I can prove God exists

[invest07]

This post expands on yesterday’s post because there is a very important point to be made here. The point is that evolution, as hypotheiszed, is a slow process and even assuming billions of years, there is nowhere near enough time for evolution to produce the highly complex DNA molecule. Evolution proceeds at a snail’s pace. Macroevolutionists have told us for 150 years that evolution can’t be observed because the mutations take many generations to assimilate into the general population. The problem with proceeding at a snail’s pace is that, even with billions of years, too many mutations are necessary to produce complex biological organisms. Even billions of years aren’t anywhere enough.

To illustrate, let’s look at the way evolution is alleged to work. A mutation, which is the initiator event for evolutionary, is a mistake during replication. Sort of a copying error. Somewhere during the process when the DNA molecule rips aparts and fuses back together one of the base pairs winds up corrupted. From an evolutionary viewpoint, there are 3 possible types of mutation/mistakes:

A. The ability of the individual to survive is enhanced.
B. The mutation/mistake is survival neutral.
C. The ability of the individual to survive is diminished.​

Mutations are rare. The frequency varies from one species to another and is also dependent on specific environmental conditions. Geneticists use a frequency of 1 in 10,000 as a reasonable figure for mutation/mistake frequency. The actual frequency will vary but this is a rough average.

And macroevolution is most concerned with Type A mutation/mistakes. Types B and C do not result in any improvement to the individual or the species. The frequency of Type A mutation/mistakes also varies from one species to another. And specific environmental conditions play a big role here. What improves a water bird’s ability to survive on a fresh water Canadian lake may harm their chance for survival in a southern brackish wetland. So the frequency of “good” (Type A) mutation/mistake also varies widely. A reasonable average for frequency of “good” mutation/mistakes is 1 in 1,000.

So it takes somewhere around 10 million reproductive events to produce one “good” Type A mutation/mistake.

(1,000 x 10,000 = 10,000,000).​

So now we have one individual who was born with a mutation/mistake that makes his/her DNA different from all peers. If that individual does survive to reproductive age and does reproduce, then the mutation/mistake has made it into the gene pool of this specific population. Now it is time for Natural Selection to take over and find out whether this mutation/mistake is a Type A, B or C. This will take several generations of exposure to predators and drought and famine and rainy seasons and disease to determine whether or not the mutation/mistake will survive or be weeded out of the gene pool by Natural Selection.

So how long does it take evolution to decide whether a mutation/mistake will survive or be weeded out? For bugs, which breed in great numbers, have a short lifetime and take a correspondingly short time to reach sexual maturity, my guess is that this might take as little as a year. Probably takes more but this estimate is a best case scenario to give evolutionists the benefit of every doubt.

Wild dogs breed with 3-7 in a litter, tend to have relatively small numbers of individuals in a population/pack and reach sexual maturity in a little over a year. Since it will take Natural Selection at least 30-40 generations (my estimation) to weed out the Type 3 mutation/mistakes, the time frame for wild dogs is probably somewhere in the 40-50 year range.

Humans deliver one baby at a time and take 11-14 years to reach sexual maturity, depending on the level of nutrition and what point in history you want to consider. Primitive man also tended to group in small tribes so the number of reproductive events would be much smaller for humans than for bugs. 30-40 generations for humans is somewhere in the 400-500 year range.

So it takes evolution maybe a year to process one mutation in bugs. It takes 40-50 years in mammals like wild dogs and 400-500 years to process one mutation/mistake in humans. And it takes around a thousand mutations to get one of the “good” Type A’s.

Translation: Evolution must repeat this process 1000 times to get the one “good” Type A and to eliminate the 999 “bad” Type C’s.

And if a significant evolutionary change requires several or maybe hundred’s of mistakes/mutations then the time frame is increased and increased and increased. Things just get slower and slower for evolution as it is hypothesized.

My post yesterday was a rough probability calculation of how many random mutation/mistakes would have to occur to produce a functional human DNA molecule. That number was 4 raised to the 6 billionth power. Even 100 of NASA’s faster computers combined couldn’t consider every one of those possibilities if they ran continuously for all of the 1.5 billion years. If evolution moved at a thousand times the speed of light, it still is not enough time. And every Darwinista you talk to says evolution is slow, slow, slow. More like a snail’s pace than the speed of light.

There is no way in Hell evolution ever produced any DNA molecule. Even with 1.5 billion years, ain’t nowhere near enough time.

And if DNA can’t be the result of naturalistic evolution, where did it come from?

 

[invest07]

coyote,
I understand that you think evolution started with a much simpler DNA (or DNA predecessor) molecule than present. But this does not change the fact that evolution would still have to put 6 billion chemicals in the right slot.
My contention is not fallacious.
Whether evolution puts all 6 billion in the right slot all at once or takes a few billion years to do it, all 6 billion have to wind up in the precise location.
If it takes a certain number of mutations to make a DNA molecule and evolution took it's time to do this, then let's divide the number of mutations necessary by the number of years taken and find out at what rate evolution has to average to do the job in the time permitted.
What you haven't realized yet is that there is not enough time, given the snail's pace at which evolution is alleged to work, to do the job. Even in 1.5 billion years. Even in 1.5 trillion, billion, gozillion, quadrillion, ad infinitum years there has not been enough time.
Evolution, which takes generation to assimilate even one change, can't possibly have put 6 billion cheimcals in the proper location in 1.5 billion years.
There is no way in Hell evolution ever produced any DNA molecule.

 

[Coyote]

coyote,
I understand that you think evolution started with a much simpler DNA (or DNA predecessor) molecule than present. But this does not change the fact that evolution would still have to put 6 billion chemicals in the right slot.
My contention is not fallacious.

Pardon me Invest, but you don't understand a darn thing. Evolution doesn't have to but all 6 billion plus into place at once. It only has to put the first two together. Then it has to put those two with a third. And maybe those 3 with another clump that evolved seperately. And it has a LOT of time to do it.

Whether evolution puts all 6 billion in the right slot all at once or takes a few billion years to do it, all 6 billion have to wind up in the precise location.
If it takes a certain number of mutations to make a DNA molecule and evolution took it's time to do this, then let's divide the number of mutations necessary by the number of years taken and find out at what rate evolution has to average to do the job in the time permitted.

The mathmatical progression for this would not be linear.

What you haven't realized yet is that there is not enough time, given the snail's pace at which evolution is alleged to work, to do the job. Even in 1.5 billion years. Even in 1.5 trillion, billion, gozillion, quadrillion, ad infinitum years there has not been enough time.

Again, it's not linear.

Evolution, which takes generation to assimilate even one change, can't possibly have put 6 billion cheimcals in the proper location in 1.5 billion years.
There is no way in Hell evolution ever produced any DNA molecule.

It most certainly could. And the evidence is right there.

 

[icono1]

The newtonian and einsteinian expression for energy are approximations of the SAME taylor infinite series E=mc^2 + 1/2mv^2 + ..... obtained by binomial expansion.

What you said is another way of seeing heisenberg's uncertainty principle - that either the position OR momentum may be known NOT both.

To invest07 and numinus; will check into Quant Theory.. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[r0beph]

coyote,
I understand that you think evolution started with a much simpler DNA (or DNA predecessor) molecule than present. But this does not change the fact that evolution would still have to put 6 billion chemicals in the right slot.
My contention is not fallacious.
Whether evolution puts all 6 billion in the right slot all at once or takes a few billion years to do it, all 6 billion have to wind up in the precise location.
If it takes a certain number of mutations to make a DNA molecule and evolution took it's time to do this, then let's divide the number of mutations necessary by the number of years taken and find out at what rate evolution has to average to do the job in the time permitted.
What you haven't realized yet is that there is not enough time, given the snail's pace at which evolution is alleged to work, to do the job. Even in 1.5 billion years. Even in 1.5 trillion, billion, gozillion, quadrillion, ad infinitum years there has not been enough time.
Evolution, which takes generation to assimilate even one change, can't possibly have put 6 billion cheimcals in the proper location in 1.5 billion years.
There is no way in Hell evolution ever produced any DNA molecule.

First of all as coyote said it is VERY VERY non-linear. There are multiple facets to DNA's evolution. And the speed inwhich asexual reproducing creatures mutate is exponential to sexual reproductive variants. Even in sexual reproductive species there's much more than just a migrant gene or a mutation during a single reproductive cycle. Entire "races" have obvious accelerated mutations/shifts due to specific environmental conditions. A good example of this is Sickle Cell Anemia, although a rather crappy thing to have in full effect, most cases don't exhibit sickle cells but still maintain the malaria resistance that the area requires for survival without modern medicine. This accelerated racial divergence would have occurred because those without it would quickly die off. In the normal populations free from malarial influence the dilution of the genes promoting malaria resistance and thus sickle cell anemia in the homozygous HgbS carriers, so it would be culled from the genome quickly due to inverse fitness. Basically since it neither matters good or bad, there is no fitness of the gene, negative (causing prereproductive deaths in high number typically) nor good (maintaining life to post reproductive years in a situation where the normal gene set is killed off, although many survive those who have the fit genes survive in a higher number overtime becoming the norm)

At the level of viruses mutation occurs so quickly that many stages of evolution can go by in a matter a years, or in some cases, months. The more complex, the longer it would take of course, every minor change wouldn't really be pronounced.

The problem I have here is that you attempt to use biased pseudo science to disprove something which while incomplete, in theory is most likely, so you can assert something that has ZERO empirical probability, and infact requires 100% faith. That sir is a failure.

 

[numinus]

I don't think he constitutes the basic foundation of rationalism. His theory on natural law was unresearched and anything but rational.

The concept of natural law was basis enough for john locke and his 2nd treatise of civil government - which, in turn, the american constitution copied almost verbatim.

 

[numinus]

The discussion has deteriorated into a unnecessarily complex argument argument.
For the sake of simplicity, concede that we are discussing God from the perspective of a Christian Fundamentalist. Given that, randomly select a few thousand terminally ill cancer patients. Divide them into random groups. Have one group pray for their lives. Have a control group do nothing, have another group meditate, have another be treated with current anti-cancer treatments, and so on. After a year compile the data, and do the test again with different subjects to see the results of the first test can be replicated.
I am sure that you will have a better indication of if God exists after the experiments than if you continue to argue upon the lines this discussion has taken.

It is unnecessarily complex because people insist on employing the scientific method in the metaphysical realm. The most rudimentary metaphysical thought experiment seeks to prove that the common-sense world has, at best, a FLUID EXISTENCE.

Einstein's special relativity says EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

The basic quantities in physics (mass, length and time) are frame of reference dependent. It doesn't matter if you use the wavelength of a particular radiation traveling in a vacuum, or the oscillating motion of a pendulum in a grandfather clock, or a piece of invar rod kept at constant temperature, the basis of ALL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT IS RELATIVE.

Lastly, there is nothing exclusively christian about metaphysics. It originated from the philosophy of the ancient pagan greeks. Christian, moslem and jewish thinkers are all common recipients and beneficiaries of this legacy. That you attempt to reduce the discussion into a question of christian fundamentalism is a poor argument, indeed.

 

[9sublime]

The concept of natural law was basis enough for john locke and his 2nd treatise of civil government - which, in turn, the american constitution copied almost verbatim.

Yes, thanks for the quick lesson on the history of moral ethics.
Moral law is fundamentally flawed, and everyone knows it today.

 

[numinus]

Yes, thanks for the quick lesson on the history of moral ethics.
Moral law is fundamentally flawed, and everyone knows it today.

If it is a fundamental flaw, then, it would be a simple matter to state the flaw, wouldn't it?

 

[9sublime]

I didnt state there was one flaw.

In my opinion anyway, natural law is based on the instincts of animals in the animal kingdom, intentionally or not.

The five tenents are all things animals and humans do to ensure the healthy survival of the race, apart from the last one. Believing in God in this respect in nothing to do with natural law, and is something that was thrown in.

Another flaw about natural law is that if its so natural, why isnt it always followd, at all times, all over the world? I have already stated examples in this thread or maybe another one about societies which practiced murder, cannabilsm and various other taboos and crimes as perfectly acceptable. This natural law is anything but universal, and the only reason that most of the worlds socities have always had similair behaviours is because they have been intertwined for so long. It is always the more remote of socities that practice what we regard as fundamentally wrong as a general rule.

 

[numinus]

I didnt state there was one flaw.

Then, by all means, state two, or how many else you can think of.

In my opinion anyway, natural law is based on the instincts of animals in the animal kingdom, intentionally or not.

That is not the natural law discussed by thomas acquainas.

Natural law are those laws that govern nature. Maxwell's equations are examples of natural law.

Nothing can be further than to state they are based on instincts.

The five tenents are all things animals and humans do to ensure the healthy survival of the race, apart from the last one. Believing in God in this respect in nothing to do with natural law, and is something that was thrown in.

You have totally misrepresented the concept of natural law, I don't even think this deserves a response.

Another flaw about natural law is that if its so natural, why isnt it always followd, at all times, all over the world? I have already stated examples in this thread or maybe another one about societies which practiced murder, cannabilsm and various other taboos and crimes as perfectly acceptable. This natural law is anything but universal, and the only reason that most of the worlds socities have always had similair behaviours is because they have been intertwined for so long. It is always the more remote of socities that practice what we regard as fundamentally wrong as a general rule.

And can you think of a natural law that you can break, hmm?

Do you break the laws of gravity or electro-magnetic propagation on a regular basis?

Can you act in a manner that is against what is in your nature to do?

 

[ArmChair General]

Thomas Aquainas was a rationalist - as are many scientific thinkers of history. Where do you suppose science would be without its basic foundation of rationalism, hmm?

Aquinas was intellectually dishonest. He either lied to himself or lied to everyone else. He was anything but rational.

 

[9sublime]

Then, by all means, state two, or how many else you can think of.

In the rest of my previous post I addressed the flaws, and you responded to them. Lets not get moronic.

That is not the natural law discussed by thomas acquainas.

Natural law are those laws that govern nature. Maxwell's equations are examples of natural law.

Nothing can be further than to state they are based on instincts.

Yes it is. Thomas Aquinas made 5 tenets of natural law, and the first four are clearly things which all animals in the animal kingdom as a general rule practice purely for the best surivival rate of their species. It does not take into account at all what humans posses, real emotion.

You have totally misrepresented the concept of natural law, I don't even think this deserves a response.

Well if you dont want to debate with me then why are you on here. How about you educate me on natural law?

And can you think of a natural law that you can break, hmm?

Do you break the laws of gravity or electro-magnetic propagation on a regular basis?

By natural laws, I mean laws that are preprogrammed into all living things, such as not killing youself, because that goes against the whole point of living in the first place.

Can you act in a manner that is against what is in your nature to do?

Yes, otherwise we wouldn't even need to consdier this topic.

aaaaaa

 

[ArmChair General]

It is unnecessarily complex because people insist on employing the scientific method in the metaphysical realm. The most rudimentary metaphysical thought experiment seeks to prove that the common-sense world has, at best, a FLUID EXISTENCE.

Einstein's special relativity says EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

The basic quantities in physics (mass, length and time) are frame of reference dependent. It doesn't matter if you use the wavelength of a particular radiation traveling in a vacuum, or the oscillating motion of a pendulum in a grandfather clock, or a piece of invar rod kept at constant temperature, the basis of ALL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT IS RELATIVE.

Lastly, there is nothing exclusively christian about metaphysics. It originated from the philosophy of the ancient pagan greeks. Christian, moslem and jewish thinkers are all common recipients and beneficiaries of this legacy. That you attempt to reduce the discussion into a question of christian fundamentalism is a poor argument, indeed.

The problem is that your trying to replace science with your metaphysical bull****, which comes from a western/christianized thought process, and people are calling you on it.

 

[invest07]

coyote

"Again, it's not linear."

And I am not contending that evolution is alleged to operate in a linear manner. The overall direction must be one way (higher levels of organization) but evolutionary theory allows for accelerations and decelerations.

My point is that over 1.5 billiion or so years, evolution must make progress toward the goal of 6 billion chems in the right slot and the average rate that must be maintained can be calculated.

If a teacher has 30 papers to grade and it is 4 days until grades are due, the teacher must maintain an average rate of grading 7.5 papers a day. This does not mean the teacher sits at his/her desk and grades papers for the entire 4 days. The teacher can grade a few in the morning and a few more at night. The teacher can even skip a day. The only critical thing is to maintain the overall average rate of 7.5/day.

Slower some times, faster others, but evolution must always be moving toward higher levels of organization all the time.

There is not enough time, even with 1.5 billion years. Even speeding up and slowing down, there is not enough time.

There is no where near enough time.

Whether evolution is hypothesized to behave in a linear manner or in spurts, there is no where near enough time.