Martian:

Lol, your quote refers to the sun as a HE, are you sure it's not talking about a person. In fact, that verse makes no sense.

I can understand why it will make no sense to you.  Let us go back to what you can understand which was your second option as to the possibility of the cause of the universe:

2. The univese has always existed (no beginning): 

Lets go to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that basically teaches that "the whole universe is losing usable energy for doing usable work."  This means that the usable energy in this universe is wearing down.  The universe as a whole is losing energy.  In other words, molecules as a whole are slowing down.

Therefore, if this universe was eternal we will be in what is called a "virtual heat death."  This means that there will be virtually no molecular movement.  Everything would have lost its available heat energy for doing work.  Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, it must have had a beginning.  The theory that the universe has always existed or is eternal has to be false based on the law of science and logic, another speculation gone with the air.  This leaves us with only one possiblility based on science.  Which is:

3. The universe was created: 

"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1

The 2nd law of thermodynamics, the creationists best scientific friend. Lol
The universe has a beginning, no argument there. The beginning  proposed by scientists is the big bang theory as we all know. But since science is suddenly your ally, let's talk about the second law then from a scientist's perspective.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, at its core, is a mathematical equation. Put into words it states: entropy of matter (or energy) in a closed system has a tendency to increase and entropy will never decrease. In an effort to simplify, or rather illustrate its base meaning, countless metaphors have been offered as real life examples of the 2nd law in action (e.g. a rotting corpse, an open container of alcohol, a burning match). The problem is, virtually all of these metaphors fail to account for variables outside of an open system. This is why scientists often apply the 2nd law to a "closed system". This isn't to say entropy only increases in a closed system. All matter is subject to the 2nd law. But the entropy increase of energy observed in a closed system is known to be unaffected by entropy outside of the system. This is not the case in a real world application. The real world is not a closed system. As the entropy of one system increases, it will have a direct effect on everything around it and may cause the entropy of matter outside itself to decrease, although always to a lesser degree than its own entropy increase. This isn't a violation of the 2nd law in any way. Entropy decreases locally, within a larger shared system (planet Earth), innumerable times at every instant. This occurs only because the entropy of other matter in an open system is increasing. When addressing the entropy decrease of matter, metaphors function much better. It's far more logical to account for variables than to shrug them off because they violate a foregone conclusion. A common example (an appropriate metaphor for entropy decrease) would be the process of photosynthesis. As the entropy of The Sun increases, its energy disperses. Some of this energy is then synthesized (entropy decreases) by green plants and thus organized and converted to usable energy. Theists attempting to use the 2nd law as a means to prove the existence of "God" neglect the very real process of entropy decrease. Instead they try to explain entropy increase as an event only taking place in isolation, leaving no room for naturally occurring entropy decrease. Again, the real world is not a closed system.How could theists possibly make such a blatant error? Their interpretation of The Second Law of Thermodynamics is incomplete. The theist take on the 2nd law goes something like this: "because matter moves towards maximum entropy the eventuality of chaos will never lead to order". This is indeed true in a closed system, but the explanation doesn't address the nature of the system. Put simply, the logic is applied to the wrong system. If the theist version of the 2nd law were an actuality, water would never freeze. Diamonds would never form. Flowers would never bloom. These are all examples of chaos leading to order due to localized decreases in entropy resulting from matter existing in an open system. The theist interpretation of The Second Law of Thermodynamics belies itself. If it were correct, you wouldn't be reading this right now.

In the beginning god created heaven and the earth- genesis 1:1
I wonder why it doesn't say the universe. I guess you accept  thermodynamics because you feel it helps your cause. The scientists are probably deceiving you with it too and you're falling for it.
Okay, when did god create "the heaven and the earth"? And does this heaven mean space or the universe?

In the beginning shango brought down his double headed axe and the heaven and the earth were created. Makes as much sense as genesis 1:1 doesn't it?Of course I made it up, at least I can admit it.

Also, you haven't addressed dum diversas and romanus pontifex, two of the most significant contributions of the church of god.

Martian:

The 2nd law of thermodynamics, the creationists best scientific friend. Lol
The universe has a beginning, no argument there. The beginning proposed by scientists is the big bang theory as we all know. But since science is suddenly your ally, let's talk about the second law then from a scientist's perspective.

It is good that you have now conceded that the universe could not have created itself, so that point is dead in the waters as you have agreed that the universe has a beginning. You insists that "scientists" proposed the the big bang theory but you have failed to tell us what cause the matter to go bang in the first place. Let's talk about real science here and not the lies being promoted by those who propagate false science.

Before you run off with a false sense of what it means about the 2nd law of thermodynamics lets understand some basics about this scientific law. This law is concerned with heat, that is, the flow of thermal energy. Everything in the universe is losing its available energy to do work. Let me break it down to what we can all understand. Have you heard of promotions or Ads of "No Refills."? Supposing you have just been given a new car for free! All expenses for the lifetime of the car are alreadyu paid for. However, there is one catch. You are only allowed to have one tank of petrol and never allowed to refill the tank. Once you have driven the car and used up all the petrol, the car can no longer be used for transportation. In other words, the petrol (energy source) has been used up and cannot be reused to propel the car. This is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics deals with.

Likewise, the universe is constantly converting useful energy into less usable forms and unless the universe obtains new useable energy from an outside source, it will cease to function in a finite amount of time. You must note that there is no "outside source" available. According to you the universe is everything. Like the car, the universe would cease to function after its first "petrol tank" is exhausted. But if the universe is infinitely old, it should have used up that energy a long time ago. The fact that the universe still contains useable energy indicates that it is not infinitely old and thus had a beginning.

Therefore, since the universe could not create itself and it had to have a beginning, the only logical solution is that the universe had to be created! This brings us back to our original question, "Where did the matter come from to create the universe?" Any response you give that does not recognise that the universe was created ignores the laws of science and good logic.

We already agreed that it had a beginning, you're the one that said your god created it by quoting your little book. I said, I don't know the ultimate cause of why the expansion happened approximately 17billion years ago according to people who study this kind of stuff. How would you know the universe should have used up the energy when human technology hasn't yet figured out how to get out of our own solar system. The universe is too vast for you to claim it's a closed system and the energy should be used up by now. That's that Christian vanity again. "we are humans made in the image of the god billions of people don't believe in" and everything is about us.

About your analogy, all you have to do is go to the nearest gas station for a refill. Actually petroleum is an example of entropy decrease because petroleum is "fossil fuel".there's no outside source needed there, just human ingenuity and the open system nature of the solar system. Fossils of dead organisms from millions of years ago, the same fossils that shouldn't exist because god made the "heaven and the earth" 6000 years ago.   

Since you claim infallible knowledge about what created it, I asked you at the end about when "the heaven and the earth were created" according genesis 1:1, since you know for certain. You just skim the post and keep going on and on about what we agreed on, why don't you answer when it was created. Don't abandon science now though.

Since you're going to revert back to your bible, what does it mean by the "heaven and the earth", because that sounds like your bible writers felt the earth was the only significant cosmological body and "tne heaven" was just everything else in the firmament.

I said before that the difference between us is that I'm not afraid to say I don't know something yet while you  keep going, "god did it". Your knowledge is infallible because the bible says so, so when did god do it according to the bible?

Martian:

We already agreed that it had a beginning, you're the one that said your god created it by quoting your little book. I said, I don't know the ultimate cause of why the expansion happened approximately 17billion years ago according to people who study this kind of stuff. How would you know the universe should have used up the energy when human technology hasn't yet figured out how to get out of our own solar system. The universe is too vast for you to claim it's a closed system and the energy should be used up by now. That's that Christian vanity again. "we are humans made in the image of the god billions of people don't believe in" and everything is about us.

In trying to establish whether your evolutionary faith has any foundation we've displayed that you are yet to show any. No clue as to how the universe started, the use of false experiment to deceive students on how the building blocks of life is supposed to have started, you first chose the first option, which is that created itself and later that the universe has always existed all which has been proved to be unscientific, irrational and illogical. This has left us with the last option which means that the universe was created.

Based on science there can only be one possibility, which is the third option, the universe was created. And this brings us to the solid foundation which is written in God's Word and in His creation. The Bible in the book of Genesis says: "At the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The principle of certainty comes into play here. Since you believe that the universe does not need a Creator and yet you don't have a clue as to how it came to be, evolution therefore, qualifies as a religion because they don't know all the facts. But Christianity is an evidence based faith, our faith is not a substitute for evidence but I believe it because I don't know all the facts. The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is that I know the One who knows it all and Who was there when He created all things. I have a personal relationship with the One who knows it all and who is absolutely certain. Now tell me which is the superior faith, evolution based on uncertainty or Christianity based on creation and absolute certainty?

If evolution is unable to explain the origin of matter and energy through naturalistic means, then it is a faith without a foundation. Why should I accept evolution or the big bang theory when you cannot produce the evidence? I already have a faith. Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith and by the way would you tell me what your faith has to offer me and I will tell you what my faith in Jesus Christ will offer you.

So therefore, it is logical, rational and reasonable to believe that God, not unknown magical events, created the universe.

OLAADEGBU:

In trying to establish whether your evolutionary faith has any foundation we've displayed that you are yet to show any.  No clue as to how the universe started, the use of false experiment to deceive students on how the building blocks of life is supposed to have started, you first chose the first option, which is that created itself and later that the universe has always existed all which has been proved to be unscientific, irrational and illogical.  This has left us with the last option which means that the universe was created.

Based on science there can only be one possibility, which is the third option, the universe was created.  And this brings us to the solid foundation which is written in God's Word and in His creation.  The Bible in the book of Genesis says: "At the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."   The principle of certainty comes into play here.  Since you believe that the universe does not need a Creator and yet you don't have a clue as to how it came to be, evolution therefore, qualifies as a religion because they don't know all the facts.  But Christianity is an evidence based faith, our faith is not a substitute for evidence but I believe it because I don't know all the facts.  The difference between a creationist and an evolutionist is that I know the One who knows it all and Who was there when He created all things.  I have a personal relationship with the One who knows it all and who is absolutely certain.  Now tell me which is the superior faith, evolution based on uncertainty or Christianity based on creation and absolute certainty? 

If evolution is unable to explain the origin of matter and energy through naturalistic means, then it is a faith without a foundation.  Why should I accept evolution or the big bang theory when you cannot produce the evidence?  I already have a faith.  Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith and by the way would you tell me what your faith has to offer me and I will tell you what my faith in Jesus Christ will offer you.

So therefore, it is logical, rational and reasonable to believe that God, not unknown magical events, created the universe.

This is what I get for arguing with a creationist. Evolution is not based on faith but it is biological science that explains the diversity and uniformity of life. There is evidence, even the fossil fuel you used in one of your analogies points to the age of the planet and the fact that countless organisms already lived and died on this earth before humanity became civilized enough to start making up religions and gods to try to explain life. I thought we already established that. It doesn't try to to explain the how the universe was created!! I'm done beating my head against a wall.

But I see you keep trying to avoid the question of when "the heavens and the earth were created" like I've asked countless times now.
You claim you know, so pray tell when they were created based on your scientifically accurate bible. You have a personal relationship with the guy who created them, can you ask him to tell you when he did it?

You moved the goal post so many times now, it's astounding. So you win, your invisible friend did it.

Martian:

About your analogy, all you have to do is go to the nearest gas station for a refill. Actually petroleum is an example of entropy decrease because petroleum is "fossil fuel".there's no outside source needed there, just human ingenuity and the open system nature of the solar system. Fossils of dead organisms from millions of years ago, the same fossils that shouldn't exist because god made the "heaven and the earth" 6000 years ago.

I believe you understand the conditions I gave in that analogy and I will surprised if you have not heard about "No Refills" Ads before. Like I said earlier, the universe is constantly converting useful energy into useable forms and another example is when stars are fueled by hydrogen gas that is used up as it is converted into heavier elements, but the problem is this, for any given region of space, there is only a finite amount of available energy. There is just only so much hydrogen available per cubic metre. This means that unless the universe obtains new usable energy from an outside source, it will still stop functioning in a finite amount of time. Stars will no longer be possible, once the hydrogen is gone. If stars have eternally been processing hydrogen into heavier elements, then there would be no hydrogen left! That's why I concluded that the universe is not infinitely old because the universe still contains usable energy.

The Bible has all the answers to man's questions

God who has all the answers because He was there to observe and has given us the answers not only in creation but in His Holy Word, The Bible. The answers as to who created, what was created, how it was created, when it was created and how long it took for Him to create:

1. Who created?------------God

2. What was created? ----All things

3. How was it created?--- By His Power

4. When was it created?—In the beginning

5. How long did it take to
Create?------------------- 6 days

Some top and highly qualified Hebrew scholars, who are called lexigraphers wrote in the most widely recognised Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries, published in the 20th century says that the creation days written in the book of Genesis are literal days.

Below is a partial list of scientists who believe in the Bible's account of creation as is recorded in the Bible and through their professional fields have come to the scientific conclusion that confirms the Bible's account:

Danny Faulkner Ph.D. Astronomy
John Byl Ph.D. Astronomy
Tom Greene Ph.D. Astronomy
James Dire Ph.D. Astrophysics
Dave Harrison Ph.D. Astrophysics
Steven Boyd Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Floyd Nolen Jones Th.D., Ph.D. Author of Chronology of the Old Testament
Herb Hirt Ph.D. Biblical Exposition
Robert Cole Ph.D. Semitic languages
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon
Georgia Purdon Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Duane Gish Ph.D. Biochemistry
David Menton Ph.D. Cell Biology
Donald Chittick Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
Tom Greene Ph.D. Astronomy
Jason Lisle Ph.D. Astrophysics
Russell Humphreys Ph.D Physics
Don DeYoung Ph.D. Physics
Terry Mortenson Ph.D. History of Geology
John baumgardner Ph.D. Geophysics
Bob Compton Ph.D. Physiology, DVM
Andy McIntosh Ph.D. Combustion Theory
John Johnson Ph.D. Mathematics
Tommy Mitchel M.D.
Andrew Snelling Ph.D. Geology
Emil Silvestre Ph.D. Geology
Esther Su Ph.D. Biochemistry
David DeWitt Ph.D. Neuroscience

Indescribeable

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE0yUobk6TM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

And above all is the One who knows it all with absolute certainty and has recorded it in His own caligraphy:

God Almighty 

The Ten Commandments

(Exodus 20:11;God created all things by Jesus Christ. Gen.1:1; Colossians1:15-18,20; John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Heb.1:1-2; 11:3)

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers:  all things were created by Him, and for him."  Colossians 1:16

And this is the strong foundation that makes our faith certain because it is based on rock solid evidence.

Let's listen in on a conversation between a biblical creationist "C" and an evolutionist "E" as they discuss some recent scientific news headlines:

E: Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse evolution?

C: Are you referring to the finding of coat colour change in beach mice?

E: Yes, isn't it a wonderful example of evolution in action?

C: No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.

E: Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria? Don't you think that's a good example of evolution occurring right before our eyes?

C: No, you seem to be confusing the terms "evolution" and "natural selection."

E: But natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives evolution.

C: Natural selection doesn't drive molecule-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have - one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecule-to-man-evolution requires. But natural selection simply can't do that because it works with information that already exists.

Martian:

No one knows the ultimate cause of the universe and evolution is not about the cause of the universe. Life could very well could be as a result of chance since cell membranes form spontaneously when phospholipids connect their hydrophobic tails to form bilayers where proteins are embedded.

Abiogenesis and the miller urey experiments are examples of studies to understand how life arose on earth.

@Martian and other evolutionists out there,

Since you are not forthcoming about the origin of life since you have no scientific evidence, let me assist you in making up your mind and answering the question at the same time.   There can only be two possible origins for life, and these are:

1.  Life evolved by natural processes as you have stated above; or
2.  Life was created by an intellectual source, who I believe is God, the uncreated Creator as I have stated regarded the creation of the universe.

The first option comes from your evolutionary theory which believes the earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago (even though you said 17 billion years ago) and after many million of years after it was formed chemicals somehow was formed in a "primordial soup", and after many more million of years chemicals bonded together to form molecules and after millions of years molecules bonded together to make a living cell.  What a well thought out fairytale and dogma to believe.   This according to the evolutionary myth means time and chance combined to form life.   That is, something exploded, formed a full pool of chemicals, and duala!! here you are.  The theory of the goo to zoo to you presented as science to be believed

The Miller experiment even tried to similulate the building blocks of life in the 1950's but what the textbooks did'nt tell you was that Miller did not use oxygen and that he got the wrong type of amino acids for life and that the whole process was not left to chance it benefitted from his wealth of scientific knowledge.

Miller left oxygen out of the experiment because he knew that in the presence of oxygen life cannot start.  He knew that oxygen was necessary to sustain life but is detrimental to the origin of life.  But there is overwhelming evidence that this planet always had free standing oxygen in the atmosphere.

This quote taken from The Mystery of Life's Origin, 1992, p.80. by Thaxton (Ph.D. Chemistry), Bradley (Ph.D. Materials Science), Olsen (Ph.D. Geochemistry), states that: 

"The only trend in the recent literature is the suggestion of far more oxygen in the early atmosphere than anyone imagined". 

Since life cannot start on land due to oxygen neither can it start in the ocean because of hydrolysis can you explain how life started?

There are about 2,000 different types of amino acids out there but only 20 types are used in life.  This means that life is very selective.  Amino acids come in two shapes:  the right handed amino acids and the left handed amino acids this is so because they are mirror images of each other.  Just as you have your right and left hands(fingers), they are similar but different.  There are no right handed amino acids in our bodies, in every amino acids and in every protein in your body you will only find the left handed type of amino acids, this fact has been left out of the textbooks in schools just because they want to promote this evolution propaganda and this is what I call the half truth and half false philosophy that has been used to deceive the masses.

What is the probability that life could have originated by chance?

[list]
[li]The Law of Probability is 10^-50 (anything more than this would be considered mathematically impossible)

The probability of the origin of protein is:  10^-191

The probability of a cell is:  10^-40,000[/li]
[/list]

Let’s listen to what seasoned scientists say about probability and life:

- Bernard Lovell (Ph.D.  Astronomy), In the Centre of Immensities – “effectively zero”
- Francis Crick, Life Itself:  Its Origin and Nature – “can never have been synthesized at all, at any time”
- Robert Gange, Ph.D. (research in the field of cryophysics and information systems.), Origins and Destiny – “Zero”

What have they got to say on origin of Life:

Johnjoe McFadden (Evolutionist & Professor of Molecular Biology and Quantum Physics), Quantum Evolution, 200, pg. 85.

"The simplest living cells could not have arisen by chance.  Just like the eye, the proto-cell must have evolved from simpler ancestral cells, presumably by a process of "natural selection".  But this is where the first big problem with the origin of life arises.  What were those simpler entities?"

Franklin M. Harold, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colo. State University, The Way of the Cell, 2001, pg, 235.

"The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight . . ., "

With all these answers from evolutionist scientists themselves we can then conclude that :  If evolution is unable to explain  the origin of life through naturalistic means, then it is without a foundation.  Now that we have an understanding of the foundation of evolution.  Why is evolution without a foundation?  Because there is no natural process that can cause life to originate.

Why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?  I already have a faith.  Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith.

Therefore, it is not only rational but also reasonable to believe that God, not unknown magical events, created life.  QED

The Bible which is the solid foundation declares:

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers:  all things were created by Him, and for him." -- Colossians 1:16
                                                                                                               
God created all life.  God created all things by Jesus Christ. --  Gen.1:1; Colossians1:15-18, 20; John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Heb.1:1-2; 11:3;

Look man, arguing with a creationist is like beating one's head against a wall and my head is starting to bleed profusely.
All you do is ignore questions, twist my words( I said the universe is understood to be approximately 17 billion years old, NOT the earth). Then you go to a creationist website and cull some more bull$hit ( natural selection is real and evolution is not? ).

So yes, the uncreated dude created everything 6000 thousand years ago. His son came to earth like 2000 years ago, got killed, woke back up and then defied gravity and levitated right out of the earth's atmosphere and into space or whatever. The bible is infallible and whatever else it is you believe is the ultimate and absolute truth.

Martian:

Look man, arguing with a creationist is like beating one's head against a wall and my head is starting to bleed profusely.
All you do is ignore questions, twist my words( I said the universe is understood to be approximately 17 billion years old, NOT the earth). Then you go to a creationist website and cull some more bull$hit ( natural selection is real and evolution is not? ).

So yes, the uncreated dude created everything 6000 thousand years ago. His son came to earth like 2000 years ago, got killed, woke back up and then defied gravity and levitated right out of the earth's atmosphere and into space or whatever. The bible is infallible and whatever else it is you believe is the ultimate and absolute truth.

I beg your pardon, I admit that you said that the universe is 17 billions of years not the earth even though you have no evidence for this, but evolutionists believe that the earth is 4.6 billion years old which to me is far fetched.

You may challenge the rationality of the biblical worldview and think it is illogical on face value because it speaks of the sun apparently going backwards, a universe created in 6 days, an earth that has pillars and corners, people walking on water, light before the sun, a talking serpent, a talking donkey, dragons and a man taking two of every kind on a big boat! I know you will be thinking that no rational thinking person can possibly believe in such things in our modern day and age of scientific enlightenment.

The Bible does make some extraordinary claims. But are such claims truly illogical? Do they actually violate any laws of logic? None of the biblical examples I gave above are contradictory even though they go beyond our ordinary, everyday experiences. They do not violate any laws of logic if they do please point it out. What you actually argue about is your misuse of language, taking figures of speech out of context, such as sunrise and sunset, taking them literally, when this is clearly not the case. It is an error on your part, not an error in the text. Poetic sections of the Bible and figures of speech should be taken as such, to do otherwise is academically dishonest.

Most if not all of your criticism against the Bible's legitimacy turn out to be nothing more than a subjective opinion of what is possible. You arbitrarily assert that it is not possible for the sun to go backward in the sky, or for the solar system to be created in 6 days. But what is your evidence that this cannot happen? You may assert that this cannot happen based on known natural laws and with this I will not argue with you but who said that natural laws are the limit of what is possible? The biblical God is not bound by natural laws. Since the Bible is indeed correct about the nature of God, then there is no problem at all in God reversing the direction of the planets, or creating the solar system in 6 days. An infinitely powerful, all knowing God can do anything that is rationally possible.

OLAADEGBU:

. . . .

Some top and highly qualified Hebrew scholars, who are called lexigraphers wrote in the most widely recognised Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries, published in the 20th century says that the creation days written in the book of Genesis are literal days.

Below is a partial list of scientists who believe in the Bible's account of creation as is recorded in the Bible and through their professional fields have come to the scientific conclusion that confirms the Bible's account:

Danny Faulkner Ph.D. Astronomy
John Byl Ph.D. Astronomy
Tom Greene Ph.D. Astronomy
James Dire Ph.D. Astrophysics
Dave Harrison Ph.D. Astrophysics
Steven Boyd Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Floyd Nolen Jones Th.D., Ph.D. Author of Chronology of the Old Testament
Herb Hirt Ph.D. Biblical Exposition
Robert Cole Ph.D. Semitic languages
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon
Georgia Purdon Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Duane Gish Ph.D. Biochemistry
David Menton Ph.D. Cell Biology
Donald Chittick Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
Tom Greene Ph.D. Astronomy
Jason Lisle Ph.D. Astrophysics
Russell Humphreys Ph.D Physics
Don DeYoung Ph.D. Physics
Terry Mortenson Ph.D. History of Geology
John baumgardner Ph.D. Geophysics
Bob Compton Ph.D. Physiology, DVM
Andy McIntosh Ph.D. Combustion Theory
John Johnson Ph.D. Mathematics
Tommy Mitchel M.D.
Andrew Snelling Ph.D. Geology
Emil Silvestre Ph.D. Geology
Esther Su Ph.D. Biochemistry
David DeWitt Ph.D. Neuroscience

Have you heard of Project Steve? It has collected the names of eminent scientists named Steve who agree with the theory of evolution. Read more here and here.

OLAADEGBU:

@Martian and other evolutionists out there,

Since you are not forthcoming about the origin of life since you have no scientific evidence, let me assist you in making up your mind and answering the question at the same time.   There can only be two possible origins for life, and these are:

1.  Life evolved by natural processes as you have stated above; or
2.  Life was created by an intellectual source, who I believe is God, the uncreated Creator as I have stated regarded the creation of the universe.

The first option comes from your evolutionary theory which believes the earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago (even though you said 17 billion years ago) and after many million of years after it was formed chemicals somehow was formed in a "primordial soup", and after many more million of years chemicals bonded together to form molecules and after millions of years molecules bonded together to make a living cell.  What a well thought out fairytale and dogma to believe.   This according to the evolutionary myth means time and chance combined to form life.   That is, something exploded, formed a full pool of chemicals, and duala!! here you are.  The theory of the goo to zoo to you presented as science to be believed

The Miller experiment even tried to similulate the building blocks of life in the 1950's but what the textbooks did'nt tell you was that Miller did not use oxygen and that he got the wrong type of amino acids for life and that the whole process was not left to chance it benefitted from his wealth of scientific knowledge.

Miller left oxygen out of the experiment because he knew that in the presence of oxygen life cannot start.  He knew that oxygen was necessary to sustain life but is detrimental to the origin of life.  But there is overwhelming evidence that this planet always had free standing oxygen in the atmosphere.

This quote taken from The Mystery of Life's Origin, 1992, p.80. by Thaxton (Ph.D. Chemistry), Bradley (Ph.D. Materials Science), Olsen (Ph.D. Geochemistry), states that: 

"The only trend in the recent literature is the suggestion of far more oxygen in the early atmosphere than anyone imagined". 

Since life cannot start on land due to oxygen neither can it start in the ocean because of hydrolysis can you explain how life started?

There are about 2,000 different types of amino acids out there but only 20 types are used in life.  This means that life is very selective.  Amino acids come in two shapes:  the right handed amino acids and the left handed amino acids this is so because they are mirror images of each other.  Just as you have your right and left hands(fingers), they are similar but different.  There are no right handed amino acids in our bodies, in every amino acids and in every protein in your body you will only find the left handed type of amino acids, this fact has been left out of the textbooks in schools just because they want to promote this evolution propaganda and this is what I call the half truth and half false philosophy that has been used to deceive the masses.

What is the probability that life could have originated by chance?

[list]
[li]The Law of Probability is 10^-50 (anything more than this would be considered mathematically impossible)

The probability of the origin of protein is:  10^-191

The probability of a cell is:  10^-40,000[/li]
[/list]

Let’s listen to what seasoned scientists say about probability and life:

- Bernard Lovell (Ph.D.  Astronomy), In the Centre of Immensities – “effectively zero”
- Francis Crick, Life Itself:  Its Origin and Nature – “can never have been synthesized at all, at any time”
- Robert Gange, Ph.D. (research in the field of cryophysics and information systems.), Origins and Destiny – “Zero”

What have they got to say on origin of Life:

Johnjoe McFadden (Evolutionist & Professor of Molecular Biology and Quantum Physics), Quantum Evolution, 200, pg. 85.

"The simplest living cells could not have arisen by chance.  Just like the eye, the proto-cell must have evolved from simpler ancestral cells, presumably by a process of "natural selection".  But this is where the first big problem with the origin of life arises.  What were those simpler entities?"

Franklin M. Harold, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colo. State University, The Way of the Cell, 2001, pg, 235.

"The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight . . ., "

With all these answers from evolutionist scientists themselves we can then conclude that :  If evolution is unable to explain  the origin of life through naturalistic means, then it is without a foundation.  Now that we have an understanding of the foundation of evolution.  Why is evolution without a foundation?  Because there is no natural process that can cause life to originate.

Why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence?  I already have a faith.  Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith.

Therefore, it is not only rational but also reasonable to believe that God, not unknown magical events, created life.  QED

The Bible which is the solid foundation declares:

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers:  all things were created by Him, and for him." -- Colossians 1:16
                                                                                                               
God created all life.  God created all things by Jesus Christ. --  Gen.1:1; Colossians1:15-18, 20; John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Heb.1:1-2; 11:3;

There are several things that you need to note.
Attacking evolution does not make your claim any more true.
Evolution does not speak about the origin of life.
You need to be careful about quote mining. It is better to present the quote in full and in proper context.
The probability figures you're giving are simply imaginary. Please present the basis for these probabilities.
Using the Bible to claim the Bible is true is no better than using the Qur'an to demonstrate that the Qur'an is true.

thehomer:

There are several things that you need to note.
Attacking evolution does not make your claim any more true.
Evolution does not speak about the origin of life.
You need to be careful about quote mining. It is better to present the quote in full and in proper context.
The probability figures you're giving are simply imaginary. Please present the basis for these probabilities.
Using the Bible to claim the Bible is true is no better than using the Qur'an to demonstrate that the Qur'an is true.

Hey homer, all these have been discussed and beaten to death. Prepare to be frustrated, but I know you have more patience than me and you're also a better debater so maybe you can make something click in his brain. I doubt it though.

thehomer:
 
There are several things that you need to note.
Attacking evolution does not make your claim any more true.
Evolution does not speak about the origin of life.

If evolution is unable to explain the origin of life through naturalistic means, then it has no leg to stand on scientifically, logically, rationally or reasonably and it is without a foundation. 

thehomer:

You need to be careful about quote mining. It is better to present the quote in full and in proper context.

I gave references for all the quotes all you need to do is to look them up if you are not lazy.

thehomer:

The probability figures you're giving are simply imaginary. Please present the basis for these probabilities.

They are the probabilities that life originated by chance, and again you can check it out.

thehomer:

Using the Bible to claim the Bible is true is no better than using the Qur'an to demonstrate that the Qur'an is true.

Atheists like you are the ones guilty of what you are accusing Christians of doing.  You commit the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."  You guys decided in advance that such things as miracles are not possible and thereby tacitly assume that the Bible is not true because it contains miracles, but this is the very assumption with which you began your reasoning.  Now tell me, who is guilty of circular reasoning?

Martian:

Hey homer, all these have been discussed and beaten to death. Prepare to be frustrated, but I know you have more patience than me and you're also a better debater so maybe you can make something click in his brain. I doubt it though.

Thanks I'll do what I can.

What's the chance of evolution being true?

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20090424.gif[/img]

OLAADEGBU:

If evolution is unable to explain the origin of life through naturalistic means, then it has no leg to stand on scientifically, logically, rationally or reasonably and it is without a foundation. 

No. It does what it is supposed to do extremely well which is to explain the diversity of life. Do you expect the germ theory of disease to explain the origin of the disease causing micro-organisms?

OLAADEGBU:

I gave references for all the quotes all you need to do is to look them up if you are not lazy.

Your references were not good enough and all I was trying to do was to educate you on the proper way of quoting people so that their quotes will not be taken out of context. So, do it right.

OLAADEGBU:

They are the probabilities that life originated by chance, and again you can check it out.

My question was how did you arrive at them? Please show your workings. There is no way for me to check anything out since you're just pulling numbers out of some nether regions.

OLAADEGBU:

Atheists like you are the ones guilty of what you are accusing Christians of doing.  You commit the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."  You guys decided in advance that such things as miracles are not possible and thereby tacitly assume that the Bible is not true because it contains miracles, but this is the very assumption with which you began your reasoning.  Now tell me, who is guilty of circular reasoning?

No. What I'm saying is that using the Bible to say the Bible is true is a fallacious thinking. What miracles do you believe are possible?

thehomer:

No. It does what it is supposed to do extremely well which is to explain the diversity of life. Do you expect the germ theory of disease to explain the origin of the disease causing micro-organisms?

There is no escape route for you here, the question of the origin of life or the universe is a very important question because it is tantamont to the very foundation or beginning of the entire evolution worldview.  Without a cause there can be no life or explanation of the diversity of life.  Real science is different from your so called evolutionary myth.

thehomer:

Your references were not good enough and all I was trying to do was to educate you on the proper way of quoting people so that their quotes will not be taken out of context. So, do it right.

Just admit that you are being lazy and seek to be spoon fed as you are used to.  I gave all the necessary references but since you are looking for what to google and you can't find any link you then cry foul.

thehomer:

My question was how did you arrive at them? Please show your workings. There is no way for me to check anything out since you're just pulling numbers out of some nether regions.

I will try my best to break it down for you and I hope that will suffice and if not check up AiG for more details.  But let me start with a quote from a Nobel prize-winning scientist George Wald who wrote and I quote:

"However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once . . . Time is the hero of the plot . . . Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain.  One only has to wait; time itself performs miracles." -- G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American 191 (August 1994): 45.

When talking about life forming by chance and in the case of protein formation he said "given enough time", this is a fallacious statement which is not valid.  When we look at the mathematical probabilities of a small protein assembling by random chance, it is beyond anything that has ever been observed.  So, what is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids?

According to the laws of probability (citing Mike Riddle of AiG), if the chance of an event occuring is smaller than 1 in 10^-50, then the event will never occur.  What have real scientists calculated the probability to be of an average-size protein occuring naturally?  Lets see the answers given by Walter Bradley, PhD, material science, and Charles Thaxton, PhD, chemistry, who calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is:

4.9 x 10^-191

This is well beyond the laws of probability which is 1 x 10^-50, and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell.  Sir Fred Hoyle, PhD, astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied maths and astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic process is:

1 x 10^-40,000

So, you can see that no matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning and the above probability of getting a cell by natural process is an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of your so called organic or is it primordial soup.

thehomer:

No. What I'm saying is that using the Bible to say the Bible is true is a fallacious thinking. What miracles do you believe are possible?

It is the evolutionists circles of reasoning that are ultimately self defeating.  They do not pass their own test.  It is what is called "begging the question."

Public School Education.

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/ltbt/public-ed.jpg[/img]

OLAADEGBU:

There is no escape route for you here, the question of the origin of life or the universe is a very important question because it is tantamont to the very foundation or beginning of the entire evolution worldview.  Without a cause there can be no life or explanation of the diversity of life.  Real science is different from your so called evolutionary myth.

I am not escaping anything. All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution does what it is supposed to do very well.

OLAADEGBU:

Just admit that you are being lazy and seek to be spoon fed as you are used to.  I gave all the necessary references but since you are looking for what to google and you can't find any link you then cry foul.

Rubbish. If [b]you [/b]are quoting someone, it is up to [b]you [/b]to quote them fully and in context.

OLAADEGBU:

I will try my best to break it down for you and I hope that will suffice and if not check up AiG for more details.  But let me start with a quote from a Nobel prize-winning scientist George Wald who wrote and I quote:

AiG is a joke for someone who actually wishes to learn. To demonstrate this fact to you, I'll happily shred what you present here as an argument.

OLAADEGBU:

"However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once . . . Time is the hero of the plot . . . Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain.  One only has to wait; time itself performs miracles." -- G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American 191 (August 1994): 45.

When talking about life forming by chance and in the case of protein formation he said "given enough time", this is a fallacious statement which is not valid.  When we look at the mathematical probabilities of a small protein assembling by random chance, it is beyond anything that has ever been observed.  So, what is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids?

According to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occuring is smaller than 1 in 10^-50, then the event will never occur.  What have real scientists calculated the probability to be of an average-size protein occuring naturally?  Lets see the answers given by Walter Bradley, PhD, material science, and Charles Thaxton, PhD, chemistry, who calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is:

4.9 x 10^-191

Not so fast. How did you come up with the figure of 1 in 10^-50 being the threshold for the decision that an event will never occur?
Then here's something else for you to think about. What is the calculated probability of a sodium chloride crystal weighing 58.5g to arrange itself in the order below? i.e with one sodium atom surrounded by one chlorine atom?
Avogadro's number is approximately 6.02 e²³

[img]http://www4.nau.edu/meteorite/Meteorite/Images/Sodium_chloride_crystal.png[/img]


To give you an idea of the scale, that crystal will contain approximately 6.02 e²⁰ molecules i.e 1.202 e²¹ ions. Each of them in a particular position without two sodium ions being next to each other.

OLAADEGBU:

This is well beyond the laws of probability which is 1 x 10^-50, and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell.  Sir Fred Hoyle, PhD, astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of applied maths and astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic process is:

1 x 10^-40,000

How do you think he performed this calculation? Or are you simply spouting off what you do not understand?

OLAADEGBU:

So, you can see that no matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning and the above probability of getting a cell by natural process is an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of your so called organic or is it primordial soup.

Who says life had a random beginning?

OLAADEGBU:

It is the evolutionists circles of reasoning that are ultimately self defeating.  They do not pass their own test.  It is what is called "begging the question."

Do you understand what the "begging the question fallacy" entails? I do not think it means what you think it means.

thehomer:
   
I am not escaping anything. All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution does what it is supposed to do very well.

   
Your escape clause is always to claim that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with origins, why don't you go read up on Darwin's book on the descent of the origins to see how you've been shooting yourselves in the foot.

thehomer:

Rubbish. If [b]you [/b]are quoting someone, it is up to [b]you [/b]to quote them fully and in context.

All my quotes are in context as I have given their proper references, go to the library and do some research.

thehomer:

AiG is a joke for someone who actually wishes to learn. To demonstrate this fact to you, I'll happily shred what you present here as an argument.

I am used to your tactics of bluffing and the use of Ad hominems to inflate your egos, empty drums sound the loudest.

thehomer:

Not so fast. How did you come up with the figure of 1 in 10^-50 being the threshold for the decision that an event will never occur?
Then here's something else for you to think about. What is the calculated probability of a sodium chloride crystal weighing 58.5g to arrange itself in the order below? i.e with one sodium atom surrounded by one chlorine atom?
Avogadro's number is approximately 6.02 e²³

All you needed to do was to ask how I came about the figures and not going off on a tangent to calculate what is not relevant to the subject we talking about just to divert the subject at hand, this is typical of evolutionists who have got no clue of what they are talking about.

thehomer:

To give you an idea of the scale, that crystal will contain approximately 6.02 e²⁰ molecules i.e 1.202 e²¹ ions. Each of them in a particular position without two sodium ions being next to each other.

How does this relate to the issue of the probability of life forming by chance?

thehomer:

How do you think he performed this calculation? Or are you simply spouting off what you do not understand?

This is what you should be asking instead of going on a wild goose chase.  The said figure is equal to 1 divided by 10⁵⁰ and is very small number.  Probability expert Emile Borel wrote, "We may be led to set at 1 to the 50th power the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale." (E. Borel, Probabilities and life, [New York: Dover Publications, 1962], p.28))

thehomer:

Who says life had a random beginning?

Then tell us if you know anything different.

thehomer:

Do you understand what the "begging the question fallacy" entails? I do not think it means what you think it means.

It simply means reasoning in a vicious circle.  You have decided in advance that there is not an all-powerful God who is capable of doing the things recorded in the Bible, and then you go on to argue on this basis against the biblical God.  Such reasoning is not cogent at all.  When you accuse the Bible of being illogical because it goes against your subjective assessment of what is possible, it turns out to be that you and not the Bible is the one who is being illogical.  You have to tell us by what standard you use to assess the Bible.

An Atheist on a Talk Show

Caller:

"I'm an atheist, and I want to tell you Christians that if you believe Cain married his sister, then that's immoral."

AiG:

"If you are an atheist, then that means you don't believe in any personal God, right?"

Caller:

"Correct!"

AiG:

"Then if you don't believe in God, you don't believe there's such a thing as an absolute authority. Therefore, you believe everyone has a right to their own opinions -- to make their own rules about life if they can get away with it, correct?"

Caller:

"Yes, you're right."

AiG:

"Then, sir, you can't call me immoral; after all, you're an atheist, who doesn't believe in any absolute authority."

AiG:

"Do you believe all humans evolved from apelike ancestors?"

Caller:

"Yes, I certainly believe evolution is fact"

AiG:

"Then, sir, from your perspective on life, if man is just some sort of animal who evolved, and if there's no absolute authority, then marriage is whatever you want to define it to be -- if you can get away with it in the culture you live in."

"It could be two men, two women or one man and ten women; in fact, it doesn't even have to be a man with another human -- it could be a man with an animal."

"I'm sorry, sir, that you think Christians have a problem, I think it's you who has the problem. Without an absolute authority, marriage, or any other aspect of how to live in society, is determined on the basis of opinion and ultimately could be anything one decides -- If the culture as a whole will allow you to get away with this. You have the problem, not me."

OLAADEGBU:

Your escape clause is always to claim that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with origins, why don't you go read up on Darwin's book on the descent of the origins to see how you've been shooting yourselves in the foot.

And here we have a change of scope fallacy. I said the theory says nothing about the origin of life just the diversity of life. You read Darwin's book and present the parts showing this shooting in the foot.

OLAADEGBU:

All my quotes are in context as I have given their proper references, go to the library and do some research.

You need to learn how to quote people so that their ideas come through not what you simply wish them to say.

OLAADEGBU:

I am used to your tactics of bluffing and the use of Ad hominems to inflate your egos, empty drums sound the loudest.

Where did I use this ad hominem? Can you show this? Be careful that you do not tell lies or your God will punish you.

OLAADEGBU:

All you needed to do was to ask how I came about the figures and not going off on a tangent to calculate what is not relevant to the subject we talking about just to divert the subject at hand, this is typical of evolutionists who have got no clue of what they are talking about.

This I had done in my last three posts. Even in the post of mine quoted, read the question in the very first line. Do you not understand what I'm driving at? Do you not know how to calculate probabilities?

OLAADEGBU:

How does this relate to the issue of the probability of life forming by chance?

Do you still not understand that placing probability figures to the formation of life is meaningless and is a poor tactic used by your fellow creationists to deceive gullible fellows like yourself? Assigning probability figures to this occurrence makes no sense.

OLAADEGBU:

This is what you should be asking instead of going on a wild goose chase.  The said figure is equal to 1 divided by 10⁵⁰ and is very small number.  Probability expert Emile Borel wrote, "We may be led to set at 1 to the 50th power the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale." (E. Borel, Probabilities and life, [New York: Dover Publications, 1962], p.28))

Read my previous statements and see that I've asked this several times. What you said above is not an explanation 10 e^-400 is an even smaller number so what? My question is how was the figure arrived at? I do not need someone saying it is a small number I want to know how the person decided to use that number an not another.

OLAADEGBU:

Then tell us if you know anything different.

It is a well known fact that physical laws are non-random.

OLAADEGBU:

It simply means reasoning in a vicious circle.  You have decided in advance that there is not an all-powerful God who is capable of doing the things recorded in the Bible, and then you go on to argue on this basis against the biblical God.  Such reasoning is not cogent at all.  When you accuse the Bible of being illogical because it goes against your subjective assessment of what is possible, it turns out to be that you and not the Bible is the one who is being illogical.  You have to tell us by what standard you use to assess the Bible.

That is not circular reasoning. An example of circular reasoning would be using the Bible to demonstrate that the Bible is true. So many things are wrong with your statement above. Have you considered that the decision that this all powerful God is absent is due to facts like the logical contradictions of such an entity existing, the historical problems with the Bible and the nature of physical laws? Read more on circular reasoning here.

OLAADEGBU:

An Atheist on a Talk Show

Caller:

"I'm an atheist, and I want to tell you Christians that if you believe Cain married his sister, then that's immoral."

AiG:

"If you are an atheist, then that means you don't believe in any personal God, right?"

Caller:

"Correct!"

AiG:

"Then if you don't believe in God, you don't believe there's such a thing as an absolute authority. Therefore, you believe everyone has a right to their own opinions -- to make their own rules about life if they can get away with it, correct?"

Caller:

"Yes, you're right."

AiG:

"Then, sir, you can't call me immoral; after all, you're an atheist, who doesn't believe in any absolute authority."

AiG:

"Do you believe all humans evolved from apelike ancestors?"

Caller:

"Yes, I certainly believe evolution is fact"

AiG:

"Then, sir, from your perspective on life, if man is just some sort of animal who evolved, and if there's no absolute authority, then marriage is whatever you want to define it to be -- if you can get away with it in the culture you live in."

"It could be two men, two women or one man and ten women; in fact, it doesn't even have to be a man with another human -- it could be a man with an animal."

"I'm sorry, sir, that you think Christians have a problem, I think it's you who has the problem. Without an absolute authority, marriage, or any other aspect of how to live in society, is determined on the basis of opinion and ultimately could be anything one decides -- If the culture as a whole will allow you to get away with this. You have the problem, not me."

The usual load of tripe. Please tell me, is it immoral for a person to marry their sibling? Please answer with a yes or no.

thehomer:
   
And here we have a change of scope fallacy. I said the theory says nothing about the origin of life just the diversity of life. You read Darwin's book and present the parts showing this shooting in the foot.

 
Infact the correct title is the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  This title reveals the racist motive behind all the evolution smokescreen.  If this is not about the origins of life tell us what your foundation is, unless you are saying that it is to tell us all about the favoured races.

thehomer:

You need to learn how to quote people so that their ideas come through not what you simply wish them to say.

Again, take my references to a proper library and conduct your own research if you are to get anywhere.

thehomer:

Where did I use this ad hominem? Can you show this? Be careful that you do not tell lies or your God will punish you.

Do you know what the use of ad hominem is?  Ad hominem, if you don't know, is directing an argument against the person making the claim rather than the claim itself.  Saying that its a joke to learn from AiG is not only using ad hominem but also bluffing.

thehomer:

This I had done in my last three posts. Even in the post of mine quoted, read the question in the very first line. Do you not understand what I'm driving at? Do you not know how to calculate probabilities?

Bluffing again and missing the point.

thehomer:

Do you still not understand that placing probability figures to the formation of life is meaningless and is a poor tactic used by your fellow creationists to deceive gullible fellows like yourself? Assigning probability figures to this occurrence makes no sense.

It may be meaningless to you and your evolutionists croonies but not to those with open minds and are ready to learn.  To help you understand what we are talking about is that one of the components of life is information.  The common factor in all living organisms is the information contained in their cells.  Can you tell us, where and how did all this coded information arise, if you know?  Tell us how life evolved from lifeless chemicals into a complex cell consisting of vast amounts of information.  Explain the source of information and how this information was encoded into the genome, to start with.

thehomer:

Read my previous statements and see that I've asked this several times. What you said above is not an explanation 10 e^-400 is an even smaller number so what? My question is how was the figure arrived at? I do not need someone saying it is a small number I want to know how the person decided to use that number an not another.

What it was simply saying is that according to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occuring is smaller than 1 in 10^-50 (which I explained as 1 divided by 10⁵⁰), then the event will never occur.  What is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left handed amino acids?  Let me assist you with this, to assemble just 100 left handed amino acids would be the same probability as getting 100 heads in a row, we would have to flip a coin 10[sup]30 times (this is 10 x 10, 30 times).  This is such an astounding improbability that there would not be enough time in the whole history of the universe, even according to your evolutionary time frames for this to happen.

thehomer:

It is a well known fact that physical laws are non-random.

I am surprised that you believe that physical laws are non-random, I thought all you propose is about randomness and the game of chance.  But who says that physical or natural laws are the limit of what is possible?  The biblical God is not bound by physical laws.

thehomer:

That is not circular reasoning. An example of circular reasoning would be using the Bible to demonstrate that the Bible is true. So many things are wrong with your statement above. Have you considered that the decision that this all powerful God is absent is due to facts like the logical contradictions of such an entity existing, the historical problems with the Bible and the nature of physical laws? Read more on circular reasoning here.

You are merely begging the question here by assuming what you are attempting to prove.  You say the Bible cannot be true because it contains miracles, and miracles violate the laws of nature.  Yes, I agree that miracles can potentially involve a temporary suspension of the laws of nature since my God is beyond the laws of nature, He can suspend them if He wishes to.  Because you assume that miracles cannot happen doesn't mean that you are right and the Bible wrong, you are just arguing in a vicious circle.  When you are arguing this way you are just being illogical because it goes against your subjective assessment of what is possible.  If you say that the Bible is unreasonable can you then tell me what standard you use to arrive at your conclusion?

thehomer:

The usual load of tripe. Please tell me, is it immoral for a person to marry their sibling? Please answer with a yes or no.

This is a typical example of how evolutionists use bifurcation, an attempt to claim that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities, when they may be three or more options.

OLAADEGBU:

Infact the correct title is the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  This title reveals the racist motive behind all the evolution smokescreen.  If this is not about the origins of life tell us what your foundation is, unless you are saying that it is to tell us all about the favoured races.

You now wish to shift gears to the use of the word "race" in the title of the book. Here you go with a fallacy of equivocation. See here for the various meanings of the word race. You're equivocating between the second and fourth meanings.

OLAADEGBU:

Again, take my references to a proper library and conduct your own research if you are to get anywhere.

I shouldn't have to do that if you properly quote people which is what one is supposed to do.

OLAADEGBU:

Do you know what the use of ad hominem is?  Ad hominem, if you don't know, is directing an argument against the person making the claim rather than the claim itself.  Saying that its a joke to learn from AiG is not only using ad hominem but also bluffing.

Yes it is a joke as you keep demonstrating with what you generally post.

OLAADEGBU:

Bluffing again and missing the point.

How does that miss the point. It demonstrates that you simply lied in claiming that I never asked for you to demonstrate how you came about those figures.

OLAADEGBU:

It may be meaningless to you and your evolutionists croonies but not to those with open minds and are ready to learn.  To help you understand what we are talking about is that one of the components of life is information.  The common factor in all living organisms is the information contained in their cells.  Can you tell us, where and how did all this coded information arise, if you know?  Tell us how life evolved from lifeless chemicals into a complex cell consisting of vast amounts of information.  Explain the source of information and how this information was encoded into the genome, to start with.

It is meaningless to anyone who understands how probability figures are applied. What you and your fellows demonstrate is that you do not understand how to use the tool of probability calculations.

OLAADEGBU:

What it was simply saying is that according to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occuring is smaller than 1 in 10^-50 (which I explained as 1 divided by 10⁵⁰), then the event will never occur.  What is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left handed amino acids?  Let me assist you with this, to assemble just 100 left handed amino acids would be the same probability as getting 100 heads in a row, we would have to flip a coin 10^{30 times (this is 10 x 10, 30 times).  This is such an astounding improbability that there would not be enough time in the whole history of the universe, even according to your evolutionary time frames for this to happen.}

I know what 10 e[sup]-50 means what I'm asking is why that figure? Why not 10 e^-40 or 10 e^-60?

What is the probability of getting 200 atoms of sodium chloride in the formation below?

Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na


It's about 1.6069 e^-60. Yet it happens all the time. Note that this is not even up to the 58.5g in my example and this example is in 2 dimensions while the crystal is in three dimensions which means a further reduction in the probability of such an occurrence.

OLAADEGBU:

I am surprised that you believe that physical laws are non-random, I thought all you propose is about randomness and the game of chance.  But who says that physical or natural laws are the limit of what is possible?  The biblical God is not bound by physical laws.

I never claimed that they were non-random. You need to be consistent. Are the physical laws random or not?

OLAADEGBU:

You are merely begging the question here by assuming what you are attempting to prove.  You say the Bible cannot be true because it contains miracles, and miracles violate the laws of nature.  Yes, I agree that miracles can potentially involve a temporary suspension of the laws of nature since my God is beyond the laws of nature, He can suspend them if He wishes to.  Because you assume that miracles cannot happen doesn't mean that you are right and the Bible wrong, you are just arguing in a vicious circle.  When you are arguing this way you are just being illogical because it goes against your subjective assessment of what is possible.  If you say that the Bible is unreasonable can you then tell me what standard you use to arrive at your conclusion?

You really do not know what the begging the question fallacy entails. Do you not see that that is what you do each time you call on the Bible as some sort of source of evidence on why any one else should believe it is true?
Keep in mind that I have not assumed anything. All I do is demonstrate that as far as we know, the laws are consistent. If you wish to claim that they are not consistent, you need to present evidence for this.