Fmf

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get th ...[text shortened]... he New York Times.

source:Jehovahs Witnesses

Perhaps you have some statistics of your own?

We've been through these numbers before. The claim that 'evolutionists acknowledge' this number from this article is nothing but a lie. That number comes from an article written by a creationist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
on the contrary, I deal specifically in logic and empirical evidence, in fact, as a man of science, I would go as far to say its my stock in trade.

You are quite clearly delusional. A man of science who doesn't read science books?! 🙄

Originally posted by Proper Knob
We've been through these numbers before. The claim that 'evolutionists acknowledge' this number from this article is nothing but a lie. That number comes from an article written by a creationist.

Ok then, so what do evolutionists believe is a number to be considered mathematically improbable? So far as i can discern, you have not produced any statistics.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You are quite clearly delusional. A man of science who doesn't read science books?! 🙄

have i not just produced an article on science? Did you think i did not read it prior to posting it? unbelievable arrogance.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok then, so what do evolutionists believe is a number to be considered mathematically improbable? So far as i can discern, you have not produced any statistics.

Why would I need to produce any statistics? I'm just pointing out they you are spreading your usual lies with regard to these fictitious numbers.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have i not just produced an article on science? Did you think i did not read it prior to posting it? unbelievable arrogance.

Man of science. LOL!! Give it a rest, you're a fundamentalist Christian you crack pot.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude i have a chess rating approaching 1900 on here and 2000 at chess.com and I am to take lessons on logic from you, plueeeeeze! 😛

I hate to say this but Robbie has a good point here.RJH has a RHP rating of over 2100 and his use of logic is staggering.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Why would I need to produce any statistics? I'm just pointing out they you are spreading your usual lies with regard to these fictitious numbers.

fictitious numbers? evidence please.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Man of science. LOL!! Give it a rest, you're a fundamentalist Christian you crack pot.

I have produced evidence for my assertions which is more than can be said for you or stellspalfie. It seems to me that I am more of a man of science than either of you.

Originally posted by biffo konker
I hate to say this but Robbie has a good point here.RJH has a RHP rating of over 2100 and his use of logic is staggering.

you cannot use Ronald Jonah Hinds for anything, he is salt that has lost its saltiness and must be thrown onto the street and trampled upon by passers by.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
fictitious numbers? evidence please.

have you looked to see if there are any findings since that have given different answers? or did you settle on the first thing you found that supports your point?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
have you looked to see if there are any findings since that have given different answers? or did you settle on the first thing you found that supports your point?

I have asked you to produce statistics of your own, sigh, why must i deal with your superstitious, irrational and unscientific assertions? As a man of science, i am not used to lack of evidence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have asked you to produce statistics of your own, sigh, why must i deal with your superstitious, irrational and unscientific assertions? As a man of science, i am not used to lack of evidence.

what will it mean to you if i provide newer statistics? will it change your view, will you stop putting up the old numbers? youve been told before that they are wrong. you can even tell from reading it that the method is wrong. whats the point of providing you statistics that you can find easily yourself. surely if you really wanted to get the full picture you would have already looked to see if anything has been published since 1982. the fact you havent makes it seem slightly odd that you have selected and stand by one article from 1982, as if finding the truth is unimportant and supporting your fixed opinion is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
fictitious numbers? evidence please.

Prepare to have your argument splattered across the forum.

The JW article you are citing is called - 'Life — How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?' Here's the text -

What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! (pg. 44)

Which was basically plagiarised from a book called 'The Neck of the Giraffe' written by tv journalist and paranormal author Francis Hitching -

...let us consider a simple protein containing only 100 amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of L-amino acids in proteins, and each can be used repeatedly in chains of 100. Therefore, they could be arranged in 20^100 or 10^130 different ways. Even if a hundred million billion (10^17) of these combinations could function for a given purpose, there is only one chance in 10^113 of getting one of these required amino acid sequences in a small protein consisting of 100 amino acids. By comparison, Sir Arthur Eddington has estimated there are no more than 10^80 (or 3,145X10^79) particles in the universe...Mathematicians usually consider 1 chance in 10^50 as negligible. In other words, when the exponent is higher than 50, the chances are so slim for such an event ever occurring, that it is considered impossible.

And he got his numbers from this article, which is published on the Institute for Creation Research website -

To illustrate, let us consider a simple protein containing only 100 aim acids. There are 20 different kinds of L-amino acids in proteins, and each can be used repeatedly in chains of 100. Therefore, they could be arranged in 20100 or 10130 different ways. Even if a hundred million billion of these (1017) combinations could function for a given purpose, there is only one chance in 10113 of getting one of these required amino acid sequences in a small protein consisting of 100 amino acids.

By comparison, Sir Arthur Eddington has estimated there are no more than 1080 (or 3,145 x 1079) particles in the universe. If we assume that the universe is 30 billion years old (or 1018 seconds), and that each particle can react at the exaggerated rate of one trillion (1012) times per second, then the total number of events that can occur within the time and matter of our universe is 1080 x 1012 x 1018 = 10110. Even by most generous estimates, therefore, there is not enough time or matter in our universe to "guarantee" production of even one small protein with relative specificity.

http://www.icr.org/article/172/

No evolutionists involved in the producing of these numbers. Only a creationist, a tv journalist/paranormal author and some unknown JW writer.

It should also be noted I've pointed this out to you twice before, yet still you peddle this garbage.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Prepare to have your argument splattered across the forum.

The JW article you are citing is called - 'Life — How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?' Here's the text -

[quote]What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 z ...[text shortened]... o be noted I've pointed this out to you twice before, yet still you peddle this garbage.

i bet even god gave this post a thumbs up.