How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[The Barbarian]

And that is the reason why you believe what you believe. Not because the evidence demands it, because the evidence surely does not. In fact, the evidence points to creation and a creator. Who created animals according to their own kind.

And he did. The issue is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

[Jose Fly]

The Bible makes it very clear and it does not change. Noah has built that Ark for thousands of years. Moses received the law for thousands of years. The law has been the law for thousands of years.

That is not the cause of evolution.

LOL...if things changing really mattered that much to you, you wouldn't be a Christian. The entire religion is based on change. Otherwise, you'd be giving burnt offerings to God to atone for your sins rather than merely asking Jesus.

Again can you explain how that is the case by using the size of the genome and the number of coding and non-coding genes? I am still waiting on that. Here are the numbers agian.

Gorillas have

• Base pairs 3,063,362,794
  21794 coding genes
  7,768 non coding genes

Humans have

• Base pairs 3,096,649,726
  19,827 coding genes
  25,967 non coding genes

Chimps have

• Base pairs 3,231,170,666
  23,534 coding genes
  9,710 non coding genes

So let me see if I have this straight.....

You expect me to take the above incomplete estimates, use them to develop a full draft genome of the last common ancestor of all three, and then present step-by-step pathways for the evolution of each of them from the common ancestor?

Gee, that's not unreasonable at all.

Why do you believe this?

Because that's where the evidence leads.

Because the genome does not show they are the closest the genome shows the primate that is closest to humans is a gorilla. And the genes coding and non-coding genes show that humans are totally different than other primates.

Show me any geneticist in the world who agrees with these empty assertions.

I am still waiting on that mathematical proof that disproves my calculation.

I've pointed out multiple fundamental errors in your "calculations", and you just keep repeating them. You can't even keep it straight in your head that humans didn't evolve from chimps or gorillas!

Simply put, your calculations are garbage.

• You may think that smaller groups might speed things up but that would not be the case. If you have a population of 500 it would take 2000 generations to become fixed. If every individual in the 500 had a mutation that became fixed then it would take 2000 generations for an allele to become fixed in the group of 500. The problem is you would have to have 60000 groups of 500 that would have to come together so that would take 120,000,000 generations or 2.4 E9 years.

• Haldane arrived at the 300 generations by calculating the average cost. He calculated the average cost for an allele to become fixed to be C30 more of a cost for a recessive allele and a lower cost for a dominant allele. He also calculated that the average excess that an organism like primates to be 0.1 or 10% per generation. He then divided to get the number of generations. 30 individuals/.1 individuals per generation = 300 generations

So what are you saying you are changing in my calculations and why are you making those changes?

We've been over this repeatedly and you're still making the same fundamental errors. If you can't be bothered to correct even the most basic of your mistakes, there's no point at all in trying to get you to acknowledge, let alone correct, additional errors.

Probably the epitome of all this was when, after trying to debate statistical models of drift, you suddenly realized....."Oh wait, you mean drift is neutral?"

If you really think Haldane's models prove that evolution is impossible, I'm curious....why do you think no population geneticist or evolutionary biologist has noticed? Do you think you know more about their fields than they do? Do you think they're engaging in a massive, almost century long cover up? Do you think they're all completely incompetent? Is Satan casting a spell on them?

And that is the reason why you believe what you believe. Not because the evidence demands it, because the evidence surely does not. In fact, the evidence points to creation and a creator. Who created animals according to their own kind. Haldane's calculations and population genetics all point towards creation and a creator. At least that is what the math says. If you want to believe in the religion of evolution you would not be the first person in history to deny the evidence of science for faith in some made-up belief.

You completely failed to answer the questions I asked. Care to try again?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]

LOL...if things changing really mattered that much to you, you wouldn't be a Christian. The entire religion is based on change. Otherwise, you'd be giving burnt offerings to God to atone for your sins rather than merely asking Jesus.

Not true salvation has always been according to faith.

Hebrews 10:3-5 Instead, those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You prepared for Me.

Romans 4:21-23: being fully persuaded that God was able to do what He had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now the words “it was credited to him” were written not only for Abraham

You expect me to take the above unsourced and vague numbers, use them to develop a full draft genome of the last common ancestor of all three, and then present step-by-step pathways for the evolution of each of them from the common ancestor?

Gee, that's not unreasonable at all.

1st it is not unsourced. These numbers are from the same site your guy Ian used. e!enselmble

Still can't explain how evolution is nothing more than a made-up story. I would think it would be easy seeing how it is so observable.

Why do you believe this?
Because that's where the evidence leads.

What evidence? The coding and non-coding genes are totally different than primates. This shows that man is totally different than primates exactly what creationism says.

Population genetics and Haldane's theory shows that small changes are possible in the genome as long as the population is small enough like it would be after the flood. And population genetics and Haldane's theory show that large-scale changes in the genome are not possible.

So what evidence would you be referring to?

Show me any geneticist in the world who agrees with these empty assertions.

Show ma a geneticist in the world that can prove mathematically that evolution is possible.

I've pointed out multiple fundamental errors in your "calculations", and you just keep repeating them. You can't even keep it straight in your head that humans didn't evolve from chimps or gorillas!

No, you did not show any errors in my calculations.

And you said that it is not possible so show mathematically that evolution is possible. Empty assertions mean nothing.

Agian which method are you referring to? Because morphologically humans are closer to orangutans, humans' genome size is closer to gorillas, and humans coding and non-coding genes are totally different than all other primates. Just because you believe something is true does not make it true.

You completely failed to answer the questions I asked. Care to try again?

Yes, I did. You have said that there is no mathematical proof that evolution can happen in the time frame of a few million years. Your question is nothing more than where you place your faith.

[Jose Fly]

Not true salvation has always been according to faith.

Hebrews 10:3-5 Instead, those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You prepared for Me.

Romans 4:21-23: being fully persuaded that God was able to do what He had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now the words “it was credited to him” were written not only for Abraham

LOL...do you give burnt offerings to God after you sin? No? Things changed.

Do you abide by OT dietary laws? No? Things changed.

Do you abide by all other OT laws that were given by God? No? Things changed.

Still can't explain how evolution is nothing more than a made-up story. I would think it would be easy seeing how it is so observable.

You just answered your own question. Evolution is a fact because we see populations evolving all the time, every day. You repeating "Nuh uh" over and over doesn't change that.

The coding and non-coding genes are totally different than primates.

No they're not. There's not a single geneticist in the entire world that would agree with such a bizarre, delusional assertion.

This shows that man is totally different than primates exactly what creationism says.

Then creationism is wrong. But we've known that for over 200 years.

Population genetics and Haldane's theory shows that small changes are possible in the genome as long as the population is small enough like it would be after the flood. And population genetics and Haldane's theory show that large-scale changes in the genome are not possible.

Again, there's not a single population geneticist in the entire world who would agree with those bizarre, delusional assertions.

Show me any geneticist in the world who agrees with these empty assertions.

Show ma a geneticist in the world that can prove mathematically that evolution is possible.

I'll take that as an admission that you can't name a single geneticist who would agree with you.

And you said that it is not possible so show mathematically that evolution is possible. Empty assertions mean nothing.

This is getting really weird.

Agian which method are you referring to?

????? You're not making sense.

You completely failed to answer the questions I asked. Care to try again?

Yes, I did.

Again, are you okay? Do you drink while posting?

Here's what I asked: "If you really think Haldane's models prove that evolution is impossible, I'm curious....why do you think no population geneticist or evolutionary biologist has noticed? Do you think you know more about their fields than they do? Do you think they're engaging in a massive, almost century long cover up? Do you think they're all completely incompetent? Is Satan casting a spell on them?"

You didn't answer at all. So again, what is your explanation?

[brunumb]

Population genetics and Haldane's theory shows that small changes are possible in the genome as long as the population is small enough like it would be after the flood.

Which doesn't matter in the least, because the minute the animal pairs stepped off the ark they were doomed to extinction in a very short period of time. The minimum viable population (MVP) for animals in the wild is way more than 2. It varies from species to species but a lowest estimate has been given as 50 to 500. With a devastated world facing living things after the flood, their chances of survival would be significantly reduced compared with life in a more favorable environment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
https://www.britannica.com/science/mini ... population
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 22-02456-z

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]

LOL...do you give burnt offerings to God after you sin? No? Things changed.

Do you abide by OT dietary laws? No? Things changed.

Do you abide by all other OT laws that were given by God? No? Things changed.

That was a promise or covenant that God made with the Jewish nation. So if the nation of Isreal followed what God said they would be blessed if they did not then they would not be blessed.

You just answered your own question. Evolution is a fact because we see populations evolving all the time, every day. Your repeating "Nuh uh" over and over doesn't change that.

Well, then prove it mathematically. If you can. But you have not yet.

Then creationism is wrong. But we've known that for over 200 years.

The math says it is reality. And shows evolution to be wrong. Prove creationism is wrong mathematically then.

Again, there's not a single population geneticist in the entire world who would agree with those bizarre, delusional assertions.

Then it should be easy to explain the differences then in coding and noncoding genes.
But you have not yet.

Gorillas have

• Base pairs 3,063,362,794
  21794 coding genes
  7,768 non coding genes

Humans have

• Base pairs 3,096,649,726
  19,827 coding genes
  25,967 non coding genes

Chimps have

• Base pairs 3,231,170,666
  23,534 coding genes
  9,710 non coding genes

I'll take that as an admission that you can't name a single geneticist who would agree with you.

Dude, every creationist organization and university has individuals with PhDs in all of the biological disciplines and yes in genetics. But why would they have degrees in biological evolution or even employ biological evolutionists when math discredits evolution? That would be teaching something that is not true.

But they might have some professors with an evolutionary biological background.

Answers in Genesis, ICR, Evolution New, Liberty University, Cedarville University, The Master's University, Maranatha Baptist University, Bob Jones University

Here's what I asked: "If you really think Haldane's models prove that evolution is impossible, I'm curious....why do you think no population geneticist or evolutionary biologist has noticed? Do you think you know more about their fields than they do? Do you think they're engaging in a massive, almost century long cover up? Do you think they're all completely incompetent? Is Satan casting a spell on them?"

You didn't answer at all. So again, what is your explanation?

How should I know? There are many Geneticist and Biolgicalist teaching in Universities that do not believe in evolution.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #416]
At this point, I feel compelled to note the following.

In this debate you have claimed that:

1) No population has ever evolved;

2) Evolution is impossible to occur;

3) Population genetics models, which are crafted to approximate how populations evolve, prove that it is mathematically impossible for populations to evolve;

4) Human genes are completely different than those of any other primate;

5) Human non-coding regions are completely different than those of any other primate; and

6) Despite 4 & 5 above, the human genome is most similar to gorilla's of all the primates.

Those are all such utterly bizarre and delusional claims, it's quite possible that spending time arguing over them actually reflects poorly on me. It's no different than if someone were to come in here and claim that Moses was actually a time-travelling space alien and his ark was an interdimensional craft built to ferry animals across multiple universes....and I started arguing with them about it.

By taking the time to debate such nonsense, I would be giving it an air of credibility that it simply doesn't deserve, and it would call my judgement into question. Well, it's the same thing here. Your claims are so divorced from reality and are so delusional, they're not worth spending any more time on.

If you truly believe your claims, I'm not sure what else there is to say....other than to once again note that there's not a single biologist, geneticist, population geneticist, or evolutionary biologist in the entire world who would agree with any of them. You literally are completely on your own with these bizarre arguments, going beyond what even young-earth creationist organizations would put forth.

So enjoy your little island I guess.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #417]

In this debate you have claimed that:

1) No population has ever evolved;

I would add beyond their created kind.

2) Evolution is impossible to occur;

When evolution crosses created kinds yes.

3) Population genetics models, which are crafted to approximate how populations evolve, prove that it is mathematically impossible for populations to evolve;

4N = number of generations to become fixed
1/2N = probability of an allele becoming fixed

The number of generations seems like time to me.

4) Human genes are completely different than those of any other primate;

Yes they are

Gorillas have

• Base pairs 3,063,362,794
  21794 coding genes
  7,768 non coding genes

Humans have

• Base pairs 3,096,649,726
  19,827 coding genes
  25,967 non coding genes

Chimps have

• Base pairs 3,231,170,666
  23,534 coding genes
  9,710 non coding genes

Look at the coding and non-coding genes.

5) Human non-coding regions are completely different than those of any other primate; and

They are. Primates have around 10,000 non-coding genes and Humans have 25,000 non-coding genes. Yep that is different. WAY!!!! different.

6) Despite 4 & 5 above, the human genome is most similar to gorillas of all the primates.

Yep their genomes are about the same time.

Yes, that about sums it up and I supported each one with mathematical calculations for anyone that wants to review my evidence it starts at way back at post 118. But that a good summary of all the facts and calculations I used to show these facts starts at about post 378 or so.

Those are all such utterly bizarre and delusional claims, it's quite possible that spending time arguing over them actually reflects poorly on me.

It sure has because you have not been able to defend any of your fairy tale beliefs. I am still waiting for those numbers on how evolution is possible. You are anyone else would do. But you take some time and think about it.

Well, it's the same thing here. Your claims are so divorced from reality and are so delusional, they're not worth spending any more time on.

And yet genetic and biology professors from the following universities and more would agree with me.

Liberty University
Maranatha University
Cedarville University (Go Bees)
Bob Jones University
Clarks Summit University
Biola University
Creation College

If you truly believe your claims, I'm not sure what else there is to say....other than to once again note that there's not a single biologist, geneticist, population geneticist, or evolutionary biologist in the entire world who would agree with any of them. You literally are completely on your own with these bizarre arguments, going beyond what even young-earth creationist organizations would put forth.

No, I am not they would all agree with me. This is creation theory.

Still no numbers on how evolution is possible to keep thinking.

I understand it is hard to accept when your belief system is totally shown to be false.

[Clownboat]

Creationism actually fits nicely with current population genetics and Haldane's theory for two reasons

I asked for a mechanism that would better explain not only the animals we see now on earth, but also in the fossil record. Creationism is not a mechanism to explain such. Creationism is just a varying claim made by religious followers, not a mechanism to explain the diversity of life we see on this planet. (We'll get to see this below).

1. The tower of Babel and Noah's Flood

To acknowledge such claims would be to give it credit that it doesn't deserve. I was hoping you would describe a better mechanism then evolution for the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record.

2. Creationism puts a limit on the amount of genetic change that can take place.

See! Creationism is a claim, not a mechanism.

Basically and simplistically are animals that can still mate would have started out as a kind.

This is another claim, not a mechanism to explain the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record.

To compare so far:
Evolution: Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.
What you provided: A referrence to a tower of Babel, a religious flood story and a claim that Creationism puts limits on genetic change.

Surely you can see how one provides an explanation, not only for the animals we see now on earth, but also in the fossil record and the other is nothing more than claims made in one of the many available holy books. Claims that must be rejected for putting forth a level of evolution that no person would actually argue for.

For example, we have over 350,000 species of beetles currently. Imagine what kind of an evolutionary fanatic it would take to argue that all those species evolved since some global flood some thousands of years ago. How can you support such a level of short term evolution while rejecting that it can happen over longer periods of time? This makes no sense to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

And yet genetic and biology professors from the following universities and more would agree with me.

Liberty University
Maranatha University
Cedarville University (Go Bees)
Bob Jones University
Clarks Summit University
Biola University
Creation College

Well gee, whoda thunk that bunch'd reject evolutionary theory?