Scientific Reasons For God



 Religions > Atheism > Scientific Reasons For God

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "stone"
Date: 05 May 2005 01:08:49 AM
Object: Scientific Reasons For God
The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the
probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that
designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10
million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a
billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times
as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and
mathematician.]
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder. The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy, that says disorder must increase in natural processes.
Therefore, one must conclude that the complex order that we see in the
universe did not come about by chance scientific processes. It was developed
on purpose by an intelligent creator. God created it.
The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat, that is
true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in
statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics. S=klnp + c.
S = value of measure for a system in a given state. P is the probability of
the occurence of that state. K is a fixed constant and c an arbitrary
constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a broader term describing
either heat or the amount of disorder in a system. The chemical reactions
that you suppose will produce hundreds of thousands of ordered building
blocks of amino acids to produce genes cannot occur by chance processes
because statistical mechanics says that the reactions will tend toward more
disorder. Genes and chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly
ordered parts. Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot
come from chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.
There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science,
that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance
occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural
occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the
physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not
lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some
sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado.
When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house.
They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An
intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get
ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed
scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.
Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to
environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to
another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that
is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes;
also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause
one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into
amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change
into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the
different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as
it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish
to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in
the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were
originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130
"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138
"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends
in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289
"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290
"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291
"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293
Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true,
the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms.
Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate
forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and
classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of
these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between
single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and
vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles,
between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates
and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record
has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps
are real; they will never be filled. ---
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must]
truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal
any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most
obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of
evolution].
Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural
History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November
1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like
humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed
as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of
such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is
incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no
yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of
upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest
with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in
Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional
forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with
your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions
in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have
included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a
persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore
highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which
prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
They’ve also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in
places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

.

User: "Arthur Samuels"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 03:59:10 AM
Oh, goodie. Probability. I'm something of a part-time professional
gambler. I'll take the first crack at this one.
stone wrote:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its

BZZZZTTT!! You CANNOT - repeat CANNOT - use probability AFTER the
fact. Either you made your flush on the river or you didn't. There is no
more probability involved. That's like a lottery winner deciding he
didn't win because it was so unlikely.
BTW, stone, if you DO win a big lottery ticket, it was obviously
impossible, so send it to me, please.

In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be

<snip>

designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.

That would be "odds", not probability. If it even applied, which it
doesn't. See above.
[discussion of entropy]

universe did not come about by chance scientific processes. It was developed
on purpose by an intelligent creator. God created it.

Essentially, you are saying that someone "wound up the clock" which
is now running down. That analogy is comparing potential energy to
entropy, which is not all that accurate, but close enough.
Great. Who wound up this deity of yours? You have entered the
infinite regress. In order to explain where the order came from, you
posit a deity. However, this deity must be well ordered, right? Where
did His/Her/Its low entropy level come from? If you can have a deity
that started at a low entropy level out of nowhere, then you can have a
Universe do the same. No need for a deity. Occam's razor.

The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat, that is
true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in

Heat is just the ultimate disordered state. More specifically,
uniform heat.

There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science,
that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance

But your God has ordered complexity that appeared out of nowhere? Or
always existed?

Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to
environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to
another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that
is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes;

Actually, at least one instance of macro-evolution has been observed.
Google it. Furthermore, we have a relatively stable ecosystem now. There
is no need for major species divergence now. There is some evidence
that widespread macro-evolution takes place only when really needed
(such as after a major shakeup like a big meteor strike). For instance,
we mammals really only started popping up after the dinosaurs got
whacked. That is something of a speculation on my part; perhaps a real
biologist can clarify (or tell me I'm an idiot). My specialty is math
and physics.

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The

Once again, you can't use probability after the fact. One possible
fallacy in your math is this: who says that this particular arrangement
of atoms that we have now is the only one that works for life? What if,
say, 20% of all the possible combinations lead to viable biochemistry?
Any life scientists out there to help me on this one?
Even if my pure speculation is wrong, all that is required are some
heretofore unknown physical laws. Science doesn't claim to know
everything. Unlike some people I've met.

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."

Oh, yeah? What about the X-Men? Huh? Explain them!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
So that probably just means that the 'random mutation' theory is an
oversimplification of the real process. Science is more than happy to
admit being wrong (not usually scientists, unfortunately) if and when
new hypotheses and theories fit the observed facts better. Are you
willing to change any parts of your dogma?
<Snip many quotes about the flaws in current knowledge of evolution>
OK. Let's say that all those are valid points. They may well be. To
ask for a complete understanding of something as complex as life at our
current level of knowledge is a bit much.
Here's the acid test:
A rational scientist will look at that and conclude: "It may be time
to start refining the theory, apply new data, do new investigations, and
maybe even consider junking the old theory and try to construct better one."
A creationist will look at that and conclude: "Therefore, there's an
invisible man living in the sky with magic powers, and snakes can talk!"
Can you detect the credibility difference there?
.

User: "JTEM"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 02:22:34 AM
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe
with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come
into being by chance.

Only if you're hearing voices.
I understand that they have medications for that now.

The probability against that happening by chance is
very very high.

Not really, no.

It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting
him hit the keys at random.

Hardly.

The probability against his being able to type a small
library full of books by hitting keys at random is so
high that for all practical purposes you can consider
it impossible.

Then again, your comparison is so intentionally dishonest
that you should be ashamed of yourself.
DNA is nothing like a book. DNA isn't written, it's
formed. DNA that is no good results in the death of
an organism, and the failure of the DNA to be passed
on.
And there isn't just one single strand of DNA either.
There's billions of them, if not hundreds upon hundreds
of billions of strands of DNA, all in the hundreds upon
hundreds of billions of organisms that are alive right
now, and have lived in the past 2 to 4 billion years.
So, an honest comparison -- something that'll no doubt
offend you -- is billions of chimps all sitting at keyboards
for several billion years, with only their successful
attempts at typing proper, coherent words being recorded.
But that hardly seems so remarkable at all, does it?
Billions of chimps typing for billions of years, with
only their successful attempts at proper words being
recorded. From there it gets more complicated, but
given the circumstances -- all those billions of chimps
and the billions of years they have to work, with only
their successes being recorded -- it's a given that the
words are going to eventually pile up into sentences,
the sentences into paragraphs, and finally the
paragraphs into stories.
Unsuccessful DNA dies. There's extinction, yes,
but even extinction requires some success on the
part of the DNA. It had to form a species in the
first place in order for that species to go extinct.
Individual organisms die. They die all the time.
By the countless billions, they die.
Even if you don't want to count the simple virus
as a life form, there's still bacteria. And then
there's all the multi-celled creatures that have
died over the last few billion years. Even the
most successful species has countless individuals
that die -- or were never even born alive --
because of some "genetic defect," because there
DNA had mistakes, "didn't form proper sentences."
Please try honesty for a change.
.

User: "Steve"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 02:07:31 AM
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com...
<snipped>

The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is

the

measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science **always** tend toward more disorder. (emphasis mine)

If you think this is correct... do you also think that your god is
*continually* providing imput into the universe to go against entropy?

The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy, that says disorder must increase in natural processes.

Ditto

Therefore, one must conclude that the complex order that we see in the
universe did not come about by chance scientific processes. It was

developed

on purpose by an intelligent creator. God created it.
The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat, that is
true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in
statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics. S=klnp + c.
S = value of measure for a system in a given state. P is the probability of
the occurence of that state. K is a fixed constant and c an arbitrary
constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a broader term describing
either heat or the amount of disorder in a system. The chemical reactions
that you suppose will produce hundreds of thousands of ordered building
blocks of amino acids to produce genes cannot occur by chance processes
because statistical mechanics says that the reactions will tend toward more
disorder. Genes and chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly
ordered parts. Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot
come from chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.

Is your creator *complex* ? If so who or what designed it..after
all.....anything complex must have a designer...right ?
Steve
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

User: "Fester"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 06:27:14 AM
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com...

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an
intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library
full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.

If an event has a probability of 1 in a zillion chance of occurring, and 10
zillion trials occur, then it is likely that the event will occur in at
least one of those trials. Prior to the initial event that caused our
universe, how many quantum disturbances occurred which did not form a
universe? It's like giving each of a billion immortal chimps a typewriter.
After a billion years one could expect that one of them will have produced
your library.

Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are
forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that
these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the
probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator,
that
designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the
living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.

Except that the smaller parts could have (and in fact evidence supports
this) assembled themselves beforehand. Stable hydrocabon chains have been
shown to form spontaineously in nature. Furthermore, the single cell you
are referring to is not the simplest needed for life.

Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10
million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a
billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten
times
as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer
and
mathematician.]
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is
the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder. The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy, that says disorder must increase in natural processes.
Therefore, one must conclude that the complex order that we see in the
universe did not come about by chance scientific processes. It was
developed
on purpose by an intelligent creator. God created it.
The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat, that is
true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in
statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics. S=klnp +
c.
S = value of measure for a system in a given state. P is the probability
of
the occurence of that state. K is a fixed constant and c an arbitrary
constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a broader term describing
either heat or the amount of disorder in a system. The chemical reactions
that you suppose will produce hundreds of thousands of ordered building
blocks of amino acids to produce genes cannot occur by chance processes
because statistical mechanics says that the reactions will tend toward
more
disorder. Genes and chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly
ordered parts. Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot
come from chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.

Entorpy does not say that disorder increases over time. It says that in a
closed system energy moves from higher to lower states of time. In the
course of doing so, energy may accumulate in localized portions of that
system. In other words, part of a closed system may draw energy and
increased order by consuming "fuel" from other parts of that system.

There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science,
that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance
occurences.

We see it all the time. Ever see a crystal?

In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural
occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words,
the
physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do
not
lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of
some
sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a
tornado.
When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house.
They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An
intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get
ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed
scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.

Please reread my debunking of your entropy canard above.

Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to
environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to
another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all
that
is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes;
also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause
one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into
amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change
into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the
different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record
as
it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for
fish
to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found
in
the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were
originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

Of course natural selection alone cannot account for origins of species.
Mutations must occur to be selected.
<snip redundant quotes from your illogical source>
A recurring theme in your rant is that the odds of a functioning complex
system arising fully formed from nothing are impossibly low. No shite!
Fortunately, noone but a theist would make any such claim (or did your gawd
evolve somehow?). Science has desribed the processes whereby nature has
assembled complexity from less complex raw materials and how complexity has
grudually accuulated over time.
.

User: "Nog"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 08:11:53 AM
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com...

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an
intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library
full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are
forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that
these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the
probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator,
that
designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the
living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10
million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a
billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten
times
as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer
and
mathematician.]
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is
the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder. The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy, that says disorder must increase in natural processes.
Therefore, one must conclude that the complex order that we see in the
universe did not come about by chance scientific processes. It was
developed
on purpose by an intelligent creator. God created it.
The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat, that is
true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in
statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics. S=klnp +
c.
S = value of measure for a system in a given state. P is the probability
of
the occurence of that state. K is a fixed constant and c an arbitrary
constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a broader term describing
either heat or the amount of disorder in a system. The chemical reactions
that you suppose will produce hundreds of thousands of ordered building
blocks of amino acids to produce genes cannot occur by chance processes
because statistical mechanics says that the reactions will tend toward
more
disorder. Genes and chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly
ordered parts. Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot
come from chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.


There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science,
that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance
occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural
occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words,
the
physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do
not
lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of
some
sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a
tornado.
When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house.
They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An
intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get
ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed
scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.


Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to
environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to
another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all
that
is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes;
also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause
one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into
amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change
into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the
different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record
as
it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for
fish
to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found
in
the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were
originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution",
Trends
in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293

Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true,
the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms.
Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate
forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and
classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of
these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between
single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and
vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles,
between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates
and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record
has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps
are real; they will never be filled. ---

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must]
truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal
any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most
obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of
evolution].


Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural
History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November
1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like
humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed
as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of
such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is
incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have
no
yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of
upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest
with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in
Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of
transitional
forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with
your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary
transitions
in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have
included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument."

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a
persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140



Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly
small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore
highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which
prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

They've also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata,
in
places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.






_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>

God doesn't do science. He is a politician. Created by stupid ignorant men
who feared their own shadow.
.
User: "Ismael C."

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 06:14:21 PM
Nog wrote:

"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote in message
news:4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com...

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an
intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library
full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are
forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that
these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the
probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator,
that
designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the
living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10
million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a
billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten
times
as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer
and
mathematician.]
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is
the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder. The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy, that says disorder must increase in natural processes.
Therefore, one must conclude that the complex order that we see in the
universe did not come about by chance scientific processes. It was
developed
on purpose by an intelligent creator. God created it.
The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat, that is
true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in
statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics. S=klnp +
c.
S = value of measure for a system in a given state. P is the probability
of
the occurence of that state. K is a fixed constant and c an arbitrary
constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a broader term describing
either heat or the amount of disorder in a system. The chemical reactions
that you suppose will produce hundreds of thousands of ordered building
blocks of amino acids to produce genes cannot occur by chance processes
because statistical mechanics says that the reactions will tend toward
more
disorder. Genes and chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly
ordered parts. Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot
come from chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.


There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science,
that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance
occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural
occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words,
the
physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do
not
lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of
some
sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a
tornado.
When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house.
They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An
intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get
ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed
scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.


Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to
environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to
another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all
that
is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes;
also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause
one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into
amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change
into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the
different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record
as
it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for
fish
to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found
in
the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were
originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution",
Trends
in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293

Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true,
the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms.
Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate
forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and
classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of
these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the
Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between
single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and
vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles,
between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates
and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record
has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps
are real; they will never be filled. ---

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must]
truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every
stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal
any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most
obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of
evolution].


Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural
History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November
1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like
humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed
as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of
such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is
incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have
no
yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of
upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest
with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in
Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of
transitional
forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with
your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary
transitions
in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have
included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument."

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been
a
persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140



Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to the
coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly
small.
The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore
highly improbable even on the scale of the billions of years during which
prebiotic evolution is speculated to have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31

They've also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata,
in
places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua and near the palaxi river in the US.






_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>



God doesn't do science. He is a politician. Created by stupid ignorant men
who feared their own shadow.



Or maybe by a really smart person who wanted to control people by
telling them that he was communicating with a all-powerfull dude...
or maybe that person just wanted to have some fun watching how people
would belive anything he said.
--
Ismael Cortés V. (ismael.SP@M.bluebottle.net)
Alt.Atheism: 2197 PGP KeyID: 0x6CE5D4C9
PGP Fingerprint: 3BE6 1F40 6860 3349 23EB 11C6 855F F56B 6CE5 D4C9
Public key is available at: http://arn.espora.org/~theOffset/pubkey/
==================================================================
If the message is OpenPGP or S/MIME signed then you can trust its
origin almost totaly.
Si el mensaje esta firmado con OpenPGP o S/MIME entonces puedes
confiar en su origen casi totalmente
.


User: "Ike"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 08:41:49 AM

Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are
forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.

Logic alone doesn't exist in a vacuum like the one inside your skull.
.

User: "Don Kresch"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 07:12:18 AM
In alt.atheism on 5 May 2005 06:08:49 GMT, "stone"
<antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> let us all know that:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance

The laws of probability will tell you that god, with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.
[snip special plead]
Oh look--nothing was written but a special plead.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "Virgil"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 01:38:34 AM
In article <4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com>,
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.

Laws of probability could at most say that something is unlikely, never
impossible. So 'stone' is off on the wrong foot in his first sentence.

To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator.

To have as much bad design prohibits the possibility of anything but a
poor designer or no designer.
Consider the vermiform appendix, for example.

There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books.


Then why does the majority of that code say nothing?

This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.

Actually, if it were consciously designed, it had to be by someone with
little or nothing to say but a compulsion to say it at great lenght.
The rest of stone's post was equally dogmatic and equally wrong. Anyone
who wishes to go through the pain of reading it all may Google for it.
.
User: "JTEM"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 02:34:33 AM
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote

Laws of probability could at most say that something
is unlikely, never impossible. So 'stone' is off on
the wrong foot in his first sentence.

I don't know about that. I checked the winning lottery
number the other day, and did you know the odds
against THAT number coming up were in the millions?
Seriously.
The odds against that particular number coming up
were in the *Millions*. It couldn't have come up
by chance not with all those odds stacks against it,
not all those odds against that one particular number
just happening to come up.
I'll tell you, it spooky!
.


User: "*nemo*"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 04:08:43 AM
In article <4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com>,
"stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.

Is that so? What would these laws of probability tell you about the
liklihood that a *GAWD!* that would obviously need to be far more
ordered and complex could have come into existence beforehand?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.

User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 02:08:21 PM
In article <4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com>,
stone <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator.

Complexity is evidence against design, not for it. Designed things are
made no more complex than is required for them to serve their purpose.
--
David Canzi
.

User: "Frank J Warner"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 03:18:40 PM
In article <4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com>, stone
<antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> wrote:

The laws of probability

You're too stupid to have been intelligently designed.
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 08:23:38 AM
In our last episode <4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com>, stone
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.

Nothing here but nonsensical prattling about a strawman...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
User: "wcb"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 10:54:10 PM
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

In our last episode <4279b871_3@news1.uncensored-news.com>, stone
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.


Nothing here but nonsensical prattling about a strawman...

There is a problem here. Either the Universe came about
from purely physical means or it was created. But god
is a self destructing idea that fails because its simple
claims do self destruct. Since god as defined as creator of all,
omniscient and omnibenevolent, fails, god does not exist
and cannot have created the Universe. Thus science with its claim
god had nothing to do with this universe, wins.
If the dimwits really want to push this crap since Bush won,
they may well be winning some pyrric victories here.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.


User: "Blue"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 08:04:17 AM
It comes down to faith; faith is the ability to believe in something
without proof.
The original argument by stone falls down due to his own reasoning.
"The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of
it's
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have
that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an
intelligent
Creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator"
By this reasoning for such complexity to exist there must be a God.
Well for a God to exist that is able to devise such complexity, he/she
must also have been created by someone. This goes in a vicious circle
forever.
Stand firm in your faith and pity those who can not believe in
something without proof.
I don't need proof, nor have the need to prove it to anyone else,
because I know.
I do not want to convert the unbelievers; I do not want my beliefs to
be in the majority.
Judge me by my actions, not my membership to a religious group.
.
User: "thomas p"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 12:36:50 PM
On 5 May 2005 06:04:17 -0700, "Blue" <julian.grigg@gmail.com> wrote:

It comes down to faith; faith is the ability to believe in something
without proof.
The original argument by stone falls down due to his own reasoning.

"The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of
it's
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have
that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an
intelligent
Creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator"

By this reasoning for such complexity to exist there must be a God.
Well for a God to exist that is able to devise such complexity, he/she
must also have been created by someone. This goes in a vicious circle
forever.

Stand firm in your faith and pity those who can not believe in
something without proof.

Wonderful! You owe me 10,000 dollars. I have no proof, but that's
okay, right? You pity people who will not believe something without
proof. Pay up.

I don't need proof, nor have the need to prove it to anyone else,
because I know.
I do not want to convert the unbelievers; I do not want my beliefs to
be in the majority.
Judge me by my actions, not my membership to a religious group.

I judge you by your failure to be honest even with yourself.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.


User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For the invisible man in the sky 05 May 2005 06:09:52 AM
It's a shame that your lives are so pathetic that you feel you must worship
an invisible man in the sky.
heaven, it's the magical mystery fantasy land.
.

User: "Vic Sagerquist"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 04:16:48 PM
On 04 May 2005, stone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.

What ordered complexity? The universe is as random as randomness gets.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
User: "duke"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 05:15:25 PM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:16:48 -0500, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:

On 04 May 2005, stone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.


What ordered complexity? The universe is as random as randomness gets.

Well, that certainly describes your brains.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
User: "Vic Sagerquist"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 07:12:03 PM
On 05 May 2005, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:16:48 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:

On 04 May 2005, stone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of
its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.


What ordered complexity? The universe is as random as randomness
gets.


Well, that certainly describes your brains.

Ha! Is that the best you could do, O brainless one?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
User: "thomas p"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 06 May 2005 11:43:09 AM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 19:12:03 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:

On 05 May 2005, duke dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

On Thu, 05 May 2005 16:16:48 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:

On 04 May 2005, stone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of
its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance.


What ordered complexity? The universe is as random as randomness
gets.


Well, that certainly describes your brains.


Ha! Is that the best you could do, O brainless one?

Duke, the master of the inane.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.




User: "thomas p"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 09:07:37 AM
On 5 May 2005 06:08:49 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator.

There is no law that says any such thing.
There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to

fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.

Who says so?
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.

User: "raven1"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 01:43:28 AM
On 5 May 2005 06:08:49 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.

If complexity=design, you're begging the question of who or what
designed said intelligent creator. Try again.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 02:18:39 AM
raven1 wrote:

On 5 May 2005 06:08:49 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of

its

ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To

have that

much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an

intelligent

creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome

to

fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.


If complexity=design, you're begging the question of who or what
designed said intelligent creator. Try again.

You're misusing the term "begging the question." It doesn't mean
"suggesting the question."
Having said that, the OP doesn't know what he's talking about.
.


User: "IAAH"

Title: Re: Scientific Reasons For God 05 May 2005 07:52:38 AM
On 5 May 2005 06:08:49 GMT, "stone" <antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com>
wrote:

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its
ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that
much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent
creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit
the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full
of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.

Let's see, the usual mangling of statistics to arrive at a faulty
conclusion.

Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced
to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be
assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are
assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these
complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is
extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The
probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small,
that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the
probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that
designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living
cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10
million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a
billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times
as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and
mathematician.]

The usual mangling of statistics AND chemistry to arrive at a faulty
conclusion.

The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy is the
measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is always
observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural processes in
science always tend toward more disorder. The idea that the universe could
develope the ordered complexity that it has, by natural processes violates
the law of entropy, that says disorder must increase in natural processes.
Therefore, one must conclude that the complex order that we see in the
universe did not come about by chance scientific processes. It was developed
on purpose by an intelligent creator. God created it.
The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat, that is
true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system in
statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics. S=klnp + c.
S = value of measure for a system in a given state. P is the probability of
the occurence of that state. K is a fixed constant and c an arbitrary
constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a broader term describing
either heat or the amount of disorder in a system. The chemical reactions
that you suppose will produce hundreds of thousands of ordered building
blocks of amino acids to produce genes cannot occur by chance processes
because statistical mechanics says that the reactions will tend toward more
disorder. Genes and chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly
ordered parts. Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot
come from chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.

The usual mangling of physics to come up with a faulty conclusion.



There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science,
that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance
occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural
occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the
physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not
lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some
sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado.
When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house.
They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An
intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get
ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed
scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself.

More mangling of physics with just a soupcon of mangled statistics.



Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to
environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to
another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that
is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark