Johnnys Question regarding the 144,000

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not claim it, its written in a publication of Jehovahs witnesses which i quoted, if
you want to take the matter up with them, write to the Ridgeway in London, they will
reply. Now here is your chance to deny the probability, are you denying the chances of
getting the correct sequence of 22 amino acids from a known 100 in the correct
sequence to produce complex proteins, no i didn't think so.

Well, for you it's 'no I don't think so' because you don't want to think so. The thing we keep pointing out, it is not random. If it was strictly random you might have an argument, or they might, but it is NOT random. Also, you have to look at the number of molecules in the early Earth environment, some theories put the origin of life in the ocean, some in clay muds more inland but still wet, but in either case, these precurser molecules are not present in just onsies and twosies, they are present in the quadrillions of quadrillions and respond to energy inputs from sunlight, friction from ground movement like earthquakes, lightning, ocean floor thermal vents and these occurred all at once, all of those things were going on, including a lot of meteor strikes and such so there were many highly energetic processes going on back in the back in the day of three or so billion years ago.
You have processes happening all at once and the response to the various kinds of energy inputs is NOT random. If a certain amino acid gets kicked in the butt by lightning, it will respond in many different ways, like quadrillions of quadrillions of experiments all going on simultaneously.

I think life was inevitable given all these energetic processes going back then. Continents crashing into one another in extreme slow motion but creating friction heating at the minimum, and all the other things I mentioned.

It was a veritable smorgasborg of energy exchanges all interacting with uncountable numbers of organic prebiotic molecules.

Little chemical experiments going on in parallel by the trillions of trillions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I like the quotation. Its good.

But it's incorrect. I thought you were interested in the truth?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, for you it's 'no I don't think so' because you don't want to think so. The thing we keep pointing out, it is not random. If it was strictly random you might have an argument, or they might, but it is NOT random. Also, you have to look at the number of molecules in the early Earth environment, some theories put the origin of life in the ocean, some in ...[text shortened]... lecules.

Little chemical experiments going on in parallel by the trillions of trillions.

If its not random then how did it happen, and no, in order to make complex proteins
you need the correct sequence, nothing else will do.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But it's incorrect. I thought you were interested in the truth?

so you say, but I am not so convinced its not entirely clear that the phrase 'even
evolutionists admit', is contained in the article that you refer to, it could be with
reference to another article, unspecified, couldn't it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you say, but I am not so convinced its not entirely clear that the phrase 'even
evolutionists admit', is contained in the article that you refer to, it could be with
reference to another article, unspecified, couldn't it.

Which article are you talking about here?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Which article are you talking about here?

I quoted from an article in a publication of Jehovahs witnesses which itself quoted the
article that you referred to, so, it leaves the possibility that while the article that you
referred to did not state that evolutionists did not dispute the claim, its entirely possible
that some other article did.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, for you it's 'no I don't think so' because you don't want to think so. The thing we keep pointing out, it is not random. If it was strictly random you might have an argument, or they might, but it is NOT random. Also, you have to look at the number of molecules in the early Earth environment, some theories put the origin of life in the ocean, some in ...[text shortened]... lecules.

Little chemical experiments going on in parallel by the trillions of trillions.

You were not there, so you do not know what was going on. The historical record we have in the Holy Bible tells us what happened and we have no proof it did not happen like the Holy Bible reports.

Scientists only speculate based on the tiny knowledge that they know now. There are still much to be learned. So there is no need to turn science into a religion by believing in the fairy tale of evolution that doesn't even make sense by what we know today. And abiogenesis has already been proven false by the law of biogenesis.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is just the usual semantic arguments based upon, definite, probable and almost
impossible, but it fails to recognise that they are two distinct entities, you asked if I
thought my religion could possibly be wrong, the answer was no, you asked why and I
told you of the improbability of life having arisen by chance, these are not one and the
same thing, are they?

it doesn't matter how usual the arguments are. the semantics are important. so far you have tried to prove something is 100% true. all the examples you have given fail to provide 100% proof. they all contain their own elements of doubt, no matter how small.

you say its not possible to have a materialistic life form without god. your proof - that there is not enough atoms in the universe.

we do not know exactly what the universe is. there are many popular theories that argue there must be other universes. this means that there is an element of doubt over your atoms in the universe theory. FACT - you cannot argue against this.

lets say your right and science proves that life was created by intelligence. this still does not prove you are correct. so at this stage you still have not proven 100% that you are correct.


at what point are you going to show how you came to be 100% sure?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I quoted from an article in a publication of Jehovahs witnesses which itself quoted the
article that you referred to, so, it leaves the possibility that while the article that you
referred to did not state that evolutionists did not dispute the claim, its entirely possible
that some other article did.

There's one simple what round this - show me an article or a peer-reviewed journal where an 'evolutionist' (ie an evolutionary biologist) acknowledges this number to be correct.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
The bible was written by fallible men.
It was not written by any God.

Many writings by men have proven to be false.

There is no absolute proof of any GOD.

Yes it was authored by God and has never been proven wrong, ever.

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes it was authored by God and has never been proven wrong, ever.

How could you make such a ridiculous statement?

When's his next book coming out then?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If its not random then how did it happen, and no, in order to make complex proteins
you need the correct sequence, nothing else will do.

It's not random because of quantum effects, where there are energy levels that are forbidden so an energy level cannot be just anywhere, it has to be on just the right level for some chemical process to continue so the number of possibilities is lower than would be guessed from classical Newtonian physics. When you have an electron in it's cloud around some nucleus it is at a certain level.

So suppose a random photon energy bundle comes in, not the right level to tickle that particular electron, nothing happens. There is an exact energy level that will cause that electron to jump to a higher state. That is how lasers work, some kind of atoms, the first ones were made of neon gas which got ionized and two near 100% reflecting mirrors carefully lined up and then the gas gets zapped with an exact energy level from electricity or some pump photon that causes the electrons inside the neon plasma to jump to a higher level but it can't grab on to that level and hand around for more than a few microsecods or milliseconds, the longer the better but eventually it notices it is on a cliff and if falls off but catches itself on a lower ledge which happens to be at a third energy level and when it hits it has energy left over from the fall down to a lower level so that energy gets flipped off as a photon of a different frequency from the photons that excited the electron up to its unstable level where it fell off the cliff.

The exciting photon could be in the infrared band and it happens to be at the exact energy level to kick butt on that electron and pump it upstairs and then falls back and gives up some of that energy in another photon. That action repeats trillions of times and because of the mirrors, some of those photons go off in the exact direction of the mirror only to be bounced back and that photon, now going the right direction, starts another cascade of electrons going up to another level, so very quickly a feedback effect raises the internal energy between the mirrors to a level a hundred times the level of the actual output beam because one of the mirrors has a 2% transparency so 2% of that beam leaved the mirrors and you have a laser beam. None of that stuff is random.

It all takes place at exact energy levels and there is nothing in Newtonian physics that would ever understand such a state of affairs thus the old wive's tale that all that stuff in the prebiotic world has to be random.

It is anything but, has to have exact energy levels so predetermined effects happen that gives rise to higher complexity when one amino acid whacks into another to create something more complex than either one. So they sort of self boot.

Of course at this stage of the game scientifically you are fully justified to poo poo all of what I just said except for the laser part but that laser action relates to chemical reactions too but science is still at an early stage.

Remember, science is only a couple hundred years old, compare that to even the centuries mankind has been around or the solar system so the last 200 years have resulted in an explosion of new knowledge and the explosion of knowledge is only heating up, not diminishing.

With the advent of majorly powerful computers and the internet allows collaboration on a scale scientists would drool 50 years ago or even 30 years ago.

So before you just reject all of that, remember, science is advancing at an extreme rate. If you don't think so, just follow the online physics magazine, Physorg and just click on it and look at the headlines and the incredible number of new findings that come in hourly, not daily but HOURLY! So poo poo it all you want but science has a way of sneaking up on you and biting your old dogma in the assumption.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
How could you make such a ridiculous statement?

When's his next book coming out then?

It's no ridiculous at all. Humans (non believers) have tried to prove it wrong with many accusations and not one has been proved correct.
This thread is about the 144,000 so we don't need to highjack it. So if you care to prove the Bible wrong start a new thread.

Originally posted by galveston75
It's no ridiculous at all. Humans (non believers) have tried to prove it wrong with many accusations and not one has been proved correct.
This thread is about the 144,000 so we don't need to highjack it. So if you care to prove the Bible wrong start a new thread.

If you care to check it was me who originally started this thread by asking Robbie to explain to me about the 144,000.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
If you care to check it was me who originally started this thread by asking Robbie to explain to me about the 144,000.

I just didn't want to change the subject. And I believe it was Robbie that started the thread.