing to refute the mathematical probability of its validity.

In an infinite Universe anything's possible - even, I suppose, god/s. But the question will always remain as to what created them (and, indeed, the Universe itself).

Unless of course one undergoes a virtual lobotomy by acquiring a religious 'faith'. It's all downhill from there, I'm afraid - at least in my experience and empirically observable in this forum.

Runner,

It is not irrational test falsifiable hypothises, which are tentatively held.

Albeit, weird things happen with QM, but these are predictable weird things, which underpin our reality. Look to CERN Partical Accelerator for a sly look into Nature, not the Bible. That said, I would not deny the latter is a very important historical document, in its various versions

RObert the dreamtime stories are lovely. I like the connection to the earth and the rich culture that the dreamtime stories relay.

Additionally, the messages inherent in many other religions and beliefs - do unto others etc and the messages of peace and self-awareness in the Bhuddist faith are all worthwhile. The Quakers, Bahai and many others make for interesting study noting there is much to learn from many religious/cultural myths and stories.

However, my overall view is that these beliefs are merely evidence of the many different and varied human cultural attempts to explain the mysteries of the universe.

The essence of my view is all religious stories were created by man and as such the wonderful messages and lessons are already there within ourselves. Perhaps these myths and legends were created in a way to impart these important lessons which were necessary for group survival and cohabitation in more primitive and uncertain times. :)

CJ

I agree. I did some further research in an attempt to learn more about these elusive monkeys and found nothing to support Polycarp's broad interpretation. In fact I failed to make any connection at all. At first I asked "is there a link I am missing" but after reading on realised that there was no link to miss or in other words no missing link. :D (sorry couldn't help myself)

I am sure Polycarp sincerely believes whatever it is he is proclaiming but there is no corroboration in this particular experiment.

Hi A.J.

You said:

"There are credible (albeit incomplete) explanations about how the first complex cells arrived." Oh yeah?

2 points.

1/ Where? are they.
2/ 'Credible'... might just be influenced by specific presuppositions ...mightn't it?

Then..dear Yabby..and you trailing along behind.. saying I make a dill of myself :) au contrare.. people who dredge up the rediculous 'amino acid' experiment of Miller are the true dills.

Plecican.. you said:

"The chances of this randomness actually producing a Hamlet manuscript is infinitesimal but it has nothing to do with evolution."

Well hooray.. you kinda get it.. exactly, it has NOTHING to do with "evolution" just as I said at the begining.. this thread is not about "evolution" it is about 'origins' and probabilities.... grrrrrr

Looking at the "Minimal Genome Project" where they sought to establish just how many genes were needed to sustain life.... the probabilities that such a thing could emerge even over trillions of years.. are so ming bogglingly astronimical that to believe such.. seems to me to require more faith than even the most wild eyed Christians.

If the probability of just ONE protien forming are HUGE..then each step along the way to greater complexity MULtiplies the probabilty.
(as in...making it less probably)

This Minimal Genome team managed to synthesize a 5386 base genome thingy.. with 580,000 base pairs.

Ok.. I'm sure Buggy will correct me here, but it seems that for each one of those base pairs... we are talking astronimical probabilities... for each one.. EACH ONE! ..now again.. to believe such seems more like religion than science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Self-organization_and_replication

The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

<<How the whole business of molecular replication got started has been and remains one of the central mysteries of the origin of life.>>

A) MANY HYPOTHESES......
B) CENTRAL MYSTERY......

A+B= "faith" :) = Religion or at least 'metaphyisics'

Poly, faith does not equal religion.

If someone tells you something like "the news said the train will run late today" and you choose to believe them, you can take it on 'faith', but you wouldn;t make a religion out of it.

The major idea that it seems that you cannot get your brain around is that scientists 'faith' is contigent. That is, contingent on the evidence at hand. At any time the story may change as new evidence comes to light.

I know you think that is "make it up as you go", but it is what distinguishes science and attempting to make models and understand the real world from fantasy and maintaining outdated models of reality in the face of blatantly contradictory evidence.

The very fact that you and many of your ilk have amply demonstrated this fundamental lack of understanding means that I do believe that "religion" and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo will likely be with us for a while yet. It's persistent, but I think that's probably because not many people have actually studied real science, as not everyone can, but they still think they can have an opinion on it.

Dear Runner,

Scientists "test" their posits with regard to Creation. The CERN Hedron Super Collider will soon test posits about the fundamentals of Big Bang. If hypotheses are falsified then scientsts will admit it, ASAP. Contrarily, it took Christians over five hundred years to admit Gallileo was correct and that the Sun is indeed the centre of the solar system. Incidently, based on the Sun's ratio of hydrogen to helum, said star, is five billion years old.

If the Church knows humans are Carbon-based and science asserts Carbon can be only be produced in Stars, where is the Church's counter proof that new Carbon-based creatures can be produced spontaneously? Else put, where is the evidence of the process used.

With regards to the Big Bang, Science predicted, before its discovery, the existence of background radiation. Now (tentatively) confirmed to be 2.7 degrees Kelvin.

If Eve was created (say cloned) from Adam's rib, by what process did Eve lose Adam's Y chromosome?

Atypically, for a human gamete, her X chromosome would need to have divided by mitosis, for her zygote to become an adult. If God is the builder; What was Its process? Please explain.

If Adam & Eve were created as adults... How old were they? Well, obviously neonate adults, abosutely. But, relative to us? What thoughts/cognitions did they have as spontneously created adults, with no life-cycle history?



Oly.

Of all the religious fundamentalist arguments, this has to be my favourite, because it sums up the position so beautifully.

It is as simple as:

"If you can't understand it, there must be/have been divine intervention"

The delightful part of this is that it cannot in any way be refuted, simply because the nature of science is the continuous search for new information that will provide greater understanding. At any point, the RF can turn round and say "there you are, you can't prove it, so there must be a God."

The fact that this statement underlines the utter barrenness of their argument never occurs to them.

The same argument must have been used by our ancestors, who watched the sun rise in the east and set in the west, and fell some way short of being able to explain it to each other in scientific terms. Due, possibly, to a singular lack of telescopes.

I suspect - and this is of course only my opinion - that the current fad for RFs to actively attempt to discredit science at every turn, is because the increasing amount of information available to us is slowly eroding the credibility of their "God did it" position.

Very soon - say, another hundred years or so - science will have gathered sufficient information for us to have a pretty good stab at what we are, where we came from, and what will happen to us.

And how would the RF brigade feel about themselves then, I wonder?

<< The same argument must have been used by our ancestors, who watched the sun rise in the east and set in the west, and fell some way short of being able to explain it to each other in scientific terms. Due, possibly, to a singular lack of telescopes. >>

Duh. A giant scarab pushes the sun across the sky to be eaten by the moon, which regurgitates it each morning. We know this is a scientific fact because our god-ancestors told us so.

You only buy this "astrophysics" and "evolution" nonsense because you can understand complex, evidence based information. If you were baffled by complexity and had a paralysing fear of death like I do you'd see the error of your ways.

Oh, and the Bible's claims regarding physics, astronomy and the natural world are all wrong, but make perfect sense from the perspective of an illiterate middle-eastern shephard in the Bronze Age. Therefore the sun god Ra must have done it all.

Ah Poly, but I quoted the Stanley Miller experiment for a good
reason! You Godsquad members seem to be constantly thrown by the
fact that today we have complexity, so as Pericles wisely points
out, "God did it" is all that you can come up with. God of the gaps,
so to speak.

If you, runner, gibo etc were really interested in understanding
evolution, then you would have to invest a bit of time, put down
those bibles and learn at least a tiny bit of what we do know,
which is a mountain of information.

See it as a huge puzzle, there might be a few pieces missing,
but we certainly can see the big picture. Every day adds to filling
in those missing pieces.

Why I mentioned Miller is because what you need to understand is
how life started with incredible simplicity on the planet.
There would have been no need for cells, etc, as there were
no other lifeforms to be protected from.

This is also why reading a bit of Dawkins etc, would do you some
good. He does a good job at explaining how an eye can evolve,
again from simplicity to complexity.

The real problem of course is that you have no interest in taking
some time to understand evolution and why it is taught as science
at every major university on the planet.

As you admit, you are addicted to religion, it makes you feel
good. So evolution is a bit of a thorn in your side.

Let me put it this way. When I travel I tend to go by 747 or
similar, its design based on good science, using our mountains
of scientific information.

You on the other hand are suggesting that people should sit on
your magic carpet or broomstick and that if they have enough
faith, it will surely fly. Ok, great for you gullible,
feelgood types, but please don't expect me to take your nonsense
seriously.

A good working example Yabby.

>>When I travel I tend to go by 747 or similar, its design based on good science, using our mountains of scientific information.<<

I recall the very first time I travelled in a 747.

We had to cross the tarmac to board it, and therefore had a good look at it as we approached. Compared to the aircraft I had previously used, it looked absolutely huge. How on earth would this thing defy gravity, was my first thought.

By the time we were speeding down the runway and approaching rotation, I had decided that the only possible way it could achieve flight was because all 350 passengers "knew" that it would actually take off, despite the evidence of our eyes.

It did, of course, thus reinforcing my conclusion.

It took me many years before I exchanged this belief - that a 747 only gets to take off because every passenger and crew member believed that it would - for a more balanced view, that those guys in Seattle knew what they were doing when they built it.

Of course, whether this will still hold true for the A380...

Well, you obviously had faith that it would take off Pericles.

What values did you derive from the religion that formed from that faith?

Some very spot on posts from Pelican, Bugsy, Pericles, Yabby and others.

Poly,

<<1/ Where? are they.>>

Documented in various places I guess.

I wouldn’t bother looking to Creationist websites to find them though. They’re obviously not going to want you to know about them.

You like YouTube, don’t you? Here’s a video done by a scientist that explains one of the best abiogenesis hypotheses in very simple terms... http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

You can check out this person’s “Made Easy” series at http://au.youtube.com/user/potholer54. His videos (Along with the videos of many other scientists on YouTube) do a great job at debunking Creationism and dispelling the myths put out there by pseudo-scientists in order to create a sense of confusion about these issues.

I do hope you check them out. I've posted many informative links for Creationists here before, but they never look at them. Too hard-hitting I guess.

<<2/ 'Credible'... might just be influenced by specific presuppositions ...mightn't it?>>

Considering the study of abiogenesis is still in it’s infancy, and that we are limited by our technology, the theories/hypotheses are credible so long as they don’t run into irreconcilable problems.

Interesting points from the cynics.. but most are consumed with mocking more than making sense of the topic which... to remind all is about

PROB-A-BILITY.

The monkeys are purely incidental to that goal.

It is NOT (Persistant Pericles) about "I don't get it....there fore God did it" kind of thing.. no no no... 'that' approach is based on us having the only source of information being our powers of observation in the natural world.

Our faith in 'God did it' is based on what we understand to be Revealed Truth, and the persuasive evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. (another topic)

Bugsy makes the same point..

[The major idea that it seems that you cannot get your brain around is that scientists 'faith' is contigent. That is, contingent on the evidence at hand. At any time the story may change as new evidence comes to light.]

No Buggy.. I totally get that.. I've gotten it all along.

Leaving the 'science is religion' tag alone for a moment, let's explore probability again.

Now..Oly says that our solar system is just 5 billion yrs old..based on science.

JUST 5 billion? good grief.. I showed in an earlier post that the probability of a complex (even the most simple) life form coming to be is like TRILLION TRILLION TRILLIONs to 1

Bugsy.. u seem to have a few genetic clues.. can you indicate the following in a step by step manner (for we dumbos' :)

1/ Estimated probability of the "first step" towards a life form.
2/ Estimated probability of the "second" step etc...
3/ Estimated probability of the "third" step etc...
(describe these steps please)

Then.. would it be legitimate scientifically to multipy those probabilties?

If you can provide links.. I'd appreciate it.

Yabby needs another pinch there I see :) *pinch*

u said: "If you, runner, gibo etc were really interested in understanding evolution".

NOTTTTT "evolution".... (a-gain)..but 'PROBABILITY' and ORIGINS... abiogenesis.

FOCUS FOCUS FOCUS ! (see.. u've reduced me to shouting :)

Polycarp you said:
"Well hooray.. you kinda get it.. exactly, it has NOTHING to do with "evolution" just as I said at the begining.. this thread is not about "evolution" it is about 'origins' and probabilities.... grrrrrr

Looking at the "Minimal Genome Project" where they sought to establish just how many genes were needed to sustain life.... the probabilities that such a thing could emerge even over trillions of years.. are so ming bogglingly astronimical that to believe such.. seems to me to require more faith than even the most wild eyed Christians."

Okay Poly I got it now...origins and probabilities - NOT evolution??

I still don't get the essence of what you are arguing. You still have not answered the queries put to you in my first post ie. that of plausibility. You are arguing plausability and perceived impossibilities (in science) but you remain steadfast on the most implausible theory of all - God. Out of interest how did your God evolve? Where did he/she/it come from originally and how was it formed?

Science does not pretend to have all the answers but it is about learning and gaining knowledge or understanding. It is about asking the questions, researching, finding evidence and being willing to change ideas midstream should the evidence lead you in other directions.

Actually Poly, the topic is nonsense, mocking is pretty much all we have left.

I must truthfully say that I cannot answer your "estimated probability" questions, but that is because nobody can. It's a fantasy of the "intelligent design" groups to think that it can at the moment.

We don't yet know what all the parameters are for making the simplest of cells, but one thing is indicative: they were probably not anything like the self contained free-living organisms we see today. To get a feeling of just how simple these early cells may have been, look up the origin of organelles.

Also, there are plenty of proteins that are quite simple. They are called peptides and they can do a myriad of functions. Also, many proteins form a kind of shell around a metal catalytic centre (or domain), and the metal ion does the work of the protein, but the protein maintains specificity of the reaction (i.e. what chemicals it can react with and how fast etc). Without the protein, the metal ions can generally still catalyse the same reactions, just generally fairly slowly because these reactions are fairly unspecific (but still occur). In this way, a lot of the reactions you think that ususally performed by proteins are actually peformed by metallic ions, which are very simple indeed.

Any probability estimate that uses the spontaneous generation of full-length proteins and nucleic acids is based on a fallacy, most biologists would probably tell you that (I say "probably" because many wouldn't even bother with the "question", and some are just insane).

OK Poly.

If you're wanting to talk probabilies, then read the following links. They explain the problems and falsehoods of the "probability" argument used by Creationists...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

It's a fair bit of reading. But I trust that'll clear things up for you.

P.S. If anyone clicks on the YouTube link I provided earlier, please give the video a 5 star rating. Creationists have created a bot that goes around YouTube giving anti-creationist videos 80 1 star ratings. The problem with this is that the lower the rating, the less likely the video will show up in a search.

Now there's some Creationist honesty for you, eh Runner?

A.J. Phillips

'P.S. If anyone clicks on the YouTube link I provided earlier, please give the video a 5 star rating. Creationists have created a bot that goes around YouTube giving anti-creationist videos 80 1 star ratings. The problem with this is that the lower the rating, the less likely the video will show up in a search.

Now there's some Creationist honesty for you, eh Runner?

Sorry Mr Phillips I have no idea what you are talking about. Just answer the simple question of where matter come from instead of getting carried away with some silly little conspiracy theory. Obviously you can't answer that question so stop pretending science has the answers to origins. You look silly defending these dogmas even though I am sure you aren't a fool.

Dogma ah yes runner tell me please in the very beginning
God how did he come about?
Who made God?

Belly,

When did I claim that science proves God? Obviously if I could answer your question I would be God. You again miss the simple fact that science can't explain our origins. I choose faith in the Creator because design is obvious. Others choose faith in evolution because they deny the obvious.

BUGSY and A.J.

I had a look at AJ's links.. and it speaks about probability.

The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40

The 'this' is a Peptide.

The article says:

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years.

hmmm to which I ask simply.."if they can do that in a year..why haven't they?"

I can take one point on board from the discussion.. i.e. that the probabilties might be reduced with 'simultaneous' rather than sequential tries.
Nevertheless.. it strikes me as absurdly unbelievable that such things could occur in the close proximity such that they can become more complex organisms.

There are so many "likely to be" "assumed"... "might just"'s in that discussion.. for me to have the slightest confidence that anything other than 'faith' is in operation behind the science.

Probabilities.... "Creationist" invention or.. Secular? Given that the Creationists base their work on Hoyles.. I hardly think it was a creationist invention.

Just a further PS...

Bugsy.. if as you say... scientists don't ask the question about probabilities.. let me offer this: (From AJ's links)

"For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown."

So.. with that degree of uncertainty and blurred vision.. how is it possible..and what is at work in the minds of those who with so little information are prepared to make a solemn declaration "God did not do it" :) ?

If you don't KNOW... don't SAY that you know.. just admit it.. "Science doesn't know"

Thus.. in contrast we have a firm statement "In the beginning...God created the heavens and the earth" and then.. to back this up,

we have the Lord Jesus who was raised from the dead... abundant eye witnesses.. ample testimony...

[16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.] (2 Peter 1:16)

["that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.] (Paul, 1Cor 15:4)

In the 'compelling' stakes..I know which one is the more so.

Dear runner,

We have photographic evidence of the Big Bang back to 300,000 years ago*:

http://www.oarval.org/COBEen.htm

We have falsifiable mathematical evidence of the Big Bang back to Plank time. The tiniest instant after the BB.

On relative time scales, can you show us a photograph/image of Noah or tell us using quantitatively falisifiable methods, Adam's height and Eve's weight?

[From an earlier thread: You haven't concluded our discussion on Horsea 6:6, which states Yaweh does not want sacrifice, nor whether acting to bring out his own demise, with fore knowledge events, Jesus suicided against the tenents of his Jewish faith.]

Peace.

O.

p.s. Because the Universe expands faster than the speed-of-light.

Same old, same old.

>>It is NOT (Persistant Pericles) about "I don't get it....there fore God did it" kind of thing.. no no no... 'that' approach is based on us having the only source of information being our powers of observation in the natural world. Our faith in 'God did it' is based on what we understand to be Revealed Truth, and the persuasive evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.<<

So if I understand you correctly, scientists are at a disadvantage, because they are only able to use "powers of observation in the natural world."

You, on the other hand, are able to enlist the support of what you "understand to be Revealed Truth".

That's tilted the playing field a tad, don't you think?

It sounds more like the domain of J K Rowling.

On the one hand, a Muggle, with only his calculator and a dictionary.

On the other, a bunch of Hogwarts graduates, practising their Geminio curse.

Not exactly working from the same rulebook.

Runner,

It’s ludicrous cry "conspiracy", when you believe that evolution is one big conspiracy.

The practice I mentioned, that is now known as "Star Bombing", is no conspiracy theory and YouTube are aware of it. Nice try though.

I could give you literally hundreds of examples of the dishonesty of Creationism if you’d like. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that my argument rests on that one claim. Simply google: creationist+quote+mining for a few hundred examples.

As for where matter comes from, no one's sure. But your belief that it must've been God is simply a Creationist 'God of the Gaps' argument from incredulity. You're making the same assumption that primative people made when they believed that lightning and plagues must've come from God, or that God must be pushing the sun. The LEP Collider that was recently completed (you know, the Hicks Photon 'n' all (sorry Poly, couldn't resist)), is expected to shed some light on the origins of the universe over the next 15 years or so.

Just because we can’t answer some questions with absolute certainty yet, it doesn’t mean we won’t be able to in the future. 4000 years ago, the authors of Genesis would never have dreamed that we’d have the answers we now have about life and the universe.

If you want to view the existence of matter as proof of God, then fine. But I do get annoyed with your continual false accusations of dishonesty; claims that evolution is apparently "hopelessly flawed" (when you know nothing about it); and misrepresentations of the beliefs of others.

You can only be corrected by others; and fail to comply to the requests of others - to back your claims with something - so many times before your repetative claims can be regarded dishonest - either that, or stupidity.

<<I choose faith in the Creator because design is obvious.>>

You keep saying design is obvious, yet you never state why. What then would you have to say in response to my comment earlier on design? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2301#50380)

Poly,

Thank you for reading the articles I linked to. That would have to be a first (for any Creationist here). I'm impressed!

<<if they can do that in a year..why haven't they?>>

I'm not sure why. We may not have the technology to effectively replicate the primordial Earth scenario. But various stages of abiogenesis have been repeated in labs.

<<...it strikes me as absurdly unbelievable that such things could occur in the close proximity such that they can become more complex organisms.>>

Forgetting that this is an 'argument from incredulity'... Remember that sexual reproduction took millions of years to evolve, but did eventually evolve since sexual reproduction is extremely adventageous because of the resilience gained by mixing genes. And yes, scientists have a pretty good idea of how sex evolved (based on empirical evidence), but I don't have the space to explain it here.

<<There are so many "likely to be" "assumed"... "might just"'s in that discussion...>>

Of course there are. The study of abiogenesis is still in it's infancy. Which brings me to this...

<<...with that degree of uncertainty ... what is at work in the minds of those who with so little information are prepared to make a solemn declaration "God did not do it" :) ?>>

Science doesn't aim to disprove God. Science is the study of the natural world/universe, and hence the supernatural, by default, cannot come into the picture - whether or not God exists.

If God did create the universe and kick-started the process of evolution, then scientists will never find a certain answer to abiogenesis. But it's still early days and it would be foolish for us not to investigate it and assume that God must've done it.

However, disproving abiogenesis won't disprove evolution, as evolution is one of the most solid scientific theories and is backed by mountains of evidence.

But hey, if you want to believe that God kick-started the whole process, then go for it. My only beef here is with the pseudo-scientists who deliberately spread misinformation, and the Creationists who raise their children to be ignorant.

Gee Poly, a bible quote. I don't think anyone saw that coming.

And you've got it mixed up again.
Scientists do ask the question about probabilities. But they aren't stupid or dishonest enough to say that KNOW the answers. Only the 'intelligent design' crowd are silly enough to try and put numbers to the question and say they know the answer. You seem very impressed by (erroneous) hard numbers plucked from only God knows where.

Of course Science doesn't KNOW, but it does have some hypotheses and is asking the questions needed to find out and have a better idea. Which is exactly what doesn't happen when you think you already know what the answer is.

Which leads me to believe that what you really want is certainty and firm statements to guide you in your life. You cannot live with doubt. You would definitely not make a good scientist.

There's a good many Christians that have figured out that these kind of arguments of pointing at uncertainties and inadequate explanations and saying that "God must have done this", only diminishes the status of God in society when the explanations are eventually discovered. You make the existence of God contingent on the uncertainty. I'd listen to them and give it up if I were you, before you render your faith irrelevant.

Ok Boaz / Polycarp I will bite: -)

You said “I showed in an earlier post that the probability of a complex (even the most simple) life form coming to be is like TRILLION TRILLION TRILLIONs to 1”

I am guessing that ‘showed’ means you proved.

My question is how can you prove anything?
Spirituality is a personal choice not a universal fact. You can’t even use science to prove anything either. Using Pericles example, our advanced avionics to build a 747 and the A380 is based on the Wright brothers “bird gliders theory”. The very same advanced computers that will tell you its impossible for a bee to fly.

Not to lose the point, we are at the knowledge kindergarten and yet to be hit by waves of science and knowledge which, on one hand, turn the impossible into possible and on the other hand, discredit previous versions as the exclusive set of boundaries. So how can you ‘prove’ anything?

Peace,

I wonder how difficult it would be to set up a different experiment

- Take a number of fundies (religious or otherwise)
- Give them with an ancient text which they consider to be perfect
- Give them with a set of cherished beliefs with a loose correlation to the ancient texts, sometime contradictory to the texts and to each other
- Provide access to the results of a large number of methodically observations of the real world, controlled experiments etc.

Now whats the probability of a fundy drawing a valid conclusion which they understand contradicts their cherished beliefs?

R0bert

Pick me pick me pick me...

>>Now whats the probability of a fundy drawing a valid conclusion which they understand contradicts their cherished beliefs?<<

I know the answer teacher, pick me go on pick me ple-e-e-e-ease...

'>>Now whats the probability of a fundy drawing a valid conclusion which they understand contradicts their cherished beliefs?<<'

The fundy human secularist contradicts themselves almost every time they open their mouths.

Dear runner,

Your response my previous post, above on this thread, designated to your attention and reply, might prove interesting:

Oliver to runner: Wednesday, 19 November 2008 5:42:26 PM

I have only asked you to match the standard of performance of cosmology from Genises or other Biblical source. If you don't regard the confirmation of predicted background radiation, the COBE photograph and Plank time mathematics, as tentative evidence, stronger than Bibical sources, show us Noah's photograph/image and tell us the quantitative morphograhics of Adam and Eve's bodies, please.

I suspect Pericles and our other OLO friends would might think your reply necessarily to balance my posit: After-all this is a Forum for discussion, wherein, some exceptions (George & Philo), religionists take flight when asked for a tight question(s)and an athiest or agnostic does provide the same.

Before condemning cosmology and astrophysics, one should present better tentative falsifiable evidience. Thanks. Please do so.

Poly,

What do you think?

Foxy,

Do you find the COBE photograph substantive?

Regards,

Peter

Dear Robert.(and your chirping parrot Pericles:)...

there is an equal and opposite side to that coin. In the light of

"Science does not know"...how can you refer 'cherished beliefs' to just we fundies...when the only possible conclusion here is that atheists are clinging to beliefs not based on fact? hmmmmmm?

Atheism is based on the unconfirmed belief in something for which there is no answer....... on a simple balance of probablilties, reference to the resurrection of Christ is hardly on the weak side of this argument.

It seems to me that unbelief in God, and the belief in 'science' in the sense that to persue science by default disqualifies any idea of God.. has to be an extremely prejudiced and biased.. some might venture 'bigoted' viewpoint....

I don't really see a conflict between Gen 1:1 and science.

F.H....no mate.. I did not 'prove'...anything. I just showed some astronomical probabilities :)

Hoyle is no dummy nor a fundy.

Oliver

It is difficult to match beliefs scientifically when they are both based on faith. Their are many Astronomers who believe in Creation. They would argue strongly that the bible explains the universe far more logically than your 'big bang theory. Your 300000 year old photo is really a joke isn't it? Again if you are going to be dogmatic about your faith please give a plausible explanation for beginnings. You and Mr Phillips are yet to come near doing that. Many more school text books we have to be revised again (as they have several times) with the latest theory to confirm your faith.

runner,

Thanks.

If by faith you mean (qualified)"reliance or trust ... found on authority" [OED], I do have faith in science, provided apt methodologies are applied, and conclusions are tentatively held and falsifiable. Here, I would enjoin probability to faith, in so much as, I have faith in safe aeroplane or elevator travel, having knowledge that the is a small chance said faith involves risk.

Herein, the faith (as you call it) of scientists is at always at risk; whereas, religious dogma and spiritual beliefs, are typically held as a different form of faith, which to be supernatural.

The COBE photograph is real; of the Universe, 300,000 years after its creation. That which is in the universe is speed governed by c, but not the Universe itself. In effect we look back in time.

Still would like to is a pic. of Noah or the mophometrics of Adam & Eve. As we at OLO now have the COBE pic and are aware of the math of Plank time. Please equal the stakes that science has on the table.

As an aside, why would you believe the Biblical genealogies over the Sumerian accounts written before Genesis?

What do the scriptures forecast about the outcomes in a Particle Super-Collider?

The power of science is with is testing reliability and validity. Revising textbooks to fit new knowledge is good.

Background radiation was predicted and calculated in the 1940s but not confirmed to the 1960s.

O.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw&feature=related

There is room for a lot of monkeys.

R0bert

Now I'm worried that I'm becoming like Boazy (trolling UTube and finding clips - no mossie bashing clips though)

This one is Stephen Hawking talking about some of the Big Questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c&NR=1
or for an alternative site http://www.oculture.com/2008/08/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_universe.html

He makes the point that we have fossils from about 3.5 billion years ago. The earth is about 4.6 billion years old and was probably too hot for life during the first 1/2 billion years or so. Life appeared within about 1/2 billion years of it being possible which compared to the estimated 10 billion year lifespan of a planet like earth means that life could be common.

R0bert

How many billion years will it take for runner to discover that nounS have pluralS ?

Or maybe the S key's missing from his typewriter.

Poly,

Check out the link R0bert provided and you will see what he means by: "There is room for a lot of monkeys."

When you take into consideration how many billions of galaxies there are in the universe, and how many millions of stars are within each of those galaxies, and how many of those stars have planets revolving around them, then the chances of life evolving are probably not all that small.

The reason I posted those links earlier, was to demonstrate to you that it is impossible to calculate the probabilities of life evolving on Earth. They may not even be small.

Hoyle may have had a certain intelligence about him, but intelligence is not always synonymous with common sense.

Runner,

<<Their are many Astronomers who believe in Creation.>>

Not really. Only about 0.015% of them. But since Creationist Astronomers base their opinions on mythology rather than empirical observations, they can only ever be considered pseudo-scientists.

Here's a few links that debunk Creationist Astronomy...

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=T8O46wUCw5A
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iOMfVmLVhVA
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XkcE5kQQiH4
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UZI58kSl0MM
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=j46FXXnDKWk

Of course, I don't expect you'll have the courtesy to check them out. But at least you won't be able to make this claim anymore.

<<Your [Oliver's] 300000 year old photo is really a joke isn't it?>>

Why would anyone want to joke about that? Is this how you persuade yourself to ignore evidence? By telling yourself that it's a joke?

<<Again if you are going to be dogmatic about your faith please give a plausible explanation for beginnings.>>

That's cute.

You hear words like "faith" and "dogmatic" applied to religion, so you then incorrectly apply them to Atheism and science in order to denigrate them. You mustn't hold religion in very high esteem.

It's a little hypocritical though, to insist on a plausible explanation for beginnings considering Theists can't do the same.

God is not a plausible explanation, because if God exists, then he would be by far the most complex thing in existance. And everything we know about the universe shows us that everything starts from simple beginnings, then evolves to more complex entities. Therefore, it is illogical to believe that everything started with something as complex as a God.

Explaining this away by declaring that God is not of this universe and therefore, by decree, beyond explanation is weak - anyone could make that up. Especially primative Hebrew tribes looking for an explanation to the unknown.

So could I ask that you come-up with a plausible explanation too?

<<Many more school text books we have to be revised again (as they have several times) with the latest theory to confirm your faith.>>

Yes, because science is self-correcting. Our knowledge get's better all the time.

But I understand the panic in your tone. The more we learn about the universe, the more religion slowly fades into irrelevance.

Dear Oly,

Thank you for the COBE link.

It's awesome!

I want to know more. It's a bit late at the moment,
and I'm tired, but I want to look up other sites
on this NASA satellite's data tomorrow.

Again, thanks for pointing me in this direction.

Greatly appreciate it.

Thanks Foxy. Its amazing is isn't it?

AJ,

I have read and seen on TV documentary that the Vatican astronomers would not look through Gallileo's telescope. To do so would have expanded the limits of the natural world into God's realm. Alernatively, they said, the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus are an illusion created by the Devil.

runner,

Actually the image is over 12 billion years old. Before the sun, before the star before the sun; before the star before the star before the star befor the sun; and definitely; most definitely before anyone wrote Genesis. Adams Atoms let alone his Apple did not exist!

The symmetry can still be seen around the periphery, even after 300,000 years! Symmetry, as forecast by those nasty scientists, before the pic., in order for the transmutation of the primal force into gravity and eletromagnetism, and, subsequently, the first proto-particles (in th first instant of an instant. Three hundred thousand years before the pic., space and time had not emerged from infinite density. Causal relationships are irrelvant when there is no time.

As mentioned above, admire the symmetry of the neonate Universe. Science predicted this:

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/COBE_Home/cmb_fluctuations_big.gif

What I am requesting from Genesis via you, is something, bi-lateral to the COBE and Planck, using Noah and Adam & Eve to illustrate. If you can't does it not, an least in this instance, demonstrate the Ascendancy of Science.

runner, you think the COBE picture is a joke. Do you believe Jupiter has moons?

Oly.

I hereby extend my shepherds crook and drag back all the straying sheep to the topic :)

PROB BAB BIL IT YYYYYYYY....

Ok, AJ the estimated age of earth is 4.6 Billion years old.

Now.. we should only be examining probability within that one closed system.. our solar system. (I think you can see why)

So... 4.6 billion? seems like a very short time for all the chemicals to suddenly develop arms and legs :)

Given the fact that nothing.. nada.. nyet.. has been discovered on places like Mars..where you would expect at least 'something' if the same probabilities exist.... surely....there would be a tiny simple hint.. a microbe or 2... but thus far?

Narting.

I return to remind of the evidence (yes.. real legal tangible) for the resurrection of our Lord..

"Now.. we should only be examining probability within that one closed system.. our solar system. (I think you can see why)"

Why would that be?

The probability that someone will Pools is very different to the chances of any individual winning it, the individual who winds can look at their chances and refuse to accept the money because the chances that they won were so remote but that does not make the win any less valid.

If you entered and won would you refuse to take the money because of the low probability of you winning?

It might be convenient for you to ignore the rest of the universe but the sheer scale of the universe both in size and time frame is significant when we consider the possibility of life occuring.

It happened here so we are in a position to wonder what the chances are of that.

R0bert

Porky: << I return to remind of the evidence (yes.. real legal tangible) for the resurrection of our Lord.. >>

"Real legal tangible"? At best, it's hearsay; at worst it's fiction. I think the probability of the latter is somewhat greater than the former.

Speaking of probability, R0bert's right - Porky's arbitrary restriction of the "PROB BAB BIL IT YYYYYYYY" to our solar system is at best flawed. At worst it's the kind of intellectual mendacity we've come to expect from our resident fundy polymath.

No Robert and CJ... it aint.....

"Closed system" we begin with 'n' chemicals and 'n' infuences on them.

They might be different in other solar systems.. in fact they are different in our own.. Mars.. Venus.. etc. But given that 'life' should not be limited in definitio to the way we can observe it here,
there is no reason, by the atheist logic that a slightly different form of it could not emerge on those planets.

Now..given that we have life on Earth, but NOT on these other planets (that we know of) yet we have had the same amount of time for it to occur.. and given the increddddible amount of time needed to advance from 'swirling chemicals' to become Robert's and C.J.s.. (I can't mention Pericles here.. he is a life form yet to be determined :)

Ya'da thunk that there would be SOME kind of hint... a sign... a fleece.. a something.. which would encourage belief in 'life forming by chance' on one of these other planets in our own solar system. Gee .. a protein here or there might be enuf eh?

Nope..it appears there is nothing.
Thus.. on at least a BALANCE of probabilities.. the idea of life just 'occuring' is in the realm of 'faith/wild guess' :) and this makes CJ's "at best hearsay" look preeeeeeeeety jolly GOOD!

Which in turn reflects back to "In the beginning...God created the heavens and the earth"

"Ya'da thunk that there would be SOME kind of hint... a sign... a fleece.. a something.. which would encourage belief in 'life forming by chance' on one of these other planets in our own solar system. Gee .. a protein here or there might be enuf eh?

Nope..it appears there is nothing."

We've had a handfull of men on the moon with a very hostile environment and very basic technology, we've had a small number of probes on the surface of mars (and brief attempts at Venus etc) doing basic sampling at the edge of the capabilities of current technology and David's ready to declare that there is nothing else in the universe (thats called confirmation bias I think).

Thats a bit like having won lotto looking nextdoor and not noticing a new Lamborgini in the neighbours driveway (when you looked and with the garage door closed) and declaring that there is no lotto, never has been, never will be, the the money is from an unknown rich aunt who has fabricated the claims of a lotto win for some reason only known to her.

"Which in turn reflects back to "In the beginning...God created the heavens and the earth" - that's just one of the alternatives.
If we are going to do the "and then magic happened" thing why not use the dreamtime stories, their origins are much older than your prefered myth's, they are culturally and geographically relevant to Australia and you do seem very concerned with cultural relevance.

David you are clutching at straws yet again.

R0bert

Dear Poly.

As previously noted. You may have missed it?

"To become PM, one doesn't need to compete against 22 million folk. Maybe twenty people, four or five times." - O.

Arms and legs were not zapped by natural processes, out of thin air. It was a process, with stages having, a series diminishing options, against ecology happenings.

No theist can hold that it is impossible for a god [by the common definition] to create an evolutionary process. Are saying it, is beyond your God's power to create Evolution?

What do you think of the COBE pic? Foxy loves it, and so do I.

My posts to runner are meant to elicit comparable testable approaches from Creations as Science applies. You can measure blackground radiation.

What is Genesis' position on the assumed unification of gravitation and electromagnetic forces at enormous density, killions of degrees kelvin and low enthropy? Can quarks assume fields, wherein only fields exist? Because, E=mc2, is merely a potental, because the field is too excited to create mass? What verse in Genesis helps us? What predictiosn to Creations make in this regard? Particle accelerators will soon provide feedback from nature herself

Speaking of probabilities, how did the ID crowd calculate them again?

Take one long chain protein that performs a specific function, then calculate how probable it is that it would spontaneously appear.

Would it not be easier and more relevant to start small?

For example: How many possible peptides are there that are 10 amino acids long? That would be about 20E-10, right?

Now out of all these peptides, how many are chemically reactive?
Out of all those, how many of those are biologically relevant? What functions are they capable of performing? What reactions can they catalyse?

Because if there's one thing I've found out about proteins, it's that there's a bunch that are shorter, that are capable of catalysing the same reactions. Eg. The Stoffel fragment of Taq polymerase is 289 amino acids shorter than the native Taq polymerase and can still perform exactly the same functions. In fact there's a bunch of homologous proteins out there that can perform exactly the same functions as every single protein in your body and yet have a different sequence of amino acids. For example, a haemoglobin from a human performs exactly the same job as a haemoglobin from a pig or mouse, and yet has a different amono acid sequence. So how many combinations of amino acids chains are there that can produce biologically active molecule? Lots*

The odds of short-chain peptides and functional proteins spontaneously appearing just got smaller.

*(actually "lots" is a somewhat of an understatement, but you get the idea, however we cannot put a figure on it yet as we haven't been able to test them all)

Hi Poly,
I finally had the time to read through this thread, not sure if I can continue to post here but I’ll follow the discussion as much as I am able atm.
I found to my relief that there are many refreshing posts here and wonderful links such as the ones posted by RObert and AJ.

Perhaps I’m missing something (after all I’m just a rib), but how come that creationists have no problem blindly believing that life was created out of dirt by a very complex, invisible being, even though this being didn’t provide any explanation how he did this; but refuse to even consider that life originated out of dirt through natural forces when scientists suggest this and can explain intelligibly how this could’ve happened (see AJ’s video on abiogenesis)?

Even before Darwin’s time, philosophers (e.g. Hume) already understood that improbability is not evidence of design even though they were not aware of an alternative.

Besides, it looks like Hoyle didn’t consider that life assembled by a combination of things, such as natural forces (law of physics) and not by chance alone.
Your poor typing monkeys are working by change alone.

Celivia,

Maybe not only Monkeys err at typing. Perhaps, being taken from Adam's rib, should have been typed as, "isolated from Adam's rib-onucleic acid"? I am a pathetic typist, as many of our friends OLO know and can well testify. But, being a primate, I have an excuse.

Then again, if humanity is made in God's image, and humans are primates; inversely, do we have the inference of God replicating Cheetah's poor typing skills in Genesis?

Ekkk!

Oly.

Poly,

FYI:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/PX/Views/Exhibit/narrative/monster.html

Oly.

Celivia's new name 'RIB' :) or should it be eye fillet? quite yummy and very tender!

Cel, I can't answer all those questions. I can add to them though. 'why this..why that.. why not such and such' there are truckloads.

But to address one thing.. we don't 'blindly' believe anything. As I've tried to show in most of my posts, the resurrection of Christ is a very well attested event of history, that is the primary validification of Genesis. You might call it our main reference point.
That's all I can really say on that. The message of Genesis (to address Oly's questions) is not the processes involved so much.. but the fact of Gods creation.

The Genesis position on the unification of Gravitation and Electromagnetic forces is.. 'no comment' :) what in the world would the Creator need to explain that to early man for?

Bugsy... that was getting close to a constructive post. Well it was constructive, but if you could be more specific it might help.

I see where ur going with that, but I'm not sure you are estimating the actual probabilities of all those peptides being in the right place and the right time. It still comes back to 'n' chemicals and forces/influences swirling at random. As I typed that, it occured to me that some 'swirling' could in fact accellarate any possibilities.. reducing the negative probability.. adding this to the 'simultaneous' argument rather than sequential..and you have the embryo of a reasonable argument. (on face value)

Well, hallelujah Poly, you just reinvented the wheel (evolutionarily speaking). The argument is fact well past embryonic, but it isn;t yet mature, as we cannot assign values to the probabilities as yet. But we know we are dealing with very large numbers when we talk about functional polymers (ie proteins and nucleic acids).

I'm not sure how specific you want me to get on this. But imagine if you will a primordial soup filled with a bunch of amino acids. Suddenly a short chain polypeptide (say 10-20 amino acids in length) wraps itself around a magnesium ion and in the process renders it unable to catalyse certain reactions (it can catalyse hundreds of different reactions), but it's left with a marvelous ability to catalyse the linking of amino acids into long chains. Because the magensium ion doesn't catalyse all the the other reactions it used to, it tends to do this amino acid polymerisation at a much faster rate than it did before. In this way, proteins can add specificity and speed to certain reactions. Imagine if you will a similar protein (short chain peptide) doing the same for nucleic acids, just randomly producing long strings of the stuff. Nucleic acids can also replicate relatively easily because they pair up. Then you have the begininngs of protolife, a soup filled with long strands of replicating nucleic acids and proteins. Each molecule of which can cataylse different reactions.

However, they don't have to produce 'life' just yet, they just have to be able to replicate themselves and they can do this in various ponds etc for millions and millions of years. Remember that each chemical reaction can take a nanosecond and there are billions (trillions, quadrillions, Brazilians?)of them going on simultaneously.

The numbers are large and the probabilities are difficult to calculate, but we are pretty damn certain that they are much more probable than what the ID crowd will argue.

No, we don't KNOW, but then again, I don't KNOW what the last thing you ate was, but I'm pretty sure that you did eat something.

Ah, but Bugsy - Porkyboaz KNOWS that the Resurrection of his Lord Jesus Christ somehow proves in substantially literal terms the Biblical Genesis account. As you're undoubtedly aware, this is actually an elaboration of the 'post hoc ergo procter hoc' logical fallacy, where something is held to be true by virtue of some antecedent.

In this case the antecedent is a myth, which renders the logic not only fallacious but also invalid in any objective terms.

Faith conquers reason in the end, I guess. And we know that Porky essentially utilises OLO as a missionary soapbox, so I think full credit should be given to Bugsy and others who persistently refutes the rubbish that Porky posts.

Personally, of late I'd mostly rather make fun of him than waste my time with serious argumentation. We go through the same old crap with Porky under various iterations (and aliases) but his output doesn't change: Biblical non sequiturs, Islamophobic hate-mongering and xenophobic rabble-rousing - in no particular order - that provide amusement but doesn't change anything.

I once did a straw poll of OLO users, asking everybody if they'd been brought closer to God via any of Porkyboaz's contributions - and absolutely nobody responded in the affirmative. As I recall, it wasn't too long after that he morphed from BOAZ_David into Polycarp.

Not that it's made any difference.

Oly,
“Then again, if humanity is made in God's image, and humans are primates…”
Tee-heeee, I love it, but I’m sure that when the creationists read it, they’ll go bananas!

Bugsy, dunno what Poly ate but all I know is that Poly didn’t have ribs for dinner ‘coz I’m still here.

Poly,
“Celivia's new name 'RIB' :) or should it be eye fillet? quite yummy and very tender!”
Yep, that sounds like me. Watch your wandering eye though; you wouldn’t want to have it poked it out!

OK… so you don’t know the answer to those questions.
But why do you force yourself to believe LITERALLY in whatever the Bible states?
Does it say somewhere in the Bible that you have to take everything literally?

BTW, I don’t agree with “the resurrection of Christ is a very well attested event of history”.
I mean, there isn’t even proper evidence that Jesus died at that time. I’ve never seen his death certificate, have you? Does it say somewhere in the Bible that qualified people took his pulse? Just because they thought he was dead, doesn’t mean he was. What did they know these days?
He could’ve been in a coma. Stacks of people were buried alive these days because were mistakenly thought to be dead.

Oliver,

Yes, I've read about that. Today's Creationists are modern versions of those who refused to look down Galileo’s telescope, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Poly,

<<Now.. we should only be examining probability within that one closed system.. our solar system.>>

If I understand you correctly, you're wanting to focus on the probabilities of the chemical process of abiogenesis. I'll address those probabilities again soon, but if you want to talk probabilities, we can't restrict them to the Solar system and have a level playing field.

<<...you would expect at least 'something' [in the Solar system] if the same probabilities exist...>>

Not really, because the other planets don't contain the right conditions for life. BUT...

The solar system, as a whole, provides the perfect conditions and balance for life on Earth. One example is Jupiter. Jupiter, with it's immense size and gravitational pull, acts as a protector of Earth by either drawing meteors and comets towards it, or by slinging them back out of the Solar system and away from Earth - It doesn't always of course, but it's helped sustain life on Earth.

Now, a Theist would argue that this is an example of "design", to which I would reply: "Wouldn't it just be easier for God to not make meteors and comets? Why would he make the entire universe look as though he did not need to exist?"

We can't restrict probabilities to the Solar system, because although the probabilities of our solar system being so perfect appear to be unimaginably small, those probabilities are greatly increased by the phenomenal amount of galaxies, stars and planets in our universe. In fact, given the amount of galaxies in our universe, it could well be argued that it is even more absurd to assume that we are the only intelligent life in the universe.

As for the probabilities of abiogenesis... Well, that's largely irrelevant because biochemistry is not a science of chance. There is no point in arguing about the chance of peptides forming, because we know the laws of nature allow it to happen quite freely and easily.

Continued...

...Continued

In fact, complex organic molecules can form in space and this has been observed.

The ocean floors were once covered in montmorillonite clay, so proteins would have been forming everywhere. Most would have failed to form into anything useful, but there quite easily would have been enough for the chances of primitive living cells to eventually form to become the single-celled bacteria we know today (See the abiogenesis video I posted a link to earlier).

If you want to use science to argue the existence of God, then asking where the laws of physics and nature come from would be a better start. But if I were you, I'd forget about trying to prove God's existence with science or mathematics, because at the rate we're going, we'll inevitably have the answers to where the laws of physics and nature come from in the not-too-distant future. As Bugsy alluded too earlier, to attempt to prove the existence of God with science or mathematics, is to ensure the demise of religion.

In regards to the evidence for Jesus... I believe Pericles has addressed this adequately many times. My favourite response of his on this topic was this one... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6887#103866. What CJ said about the story of Jesus being hearsay at best, was accurate too.

The New Testament is filled with borrowed mythology - mostly from Paganism. Particularly the story of Jesus. Early Christians demonised the Pagans because of this, and spread myths about them that Christians still believe today.

The fish symbol, the cross with a circle around the middle, the image of a man being crucified on a cross - they were all Pagan symbols.

Jesus bares too many similarities to other more ancient mythological religious figures for me to believe that he existed as Christians say he did...

Continued...

Horus:
Born of a virgin on December 25th. Three kings followed a star in the East to find him. He was a teacher at age 12 and was baptised at age 30. He had 12 disciples whom he travelled with as he performed miracles such as walking on water. Horus was known as The light, The Good Shepherd and The Lamb of God.

After being betrayed, he was Crucified, and resurrected three days later.

Attis:
Born of a virgin on December 25th, Crucified, and resurrected three days later.

Krishna:
Born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles with his disciples, was crucified and resurrected three days later.

Dionysus:
Born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles throughout his life, was crucified, then resurrected.

Mithra:
Born of a virgin on December 25th, performed miracles on his travels with 12 disciples, was crucified and resurrected three days later. He was also known as The Truth, The Light, The Alpha and Omega.

And this is just a small sample of them. There were many more, and they were all around before Jesus.

The reason they're all born on December 25th, is because this is around the Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere and some of them are dead for 3 days because the Sun [Son] appears to stop for three days. The sun [Son] then starts to rise again and this became known as the "resurrection".

The star in the East is Sirius, and on December 25th, is aligned with three stars that were known to the ancients as “The Three Kings”. On December 25th, from the Northern Hemisphere, these four stars line-up and point directly to the Sun [Son] as it rises [representing birth] in the morning.

This type of mythology developed thousands of years before Christianity and spread throughout the cultures over hundreds of years.

It is only because of Constantine and the way history played-out that Jesus proved to be the enduring Son of God. Had it not been for Constantine, you could be here telling us that Mithra is the way to salvation.

ARRRGGGH.. *ka-boom* my head just exploded :) A combination of AJ's swirling chemicals and RIB's(Celivia's) poke in my wandering eye was too much for my biosystem....

AJ.. you started well but ended badly mate. You went off into lala land about the middle of your 2nd post (Pagan this, Mythical that, Horus etc)

But let's deal with the science first.

Your claim "Scientists have observed organic molecules in space"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t478414h0851p0r0/

Let's use Methyl Formate as an example HC00CH3.

This suggests that the complex organic molecules appear from the very early stage of protostellar evolution.......
(So far so good...but wait.. there's more)

On the other hand, the complex organic molecules are not detected in a more evolved protostar, L1527. (woops)

They have also, as of last year, found 3 negatively charged molecules.
*wow*

But your point about:

"The solar system, as a whole, provides the perfect conditions and balance for life on Earth." hmmm no kidding....I didn't see that coming :)

Consider this. If LIFE is most conducive on earth..SUREly... unsuccessful life precursors would be observable on other planets nearby ? like... a Peptide or 3 ?

AJ...PERICLES?.. you quote him ? :) aaaarghh (3 aftershocks) the post you referred to simply contributed to better information about Greenleaf, but he was only partially correct. It also ignored Greenleafs respect by his secular peers.

What I'm on about in this thread is "plausability structure" not 'proving God'

As for horrifying Horus and his mythical crowd.. mate.. puh-lease read up on that.... both sides of the story.

Richard Price a noted Christ Myth-er says:

“Those of use who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth butt little else…..

Check...your....sources please.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

Acharya <-- Massey <-- questionable inferences and wild speculation.
Acharya also believes she has been visited by alien beings..many times :)
http://web.archive.org/web/20050217203851/www.tektonics.org/af/achy01.html

Celivia,

Just a little friendly comment with our OLO friends. No intention to leave God up a tree with your bananas.

Bugsy and Poly,

By way of extension to the comment via the Spiegelman link, please note, the transferred mutant progeny of the E. Coli & QB bactiophage, crossed 74 test tubes. Owing to (only initial) human intervention, the molecular evolutionary process produced the final mutant had a replication rate fifteen times that of the original RNA.

The original RNA was 4,500 nucleotides long and the turbo-charged mutate only 550! Supports Bugsy, methinks.

Poly and runner,

What I have being trying to demonstrate in recent posts is that Science is based on a process, that offers evidence, including falsifiable data, for analysis. What data underpin the Genesis Argument? What is being claimed is contrary to the Physical Sciences, Cultural Anthropology and History. To counter-balance, so many findings, one needs more that a “no comment” to support posits, please. One needs come to the table show that Genises a more conclusive (tentitive) posit.

Pleaes answer this question too: Was there mitochondrial DNA in Adam’s rib? If not, how did Eve receive it? If it was provided to Adam by God, should we pray, “Our Mother Who Art in Heaven? Or were sperm cells bigger in 4,004 BCE?

AJ,

I believe I first came across the Galileo telescope incident via Jacob Bronowski’s “Accent of Man” book/series. Brian Silver’s, similarly titled, “Accent of Science,” adds that seeing the moons around Jupiter was against Holy Writ, as the Christian Church asserted “there were only seven heavenly bodies”. The observed evidence wouldn't be there, even when seen. I guess, if one sees the the invisible, its not too greater stretch for the observable, not to be seen. Its complementary, but not complimentary,for me.

runner,

Will you look through the results of CERN Super Collider? You realize it is Galileo all over again. Do you not

Splitting hairs about the minutae of evolution doesn't prove something else is correct because there is no other scientific theory to consider at this time.

Putting it all down to some cloud-hopping deity isn't a reasonable alternative.

The source that expouses Creationism as some sort of "science" also suggests that cattle mating in view of striped sticks will produce striped offspring (Genesis 30:37-39).

Reproduce that in a laboratory and you'll convince me!

Boaz, are you still in denial about that charlatan Greenleaf?

>>.PERICLES?.. you quote him ? :) aaaarghh (3 aftershocks) the post you referred to simply contributed to better information about Greenleaf, but he was only partially correct. It also ignored Greenleafs respect by his secular peers.<<

I catch you out in a blatant corruption of historical fact, and you call it "contributing to better information". Classic.

Let me remind you of the context, because it is a behaviour that you persist in today.

At that time, you claimed that

>>Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law school co founder subjected the Gospels to the 'rules of evidence' and did not find them wanting.<<

I pointed out that Simon Greenleaf was not a "co-founder" - or any other kind of founder, for that matter, of Harvard Law School.

Strike one.

I further pointed out that - far from "subjecting the Gospel to the rules of evidence", he made two fundamentally inadmissible assumptions.

Permit me to remind you.

He claimed that "The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications... has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner, by others."

What's more, he tells us:

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

"Rules of evidence", Boaz? Not in this universe.

Strike two.

Nine months later - having failed to respond at the time - you decide to tell me that I am "only partially correct"?

Which exactly is the part that is incorrect?

That taking the existence of God as an already proven fact does not affect the verdict?

Or that assuming all evidence to be genuine unless proven otherwise does not fly in the face of every court procedure known to civilization?

And the sum of your new information? That he was "respected by his secular peers"?

Strike three, I'm afraid.

Dear Poly,

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf further concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history." - The Exponent

Even more so than WWII, The 1975 Dismissal (I've seen the documents in the National Archive) or the Fall of The World Trade Center Towers? Remarkable, indeed.

Poly, I also have some matters from my earlier post.

Regards,

O.

Hello Poly,

"Doctor" Greenleaf was awarded an "Honorary" Doctor of Laws degree for his work in ministry. Just checked. Moreover, in his day, the science of foresenic science would have been primative at best.

I think about a year ago I mentioned a past-cleric, I now quite well, became an athiest, after he started researching a paper on Comparative Religions. He still agrees many of Jesus' humanitian posits. Also, on the other hand, I understand that some Protestant Ministers, switch to RC's, as it is the Mother Christian Church.

Actually, it's Paul's and Constantine's Church developed from neo-Judaism.

Still intersted in knowing where Eve's mitochondrial DNA came from? As I alluded, God the Mother? :-). Please check page a few pages, for more info.

Back to Genises:

1. If the water covered the Earth(highest mount overed by 20 feet) and the Ark was therefore at about 10,000 metres above the old see level, how did the mammals breath?

2. What is runner whom said that Noah's lions were vegetarian lions (and therefore didn't eat the lambs etc.). If they were vegetarian what did they and all the herbivores eat immediately after The Flood?

If the lions became carnivores, would not the lions have many species (only two off each) very extinct, very quickly?

Didn't God realise, as a rule of thumb that, an animal ecology requires a prey to predator raio of about 10:1? Maybe, it was on the Seventh Day, when Yahew was snooziing, zzzz :-), ahat the Council of El, took its basic zoology lessons.

3. The Tyranosaurs vegetarian too?

4. "All animals" (Genises)? Whales?

Think I am off-air of air for 24 hours. Back later!

Cheers and hopes you think through the above,

Oly.

runner,

Poly? runner?

Loose theads above.

Cheers,

Oly

Oly

Don't forget the conundrum that only 2 of each species, is insufficient for genetic diversity to ensure healthy breeding stock. In fact, a species that only has 2 (male and female) left is regarded as 'functionally extinct'.

Poly/Runner, the ball is in your court.

Dear Pericles
you are a scoundrel sometimes.. (I mean that in a nice way).. you make statements.. declare victory and drag them up a millenia removed from the original discussion. Naughty.

STRIKE 1

YOU: "I pointed out that Simon Greenleaf was not a "co-founder" - or any other kind of founder, for that matter, of Harvard Law School."

EXTERNAL SOURCE http://www.drbilllong.com/LegalHistory/Greenleaf.html

"Thus, it is true that Greenleaf was one of the chief figures in the early days of Harvard Law School; it is not too much to say that he was the law school during Story's long periods of absence in the 1830s and 1840s."

Sorry.. that's close enough to rebound/boomerang your "strike" into at least a few bases if not a home run.

STRIKE 2

YOU: "What's more he tells us... (Ancient Document rule)
"Rules of evidence", Boaz? Not in this universe."

EXTERNAL SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_document

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE"), a document is deemed authentic if it is:

1. at least twenty years old;
2. in a condition that makes it free from suspicion concerning its authenticity; and
3. found in a place where such a writing was likely to be kept.

Many states have similar rules, but may limit the application of the doctrine to specific kinds of documents such as dispositive instruments (primarily conveyances, deeds, and wills), and may require the documents to be even older.

By admitting an ancient document into evidence, it is presumed only that the document is what it purports to be, but there are no presumptions about the truth of the documents contents. A jury can still decide that the author of the document was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it.

Hearsay

Ancient documents also present an exception to the hearsay rule. FRE 803(16) applies this exception to all documents over twenty years old. ....

Now THAT looks like a home run to me.

STRIKE 3 sorry old son.. that one fell to the ground and dribbled along..not even reaching the batter. Not a good pitch at all. I recommend some arm work to improve.

Dear Oly....

you asked:

Eve's mitochondrial DNA ?

*Think* me boy..... turn that thinking cap on.. now if God miraculously created Eve from Adams rib.. does it seem improbably that he also managed all the rest? Including of course the DNA issue.

FRACCY.. 2 of each.... from our perspective, I quite agree. I honestly don't have a satisfying answer to that one. I don't think scripture was trying to answer that. It is no more far fetched than the genetic diversity needed from Adam and Eve is it?

I don't know how God managed it, but then...I don't know everything :)
It seems a bit of a trap to me.. when we look back with modern science and try to squeeze ancient events into a very tightly packed box. If Scripture was intending to answer those very detailed scientific questions, I guess it would have. But perhaps we are reading more of the 'abstract' rather than the full essay ?

By the way.. thanx for the contributions. Sorry if my answers/responses seem to ignore or not answer every thing asked.
(Pre Alzheimers :)

It's a good job you don't actually play baseball, Boaz. You'd be in constant conflict with the umpire...

Let's start with the really, blatantly obvious.

Your claim:

>>Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law school co founder...<<

A co-founder, in case you need reminding, is someone credited with the creation, or foundation, of something. As in "William and Catherine Booth, co-founders of the Salvation Army".

You now assert:

>>Greenleaf was one of the chief figures in the early days of Harvard Law School<<

Samuel Morley was an influential figure in the early days of the Salvos, Boaz, but was not a "co-founder".

There is no way your statement "Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law school co founder" can be considered anything but "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" (W S Gilbert).

You might also confess that immediately following Bill Long's assertion that Greenleaf was one of the chief figures, comes the sentence:

"It is not true, however, that Greenleaf set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus or that he was challenged by students to explore the historicity of the Gospel narratives regarding Jesus' death and resurrection"

All in the interests of completeness, you understand.

And have you actually read "Testimony of the Evangelists?"

>>Supposing, therefore, that it is not irrational, nor inconsistent with sound philosophy, to believe that God has made a special and express revelation of his character and will to man, and that the sacred books of our religion are genuine, as we now have them; we proceed to examine and compare the testimony of Four Evangelists, as witnesses to the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ<<

This is the context of your application of Federal Rules of Evidence, Boaz.

Given the preconditions that Greenleaf allows himself, how could he possibly conclude otherwise than he did?

Incidentally, he did not allow a jury to examine whether the "author of the document was lying or mistaken when the author wrote it."

Interesting omission, in the circumstances.

Sorry, I think Greenleaf is out of the ballpark.

Dear Pericles
I'm pretty sure I conceded that he was not a 'co-founder' in the strict sense of the word. I don't know why you adopt this 'dog with bone' attitide of pedantism about rather peripheral issues.

Greenleafs assumption

"that it is not irrational, nor inconsistent with sound philosophy,to believe that God has made a special and express revelation of his character and will to man,"

Does not alter the essential evidentiary worth of the Gospels.
He is simply saying that it could happen... SOUND philosophy would never reject an idea a priori. They would look at evidence first THEN made a judgement.

The only requirement for it to be sound is that the existence of God be assumed. Given that that is not something which can be proven one way or the other without the element of either faith or dogmatic atheism, it stands true that the assumption of God's existence is as valid as that of his non existence.

So...you could delete the whole paragraph and move straight to

"we proceed to examine and compare the testimony of Four Evangelists, as witnesses to the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ"

under the ancient document rule.

Now.. you made a claim that "Rules of evidence: not in this universe"

which was patently incorrect. Now..I could dwell on this, and make much of it.. wax eloquent about how you are a troublemaker, a rabble rouser, a perveyor of hate, fear and loathing, that you misrepresent the Christian faith..that your credibility is dodgy.......

(as you are want to do of me)...but how does that advance our quest for truth?

I don't mind being corrected when the motive is TRUTH rather than destroying credibility.. it comes back to contributions all helping us to a better place. Sometimes that better place involved understanding things which are unpalatable to our sentimentally held notions.. such as the real meaning of bladi Surah bladi 9

Poly/Boaz

You never learn do you?

1. You do not 'prove' one myth by referring to another - Adam and Eve were also functionally extinct - inadequate gene pool.

2. Claiming that god waved some sort of magic wand is simply lame, I suppose he/she/it also provided oxygen masks for all living creatures on the ark, while the oceans topped Mount Everest. Yes, I did notice that you avoided 99.9% of Oliver's questions.

3. You cry big tears when people do not take anything you say seriously. Looking at just the 2 points above (regardless of the excellent arguments proffered by so many others) can you not see your complete absence of reason?

Many Christians quite sensibly take the bible as analogy, why can't you?

"It seems a bit of a trap to me.. when we look back with modern science and try to squeeze ancient events into a very tightly packed box. If Scripture was intending to answer those very detailed scientific questions, I guess it would have. "

David the trap would appear to be trying to treat ancient texts as a scientific or historical reference (especially a scientific reference which trumps modern science in regard to the science). By insisting on treating the early parts of the bible as an historical narative rather than accepting that they are doing something different you find yourself forced into that trap.

There are problems in not doing so - if death came from sin then how do you explain all the fossils from before modern man's time? Those problems are less then the problems you create for yourself by what you are doing here.

R0bert

*The source that expouses Creationism as some sort of "science" also suggests that cattle mating in view of striped sticks will produce striped offspring (Genesis 30:37-39).*

Ahh, such great advice from the bible. This of course explains
to runner, Polly and Gibo, where zebras come from! Somebody
must have read their bible and applied the technology to a horse :)

Your memory fails you again Boaz.

>>I'm pretty sure I conceded that he was not a 'co-founder' in the strict sense of the word.<<

Go back and take a look. After I had challenged your assertion, you went completely silent.

>>I don't know why you adopt this 'dog with bone' attitide of pedantism about rather peripheral issues<<

It is not a peripheral issue. It is about credibility.

You elevated Greenleaf to the position of co-founder in order to give his utterances a value that they did not warrant.

You don't check things. If they agree with your prejudice, you accept them at face value.

Here's the Greenleaf story that you swallowed, whole.

http://apprising.org/2008/09/didnt-you-know-gods-word-is-truth/

"Dr. Simon Greenleaf the brilliant 19th century Professor of Law at the prestigious School of Law at Harvard University who wrote a classic textbook on legal evidence was confronted by the powerful living Word of God. In his classes Dr. Greenleaf would consistently attack the Bible until some of his students knowledgeable about their beliefs challenged him to take his textbook and apply it to the Bible and to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dr. Greenleaf accepted the challenge and when faced with the impressive evidence supporting the claims of the Bible he accepted Jesus as his Lord and went on to write another classic book–this one in defense of the Christian faith!"

Or this one:

http://www.christianstoriesonline.com/josh_mcdowell.html

" Have you heard of Dr. Simon Greenleaf, who held the Royal Professorship of Law at Harvard? He was a skeptic, often mocking the Christians in his classes. One day they challenged him to take the three volumes he had written on the laws of legal evidence and apply them to the resurrection. After much persuasion he did that... Greenleaf came to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the best established events in history according to the laws of legal evidence."

Neither of these is even remotely true.

Are you by any chance spotting a pattern here, Boaz?

Because I do.

And just in case you have missed the entire point about ancient documents, Boaz, let's take one last look.

>>under the ancient document rule. Now.. you made a claim that "Rules of evidence: not in this universe" which was patently incorrect.<<

At a pinch, I might be amenable to an accusation of "partially incorrect", in the sense that an ancient document does indeed have its own intrinsic validity in a court of law. But purely as a document.

My contention - which is clear from the context, by the way - is that the content of the document cannot possibly be considered valid evidence on its own, solely on the basis that it happens to be old.

That would of course be a travesty of any courtroom's protocol - just think what fun they'd have with the manuscripts of some of Ovid's poetry, for example.

Not to mention of course, that it is clear from the manner in which the ancient document rule has been applied by the States, it was intended for legal instruments, not parchment scraps.

So your self-indulgent triumphalism is once again premature, I'm afraid.

>>I don't mind being corrected when the motive is TRUTH rather than destroying credibility<<

That's special pleading, Boaz.

Where the truth is an issue, credibility also becomes an issue.

In fact, most trials are conducted on the basis of credibility. Two stories, with two sets of lawyers each presenting their case in the best possible light.

How does the jury decide?

They have to determine which narrative - given all the rules of evidence and the need to give the accused the benefit of any doubt - is the more credible.

You are an inseparable part of your story, Boaz.

Your credibility is therefore a legitimate subject for examination.

A smart move on your part would be to validate your stories in future, using a non-partisan source.

Because you just know that I will check, don't you?

Dear Folks..

Robert first....

You said:

"David the trap would appear to be trying to treat ancient texts as a scientific or historical reference (especially a scientific reference which trumps modern science in regard to the science)."

Exactly :) if you notice....the topic was only about the probability of life forming from swirling chemicals. NOt about 'Is the bible true'....

I know what you said is a trap, but I've not been advocating that the Bible is a scientific document at all. I've stated 2 things.

1/ Probability of life forming is extremely remote.
2/ The first verse of Genesis is quite believable "In the beginning...God created"

I don't consider Gen 1:1 to be a scientific assertion, but a Philosophical one. Nevertheless I believe it to be true... you might even say "on the grounds of scientific probability"

PERICLES....
I'm fully aware of the many Christian 'myths' which speakers love to trot out to give we pew sitters the warm fuzzies.

I generally try to find original sources, but sometimes they can be illusive.
I've appreciated your efforts re Greenleaf, but I still contend that his position of 'Co Founder' or.. 'virtual' core of the Law school is not relevant to the strength of his argument. What IS crucial is his skill as a lawyer.

Now..you make a lot about 'me' being part of the story, but I reject that. That suits your objectives, but does not help in the persuit of truth. If truth is what you seek, then leave 'me' out of it and just criticize the points I make as "true" or.."untrue" and give reasons.

It smacks of sculduggery to try to wage a campaign of "you are not credible/thus all you say is not"...that is in fact quite vexatious.

Porkycrap: << It smacks of sculduggery to try to wage a campaign of "you are not credible/thus all you say is not"...that is in fact quite vexatious. >>

Porky, what is quite vexing is the fact that you repeatedly post untruths, half-truths, unverifiable hearsay and prevarications in your quest to spread fear, loathing and hatred in the community. This is despite the fact that your errors and mendacity have been frequently pointed out to you by Pericles, me and many others.

You don't apparently care whether what you post is accurate or truthful, which is what renders your credibility on any issue questionable at best.

Personally, I've reached the point that I regard anything that you post as so much bulldust unless it's independently verified.

Boaz, you have elevated "not listening" to an art form.

Whereas seven-year-olds use the crude but effective method of holding their hands over their ears and chanting "notlisteningnotlisteningnotlistening", you use the online equivalent, simply ignoring everything that you don't want to hear.

The number of discussions from which you have simply walked away testifies to this. You refuse to accept that there exists a voice other than your own.

>>I generally try to find original sources, but sometimes they can be illusive<<

I'll assume you mean elusive, rather than illusive.

Although it could also be illusory, which is probably closer to the truth.

Because you patently do not check anything.

Exposing your Swedish Pastor myth took me less than three minutes. Finding that Greenleaf was not a co-founder took two, maximum. Although with that discovery I also learned that he was already a lifelong member of the church, rather than the militantly atheistic sceptic you - and many others - made him out to be.

>>What IS crucial is his skill as a lawyer<<

Oh, please.

He doesn't even follow his own rules.

He assumes the content of ancient documents to be true, when the rule is merely that the physical document be accepted into evidence.

Once again, I strongly suspect that you have not read the treatise in question - am I right? It is available on the internet, you know.

You have simply copied-and-pasted ideas from god-bothering web sites, who in turn, have not checked a single fact.

>>Now..you make a lot about 'me' being part of the story, but I reject that.<<

But you are, Boaz.

Your denial of reality, plus your ability to prevaricate, obfuscate and shapeshift, is very much part of the story.

>>If truth is what you seek, then leave 'me' out of it and just criticize the points I make as "true" or.."untrue" and give reasons<<

But I have attempted, on many occasions, to do exactly that. Unable to refute, you obfuscate.

Eventually, this turns into a "yes-it-is, no-it-isn't", at which point your credibility becomes a key component to reaching the truth.

I found a fact in one of Poly's posts!

<<I have a HUGE problem intellectually.>>

Could this be the first?

Exit Porkycrap, stage right.