Fmf

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

Its of little real consequence though is it, after all, you cannot dispute the figures, therefore you simply try to undermine the reputation of the article in some other way and is rather typical of one devoid of reason.. Fact of the matter is, the chances of life originating by chance are astronomically high, so high as to be almost impossible. You know it, Sir Fred Hoyle knew it and I know it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
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 pic ...[text shortened]... article from 1982, as if finding the truth is unimportant and supporting your fixed opinion is.

why dont you produce some and let us find out, hmmm? So far you have produced nada, but what are we to expect from a man of the atheistic superstition?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont you produce some and let us find out, hmmm? So far you have produced nada, but what are we to expect from a man of the atheistic superstition?

if you cant even read through your own posted stats and see the glaringly obvious mistakes. why should i provide you with other stats. when its not important to you if statistics are accurate or not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its of little real consequence though is it, after all, you cannot dispute the figures, therefore you simply try to undermine the reputation of the article in some other way and is rather typical of one devoid of reason.. Fact of the matter is, the chances of life originating by chance are astronomically high, so high as to be almost impossible. You know it, Sir Fred Hoyle knew it and I know it.

No evolutionist acknowledges the number cited in that JW propoganda. It's a bare faced lie.

Secondly, no one knows how life arose, so how on earth are you to produce numbers or statistics for an unknown process? And thirdly, why has the article which proclaimed the figures not been submitted it for peer review? What's it doing on an ICR website? That is after all how the scientific process works, journals and articles being submitted for peer review. If it's not peer reviewed, it's not science.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if you cant even read through your own posted stats and see the glaringly obvious mistakes. why should i provide you with other stats. when its not important to you if statistics are accurate or not.

nada

Originally posted by Proper Knob
No evolutionist acknowledges the number cited in that JW propoganda. It's a bare faced lie.

Secondly, no one knows how life arose, so how on earth are you to produce numbers or statistics for an unknown process? And thirdly, why has the article which proclaimed the figures not been submitted it for peer review? What's it doing on an ICR website? That ...[text shortened]... s and articles being submitted for peer review. If it's not peer reviewed, it's not science.

even more nada, when you superstitious atheists get some scientific data, let the forum know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nada

okaaaaaaay, here you go, have fun.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html


before you start arguing, i dont agree particularly agree with the odds put forward by anybody on there. the point is that there are many ways of calculating them and most of them are more accurate than the codswollop you posted.

the truth is that currently do not know the odds, there are still too many unknown variables.



when you have finished i have more if you want. there are lots of people writing about this stuff, all with different views as its such a stab in the dark.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
okaaaaaaay, here you go, have fun.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html


before you start arguing, i dont agree particularly agree with the odds put forward by anybody on there. the point is that there are many ways of calculating them and most of them are more accurate than the codswollop you posted.

the truth ...[text shortened]... ots of people writing about this stuff, all with different views as its such a stab in the dark.

waiter waiter what is this spam doing on my plate, I ordered roasted vegetables?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
waiter waiter what is this spam doing on my plate, I ordered roasted vegetables?

looks more like you ordered to be spit roasted.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
even more nada, when you superstitious atheists get some scientific data, let the forum know.

Nada? Is that some sort of Scottish slang for 'more impenetrable refutations of my dung heap of an argument'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Nada? Is that some sort of Scottish slang for 'more impenetrable refutations of my dung heap of an argument'?

actually its Spanish i think and means nothingness, like the content of your irrational and unscientific post. Where is a man of science to turn amidst all this superstitious nonsense. Now i know how Galileo must have felt.

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?

You can fold proteins on your very own home computer now. It's one of those distributed computing projects. As to statistics, you have speculation as to how likely life is. No one knows how likely it is. No one can define life to start with so we don't have much to go on. I will still go with the simplest option and introducing a god adds complexity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually its Spanish i think and means nothingness, like the content of your irrational and unscientific post. Where is a man of science to turn amidst all this superstitious nonsense. Now i know how Galileo must have felt.

Irrational and unscientific? What are you havering on about? You were caught posting lies yet again.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Irrational and unscientific? What are you havering on about? You were caught posting lies yet again.

sure i was, still waiting for you to produce your own statistics.

Originally posted by Kepler
You can fold proteins on your very own home computer now. It's one of those distributed computing projects. As to statistics, you have speculation as to how likely life is. No one knows how likely it is. No one can define life to start with so we don't have much to go on. I will still go with the simplest option and introducing a god adds complexity.

Do you like fractals? I love them. It seems to me that much of the universe is fractal. Variations on a theme.