Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually he didn't have to take all the species aboard, but even if he did it would be more plausible than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try which is the probability of abiogenesis ever happening. It's ok to have blind faith, I just think you have a bit too much of it.
Could you show your calculation demonstrating that the probability of abiogenesis is 1 in 10^5000 please?
Sure! You could do the math for yourself, but Dr. Sarfati already did it for us in his book (By Design) so I will just quote that. He also shows the probability of it occurring even if we spot you guys every particle interaction in the history of time, numbers are still not looking good for the abiogenesis crowd.
Quote: One could calculate the probability of obtaining all these proteins in the right sequence. Certainly there is some leeway in many, but not around the active sites. However, in others there is hardly any leeway, e.g. the histones that act as spools around which DNA wraps in chromosomes, ubiquitin which is ubiquitous in organisms apart from bacteria and essential for marking unwanted proteins for destruction,7,8 and calmodulin, the ubiquitous calcium-binding protein which has almost all of its 140–150 amino acids ‘conserved’ (the same in all organisms).
The structure of part of a DNA double helix
Even evolutionary writers implicitly concede that some sequences are essential, but they call them ‘conserved’—i.e. the sequence was so vital that natural selection conserved it by eliminating variants. As the following conservative calculation shows, even making generous assumptions to the evolutionists (e.g. ignoring the chemical problems), the origin of life from non-life still defies probability.
20 amino acids
387 proteins for the simplest possible life
10 conserved amino acids on average
∴ chance is 20^–3870 = 10^–3870.log20 = 10^–5035
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!
Is time really ‘the hero of the plot’? No:
10^80 atoms in the universe
10^12 atomic interactions per second
10^18 seconds in the universe, according to the fallacious big bang theory
∴ only 10^110 interactions possible. This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10^–4925.
May 6, 2011 at 7:19 am (This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 7:36 am by Zen Badger.)
(May 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
Sure! You could do the math for yourself, but Dr. Sarfati already did it for us in his book (By Design) so I will just quote that. He also shows the probability of it occurring even if we spot you guys every particle interaction in the history of time, numbers are still not looking good for the abiogenesis crowd.
Quote: One could calculate the probability of obtaining all these proteins in the right sequence. Certainly there is some leeway in many, but not around the active sites. However, in others there is hardly any leeway, e.g. the histones that act as spools around which DNA wraps in chromosomes, ubiquitin which is ubiquitous in organisms apart from bacteria and essential for marking unwanted proteins for destruction,7,8 and calmodulin, the ubiquitous calcium-binding protein which has almost all of its 140–150 amino acids ‘conserved’ (the same in all organisms).
The structure of part of a DNA double helix
Even evolutionary writers implicitly concede that some sequences are essential, but they call them ‘conserved’—i.e. the sequence was so vital that natural selection conserved it by eliminating variants. As the following conservative calculation shows, even making generous assumptions to the evolutionists (e.g. ignoring the chemical problems), the origin of life from non-life still defies probability.
20 amino acids
387 proteins for the simplest possible life
10 conserved amino acids on average
∴ chance is 20^–3870 = 10^–3870.log20 = 10^–5035
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!
Is time really ‘the hero of the plot’? No:
10^80 atoms in the universe
10^12 atomic interactions per second
10^18 seconds in the universe, according to the fallacious big bang theory
∴ only 10^110 interactions possible. This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10^–4925.
And indeed these calculations would be correct for the proposed scenario of all these amino acids and proteins etc appearing all at once as a complete ensemble.
Since real scientists know that this isn't the actual case your argument is invalid.
Again.
(May 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually he didn't have to take all the species aboard, but even if he did it would be more plausible than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try which is the probability of abiogenesis ever happening. It's ok to have blind faith, I just think you have a bit too much of it.
No, it's not.
Abiogenesis is purely theoretical at the moment and the subject of ongoing research.
Pretty much the ONLY evidence we have for it is the fact that life does exist.
But that is still way more evidence than we have for god.
Now, for the ark and the great flood.
The bible account is in complete contradiction to archealogical and recorded evidence.
It is completely impossible to build a seaworthy wooden vesssel capable of holding even a fraction of the worlds species (plus extinct species) with todays technology, never mind the tech of the day.
And how did all the species from remote locations return to their locales after the flood.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
May 6, 2011 at 8:22 am (This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 8:32 am by reverendjeremiah.)
waldork Wrote:Actually he didn't have to take all the species aboard, but even if he did it would be more plausible than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try which is the probability of abiogenesis ever happening. It's ok to have blind faith, I just think you have a bit too much of it.
Typical YEC. Life from lifelessness is damn near impossible, but the Arc story is not only a historical document, but accurate 100%. Holy shit man, the arc story is nucking futs. I have met other people face to face who were 100% true arc believers, and to say they were a bit slow is an understatement. How do you like that with the plausability numbers. 5000 digit pin number? Why stop there? Why not say 10,000,000 digit pin number, or ten billion digit? If I had a team of people guessing all day every day at a 5000 digit pin number, how many days do you think it will take to guess it correctly? Why does it have to be on your first try. That isnt how biology works you fucking idiot.
BTW, just what are the chances of an all powerful, all knowing, god just always existing? If something as simple as RNA is as unlikely as trying to guess a 5000 digit pin number on the first try, then what are the chances of your all powerful, all knowig god just existing for eternity? As far as complexity goes, you cant get much more complex than a god. Even an entire universe is less complex than a god. I thought complexity was a sign of being created by a complex designer to you ignorant fuck heads? Therefore if God exists, he would be evidence of an even more complex designer that created him. But no, you will throw your logic out the window and special plead that gods complexity is the only thing that doesnt beg the question of a designer, in the same hand demanding that complexity is proof of a designer. You will come up with some weak "undesigned designer" bullshit. This special pleading is one of the many reasons why creationism was booted out of the sciences long ago. I find it funny that you point your finger at people and claim they are being illogical, when it was logic itself that tossed creationism out of the science class.
Waldork Wrote:Actually I am not stupid at all; my career and schooling demonstrate that. You just don't really have any valid logical response to my points so you resort to ad hominem. If this were a scored debate you'd be done at that point.
Arguments from authority? You use arguments from authority in your first sentence and then claim I dont really have any valid logic? Of course I use ad hominem attacks. Why? Because you are a fucking idiot. As far as a scored debate, I would not even consider wasting my time with you. If I were a biology professor and you challenged me to a debate, I wouldnt even give you the time of day, much less discuss biology with the likes of you...but, by all means, feel free to join my class and learn something.
So, if you think YEC is logical, and you have plenty of convincing evidences for it, then by all means have your work published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. What are you wasting your time on this atheist forum when you have such world shaking evidence of YEC? Hurry up and publish your data. Im so excited. To think..I am talking to a legend. The man who finally produced convincing evidence that YEC is absolutely correct and that Natural selection is wrong. You are going to be so famous man. Do you know how many people have come before you and failed? Statler Waldorf - the man who single handedly took down our modern cosmology and proved without a doubt that YEC is fact. Oh, I would be made to look like such a fool that day. I would tell people; "Yes, we actually had THE Statler Waldorf on our atheist forums, but we were so foolish with foolish pride that we didnt listen to him. Now I know better and am a YEC. Thakyou Statler, for getting me saved!" Oh yes, that would be the day Waldorf. ...that would be the day.
waldork Wrote:Sure! You could do the math for yourself, but Dr. Sarfati already did it for us in his book (By Design) so I will just quote that. He also shows the probability of it occurring even if we spot you guys every particle interaction in the history of time, numbers are still not looking good for the abiogenesis crowd.
That wasnt Sarfati. It was Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power against the proteins serving as enzymes in a cell all forming by chance. Hoyle used this calculation as proof that life on Earth was intelligently designed through Panspermia. Sir Fred Hoyles work to try and prove that Panspermia is a correct account for life on Earth has been often times Cherry Picked by YEC's and IDer's thinking that Hoyles claim supported a "fine tuning" of the universe. Hoyle has been called the "atheist for ID" and his work on origins is often cited as Hoyle's fallacy (sometimes called the junkyard tornado) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy
So I find it very amusing that a YEC would use an argument from a Panspermist. Strange how the theory of God putting life on Earth and the theory of Aliens putting life on Earth can use the exact same arguments.
This Hoyles argument has been refuted so many, many times. Keep walking people...nothing to see here....
For a self proclaimed Science teacher, Statler does have some problems dealing with facts. Not that the arguments are original, I mean, that old probability chestnut?
Ahw good Reverend, I applaud your effort, but SW is thicker than Dusseldorf's mustard. Common MO: Moving the Goal post, changing the suject on a posts notice, all heavily seasoned with some old creationist sophistry. Besides, from all the time SW's been here, I've never seen him presenting even one (or even trying for that matter) evidence for his creationist claims.
May 6, 2011 at 2:18 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 2:19 pm by lilphil1989.)
(May 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 20 amino acids
387 proteins for the simplest possible life
10 conserved amino acids on average
∴ chance is 20^–3870 = 10^–3870.log20 = 10^–5035
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!
Is time really ‘the hero of the plot’? No:
10^80 atoms in the universe
10^12 atomic interactions per second
10^18 seconds in the universe, according to the fallacious big bang theory
∴ only 10^110 interactions possible. This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10^–4925.
Firstly, that's a huge underestimation, because it assumes sequential instead of parallel trials.
And the number is irrelevant anyway, because no-one ever claimed that early life spontaneously assembled out of all the constituent amino acids of its constituent proteins.
Please, learn what evolutionary biology actually says, because every argument you have made against it has been an argument against a strawman.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
(May 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually he didn't have to take all the species aboard, but even if he did it would be more plausible than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try which is the probability of abiogenesis ever happening. It's ok to have blind faith, I just think you have a bit too much of it.
May 6, 2011 at 6:20 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 6:35 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 6, 2011 at 7:19 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And indeed these calculations would be correct for the proposed scenario of all these amino acids and proteins etc appearing all at once as a complete ensemble.
Since real scientists know that this isn't the actual case your argument is invalid.
Again.
(May 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually he didn't have to take all the species aboard, but even if he did it would be more plausible than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try which is the probability of abiogenesis ever happening. It's ok to have blind faith, I just think you have a bit too much of it.
No, it's not.
Abiogenesis is purely theoretical at the moment and the subject of ongoing research.
Pretty much the ONLY evidence we have for it is the fact that life does exist.
But that is still way more evidence than we have for god.
Now, for the ark and the great flood.
The bible account is in complete contradiction to archealogical and recorded evidence.
It is completely impossible to build a seaworthy wooden vesssel capable of holding even a fraction of the worlds species (plus extinct species) with todays technology, never mind the tech of the day.
And how did all the species from remote locations return to their locales after the flood.
This is really not your best effort is it Zen? Surely you realize that they calculations are for the MINIMUM chain of amino acids required for self replication and survival. Anything less than this assembling would be completely useless and be destroyed. Even when Creationists spot you points (the bare minimum amino acid count and all the interactions in the history of time) you guys still lose.
I am sure you are also aware that "Life exists therefore this is evidence for abiogenesis" is a completely fallacious argument.
(May 6, 2011 at 8:22 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
waldork Wrote:Actually he didn't have to take all the species aboard, but even if he did it would be more plausible than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try which is the probability of abiogenesis ever happening. It's ok to have blind faith, I just think you have a bit too much of it.
Typical YEC. Life from lifelessness is damn near impossible, but the Arc story is not only a historical document, but accurate 100%. Holy shit man, the arc story is nucking futs. I have met other people face to face who were 100% true arc believers, and to say they were a bit slow is an understatement. How do you like that with the plausability numbers. 5000 digit pin number? Why stop there? Why not say 10,000,000 digit pin number, or ten billion digit? If I had a team of people guessing all day every day at a 5000 digit pin number, how many days do you think it will take to guess it correctly? Why does it have to be on your first try. That isnt how biology works you fucking idiot.
BTW, just what are the chances of an all powerful, all knowing, god just always existing? If something as simple as RNA is as unlikely as trying to guess a 5000 digit pin number on the first try, then what are the chances of your all powerful, all knowig god just existing for eternity? As far as complexity goes, you cant get much more complex than a god. Even an entire universe is less complex than a god. I thought complexity was a sign of being created by a complex designer to you ignorant fuck heads? Therefore if God exists, he would be evidence of an even more complex designer that created him. But no, you will throw your logic out the window and special plead that gods complexity is the only thing that doesnt beg the question of a designer, in the same hand demanding that complexity is proof of a designer. You will come up with some weak "undesigned designer" bullshit. This special pleading is one of the many reasons why creationism was booted out of the sciences long ago. I find it funny that you point your finger at people and claim they are being illogical, when it was logic itself that tossed creationism out of the science class.
Waldork Wrote:Actually I am not stupid at all; my career and schooling demonstrate that. You just don't really have any valid logical response to my points so you resort to ad hominem. If this were a scored debate you'd be done at that point.
Arguments from authority? You use arguments from authority in your first sentence and then claim I dont really have any valid logic? Of course I use ad hominem attacks. Why? Because you are a fucking idiot. As far as a scored debate, I would not even consider wasting my time with you. If I were a biology professor and you challenged me to a debate, I wouldnt even give you the time of day, much less discuss biology with the likes of you...but, by all means, feel free to join my class and learn something.
So, if you think YEC is logical, and you have plenty of convincing evidences for it, then by all means have your work published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. What are you wasting your time on this atheist forum when you have such world shaking evidence of YEC? Hurry up and publish your data. Im so excited. To think..I am talking to a legend. The man who finally produced convincing evidence that YEC is absolutely correct and that Natural selection is wrong. You are going to be so famous man. Do you know how many people have come before you and failed? Statler Waldorf - the man who single handedly took down our modern cosmology and proved without a doubt that YEC is fact. Oh, I would be made to look like such a fool that day. I would tell people; "Yes, we actually had THE Statler Waldorf on our atheist forums, but we were so foolish with foolish pride that we didnt listen to him. Now I know better and am a YEC. Thakyou Statler, for getting me saved!" Oh yes, that would be the day Waldorf. ...that would be the day.
waldork Wrote:Sure! You could do the math for yourself, but Dr. Sarfati already did it for us in his book (By Design) so I will just quote that. He also shows the probability of it occurring even if we spot you guys every particle interaction in the history of time, numbers are still not looking good for the abiogenesis crowd.
That wasnt Sarfati. It was Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, who calculated the odds at 1 in 10 to the 40,000 power against the proteins serving as enzymes in a cell all forming by chance. Hoyle used this calculation as proof that life on Earth was intelligently designed through Panspermia. Sir Fred Hoyles work to try and prove that Panspermia is a correct account for life on Earth has been often times Cherry Picked by YEC's and IDer's thinking that Hoyles claim supported a "fine tuning" of the universe. Hoyle has been called the "atheist for ID" and his work on origins is often cited as Hoyle's fallacy (sometimes called the junkyard tornado) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy
So I find it very amusing that a YEC would use an argument from a Panspermist. Strange how the theory of God putting life on Earth and the theory of Aliens putting life on Earth can use the exact same arguments.
This Hoyles argument has been refuted so many, many times. Keep walking people...nothing to see here....
Ugh, you again?
First of all I think you mean "ark" not "arc" right?
I picked a 5000 digit pin number because those are the actual odds there genius-boy.
If you had also taken the time to actually read my post or comprehend it you would realize that even if you took all the interactions between particles in the entire universe since the beginning of time you still would have odds no better than 1 in 10^4000. So your "well given enough time" argument is hog-wash.
Not an appeal to authority either, just saying my achievements in life are evidence that I am far from stupid, or at least more intelligent than you :-)
Actually it was a direct quote from Dr. Sarfati's book, nothing to do with Hoyal.
(May 6, 2011 at 2:18 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:
(May 5, 2011 at 5:06 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 20 amino acids
387 proteins for the simplest possible life
10 conserved amino acids on average
∴ chance is 20^–3870 = 10^–3870.log20 = 10^–5035
This is one chance in one followed by over 5000 zeroes. So it would be harder than guessing a correct 5000-digit PIN on the first go!
Is time really ‘the hero of the plot’? No:
10^80 atoms in the universe
10^12 atomic interactions per second
10^18 seconds in the universe, according to the fallacious big bang theory
∴ only 10^110 interactions possible. This is a huge number, but compared with the tiny chance of obtaining the right sequence, it is absurdly small: only 10^–4925.
Firstly, that's a huge underestimation, because it assumes sequential instead of parallel trials.
And the number is irrelevant anyway, because no-one ever claimed that early life spontaneously assembled out of all the constituent amino acids of its constituent proteins.
Please, learn what evolutionary biology actually says, because every argument you have made against it has been an argument against a strawman.
Did you even read the post? Even taking into account all the particle interactions in the universe throughout the history of time (which would certinaly include parallel trials silly) you odds are no better than guessing a 4000 digit pin number. Actually many biologists claimed this is how life arose (including Darwin), so maybe it is you who needs to freshen up on your biology or at least stop wasting my time by requesting sources and figures only just to ignore them when they are given.
(May 6, 2011 at 2:22 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:
(May 5, 2011 at 3:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually he didn't have to take all the species aboard, but even if he did it would be more plausible than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try which is the probability of abiogenesis ever happening. It's ok to have blind faith, I just think you have a bit too much of it.
waldork Wrote:Even when Creationists spot you points (the bare minimum amino acid count and all the interactions in the history of time) you guys still lose.
No waldork. Creationists dont "spot us points" and then science still loses. Creationists twist words and numbers because they lost a long time ago.
Now, by all means, publish that equation into a scientific journal and allow it to go through the world wide gauntlet... you will learn every single thing about how wrong you are.
..but hey, if it makes you feel like a winner...."*sure* the creationists are spotting us points, oh golly, we evolutionists need more points. Please creationists, can you spot us more points so that we dont lose? Your mighty god science is making a mockery of our godless faggot monkey science.. we have no hope of defeating Christ Jesus no matter how many children we convert to the devils ways in biology class."
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
![[Image: creationistPosterMed.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_7n7vg1DT9eE%2FS0OnCdmTkbI%2FAAAAAAAAAF8%2Fk359gL5_7lc%2Fs400%2FcreationistPosterMed.png)
