How can atheism have morality?

a reply to: whereislogic

Where is your logic?

I know you and other fellow creationists can't handle the evidence for evolution or the fact this is one of the most successful scientific theories.

To argue that adaptation is not evolution is the same argument as when you argue that humans could have not descended from monkeys because if they did then why monkeys haven't evolved into humans.

I ve linked some of the research scientific papers in this thread but it's worth linking them again so to push back the misinformation and nonsense you are presenting.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record.

education.nationalgeographic.org...

Evolutionary adaptation, or simply adaptation, is the adjustment of organisms to their environment in order to improve their chances at survival in that environment

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#:~:text=Viral%20infection%20is%20a%20highly,adapt%20to%20the%20host%20environment.

Viral infection is a highly dynamic process, which lead to constant evolutionary changes on both sides of the viral–host interface. The high mutation rates of viruses, coupled with short generation times and large population sizes, allow viruses to rapidly adapt to the host environment. However, this high mutation rate also comes at a cost to the viral population, as deleterious mutations are constantly created, leading to a plethora of defective genomes. Here, we will discuss the basic tenets that govern the evolution of viruses: mutation rates, population size, selection, the multiplicity of infection, and how these factors modulate infection as viruses evolve within a host, during transmission to novel susceptible hosts, and as viruses establish infections in new host species

en.wikipedia.org...

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

bio.libretexts.org...(Kimball)/18%3A_Evolution/18.01%3A_Evolution_and_Adaptation#:~:text=Ev olution%20involves%20two%20interrelated%20phenomena,to%20succeed%20in%20their%20environment.

Evolution involves two interrelated phenomena: adaptation and speciation. In adaptation, over the course of time, species modify their phenotypes in ways that permit them to succeed in their environment.

So unless there is a huge conspiracy by scientists all over the world to argue against your intelligent design hypothesis and your belief in the deity who is the creator of this universe then your arguments not only are flawed and have no basis in science and logic but frankly they are ridiculous. And we can deduce the same about the objective morality deriving from the belief in the supernatural deity and designer of everything like the creationists claim.

Creationism belongs to the field of crackpotery and it can only be taught as part of a religious education lesson, it has no basis in reality.

originally posted by: daskakik

What about the rich man asking for Lazarus to give him a drop of water, where was he?

The bible is full of contradictions. Nobody can even prove the existence of the soul so don't act like this death of the soul is even a thing.

I think we can say this above and then ask the question of is morals a learned trait or is inherent. The same people who say God or the soul doesn't exist state that morals are some built-in trait while looking around we can see a lot of people without it.

a reply to: daskakik

All the skeptic is asking for is actual evidence for the central claim of evolution that Darwin made, as described in the article I quoted, not evidence for something else, and then calling it (micro)evolution. Just calling it evolution doesn't make it evolution or evidence for evolution.

The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

19. Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.

That is the central claim (the concept of mutations as the driving mechanism was added later). That evolution not only leads to new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. The observations that led Dr. Lönnig to formulate the law of recurrent variation demonstrate that this doesn't happen in nature, and other scientists, including prominent evolutionists, are well aware of it, but they won't address it "when grinding the evolutionary ax". Here is his website concerning the law of recurrent variation:

W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories. [whereislogic: a higher category than species is a family, also part of the central claim of evolution and a requirement to go from single-celled organisms to human beings and all the other species and families.]

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

Lynn Margulis

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.L.; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

Christian Schwabe

Most of the people quoted above are reputable* scientists, not one of them is either a creationist or a conspiracy theorist. *: for example, Pierre-Paul Grassé, the one who said that "mutations do not produce any kind of evolution", occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris. Lynn Margulis was an American evolutionary biologist. In 2002, Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science. Richard B. Goldschmidt was a German geneticist. He is considered the first to attempt to integrate genetics, development, and evolution. Goldschmidt left Munich in 1914 for the position as head of the genetics section of the newly founded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology in Berlin.

What we actually see in nature, is recurrent variation.

Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].” In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar​—the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”​—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 25.

Source: When a Fact Is Not a Fact (Awake!—1987)

As you can see, Science magazine already admitted to it (the observations on which the law of recurrent variation is based) back in the 80's, long before Dr. Lönnig phrased the term "law of recurrent variation", but that's exactly what Science magazine is describing and admitting to there. Variation is limited and oscillates around a mean, so that there can be variation in the beaksizes and shapes of finches, but the beak isn't going to become twice the size of the finch, and the finch isn't going to become something other than a finch. That is what we continuously observe in nature, limitations to the amount of variation you can get. And that means, no evolution is taking place, just variation within limits.

The article that distinguishes myths from facts concerning the claims made by evolutionists, gets more into the topic of "Darwin's finches" (under myth 2, which I skipped before). From the examples and research of these finches on the Galápagos Islands discussed there, you can again see the phenomenon of recurrent variation oscillating around a mean, preventing the finches from evolving into anything other than finches because they cannot cross/transgress that boundary (limit). As that article mentioned:

Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

22. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.

So...

Consider the implications of the above facts. ... If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Source: Evolution—Myths and Facts

A genuine and important question for evolutionists to answer now that their nr.1 mechanism for driving evolution (mutations) has failed so miserably to stand up to scrutiny and "the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together" (quoting Lönnig again from the same article).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: daskakik

All the skeptic is asking for is actual evidence for the central claim of evolution that Darwin made, as described in the article I quoted, not evidence for something else, and then calling it (micro)evolution. Just calling it evolution doesn't make it evolution or evidence for evolution.

Exactly. Look how upset they are that they can't provide an example. Organisms adapt, but they cannot evolve into something new. They've been artificially selecting 75,000 generations of E. Coli in the long-term evolution experiment, and it is still E. Coli with no signs of becoming any other bacteria. I respect and let people believe whatever they believe, but when they say it is fact that is when I have to interject.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record.

This is the same propaganda whereislogic was referring to a few pages ago. The extent of their evidence is that different populations of influenza are vulnerable to certain vaccines. Yet it is still influenza, year after year. It will never become something besides influenza. Just like humans have asian, african, and european, so too do all other organisms have variations within populations. But the evidence shows they will not be able to become something else

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: daskakik

All the skeptic is asking for is actual evidence for the central claim of evolution that Darwin made, as described in the article I quoted, not evidence for something else, and then calling it (micro)evolution. Just calling it evolution doesn't make it evolution or evidence for evolution.

Exactly. Look how upset they are that they can't provide an example. Organisms adapt, but they cannot evolve into something new. They've been artificially selecting 75,000 generations of E. Coli in the long-term evolution experiment, and it is still E. Coli with no signs of becoming any other bacteria. I respect and let people believe whatever they believe, but when they say it is fact that is when I have to interject.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record.

This is the same propaganda whereislogic was referring to a few pages ago. The extent of their evidence is that different populations of influenza are vulnerable to certain vaccines. Yet it is still influenza, year after year. It will never become something besides influenza. Just like humans have asian, african, and european, so too do all other organisms have variations within populations. But the evidence shows they will not be able to become something else

Expectable!

Science is now been renamed propaganda. How else could it be?!

I see your understanding of viruses and their evolution is non existent but that's not a surprise.

To your question on why the E.Coli hasn't changed to become a different bacteria... The answer is because of the same reason monkeys haven't changed to become humans despite the huge propaganda by the scientific community and the huge conspiracy against creationism by intelligent design.

originally posted by: daskakik
Honestly, I think it is dishonest for you to say you are right because they have not gotten there.

Thank you for admitting they haven't gotten there yet. I'm not being sarcastic, that is a huge feat of objectivity. Look at venkuish yelling that it is fact...

They are still trying to figure it out. You want to say you are right without backing it up and not even trying to prove how or why.

I think known mutations rates, and also the probability of creating a new functional group on a protein, are enough to show that these mechanisms cannot culminate in the diversity of life. It is as likely as a monkey designing an apple computer:

"the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10e77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."
source

That's 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
...000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

And that is just for one sub-set of a protein, not even a whole protein! As I showed in my one post, there's not enough time in the world for these odds to hit enough times:

not enough time in the world for mutations to have created the diversity of life

originally posted by: Venkuish1

To your question on why the E.Coli hasn't changed to become a different bacteria...

No the answer is because evolution does not happen, the probability is beyond plausibility. Proteins are cellular machinery, new fucntion micromolecular machines don't get coded for by random chance. Functioning machines don't emerge without intelligent design.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
Honestly, I think it is dishonest for you to say you are right because they have not gotten there.

Thank you for admitting they haven't gotten there yet. I'm not being sarcastic, that is a huge feat of objectivity. Look at venkuish yelling that it is fact...

They are still trying to figure it out. You want to say you are right without backing it up and not even trying to prove how or why.

I think known mutations rates, and also the probability of creating a new functional group on a protein, are enough to show that these mechanisms cannot culminate in the diversity of life. It is as likely as a monkey designing an apple computer:

"the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10e77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."
source

That's 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
...000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

And that is just for one sub-set of a protein, not even a whole protein! As I showed in my one post, there's not enough time in the world for these odds to hit enough times:

not enough time in the world for mutations to have created the diversity of life

originally posted by: Venkuish1

To your question on why the E.Coli hasn't changed to become a different bacteria...

No the answer is because evolution does not happen, the probability is beyond plausibility. Proteins are cellular machinery, new fucntion micromolecular machines don't get coded for by random chance. Functioning machines don't emerge without intelligent design.

Evolution is a fact not a hypothesis.

Yelling what? I am just stating a fact. You need to be able to differentiate between a scientific theory and a hypothesis but still your level of understanding of science is very limited or to say non existent.

Perhaps you need to get a look at my links and references. It's not a debate about evolution but there is a good description on how evolution works.

In contrast there is no evidence for creationism by intelligent design. Even if evolution never happened then you still need evidence and proof for your hypothesis. So far creationists have shown nothing other than personal convictions and feelings.

How can evolution be correct if monkeys are still monkeys and they haven't become humans.These arguments you guys make show precisely what creationism is.

Do you have any scientific peer reviewed papers on creationism by intelligent design?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: daskakik

The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19

19. Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.

That is the central claim (the concept of mutations as the driving mechanism was added later). ...

More about the bolded part:

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: daskakik

What about the rich man asking for Lazarus to give him a drop of water, where was he?

The bible is full of contradictions. Nobody can even prove the existence of the soul so don't act like this death of the soul is even a thing.

I think we can say this above and then ask the question of is morals a learned trait or is inherent. The same people who say God or the soul doesn't exist state that morals are some built-in trait while looking around we can see a lot of people without it.

But are people really without morals or is it something else?

Like the serial murderers where it was found their brains differ from everyone else. Or the new mother that puts her baby in a shopping bag and abandons outside it in freezing temperatures, is she suffering from postpartum depression? When a child is subjected to abuse from others through their lives and they take on the traits of the abusers as a means of personal survival, where should the blame for immorality lie?

I am sure there are many more examples of why someone might choose to act in such as way as others would label it immoral but there are gray areas.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Evolution is a fact not a hypothesis.

Yelling what? I am just stating a fact.

Yet the best evidence you could find for evolution is influenza still being influenza? Your faith is strong, unshakeable. Despite not seeing, you are believing.

In contrast there is no evidence for creationism by intelligent design.

Every component of a biological organisms is a machine-like designed component:

ATP synthase - Motor
DNA polymerase - Data parsing
Ribosome - 3D printer
Flagellum - Boat motor
Mitochondrion - Hydrogen fuel cell generator

It is all very intelligent. motors, data parsing, 3D printers and hydrogen fuel cell generators require intelligence to be created. None of it appears to be the product of random chance.

Do you have any scientific peer reviewed papers on creationism by intelligent design?

There's as many articles on intelligent design as there are articles that depict a population of organisms evolving into something new. But if intelligent design were to be allowed in science journals, there would be countless articles that depict the various signs of design in biological organisms.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
I think we can say this above and then ask the question of is morals a learned trait or is inherent. The same people who say God or the soul doesn't exist state that morals are some built-in trait while looking around we can see a lot of people without it.

They have argued that it is part of self preservation and empathy. So, in that way in can be inherent even if there is no god or soul.

Of course some people, like psychopaths, lack empathy.

a reply to: cooperton

Why can't god's design be to happen naturally, over billions of years, through evolution, and the barely post Neolithic former ape people just hadn't evolved their worldly conceptions yet?

Why does it have to be instant. Given the complexity of the universe, I think it tracks better for intelligent design to be like the one the Catholic Big Bang Priest proposed, and draw it back, acknowledge the 13.5 billion years, and come up with a creation that fits observation.

Sure, a God can create a chaotic and random universe, but within it are organic compounds that can build themselves in complexity over long periods of time.

You don't even have to remove god to uphold all the science of evolution. Just say God created a universe to evolve, and then allow for secondary organic life to arise.

Theologically, if the holy ghost, or whatever, that imparts the scripture is an emenation of the godhead, then maybe it was "interpreted knowledge in reference to what was believed at that time"

Like I'm saying the spirit that conveys the god words perhaps goes through a subjective filter that incorporates new information when it becomes known. It is basically what we imagine the divine would say and project it too.

I think that messed up. I dont think the channeling is completely accurate, ever, and can also be really wrong. It may need a new freaking prophet to lens it in the modern age. Reexplain the parable of creation, and make it fit observation, instead of vice versa.

a reply to: whereislogic
And all I'm saying is that scientists, unlike the skeptic, have pieces of the puzzle and are still working on it, while the skeptic wants to say they are right with no proof at all.

Also, if it turns out they were wrong, it will be noted. Even if individual scientists might be dishonest, the general body of work doesn't have a bias.

Just look at nutrition:

For decades, people have been told that the dietary cholesterol in foods raises blood cholesterol levels and causes heart disease. This idea may have been a rational conclusion based on the available science 50 years ago, but more recent evidence calls this into question.

Why Dietary Cholesterol Does Not Matter (For Most People)

originally posted by: cooperton
Thank you for admitting they haven't gotten there yet. I'm not being sarcastic, that is a huge feat of objectivity. Look at venkuish yelling that it is fact...

But what they are pointing at are facts, so the theory is based on something, it isn't just faith.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: whereislogic
And all I'm saying is that scientists, unlike the skeptic, have pieces of the puzzle and are still working on it, while the skeptic wants to say they are right with no proof at all.

No proof at all???

No amount of evidence would make you change your mind. If soft tissue in dinosaur bones, depictions of dinosaurs with humans, dinosaur soft tissue being carbon-dated to less than 40,000 years old, and human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs doesn't convince you that the theory is bunk, then there is nothing that could. links: compiled data on dinosaurs being recent, compiled data on human footprints in dinosaur strata

The probability from one of your own white coat papers says the probability of a beneficial mutations to a protein functional group is 1 in 1x10^77 !!! There's plenty of evidence to show this theory is a dead-end (link)

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

Why can't god's design be to happen naturally, over billions of years, through evolution, and the barely post Neolithic former ape people just hadn't evolved their worldly conceptions yet?

The evidence just doesn't point to it. In my younger years I was full atheist, but further scientific investigation led me to realize evolution is bunk. It's just an unintelligent theory regarding the origin of intelligent things.

Why does it have to be instant. Given the complexity of the universe, I think it tracks better for intelligent design to be like the one the Catholic Big Bang Priest proposed, and draw it back, acknowledge the 13.5 billion years, and come up with a creation that fits observation.

An interesting phenomenon of the big bang is that it "happened at all points in the universe simultaneously". It's more like a hologram turning on at all points rather than a big explosion.

You don't even have to remove god to uphold all the science of evolution. Just say God created a universe to evolve, and then allow for secondary organic life to arise.

I didn't disbelieve evolution due to God, I disbelieved evolution due to scientific pursuit and it led me to God

I think that messed up. I dont think the channeling is completely accurate, ever, and can also be really wrong. It may need a new freaking prophet to lens it in the modern age. Reexplain the parable of creation, and make it fit observation, instead of vice versa.

I agree, I try to explain my position through empirical evidence, but the moment i mention the J, G, or B word, people automatically tune out. This world is very evidently a designed construct, but dogma from both the religious and secular side get in the way of true realization. For example, some religious close their ears to any science talk, while some secularists close their ears to any talk of God or Jesus. I promise I'm not just a Bible thumper, I have investigated these things and I have a high probability of certainty that what I say is true.

a reply to: cooperton
Yes, no proof. Drawings and people using the word dragon isn't proof.

Even hominids walking with the dinosaurs isn't proof of young earth. The oldest ones have been dated to around 6 million years.

The probability of beneficial mutations being large doesn't rule out it happening in a couple of decades and even millennia is a small amount of time when compared to the 3.7 billion years estimated for the first life to show up here and the number of living things where these mutations can take place bring that probability way down.

We've gone through all this before.

originally posted by: daskakik

Even hominids walking with the dinosaurs isn't proof of young earth. The oldest ones have been dated to around 6 million years.

It's proof of dinosaurs living recently rather than millions of years ago.

The probability of beneficial mutations being large doesn't rule out it happening in a couple of decades and even millennia is a small amount of time when compared to the 3.7 billion years estimated for the first life to show up here and the number of living things where these mutations can take place bring that probability way down.

We've gone through all this before.

Yes we have been through this before:

"the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10e77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."
source

That's 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
...000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

And that is just for one sub-set of a protein, not even a whole protein! As I showed in my one post, there's not enough time in the world for these odds to hit enough times:

not enough time in the world for mutations to have created the diversity of life

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Evolution is a fact not a hypothesis.

Yelling what? I am just stating a fact.

Yet the best evidence you could find for evolution is influenza still being influenza? Your faith is strong, unshakeable. Despite not seeing, you are believing.

In contrast there is no evidence for creationism by intelligent design.

Every component of a biological organisms is a machine-like designed component:

ATP synthase - Motor
DNA polymerase - Data parsing
Ribosome - 3D printer
Flagellum - Boat motor
Mitochondrion - Hydrogen fuel cell generator

It is all very intelligent. motors, data parsing, 3D printers and hydrogen fuel cell generators require intelligence to be created. None of it appears to be the product of random chance.

Do you have any scientific peer reviewed papers on creationism by intelligent design?

There's as many articles on intelligent design as there are articles that depict a population of organisms evolving into something new. But if intelligent design were to be allowed in science journals, there would be countless articles that depict the various signs of design in biological organisms.

You have made a claim that evolution isn't true and you are supporting creationism by intelligent design for which there is no evidence.

I just gave you one of countless examples that clearly shows how evolution works. Two of my links are from scientific research/review papers that don't debate evolution but present its various aspects and give some examples, including the evolution of viruses.

You created some strawman but I understand your position. You said if this is the best evidence of evolution. I never made any argument this is the best evidence. But one of the examples that disproves your assertions. It's called viral evolution for which most of us are familiar with unless you are a creationist.b

I know that you have characterised those scientists as brainwashed and whatever else you claimed but they just dismantle your worldview and I am sure you can't accept it.

I ve asked you if you can find scientific papers in creationism and you said you can!!!!! Can you show me which scientists have published in which journals and if their work has been peer reviewed?
I am curious.

Ribosomes, flagellums, mitochondria, RNA & DNA, are all studied in the context of biology, chemistry, and related fields and not in the context of creationism. What you claimed above is absurd. None of them show intelligent design. It's just another assertion with no evidence.

Perhaps you want to write a research/review papers and try to publish it. Start by claiming that all the scientists in the field of biology/chemistry are brainwashed and they need to see the truth through the eyes of creationism.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik

Even hominids walking with the dinosaurs isn't proof of young earth. The oldest ones have been dated to around 6 million years.

It's proof of dinosaurs living recently rather than millions of years ago.

The probability of beneficial mutations being large doesn't rule out it happening in a couple of decades and even millennia is a small amount of time when compared to the 3.7 billion years estimated for the first life to show up here and the number of living things where these mutations can take place bring that probability way down.

We've gone through all this before.

Yes we have been through this before:

"the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10e77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."
source

That's 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
...000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

And that is just for one sub-set of a protein, not even a whole protein! As I showed in my one post, there's not enough time in the world for these odds to hit enough times:

not enough time in the world for mutations to have created the diversity of life

That's hilarious!

Dinosaurs walked on Earth a few thousands years ago. And I suppose Earth is only a few thousands of years old.

What do physicists know after all... They are mistaken for once more to assume Earth is 4.5 billion years old.