There are no gods

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I gave book quotes from Evolution scientists who side with you and the theory of Evolution, who better to know and turn to than them? And after years of research they make statements such as these in their books; here are just a few:

In his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," about the invalidity of the theory of evolution, renowned evolutionist molecular biologist Prof. Michael Denton explains the unreasonable conviction of Darwinists:

“To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply AN AFFRONT TO REASON. BUT TO THE DARWINIST, THE IDEA IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT A RIPPLE OF DOUBT - THE PARADIGM TAKES PRECEDENCE!”

It is interesting you quote the CREATIONIST MICHAEL DENTON - MEMBER OF THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE since I just posted a host of quotes from reviews of his book that BLAST him as fundamentally dishonest and incompetent.

I can't believe you are continuing with your the absurd practice of quote mining. The quotes mean nothing without context.

You still don't understand the fundamental flaw in your method. You are merely quoting things OUT OF CONTEXT. You don't understand the science, and even if you did you wouldn't know the context of the quotes. That's why quote mining is absurd.

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University.

What's the date on that quote? Hoyle was born in 1915! This is so typical of creationist quote mining. They take antiquated quotes as if they were authoritative. And what is the context? you don't know. And what were Hoyle's qualifications to comment on evolutionary biology? He was an astronomer, not a biologist.

"... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space.

That argument is fallacious because no one says that enzymes appeared by "random trial." Chemical evolution is governed by natural law, not mere chance. From the quote, it appears that Hoyle didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Of course, I can't say anything for sure because I don't have the context.

Conclusion: There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures as DNA.

That's a misrepresentation of the theory.

Listen Henry, you are not a scientist. You have no way to evaluate the scientific validity of any of those quotes. That's your error.

Here's what you need to do. You need to read a real book by a real evolutionary scientist that explains the theory of evolution and the facts that support it. Then you can begin to evaluate the validity of the theory.

This out of the very mouths of Evolutionists, what more evidence is needed?

DENTON IS NOT AN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST! HOYLE WAS NOT AN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIST!

You have written many, many things that have been totally debunked. You should review what I have written and publicly state every argument that you put forth that was wrong. That is what a true Truth Seeker would do.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Henry,

I'm glad you asked!

"How can it be possible to provide any evidence for either side without quoting our sources?" The answer is simple. You find one or two sources that give a sufficient and relevant account of the accepted scientific results which can be be used as evidence, and you present that evidence and we can discuss it. But that's not what you did at all. You splattered me with a dozen or more quotes from all sorts of sources, including people totally committed to creationism. And most of the quotes had nothing directly to do with my question, and worse, they were mere opinions.

If you have real science on your side, simply quote one or two authentic scientific sources. Case in point: I had asked you for evidence that "matter cannot create information." This evoked a blizzard of quotes from all over the map. Most of them did not have anything to do with the question I asked. Here is what I wrote:

If you disagree, then please cite some scientifically reputable literature that claims and demonstrates that "matter cannot create information."

Did you cite any scientific literature like I asked? No. You simply gave me a blizzard of quotes from a wide variety of contradictory sources.

So here's what you need to do. CITE AN AUTHENTIC SCIENTIFIC SOURCE THAT ASSERTS AND EXPLAINS WHY "matter cannot create information."

Let me elaborate: Suppose I asked about the meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You wouldn't give me a dozen quotes! You would link to the wiki article or an article on an authentic scientific website. That's all I'm asking now. Show me that scientists really have a developed theory that says "matter cannot create information."

Thanks,

Richard

Hey there Henry,

Why have you refused to present any scientific literature like I asked? I do not want a bunch of irrelevant quotes from creationists. I want PROOF of your assertion that both evolutionists and creationists agree that "matter cannot create information." Please cite a scientific source that explains the scientific principle that "matter cannot create information." No quotes of opinions. Give me some evidence that there really is such a theory out there. I'm talking about a primary source. If you asked for evidence that there is a theory of gravity, I would present you with the theory of gravity, not a bunch of quotes by pseudo-scientists disputing that things don't actually fall.

Thanks,

Richard

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

Why have you refused to present any scientific literature like I asked? I do not want a bunch of irrelevant quotes from creationists. I want PROOF of your assertion that both evolutionists and creationists agree that "matter cannot create information." Please cite a scientific source that explains the scientific principle that "matter cannot create information." No quotes of opinions. Give me some evidence that there really is such a theory out there. I'm talking about a primary source. If you asked for evidence that there is a theory of gravity, I would present you with the theory of gravity, not a bunch of quotes by pseudo-scientists disputing that things don't actually fall.

The proof is found in the BOOKS (the “scientific source”) written by reputable Evolutionist scientists (some who have become creation scientists, but nonetheless at one time were hard core evolutionists); while many still remain evolutionists. The quotes given by them in those books is their conclusions drawn from their years of scientific research that spontaneous generation (life from non-life matter) is all but impossible.

I see no need to give pages of their research, only the source, their book or paper which confirms the conclusions given by them to be true IS the “scientific source” you ask for. The “scientific principle” is explained in their books and has been attempted by evolution scientists in laboratories many times in the past and their conclusions are a well known fact (on the internet, books, etc.); and it has shown that matter cannot create life (information as seen in DNA).

The literature and conclusion of:

Yockey, Hubert P., "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67 (1977)
p. 396"The ‘warm little pond’ scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found…. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

Yorkey to this day is still a hard core evolution scientist. (See his bio on wiki).

The literature and conclusion of:

Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), pp.*77-83.
p. 78

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."
p. 78

"We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the RNA world…. This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis."
p. 83

"The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future."

Orgel (died in 2007) was a hard core evolution scientist until his death. (See his bio on wiki).

I know you will reject this as “insufficient,” but I see no reason to go on and give pages and pages of scientific literature by evolutionists when their conclusions tell us the story of spontaneous generation, that it is all but impossible. I see no need to go on with this when Evolution studies and tests have confirmed the impossibility of life from non-life matter.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The proof is found in the BOOKS (the “scientific source”) written by reputable Evolutionist scientists (some who have become creation scientists, but nonetheless at one time were hard core evolutionists); while many still remain evolutionists. The quotes given by them in those books is their conclusions drawn from their years of scientific research that spontaneous generation (life from non-life matter) is all but impossible.

I see no need to give pages of their research, only the source, their book or paper which confirms the conclusions given by them to be true IS the “scientific source” you ask for. The “scientific principle” is explained in their books and has been attempted by evolution scientists in laboratories many times in the past and their conclusions are a well known fact (on the internet, books, etc.); and it has shown that matter cannot create life (information as seen in DNA).

The literature and conclusion of:

Yockey, Hubert P., "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67 (1977)

Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), pp.*77-83.
p. 78

I know you will reject this as “insufficient,” but I see no reason to go on and give pages and pages of scientific literature by evolutionists when their conclusions tell us the story of spontaneous generation, that it is all but impossible. I see no need to go on with this when Evolution studies and tests have confirmed the impossibility of life from non-life matter.

God bless---Twospirits

Hey there Henry,

You totally missed your own point. You had asserted scientists agree that "matter cannot create information." I asked for verification of that fact, and you splattered me with a blizzard of mostly irrelevant quotes that had nothing to do with the question I asked.

Do you maintain that there is a general scientific consensus that "matter cannot create information"? If so, please cite a reference to the scientific documentation supporting that specific idea. Something as simple as a wiki article would be just fine.

Thanks!

Richard

[Twospirits]

Hey there Henry,

You totally missed your own point. You had asserted scientists agree that "matter cannot create information." I asked for verification of that fact, and you splattered me with a blizzard of mostly irrelevant quotes that had nothing to do with the question I asked.

Do you maintain that there is a general scientific consensus that "matter cannot create information"? If so, please cite a reference to the scientific documentation supporting that specific idea. Something as simple as a wiki article would be just fine.

Thanks!

Richard

Creation scientists hold this consensus as well as some of the evolution scientists by their studies in physics and biology through the years. Some came forth and admitted as such in their books and research papers (see my posts), but its not a black and white consensus on paper. In any event here's a link where it gives scientific evidence that non-life (matter) cannot produce life as seen in DNA. It is a creation site so I'm sure you'll say their presentation is absurd, in any case here's what you asked for, now I'm done with this.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Creation scientists hold this consensus as well as some of the evolution scientists by their studies in physics and biology through the years. Some came forth and admitted as such in their books and research papers (see my posts), but its not a black and white consensus on paper. In any event here's a link where it gives scientific evidence that non-life (matter) cannot produce life as seen in DNA. It is a creation site so I'm sure you'll say their presentation is absurd, in any case here's what you asked for, now I'm done with this.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

God bless---Twospirits

That's not what I asked for.

I asked for evidence supporting your assertion that there is a scientific basis for the idea that "matter cannot create information." You have not provided any evidence supporting your assertion, so I take that as an admission that you have no such evidence.

It would have been better if you just admitted your error in the first place rather than forcing me to repeat my question so many times.

[Twospirits]

Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
Creation scientists hold this consensus as well as some of the evolution scientists by their studies in physics and biology through the years. Some came forth and admitted as such in their books and research papers (see my posts), but its not a black and white consensus on paper. In any event here's a link where it gives scientific evidence that non-life (matter) cannot produce life as seen in DNA. It is a creation site so I'm sure you'll say their presentation is absurd, in any case here's what you asked for, now I'm done with this.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

God bless---Twospirits


That's not what I asked for.

I asked for evidence supporting your assertion that there is a scientific basis for the idea that "matter cannot create information." You have not provided any evidence supporting your assertion, so I take that as an admission that you have no such evidence.

It would have been better if you just admitted your error in the first place rather than forcing me to repeat my question so many times.

Richard, I have given you evidence. The evidence is seen in the laws of physics and biology coupled with the quotes given by creation and evolution scientists confirming that the laws of physics and biology makes it impossible that “life can come from inanimate matter.” The reason you keep insisting that I have not provided any evidence is because you deny the laws of physics and biology as evolutionists do. That's fine but don't say I haven't provided evidence.

All forms of matter and energy are governed by the laws of physics, and its behavior is determined solely by the laws of physics. It does not act, it is inanimate (dead) but instead retains its inertia until acted upon by outside forces. This is a simple and basic fact of science. This is what I meant when I asserted that “matter cannot create life,” it has to have an outside force (creator/designer). It is only the evolution scientists and you Richard who disagree with the laws of physics, they/you assert otherwise, but the theory has yet to be proven by thousands of scientists worldwide for 150 years that “life can come from inanimate matter,” so until then the laws of physics and biology stand.

I'm absolutely done with this, say what you will.

God bless---Twospirits

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That's not what I asked for.

I asked for evidence supporting your assertion that there is a scientific basis for the idea that "matter cannot create information." You have not provided any evidence supporting your assertion, so I take that as an admission that you have no such evidence.

It would have been better if you just admitted your error in the first place rather than forcing me to repeat my question so many times.

Richard, I have given you evidence. The evidence is seen in the laws of physics and biology coupled with the quotes given by creation and evolution scientists confirming that the laws of physics and biology makes it impossible that “life can come from inanimate matter.” The reason you keep insisting that I have not provided any evidence is because you deny the laws of physics and biology as evolutionists do. That's fine but don't say I haven't provided evidence.

All forms of matter and energy are governed by the laws of physics, and its behavior is determined solely by the laws of physics. It does not act, it is inanimate (dead) but instead retains its inertia until acted upon by outside forces. This is a simple and basic fact of science. This is what I meant when I asserted that “matter cannot create life,” it has to have an outside force (creator/designer). It is only the evolution scientists and you Richard who disagree with the laws of physics, they/you assert otherwise, but the theory has yet to be proven by thousands of scientists worldwide for 150 years that “life can come from inanimate matter,” so until then the laws of physics and biology stand.

I'm absolutely done with this, say what you will.

God bless---Twospirits

Henry,

There is no need to quit this conversation. We have encountered this kind of problem before in our discussions. I asked you a specific question about a specific assertion you made, namely, that "matter cannot create information." Your reply did not contain a single word addressing the question I asked! Not a single word! You changed your assertion to "it impossible that life can come from inanimate matter." That's a very important assertion I would be happy to discuss, but it is NOT what I asked about. Therefore, you frustration is not with anything I have written or anything I have failed to understand. Your frustration is with the fact that you cannot answer my question.

Now as for your assertion that evolutionists "deny the laws of physics and biology" - I really can't think of a more ludicrous assertion. And I mean that most literally. Everything scientists do is based on the laws of physics and biology. Scientist would fail at everything they did if they denied the laws of physics and biology. They could not map the human genome. They could not create new medicines. They couldn't do anything at all. And they most certainly would be exposed and rejected by all other scientists if they "denied the laws of physics and biology." You assertion is utterly false. Indeed, ridiculously so, especially coming from someone who is not himself a scientist.

Now as I said, there is no need to quit this conversation. Your assertion that "it impossible that life can come from inanimate matter" could be true for all I know, but on the other hand it could be false. The jury is out. But for someone like you who knows very little of science and who has a strong religious bias to assert that you know the answer and that all the highly trained peer-reviewed scientists who disagree are all wrong and are "denying the laws of physics and biology" is entirely irrational and unfounded. How can you set yourself up as judge over all the scientists on the planet who disagree with you? Doesn't that seem just a wee bit arrogant?

Now your assertion that matter "does not act, it is inanimate (dead) but instead retains its inertia until acted upon by outside forces" is based on a false understanding of physics. Matter and energy "act" on each other all the time. And many of those interactions cause chemical evolution. Let's start with the big bang. In the early stage, all the energy in the universe was just radiation. When it began to cool subatomic particles like electrons and protons began to interact to form hydrogen atoms which clumped together under gravity which compressed them until they began to fuse and a star was born. All this through natural law. No intelligence was needed at any step. During stellar fusion the heavier elements like carbon and oxygen evolved, and when the star went nova it spewed out the elements that then collapsed into planets like the one we live on.

Natural chemical evolution continued to form more complex molecules. This is all basic physics for which there is no dispute. The only dispute comes in when we ask about how DNA and the first cell formed. We don't know yet. It could have been a divine intervention for all anyone knows. Or it could have been the result of chemical evolution through natural law. >>> This is the gap in the science. <<< Then after the first cell, we can trace the evolution of life through the last 3 billion years on this planet. There is no evidence anywhere in the fossil record or the laws of biology that indicate any intelligent design except for assertions about "irreducible complexity" which are strongly disputed and far from conclusive. Normal scientists do not need to "deny" any law of physics or biology in their studies of evolution. Sure, there are mysteries, but what do you expect for a science that is less than 200 years old?

So anyway, I sincerely hope the conversation will continue, but if not, so be it.

Peace to you my friend,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. [149]

The footnote 149 gives this as the source of that quote: Hubert P. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 91, No. 1 (July 7, 1981), p. 13.

Checking the facts about Hubert Yockey led me to his blog which has one post and four comments. This is what his daughter says on said blog:

This post is written by Cynthia Yockey. The first thing I want noted about my father is that he is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science.

Yockey is not a Creationist in "any way, shape, or form. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science."

Yet he is quoted out of context in the article which Henry copied from a Creationist site! They used that out-of-context quote to support their assertions which DIRECTLY CONTRADICT everything else the man believes.

Given that Henry chose to make his assertions in bold, red, underlined font, I will respond in kind:

Hubert P. Yockey is not in any way, shape or form a Creationist. He does not support Intelligent Design. He supports Darwin’s theory of evolution and points out that it is one of the best-supported theories in science.

This is yet another example of why the Creationist practice of quote mining is so nefarious. They use it to mislead people into thinking that scientists support Creationism and Intelligent Design and that Darwin's theory of evolution is not only false, but an impossibility. Basically, these Creationists are loudly and unambiguously proclaiming "THE TRUTH BE DAMNED! We will say whatever is necessary to deceive people into believing in our religion."


Just gotta check the facts and Creationism crumbles to nothing.

[Twospirits]

Richard wrote,

I asked you a specific question about a specific assertion you made, namely, that "matter cannot create information."

I did NOT make that assertion, this was a quote from the evidence given on this site http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html This was ;posted on page 5, post #47. The quote was given backed with the evidence seen in the article. I thought you understood that, because it was clearly given WITHIN the article itself. It was not my assertion! Here is part of it below. The quote from the article is highlighted in red. (the numbers you see give the sources in the index of the article).

Many, if not most, origin-of-life researchers now agree with Hoyle: Life could not have originated by chance or by any known natural processes. [148] Many Evolutionists are now searching for some theoretical force within matter which might push matter toward the assembly of greater complexity. Most Creationists believe this is doomed to failure, since it contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It is important to note that the information written on DNA molecules is not produced by any known natural interaction of matter. Matter and molecules have no innate intelligence, allowing self organization into codes. There are no known physical laws which give molecules a natural tendency to arrange themselves into such coded structures. [149]


Like a computer disk, DNA has no intelligence. The complex, purposeful codes of this “master program” could only have originated outside itself. In the case of a computer program, the original codes were put there by an intelligent being, a programmer. Likewise, for DNA, it seems clear that intelligence must have come first, before the existence of DNA. Statistically, the odds are enormously in favor of that theory. DNA bears the marks of intelligent manufacture.

Dr. Wilder-Smith was an honored scientist with three earned doctorate degrees. He was well-informed on modern biology and biochemistry. What, in his considered opinion, was the source of the DNA codes found in each wondrous plant and animal?

“… an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA… is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information.” [150]

"As a scientist, I am convinced that the pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the workings of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of the cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules of that cell.

I hope this clears things up!

(P.S. The site doesn't claim that Yorky is a creation scientist, it just gave him as a source to confirm what they wrote. There are other sources there that shows some are evolution scientists as well but only to confirm that their writings (creationist writings) agree with the evidence given on both sides of the issue discussed.).

God bless---Twospirits