Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Biblical forgery case in court...
msnbc.msn.com ^ | Dec. 29, 2004 | AP

Posted on 12/29/2004 8:11:39 PM PST by crushelits

International News

IMAGE: FORGED ISRAEL ANTIQUITY
This undated photo released by the Israel Museum on Dec. 24 shows a forged ivory pomegranate that had been thought to be the only surviving relic from Solomon's Temple.
Israel accuses 4 of forging trove of biblical artifacts
Sophisticated fakes were hailed as important archeological discoveries.

JERUSALEM - Israeli police indicted four antique dealers and collectors Wednesday for allegedly running a sophisticated forgery ring that created a trove of fake biblical artifacts, including some hailed as among the most important archaeological objects ever uncovered in the region.

The forged items include an ivory pomegranate touted by scholars as the only relic from Solomon’s Temple, an ossuary that reputedly held the bones of James, Jesus’ brother, and a stone tablet with inscriptions on how to maintain the Jewish Temple, officials said.

“During the last 20 years, many archaeological items were sold, or an attempt was made to sell them, in Israel and in the world, that were not actually antiques,” the indictment said. “These items, many of them of great scientific, religious, sentimental, political and economic value were created specifically with intent to defraud.” The 27-page indictment charges Israeli collector Oded Golan, along with three antiquities dealers, Robert Deutsch, Shlomo Cohen and Faiz al-Amaleh, on 18 counts including forgery, receiving fraudulent goods and damaging antiquities. Deutsch is an inscriptions expert who teaches at Haifa University.



(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: artifacts; bible; biblical; biblicalarcheology; case; court; forgery; godsgravesglyphs; hoax; israel; pomegranate; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: MissAmericanPie

> the accuracy of end time prophecies

Prophets have been declaring that "the end is nigh" for longer than there has been recorded history. I see nothign to suggest that things are changing in this regard.


41 posted on 01/02/2005 9:12:42 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
> The evidence is what it is and the Bible does not dispute the evidence.

"The Bible may not, but Creationists sure do. The universe, from the distant structure of the universe on the megaparsec scale to the rocks under our feet speak eloquently and clearly of vast age and vast changes over time."

Well then since the Bible does not dispute the evidence why mock and jeer at what is Written. You might actually teach the C's their missing links.

> There have been temptations through my life to believe in evolution

"Have there been temptations to believe in modern medecine, too?"

What is it with the E's obsession with what they call modern.

> The missing links are missing cause there were never any links to begin with.

"Riiiiiiiiight."

Show me the whole skeletons of man that were around during the dinosaurs. There are heaps of skeletons of many kinds of dinosaurs. There is only art work of the actual evolution process.
42 posted on 01/02/2005 9:40:38 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

You gave no indication of having read the Bible in depth, or of being a Christian at any point in your past. But a Christian is one who has been "born again" (see Acts chapters 2,8,10,and 19 for recorded happenings of this supernatural phenomenon). People that experience that rebirth certainly don't consider God to be a "monster" at all.


43 posted on 01/02/2005 10:08:56 PM PST by Zuriel (God is the Rock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

> Well then since the Bible does not dispute the evidence why mock and jeer at what is Written.

Point where I've "mocked and jeered" at the Bible. Creationists, yes... but much as it m ay surprise them, they are NOT the Bible.

> Show me the whole skeletons of man that were around during the dinosaurs.

Wow. How can I possibly compete with "The Flintstones?"


44 posted on 01/02/2005 11:00:05 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Zuriel

> People that experience that rebirth certainly don't consider God to be a "monster" at all.

Well, why would God plant false evidence in the genes, the rocks and the sky? That's the whole point. The evidence of evolution is clear. Either that's the way of things... or God lied in order to trick people.


45 posted on 01/02/2005 11:04:49 PM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes; orionblamblam; crushelits; Soliton; To Lurk or Not to Lurk; Luddite Patent Counsel; ...
Thank you, patriot_wes.
And blessings to you and yours.

Looks like orionblamblam just wants to argue, not discuss. He won't provide facts and links, just meaningless statements. He refuses to acknowledge logic, reasoning, and mathematical principals of probability. I find it interesting that he is an engineer, yet he is unable to construct a probable and logical scenario to support his position of Random Chance,

Instead, he diverts the question to supposed evidence (none of which he has provided) of evolution. He steadfastly avoids the main problem of evolution theory: the leap from inorganic chemicals to life. He ignores the well-established biological principal that only life can create life. He can not produce one example of life evolving from inorganic matter.

He ignores the fact that the scientific community has established the standard that any probability less than 1050  is virtual 0, no chance at all.  I have tried to avoid posting long dissertations about this, but it appears that it is necessary to provide. 

For orionblamblam and all the others on this thread, the following is a rather lengthy excerpt from a well reasoned and researched dissertation on this subject:

From:   http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html

All biological life is rich in information, and the basic question is : Could biological information possibly have initially originated (in any reasonable mathematical probability) by the random processes of nature without any intelligent intervention, ---or in contradistinction, is intelligent design (ID) the most probable and logical explanation for biological information in nature?

Information: Complex, Specified and Functional

"Information theory" is a special area of mathematics which has developed a way to define and quantify information. When information theorists speak about "information", they are not merely referring to "order." Basic order in nature is seen in the structure of a crystal, such as in an ice crystal, because a large number of atoms or molecules bond together in a precisely structured way. ---As a matter of fact, one naturalistic theory of the origin of life, proposed by A.G. Cairns-Smith, proposes that life started out by building upon the order exhibited by crystals.

But the problem is : Such mere "order" falls short of the degree to which "information" is highly "complex." We see this in the fact that the structure of a crystal (a la Cairns-Smith) involves merely the bonding of the same element(s) or molecule(s) over and over in a highly repetitious lineup, such as "A-A-A-A- etc" or "A-B-A-B-A-B- etc."

However, in stark contrast, the order in information is not very repetitive ---it is largely aperiodic--- and its conveyance involves much higher level of complexity. ...Another example of "low-complexity" order, is : If we instruct a computer to print out "wrapping paper," we only need to program it with two commands: 1) "Print the word 'Joy' " and 2) "Do it again until the paper is filled." With this process, we end up with a high amount of order, but a low amount of information and complexity. ---However, in contrast, the letters in a written message (such as in this paragraph) convey information, but they do not repeat in a predictable, periodic pattern ---no one can write a formula or algorithm which can prescribe and specify each letter (or element) in such an informational sequence. With "informational complexity," the entire sequence must basically be written out from beginning to end.

Concerning information's second characteristic, specificity : When information theorists speak about information as being "complex," they are not refering to just any complexity, because there are two sorts of complexity : "unspecified" and "specified."
...As an example of "unspecified complexity" : A wildly gnarled and knotted rat's-nest of string may be very complex and difficult to figure out how to get it unknotted, but it is very low in information because its structure is random and unspecified, whereby it does not matter where or how one type of jumbled knot or another is formed. ...However, in stark contrast, as an example of "specified" complexity : When someone uses a crochet hook to produce a fancy doily containing the words of a sentence around the edge and a picture of flowers in the middle, the knotted structure of the string is not at all random, but is highly "specified," so that the doily involves a high amount of information, and there is a necessary and particular sequential order for the proper assembly of parts, to produce the information-rich structure. The more informationally complex a structure is, the more "specified" instructions are required to describe it.
...For another example of "unspecified complexity" : If a dump-truck full of random Scrabble letters is poured out on a parking lot, the random mass of letters contains no significant information because it only exhibits unspecified complexity. ---HOWEVER, if an intelligence comes along and arranges the letters is a "specified" order, they can then spell out a large amount of information, because they now exhibit "specified complexity."

Not only is information aperiodically complex, and it has non-randomly specified parts, but the third characteristic is, that it also performs a useful "function" as a result of its coordinated arrangement of cooperating parts. ...For example, the function performed by a written message, is to communicate ...and if the sequence of the letters were in a random (non-specified) order, there would be no function of communication, and no information would exist. ...To illustrate further, the function performed by an iron padlock depends on the specified complexity of the iron parts, which would be non-functional as a padlock if the iron parts were randomly shaped and assembled.

In biology, the function performed by an enzyme (a protein) depends on the non-random specification of the sequence of amino acids which make up the protein, causing it to fold properly so as to perform a function useful to the life-form. Now, if we are not able to discern any function in something (such as a message written in some unknown foreign language), then we cannot be sure that we are dealing with information ( ---for all we know it might be letters chosen at random--- ), but as soon as we detect and understand a system of parts with a complexity which is specified to perform a useful function (such as communication), then we know we are dealing with complex specified information.

Taken all together, when information theorists speak about "information", it is described as a systematic ordering and grouping of parts with "specified complexity" which is non-random, "aperiodic" (not repetitious) , and it performs a useful function. The elements (such as letters or nucleotides) which convey information must be specifically sequentially ordered from beginning to end. Basically, a structure's "information content" is the minimum number of directions necessary to describe or specify it, whether that structure is a crystal or a living organism. Crystals have low information content, but examples of things which are information-rich would be: human artifacts, computer programs, written messages, and ---most pertinent to the discussion in this article--- DNA and functional types (classes) of proteins.

DNA functions as the carrier of the informational instructions (much like letters in writing) for specifying the building of all the structures in living things, as well as the functions they carry out. There are no known laws of chemistry or physics which could (in any resonable probability, and without intelligent intervention) initially determine or dictate the sequential order of the nucleotides which build functional DNA / RNA in living things, nor the sequential order of the amino acids to build a functional class of proteins. Although DNA and proteins bond together using perfectly normal chemical laws and forces, the informational sequences of those chemicals are not dictated or determined by some properties or laws of the chemicals ---in fact, it is the capacity of the building blocks of DNA and protein to occur in any conceivable order, which makes them useful for building DNA and protein. Although some biologists have proposed that the sequences found in DNA and protein orginated from the differences in chemical bonding forces in the chemical building blocks, the many experiments designed to confirm such an idea have not turned up any significant ordering effects. As a result, a former proponent of "chemical sequencing," Dean Kenyon (author of Biochemical Predestination,'69), has now rejected the theory on experimental grounds. All experiments to date indicate that the sequential order of the parts of DNA and recognized types (classes) of protein could not have even nearly come from just the forces and laws of physics and chemistry and random natural processes, any more than the informational sequence of the letters of this sentence could have been determined by the mechanics and electronics of the computer on which it was typed, ---such as by any random selections of letters. So, the question here is: Could biological information (specifically in DNA / RNA and proteins) have first originated by random processes of chance in the chemicals in nature? Probability analysis of complex specified information, described next, tells us overwhelmingly, "No."

Coming Up With "Proof"
Some explanation of what should be included in a "proof" of intelligently designed information is appropriate here: Technically, a "proof" is absolute, and with no possible exceptions, ...but when using probabilites, there could (strictly speaking) be a possible chance, however small, that an event may possibly occur. In what sort of an instance can we use probability calculations to create such a virtual proof that some body of information could not be the result of random chance selections?

...The key is that we must eliminate the possibilities of any non-intelligent ordering process, and establish that the probability of something happening by chance is so extremely vanishingly small that the chance of such an occurrence is totally inconceivable, and essentially zero... therefore, it was designed by an intelligence. (It has been said, for instance, that there might "possibly" be a very slim chance that a kettle of water on a hot burner could freeze ...which illustrates the ridiculous nature of some objections to probability analysis).

Such proof of the existence of intelligent design is used as an ordinary practice is used daily in human affairs, in instances such as:

---When you think about it, the detection of intelligent design is widely used every day, and many industries would go bankrupt without using this common technique of prooving it. After proving the intelligent design of things such as symbols and intentionally arranged events, some people have been clearly proven guilty, and thus sentenced to undergo capitol punishment.

Eliminating Random Chance using Statistical Probability

If you saw this present sentence spelled out on a table, using scrabble-game pieces, could you prove mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt that the message did not get there by any random process of ordering by chance ---such as the pieces being randomly chosen out of the box--- so that you would know, therefore, that this sentence must have come from an intelligence? ...Such a proof is accomplished by probability analysis.

Now, we must remember that for something to be information, there is a requirement: If the set of parts is quite short, it lacks complexity to be sure that it constitutes information. For example, if we had a one-letter word, then there could easily be a very good chance that the word may have arisen from a random choice of letters. In such an instance, we could not make a good case for proving that the small word is actually information that came from an intelligent source ----because there is not enough complexity.

Secondly, the length of the string of letters must be of sufficient length to perform the function of communication. For example, the letter "A" is a word, but without being part of a phrase or sententence, we have no assurance that it actually functions to communicate anything.

Here's how we calculate the probability here: In the instance of a specific one-letter word (such as "a"), the chance that a computer could come up with that word by random letter-selection, is one chance out of 26, because there are 26 letters in the alphabet. Going to the next step, if we take a specific two-letter word (e.g. "an"), the chance a computer could randomly choose the two letters together in one word (in the correct sequence) is the product of the two selections, ...so the chance of getting a specific two-letter word would be one chance out 26x26 (which equals 676). Likewise, the chance of randomly drawing a specific three-letter-word, would be one chance out of 26x26x26 (which equals 1756). It is still very easy to conceive that the three-letter word could be randomly chosen in short order.

Going quite a bit further, however, if the level of complexity in a string of specific information is high enough (such as in this present sentence), then we can make a virtually air-tight case that this string of information could not have arisen (in any reasonable probabilty) by a random selection of letters, spaces and punctuations ----therefore, we would have a virtual "proof" that this information-set could not conceivably have arisen by random chance selections, but must have originated from an intelligence. --And the more specific a message is, the less possible it is to substitute any random words in the middle of the message without destroying its meaning (or funtionality). For example, the more specific a message is, then the selection of suitable two-letter words which would function properly in a specific place would be severely limited.

To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by : The French mathematician, Emile Borel, in his book, "Probabilities and Life" ('62; in chapters 2 &3), explains that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 1050, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is statistically considered to be zero. (1050 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). Borel's appraisal seems quite reasonable, when you consider that 1050 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. ----So, overcoming one chance out of 1050 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Borel's Law of Chance, states that any chance smaller than that, is statistically considered to be zero. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard.

However, for the purpose of this article, we will set a much tougher standard, which we will call our "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance. We'll establish that limit in the following way:

 

. . . if we mulitply the above three numbers out, we get the number 10121. ----So, 10121 equals the total number of physical atomic interactions possible since the beginning of the universe (at the "Big Bang").

We could very reasonably let 10121 be our "Cosmic Limit" ---but just to play it safe and conservative, we'll make it 10,000 times bigger, and say that according to our "Cosmic Limit Law of Chance," any chance that is less than one chance out of 10125 is considered to be a chance of zero. Therefore, we can reasonably say that any event whose chance of occurrence is less than one chance out of 10125 has been virtually "proven" to be statistically impossible in all of the cosmos ( ...actually, in 10,000 such universes as ours).

An Example: Proof of the Intelligent Design of an Arrowhead

 

arrowhead I have a piece of flint from the Colorado Rockies, which we assume to be a man-made arrowhead, because other similar flint objects are known to be man-made ---however, the specific identity of the piece's designer is not factually known, and one might immagine that the flint could have possibly been given its shape by pieces being chipped off through chance collisions with other rocks that randomly hit it as a result of gravitational and other natural forces. --So, how do we know which it most probably is: ...man-made, or randomly made by the chance forces of nature?
 

A solid statistical proof could be given, approximately thus:

This conclusion of "intelligent design" has nothing to do with religious or sectarian beliefs, nor does it arise from general assumptions, but rather, it is a conclusion drawn from a logical mathematical analysis of probable cause and effect.

 

 

cropcircle This similar sort of analysis can be applied to conclude that space signals come from ETs, or that crop circles are made by intelligent design (in which I think humans are the intelligent designers of crop circles) ...and it can also be used to demonstrate intelligent design in living things.
 

Mathematical Proof Of The Intelligent Design Of Proteins

In living cells, proteins are the "machines of life," which build the structures and facilitate (catalyze) the chemical reactions used by all life. Proteins are called "informational" molecules, because they each perform a "function" in living things (such as oxygen-transport by hemoglobin), and they are non-repetitively complex, and the sequential order of the building blocks (amino acids) of protein are highly specified ---so that if the proper sequence is changed much at all, function is lost.

Going further in our proof: There are no known laws (or properties) of physics or chemistry in nature, which would have been sufficient, by themselves, to originally dictate the sequential order of the amino acids in functional classes of proteins adequate to sustain life (so far as anyone has been able to reasonably conceive life). Similarly, there are no known laws (or properties) of physics of chemistry which could have originally dictated the sequential order of the nucleotides in the DNA required for the first life (and to build those first proteins of life) ---although, again, as scientists we must always remain open to the possibility that it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life. Any scientific approach must be able to be negated, and this is the way that this "proof" is able to be negated. (See my article on Abiogenesis)

Thus, in our proof, we move on to the possibility of the random assembly of proteins: To look most simply at the probability of the random assembly of a protein, note that proteins are made of 20 amino acids, which are linked together into strings or "chains" (polymers). Therefore, if we grant that the supposed "primordial soup" on the early earth had all 20 amino acids available for protein-building, then the chance that the first five amino acids required to build a specific functional protein might randomly bond together in the correct order, would be one chance out of 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20, which equals one chance out of 3,200,000.

Now, of course, this chance is still not that hard to overcome when you suppose that there were many trillions of each of the amino acids present in the primordial soup, along with trillions of trials taking place at the same time, as well as billions of years for trial and error to get the correct five together. ---The problem is: proteins (from any known functional class) are made of 50 to 1000 amino acids, with the average protein being about 300 amino acids long, so we need to assemble at least 50 amino acids. ---As we continue adding each new amino acid to the chain by random selection, we must continue to multiply one chance out of 20 for each one. Finally, the chance to have assembled 50 amino acids randomly into the correct sequence to build a single functional ("folded") protein, would be: one chance out of 1065 (which is a 1 with 65 zeros) ...and 1065 is about the number of atoms in a galaxy. ---So, mark one of those with an "x" and find it by chance.

For a more refined discussion on the probabilities involved in randomly assembling a functional ("folded") protein, click on the following link for Dr. Michael Behe's article on:
 

Functional Classes of Proteins are Highly Isolated

In the above article, Dr. Behe explains how observed experimental results, gotten from the analysis of actual proteins, have confirmed that "the odds of finding a folded protein are about one in 1065 . . .all proteins that have been examined to date, either experimentally or by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences." ---This would mean, for example, that even if an ocean of primordial soup (with the volume of the entire earth) were filled with protien-building amino acids, which conceivably assembled one small funtional protein at random, then all the rest of such chemicals would most probably be totally bound up in "junk" sequences, which are useless for building functional "folding" proteins. And Behe goes on to say, "The conclusion that a reasonable person draws from this is that the laws of nature are insufficient to produce functional proteins and, therefore, functional proteins have not been produced through a nondirected search."

Irreducible Complexity of "Life" Solidifies The Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature

Even though the chance of the random assembly of a single type of protein is more remote than the limit set by Borel's Law of Chance (with a threshold set at one chance in 1050), still, if we use our "Cosmic Limit Law of Chance", the random assembly of one such protein might possibly be within reach. However, the problem for neo-darwinian naturalists is: There is much more to the simplest conceivable life-form than just one protein. Even the smallest bacteriophage codes for about nine proteins -----but a bacteriophage is not capable of independent life. Evidence indicates there is no independently self-sustaining, metabolizing, reproducing lifeform which would require any less than 100 proteins ...to wit:

Biochemist Harold Morowitz estimated that the "minimum" self-replicating cell would include:


So, the minimal cell would require at least 100 proteins (of moderate length). Morowitz writes: "This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit." Morowitz is basically saying, that this simplest proto-cell could not stand to lose even two or three of the 100 proteins described, and still continue to function and stay alive ...otherwise, by definition, it would not consist of the "minimum" of proteins required.

The above situation, is essentially one called "irreducible complexity," which has been described in living biochemical systems, by Siegfried Scherer (1983), and also by Michael Behe ("Darwin's Black Box", 1996). In a nutshell, Behe says, a system is irreducibly complex if it is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning" (p.39). In Behe's book, he illustrates irreducibly complexity by using a common mouse-trap, which is basically made of a wooden base, a wire hammer, a spring with extended ends that press against the base and hammer, a holding bar to hold the hammer back when the trap is set, and a pressure-sensitive catch which, when slight pressure is applied to it, releases the holding bar to spring the trap. This trap system is irreducibly complex, because if any of the five basic parts is missing, the trap will not function. If this trap were to "evolve" it would all have to evolve all at once in order to function. You could not evolve the spring and trap a few mice; and evolve the catch and trap a few more; etc. By definition, the minimum number of parts must be present all at once, or there is no function for evolution to work with.

In the case of Morowitz's minimal cell (if he is close to right about what is truly minimal), then even two proteins would not be enough to complete any amount of metabolism at all ---and yet, experimental evidence (from actual proteins analyzed) confirms that the chance of one functional protein assembling by random processes, is one chance out of 1065, ...and, thus, the chance of two functional proteins occurring together at the same time and in the same place would be one chance out of 10130 (the product of 1065 times itself).

If you recall, one chance out of 10125 is our "Cosmic Limit of Chance" which we calculated. Therefore, even with all the time and matter in the universe since the Big Bang, there is a zero probability that even two properly functional proteins could assemble beside each other in the same place by random processes of chance in nature ...and this is only two proteins of the minimum 100 proteins required for the most basic life-form conceivable. Not even the smallest bacteriophage codes for only two proteins ...but still, even it could not assemble by random processes.

In addition, Michael Behe describes other information-rich structures in microbiology, which are "irreducibly complex." These could not have (as Darwin said) "been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications", because all of the parts of the system must necessarily be present to have any function for evolutionary selective advantage to take place. Behe cites such microbiological structures as the cilium and the flagellum. With regard to our proof of the high improbability of the random assembly of proteins, consider that a cilium is made of more than 200 different kinds of proteins, and if only 5% of those proteins have evolved, the cilium is non-functional (and, thus, not selected for by evolutionary natural selection). How did the first 5 or 10 of those 200 necessary proteins develop correctly in the direction of cilium construction, if even the first two proteins have a zero chance of random assembly in all the time and matter in the universe?

As another example, a "minimal" flagellum, requiring about 6 different proteins for it's construction, would be (by definition) irreducibly complex ---and if even one of those 6 proteins were missing, there would be no function. How did the complex specified information in the DNA initially arise in order to specify the building of the very first cilium or flagellum?

Therefore, in light of overwhelming evidence, random "trial and error" searching would fail to originate any significant amount of complex specified biological information ...and if random processes did not accomplish it, then the only other logical possibility, is non-random activity. In the same way, if un-guided assembly fails to initially originate information, then the only other logical possibility, is guided assembly. Obviously, if we are looking at "non-random" and "guided" assembly, then this would be the intentional and willfuly directed action of an intelligence. Complex specified biological information must be the result of intelligent design. This is a logical scientific conclusion ...even though empirical science does not (so far as we know) help us to determine the identity of the designer(s) in nature.

Michael Denton (an evolutionist at the time) wrote: "If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programmes of living organisms. The fact that systems in every way analogous to living organisms cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?" (Denton's, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", '85).
...Indeed.

Other Alternatives Sought By Evolutionists

Some neo-darwinian evolutionists have attempted to overcome the astronomical odds resulting from honest and open mathmatical analyses of the chances of abiogenesis, and they have done this by proposing that DNA or RNA formed first before the proteins. But what does this accomplish? One way or another the "information" must originate in order to direct the building of proteins, and if it had to arise by chance processes in the case of DNA / RNA, then the calculation of the chances of probability would turn up the same results, because the four nucleotides would have to be properly sequentially ordered in a chain which is at least 150 nucleotides long in order to direct the building of the smallest functional class of protein. We would be asking the same questions: How did the informational sequential order of the nucleotides in DNA / RNA initially arise so that they could build the proteins which carry on the minimal processes and build the minimal structures of life? Regarding RNA as being possibly the first step to make life, Philip Johnson writes, "The obstacles to prebiotic RNA synthesis were reviewed in 1989 in a lengthy article by G.F. Joyce in Nature. Joyce concluded that RNA is "not a plausible prebiotic molecule, because it is unlikely to have been produced in significant quantities on the primitive earth" " ("Darwin on Trial", '93, p.108).

Still others, most notably A.G. Cairns-Smith, have proposed that templates made of clay may have formed the basis for organic molecules to arrange themselves along the line-up of the crystals in the clay. But what would specify the proper ordering of comlex specified bio-information? People speak of little mineral "replicators", but fail to show experimentally how this could possibly develop a mechanism leading to life. The question still remains: How did complex specified biological information first originate? Why would the clay crystals be arranged in the correct sequential order to afford a template for the correct sequential order of the biological molecules (whether they be nucleotides or amino acids)? There is no experimental evidence to date that any siginificant ordering of bio-molecules could overcome the odds of randomness. The biochemist Klaus Dose speaks about this mineral origin of life scenario, and says, "This thesis is beyond the comprehension of all biochemists or molecular biologists who are daily confronted with the experimental facts of life" (Dose, '88).

It is often thought that natural selection would choose in favor of any tiny steps that are successfully taken along the way to the development of life. However, those who suppose this to be a help for their theory, forget that natural selection selects on operative functionality (not the hoped-for progress which evolutionists see in the mud), -----and for biological function to exist, there are minimal structures and functions in living things (a la Morowitz & Behe) which are necessarily directed by a minimum of complex specified information. Natural selection does not help without function, and an irreducibly complex system has no function until all the parts are there to begin with.

Conclusion

And so, random operations of chance totally fail in the origination of complex specified informational molecules in living things. The opposite of "randomness" and "chance" ---is NOT chance ---which is the same as intentionality and willful purposefulness. Thus, it would seem that anyone with an open mind to the facts of the situation would deduct that an intelligent designer is the only logical explanation for the initial origin of much (or at least some) of the complex specified information in biological systems. This conclusion is not arrived at by irrational faith, but the deduction comes from a calm evaluation of empirical facts rigorously verified in the laboratory and analyzed by accepted logic and mathematical probability procedures.

 

orionblamblam, please respond, without violating the laws of probability and with specificity on how it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life.  Please provide links to your sources of proof.

46 posted on 01/03/2005 12:39:40 AM PST by RebelTex (Freedom is everyone's right - and everyone's responsibility!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex

I have a simple way of demonstrating the fallacy of macro-evolution. In order for macro evolution to be true (appearance of a new species) there has to be born at approximately the same time both a male an female of this new species, with the exact same mutations, in the same location, both survive to maturity, find each other, reproduce successfully, and raise enough of their young to survive amongst what would likely be numerous predators.

One need not delve into the mathematical improbabilities/impossibilities to recognize that macro-evolution is simply an untenable position.


47 posted on 01/03/2005 12:58:48 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

LOL - definitely quicker and easier.
Your method is reasonable, logical and acceptable to most. However, the proof still lies with mathematical improbabilities/impossibilities. This is what is inferred by your example, but to be proof, the math has to done.

;^D


48 posted on 01/03/2005 1:10:48 AM PST by RebelTex (Freedom is everyone's right - and everyone's responsibility!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex

Most people would be put off by the mathematics because they can't comprehend the complexity of it. On the other hand, almost everyone can see the practical impossibilities of what it would take in my simple example.


49 posted on 01/03/2005 1:46:27 AM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

"Wow. How can I possibly compete with "The Flintstones?"

Could not have said it better myself!


50 posted on 01/03/2005 4:39:09 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex
"orionblamblam, please respond, without violating the laws of probability and with specificity on how it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life. Please provide links to your sources of proof.

And when your done with that, take a few years and try to explain this......

http://www.ayo-oyebade.com/Additional%20topics/Ivan%20Panin%20Article.html

51 posted on 01/03/2005 4:53:33 AM PST by patriot_wes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RebelTex

> how it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life.

The basic problem with your Duane Gish mathematical nonsense is that it assumes that these large proteins spontaneously assemble all at once. The only people who assume this sort of thing are in fact Creationists; the fact is, that even the proteins would have evolved.

From: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr2dud.htm
Creationism's Dud From Their Arsenal:
Probability

THE LIE:
"Even if such relatively simple molecules, such amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), could populate the hypothetical primitive oceans, the formation of biologically active proteins could never occur. Under these conditions, the sequence of the amino acids would be purely by chance. There we 20 different amino acids in proteins. The average protein has 400 amino acids, but even 100 of these amino acids can be arranged in 20100, or 10130 different ways. The probability of just one such molecule arising by chance is thus equal to the number one followed by 130 zeros. This is essentially impossible, but to get life started would require billions of tons each of several hundred different proteins and equal quantities of even more complex DNA and RNA molecules." --- Reverend Duane Gish

THE TRUTH:
The following are various organic / biochemical reactions that may have occurred on primitive earth. The reactions are taken directly from the text Biochemistry by Geoffrey Zubay, the second edition, 1988. To be honest, I though this text was more comprehensive that it appears to be. In order to address abiogenesis, one first must decide what would be required for a primitive "living" system. Based on the studies of Thomas Cech, Norman Pace, Sidney Altman, and Alan Weiner, I would suggest that a membrane encapsulated system containing RNA or an RNA like molecule would be sufficient. This is based upon experiments which have demonstrated that RNA can perform the following:

1) act as a polymerase and direct template specific synthesis of RNA

2) act as a site specific nuclease to cleave RNA

3) act as polymerase and direct template independent synthesis of RNA

The result of these reactions is a molecule that under different ionic conditions can replicate, and release the products of replication via cleavage. To my way of thinking, in order to optimize the concentrations, and allow for somewhat adequete conditions for a self replicating system, it should be self contained, thus a membrane would be important if not required for our first "living" organism. It is quite possible that the earliest life forms performed these required reactions by nucleating in pockets of salt water saturated clays. Eventually however, a membrane is required. You should not from the above discussion assume that proteins are not required for this most primitive of scenarios.

Beyond this, there is circumstantial evidence that would support RNA's role in primitive life. First of all, it is completely ubiquitous and absolutely required for life of all known systems. No known biological systems can survive without RNA. DNA viruses have to go through an RNA intermediate. Not all RNA viruses require a DNA intermediate. This is an important distinction. Secondly, increasing evidence has demonstrated that it is the RNA in ribosomes that is critical for protein synthesis, not the proteins. It appears that the proteins are more of a scaffolding, while the RNA performs the catalytic function. Thus we have evidence of yet another role for RNA - that for polypeptide synthesis. Furthermore, RNA has been implicated in maintenance of telomeres, which is important to prevent loss of genetic information in each round of replication. Other groups have also implicated RNA as a catalyst involved in carbohydrate metabolism. From these examples it is clear that no other molecule is nearly as wide reaching in its biological implications as RNA.

Now, what is required to form an RNA molecule, and is it reasonable to expect that these molecules may have formed spontaneosly on primitive earth?

To answer the first part, you need bases, a sugar and phosphates. To answer the second part, the answer is yes, and no. Although the arguments are certainly not definitive, they are currently the best ones that I am aware of, although it is entirely possible that I have missed important research in this area in the last few years. The next message(s) will detail these reactions and my comments on them. Much to my regret, the text that I have does not supply the reactions for lipid synthesis or sugar synthesis. The lipid reactions I have completely forgotten and will have to ignore. The sugar reactions, I remember a bit more of, and will try to recount what I can.

First, I will discuss the biochemistry required for synthesis of the purine bases adenine and guanine. Under conditions postulated to have occurred on primitive earth, all of these reactions have been shown to occur, and the resulting end products are major products of the precursors.

H2N CN This is diaminoaleonitrile, a
\ / relatively simple product, easily
HCN ---> C synthesized from hydrogen cyanide
||
C
/ \
H2N CN

|
| Now add a little ionizing radiation
| and another molecule of HCN and we
V get:
NC N
\ / \ \ A mess. Organic molecules do
C not lend themselves well to this
|| C media. Seriously though, you get
C / 5-aminoimidazole-4-carbonitrile
/ \ N which is a direct precursor of
H2N adenine. Just add HCN

|
| HCN
V
NH2
| N
N // \/ \\
| || C
\\ / \ /
N N

By adding H2O to 5-aminoinudazole-4 carbonitrile you get a
precursor of guanine
|
| H2O
V

O Is it my imagination or are
|| N my drawings getting better?
/ \ / \\ anyways, now just add a little
H2N || C cyanogen and voila!
/ \ /
H2N N
H
|
| (CN)2
|
V

O
|| N
HN/ \ / \\ Here is guanine. So the purines
| || C seem easy enough to make. Lets
/\\ / \ / try some pyrimidines now.
NH2 N N
H

Fortunately at least one pathway for pyrimidine synthesis is a bit less complicated than for the purines. For the sake of brevity I will post it here, if you are genuinely curious, you can find all of this in the text cited in the first message.

NH2 O
HC | ||
||| NCO- //\ H2O / \
C ------> N C -----> HN C
C | || | ||
N //\ / //\ /
O N O N
H H

Cytosine Uracil


So now we have four bases. The next step is the sugar. To me, this is the biggest problem of the whole thing. Not because sugars would not form spontaneously under these circumstances, but because of the exponential nature of stereoisomers that can form with each additional carbon atom. The number of separate 5 carbon sugars is high enough to make the selection of ribose seem prohibitive. Some researchers think that glycerol or another similar sugar may have evolved first, simulating the structure that would later be achieved through ribose. Such a structure might look like:

O Base
\ |
C
H H / |
C - C H
OH OH

Where as ribose looks like:

*
HOCH O Base
\ / \ |
C C
/\ H H / |
H C - C H
OH OH
* **

* denotes carbons involved in forming nucleotide polymers

** denotes hydroxyl groups required for RNA catalytic activity.

As can be seen in the above diagrams glycerol supplies the critical catalytic hydroxyl, but lacks the carbons required for polymerization. To me, this is critical, and needs to be resolved, but until such a time it is the most current thinking. As for the phosphates, suffice it to say that they are added fairly easily. I will look for the lipid reactions, and if I can find them, I will post them along with the phosphate reactions. I hope everyone has found this interesting and informative. --- Jeff Otto Read about the Urey-Miller experiments at the University of Chicago in the 1950's and then follow it up with study of the more recent work of Dr. Sidney Fox at the University of Miami.

Urey-Miller created amino acids by discharging electricity through an atmospheric soup of chemicals. Much as lightning passing through a primordial Earth's atmosphere would have done. Sidney Fox at the University of Miami took those amino acids (created in the same way) and then, by heating them (to less than 150 degrees F) in conjunction with other aspartic and glutamic acids (also created through simulation experiments) and was able to polymerize them into proteinoid microspheres. Under a microscope, the microspheres look like primitive cells. In fact, artificially fossilized microspheres are indistinguishable from the earliest known microfossils that date back to about 3.5 BYA.

Although hesitant to claim that these were alive Dr. Fox stated that they were undeniably "protoalive". This is not an evasive answer. As Tim M. Berra says in "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism" (pg.75):
"For centuries, science knew nothing intermediate between non-living and living things, but today the distinction is not at all clear. Since life evolved from non-living matter, at some point we must arbitrarily draw a line and say that everything beyond that point is alive. Viruses, for example, appear to be alive when they infect a host, but seem to be non-living when outside a host." Since a single cell would appear to be the smallest unit that can be said to be alive, proteinoid microspheres may quite justifiably be called protocells, or, life.

These are just the early stages of these types of experiments. There is every likelihood that within the next couple hundred years man will be able to create self-replicating life of varying forms from purely chemical and natural elements under laboratory conditions. --- Simon Ewins




Note the most important statements here: amino acids made by replicating the natural environment, when combined with aspartic and glutamic acids and raised to very moderate temperatures formed protenoid microspheres... very similar to what is found in the oldest microfossils.

So, instead of being some fantastically unlikely event... it's apparently pretty easy.


52 posted on 01/03/2005 6:24:05 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
IMHO, there are many people who are not able to step out of their Christian/theist worldview for a minute, and therefore, they cannot begin to comprehend that you have a point. Yes, to “prove” the existence of a deity or deities using logic is a waste of time, since it is next to impossible. To believe in the existence of god or gods, we need faith. Even a little faith the size of a mustard seed can lead to God, but logic usually does not.

I’m a Christian, and I believe in God, but I am able to see the folly of trying to prove God’s existence using mere logical tools. I remember the deceased Christian apologist, Dr. Walter Martin, referring to this topic during a lecture at a Christian college. Dr. Martin said that all an agnostic has to say is, “The universe is.” That’s it. That’s the only fact. Any statement about the universe origin is just speculation. To say that this universe cannot come into existence unless some giant intelligent force intervened is pure speculation.

As you suggested, if we were godlike and had the ability to look at 100 universes since their inceptions, then we can make logical inferences and empirical theories. If 90 universes were devoid of life and 10 universes were full of life, we could collect data and analyze it. If in the 90 lifeless universes there has been no intervention from an outside intelligent force, while in the 10 full-of-life universes there has been intervention from gods, then a good case could be made that life existence requires gods.

The reason we tend to assume that a found watch in a desert was created by a human is obvious; we already have seen watches and watchmakers. Otherwise, we would be speculating.

When I share the gospel with an atheist, I don't get bogged down in these silly arguments. I just pray, share God's Word in a reasonable and polite manner, and let the Holy Spirit do its work.

53 posted on 01/03/2005 7:47:08 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: george wythe

Thank you for a reasoned response from "the other side." I was beginning to wonder if it was even possible.

> Yes, to “prove” the existence of a deity or deities using logic is a waste of time, since it is next to impossible.

Well... not *necessarily*. Assume for a moment that there was an intelligent, universe creating deity. And assuem that said deity *wanted* to be discovered. There are quite a number of ways in which this deity could prove it's existence, if it so chose. I'm personally fond of Carl Sagan's notion of messages buried within such things as pi or the square root of two; these would be *impossible* to truly fake. Only the entity that created pi or the square root of two would be able to change them.

> The reason we tend to assume that a found watch in a desert was created by a human is obvious; we already have seen watches and watchmakers.

Keep in mind the main reason why the "watch" analogy is not jsut silly, but intellectually dishonest: it posits a *single* watch. Now, if you found a planet where the entire surface was covered with watches, clocks, hourglasses and the like replicating themselves, eating each other, consuming resources... THAT would be relevant. But as it is, the story always is "Imagine if you found a single watch..." Well, in that case, imagine you found a single well-formed organism sitting on a pedestal on an alien world, surrounded by *no* other life whatsoever. Then in *that* case, the actions of some intelligence would be reasonably inferred.

> I just pray, share God's Word in a reasonable and polite manner, and let the Holy Spirit do its work.

A better strategy than used by many of your co-religionists here on FR. FR is often enough the place to go if you want to have embryonic faith aborted (as has happened to me numerous times).


54 posted on 01/03/2005 8:02:30 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
I enjoyed reading your posts. I'm sure other people did, even they if did not comment. According to the thread statistics, this article has been viewed over 600 times.
55 posted on 01/03/2005 8:21:24 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
This is an old topic; just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


56 posted on 09/11/2007 7:50:53 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, August 29, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson