Spirituality
10 Feb 19
18 Feb 19
@proper-knob saidOkay sure!
@KellyJay
I know what I'm talking about. I have no idea what you're talking about.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidA simple protein is made of something like 30 amino acids. So it is extremely likely (considering the conditions) that one protein will form.
First an apology I read what you said and even though I knew you said amino acid I was thinking protein, because that was what I have been reading about. I'd say you could indeed say odds for that could be 1 since they have been found around comets and so on. It isn't the acids I've been overly concern with as with proteins. The limitations would be the environment.
Now what you video continently leaves out (possibly through lack of knowledge rather than anything malicious) are two very important factors that effect the probability of more complex proteins forming -
1 - Proteins are not fixed to a certain set of order, all of the proteins in the chain can exist and operate at different locations.
2- When forming more complex chains individual proteins act like magnets to other certain proteins. They do NOT form by random, given enough time they will find the section that continues the chain.
The numbers in your video are bogus. You have been mislead by pseudo science.
19 Feb 19
1 edit
@stellspalfie saidThe size and what proteins are and do are varied, your complaints seem selective and bias. A simple protein, if you’re going suggest misleading numbers you can be guilty about your presentation here as well. I could suggest you are mIsleading, maybe you lack knowledge, possibly malicious, and on and on, you think motivation mongering actually adds to a discussion ... interesting!
A simple protein is made of something like 30 amino acids. So it is extremely likely (considering the conditions) that one protein will form.
Now what you video continently leaves out (possibly through lack of knowledge rather than anything malicious) are two very important factors that effect the probability of more complex proteins forming -
1 - Proteins are not ...[text shortened]... ontinues the chain.
The numbers in your video are bogus. You have been mislead by pseudo science.
19 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidDid you run the numbers on your 30 amino acids, to see what your example requires?
A simple protein is made of something like 30 amino acids. So it is extremely likely (considering the conditions) that one protein will form.
Now what you video continently leaves out (possibly through lack of knowledge rather than anything malicious) are two very important factors that effect the probability of more complex proteins forming -
1 - Proteins are not ...[text shortened]... ontinues the chain.
The numbers in your video are bogus. You have been mislead by pseudo science.
19 Feb 19
@sonship saidGawrsh, Jay, it was just a joke. I even put the little winky face at the end to convey my non seriousness.
@BigDoggProblem
Was the point that you finally realized you ought to stop plagiarizing?
Nope. Not at all. But now that you mentioned it, even if someone plagiarized a hundred times your sorry excuses for dodging the significance of probability problem would be just as incompetent.
And it appears here that the big copycat jumping on a bandwagon of imitation is you.
The probability argument I consider to be weak based on the reasons I gave previously.
@kellyjay saidWhat I would like to see is for you, or any other similar theist that believes the probability argument carries weight, to calculate the odds of a God being present to do the creation of everything else.
I'm sorry measuring if God is real, you can give me odds if you disagree with the ones I gave. If you don't like the probability argument what arguments do you prefer the proof by contradiction? I'm not sure what it is you want, can you spell it out for me, give me some specifics? Not trying to insult you, but you are not being very clear here.
The probability argument do ...[text shortened]... 't do it does not automatically mean what I believe it true, not even close, but one step at a time.
That way, we can see if that possibility is actually more likely than a universe that happens at random.
@bigdoggproblem saidThere is a problem with what you are asking, verses what has been put forward in argument and videos. The protein is made up of parts, you can count the parts and calculate the odds for random processes getting it right during its formation. If there are only 2 possible outcomes and only one gives us success, we know it’s a 1 in 2 probability for success. It is no different if there is a 1 in 20 chance, we know it’s 1 in 20.
What I would like to see is for you, or any other similar theist that believes the probability argument carries weight, to calculate the odds of a God being present to do the creation of everything else.
That way, we can see if that possibility is actually more likely than a universe that happens at random.
The variables are tied to things that are quantifiable. So, showing you the odds of God, would be like showing the odds of love, hate, and so on, we can give descriptive verbiage, but there isn’t anything to look at to calculate for probability, there isn’t a 1 out of 55 possibility for love, hate, or God because we do not measure those things in those terms.
What we can do is look at the universe, it is supposed to show us God's nature according to scripture and if the scripture is true we should be able to see something of God in His handy work. The great details in all things here to support life is simply amazing from what I see when looking at the micro and macro parts of the universe.
19 Feb 19
2 edits
@kellyjay saidThat's my point exactly! The probability argument is a double standard. Worse, the very people who swore off using math and science to try and figure out what happened with the universe now having the audacity to come back and tell those who bothered that they can't possibility be right, based on some math the creationists did.
There is a problem with what you are asking, verses what has been put forward in argument and videos. The protein is made up of parts, you can count the parts and calculate the odds for random processes getting it right during its formation. If there are only 2 possible outcomes and only one gives us success, we know it’s a 1 in 2 probability for success. It is no different ...[text shortened]... rt life is simply amazing from what I see when looking at the micro and macro parts of the universe.
19 Feb 19
@bigdoggproblem saidHow can there be a double standard when one thing lends itself to study and one does not. The odds for the proteins can be found because we see them today and see how they are put together. Knowing that allows us to see what it would take for them to be thrown together randomly.
That's my point exactly! The probability argument is a double standard. Worse, the very people who swore off using math and science to try and figure out what happened with the universe now having the audacity to come back and tell those who bothered that they can't possibility be right, based on some math the creationists did.
You can look at a 52 deck of cards and work out the odds with them too, card counters go to Vegas due to figuring out possible outcomes. Nothing here is out of line, and there is no double standard. What would you look at for proof of God that you can put a number to?
The world runs on running numbers, Lean Six Sigma produces changes in business models due to numbers. You want to do the numbers properly highlighting what is important where you get the most bang for your dollar and time, because you cannot run a business on feelings and be successful over time. If it feels good and your losing money reality will slap you in the face sooner or later.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
19 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidThe size and complexity of the protein isn't particularly relevant. The main point you should be taking is that proteins do not form randomly as suggested in your video.
The size and what proteins are and do are varied, your complaints seem selective and bias. A simple protein, if you’re going suggest misleading numbers you can be guilty about your presentation here as well. I could suggest you are mIsleading, maybe you lack knowledge, possibly malicious, and on and on, you think motivation mongering actually adds to a discussion ... interesting!
I could be lying, its good that you are being sceptical....I just wish you would treat creationist science with the same level of suspicion. The only way to find out if its me or your video people who are lying is to check out the scientific community, read some papers, listen to the experts....and not watch dodgy youtube videos
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
19 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidIt could be a huge number...but that's not the point. The point is that the guys in your video do not understand how proteins and amino acids work...which makes their numbers wrong.
Did you run the numbers on your 30 amino acids, to see what your example requires?
19 Feb 19
1 edit
@stellspalfie saidNo the point is however they form this is what needs to happen, over come. You think that there is a natural process that directs them all?
The size and complexity of the protein isn't particularly relevant. The main point you should be taking is that proteins do not form randomly as suggested in your video.
I could be lying, its good that you are being sceptical....I just wish you would treat creationist science with the same level of suspicion. The only way to find out if its me or your video people wh ...[text shortened]... scientific community, read some papers, listen to the experts....and not watch dodgy youtube videos
19 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidIf you were not belittling would you have anything to say? No ONE said that is how they formed, only those were the numbers that had to be overcome. I have stressed that to you before.
It could be a huge number...but that's not the point. The point is that the guys in your video do not understand how proteins and amino acids work...which makes their numbers wrong.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
19 Feb 19
1 edit
@kellyjay saidBelittling???
If you were not belittling would you have anything to say? No ONE said that is how they formed, only those were the numbers that had to be overcome. I have stressed that to you before.
How they form effects the numbers!!!! The math in your video describes the odds of a randomly forming protein....but the process is not random!!!!
If I had a 100 metal pipes, each pipe has a red end and blue end. If I randomly dropped them into a container so each pipe touched another pipe what would the odds be that a red end touched a blue end?
Now if i magnetized the pipes so the red end was positive and the blue end negative and repeated the experiment would it alter the odds?
obviously the answer is 'yes' it would alter the odds, the stronger the magnet the more chance of a blue end of touching a red end.