Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Mock Turtle]

I only have one assumption, that the Bible is the true word of God And I have already proved it with many infallible proofs.

You have a multitude of already proven false assumptions.

Here is your circular reasoning and unscientific methods.

Because the citrus cycle exist, it must have evolved by natural processes.
Now deny all facts, science that show the absurdity of this assumption.
Then repeat the same fully logic for everything in creation.

Your mistake. Starting off with a false premise - and hence your journey into absurdity.

 

[ratiocinator]

I only have one assumption, that the Bible is the true word of God And I have already proved it with many infallible proofs.

Where are these proofs? I've never seen you prove anything. You don't actually seem to understand what a proof is.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where are these proofs? I've never seen you prove anything. You don't actually seem to understand what a proof is.

Just read the OP for the treads I started.

For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.

And of course, I did not consider the almost 100 million other atoms of specific elements in specific bonds with other elements located at specific positions in 3D space. And all this would have to be in place in very close proximity almost simultaneously. It’s still impossible. And of course, the poor creature does not live long and has no descendants.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.

That nonsense has been dealt with multiple times by multiple people.
Denial and willful ignorance, will not win the "argument" nor will it make you look good, honest, sincere or intellectual.

And of course, I did not consider the almost 100 million other atoms of specific elements in specific bonds with other elements located at specific positions in 3D space. And all this would have to be in place in very close proximity almost simultaneously. It’s still impossible. And of course, the poor creature does not live long and has no descendants.

The only "impossible" thing here, seems to be making you understand that you argue strawmen.

 

[ratiocinator]

Just read the OP for the treads I started.

I have done. That's how I concluded that you don't understand what a proof is.

For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.

Riddled with unjustified assumptions.

Additionally, as I pointed before and you ignored, no matter how improbable you think something is, positing a god as an explanation must result in the conjunction of the original probability and the probability of the specific god. Mathematically that combination must be less probable than what you started with.

Prob(X and god) ≤ Prob(X).​

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That nonsense has been dealt with multiple times by multiple people.
Denial and willful ignorance, will not win the "argument" nor will it make you look good, honest, sincere or intellectual.


The only "impossible" thing here, seems to be making you understand that you argue strawmen.

There was no scientific content in your post.

The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There was no scientific content in your post.

It didn't require any.

The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.

Only in your little fantasy world of magic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I only have one assumption, that the Bible is the true word of God

That belief has been refuted by science and by pure reason. Those scriptures are rife with errors of history and science, internal contradiction, and moral and intellectual errors attributed to an allegedly tri-omni deity.

I have already proved it with many infallible proofs.

You've proved nothing to anybody, at least not in the sense you intended.

Because the citrus cycle exist, it must have evolved by natural processes.

Not necessarily. One cannot rule out unfalsifiable claims about creation. But one needn't and in fact shouldn't take them seriously. So far, all questions about reality that have been answered have been answered empirically. When we need to resort to supernaturalism to explain some finding, we will, but not before, because why would we add gratuitous complexity to the narrative that explains nothing, and if we did, why that story? We can do better than biblical creationism and its morally and intellectually challenged deity who reflects an ancient, pre-scientific, paternalistic, authoritarian human culture and its ideals. God 2.0 (Jesus) was an upgrade, but we can do better than that today. That version of the deity also made moral and intellectual errors. How about a god with at least Carl Sagan's intelligence, wisdom, and disposition?

For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out.

That protein did not arise randomly and the steps making it were not independent, so your math is as irrelevant as Hoyle's and for the same reason. Its creation was determined by the forces of nature. Their creation appears inevitable wherever conditions are right for live to arise and evolve.

And you can get that down to about 53 pages if you single space.

With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.

Your math needs some work. If you remove a zero from 10^160000 typed elements, you need to remove a zero from 10^2 typed pages. Ten is not almost 100. And what did you think you would accomplish here even if you did it correctly? I haven't attempted to

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not understating what an assumption is, what circular reasoning is, or science/

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

I love it! A false accusation followed by his favorite, an argument from ignorance.

 

[McBell]

I only have one assumption, that the Bible is the true word of God And I have already proved it with many infallible proofs.​

You have a multitude of already proven false assumptions.

Here is your circular reasoning and unscientific methods.

Because the citrus cycle exist, it must have evolved by natural processes.
Now deny all facts, science that show the absurdity of this assumption.
Then repeat the same fully logic for everything in creation.

List of words you have repeatedly shown you do not understand the meaning of:

Assumption​

prove​

infallible​

proof​

false​

circular​

reasoning​

circular reasoning​

science​

scientific​

evolve​

facts​

absurdity​

logic​

 

[McBell]

Just read the OP for the treads I started.

For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.

And of course, I did not consider the almost 100 million other atoms of specific elements in specific bonds with other elements located at specific positions in 3D space. And all this would have to be in place in very close proximity almost simultaneously. It’s still impossible. And of course, the poor creature does not live long and has no descendants.

You still have not shown your work.
Something that is rather vexing for those who make math claims.
Perhaps math needs to be added to the list....

 

[McBell]

There was no scientific content in your post.

The dim young sun paradox invalidates long ages for the sun, evolution, and life on the earth.

No science in your posts, but that does not slow you down

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No science in your posts, but that does not slow you down

For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.

 

[ratiocinator]

For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.

Yet more repetition instead of rational engagement with what has been put to you. More running away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.

That was refuted. You made the mistake of using modern life for that claim.

You seem to be very very forgetful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet more repetition instead of rational engagement with what has been put to you. More running away.

I am thinking of entering him in a marathon. Of course, he needs some to chase after him the whole way. The rules committee might not like that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That was refuted. You made the mistake of using modern life for that claim.

You seem to be very very forgetful.

Well if you have a better calculation, you should present it.
So what was the first living thing and what code did it have?

 

[ratiocinator]

So what was the first living thing and what code did it have?

For about the sixth or seventh time (just from me): it depends what you are prepared to consider a 'living thing' and, depending on the answer to that, what abiogenesis hypothesis you want to use.

And, of course, it's all irrelevant to the endless evidence for subsequent evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if you have a better calculation, you should present it.

I do not need a "better one". I only need to show how your claim was clearly false. And I did that.

So what was the first living thing and what code did it have?

8675309, and you should know.

Do you want me to refute God with foolish questions?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I do not need a "better one". I only need to show how your claim was clearly false. And I did that.


8675309, and you should know.

Do you want me to refute God with foolish questions?

Typically the code is expressed as a sequence of letters representing the amino acid sequence.

So you may be off in your answer.

Was it DNA, RNA, proteins or some mix?