Mikey Concession

Creation and evolution viewsI concede a refutation of my own sayings. Something pretty cool happened by chance.If you read this blog-entry you would see that I suggested the "limits of chance" would perhaps be to enscribe onto a rock, by means of weathering, the letters, "CR".I must now confess something. I make toys, and to make them I have to mould clay, and I recently made a clay mold and when it had dried, and I painted the intended contours and engravings, there appeared an engraving I had not engraved, in a neat font, it said, "12".So bizarre this was, I had to remove it using a file because my customer would ask: "why did you inscribe the number twelve on my toy?" I would have to reply; "I didn't."to which the customer would undoubtedly respond:"Of course you did, you nitwit, I am looking at the number now. Don't be ridiculous, you inscribed a number twelve on my toy I tell you, and I want a refund." (The Trunchbull-type personality is added by mike.) "It was produced by random chance, I tell you.""Did you forget your medication today, Sir - I tell you there is a number twelve on my toy you inscribed there! You are a festering gumboil. A malignant ooze, with rat-droppings for brains!"I have filed most of it away now but I shall photograph it shortly, you can still make our the twelve, I can only say it was very obviously a twelve, and I concede it happened by random chance. I don't concede abiogenesis did but for the sake of honesty, I do think strange things can happen that are coincidence, which favours the atheists' reasonings, so I thought I should mention it.I swear it, there is a bloody twelve on my toy, nobody could have put it there. Nonsense, I want a refund! You are a liar and a sneak-thief, and a gangsta!Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Clearly God put it there miraculously to teach you that He does play dice with the universe.

A Christian God's creation would be just and true. It would be a universe where no randomly assembled patterns ever resembled anything. --Percy

He's toying with me clearly.Although I don't rule out the possibility that a member of EvC Forum sneaked into my house at night, and purposefully engraved the number twelve on my toy, given that's a much more likely occurrence than an abiogenesis.

It is?? What are the factors going into the calcuation. Can you describe them?

Of course I was only jesting, but now you ask the question it's got me thinking, I didn't think before as it was only a joke.I would say the factors would lead to very grandiose odds indeed. No. I'm too lazy, the factors are too variable, it depends on so many things, such as the location of the EvC member, their abilities of intelligence to ascertain my location, and so forth, and their abilites in opening locks, and sneaking into houses unnoticed. Of course it would also have to be a very sad person in deed to expend so much energy for such a small practical joke that could be deemed insanely obscure to even acknowledge why it would be a joke, unless you are mike.Nevertheless I prefer a direct equivalent of the odds of abiogenesis, And Dr Don Batten has saw to it for me: Cheating with chance - creation.com

And, why do you think Fred Hoyle, an astrophysicists (that was 100% totally wrong about the evidence for inflation btw) , knows enough about chemistry, and biological processes to make that determination?You do realize that what you are indulging in is the logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'. Fred Hoyle might have known some things about astrophysics. .. but he is totally unqualified to make determinations about biology and chemistry.For one, he is not taking into account that the chances are accumulative for one, and another, are being guided by how chemistry behaves, and the filters of natural selection.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

Sarfati PHD, at Creation.com, has covered all of those issues, he is a PHD chemist. Or are you appealing to your authority?We all appeal to authority, but the point is, there will always be another person that is qualified, that has a similar view, and is qualified. That's equivocation, to determine the odds of a protein forming by random chance isn't to state something about biology and chemistry. It's maths.But that's all muddying the well anyway, if you are saying I need to quote a qualified Chemist, and a mathematician, simultaneously, that's a bit silly, we all know this type of thing is commonly accepted, everyone accepts the odds-problem of Mount Improbable.

So, Mikey, you're not going to even try the maths here?Too scared. I guess.

Hopefully we don't. Hopefully we muster evidence and argument in support of our position. Ramoss was saying that Hoyle was wrong, and he explained why he was wrong, that Hoyle somehow inexplicably failed to understand that evolutionary change is gradual and accumulative, not sudden and episodic. His famous comparison of evolution to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and building a 747 is a monument to the muddleheadedness that overtook him late in his career. Hoyle would have won the Noble for his work on star evolution if he hadn't made the Noble committee so nervous with his evidence-denying rejection of the Big Bang (a term that he coined in an attempt at mockery), and his later meanderings into evolution only confirmed the suspicion that he had lost his scientific mind.But let's not lose the important point. We don't conclude that Hoyle was wrong because he had lost it scientifically. That he was so incredibly wrong, that he failed to understand so basic a tenet of evolution, was merely evidence of his dramatic decline.Before you referenced Hoyle you actually seemed to understand evolution better than he did by recognizing that there's a selection process going on through one generation after another.--Percy

Nope. I don't.I accept the findings of hundreds and thousands of specialits, publishing their research in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.And the findings of all those those mining companies spending billions before and after they start digging, of course.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

No it isn't. You have to understand the chemistry before you can do the math.If you mix hydrogen and oxygen, you'll probably to get H₂O not HO₂. That's chemistry. You need to know how the elements can go together before you can predict how they will.

I was referring to abiogenesis, which isn't evolution. I thought you knew the difference. Natural selection can only act to preserve a trait that would confer a survival advantage, but chemicals aren't alive, and amino-acid has no reason to want to become a protein.So if a glider such as a crocodilomorph could survive better by gliding as opposed to the members of his population that were less likely to survive, selection pressure would be upon the mikey-morph to survive. This would mean that those without the trait would tend to be lost from the gene pool. Evolutionists always argue that. You're just opining, the "lost his science" argument is just another variation of the No-True-Scotsman-Fallacy. I don't see how the probability of abiogenesis relates to biological evolution.I understand the hypothetics of evolution, they're not particularly difficult for a clever person to understand, my favourite example of evolution(or adaptation as I call it) is the sickled-cells of anaemia being beneficial in fighting malaria. The people with the variant when ill with malaria, selection will rid the cells because the people with the variant alleles will be a more heterozygous group, as opposed to the people that are more homozygous in regards to the genes, not having the variant. Ergo this is an example of how a mutation can be beneficial in that the malaria will be removed in those cells the body expels because of the mutation.I understand how evolution works,.We are told that those that deny God use tactics, to "supress the truth in unrighteousness". When you portray us to be confused people, losing our minds if we reject evolution, not understanding the science, this is because of an obvious motive. If you had the truth, you wouldn't need to act that way.I don't mind being misrepresented, for "He brings His justice to light every morning", "For the Lord is a God of justice, blessed are all those who wait for Him".

Bless you Sir, and take no offense in the following informations: That would be an example of something that is inevitable/highly probable. It's also inevitable to get water in certain conditions, and snowflakes, salt-crystals, these natural occurrences are experimentally provable to be inevitable, whereas the experiments for an Abiotic soup proved to produce a chemical concoction FOR DEATH.This is because the amino acids that formed by chance, despite the measures to make them form, where still a racemic mixture, so we know that amino acids naturally left alone will form an equal mixture for chirality. But with proteins you need homochiral amino acids to form, whether it be certain types of sugar or proteins, and so forth. So it is logically NOT inevitable to get a protein by random chance. So we can't equate your example to abiogenesis, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not doing that, necessarily.The point is, to randomly achieve a sequence of correct amino-acids in order to give a protein that folds, we don't just need order we require specified complexity. I shall give examples of both:1. BABABABABABABA (Baba.)
2. A CAT SAT ON THE MATIf you chop a protein in half, it's the end of the protein,( A CAT becomes ON TH as a splice) but if you chop a salt crystal in half, or remove half a pint of water, you still have salt and you still have water.(you still have ABABAB)This is why people that create proteins in the lab need to add an amino-acid at a time, by intentional intelligence.Of course I am not that "up" on chemistry, but others are.Another insight might be this, if it interest you, in relation to intentions as opposed to randomness.We can see that with very specific complexity and order, the problems are solved by an intelligent agents' presence, much better than by random chance.Think of it like this, which is more probable, logically? That I flip 500 coins and get 500 "heads" in a row, and place them in that order in a pile on the table, or is it more probable that I places them there by intention?You see this is the problem evolutionists will always have, that they are arguing that an intentional intelligence is not a good answer for complexity, which is directly analogous to saying the following:"No, it is not a good answer that a cook cooked a well baked cake."That's NOT rational Ringo. At least admit that we have a better case because intelligence, intentional arrangement, is not only probable, but it is inevitable if we find immensely sophisticated structures in existence.God is there, and there is no escaping it. It makes sense to know His opinions, and to not mess with Him, it makes no sense to play god and think you know better. If mikey is wise, then imagine God's mind, it is inconceivably great. "His understand is unsearchable".THAT is what is required to make a lifeform, unsearchable wisdom, beyond our comprehension. And you thought mikey was tough to refute!

As the Wikipedia article on Fred Hoyle says, "While Hoyle was well-regarded for his works on nucleosynthesis and science popularization, his career was largely dominated by the controversial positions he held on a wide range of scientific issues, often in direct opposition to the opinions and evidence supported by the majority of the scientific community." That after his work on star evolution Hoyle began taking on controversial positions possessing no scientific rigor is well known. He rejected the Big Bang. He proposed AIDS came from space. He claimed Archaeopteryx fossils are forgeries.If you believe Hoyle actually had an evidence-based case against abiogenesis you're welcome to argue his position, but it wasn't a topic I was trying to address. After seeing you misinterpret Ramoss I replied only to point out that we don't "all appeal to authority," and that Ramoss wasn't saying that you "need to quote a qualified Chemist." He was saying you shouldn't appeal to authority and that Hoyle was wrong. If you argue according to Hoyle you'll be wrong, too. Well, I guess I could have spoken more clearly. Natural selection isn't limited to living organisms. The Wikipedia article on abiogenesis says, "The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms."No one in recent science ever thought that proteins, to take one of Hoyle's example, came together all at once. The origin of life isn't thought to be a sudden and incredibly unlikely accident. Just as competition drives modern life toward new and more complex solutions, the same was true of the early molecules of pre-life.--Percy