• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

S

Sargonski

Well-Known Member
SavedByTheLord said:
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.
Click to expand...

What am I supposed to be refuting ? -- your claim that Odds of event A happening are X .. Why do I want to refute this .. the odds are the odds .. what I asked you is what assumptions were made in the calculation ? and you have not given the calculation so quit claiming you did.

Saying the odds of DNA happening are (kazillion to one) is a naked claim .. the calculation of how that number was arrived at is not given .. and with that will come the assumptions that were made .. of which you are clearly unfamiliar.

Without the calculation and inherent assumptions .. "aka" a complete argument .. there is nothing to refute ..
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Did you pick a number of amino acids in your supposed first living thing?
How about 50,000 or 10,000?
Click to expand...
Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the burden of proof. I do not have to do that. You have to come up with evidence that supports your unevidenced claim. If you cannot do that your argument is refuted by a handwave. You may hate what you call "handwave arguments' but that is what you used.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the burden of proof. I do not have to do that. You have to come up with evidence that supports your unevidenced claim. If you cannot do that your argument is refuted by a handwave. You may hate what you call "handwave arguments' but that is what you used.
Click to expand...
Actually you have the the burden of proof. You be afraid to even pick a number. Evolution is falsified because it is not even a theory.
There is no number that will work and you must know that,

Pick a number of amino acids in your supposed first living thing?
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or even 5000?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Actually you have the the burden of proof. You be afraid to even pick a number. Evolution is falsified because it is not even a theory.
There is no number that will work and you must know that,
Click to expand...
Wrong on all counts. You were the one that made a very specific claim. Now if I had said that "Abiogenesis has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt" I would have the burden of proof. And I could answer your questions, but there is no need for me to do so. You have already lost by running away.
SavedByTheLord said:
Pick a number of amino acids in your supposed first living thing?
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or even 5000?
Click to expand...
I will answer with a question:

Why do you think that there had to be so many?

If you would properly support your claims, or if you could be honest enough to admit that you screwed the pooch again, I would be more than happy to explain to you where you went wrong. But right now I was not the one that made claims. You were. Either demonstrate with facts, evidence, and math that life had to have that many amino acids, and also you need to prove that they had to be in some unknown order, or admit that you can't and that your argument was bogus. If you do so then I will explain what is thought to be needed and why.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Wrong on all counts. You were the one that made a very specific claim. Now if I had said that "Abiogenesis has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt" I would have the burden of proof. And I could answer your questions, but there is no need for me to do so. You have already lost by running away.

I will answer with a question:

Why do you think that there had to be so many?

If you would properly support your claims, or if you could be honest enough to admit that you screwed the pooch again, I would be more than happy to explain to you where you went wrong. But right now I was not the one that made claims. You were. Either demonstrate with facts, evidence, and math that life had to have that many amino acids, and also you need to prove that they had to be in some unknown order, or admit that you can't and that your argument was bogus. If you do so then I will explain what is thought to be needed and why.
Click to expand...
Pick a number then.
No number will help you.
Are you afraid to pick a number .
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or even 5000?
The smallest free-living creature has 1.3 million base pairs.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Pick a number then.
No number will help you.
Are you afraid to pick a number .
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or even 5000?
The smallest free-living creature has 1.3 million base pairs.
Click to expand...
No, not until you demonstrate that you have at least a small amount of honesty. The burden of proof is upon you at this moment, Until you either admit that you cannot support your earlier claims or actually support them (I sincerely doubt that you can do this) you have lost and you do not get to demand answers.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Hammer said:
Source?
Click to expand...
It does not matter. He may be right. What he does not realize that he has already conceded the evolution argument and the billions of years argument by shifting the goalposts to abiogenesis.

Even the simples of living life has at least a 3.7 billion year history of evolution. That life had to evolve to compete with other life so it of course had to "improve" upon the original version. The original version of life only had to "compete" with the environment. It needed no protection against other life that might consume it. It needed no protection against viruses. It only needed a simple cell wall. No RNA needed for that. And a way to self replicate. That was all.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, not until you demonstrate that you have at least a small amount of honesty. The burden of proof is upon you at this moment, Until you either admit that you cannot support your earlier claims or actually support them (I sincerely doubt that you can do this) you have lost and you do not get to demand answers.
Click to expand...
Wow you are still dodging and using those circular reasoning techniques. I resent that garbage that you use.

Pick a number then for the number of amino acids in the first living creature.
No number will help you.
Are you afraid to pick a number .
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or even 5000 or even 2500?
The smallest free-living creature has 1.3 million base pairs.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Wow you are still dodging and using those circular reasoning techniques. I resent that garbage that you use.

Pick a number then for the number of amino acids in the first living creature.
No number will help you.
Are you afraid to pick a number .
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or even 5000 or even 2500?
The smallest free-living creature has 1.3 million base pairs.
Click to expand...
I am not dodging. You have the burden of proof. You are the one that is dodging. I told you how you had to first resolve your burden of proof issues and that then I would answer your questions.

If anyone is dodging it is you. By the way, I can answer your questions but until you change your ways I have no need to do so.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh, and one more thing @SavedByTheLord . Do you realize that by moving the goalposts to abiogenesis that you have conceded both the evolution and the billions of years argument?

I can and will explain to you how you have done that. All you need to do is to ask.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
SavedByTheLord said:
I have moved no goal posts at all. What was the first living creature?
Click to expand...
You move the goal posts so much not even you can keep up with it.
Capture.JPG
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
What was the first living creature?
What caused the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
And you respond by moving the goalposts even further. Now you have not just conceded the evolution and billions of years argument. You just conceded that abiogenesis argument too.

Nice shooting. I think that you have shot off all ten of your toes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top