Yet another creationist twit (2008-09-17)

[Darth Wong]

Mike - Is God-killing with math; that is - that particular quote - exclusive to this rebuttal? You've not used it before? I only ask because it is beautiful and I want to steal it.

And by steal I mean use with proper credit.

and by use with proper credit given I mean steal it.

Sig....it.

I just made it up for this exchange. That creationist should feel honoured.

[Lagmonster]

Mike - Is God-killing with math; that is - that particular quote - exclusive to this rebuttal? You've not used it before? I only ask because it is beautiful and I want to steal it.

I just made it up for this exchange. That creationist should feel honoured.

It was one of Mike's more inspired lines. For reasons I have yet to understand about the man, the stupidity of others seems almost to be to Mike's wit as nitro is to a car engine.

[CaptJodan]

I like how there basically isn't a creationist in existence that understands scientific notation. You can tell that they're just copying something when they write things like 1/10160 and actually mean 1/10^160. In this case, even the article she copied (which, as usual, can be found by plugging a sentence from it into Google) should be ashamed for failing to use <sup> tags, or at least a simple ^.

I'll admit to being less-than-adequately schooled in science or math, but I still know basic scientific notation. I mean damn, I was raised by the Florida education system and was always struggling in math and still figured that out. I guess proper notation is for elitists.

[sketerpot]

It was one of Mike's more inspired lines. For reasons I have yet to understand about the man, the stupidity of others seems almost to be to Mike's wit as nitro is to a car engine.

Then you need to find a forum with a lot of creationists and start ripping one apart. When you really get going, delivering one rebuttal after another in the most withering way the forum rules allow, you start wanting to spice it up a little with some really good zingers. And so you do.

(Actually, I need to find a forum with creationists too; my old one dried up when the creationists left in shame. Does anybody have recommendations?)

[Lagmonster]

(Actually, I need to find a forum with creationists too; my old one dried up when the creationists left in shame. Does anybody have recommendations?)

You can try Rapture Ready, but you'll be banned inside of a day.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

I like how there basically isn't a creationist in existence that understands scientific notation. You can tell that they're just copying something when they write things like 1/10160 and actually mean 1/10^160. In this case, even the article she copied (which, as usual, can be found by plugging a sentence from it into Google) should be ashamed for failing to use <sup> tags, or at least a simple ^.

Nitpick: 1/10^160 isn't really 'scientific notation'. If you want scientific notation, try 1x10^-160 or 1E-160.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ought the biologist respond to this? I think so...

Hello again Lorraine. This is ben, that biologist who's email you hopefully read a few weeks ago. You did not respond to my last email, but I have read your latest response to Mike Wong's email and thought once again that it is my obligation to correct the false information about evolution and abiogenesis that you have read. Again just like last time I will be using quote tags to make things easier to track.

Probability and the Origin of Life
For roughly fifty years secular scientists who have faith in the power of dumb atoms to do anything have been carrying on scientific research aimed at finding out how the dumb atoms could have initiated life without any outside help. Since they believe that this really happened, they believe that it was inevitable that the properties of atoms, the laws of physics, and the earth's early environment should bring forth life. More sober minds, however, have realized the immense improbability of the spontaneous origin of life (called "abiogenesis"). Some have made careful investigations and mathematical calculations to estimate what the probability is for abiogenesis to occur. Their calculations show that life's probability is extremely small, essentially zero.

Except that when they do so, and this was actually dealt with in the Youtube link I sent you a while back, they do this with a set of fundamentally flawed premises, and intentionally poor methodology (so poor in fact that some of us, myself included, call it intellectually dishonest, and the people who use such techniques liars)

To understand these results let us explain what we mean by probability. What, for example, is the probability of tossing a coin and getting "heads"? There are two possible outcomes of tossing a coin, either the head side or the tail side will be up. The sum of the probabilities of these two outcomes is 100% or 1, unity. Then, since for a perfectly balanced coin the two probabilities must be equal, and their sum is 1, the probability of either heads or tails in one flip of the coin is ? , and the sum of the two probabilities is ? + ? = 1. Simple. Now you understand probability!?

Except that when you get into biochemistry the issue gets much more complex. it is not as simple as coin tossing.

Next we will calculate a probability for the chance production of a single small protein molecule. A protein molecule consists of one or more chains made up of amino acid molecules linked together. There are 20 different amino acids molecules which the cells use to construct the protein molecules needed for the life of cells. We will think about a small protein molecule with only 100 amino acid molecules in its chain. Assume we have a reaction pot containing a mixture of the 20 different amino acid molecules, and they are reacting at random to form chains. What is the probability, when a chain with 100 amino acids is formed, that it will by chance have the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule?

There are 100 positions along the chain. What is the probability that a particular one of the 20 different natural amino acid molecules will by chance be placed at position number 1 in the chain? It will be P1 = 1/20. When the complete chain has formed, what is the probability that the necessary particular amino acids will be placed at each of the 100 positions in the chain? It will be the product of the probabilities at the 100 positions. Thus the probability will be the fraction 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times. So P100 = (1/20)x(1/20)x(1/20)x...x(1/20) = (1/20)100 = (1/10)130 = 1/10130. This is an extremely small fraction. It is the fraction formed by the number 1 divided by the number formed by 1 followed by 130 zeros!

Except that the probabilities do not work out like that. This model assumes several things.

1) an unlimited supply of each amino acid
2) No differences in reactivity as the chain increases in size and complexity, and generally ignores the laws of physics and chemistry
3) that it is assembled all at once
4) that there is no selective force acting in the system

All of these assumptions and there are more, are false when you are dealing with real biochemistry.

But we have oversimplified a little bit. In actual fact a protein molecule can have a substantial variability at many of the positions on its amino acid chain. In 1975 I examined the data for a particular protein molecule called cytochrome a which has about 100 amino acids in its chain. This is an important enzyme molecule in all living cells, and the sequence of amino acids has been determined for cytochrome a molecules in about a hundred different species. From the quantitative data I made a rough estimate that on the average up to five different amino acids could fill a particular position on the chain of the enzyme molecule. Thus the probability that an acceptable amino acid would be found by chance at a particular position would be 5/20 = ?. So the probability for a working enzyme molecule to be formed by chance would be (?)100 = 1/1060. This is still a very, very small probability. It is the fraction formed by 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 60 zeros.

And it also assumes that you HAVE to assemble everything in a single trial, and that cytochrome is not the sum result of millions of years of selection. This is something that you creationists dont seem to understand, or refuse to get through your skulls. Proteins like cytochrome c are themselves the products of millions of years of selection and there is no reason to think that it sprang forth from the ooze fully formed. In my first email to you I linked you to a you tube video that went through this argument in detail. I suggest you watch it. As it turns out, you can take something with a probability of 1E-500 and use a correct set of assumptions, and you can get the number of generations (or artificial computer organisms for example) down to a few hundred, or thousand to produce the desired trait, starting from scratch.

In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome in great detail.

1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros.

Except that that number is completely arbitrary, unfounded by the evidence, and uses a shitty methodology to calculate the probability thereof.

Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero. Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.

2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life.

Same problems apply, and it is a strawman, because no one is claiming that these reactions happened to produce that arbitrarily defined simplest concievable organisms (because the simplest conceivable organism is a phospholipid bubble with a completely random polymer inside...)

Here is once again a basic summary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_ ... C9&index=2



Are you capable of being intellectually honest?

There are yet more mysteries in life's probability (or improbability) which science has not plumbed. One mystery is how one virus has DNA with codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information. A gene is a portion of the long DNA molecule which carries the code for the sequence of amino acids in a chain that folds up to produce a particular protein molecule. The DNA molecule is itself made up of four code letter molecules called nucleotides. These provide the four-letter alphabet of genetics. Their names are abbreviated by the letters A, C, G and T. A three-letter "word" called a codon codes for a particular one of the twenty amino acids used to build protein chains.

The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, fX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can't be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.

No great mystery, and no problem for evolutionary theory. Why? bhecause that complexity did not arise by chance. It arose by natural selection, which is non-random.

You are here talking about chance, and how chance could not have formed life. Chance did not. Selection did. The only chance element was mutation in nucleotide sequences, the rest is non-random organic chemistry and selection on successive generations.

~Ben

[Darth Wong]

The bitch is back, with pretty much exactly the response I expected.

Your continuing closed mindedness, rudeness and arrogance ("Wow. You know how to copy and paste from the Internet. Did you learn that esoteric research skill by yourself, or did you take a course?") is truly a sign that you have little hope of ever finding the truth about the reality of God. I will pray for you.

Sincerely,
L Blackwell

Dear Michael,

I hadn't gotten to that part yet: "Sorry, but your God is dead. I killed him with math, bitch."

I will definitely pray even more for you to the God you can never kill. I feel so sorry for you.

God Bless You Michael with much needed insight.

Not a lot of thought there, as I expected. My response:

On October 2, 2008 09:26:09 am you wrote:

Your continuing closed mindedness, rudeness and arrogance ("Wow. You know how to copy and paste from the Internet. Did you learn that esoteric research skill by yourself, or did you take a course?") is truly a sign that you have little hope of ever finding the truth about the reality of God.

I will pray for you.
Sincerely,
L Blackwell

You have a lot of gall to lecture me about rudeness when you falsely accused me of not bothering to read any creationist arguments, even though you never even bothered to read my website to see if this was true. I actually spend a lot of time carefully examining creationist arguments in detail: something you have obviously never done with evolution arguments. In fact, you totally ignore all of my points even in this exchange. I cannot think of a single argument I've made which you've actually bothered to answer (and no, copy-pasting from a website is not an answer; that would be like responding to a verbal debate by throwing a magazine at your opponent).

Do you have any idea how rude it is to tell someone his work is wrong without actually bothering to read it? Or how dishonest it is? You're a liar and a coward, hiding behind false pretenses of sincerity when you in fact have not said one honest thing to me during our entire correspondence.

Your little catch-phrases like "I will pray for you" are the empty-headed aphorisms you cling to when your faith is challenged, because you do not know how to defend your beliefs any other way. Does it not occur to you that when better-educated people have such a quick and direct answer for all of your arguments, it might just mean that they're right and you're wrong? Does it occur to you that if you can't answer points directly, and must instead resort to ignoring them while spouting talking points and quoting from websites, it might mean that you don't know what you're talking about?

Your arrogance is incredible, and is a fine example of what is wrong with the creationist movement; it is based on ignorance, defiance of facts, mindless cyclic repetition of long-refuted or fraudulent arguments, and a blind tendency to ignore anything it does not understand.

If my salvation is so important to you, then why don't you make the effort to address any of my arguments? By failing to do so, you only further convince me that creationists have no clue what's going on. Surely you don't want to reinforce that impression, do you? Why don't you make the effort, if my salvation in Jesus Christ is so important to you? Of course, I already know the answer: you can't, because you choose to deliberately operate at the intellectual level of a child, just as all Christians are instructed to do.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/the- ... study.html

Dear Michael,

I hadn't gotten to that part yet: "Sorry, but your God is dead. I killed him with math, bitch."

I will definitely pray even more for you to the God you can never kill. I feel so sorry for you.

God Bless You Michael with much needed insight.

If my argument about the improbability of the Christian God is so lacking in "insight", why can't you explain what's logically wrong with it? Why this "I feel so sorry for you" nonsense? Is this how you respond to every argument you can't answer? More mindless catch-phrases which are completely irrelevant to the question, like Governor Sarah Palin completely ignoring a question about middle-class household debt in the VP debate to spout her talking points about how "Alaska is an energy-producing state?"

Of course, that was a rhetorical question because I already know the answer. Logic is as foreign to you as mathematics and science are; you think arguments are just collections of phrases that you hurl at your opponent like metaphorical javelins, rather than logic constructs which are meant to be analyzed and understood. That is why you never respond to a direct point. You think I just hurled an argument at you, so you should hurl an argument back, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you just received. That's not how it works: unlike you, people who actually go to school and read books are forced to learn how to break down an argument into logic and premises, and then address weaknesses in both.

What you need, little lady, is an EDUCATION. Too bad you clearly do not intend to ever get one. Perhaps you are afraid of what you might learn.

[Darth Ruinus]

What you need, little lady, is an EDUCATION. Too bad you clearly do not intend to ever get one. Perhaps you are afraid of what you might learn.

That's just priceless right there.

BTW, I have never thought of it that way. It does seem that many people think debates are a matter of not only "talking louder" but of simply responding, even if the response does not address the arguments, premises and logic at all. I know that kind of shit wouldn't fly in my Philosophy class (which is why I love it) and now I wonder why Philosophy or (what is it called? Introductory Logic?) isn't taught at an earlier age. My high school had Art History, Art, Native Studies etc. etc., but no Philosophy class. At least there, they might learn how to analyze arguments and belief systems based on their logic and reasoning. But sadly, these are only classes that you would normally take only until college, and lots of these people don't go anyway. Or they ignore it.

[The Spartan]

It does seem that many people think debates are a matter of not only "talking louder" but of simply responding, even if the response does not address the arguments, premises and logic at all.

You mean you've never encountered anyone who thinks that if they keep repeating the same thing, only louder and/or rephrased, that they will "win" the argument even though you just addressed what they said?

And yes, the "little lady" was wonderfully condescending. I was actually going to say something more until you did.

[Darth Ruinus]

You mean you've never encountered anyone who thinks that if they keep repeating the same thing, only louder and/or rephrased, that they will "win" the argument even though you just addressed what they said?

Well yes, a few people, including my parents when I told them I was an atheist

But what I mean to say was that, I usually thought of them doing so because they simply didn't have a response, or didn't want to argue. I have never figured that they did this because that is what they thought debates are. Just responses one after the other, and that if you can just make more responses, you win. It is hard to distinguish what you are I are saying though, when someone continues to talk because they think they are right, and when someone continues to talk because they feel they should.

And yes, the "little lady" was wonderfully condescending. I was actually going to say something more until you did.

Along with, "Sorry, but your God is dead. I killed him with math, bitch." these are some of the best insults I have seen on this board, and this board as some good insults.

[The Spartan]

Well yes, a few people, including my parents when I told them I was an atheist

But what I mean to say was that, I usually thought of them doing so because they simply didn't have a response, or didn't want to argue. I have never figured that they did this because that is what they thought debates are. Just responses one after the other, and that if you can just make more responses, you win. It is hard to distinguish what you are I are saying though, when someone continues to talk because they think they are right, and when someone continues to talk because they feel they should.

Have you ever seen Monty Python's Arugment Sketch?

[Darth Ruinus]

Have you ever seen Monty Python's Arugment Sketch?

I have now.

Yes, that sketch pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

You mean you've never encountered anyone who thinks that if they keep repeating the same thing, only louder and/or rephrased, that they will "win" the argument even though you just addressed what they said?

Well yes, a few people, including my parents when I told them I was an atheist

But what I mean to say was that, I usually thought of them doing so because they simply didn't have a response, or didn't want to argue. I have never figured that they did this because that is what they thought debates are.

The average person has never taken a course in logic or debating. They think a debate is exactly what you describe because that's how it's done in the media--especially in times like this with federal elections coming up both here in Canada and in the USA. Last night, a lot of my associates taped the 'debate' between the Canadian federal party leaders while watching the VP-candidate 'debate' between Biden and Palin. What they saw simply reinforced their notion of what a debate is.

Have you ever seen Monty Python's Arugment Sketch?

I have now.

Yes, that sketch pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.

No it doesn't!

[Darth Wong]

This is part of the great cultural divide in our society: stupid people are increasingly confident of their own abilities, and even though they literally have absolutely no idea what they're doing or even how to talk and debate, they think they do, and they think their way of doing it is actually better than the correct way.

[Kanastrous]

This is part of the great cultural divide in our society: stupid people are increasingly confident of their own abilities, and even though they literally have absolutely no idea what they're doing or even how to talk and debate, they think they do, and they think their way of doing it is actually better than the correct way.

It's much easier to be confident when everything looks to you like a simple black-and-white-zero-subtlety issue. Someone who knows a bit about current and conductivity and potential, is less likely to shove a fork into a power socket than someone whose grasp of the matter ends with 'turn switch lights go on.'

[Venator]

The average person has never taken a course in logic or debating.

In my experience, we got a fairly thorough course in debating rationally as early as late-year elementary school. I'd be interested to know if this was specific to my class/school, or if other people got similar exposure.

Of course, it's very possible for people as small-minded as this woman to not draw a connection between "dem fancy dee-baits" and an argument on the internet.

[Wyrm]

I actually spend a lot of time carefully examining creationist arguments in detail: something you have obviously never done with evolution arguments.

Or, indeed, with the creationist arguments, I'd wager.

[Darth Ruinus]

No it doesn't!

Yes it does!!

In my experience, we got a fairly thorough course in debating rationally as early as late-year elementary school. I'd be interested to know if this was specific to my class/school, or if other people got similar exposure.

What?

I demand to know what elementary school you went to, and I demand answers as to why I have never heard of this occuring anywhere else!!! What country did you go to school in?

[Kuroneko]

I demand to know what elementary school you went to, and I demand answers as to why I have never heard of this occuring anywhere else!!! What country did you go to school in?

Didn't you know? Canada is a magical place where everything is better. More seriously, some places divide their schools into elementary/high rather than elementary/middle/high, and even in the same country there is no guarantee of a consistent breakdown. For example, where I live, elementary school ends with year 4, but some other areas end it later. So really, over the internet, "late-year elementary school" could mean anything from grades 4 to grade 8; I'm betting more toward the latter in this case.

[Feil]

Mike - Is God-killing with math; that is - that particular quote - exclusive to this rebuttal? You've not used it before? I only ask because it is beautiful and I want to steal it.

I just made it up for this exchange. That creationist should feel honoured.

It was one of Mike's more inspired lines. For reasons I have yet to understand about the man, the stupidity of others seems almost to be to Mike's wit as nitro is to a car engine.

It's been independently developed a number of times. I know I've seen it on this site before. It's not exactly a hard thing to see: if a hundred people each claim to have the winning lottery ticket, the chances are high that any given one of them is lying. If a hundred people flip a coin and each one of them claims to be the only one who came up heads, the chances are really damn high that any given one of them is lying.

[Kitsune]

Have you tried a slightly different argument.....

I mean that there are huge numbers of scientists who support evolution yet call themselves Christian. Why not state that and ask why they are so threatened by the idea of descent with modification.

Ken Miller is a Catholic yet is a debater for Evolution and has written a large number of the text books used in high schools. He believes that evolution is the tool which god uses. Robert Bakker is a paleontologist who often brings forth controversial arguments on dinosauria and is a Pentecostal Minister.

Even Michael Behe, when pressed, believes in descent with modification. Most likely, god allows it to run on its own most of the time. He just seems to believe that periodically god will put in a helping hand.

[Venator]

I demand to know what elementary school you went to, and I demand answers as to why I have never heard of this occuring anywhere else!!! What country did you go to school in?

One in Canada? It might have been to do with the fact that I was in an "enriched" (gifted) class.

We got courses in debating from grade 6-8.

[Darth Ruinus]

One in Canada? It might have been to do with the fact that I was in an "enriched" (gifted) class.

We got courses in debating from grade 6-8.

I was in the gifted program too, from elementary to (I guess) middle school, and I wish I could have taken such a class.

[Dark Hellion]

While very photogenic Bakker is not popular as a scientist amongst his peers. He is a blowhard who really doesn't like to use the scientific method if it gets in the way of his theories. Of course, this is mostly hearsay from Dr. William Hammer's Dinosaurs class, so it may be biased, but I thought Bakker was very condescending the time I got to talk to him.

Sorry for the OT though, just a bit for Kit for the future. Bakker is not a great example to use cause he can fall apart under scrutiny on the science side.