The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[Subduction Zone]

I did not make any assumptions as to how they are added although the one at a time method would never work or 10 at a time.
And you still do not seem to understand that it is the odds against a very long specific sequence that is the problem no matter how they are added. Thanks for the input

No, it is a complete strawman. Do you want to break it down as I did with your failed induction proof? You remember, don't you? That was the one that you ran away from when it became obvious to you that you screwed the pooch.

 

[Polymath257]

I did not make any assumptions as to how they are added although the one at a time method would never work or 10 at a time.
And you still do not seem to understand that it is the odds against a very long specific sequence that is the problem no matter how they are added. Thanks for the input

Once again, why do you think it would need to be a specific chain? How many different chains would have some functionality?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Once again, why do you think it would need to be a specific chain? How many different chains would have some functionality?

Even if 99.99% of all possible amino acid sequences would have worked, it would not help much at all with the odds.
For 100,000 amino acid pairs and 99.99% being successful, the odds against only change from
10^160,000 to 1 to 159,996 to 1.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if 99.99% of all possible amino acid sequences would have worked, it would not help much at all with the odds.
For 100,000 amino acid pairs and 99.99% being successful, the odds against only change from
10^160,000 to 1 to 159,996 to 1.

Well of course if someone uses ridiculously high number the odds seem incredible against it. Your problem is that you are scientifically illiterate and refuse to take others up on their offers to help you to learn.

You need to go to peer reviewed works and see what number of amino acids that those that work in the field say is the correct number.

 

[McBell]

Well of course if someone uses ridiculously high number the odds seem incredible against it. Your problem is that you are scientifically illiterate and refuse to take others up on their offers to help you to learn.

You need to go to peer reviewed works and see what number of amino acids that those that work in the field say is the correct number.

The problem, which they have already demonstrated, is that they do not know what "peer reviewed" means

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Well of course if someone uses ridiculously high number the odds seem incredible against it. Your problem is that you are scientifically illiterate and refuse to take others up on their offers to help you to learn.

You need to go to peer reviewed works and see what number of amino acids that those that work in the field say is the correct number.

Well I did say that you could use any number you would like.
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or 5000 or 2500?
No number is going to rescue the already disproved forever evolution or billions of years.

 

[Polymath257]

Even if 99.99% of all possible amino acid sequences would have worked, it would not help much at all with the odds.
For 100,000 amino acid pairs and 99.99% being successful, the odds against only change from
10^160,000 to 1 to 159,996 to 1.

All sorts of misunderstandings here. First, amino acids don't come in pairs. You were thinking of nucleic acids. Second, you seem to confuse 99.99% of all sequences being successful with something to do with how the sequences are originally formed. Third, the sequences are NOT formed by successively adding amino acids (which is what your incorrect computation assumes). Fourth, to 'work' means to work in one of the many roles available, not in some specific role. Fifth, you don't need to have all the roles served in order to have basic metabolism. Sixth, your 100,000 is complete fantasy.

Finally, it is NOT required to have chains of length in the hundreds, at least for basic metabolism (which is all there would be at first). Chains of length less than 50 are perfectly functional in many roles.

 

[Polymath257]

I did not make any assumptions as to how they are added although the one at a time method would never work or 10 at a time.,

In that case, you don't understand your own computation. The amino acids are NOT added sequentially. Instead, shorter sequences form, and *those* combine to form larger sequences, which then combine to form larger ones. This drastically changes the probabilities, especially when there are multiple roles for proteins to play in the cells. Once again, the roles don't have to be filled in some determined sequence.

And you still do not seem to understand that it is the odds against a very long specific sequence that is the problem no matter how they are added. Thanks for the input

Oh, I understand your argument. I am saying you are making the wrong calculation because you are assuming probabilistic independence when it is known that such is not the case.

I am reminded of early calculations concerning the protein folding problem. Each bond between amino acids has multiple orientations it could take. To search through all of them would take longer than the age of the universe, yet proteins fold in fractions of a second. How is that possible?

The point is that the different orientations are NOT independent and so the naive calculation is simply wrong. You are making the same mistake here.

 

[Polymath257]

Well I did say that you could use any number you would like.
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or 5000 or 2500?
No number is going to rescue the already disproved forever evolution or billions of years.

This calculation is irrelevant to either. At most it is relevant to abiogenesis. But it is so wrong that it is worthless even there.

It is also irrelevant to the topic of this thread: the Big bang theory, which is very far from being dead.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

This calculation is irrelevant to either. At most it is relevant to abiogenesis. But it is so wrong that it is worthless even there.

It is also irrelevant to the topic of this thread: the Big bang theory, which is very far from being dead.

You have perfected the art of circular reasoning and fulfilling prophecies at the very same time with that post.

Of course, evolution must run and hide when it comes to having to give give some credible evidence for abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I did say that you could use any number you would like.
How about 50,000 or 10,000 or 5000 or 2500?
No number is going to rescue the already disproved forever evolution or billions of years.

Why not 100?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have perfected the art of circular reasoning and fulfilling prophecies at the very same time with that post.

Of course, evolution must run and hide when it comes to having to give give some credible evidence for abiogenesis.

Projection. If you want a serious discussion people are ready, but you refuse to even learn the basics of science. And when you are shown to be wrong you are the one that runs and hides. Do you remember your flawed induction proof? I offered more than once to start discussing your errors again. You just run away and hide.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Projection. If you want a serious discussion people are ready, but you refuse to even learn the basics of science. And when you are shown to be wrong you are the one that runs and hides. Do you remember your flawed induction proof? I offered more than once to start discussing your errors again. You just run away and hide.

I am here for you. I am making my rounds like a doctor taking care of sick people, sick with circular reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am here for you. I am making my rounds like a doctor taking care of sick people, sick with circular reasoning.

You appear to be a rather poor doctor then. You can only make claims of circular reasoning. Usually easily falsified claims. You cannot ever seem to support your claim of people using it.

I know this is not your first attempt to debate. You clearly have been badly beaten many times before. As you are being beaten here.

It is not good enough to just mimic the logical fallacies that you do not understand. You need to be able to support your claims too. When people pointed out your use of circular reasoning in the past did you ask how? If you didn't you should have. The odds are that those people were ready to support their claims.

When someone challenges your claims, such as "circular reasoning" and you can only repeat the now apparent false claim or run away the fact that you have nothing is apparent to everyone.

I am interested in honestly trying to make you a better debater. It is not fun to beat up someone that reasons on the level of a 12 year old.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You appear to be a rather poor doctor then. You can only make claims of circular reasoning. Usually easily falsified claims. You cannot ever seem to support your claim of people using it.

I know this is not your first attempt to debate. You clearly have been badly beaten many times before. As you are being beaten here.

It is not good enough to just mimic the logical fallacies that you do not understand. You need to be able to support your claims too. When people pointed out your use of circular reasoning in the past did you ask how? If you didn't you should have. The odds are that those people were ready to support their claims.

When someone challenges your claims, such as "circular reasoning" and you can only repeat the now apparent false claim or run away the fact that you have nothing is apparent to everyone.

I am interested in honestly trying to make you a better debater. It is not fun to beat up someone that reasons on the level of a 12 year old.

So what caused the Big Bang and where did the finely turned, orderly laws of nature come from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what caused the Big Bang and where did the finely turned, orderly laws of nature come from?

Once again, only justified questions need to be answered.

Where does God go on his days off?

 

[Polymath257]

So what caused the Big Bang and where did the finely turned, orderly laws of nature come from?

And once again, we don't know that there was a cause for the Big Bang because we don't have evidence from that time period and our theoretical models reach different conclusions.

Unlike what some religions do, science cannot simply make up an answer and then require everyone to take it on faith. Instead, *evidence* is what is required.

As for the laws of nature, when you ask where they 'come from', you assume there was a time when the laws weren't active. That is not an assumption you have justified.

Going deeper, it is clear that to even talk about the cause of such laws is paradoxical since you are, in essence, asking for the cause of causality.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And once again, we don't know that there was a cause for the Big Bang because we don't have evidence from that time period and our theoretical models reach different conclusions.

Unlike what some religions do, science cannot simply make up an answer and then require everyone to take it on faith. Instead, *evidence* is what is required.

As for the laws of nature, when you ask where they 'come from', you assume there was a time when the laws weren't active. That is not an assumption you have justified.

Going deeper, it is clear that to even talk about the cause of such laws is paradoxical since you are, in essence, asking for the cause of causality.

So evolution and billons of years is like a religion.
And I can see the circular reasoning you use in that you are sure that the cause may yet be discovered. And of course you are sure that is must have happened without God.

But the fine tuned and orderly universe could never exist by itself. See yiu have no intelligent Almighty Creator to just create such a universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So evolution and billons of years is like a religion.

No, unlike your mythological beliefs when scientists do not know something they are honest enough to say "We don't know yet".

And I can see the circular reasoning you use in that you are sure that the cause may yet be discovered. And of course you are sure that is must have happened without God.

But that is a strawman, It is not the reasoning that is followed. In fact whether or not a God exists the Big Bang still happened. Unless, as you want to do, one claims that one's God is a liar. I am still trying to figure out why you make that claim. You say that you understand the scientific method and the concept of evidence.

But the fine tuned and orderly universe could never exist by itself. See yiu have no intelligent Almighty Creator to just create such a universe.

Why not? This is a claim that requires more than a handwave.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So evolution and billons of years is like a religion.

No. Religion is based on faith, belief, without proof. Evolution and the age of the earth are based on evidence.