Darwinism refuted

[Adalwolf]

So much for the cell, but evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.

Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called amino acids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.

The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore, the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of amino acids, as will be discussed later.)

The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand.

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all of these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless, or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300. "The probability of this "1" actually occurring is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability").

The complex 3-D structure of the protein cytochrome-C. The slightest difference in the order of the amino acids, represented by little balls, will render the protein nonfunctional.

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.

When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small "that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."

So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question:

When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.

If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times "more impossible" for some one million of those proteins to come together by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell.) The number that was found was 1 over 1040000.244 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)

A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:

The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.

Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:

Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.

An article published in the January 1999 issue of Science News revealed that no explanation had yet been found for how amino acids could turn into proteins.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_03.html

[Debaser11]

There is a lot of truth that science claims in such a manner that I find to be inappropriate. I do think evolution is a useful scientific tool that should be acknowledged. However, it is a very dangerous religious tool.

[Curtis24]

Every scientific person I've talked to has told me Darwinism is one of the few theories that is bedrock proven.

Debaser, how does Darwinism aid the religious?

[Adalwolf]

Evolution is flawed anyway. It's funny because atheists accuse Christians of blind belief, when evolution relies on just as much speculation of the unknown. The DNA molecule itself is an empirical subject once you realize that it cannot in no way be produced by material causes.

[Debaser11]

Every scientific person I've talked to has told me Darwinism is one of the few theories that is bedrock proven.

Debaser, how does Darwinism aid the religious?

It provides an ontological worldview with the same level of fervor that can often be found religious types.

It definitely doesn't aid the traditional religions. It simply gives provides them with another competitor in the battle of ideas.

[Loddfafner]

The original poster needs his bullshit detectors recalibrated if he is so skeptical of modern biology (Darwin made no claims about protein chemistry) while being so credulous about Antarctic Nazi UFOs.

[Óttar]

Every good Christian knows that 2 + 2 = 5 is an empirical fact.

[Osweo]

Some chemists more than forty years ago cooked up amino acids from the sort of 'primordial soup' that was around before there was life on this planet, simulating lightning strikes into it.

Obviously, the huge proteins we know today took a lot longer to appear, thanks to low probability combinations of the smaller ones that COULD have appeared by chance. But every massively improbable coincidence here can be broken down into little steps that were simply unlikely. In the billions of years we have to play with, it seems that the unlikely did happen. :shrug:

What's your position on the flying saucers, though, Adalwolf?! :p

[Debaser11]

Some chemists more than forty years ago cooked up amino acids from the sort of 'primordial soup' that was around before there was life on this planet, simulating lightning strikes into it.

Obviously, the huge proteins we know today took a lot longer to appear, thanks to low probability combinations of the smaller ones that COULD have appeared by chance. But every massively improbable coincidence here can be broken down into little steps that were simply unlikely. In the billions of years we have to play with, it seems that the unlikely did happen. :shrug:

What's your position on the flying saucers, though, Adalwolf?! :p

That is not what annoys many people regarding the subject of evolution. The primordial soup idea doesn't get under my skin, it's how people interpret it that gets me so annoyed. It's the implicit claim made by worshippers of evolution that truth can be attained simply through scientific observation. Thus, all other inquiry beyond the material is moot. It's ridiculously myopic.

[Loki]

Has anyone calculated the probability of a master designer with supernatural powers existing? More or less probable than proteins forming?

[Adalwolf]

The original poster needs his bullshit detectors recalibrated if he is so skeptical of modern biology (Darwin made no claims about protein chemistry) while being so credulous about Antarctic Nazi UFOs.

Oh what's the matter big guy? Upset enough to resort to personal attacks because you cannot intelligently address the article? Thought so...

[Debaser11]

Has anyone calculated the probability of a master designer with supernatural powers existing? More or less probable than proteins forming?

Someone has a little too much faith in science's application to all things truth if they think we can even begin to attempt such an undertaking.

[Loki]

Someone has a little too much faith in science's application to all things truth if they think we can even begin to attempt such an undertaking.

Ah - of course. The same rules don't apply when we talk about the supernatural. I should have known. But what if protein molecules themselves were gods? Ever considered that possibility?

[Peasant]

What if God designed evolution? D: Got to start with something.

[Curtis24]

Has anyone calculated the probability of a master designer with supernatural powers existing? More or less probable than proteins forming?

Is God an alien mathematician?


From cosmism to deism
January 18, 2011 by Hugo de Garis
.The rise of artilects (artificial intellects, i.e., godlike massively intelligent machines with intellectual capacities trillions of trillions of times above the human level) in this century makes the existence of a deity (a massively intelligent entity capable of creating a universe) seem much more plausible.

There are now thousands of AI scientists around the world (concentrated largely in the English-speaking countries) who feel that humanity will be able to build massively intelligent machines this century that will be hugely smarter than human beings. The author, for example, thinks that the issue of whether humanity should build these “artilects” (artificial intellects) will dominate our global politics this century and lead to a “gigadeath” war, killing billions of people.

These AI researchers know that 21st century technology will be capable of creating machines with a bit processing rate trillions of trillions of times above the estimated human-brain-equivalent bit-processing rate, and that neuro-scientific knowledge is advancing at an exponential rate.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that these artilects are actually built this century, and then speculate on what such creatures might occupy themselves with. Of course, as humans, with our puny human brains, trying to imagine what an artilect would think about is like a mouse trying to imagine what humans think about, using its puny mouse brain. Nevertheless, we will speculate anyway, because some of these human level suggestions may turn out to be correct.

Building Universes

One suggestion that comes to (the human) mind, is that artilects may be so smart and such superb scientists that they may be capable of conceiving and constructing whole universes. This idea seems plausible since Prof. Alan Guth (of “inflation” fame) of MIT, as a human, has already conceived a mathematical model for how to create a baby universe. He has the conditions, the numbers, on how to do this. If humans with our puny human brains are capable of conceiving the idea of building universes, then perhaps artilects, with all their godlike capacities, could actually construct them, based on their vastly superior ability to architect possible universes.

Consider also, that our universe is 13.7 billion years old, according to results from the WMAP satellite in 2003. Our third-generation star, the Sun, is only about 5 billion years old, so it is likely that there are a trillion trillion second-generation stars in our observable universe that are billions of years older, that possibly have planets on which intelligent life evolved and then moved on in an “artilectual transition” to become “artilect gods.” These artilects may then have designed their own universes.

The obvious question then arises, “Is it possible that our universe was designed by some artilect in some other universe?” This question raises some interesting metaphysical issues, that will be discussed later, but let us assume that the answer is “yes.” What then?

This “creator artilect” would then satisfy the definition of a deity, i.e., a creator of our universe. Given that it is likely that humanity will be building artilects this century, science ought to be a lot more open to the idea of deism. The above argument makes it much more plausible.

Theism vs Deism

Let me state my views on theism vs. deism at this point. Deism, as just mentioned, is the belief that there is a “deity,” i.e., a creator of the universe, a grand designer, a cosmic architect, that conceived and built our universe. Theism is the belief in a deity that also cares about the welfare of individual humans. Deism I am open to, whereas I find theism ridiculous. The evidence against it is enormous. For example, last century, about 200-300 million people were killed for “political reasons,” e.g., wars, genocides, purges, ethnic cleansings, etc. It was the bloodiest century in history.

Presumably, millions of those killed were theists, believing that their “theity” would “look out” for their welfare. Well obviously that theity didn’t, because those millions of people were killed anyway.

If this theity was so concerned with human beings, why did our species come on the cosmic scene so late? Our universe has existed for the order of 1010 years. We humans have existed for about 105 years, i.e., only a thousandth of 1% of the age of the universe – “a mere afterthought of an afterthought.” Every primitive tribe has dreamt up its own gods, and those gods have properties familiar to their human creators. For example, New Guinea gods have a lot of pigs, Chinese gods have slitty eyes, etc. Cultural anthropologists of religion have estimated that humanity has invented more than 100,000 different gods over the planet and over the broad sweep of human history, most of which are no longer believed in. They have become “extinct religions.”

It is much more likely, in my view, that theisms are just examples of “wishful thinking” that people invent to give themselves emotional comfort in an emotionally cold, meaningless, indifferent universe that has evolved creatures like ourselves who are subject to disease, pain, cruelty, poverty, and death.

The early gods were rather primitive in conception, because the small hunter-gatherer groups who invented them did not contain a genius capable of high-level abstract creative intellectual thought. Once agriculture and animal husbandry was discovered, large cities grew up that contained the occasional genius who dreamt up a more abstract concept of god, that is, of a mono-theity far more powerful than the many individual gods of an earlier (pre- agricultural) human era. The concoction of these monotheisms occurred several thousand years ago, long before the insights of modern science, and hence it is not surprising that their religious conceptions were based largely on (pre-scientific) ignorance, e.g., notions such as life after death (the ultimate wishful thinking), souls, miracles, etc.

In northern Europe, theism has almost died out, and is heading that way too (but slowly) in the U.S., the slowness being due to historical colonial reasons. Let us assume for the sake of this essay that theism dies out worldwide. Where does that leave deism?

Plausibility Arguments for a Deity

The above sections have argued that the rise of the artilect this century makes the idea of a deity, more plausible. However, there are other arguments that can be used to support the idea that our universe is the product of a pre-existing deity. They are: (A) the “(strong) anthropic principle” and (B) something I call (by analogy with the anthropic principle) the “mathematical principle.” I discuss these two principles in turn.

The (Strong) Anthropic Principle (SAP)

The SAP states that the values of the constants of the laws of physics are so fantastically, improbably finely tuned to allow the existence of matter and life, that it seems highly likely that these values were predesigned. It is now well known, that if one changes the values of some of these constants by even a tiny amount (for example, in some extreme cases, by one part in zillions), matter and life can no longer exist. How to account for this extraordinary state of affairs?

One answer is to say that our universe is the product, the creation, of a preexisting deity, a hyperintelligence that conceived our universe’s laws of physics that are compatible with matter and life, and built our universe according to those laws.

Another answer is to say that there are a zillion universes, each with a different set of physical laws, and we just happen to live in one that is compatible with life, because we are here to observe our universe (which is the statement of the weak form of the anthropic principle (WAP).

Other people, particularly many string theorists, claim that once enough is known in the future about the nature of M-theory, it will become clear that there is only one way a coherent universe (that is, obeying all the many symmetries of M-theory) can be designed, and our universe is it. This leads in to the next principle.

The “Mathematical Principle”

The “mathematical principle” is what I call the idea that the universe appears to have been designed by a mathematician, i.e., that the universe obeys so many principles of modern mathematics. (Einstein, for example, was deeply mystified by the fact that the universe obeyed the general design principles he dreamt up to explain how gravity worked. He kept saying he wanted to know the (mathematical) thoughts of “der Alte” (the old one), the designer of our universe.)

For example, why do the elementary particles have properties that allow them to be classified into families according to the mathematical representations of special unitary groups (e.g., SU(3))? Why does Einstein’s general relativistic equation “drop out” of the superstring model as a mathematical deduction, with all the latter’s recent mathematical abstractions of such a high level that probably only one person in a thousand has the brain power to understand them, e.g., mathematical notions such as 11 space-time dimensions, supersymmetry, complex manifolds, super-conformal-fields, Calabi-Yau compaction, holomorphic curves, etc.

The more humanity knows about how deeply mathematical the laws of physics are, the more plausible it seems that the designer of the universe used mathematical principles as a tool. This is the “deity as mathematician” argument (which interestingly seems to suggest that mathematics is more fundamental than even a deity — that even a deity is subject to mathematical constraints and logic?!).

Deism and Science

Richard Dawkins is not keen on the idea of a deity. He claims, I think correctly, that any deity capable of creating our universe, would need to be extremely complex, at least as complex as that of our universe. Where I disagree with him is his idea that instead of postulating the existence of a deity, science should start with the premise that the universe exists with given properties, that science then attempts to discover and explain. For Dawkins, the idea of a deity is “outside science” and conceptually redundant. If a deity made the universe, who made the deity? One gets stuck in an infinite regress.

Personally, I think if science could come to the conclusion that there is/was a deity that created the universe, then that would be wonderful for science. It would open up a vast new arena for science to play in. Science could then start wondering about the properties of the deity, the hyper intelligence that designed the universe.

The question of what designed the deity should not be a reason for dismissing our universe’s deity. We live in a universe that may have a “qualitative infinity” of levels, e.g., in the past century, humanity’s knowledge of the nature of matter has descended from molecules, to atoms, to nuclei, to nucleons, to quarks, to strings. Who knows how many more layers future humans may find? As each new layer is discovered, science reacts with elation, having opened up new vistas for exploration. A similar attitude ought to apply to the idea of a deity.

Metaphysical Questions

Traditionally, science has been rather hostile to the idea of theism. I share that hostility. I look on traditional religions as superstitions that are incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. But as the above sections make clear, I’m far more open to the idea of deism, the belief in a hyperintelligence that designed and created our universe.

I think that the rise of Cosmism — the ideology if favor of humanity building artilects this century (despite the risk that advanced artilects may decide to wipe out humanity as a pest) — makes the idea of a deity far more plausible, if not inevitable. It is a small logical step to suggest, given the above discussion, that our future artilects could become deities themselves, which then create future universes.

But, if so, how could (human) science “get a handle” on such artilectually created future universes? For example, if the artilects in our universe, obeying our universe’s laws of physics, create new universes with other laws of physics, how could human beings ever know of the existence of such new universes? How indeed? However, the question I feel is a valid one and should not be thrown out with the bath water, being dismissed as “idle metaphysics”.

Hyper-physics

I think science ought to give a lot more thought to the notion of what I call “hyper-physics”. Hyper-physics is a “superset” of ordinary physics, which has as its domain of discussion the universe we live in and those universes that our future artilects could design and create. We should also consider the possibility that the universe we live in is the creation of a preexisting deity, or artilect. Thus we need to think about a “tree of universes” that branches each time a new universe is created “inside” a preexisting one. The “investigation” of such a hyper-physics (the tree) might be one of the major preoccupations of our artilects.

Since our universe is nearly three times older than our solar system, it is quite possible that other suns in the zillions have already evolved intelligent life that has moved on into the artilectual stage, which then creates new universes. Hyper-physics would then be the study of all these universes. Since such a study, very probably, requires capabilities way above those of the human brain, we mere humans can only speculate and contemplate in awe at what our artilectual creations may devote their time and godlike intellects to.

Perhaps these artilects might even be able to give sensible answers to the very deepest of metaphysical questions, as to why anything exists at all, and whether there exists a “supergod” that started the whole chain of artilects creating a tree of universes. This type of meta-physics differs from the more modest hyper-physics suggested above. A universe-creating artilect still exists in the hyper-physical tree of universes, but the question of where the first deity came from remains as mysterious as ever, the ultimate meta-physical question that the most brilliant of theologians have been wondering about for centuries.

Summary

This essay hopes to persuade its readers that science ought to take the notion of deism a lot more seriously. The rise of the artilect in this century makes the notion of a hyperintelligent designer and creator of our universe far more plausible. It suggests the creation of a “hyper-physics” (as distinct from a traditional metaphysics that poses the deepest of questions) that would “investigate” the tree of universes that a branching set of artilects may have created

[Motörhead Remember Me]

God came to earth disguised as Darwin.

[Debaser11]

Ah - of course. The same rules don't apply when we talk about the supernatural.

Well duh! Why would they by definition? Sometimes people say things that are absurd or abundantly obvious without even realizing it even while trying to condescend. You seem very unfamiliar or at least hostile to the whole concept of the supernatural but never seem to feel the need to justify why your jamming of science and ontology together (as you seem to do) is anymore sound than the next guy's view on the big questions.


I should have known. But what if protein molecules themselves were gods? Ever considered that possibility?

Sure. I'm a pretty open-minded guy, actually. (Read: "opened-minded =/= agreeable) I don't quite get what you're trying to get at, though.

[blan]

this debate goes on and on and on.
there is one thing that we all believe in to some extent and that is infinity.
most of us think that there is no beginning and there is no end.
this is a abstract concept for humans and something that no one can truly understand but the concept of infinity is something that is just as abstract and impossible as there being a creator/God. the source of life and matter are mind boggling subjects to tackle and humans may never understand or grasp it.
the concept of life and energy are abstract concepts.
and if the universe is infinite then possibility from a theistic and a atheistic out look are endless. if there is infinity that the possibility of a God must be possible in my opinion even if we did come from a darwanian soup

[anonymaus]

If evolution is false, how does Charlie Sheen have the blood of a tiger?

[Breedingvariety]

Drop any animal from Central Asia in South Pacific Island and watch it annihilate local species. That's evolution.

[Loddfafner]

Let me get this right: proteins were formed through Vrilian energy by Atlantan scientists doing quadrillions of deep knee bends.

[Psychonaut]

Depicting evolutionism (btw, why are you using such an antiquated term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism)?) as existing in fundamental opposition to theism is fallacious. The incompatibility only exists in metaphysical theologies (or hierologies) that are top-down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_and_bottom-up_design) in nature (e.g. Platonism, most Christian theologies, etc.). Bottom-up systems (e.g. Hylozoism, Teilhard's Christianity, Process theology, etc.) are always explicitly evolutionary in their formulations.

[Adalwolf]

Drop any animal from Central Asia in South Pacific Island and watch it annihilate local species. That's evolution.

That's called extinction and progressive adaptation.

[Eldritch]

It's completely pointless to start reverse-engineering the biochemistry of proteins, and insisting that the likelihood of each polypeptide chain forming itself entirely at random is vanishingly unlikely, because proteins don't form like that in the first place.

EDIT:

I just realised something. Is the author of this article claiming that each time a cell (any cell, anywhere) synthesizes proteins, God or some other higher power has to guide the process?

[Adalwolf]

It's more in the sense of abiogenesis. This has turned out be a bankrupt theory that most modern evolutionists are distancing themselves from. The most popular recent lie is the panspermia theory. Which basically claims that life might have come to earth on a meteor at some point. :D Basically they're so desperate to deny any sort of involvement from God, that they consider instead that we could have developed from alien life forms. Pathetic really. :rolleyes:

[Adalwolf]

[Panspermia theory burned to a crisp: bacteria couldn’t survive on meteorite


A number of evolutionists have become disillusioned with ideas that life could have evolved from non-living chemicals on Earth (i.e. via chemical evolution, sometimes called ‘abiogenesis’). So they hoped that with the whole universe to work with, life might have evolved elsewhere in the universe, and travelled to Earth. This is the theory of panspermia, from Greek πάς/πάν (pas/pan, all) and σπέρμα (sperma, seed), i.e. seeds of life are everywhere in the universe (see how one evolutionist ‘reasons’ to panspermia).

The classic form of panspermia is the theory that these seeds happen to hitch a ride on comets or meteorites (as opposed to ‘directed panspermia’ where the seeds are sent by aliens1). Yet a recent experiment has dealt a fatal blow to this theory, because it showed that they couldn’t survive the extreme heat on entering the earth’s atmosphere—and causes meteoroids to become meteors or ‘shooting stars’.2

Experimental disproof
Scientists at the Centre of Molecular Biophysics in Orleans, France, managed to simulate a meteorite entry by attaching rocks to the heat shield of a returning Russian spacecraft (FOTON M3 capsule) last month. These rocks were smeared with a hardy bacterium called Chroococcidiopsis—supposed to resemble a proposed germ on Mars. The rocks also contained microfossils.

After the spacecraft was retrieved, the microfossils survived, but the Chroococcidiopsis was burned black, although their outlines remained. Lead author Frances Westall says:

The results are more problematic when applied to panspermia. STONE-6 showed at least two centimetres (0.8 inch) of rock is not sufficient to protect the organisms during [atmospheric] entry.—Frances Westall, Centre of Molecular Biophysics in Orleans
‘The STONE-6 experiment suggests that, if Martian sedimentary meteorites carry traces of past life, these traces could be safely transported to Earth. However, the results are more problematic when applied to panspermia. STONE-6 showed at least two centimetres (0.8 inch) of rock is not sufficient to protect the organisms during [atmospheric] entry.’2
Their original paper stated:

‘The Chroococcidiopsis did not survive but their carbonized remains did. Thus sedimentary meteorites from Mars could reach the surface of the Earth and, if they contain traces of fossil life, these traces could be preserved. However, living organisms may need more than 2 cm of rock protection.’3
The paper also had this typically cautious concluding remark:

‘However, because of a technological flaw, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the thickness of rocky materials needed to protect extant life during atmospheric entry.’
It turned out that there was:

‘burning of the back side of this particular sample owing, apparently, to the entry of heat and flames behind the sample. This occurred because the difference in composition between the carbon-carbon screws and the silicon phenolic material of the sample holder resulted in a space appearing between the screws and the screw holes. Thus, the Chroococcidiopsis cells were completely carbonised despite the 2 cm thickness of protective rock covering them.’
However, this didn’t stop the leading researcher asserting that 2 cm of rock was insufficient, both in a press release and in their abstract. A real rock is likely to have gaps larger than in the experiment.

Indeed, this experiment seems to understate the problems. The paper states:

‘Entry speed of the FOTON capsule was 7.6 km/sec, slightly lower than the normal meteorite velocities of 12–15 km/sec. It was possible to determine the minimum temperature reached during entry through the thermal dissociation of one of the space cement that occurs at a temperature of ~1700°C. Although the basalt control sample was lost, comparison with the results of the STONE 5 experiment indicates that the temperatures upon entry are high enough to form a fusion crust.’3
One must question whether little over half the speed is ‘slightly lower’. It’s worse because the frictional drag and kinetic energy are proportional to the square of the velocity; i.e. if the velocity is doubled, the drag and energy are quadrupled.4

This indicates that a real meteorite would heat up much more, requiring an even thicker shield.

Life from Mars?
This experiment also supports our rejection of the life from Mars hype in 1996, in that the atmosphere would likely fry any Martian meteoritic microbes. We also pointed out that life on Mars was more likely to have been blasted off from Earth in the first place, and this experiment indirectly reinforces this. I.e. the frictional drag is proportional to the atmospheric density,4 and the Martian atmosphere is < 1% as dense as ours. So planets with dense atmospheres are more likely to be sources than destinations for life.

Conclusion
Panspermia has now been shown to have a huge flaw. Since panspermia was a common last-ditch attempt to preserve materialism in the face of problems in chemical evolution on Earth, materialism itself has likewise taken yet another huge blow.

http://creation.com/panspermia-theory-burned-to-a-crisp-bacteria-couldn-t-survive-on-meteorite

[Aramis]

Proteins, life, consciousness... Why hasn't this God character won a noble prize yet?

[Eldritch]

Okay, so the panspermia hypothesis is unlikely to be correct. What does that have to do with protein synthesis?

Btw, the conclusions to be drawn from the Foton-M3 experiments are more or less the opposite of what the article in post #26 claims.

[Loddfafner]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwin. If you read the Origin of Species, you will notice that Darwin actually mentions a "Creator" breathing life into the original species. Darwin's theory was about the modifications and differentiations that followed.

[Hess]

i would be interested in conducting a poll to see how many people on here believe in Evolution

[Adalwolf]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwin. If you read the Origin of Species, you will notice that Darwin actually mentions a "Creator" breathing life into the original species. Darwin's theory was about the modifications and differentiations that followed.

I realize this. The point being that a lot evolutionists stupidly disregard his synopsis of ''a Creator breathing life into the original species'' and come up with these other ridiculous theories to undermine any sort of creation altogether.

[Debaser11]

I realize this. The point being that a lot evolutionists stupidly disregard his synopsis of ''a Creator breathing life into the original species'' and come up with these other ridiculous theories to undermine any sort of creation altogether.

It's quite funny seeing the lengths that some people will go through in order to try to take the question of any such creation altogether off of the table. Never mind that the proposition is quite valid and is often used intellectually to bring a sense of dignity to mankind.

[Loddfafner]

When you see one of those canned Creationist talking points, a great resource for antidotes is the talk.origins archives (http://www.talkorigins.org/) which emerged out of a usenet group devoted to debates among scientists and christians.
They even have the one about proteins and abiogenesis:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[anonymaus]

I realize this. The point being that a lot evolutionists stupidly disregard his synopsis of ''a Creator breathing life into the original species'' and come up with these other ridiculous theories to undermine any sort of creation altogether.

Words fall from your mouth as shit from a horse's ass. You aren't the first halfwit creationist to claim the mantle of open-mindedness and reason while mocking those who truly wear it.

[Debaser11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

[Adalwolf]

@Debaser11

Honestly, my friend, I think that a great deal of it has to do with pride. I know the atheist perspective, having been one for 18 years. People will go to extreme lengths to appease their curious mind of the big ontological question. It is easier to look at science with a bias, because people simply do not want to give up their sinful secular lifestyles and have to atone for a creator in the end. Thus it is easier to say ''God is imaginary'' and go on living the life we all desire.

Some conceited atheists often think that all Christians are blind bible believers who never question their own beliefs. This is simply false in a lot of cases. In fact, as the years go on plenty of prestigious scientists are becoming skeptical of Darwin's theories and have been dedicating their studies to creation science instead.

In the United States alone there is a calculated 133,000 scientists and scholars who are wary of the supposed Darwinian evolution. Have a look here at a list of 3,000 accredited:

http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html


My final point is this: Not everything that occurs in this world can be fully explained by rationale and presumed logic; so why should understanding of the creator be so different for some people? Many people have had spiritual experiences that lead them to Jesus Christ. Once this happens, a person in no way will be swayed in their belief, as it would be both intellectually and spiritually dishonest.

Take the NDE of former professor Howard Storm to be an example. A former militant atheist/nihilist who is now a Priest. :)

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

[Adalwolf]

Words fall from your mouth as shit from a horse's ass. You aren't the first halfwit creationist to claim the mantle of open-mindedness and reason while mocking those who truly wear it.

Once again with the insults towards myself and God. Not surprising this is coming from an active homosexual, who is likely feeling a ton of bent up frustration and hostility.

[Debaser11]

@Debaser11

Honestly, my friend, I think that a great deal of it has to do with pride. I know the atheist perspective, having been one for 18 years.

I was once one too.


People will go to extreme lengths to appease their curious mind of the big ontological question. It is easier to look at science with a bias, because people simply do not want to give up their sinful secular lifestyles and have to atone for a creator in the end. Thus it is easier to say ''God is imaginary'' and go on living the life we all desire.

I think this is a bit more accurrate than most are willing to admit. When atheists say they want to be "free," I think many subconsciously want to be "free" from the responsibility that religion often entails.


@Some conceited atheists often think that all Christians are blind bible believers who never question their own beliefs. This is simply false in a lot of cases. In fact, as the years go on plenty of prestigious scientists are becoming skeptical of Darwin's theories and have been dedicating their studies to creation science instead.

The problem is that Darwin's theories don't explain what religion is trying to answer. Darwin's theory doesn't particularly offend me and I don't think many Christians (which I am not) should fear it, either. Science is based on making sense of the observationable while religion is faith in the (empirically) unknowable. I can't tell if that's lost on your opposition in this thread of not.


@In the United States alone there is a calculated 133,000 scientists and scholars who are wary of the supposed Darwinian evolution. Have a look here at a list of 3,000 accredited:

http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html



Thanks for the link. Again, my interest on the subject is more linked to how closely Darwin's theory matches up with what we understand to be truth. The theory per se doesn't bother me as much as what people tend to take away from it. I see truth as being much more nebulous and beyond us; I don't think the science worshippers even begin to fairly acknowledge just how hard it is to know truth which is why faith is so applicable to so many people. As if heuristic thinking must be confined to our bodily senses and concrete observation. Much of the atheist lot (certainly not all) have a cheap understanding of what faith is; they seem reduce it to a child believing in the tooth fairy which I guess accounts for their unwarranted condescending tone. It is their misunderstanding of what science can truly answer and their inadequate understanding of what constitutes the truly religious person that creates so much friction and misunderstanding.

I could also speak about how many religious people themselves further add to the problem by not understanding what their faith is really all about as well, but what hasn't been said about these people already? I'm not going to make my opposition's points for them.



My final point is this: Not everything that occurs in this world can be fully explained by rationale and presumed logic; so why should understanding of the creator be so different for some people? Many people have had spiritual experiences that lead them to Jesus Christ. Once this happens, a person in no way will be swayed in their belief, as it would be both intellectually and spiritually dishonest.

Take the NDE of former professor Howard Storm to be an example. A former militant atheist/nihilist who is now a Priest. :)

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


Christopher Hitchens always lamented in his atheism vs. religion debates (which always pitted him against an idiot) how the head of The Human Genome Project (Francis Collins) had a similar experience and converted to Roman Catholicism. Never does he question that this vastly more intelligent man has something figured that Hitchens can't even begin to grasp in large part because of his own vanity.

I understand what you mean about the limits of logic. Of course, when you say things like this, people think that's just an intellectual "in" so to speak so you can slowly but surely move toward teaching children that Adam and Eve rode on a T-Rex. That's how little respect the atheist side accords any person who tries to be intellectual whom disagrees with them. They're the ones who should be embarassed.

Many people seem to think that the word "transcedent" in the most moving manner can only mean "really awe-inspiring scientific processes we don't yet or don't have the capability to understand."

[Breedingvariety]

That's called extinction and progressive adaptation.
Extinction- species go extinct. If species go extinct and no new species appear, then all species would go extinct eventually.

Progressive adaptation- species change (evolve) to different forms. So extinct species are replaced by newly formed species.

The process of extinction and new adaptations of species is called evolution.

Theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of life.

[Psychonaut]

Science is based on making sense of the observationable while religion is faith in the (empirically) unknowable.

:eek:

What about Kant's theologia revelata (http://books.google.com/books?id=DoIA4SlN-OEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=kant+critique+of+pure+reason&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=4HyATdDQHKqO0QHAqv2CCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=theologia&f=false), Eliade's catalogs of the hierophantic origins of religion, James' catalogs of religious experience, the whole history of Gnostic theology, the whole history of shamanic praxis, etc.? These are all empirical theologies centered around that the holy can be directly prehended.

[Debaser11]

:eek:

What about Kant's theologia revelata (http://books.google.com/books?id=DoIA4SlN-OEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=kant+critique+of+pure+reason&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=4HyATdDQHKqO0QHAqv2CCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=theologia&f=false), Eliade's catalogs of the hierophantic origins of religion, James' catalogs of religious experience, the whole history of Gnostic theology, the whole history of shamanic praxis, etc.? These are all empirical theologies centered around that the holy can be directly prehended.

I parenthesized the word "empirical" because that is not how most would view matters of faith and spirituality. People like Kant had an extremely sophisticated view on matters of faith that one would not necessarily expect the average (or even above average) person of faith to share. Kant's understanding of the divine is not the layman's understanding.

And that one may put forth a religiously empirical point of view (if that's how you want to phrase it) does not render my point invalid.

[Psychonaut]

And that one may put forth a religiously empirical point of view (if that's how you want to phrase it) does not render my point invalid.

It does clash with the attempt to bifurcate knowledge and experience via the NOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria) thesis.

[Debaser11]

It does clash with the attempt to bifurcate knowledge and experience via the NOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria) thesis.

Even if that's the case, I'm not making Kant's argument.

[Psychonaut]

Even if that's the case, I'm not making Kant's argument.

LOL, I know...which is why I brought it up to contrast your division between empirically knowable scientific phenomena and unknowable religious phenomena.

[Debaser11]

I see. :)

I guess I sometimes respond in cases where no response is necessary. It's not like you're one of the people around here who doesn't understand what a strawman is. Chalk our exchange up to over-defensiveness on my part. :)

[Eldritch]

You aren't the first halfwit creationist to claim the mantle of open-mindedness and reason while mocking those who truly wear it.

The only reason this thread was allowed to remain open this long in the first place is the very open-mindedness and tolerance you refer to, which creationists in fact do not deserve. They aren't just harmless loonies and village idiots -- the fact that someone, anyone, actually capable of reading, writing and operating a computer takes them seriously is evidence enough of that, if you ask me.

Richard Dawkins, among others, has written extensively about the time and effort real biologists have to waste shooting down the same retarded arguments, only to have them jump back up again the next day like a jack-in-the-box, instead of getting real work done. In this sense I can understand (although not condone) his hostility towards Christians in general. This is the other reason this nonsense shouldn't be tolerated anymore -- it's a real retardant to everything that's valuable and worth preserving.

The regressive element on this forum and elsewhere would have us believe that clinging to superstition is the key to preservation. In fact the opposite is true, and everything that has made Europe and the European diaspora great has always come from challenging established facts, and refusing to be afraid of the truth.

Thread closed, and if we must have cre(a)ti(o)nist (ain't I clever :p) threads in the future, they should be posted in the religion and/or weird and paranormal subfora, not in the education section, ffs.