What Have Creationists Said That's True? (ritual, Creator, Darwin, mystic)

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

I will be quite blunt. Show the calculation. This is a continous claim, but never has an actual calculation been shown. I am interested, so go ahead. It should be easy.
The rest of your post can wait.
Show me a single calculation.

Hmmm....Well let’s suppose we want to asemble a protein that's 200 hundred amino acids long. Now mother nature has decided she only likes’ left handed’ amino acids. But there is no logical / blind/ random/ Darwinian reason that she should. Still she DOES. So if this is made spontaneously in some organic soup...we can assign the probability of left handed vs. right handed as . 5....So right away we need to multiply ( .5 ) ' all left' times ( .5 ) two hundred times , which will most assuredly be a vanishingly small probability ( cause a single right handed molecule would mess up the works ! )

But of course that’s just the start of the trouble for Darwinism ( I’d do the math but I’m too lazy, + don’t have a calculator handy ) . However 1/2 ( one half ) to the exponent 200 would be a damn damn small/ astronomically miniscule probability...take my word for it.

course we're still not nearly there...cuz the organic amino acids used by mother nature also come in 20 different varieties, and these too have to line up ' just right' ....So to the above minuscule probability...we have to multiply ( .05 ) which is the same as saying one in twenty odds... so ( .05 ) times itself 200 times over ( 200 amino acids in our protein remember ) then times our original ' miniscule number' , would give us a BALL PARK figure

But even that won’t do it. Cuz proteins come in 3d arrays of amino acids which must be precisely folded / shaped...Often this requires specific enzymes. But even that wont do it, cuz were assuming that all these amino acids would be just lying around in the primordial soup in abundance/ in the same proximity. And this too would defeat astronomical improbabilities . As would the odds that all these amino acid chains would remain stable. Normally ribosomes are needed for this assemblage of amno acids, + we also normally need RNA/ DNA to serve as the blueprints

****

BUT outside the shelter / safe environs of living cells how would so many complex organic molecules ever remain stable/ viable ? Certainly the Miller Experiement , which has been severely discredited even by mainstream scientists , couldn't come close to achieving it. Miller could only manage a few paltry amino acids. and his primordial soup ( so experts contend ) didn't actually represent conditions in the prebiotic atmosphere.

He also applied intelligence to the problem, employing something which in the parlance of the lab is known as a ' cold trap' to protect his precious/ precious few amino acids. In other words Miller ' cheated' cause others insist that any amino acids generated would have broken down faster than they could have been randomly formed under the turbulence of expected conditions. Spontaneous proteins again would have seemed ' for most experts' ( neigh all when pressed to submit probability calculations ) quite impossible in the prebiotic soup...And to this day, there still seems no rational explaination...aka Darwinist remain at a loss to explain the spontaneous emergence of complex organic molecules ( proteins, enzymes RNA , DNA etc ) much less living cells

Amittedly, I can’t give u an actual probability based on my own calculations...vis a vis a single protein being spontaneously generated...but I did provide the basis for a rough ball park calculation...Even I know the odds against seem beyond astronomical

BUT * NB * I NEVER claimed to be able to do this calculation myself. So I dont need to ' SHUT UP' All I said was that expert Mathematicians have calculated the odds, even over billions of years, to be vanishingly Small . To my knowledge not a single Darwinist has ever refuted the calculations of those mathematicians at Wistar and elsewhere who steadfastly refute Darwinism, Nor have any provided any parallele mathematical models yeilding any more positive ( for Darwinism ) results.

Silly me ....I assumed cuz so many staunch Darwinists/ Materialists act so smug here...that u'd all be well aware of this decades old Wistar controversay...Me thinks I over estimated ur knowlege base...my mistake

****
OK Here’s a far easier thought experiment...

Darwinism_Is_Impossible !

I once heard tell of a maverick scientist who put a series of letters, along with spaces and a period ( similar to scrabble squares ) into a hat. Aligned correctly the squares spelled out the phrase ‘Darwinism is impossible.’ This same scientist calculated the odds of drawing these squares in perfect order ( once randomly mixed ) to be 24 times 23 times 22 etc.... on down to 2. For those with a mathematical background, this can be expressed as 24 factorial, which is a really big number.

The man next proceeded to divide this number , by the number of seconds in a year, and subsequently by the number of years ( about 13 billion +/- 2 ) estimated as the age of the universe. He determined that by drawing squares at random, at one per second, and then starting all over, every time an incorrect square was chosen ( which corresponds to natural selection ) on average, it would take over 1.5 million times the age of the cosmos, to finally correctly spell out the phrase ‘ Darwinism_ is_impossible.’- just once.

The same scientist asserted that many problems in bio-molecular complexity, such as those required to produce humming birds wings, mosquito proboscises, or giraffe’s necks, each appear to have defeated far greater odds, in almost run of the mill fashion. The point he was trying to make ( unless I missed it ) is that based purely on random mutation and natural selection, ‘ Darwinism_ i-s_ i-m-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e-!’

All those who dare to look objectively at the cold hard data , have echoed similar sentiments - Darwinism does not compute ! Again see the 1966 symposium at Wistar/ my quotes from experts ( inclusive of one Nobel Prize winner ) in another thread etcetera

SERIOUSLY Why don’t some of u smug would be know-it - alls look up the papers produced from that Wistar get together...since ur SO INTERESTED IN PROBABILITY ARGUMENTS which appear to DISMANTLE DARWINISM !

Find them and refute them...otherwise ...

CHEERS

[mr.guy]

I once heard tell of a maverick scientist...

...who rode a horse named Hypotenus, with his trusty mexican sidekick Moses. They rode from town to town, righting wrongs and wronging rights, as only a maverick scientist and his sidekick moses could.

The End.

Dum, badda dum dum duuuuumm!

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Hmmm....Well let’s suppose we want to asemble a protein that's 200 hundred amino acids long.

Your call.

Now mother nature has decided she only likes’ left handed’ amino acids. But there is no logical / blind/ random/ Darwinian reason that she should. Still she DOES.

Ah,so because you can't think of a reason, its just random?
And now we get to assign a generic 50-50 chance to it?
How delightfully fallacious.

So if this is made spontaneously in some organic soup...we can assign the probability of left handed vs. right handed as . 5....So right away we need to multiply ( .5 ) ' all left' times ( .5 ) two hundred times , which will most assuredly be a vanishingly small probability ( cause a single right handed molecule would mess up the works ! )

Where to begin.
The errornous assumptions?
The lack of realism?
This list goes on and on and on. Don't try to BS a statistician on probability. Just a rule of thumb.
How would a single right hand molecule mess anything up at all? Would they see each other and fight a la pro-skub versus anti-skubs? (frubals for anybody who gets the reference) How can you assume independence? How can you entirely neglect the effect of time? How can ignore the mass formations of the molecules? How can you calculate the probability for formation anyways? How can you assume that an amino acid disappears the very second it can't connect?
The holes in your 'calculation' (although calling it such insults the term) are many.
Go on and cite the calculation with mathematicions have done. If its so obvious, it should be easy to show it.

But you won't. You'll continue to dance around and hide behind empty words and broken calculations.

But of course that’s just the start of the trouble for Darwinism ( I’d do the math but I’m too lazy, + don’t have a calculator handy ) . However 1/2 ( one half ) to the exponent 200 would be a damn damn small/ astronomically miniscule probability...take my word for it.

Please..... stop.
Pascal is spinning like a top in his grave.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Hela :

...I once heard tell of a maverick scientist...

Mr Guy :

...who rode a horse named Hypotenus, with his trusty mexican sidekick Moses. They rode from town to town, righting wrongs and wronging rights, as only a maverick scientist and his sidekick moses could.

The End.

Hmmm...Every claim I’ve made has been based on rational arguments, ‘ information theory;’ rudimentary mathematical models of probability which focus on biochemistry , The Strong Anthropic Principle etcetera. I even ventured into quantum physics in another post and made a veiled reference to that here....

What have any of u ' ostensibly ' learned defenders of Materialism and Darwinism done to debate/ refute any of this ?...Most have simply made a few lame/ limp wristed jokes / disparaging commentary based on nothing substantial , trying rather impotently to lump all Creationists together......

That’s the BEST U can do Kemosabey ‘s ? where’s your scientific refutations ???
Better Fade to Black / Bring Down the Curtain.... Materialists/ Darwinist lackeys...Ur Pompous Atheistic charade / Paradigm is History...But for THE Childish WHIMPERS of Protest

CHEERS

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Hela :

Mr Guy :

Hmmm...Every claim I’ve made has been based on rational arguments, ‘ information theory;’ rudimentary mathematical models of probability which focus on biochemistry , The Strong Anthropic Principle etcetera. I even ventured into quantum physics in another post and made a veiled reference to that here....

What have any of u ' ostensibly ' learned defenders of Materialism and Darwinism done to debate/ refute any of this ?...Most have simply made a few lame/ limp wristed jokes / disparaging commentary based on nothing substantial , trying rather impotently to lump all Creationists together......

That’s the BEST U can do Kemosabey ‘s ? where’s your scientific refutations ???
Better Fade to Black / Bring Down the Curtain.... Materialists/ Darwinist lackeys...Ur Pompous Atheistic charade / Paradigm is History...But for THE Childish WHIMPERS of Protest

CHEERS

the problem with your "argument" is you are arguing the odds after the fact.

After the fact the odds are 1/1, period.
In fact, if it did not happen, you would not be here to present your irrelevant "calculations" of the odds of something that has already happened happening.

It is the exact same thing for me to claim that Jack Whittaker
did not win the lottery because the odds are so great against it happening.

Arguing the odds AFTER THE FACT is pointless and makes you look desperate.

Now add to this the fact you feel compelled to use words like "random" and "Chaos" to purposely mislead people into thinking that your "calculations" are actually worth something.
Oh wait, I forgot, you did not actually present any calculation, your own or anyone else's.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

What, if anything, have creationists said that's true?

More beer please, still not enough brain cells working. Blast this evidence! Barman! Oh yeah where was I, mmmm evidence mmmm no not listening. The world is 150 years old. BEER PLEASE.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by stephenw

More beer please, still not enough brain cells working. Blast this evidence! Barman! Oh yeah where was I, mmmm evidence mmmm no not listening. The world is 150 years old. BEER PLEASE.

Finally! A religious perspective I can relate to!

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Information always ALWAYS degrades over time, if subject to the forces of chaos. It never NEVER randomly increases in complexity/ informational carrying capacity , unless acted upon by an Intelligent Agent.

This is one of the most blatantly false claims creationists constantly make. Nature does not need intelligence to increase the information content of DNA.