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

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Or you are off in your question.

You need to answer my question before you ask another. Go back and reread my post. Answer the question that you avoided.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Or you are off in your question.

You need to answer my question before you ask another. Go back and reread my post. Answer the question that you avoided.

So again you are evading questions.

What was the first living creature?
Was it DNA, RNA, proteins or some mix?
What was the code?

 

[McBell]

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.

Merely repeating an already refuted batch of nonsense does not help you.

 

[McBell]

So again you are evading questions.

 

[ratiocinator]

So again you are evading questions.

Matthew 7:5.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again you are evading questions.

No, I am having fun with unjustified questions. You need to be able to justify your questions. If you cannot do they do not place a burden of proof upon anyone. I can justify my question that I asked of you and you ran away from. You are the one evading questions. Me, I am just having fun with a person that has no clue on how to debate.

What was the first living creature?

How many times do you have to be told "Stanley"?

Was it DNA, RNA, proteins or some mix?

What was the code?

867-5309.

You have never answered the God questions. How can you complain when people mostly ignore yours? That is quite hypocritical on your part.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, I am having fun with unjustified questions. You need to be able to justify your questions. If you cannot do they do not place a burden of proof upon anyone. I can justify my question that I asked of you and you ran away from. You are the one evading questions. Me, I am just having fun with a person that has no clue on how to debate.


How many times do you have to be told "Stanley"?


View attachment 83510

867-5309.

You have never answered the God questions. How can you complain when people mostly ignore yours? That is quite hypocritical on your part.

I like Chex Mix, but that may not be a valid answer to these required questions?

What was the first living creature?
Was it DNA, RNA, proteins or some mix?
What was the code?

 

[ratiocinator]

What was the first living creature?

Yet again running away and repeating a question that has been answered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like Chex Mix, but that may not be a valid answer to these required questions?

What was the first living creature?
Was it DNA, RNA, proteins or some mix?
What was the code?

Until you can justify your questions they are not required questions.

Try again.

 

[McBell]

867-5309.

That is the NEW code.
The OLD code is:

up, up, down down, left, right, left, right, B, A, B, A, Start​

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That is the NEW code.
The OLD code is:

up, up, down down, left, right, left, right, B, A, B, A, Start​

Your lack of knowledge shows why you are easily deceived.
So what is the odds of a very specific sequence of amino acids coming into being through natural processes?

 

[Esteban X]

Your lack of knowledge shows why you are easily deceived.
So what is the odds of a very specific sequence of amino acids coming into being through natural processes?

Since 'a very specific sequence of of amino acids came into being through natural processes' the odds are 100 per cent.

 

[McBell]

Your lack of knowledge shows why you are easily deceived.
So what is the odds of a very specific sequence of amino acids coming into being through natural processes?

Now if that ain't the kettle calling the pot black.

What version of the Bible do you use?

See, there is this here saying amongst these here parts that goes a little something like "Those living in glass houses should not be throwing rocks".

Now with you being the highly decorated academic type I am sure you do not need me to being explaining it to you, right?

 

[Sargonski]

Your lack of knowledge shows why you are easily deceived.
So what is the odds of a very specific sequence of amino acids coming into being through natural processes?

Since 'a very specific sequence of of amino acids came into being through natural processes' the odds are 100 per cent.

Now if that ain't the kettle calling the pot black.

What version of the Bible do you use?

See, there is this here saying amongst these here parts that goes a little something like "Those living in glass houses should not be throwing rocks".

Now with you being the highly decorated academic type I am sure you do not need me to being explaining it to you, right?

but hold on .. it gets better .. says the fellow who says 'Prove your claim is true with no assumptions"

So tell us about this deception SBTL -- show us your odds calculation .. and tell us what assumptions are made in the calculation .. followed by an acknowledgement of how easily deceived you were in accepting said calculation as too legit to quit

Then tell us about Chaos Theory .. how things that should not appear in a sea of randomness .. indeed they appear .. in apparent violation of entropy .. what is going on there .. an "invisible hand" perhaps ?? har har har..

 

[SavedByTheLord]

but hold on .. it gets better .. says the fellow who says 'Prove your claim is true with no assumptions"

So tell us about this deception SBTL -- show us your odds calculation .. and tell us what assumptions are made in the calculation .. followed by an acknowledgement of how easily deceived you were in accepting said calculation as too legit to quit

Then tell us about Chaos Theory .. how things that should not appear in a sea of randomness .. indeed they appear .. in apparent violation of entropy .. what is going on there .. an "invisible hand" perhaps ?? har har har..

I already did and you cannot refute it.

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. Even with 99% of the combinations being possible, which is extremely generous, the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,998 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 2 zeros.

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.

END PROOF. QED.
RIP BB, evolution, billions of years, and abiogenesis.

 

[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. Even with 99% of the combinations being possible, which is extremely generous, the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,998 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 2 zeros.

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.

Riddled with unjustified assumptions, and totally ignoring the fact that adding a god to 'explain' it would necessarily make it less probable.

END PROOF. QED.

Yet again you demonstrate that you don't understand what a proof is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already did and you cannot refute it.

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. Even with 99% of the combinations being possible, which is extremely generous, the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,998 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 2 zeros.

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.

END PROOF. QED.
RIP BB, evolution, billions of years, and abiogenesis.

And that has been refuted/ First off you could never justify your "100,000" amino acids. In fact your attempt refuted your argument. You got that number from modern life and we are not talking modern life.

Second you lose because you are using what I like to call the lottery fallacy You are assuming that there could have been only one working sequence. We know that there were countless possible working sequences Your odds argument fails before you even present any math.

Your arguments are such old recycled crap.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And that has been refuted/ First off you could never justify your "100,000" amino acids. In fact your attempt refuted your argument. You got that number from modern life and we are not talking modern life.

Second you lose because you are using what I like to call the lottery fallacy You are assuming that there could have been only one working sequence. We know that there were countless possible working sequences Your odds argument fails before you even present any math.

Your arguments are such old recycled crap.

Of course I justified the 100,000 amino acids and remember I was generous to a fault.

But why not pick a number yourself. How about 50,000 or 10,000?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I justified the 100,000 amino acids and remember I was generous to a fault.

But why not pick a number yourself. How about 50,000 or 10,000?

LMOA! No. You never did such a thing, unless you were dreaming. Do you not remember that you based your number on modern life? We are talking elementary school levels of scientific illiteracy.

Before I give a number. If I ever do, since you are making the positive assertion you have the burden of proof. That means that you have to define life first. It must be a proper, working definition. In other words you need to be able to tell us how to tell whether a cell is alive or dead by observation. And that is just the start.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

LMOA! No. You never did such a thing, unless you were dreaming. Do you not remember that you based your number on modern life? We are talking elementary school levels of scientific illiteracy.

Before I give a number. If I ever do, since you are making the positive assertion you have the burden of proof. That means that you have to define life first. It must be a proper, working definition. In other words you need to be able to tell us how to tell whether a cell is alive or dead by observation. And that is just the start.

Did you pick a number of amino acids in your supposed first living thing?
How about 50,000 or 10,000?