"20 billion years to hit the right combination you say? So it would take what, 10 candidate amino acids 2 billion years? "
no that's not what i said not even close. i said science estimates the universe to be 20 billion years so that's the maximum amount of time possible. if nature had this amount of time (which btw is not the case cuz this process had to be done on earth and the earth isn't even close to that old according to "science") they would have to do 1.585x10^243 combinations per second in order to get all the combinations. but you do have a point, this process could be happening all over in a trillion different places so lets apply that to my point. if instead of one average joe working on it, assume there are a trillion average joe's working on it and each of these average joe's were telepathically connected so that they can all try different combinations so they don't make repeat combinations that don't work. this woulld decrease the amount of time it would take by a trillion and it would still be impossible. if they had 20 billion years to do it, they would still have to do 1.585x10^231 combinations per second. the number is so big if you increased your chances by a google it would still be impossible for someone (or multiple someones) who don't know what they're doing to put it together correctly, yet alone some random acts of nature putting them together in a huge ocean filled with possibly trillions of amino acids. in an ocean it wouldn't seam likely these amino acids would ever come in contact yet alone make a chain. and even if it did happen that's just one protien and it needs to be done again for the next and protiens don't come together to make life. if you have a container of protien it's not gonna do anything. that can be proved easily, just take pure protien, put it in water, and let it sit for a year and see if it developed any. and according to the scientific method "it the experiment doesn't work, then it's wrong."
"Somebody - please post thunderf00t's refutation of this nonsense. I can't remember which of his 37 "Why do people laugh at creationists?" videos it's in"
well i must say i was intrigued by this as you did what others didn't and actually gave me a referance. good job. i watched all of these videos and i can conclude that 90% of these videos are him taking the stupidest people trying to argue against science to prove creation has no arguement. i'm not even exagurating, one of his favorate opponments is a teenager who posts youtube videos who clearly doesn't know anything about science. so if i argued with a teenager about evolution and proved him wrong, then would that prove creation has a better arguement? NO!! it's entirely misleading. as for his 8th video, i believe, about that arguement he claims that there is actual attractions that make the amino acids, in a sense, want to come together to form a chain just as hydrogen wants to combine with oxygen. he however fails to explains what that force is. is it an ionic force? no, none of the amino acids are ions. it's a peptide bond forming a linear polymer chain. hardly something simple to just "fall in place on it's own."
no that's not what i said not even close. i said science estimates the universe to be 20 billion years so that's the maximum amount of time possible. if nature had this amount of time (which btw is not the case cuz this process had to be done on earth and the earth isn't even close to that old according to "science") they would have to do 1.585x10^243 combinations per second in order to get all the combinations. but you do have a point, this process could be happening all over in a trillion different places so lets apply that to my point. if instead of one average joe working on it, assume there are a trillion average joe's working on it and each of these average joe's were telepathically connected so that they can all try different combinations so they don't make repeat combinations that don't work. this woulld decrease the amount of time it would take by a trillion and it would still be impossible. if they had 20 billion years to do it, they would still have to do 1.585x10^231 combinations per second. the number is so big if you increased your chances by a google it would still be impossible for someone (or multiple someones) who don't know what they're doing to put it together correctly, yet alone some random acts of nature putting them together in a huge ocean filled with possibly trillions of amino acids. in an ocean it wouldn't seam likely these amino acids would ever come in contact yet alone make a chain. and even if it did happen that's just one protien and it needs to be done again for the next and protiens don't come together to make life. if you have a container of protien it's not gonna do anything. that can be proved easily, just take pure protien, put it in water, and let it sit for a year and see if it developed any. and according to the scientific method "it the experiment doesn't work, then it's wrong."
"Somebody - please post thunderf00t's refutation of this nonsense. I can't remember which of his 37 "Why do people laugh at creationists?" videos it's in"
well i must say i was intrigued by this as you did what others didn't and actually gave me a referance. good job. i watched all of these videos and i can conclude that 90% of these videos are him taking the stupidest people trying to argue against science to prove creation has no arguement. i'm not even exagurating, one of his favorate opponments is a teenager who posts youtube videos who clearly doesn't know anything about science. so if i argued with a teenager about evolution and proved him wrong, then would that prove creation has a better arguement? NO!! it's entirely misleading. as for his 8th video, i believe, about that arguement he claims that there is actual attractions that make the amino acids, in a sense, want to come together to form a chain just as hydrogen wants to combine with oxygen. he however fails to explains what that force is. is it an ionic force? no, none of the amino acids are ions. it's a peptide bond forming a linear polymer chain. hardly something simple to just "fall in place on it's own."
