Replies

If you are claiming that the random picking of 6 numbers out of fourty equals the random chance accumulation of molecules based on simple ionic bonds can create a single cell, let alone a single living cell complete with the means to eat, move, aspire, and reproduce…

I am claiming no such thing sir. Let us review…….
In Post 28, you re-stated your opinion from your original post 17 (The one with the stupid animation) and I quote

This test, using intelligent beings using intelligent methods, trying to tell us things happened by chance??

This sentence, aside from being grammatically incorrect, seeks to imply that the hand of man, or the use of a complex machine somehow taints a truly random or “chance” happening. I see no mention of cellular biology or ionic bonds in the above statement do you? I thought not.

My reply in post 29 points out lightheartedly that a truly random outcome is indeed possible by men, using a man made machine. This is most evident where money is involved as in lottery number selection.

You seem to be asserting that a random outcome cannot be achieved with a modern man made device. How are the lottery numbers chosen then?

I admit, that this post does not speak directly to the problems with PRNGs and their lack of sufficient entropy to produce truly random outcomes however, the tone of my statement was simply to point out that the mere presence of man or machine does not necessarily remove all randomness from an experiment.

Your post 30 then expands the scope of the conversation in a transparent attempt to “flame” me.

If you are claiming that the random picking of 6 numbers out of forty equals the random chance accumulation of molecules based on simple ionic bonds can create a single cell, let alone a single living cell complete with the means to eat, move, aspire, and reproduce...then you need to think some more.

Subsequent banter in posts 32 and 33 seek to dismiss me as some kind of dullard and I assure you sir that this is not the case. I run a 4.2 Forty in the intelligence race and I doubt that you could run a 5 or better.

P.S. It’s Forty Not Fourty. There’s a spell button now. I suggest you use it.
P.P.S. Last I checked, my state lottery was six numbers out of Fifty Nine for overall odds of 1:45,057,474 so the seemingly simple act of picking these six numbers results in some pretty long odds. About the same odds as you ever having sex with a real woman.
P.P.S.S. You are a stupid-head.

This sentence, aside from being grammatically incorrect, seeks to imply that the hand of man, or the use of a complex machine somehow taints a truly random or “chance” happening. I see no mention of cellular biology or ionic bonds in the above statement do you? I thought not.

Well, the evolutionary testing of ionic bonding of valence electrons fails because it never reintroduces the source of energy into the recently bonded atoms, don't ya think?

Just because two atoms that just formed by chance and have open valence electrons in their outer shells come along, there is no guarantee that they are close enough to even act upon the attractive forces based on the missing electrons in their shells to begin with, let alone that these two atoms that are floating along in the ether...what was that ether again? Factually?... guarantee that there IS any open valences in them, either...

Nor is there any guarantee that cosmic rays from the Sun didn't destroy them as soon as they were formed...

So, right from the start, your argument is based on a total fiction, not science nor is it based on fact. So, for you to mention cellular biology, you are speaking of step 100 in the formation of life, when in reality you cant even get back to step 3, which is the fiction where we began, after a single atom formed on it's own in a state where it has open valences to allow for any cellular action.

And you said YOUR argument was better?? Huh?

My reply in post 29 points out lightheartedly that a truly random outcome is indeed possible by men, using a man made machine. This is most evident where money is involved as in lottery number selection.

Your truly random account of the lottery is a nonsense argument because of the points I raised above but were too lazy to expand upon by excessive typing before, but I shall explain it again.

Just because you have a cellular action once, does not mean you will have it again. Nor does the random accumulation of bosons, leptons, and electrons cause attractive forces to create a proton/neutron bond with an electron orbiting it, just because you can create numbers in random order from a CLEARLY DEFINED SET of numbers, which the evolutionist CANNOT use in ANY of his/her arguments.

The Lottery is a CLEARLY DEFINED SET of numbers already in existence, of which 40 or 48 or 56 or whatever are used to generate a 6 or 5 or 8 sequence, of which the same 48 or 56 or 40 numbers are used again and again.

EVOLUTION CAN MAKE NO SUCH CLAIM, for Evolution must start FROM ZERO, with NO CLEARLY DEFINED SET of atoms or electrons or attractive forces to begin with at all!

Evolution has NOTHING to base their beginning on at any time on any subject!

Evolution CANNOT claim any cellular mechanism to be used because THERE WAS NONE TO START WITH.

Evolution CANNOT use ANY atomic matrix of any kind because THERE WAS NOTHING for Evolution to start with!

All of these processes are only complete with DESIGNED AND ORDERD INFORMATION.

The simple accumulation of atoms and the electrons necessary to fill valences to allow for ionic bonds DOES NOT DEFINE A CELL nor does it COMPLETE the cell NOR does it make the cell alive!

NOR does any accumulation of atoms and electrons account for the mechanical actions of cellular mechanisms, ONLY the orderly processing of information done in a beneficial manner account for this, and NONE of that can happen just due to any arrangement of atoms regardless of whether they look like, act like any cellular device or action of any kind.

Said once again, the Lottery is based upon a finite set of numbers with a finite set of results that can be determined.

Evolution HAS NO SUCH FINALITY, and THAT means there is NO CHANCE that it can be proved that any of the atomic actions necessary for ionic bonding (Which you mentioned I left out before, so I will use it this time, surely) ever took place, ever stayed in place once occurring, or ever expanded upon themselves once occurring, instead of using the very same random chance atomic processes to describe the destruction of these same small atomic particles which is not only just as likely, but MORE likely due to the exchange of energy and lack of control of any atomic particle floating around wherever!

Subsequent banter in posts 32 and 33 seek to dismiss me as some kind of dullard and I assure you sir that this is not the case. I run a 4.2 Forty in the intelligence race and I doubt that you could run a 5 or better

I have no idea what that means, my last IQ test was about 141 or so, does that compare? And, I am a perpetual college student, and I am quite glad to be FOURTY-FIVE! :)