End of Year

Magic tricks—great science and spiritual lessons!

Kids love magic tricks. My family and I were in Ohio with my cousin Chad a few weeks ago and he put on a magic show two nights in a row for the kids. They loved it! It is so much fun to see their faces as they watch in amazement, wondering what happened to the ball in the cup.

Today I received this testimony from a family who has really enjoyed the Magic Tricks DVD that we have at CSE:

So…our children LOVE the Magic Tricks DVD that you and your dad have…They are getting super talented at the “Rope Thru the Neck,” “Devil’s Handcuffs,” the one that has two spoons—one ends up in the cup—this is Elijah’s specialty, and of course, as you can see from the picture, Elijah really likes the rubber-band “Spirit and Flesh.”

They are all really good at shooting the rubber bands and making an impression. We love that they have a love for Jesus and love to share Him using things such as the Magic Tricks, especially with family who give them the “oooh’s and ahhh’s” It makes them feel really confident.

We try to teach the magic tricks with a science lesson and a spiritual lesson! This keeps the kids’ attention really well and teaches them something about God’s word at the same time. You know, you can do the same thing. Just keep using the things around you to point people to Christ!

If you have never seen it before, the Magic Tricks DVD is a great resource to teach and empower kids with the truths of scripture in a fun and entertaining way!

Recommended Resource

Magic Tricks DVD

,

Leave45 Responses to testMagic tricks—great science and spiritual lessons!

  1. Corey March 29, 2011 at 8:34 am #

    I wonder why Christians who believe in the evils of witchcraft would endorse magic tricks?

    • CSE March 29, 2011 at 8:45 am #

      Because magic tricks are only based on slight-of-hand, perception, and illusion; not evils like sorcery or spells. :)

  2. John Bebbington March 29, 2011 at 9:53 am #

    Talking of magic tricks………………

    The appearance of the fifth leg on the cow was not a magic trick. It must have appeared as a result of an instruction by a rogue Hox gene to “grow another leg here”. We know that such an instruction isn’t normally present since such events are very rare. Therefore, the instruction or information came about by chance. Information was created by chance.

    If any creationist wishes to object to this last statement then I suggest they first try to define information, something which neither Kent, Eric nor any other creationist to my knowledge has yet been prepared to do. Surprise me.

    But is the information useful? As the cow is a domestic animal developed by man for his own uses probably not. Had the animal been found in the wild then who knows? Perhaps it would have been on its way to become the first self-milking cow.

    What is more interesting than the sport of a fifth leg is the question why do pigs have four toes on each leg when it only ever uses two?

  3. Ed Snipples March 29, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    “Because magic tricks are only based on slight-of-hand, perception, and illusion……”

    Just like religion.

  4. Jeff Brace March 29, 2011 at 1:10 pm #

    Hey John and Ed. I can just see you two, framtically checking every hour on the hour to see if the blog is open to post so you can have another chance at the creationists. What a sad existence. I hope some of this rubs off on you and you come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. We already know that you will accept no argument above your own so may the Lord soften your hardened hearts to see the truth that “people are without excuse”. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

  5. Geno Castagnoli March 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    With it being nearly a month since the last comments were allowed, I was beginning to think CSE had become “defensive” and decided to terminate all discussion…..

    With regard to beneficial mutations, I can think of two off the top of my head…. the “nylon bug” and the “milano gene.” (Note: the biology stuff isn’t my “thing” as I regard physics as a far more formidable problem for Genesis literalism to deal with than evolution ever could be.)

    • CSE March 30, 2011 at 9:26 am #

      Geno, what happened was we had not published any blogs for several weeks (unfortunately), and there is a 5-day limit for commenting on any individual blog. That would explain the inability to comment. Sorry for the hiatus… we’re back! :)

  6. Jack Napper March 29, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    If any creationist wishes to object to this last statement then I suggest they first try to define information, something which neither Kent, Eric nor any other creationist to my knowledge has yet been prepared to do. Surprise me.

    Be prepared to wait until the stars burn out for this one. Asking a Creationist for a definition is utterly futile. Ask them for a definition and you get examples.

    Take, for example, the term KIND. Sorry but “dog kind” and “cat kind” aren’t definitions and aren’t really anything but ignorant (take note Creationists). Either that are they will side-step and tell you that they don’t really know yet (but mock scientist and skeptics for this very comment). They’ll tell you it’s probably something more similar to FAMILY than SPECIES. So much for the bible being scientific. You’d think this would stop them in their tracks when spouting off about Noah’s Ark but, NOOOOOOOO. Sorry but you can’t say there enough room for all the kinds (and a moon pool too) if you don’t know what a kind is or how many there were. You can spew all the math you want about the size of the ark but it won’t help you if you can’t define KIND or explain the rapid evolution of species. Then again you can’t trust their math either. Looking at their population growth equations they think the Great Pyramids were built by 13 people.

  7. Geno Castagnoli March 29, 2011 at 1:17 pm #

    David McCrea wrote:
    Here is the oath you would have taken upon induction into the military. Did you leave out the last sentence, or did you become an atheist after your induction?

    I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

    ######
    Geno answers:
    I recited the complete oath and I’m not an atheist. In fact, I’ve repeatedly pointed out I’m Catholic and the last I checked, Catholics believe in God…. despite any issues you guys may have with catholicism.

    Further, multiple Gallup Polls over the last 30 years or so have consistently shown about 80% of those who accept evolution also believe it to be a process of creation used by God. In other words, only a small minority of evolutionists are atheists.

    Finally, Notice, the oath is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” There is nothing in it about defending a flag. (Hint: The words I decline to say in the “Pledge of Allegiance” are not “under God”… as I’m sure many on this list would think.)

  8. andrew Ryan March 29, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    If it is ‘nonsense’ to describe the fifth leg as a mutation, can Kent tell us what did cause the extra limb?

  9. Duane March 30, 2011 at 1:04 am #

    My grandmother was the very definition of Christian. At her funeral, it’s all anyone could say. Once, my dad was showing off a simple magic trick. He took a small handkerchief and placed it over his fist. He took his thumb and poked the cloth snugly into his fist through the ring of his forefinger and thumb. He then took a lit cigarette and placed it into the fist and tucked it in with his other thumb. A quick puff into his fist and pulling the handkerchief off his hand and the cigarette had vanished. My grandmother was convinced it was satanic. It never occurred to her that it was a trick. It was a simple plastic thumb. But this is what the Christian worldview does. It convinces the adherent that magic is possible and that it is satanic. It is about gullibility. When you teach that their worldview is based upon 2500 year old stories of talking snakes and two thousand year old second and third hand anonymous recollections of tricks with no verification, you are setting yourself and your children up to believe anyone who comes along, like a Peter Popoff. You don’t see miracles today. You see either tricks or events you don’t understand yet. If you can’t verify “magic” today, you really have no justification for believing thousand year old stories of magic. If you have a perfectly reasonable if technically incomplete naturalistic explanation for events in the past versus one of magic, the naturalistic explanation is most likely the one that is true. Even if the “magic” one claims to explain everything and the naturalistic one is based upon educated guesses, that’s still no reason to accept a magical one.

  10. John Bebbington March 30, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    Geno, what happened was we had not published any blogs for several weeks (unfortunately), and there is a 5-day limit for commenting on any individual blog. That would explain the inability to comment. Sorry for the hiatus we’re back!

    Is that quite true? Kent posted a couple of articles but commenting was blocked.

    • CSE March 31, 2011 at 9:04 am #

      @ John Bebbington & Geno

      Sorry, there was one blog (March 15th) in which the comments were turned off (which is 1 1/2 weeks ago). Just wanted to make sure we were truthful. :)

  11. John Bebbington March 30, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    Jeff Brace wrote:

    Hey John and Ed. I can just see you two, framtically checking every hour on the hour to see if the blog is open to post so you can have another chance at the creationists. What a sad existence.

    Yes, I agree; it’s very sad. Here I am lying on a bed in some French hotel with ten minutes to spare and nothing better to do but write to you while my lovely wife does her make-up before we go down for dinner. I should get another life.

    I wrote a challenge to creationists about defining information and, rather than answering it, you waste time trying to evangelise me. Haven’t you got anything better to do?

    ……so may the Lord soften your hardened hearts to see the truth that “people are without excuse”

    Then it looks like the ball is in the Lord’s court, doesn’t it?

  12. Corey March 30, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    Sorcery and spells are based on slight-of-hand, perceptionn and illusions.

  13. Duane March 31, 2011 at 6:46 am #

    @ Geno.

    Geno answers:
    I recited the complete oath and I’m not an atheist. In fact, I’ve repeatedly pointed out I’m Catholic and the last I checked, Catholics believe in God. despite any issues you guys may have with catholicism.

    I have a question for you, out of curiosity. Do you believe in transubstantiation? If so, why? If not, why are you Catholic?

  14. Jeff Brace March 31, 2011 at 9:21 am #

    John – that’s the whole purpose of being a Christian. To share with others what God has done for us and can do for others. The lost weighs heavy on the hearts of Christian people. Because of that we try to tell everyone we can about the hope that is in us.

    I can’t answer your questions with anything you would admit was the truth. Your purpose here seems to be to nothing other than to show your despise for wht someone else believes.

    I am also not an expert in any of the sciences. Like many I am striving to learn and understand it. But what I can tell you is that what I do post I know is the truth no matter how you want to beat it up.

    Again I hope that some of this conversation rubs off on you.

  15. Geno Castagnoli March 31, 2011 at 10:10 am #

    CSE wrote:
    Sorry, there was one blog (March 15th) in which the comments were turned off (which is 1 1/2 weeks ago). Just wanted to make sure we were truthful.

    #####
    Geno points out:
    And one on March 28 in which comments were closed at the time it was posted. I see no difference in a post where the comments were “turned off” and one in which they are “closed” at the time of release.

  16. John Bebbington March 31, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    Jeff,

    John that’s the whole purpose of being a Christian. To share with others what God has done for us and can do for others. The lost weighs heavy on the hearts of Christian people. Because of that we try to tell everyone we can about the hope that is in us.

    You may not have noticed but the heading of this blog is the statement “impacting our world with the creation message. Not ” Christian message” note but “creation message”. I’m here to discuss creationism and not Christianity.

    When I ask you questions challenging creationism you ignore them but I don’t mind, I’ve been ignored by far more knowledgeable creationists than you. However, in my last reply to you I asked you a theological question and you ignored that as well. Do you ever answer anything?

    By the way, is telling me that I have a sad life when I know that I have a very happy and satisfying life a good christian way to win a convert?

    Now, I’d better get out of this bath before I drop my iPhone in the water.

  17. Geno Castagnoli March 31, 2011 at 10:38 am #

    Duane asks:
    I have a question for you, out of curiosity. Do you believe in transubstantiation? If so, why? If not, why are you Catholic?

    #####
    Geno:
    Yes.

    Luke 22:19
    And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

  18. John Bebbington March 31, 2011 at 11:07 am #

    Well, CSE,

    Your above statement would be true if there had been an article called “Why do evolutionists get defensive about a cow with a fifth leg?” But, unfortunately, there were two closed articles and not one as you claimed.

    But being even half right is pretty good for creationism so well done. Try to keep up this improvement.

    While we are on the subject of half truths, Eric, is it true to state that Kent Hovind taught science in High Schools for 15 years? If true, please would you list the schools and the particular years Kent taught in each. As this is the first statement your father makes (after stating his name) or implies whenever he speaks publicly I would like to verify the details because, as far as I can tell, he never obtained a licence to teach any level of science in High Schools. Or perhaps “I taught high school science” is not intended to imply that he taught science in High Schools.

    Thank you in anticipation of the clarification.

  19. andrew Ryan March 31, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    CSE: “Sorry, there was one blog (March 15th) in which the comments were turned off (which is 1 1/2 weeks ago). Just wanted to make sure we were truthful.”

    Sorry, but weren’t there TWO blogs with comments turned off? First there was ‘why do evolutionists get so defensive’, then there was ‘the cow with the extra leg’.

  20. Jeff Brace March 31, 2011 at 2:35 pm #

    John – They go hand in hand. You will just have to deal with it.

  21. Chase Braud March 31, 2011 at 4:42 pm #

    If you don’t know what information is, then that is pretty pathetic my chatty friend. An extra leg on a cow isn’t new information; what? You think that cow didn’t have the information to make a leg? If that were the case it wouldn’t have any legs. Also, religion is not a bunch of mere illusions, only one who has never experienced the Holy Spirit would make such a comment. I am completely filled with anguish for you guys, I truly do wish you the best in life, but it will always be up to you to accept it.
    Fianlly, if the Bible is meant to trick the gullible, then why would it warn MULTIPLE times to beware of false prophets/teachers/miracles. The way to know God is not through growing up in a religion or even by seeing a miracle, it is through the Holy Spirit. After that, you will never have to worry about doubt. As an executed Christian soldier said in the Soviet Union, “A man with logic is no match for a man with an experience.” One last statement-If you guys don’t believe Creation and choose to believe evolution, THEN WHY ARE YOU ON A CREATION BASED WEBSITE! Sheesh, Creation can, has, and will answer all evolutionary claims! Stop being a bunch of dogmatic whinners and go to your own websites (you have more anyway) to post about your evolution beliefs. If you want answers to questions then by all means ask, but you don’t have to be a sarcastic jerk about it. Just because you don’t know Creationists answer doesn’t mean there is not one.

  22. John Bebbington April 1, 2011 at 12:29 am #

    Jeff,

    They don’t go hand in hand. There may be crazy Christians who believe in creationism but there are also very large numbers of idiotic islamists as well. Indeed, my guess is that a greater proportion of Muslims are creationists than Christians.

    But still no answers, Jeff?

  23. Duane April 1, 2011 at 12:51 am #

    Geno Castagnoli March 31st at 10:38 am

    Duane asks:
    I have a question for you, out of curiosity. Do you believe in transubstantiation? If so, why? If not, why are you Catholic?

    #####
    Geno:
    Yes.

    Luke 22:19
    And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

    So rather than take what seems at face value to be an obvious symbolic gesture, you are willing to believe, contrary to all rationality, in an ongoing supernatural event that culminates in an actual appearance by God -in the form of bread and wine, because someone says a few magic words over a cracker and wine? A God that can’t be bothered to show up in Japan and save a few tens of thousands of people, but is always ready to show up where there’s booze and snacks. I understand them fooling the rubes in the Middle-Ages with something like this, but this is the 21st Century…

    Do you not see the irony or the cognitive dissonance? How do you reconcile chastising these people here and elsewhere for distorting their view of reality to correspond with the primitive, symbolic folklore of ancient goat-herders in the face of all contrary evidence on one hand while taking a cracker and swig of fermented fruit juice and accepting someone’s tortured interpretation of that same folklore that this food is literally God…and you eat it. Physically, it’s still a cracker and wine. Oh, but it’s God. He has to keep the physical traits of the bread and wine because the real presence would blow your mind.

    I understand if it’s a requirement to keep your teaching job, in which case I’ll say no more. I’ve just never been able to understand the compartmentalization of otherwise rational intelligent people. You are a breath of fresh air with your genuine knowledge. How do you evaluate this book and decide this bit is wrong, but this bit is right when both are insanely irrational?

  24. Mark James April 1, 2011 at 1:51 am #

    I would be interested to know if 5-legged cows produce 5-legged offspring. Have there been any studies published? It would be surprising if it hadn’t been tested.

  25. Philip Kingsley Subas April 1, 2011 at 6:21 am #

    @Andrew Ryan: Well i agree that the fifth leg was because of mutation. What Kent wants to say is that this mutation didnt add any new information which wasn’t present previously. To qoute an example I can say an eye appearing on a creature when none of the living things have it

  26. andrew Ryan April 1, 2011 at 9:11 am #

    Philip Kinglsey Subas: “@Andrew Ryan: Well i agree that the fifth leg was because of mutation. What Kent wants to say is that this mutation didnt add any new information which wasn’t present previously.”

    But that’s not what Kent said. He said that the science book called this a mutation, and then Kent said that this was nonsense. If he thinks it’s nonsense, he should tell us what process he thinks caused the extra leg. Either he thinks it is ‘nonsense’ to call it a mutation, or he agrees that it IS a mutation. If the former, what caused the extra leg?

    And other people here have given other examples of beneficial mutations that added extra information.

  27. Jennifer Preston April 1, 2011 at 11:06 am #

    John Bebbington wrote:

    “While we are on the subject of half truths, Eric, is it true to state that Kent Hovind taught science in High Schools for 15 years? If true, please would you list the schools and the particular years Kent taught in each. As this is the first statement your father makes (after stating his name) or implies whenever he speaks publicly I would like to verify the details because, as far as I can tell, he never obtained a licence to teach any level of science in High Schools. Or perhaps “I taught high school science” is not intended to imply that he taught science in High Schools.”

    There is a LOT more to science than just high school science. The real stuff only gets touched on at University, at least it does in the UK. And the mark of a good scientist is being able to communicate complex results in a simple, “easy for fourth graders” way. This can be said for all science communicators, and yes, that includes teachers. The point I’m trying to make here, is that if Kent really is a science communicator, he should be able to explain conclusions and principles far beyond fourth grade level to fourth graders and anyone for that matter. But he seems to want to keep it so simple he gets it wrong and comes to the wrong conclusions.
    When scientists release a press statement with some exciting results, they haven’t just made up that conclusion based on a little amount of analysis. A huge amount of experimental data has been collected, analysed to the brink and tested and gone through a peer review. There is a lot more science behind these press releases than they mention, because that’s what they do. They explain very complex results in a simple to understand way for the public. But the amount of work behind them is huge.

  28. Geno Castagnoli April 1, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    Chase Braud wrote:
    If you don’t know what information is, then that is pretty pathetic my chatty friend.

    #######
    Geno points out:
    The problem is when one argues against an “increase” of information. If there has been an “increase” that implies a way to measure it. There is no way to measure biological information. Therefore, claims of an “increase” or “decrease” of biological informatio cannot be supported.

  29. Jack Napper April 1, 2011 at 10:38 am #

    If you don’t know what information is, then that is pretty pathetic my chatty friend.

    Oh, look, I can play this game too.I could say “if you don’t know what a KIND is that’s pretty pathetic”. How about you give us a definition of information as it pertains to biology because apparently no one else knows.

    An extra leg on a cow isn’t new information; what? You think that cow didn’t have the information to make a leg?

    The leg is not the issue. The addition of a leg is.

    If that were the case it wouldn’t have any legs.

    FACEPALM

    Also, religion is not a bunch of mere illusions, only one who has never experienced the Holy Spirit would make such a comment.

    Yeah, you’re not a TRUE BELIEVER unless you believe the this stuff is true before studying it to determine if it’s true, and you need someone already knowledgeable to explain it too you and if you don’t believe exactly as we do then you’re just plain stupid.

    Sounds like the Scientolgist that was harassing me downtown the other day.

    I am completely filled with anguish for you guys, I truly do wish you the best in life, but it will always be up to you to accept it.

    I’m sure modern science has a pill for that.

    Fianlly, if the Bible is meant to trick the gullible, then why would it warn MULTIPLE times to beware of false prophets/teachers/miracles.

    BEWARE OF PEOPLE PROMOTING WORK AT HOME SCHEMES. Wow, I’m like all supernatural too huh? Your logic is flawed. Most religion have similar passages. I refer you again to SCIENTOLOGY.

    I won’t bother commenting on your anecdotal wishy washy nonsense.

    Stop being a bunch of dogmatic whinners and go to your own websites (you have more anyway) to post about your evolution beliefs.

    You first. However, are you really that afraid that your claims are being challenged? Do you not like being told PUT UP OR SHUT UP? Heck, Kent Hovind claimed that if people prove him wrong he will stop making the claims he does. I mean he hasn’t yet but one can hope.

    If you want answers to questions then by all means ask, but you don’t have to be a sarcastic jerk about it. Just because you don’t know Creationists answer doesn’t mean there is not one.

    The question was asked. Stop side stepping it (now with an appeal to emotion) and answer it. I’m getting tired of excuses. “Oh you’re rude” or “no you said a dirty word in your comment/video/whatever” so I’m going to avoid you. What’s next “well if you don’t know then I’m not gonna tell you”?

  30. Geno Castagnoli April 1, 2011 at 11:37 am #

    @ Duane:
    Religious beliefs have a much lower standard of evidence than science. Notice, most of my arguments are related to the scientific claims of those who are claiming science supports their religious beliefs.

    Like John, I’m here to discuss creationism, not Christianity.

    Oh yeah… I teach in public schools.

  31. Jeff Brace April 1, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    @ John “But still no answers, Jeff?”

    As I said before, I am not an expert in any of the sciences. I am here however to learn more about those things as they intrigue me.
    The difference between Muslims and Christians is that Muslims rarely stand on corners and try to gain converts. Their history shows they gain converts though conquering nations.

  32. Mark James April 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

    Hi Jack,

    You said: “Then again you can’t trust their math either.”

    In a previous thread I pointed out that scientists have calculated the maximum number of possible changes, to all possible particles in the universe, in all possible time is 10^150.

    I’ve also pointed out that the probability of one protein (haemoglobin) forming by chance is at best 1 in 10^650 (574 amino acids in specific order using the 20 different amino acids required for life). And this is just one of over 100,000 functional proteins that we know about!

    Don’t trust my math, go and do the calculations yourself. But use real math, not Nappermath.

    Spontaneous generation of life is an absolute impossibility and, as Sherlock Holmes said; “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

  33. Mark James April 1, 2011 at 2:30 pm #

    Hi John,

    You said: “If any creationist wishes to object to this last statement then I suggest they first try to define information, something which neither Kent, Eric nor any other creationist to my knowledge has yet been prepared to do. Surprise me.”

    I would define biological information as a sequence of bases in DNA that code to produce a specific, repeatable (and reproducible) outcome in a biological system.

    As I said last time you asked (yes, I’ve proposed this definition before) it isn’t perfect but it is a good starting point.

  34. John Bebbington April 1, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    Chase Braud wrote:

    If you don’t know what information is, then that is pretty pathetic my chatty friend. An extra leg on a cow isn’t new information; what? You think that cow didn’t have the information to make a leg?

    No-one is arguing that cows do not have information on how to build a leg. You have missed the point. As well as the information on how to build a leg is additional genomic information of where to put each one, i.e. one at each corner.

    A cow’s genome does not usually contain information requiring a fifth leg to bud off one of the animal’s other legs. If it did then all cows would produce a fifth leg.

    Fianlly, if the Bible is meant to trick the gullible, then why would it warn MULTIPLE times to beware of false prophets/teachers/miracles.

    Presumably, because religious fraud was just as common then as it is now.

    “A man with logic is no match for a man with an experience.”

    Tell that to the guy on LSD who is just climbing out of the top floor window. Or tell it to the Mormon with “burning in his bosom”.

    Just because you don’t know Creationists answer doesn’t mean there is not one.

    But, Chase, we do know them. All of them – and in all their self-contradictory glory. And, more importantly, we know them for what they are. I doubt that you do.

  35. Mark James April 3, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    Hi Duane,

    You wrote: “You don’t see miracles today. You see either tricks or events you don’t understand yet. If you can’t verify “magic today, you really have no justification for believing thousand year old stories of magic.”

    This is slight of hand worthy of the very best magicians! First, you decide that miracles don’t happen. Then you define anything that might possibly be a miracle as either magic or something we ‘don’t understand yet.’ Then you use this definition to justify your position that miracles can’t be verified!!

    You have used your world view to set the definition so that the only possible outcome justifies your world view.

  36. Geno Castagnoli April 4, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Mark James
    In a previous thread I pointed out that scientists have calculated the maximum number of possible changes, to all possible particles in the universe, in all possible time is 10^150.

    I’ve also pointed out that the probability of one protein (haemoglobin) forming by chance is at best 1 in 10^650 (574 amino acids in specific order using the 20 different amino acids required for life). And this is just one of over 100,000 functional proteins that we know about!

    ######
    Geno:
    Some comments here:
    1) Chemical reactions do not take place randomly nor do elements combine in random fashions. Therefore, the basic premise of your “calculation” is in error.
    2) Any alleged “calculation” claiming rather common chemicals we see forming by natural chemical processes all the day exceeds the number of possible particles in the universe is clearly flawed.
    3) I’ve seen a number of these “calculations” from various sources (all of them creationists). The “odds” they cite vary from something like 10^83 to something like 10^8400. It’s pretty clear the “calculated” probability is seriously wrong when the sources can’t agree within 8000 orders of magnitude.
    4) It is not possible to calculate a reliable probability without knowing the pathway. (Which is likely the reason the “odds” from various sources vary by thousands of orders of magnitude.) Go ahead and tell me the distance from San Francisco to New York without knowing the route.

    Mark:
    Don’t trust my math, go and do the calculations yourself. But use real math, not Nappermath.

    #####
    Geno:
    There’s no need to do calculations in an exercise that is so clearly GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

  37. Jack Napper April 4, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    Jeff —

    Their history shows they gain converts though conquering nations.

    History FAIL. Christians have just as much if not more. While they probably didn’t conquer as many nations they certainly rolled through with a “convert or die” mentality.

    You should read up on “the white man’s burden”, “the British colonies” and “Islam in Spain”. That last one is great because the Muslims conquered Spain but did not force conversion. Nope, it was the Christians that eventually overthrew them that did.

    Mark —

    In a previous thread I pointed out that scientists have calculated the maximum number of possible changes, to all possible particles in the universe, in all possible time is 10^150.

    Yep and like all other copy and paste nonsense you didn’t bother to name who these scientists are. However, even if the possibility is 1:10^50 it doesn’t mean impossible. Yeah come back with something other than assertions.

    I’ve also pointed out that the probability of one protein (haemoglobin) forming by chance is at best 1 in 10^650 (574 amino acids in specific order using the 20 different amino acids required for life). And this is just one of over 100,000 functional proteins that we know about!

    I’ve seen stuff like this before and it’s really funny that it based on a complete misunderstanding of the processes.

    Don’t trust my math, go and do the calculations yourself. But use real math, not Nappermath.

    What is the premise by which you base your calculations? Gee kind forgot to include that tid bit didn’t you. Also what is Nappermath? Is it the math that says that the pyramids were built by 13 people? Perhaps the one that says that Xerxes plowed through Greece with an army no larger than the population of Sparta! Nope that’s Creationist math.

    Spontaneous generation of life is an absolute impossibility…

    Fully formed life, yes. Pasteur disproved that as did the Creationist Peanut Butter Man.

    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

    Yes when you have a two possibilities. Not only are you presenting a false dichotomy but showing off your ignorance.

  38. John Bebbington April 4, 2011 at 11:19 am #

    Mark James wrote:

    I’ve also pointed out that the probability of one protein (haemoglobin) forming by chance is at best 1 in 10^650 (574 amino acids in specific order using the 20 different amino acids required for life).

    Who says it came about by chance?

    And this is just one of over 100,000 functional proteins that we know about!

    According to Talkorigins “Hubert Yockey has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences,…”

    That’s one big hypervariable protein for you.

    <blockquote?
    Spontaneous generation of life is an absolute impossibility…

    Obviously not. I suspect that life is ubiquitous throughout the universe but readily admit I have no proof whatsoever for the belief.

  39. John Bebbington April 4, 2011 at 11:03 am #

    Jeff Brace
    wrote:

    .
    The difference between Muslims and Christians is that Muslims rarely stand on corners and try to gain converts. Their history shows they gain converts though conquering nations.

    I used to have to stand on street corners with a small group to evangelise the gospel. To my knowledge over many years the group never gained a single convert.

    The best way to evangelise is by using the emotional blackmail of crowds – Billy Graham’s old trick.

  40. John Bebbington April 4, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    Well said, Jennifer.

    To teach a subject successfully one has to know far more than the subject level demands.

    Kent’s ignorance of such basic stuff as “Boyle’s gas laws” (his terminology) shows his lack of even basic 6th grade scientific understanding.

  41. John Bebbington April 4, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    Mark James wrote:

    I would define biological information as a sequence of bases in DNA that code to produce a specific, repeatable (and reproducible) outcome in a biological system.

    Bar a few niggles I quite like your definition. Do cows usually have a sequence of bases to produce a fifth leg?

  42. Duane April 5, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    Geno Castagnoli April 1st at 11:37 am

    @ Duane:
    Religious beliefs have a much lower standard of evidence than science. Notice, most of my arguments are related to the scientific claims of those who are claiming science supports their religious beliefs.

    Like John, I’m here to discuss creationism, not Christianity.

    Oh yeah I teach in public schools.

    @ Geno. My point is that truth is truth and reality is reality. A claim is a claim regardless of whether the person making it is wearing a collar or a labcoat. I just picked that one belief because it’s so transparently false. By supporting beliefs as obviously phony and unsuppported as transubstantiation it encourages beliefs such as creationism. Where does one draw the line? We need more people to stand up to the nonsense of religion and call it for what it is.

    @Mark James April 1st at 3:09 pm

    In a previous thread I pointed out that scientists have calculated the maximum number of possible changes, to all possible particles in the universe, in all possible time is 10^150.

    I’ve also pointed out that the probability of one protein (haemoglobin) forming by chance is at best 1 in 10^650 (574 amino acids in specific order using the 20 different amino acids required for life). And this is just one of over 100,000 functional proteins that we know about!

    Don’t trust my math, go and do the calculations yourself. But use real math, not Nappermath.

    Spontaneous generation of life is an absolute impossibility and, as Sherlock Holmes said; “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    I believe I pointed out the fallacy here before. Why would we expect a modern protein to spontaneously appear? It’s like taking a box of scrabble letters and shaking them up and expecting Shakespeare’s plays. No one claims that’s possible. But if you look in that box you might find some words. That’s all is needed. It took over a billion years of life before the first eukaryote cells.

    You wrote: “You don’t see miracles today. You see either tricks or events you don’t understand yet. If you can’t verify “magic” today, you really have no justification for believing thousand year old stories of magic.”

    This is slight of hand worthy of the very best magicians! First, you decide that miracles don’t happen. Then you define anything that might possibly be a miracle as either magic or something we don’t understand yet. Then you use this definition to justify your position that miracles can’t be verified!!

    You have used your world view to set the definition so that the only possible outcome justifies your world view.

    I did no such thing. Mine’s based upon reality, not some first century understanding of the world.