I am the most tolerant there can be, so if you flame me then you suck.

Any well educated and intelligent person who beleives in christianity or any other of those major religions for that matter does it out of stubborness. Im not saying theyre are stupid or that I hate them, if they lack a strong enough character and mind to accept there is no point to life then so be it. The best thing I ever read on totse was "I dont need a reason to live or a goal to reach after I die, just a chance to keep learning and exploring." Once again, theres christians a lot smarter and more educated than I am, but sheer logic without any BIAS only leaves atheism and agnosticism as making sense, the latter being my choice. Ill say it again, I dont hate, at all. I just beleive that if you are intelligent and educated and openminded you are simply refusing to accept a reality. Cultural identity, sense of belonging, by some coincidence after you prayed you werent sick anymore, its all good, eat my truth. There might be a god, but who are you to tell me what his motives are?

I agree. My brother is one of the smartest people I have ever encountered, he goes to school for aeronaughtical (sp?) engineering and does quite well. We both come from parents that basically let us believe whatever we wanted to believe, but there was a strong athiest influence on us both. Anyhoo, my point is he's real smart, but likes the idea of being able to fall back on religion when there is nothing to fall back on.

quote:Originally posted by Spic Power:

I am the most tolerant there can be, so if you flame me then you suck.

Any well educated and intelligent person who beleives in christianity or any other of those major religions for that matter does it out of stubborness. Im not saying theyre are stupid or that I hate them, if they lack a strong enough character and mind to accept there is no point to life then so be it. The best thing I ever read on totse was "I dont need a reason to live or a goal to reach after I die, just a chance to keep learning and exploring." Once again, theres christians a lot smarter and more educated than I am, but sheer logic without any BIAS only leaves atheism and agnosticism as making sense, the latter being my choice. Ill say it again, I dont hate, at all. I just beleive that if you are intelligent and educated and openminded you are simply refusing to accept a reality. Cultural identity, sense of belonging, by some coincidence after you prayed you werent sick anymore, its all good, eat my truth. There might be a god, but who are you to tell me what his motives are?

I dont see it as you do apparently. While you are in fact entitled to an opinion, i dont necessarilly agree with it. Im glad that you didnt flame religious people like alot of immature people on this board do.

But i look at statistics and am awestruck as to how anyone can be so stubborn as to believe in evolution. Ive calculated that the odd are 10^20 time greater than the number of atoms in the universe of even the simplest building blocks of life to form.

There are lots of other inconsistencies with other aspects of evolution, but creationism isnt any more factually based either.

Who knows, there might not be a God, we could have been lied to for thousands f years, but is an eternal life that meaningless to not even attempt to save it? Lets take christianity. You can be saved, then live like the Greeks of yore and still go to heaven, albeit alot sooner. But do you see my point? At least try it first before you dismiss it from your life.

After all, what have you got to lose? Nothing, if your soul doesnt exist, then you have lost nothing, if it does, you have everything to gain.

I see what you are saying though about it being a fad with most people. And youare right for the mst part. Look at public school polls today, most people believe in Godly morals, but they dont ascribe themselves necessarilly to any religion.

But you cant just look at Christianity on face value either. There are so many things that an unbeliever will never see if he reads the bible.

This might not add much to anything of credibility, but God does answer my prayers occasionally and doesnt waste time on it. Just last week i was staring at an insurmountable problem. I had to impliment the arcsine function and whatnot on a microchip that doesnt have any functions greater than adding and subtracting. I stared at the problem for at least a good hour before breaking down and asking God for help. Then after a few more minutes of looking, the answer struck me. I would have never seen it by staring to no end at it. Its a great feeling though when He answers you because if you believe in him, it just makes your life alot simpler to know that someone is watching out for you in an increasingly dangerous world.

But also look at the non-spiritual benefits of religion. Simply pray your pains and stress away! Never worry about those close to you that die. There are so many things that religious living can do for you even if you dont believe in christianity.

But throughout my short life ive seen alot of coincidences that just shouldnt happen. You see so many badthings happen, but you take notice of the little things and they give you extra insight about that person or those he had contact with.

Like my friend who was killed a few months back. We had no reason to believe he was a believer, but i listened to my cousins rambling about how he was, and other testimony, that you really see what kind of person he was. Look, seeing your friend get shot and die onlya few feet from you when you are supposed to be going to church isnt what id like to call "easy". But what a relief it is when you do realize that there is a good probablility he was saved. And even through his death, that very same day 2 kids were saved.

Also im no dummy either. Im in for a degree in elecrical engineering and i work as an assembly programmer for a national labratory and im only 17. Not to brag but not all of us are tards http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

But i look at statistics and am awestruck as to how anyone can be so stubborn as to believe in evolution. Ive calculated that the odd are 10^20 time greater than the number of atoms in the universe of even the simplest building blocks of life to form.

How did you go about calculating this?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

After all, what have you got to lose?

Life

Fun

Reality

Freedom

Thats kind of rich to the above poster who prayed to "Him". Allow me to explain.. Did you ever think that you just believed you had "God's" help after prayer? Hell, if I thought I had some badass motherfucker on my side I'd be able to figure anything out. Well, you sort of see what im saying....

quote:Originally posted by Cpt.Winters:

Thats kind of rich to the above poster who prayed to "Him". Allow me to explain.. Did you ever think that you just believed you had "God's" help after prayer? Hell, if I thought I had some badass motherfucker on my side I'd be able to figure anything out. Well, you sort of see what im saying....

That's kinda what he was getting at.

If there is a God, then awesome, he helped him solve the problem. If there isn't a God, then whatever, he solved the problem by clearing his head and relaxing.

First of all, way to be pretty mature about this issue. Not mature in a "wise beyond your years way" or in a sense of intelligence or knowledge, but just being reasonable and not trying to insult people. I gotta say, you are an SG poster, but when you venture to the more serious forums you always present your threads genuinely and respectably.



quote:Originally posted by Spic Power:

I am the most tolerant there can be, so if you flame me then you suck.

Any well educated and intelligent person who beleives in christianity or any other of those major religions for that matter does it out of stubborness. Im not saying theyre are stupid or that I hate them, if they lack a strong enough character and mind to accept there is no point to life then so be it.

Here's your pitfall though bro, you are speaking with the same absoluteness that a hardcore Christian does. You say "there is no point to life" like it's absolute truth, and there's a huge problem with that. You can't speak objectively on a completely subjective issue.

The best thing I ever read on totse was "I dont need a reason to live or a goal to reach after I die, just a chance to keep learning and exploring." Once again, theres christians a lot smarter and more educated than I am, but sheer logic without any BIAS only leaves atheism and agnosticism as making sense, the latter being my choice.

Says you. I know plenty of Christians who think that sheer logic without any BIAS will only leave God as an option. I think you need to explain yourself more on this point, because it's fairly general and vague. i.e. What was your logical process that led you to this conclusion? I'd be interested. No offense, but I also think that your logic process on this one is probably flawed.

Ill say it again, I dont hate, at all. I just beleive that if you are intelligent and educated and openminded you are simply refusing to accept a reality.

Again, maybe you are refusing to accept a reality.

Cultural identity, sense of belonging, by some coincidence after you prayed you werent sick anymore, its all good, eat my truth.

There you go bro, that's what you need to say: "my truth".



There might be a god, but who are you to tell me what his motives are?

Completely agreed. Now this is some good common sense.

Shalom.

quote:Originally posted by Spic Power:

Any well educated and intelligent person who beleives in christianity or any other of those major religions for that matter does it out of stubborness. Im not saying theyre are stupid or that I hate them, if they lack a strong enough character and mind to accept there is no point to life then so be it. The best thing I ever read on totse was "I dont need a reason to live or a goal to reach after I die, just a chance to keep learning and exploring." Once again, theres christians a lot smarter and more educated than I am, but sheer logic without any BIAS only leaves atheism and agnosticism as making sense, the latter being my choice. Ill say it again, I dont hate, at all. I just beleive that if you are intelligent and educated and openminded you are simply refusing to accept a reality. Cultural identity, sense of belonging, by some coincidence after you prayed you werent sick anymore, its all good, eat my truth. There might be a god, but who are you to tell me what his motives are?

Go read some christian theology and tell me that christianity isn't founded on logic, Thomas Aquinas in particular.

I don't hate, but I'm going to assume that you know shit all about christianity.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Go read some christian theology and tell me that christianity isn't founded on logic, Thomas Aquinas in particular.

I don't hate, but I'm going to assume that you know shit all about christianity.

Done. It isn't founded on logic.

His theories/arguments have been refuted numerous times.

I've seen those refutations and I've seen them refuted.

You have? Then lets de-rail this thread, or better yet, create another one, which deals with them.

Highly interesting if you ask me. Care to provide the rebuttals you mention, either here or in another thread?

quote:Originally posted by Shadout Mapes:

How did you go about calculating this?

Well the amino acid contains four elements hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulphur. There are 20 natural aminos. The amino consist of anywhere from 9 to 26 atoms excluding sulphur (suphur bearing aminos arent naturally occuring). The smallest protein contains 1000 aminos and the largest 1,000,000.

This makes 20^(9,26)^4*(1000,1000000) possibilities for 20 aminos combining any number of proteins.

For the smallest protein, the odds are 1 in 10^ 49.837

For the largest protein, the odds are 1 in 10^140.307

These figures dont reflect the rarity of elemental carbon, which is the rarest non-isotopic element in the universe.

EDIT: The estimated number of electrons in the universe is 10^80. Since the charge of the universe is neutral, one must also conclude that either there are 10^80 protons or some conbinations of quarks and protons, which quarks dont matter in this calculation.

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 05-11-2005).]

quote:Well the amino acid contains four elements hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulphur. There are 20 natural aminos. The amino consist of anywhere from 9 to 26 atoms excluding sulphur (suphur bearing aminos arent naturally occuring). The smallest protein contains 1000 aminos and the largest 1,000,000.

Refuted,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

and refuted,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Anything else?

# The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).

Thats not true. Biochemistry doesnt produce random aminos that can work to produce working proteins.

# The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

They might promote such, but they dont facilitate such. That is they might be there but wont produce anything meaningful

# The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.

Yes, but if we evolved from those simpler things we still will have thier traits. Ameobas are cellular organisms. We are too. Monkeys are similar to humans as well.

They are simple in that they are nothing more than proteins. The building block of life.

# The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Well thats total fallacy. While it is true that it can happen, they ignore the fact that there simply isnt enough atomic material to carry on such a large task.

Id also like to point out that if somehow an amino was produced (which in all fairness it could have happened), what makes you so sure they could even chemically combine? Wouldnt it be possible for them to be on opposite ends of the universe?

Also, they are not taking into account the shear scarcity of carbon. If you dont have enough carbon for even some non-proteinous living thing, you cant have any aminos even frming at all into proteins.



1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

So what? If you cant form a simple protein you cant form a more complex

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

There are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid)

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

Like i said earlier, there wont be enough carbon

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

Wow, that was damning...

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

Said already

Id like to state an article (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5397/2204) about carbon. 200-300 atoms per 10^6 of hydrogen. Thats not that much to work with.

Also, if somehow there were in fact proteins that did not require carbon, why do our require such, how did such a transistion take place, and how exactly would such a transition take place regarding statistical scarcity of said carbon

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Thats not true. Biochemistry doesnt produce random aminos that can work to produce working proteins.



They didn't say that, that's a strawman on your part.

quote:

They might promote such, but they dont facilitate such. That is they might be there but wont produce anything meaningful

And you know that how exactly?

quote:Yes, but if we evolved from those simpler things we still will have thier traits. Ameobas are cellular organisms. We are too. Monkeys are similar to humans as well.

They are simple in that they are nothing more than proteins. The building block of life.

Certainly not.

1. First of all, that is not true of evolution.

2. Where did the article say that they didn't have similiar "traits"?

3. They are simple in that they would have required less amino-acids, less elements, etc. Thus your numbers are completely erroneous.



quote:Well thats total fallacy. While it is true that it can happen, they ignore the fact that there simply isnt enough atomic material to carry on such a large task.

Id also like to point out that if somehow an amino was produced (which in all fairness it could have happened), what makes you so sure they could even chemically combine? Wouldnt it be possible for them to be on opposite ends of the universe?

Also, they are not taking into account the shear scarcity of carbon. If you dont have enough carbon for even some non-proteinous living thing, you cant have any aminos even frming at all into proteins.

1. You have absolutely no way of knowing this. The carbon levels you cite are incorrect as well, as they deal with current levels, not levels immediately following the Big Bang.

2. There wouldn't be "at the other end of the universe" at that time. As the universe was, and still is expanding.



quote: So what? If you cant form a simple protein you cant form a more complex

Did you even read? That's exactly the point! You're calculating it with a MODERN, MORE COMPLEX protein, not a more simpler one, which is why the calculations are completely off.

quote:There are

Quote your that article saying there is a fixed number of PROTEINS.

quote: Like i said earlier, there wont be enough carbon

And you know this how? With erroneous levels of carbon?

quote: Wow, that was damning...

Wow, that was pathetic. Taking one little and small comment and "refuting it" to make yourself seem intelligent.

quote: Id like to state an article about carbon. 200-300 atoms per 10^6 of hydrogen. Thats not that much to work with.

That's the CURRENT concentration.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-11-2005).]

Spic Power:

I think the mentality of which you speak deals more on the experience of the otherworldly in the corporeal body, rather than a loosely constructed cardhouse of logic typical of most argumentative theists... all the legitimate ones, anyway.

To ArgonPlasma2000

You should see the article "What Came Before DNA" on the June 2004 issue of Discover magazine. If you want, I can send it to you by e-mail. Just post your e-mail or send me one at youwilldieaterribledeath@hotmail.com.

Certainly not.

1. First of all, that is not true of evolution.

Dont care to much as i dont hold a degree in its study.

2. Where did the article say that they didn't have similiar "traits"?

I didnt say that they said that they did. But from what i have studied on evolution that higher lifeforms have traits of the lower. And if a non-carbonous lifeform ever developped on this planet, we would have some lifeforms today that dont use carbon.

3. They are simple in that they would have required less amino-acids, less elements, etc. Thus your numbers are completely erroneous.

Well thats 4 elements that we do require tday, how complex can you get without using a fourth or thrid? Scientists are just now getting to the ppoint of creating artificial virii, yet they dont use crazy combinations of new aminos and whatnot.

1. You have absolutely no way of knowing this. The carbon levels you cite are incorrect as well, as they deal with current levels, not levels immediately following the Big Bang.



Ill give you the benefit of the doubt that you dont mean exactly what you say. Because you should know that the first law of thermodynamics doesnt allow for carbon to mysteriously vanish.

Lets say that you are correct, that there was an infinite supply of carbom. The heat from the bang would have immediately broken down any aminos that may have formed. But lets say they started forming after everything cooled down, what makes you have even the slightest inkling that the two aminos that might form would be in the vicinity? What makes you think that they would have enough heat energy to even start to combine?

And where is the missing carbon!!!?



2. There wouldn't be "at the other end of the universe" at that time. As the universe was, and still is expanding.

Not true, take a box, it is smaller than the universe, place two things on opposite ends, see what i mean? Big or small it makes no difference, if the aminos are not in proximity, they never can combine.

Did you even read? That's exactly the point! You're calculating it with a MODERN, MORE COMPLEX protein, not a more simpler one, which is why the calculations are completely off.

Alrighty then, lets do it your way, lets say a protein needs 2 to 20 aminos, the aminos number from 2-26, the proteins requires 2-1000000 separate aminos,and they require anywhere from 2 to 3 atoms, the smallest possible is: 1-32

Largest: 1-10^107.48

Thats being quite generous. Now the odds of a simple protein forming from 2 elements, two aminos, why dont we see them anymore? Where is that damned missing link?!!!

Quote your that article saying there is a fixed number of PROTEINS.

I fixed that

And you know this how? With erroneous levels of carbon?

Fixed that too

That's the CURRENT concentration.

Fixed it already

You see, you have a link so obvious that it is almost certain to exist, yet you cant even find it. Show me where anyone, ANYONE that has found that link, and i turn in my bible and join you.

The odds are 1 in 32 tries, that makes it certain to have happened. Obviously if you say its not enough time then we cease to exist, because we supposedly evolved from that simpler protein. Now, if you dnt show me any response of a simpler protein fund, i dont suggest you return.



Pwned until further notice

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 05-11-2005).]

WTFCHRISTIANS?!?!?! http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

http://www.gordonresearch.com/articles_rna/discover-what_came_before_dna.pdf

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

http://www.gordonresearch.com/articles_rna/discover-what_came_before_dna.pdf

Well until that project is done, keep finding that missing protein.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Dont care to much as i dont hold a degree in its study.

[/b]

Great. It still means you where wrong.



quote:

I didnt say that they said that they did. But from what i have studied on evolution that higher lifeforms have traits of the lower. And if a non-carbonous lifeform ever developped on this planet, we would have some lifeforms today that dont use carbon.

You implied it. If you hadn't, your post wouldn't have made sense.

quote: Well thats 4 elements that we do require tday, how complex can you get without using a fourth or thrid? Scientists are just now getting to the ppoint of creating artificial virii, yet they dont use crazy combinations of new aminos and whatnot.

You mean, how LESS complex, right? I don't think you understand. The article is saying that the proteins/amino-acids formed at the time of the Big Bang, were LESS complex than they are now.

By being less complex, it means the calculations you are using are off by orders of magnitude.



quote: Ill give you the benefit of the doubt that you dont mean exactly what you say. Because you should know that the first law of thermodynamics doesnt allow for carbon to mysteriously vanish.

Lets say that you are correct, that there was an infinite supply of carbon. The heat from the bang would have immediately broken down any aminos that may have formed. But lets say they started forming after everything cooled down, what makes you have even the slightest inkling that the two aminos that might form would be in the vicinity? What makes you think that they would have enough heat energy to even start to combine?



Where did I even say it "vanished"?

The amount of Carbon at the time is basically irrelevant, in and of itself, when calculating probabilities. What is relevant is the RATIO of carbon to other elements. You gave the CURRENT ratio, not the ratio at the time of the Big Bang.

And yes, nucleosynthesis obviously happens after the universe has reached a workable temperature.

quote:

Not true, take a box, it is smaller than the universe, place two things on opposite ends, see what i mean? Big or small it makes no difference, if the aminos are not in proximity, they never can combine.

It certainly DOES make a difference, since the probabilities of them combining are millions of times greater, the shorter the distance they are.

Moreover, you are deciding that they where created at opposite ends, which is as likely as them being created next to each other.



quote:

Alrighty then, lets do it your way, lets say a protein needs 2 to 20 aminos, the aminos number from 2-26, the proteins requires 2-1000000 separate aminos,and they require anywhere from 2 to 3 atoms, the smallest possible is: 1-32

Largest: 1-10^107.48

Thats being quite generous. Now the odds of a simple protein forming from 2 elements, two aminos, why dont we see them anymore? Where is that damned missing link?!!!



Lets take that again erroneous number as correct:

1. With millions upon millions of attempts happening each moment, that is hardly a large number when taken in that context.

2. You ignore, which was explained in the article, that one need not have to go through 1x10^32 attempts before getting it right. It could have very well happened on the first attempt.

quote:The odds are 1 in 32 tries, that makes it certain to have happened. Obviously if you say its not enough time then we cease to exist, because we supposedly evolved from that simpler protein. Now, if you dnt show me any response of a simpler protein fund, i dont suggest you return.

I never claimed I knew which exact protein it was, nor that Science knew. That's what Science is trying to verify.

What I did argue, was that your pathetic, piece of shit numbers where completely wrong, completely taken out of your ass, and not even meaningful. I've proven that successfully, thank you very much.

quote: You see, you have a link so obvious that it is almost certain to exist, yet you cant even find it. Pwned until further notice

"Pwned"? How very mature. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

If you call that me being "pwned" then you apparently don't know how to read.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-11-2005).]

You mean, how LESS complex, right? I don't think you understand. The article is saying that the proteins/amino-acids formed at the time of the Big Bang, were LESS complex than they are now.

By being less complex, it means the calculations you are using are off by orders of magnitude.

No, it means that yu dont understand what i say when i ask just HOW complex you can get with only three elements. I was certain that you would have caught that.

Where did I even say it "vanished"?

The amount of Carbon at the time is basically irrelevant, in and of itself, when calculating probabilities. What is relevant is the RATIO of carbon to other elements. You gave the CURRENT ratio, not the ratio at the time of the Big Bang.

And yes, nucleosynthesis obviously happens after the universe has reached a workable temperature.

You imply things as well. If its impossible for a protein to form from what little carbon we have today, and it could just after the bang, then its obvious that there must have been more carbon then than there is now.

The ratio at the time of the big bang is the exact same as it is now save for a negligible amount of carbon 14. Carbon doesnt just magically appear or vanish.

But lets get a reasonable constant for our skes as to how much carbon we do have today.

The universe is approximately 3E55 grams in mass. Hydrogen makes up about 75% of that mass. So:

3E55*3/4=mass of hydrogen=2.25E55 grams

m%H/1.00794=no. of moles of H=2.232E55 mol

mol%H*(250/10^6)=carbon moles of today=5.58E51 mol

5.58E51*6.022E23=number of atoms of carbon=3.36E75 atoms today.

Just a little sidetrack, but how many magnitudes more of carbon do you evolutionists need?!!!



It certainly DOES make a difference, since the probabilities of them combining are millions of times greater, the shorter the distance they are.

Moreover, you are deciding that they where created at opposite ends, which is as likely as them being created next to each other.

I doubt you have any backgrund in chemistry. Things dont spontaneously combine when they are too far from each other. We are talking INDIVIDUAL atoms here. Not large masses of them. The atoms would have to be VERY close for them to ever react. And the proximity that they would be when statistically they would combine would either be much much much too far to combine or be too close to the bang to combine.

Yea, it does make a diffeerence how close they are. But your reasoning for their formation refutes itself. They either are too far to combine or are too close to the bangs heat that they cannot. And when i say they are to far, it is physically impossible. Statistics never enters the equation because the reaction CANNOT take place. Can hydrochloric acid burn you when you pick up a jar comtaining it? NO!

Lets take that again erroneous number as correct:

1. With millions upon millions of attempts happening each moment, that is hardly a large number when taken in that context.

Im incorporating that into my example. I dont doubt that if the big bang ever did happen that thats exactly what happened. Many atoms would combine. But they still have to have a proximityin order to do so.

2. You ignore, which was explained in the article, that one need not have to go through 1x10^32 attempts before getting it right. It could have very well happened on the first attempt.

Are you fucking daft? Of course not. But a ball spontaneously jumping up has the same probability of happening, if not less so. The atoms of the ball are moving randomly. It could so happen that their momentum could coincide and imart that momentum and the ball leaps off the ground. Of course thats never happened. But that isnt to say it couldnt...

Lets say that an amino does develop. You still havent given me the inclination that two events in E64 would happen just angstroms away.

I never claimed I knew which exact protein it was, nor that Science knew. That's what Science is trying to verify.

What I did argue, was that your pathetic, piece of shit numbers where completely wrong, completely taken out of your ass, and not even meaningful. I've proven that successfully, thank you very much.

You didnt disprove anything. You dont even argue against them. Im not pulling this stuff out my ass. Im GIVING a simple amino!

You have got to be the stupidest evolutionist ever. With insurmountable odds against you, i give you an event that has a chance of occuring in 32 attempts and you say it is nil. You have got to be a fucking moron to do that.

"Pwned"? How very mature.

If you call that me being "pwned" then you apparently don't know how to read.

[b] Wow, you call my generous statistical evaluations of the simplest amino of no count, offering no place that i was wrong, and yet you say you are not sunk.

Ive met some pretty stupid people in my life, but i give you the simplest "amino" that could ever form and you say its wrong. I give you the holy grail, the building block of all life, the greatest discovery in all of evolution and you turn it down. What a smart person you are.

Think of it, in less than two rolls of the dice you could have an amino, and you throw it away... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Another thing, you still havent shown me where scientists have prven that an amino can be frmed from elements not consisting of carbon or consisting of less than 9 elements and then form a protein. But you generously give yourself the benefit of the doubt.

What a moron.

Thats why I'm agnostic, all that randomness allows for ANYTHING to have happened. WE could have 1 god, we could have 6.02x10^23 gods that look like pink leprechans. I beleive that by knowing all that physics and how it works, its always possible that our logic maybe limited and theres stuff out there we cannot and will not comprehend, EVER. I still dont beleive in the bible though.

[This message has been edited by Spic Power (edited 05-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

No, it means that yu dont understand what i say when i ask just HOW complex you can get with only three elements. I was certain that you would have caught that.

No. I understand, you just said "how complex", which I believed you were trying to say it was going to be a more complex proteins. That's hwy I stressed it was going to be a less complex one.

quote:You imply things as well. If its impossible for a protein to form from what little carbon we have today, and it could just after the bang, then its obvious that there must have been more carbon then than there is now.

The ratio at the time of the big bang is the exact same as it is now save for a negligible amount of carbon 14. Carbon doesnt just magically appear or vanish.

But lets get a reasonable constant for our skes as to how much carbon we do have today.

The universe is approximately 3E55 grams in mass. Hydrogen makes up about 75% of that mass. So:

3E55*3/4=mass of hydrogen=2.25E55 grams

m%H/1.00794=no. of moles of H=2.232E55 mol

mol%H*(250/10^6)=carbon moles of today=5.58E51 mol

5.58E51*6.022E23=number of atoms of carbon=3.36E75 atoms today.

Just a little sidetrack, but how many magnitudes more of carbon do you evolutionists need?!!!

Completely wrong.

You gave the RATIO of Carbon. The RATIO of Carbon, would be a relevant statistic., if it were the RATIO of carbon FOLLOWING THE BIG BANG. It isn't.

You know why it is not? Because Elements didn't just magically exist after before the Big Bag, nor one second after it. They formed through nucleosynthesis! At the time the amino Acids would be forming, nucleosynthesis would be happening constantly! Hence the RATIO is in now way close to the RATIO you give now. Hence, you were wrong.

quote:doubt you have any backgrund in chemistry. Things dont spontaneously combine when they are too far from each other. We are talking INDIVIDUAL atoms here. Not large masses of them. The atoms would have to be VERY close for them to ever react. And the proximity that they would be when statistically they would combine would either be much much much too far to combine or be too close to the bang to combine.

Yea, it does make a diffeerence how close they are. But your reasoning for their formation refutes itself. They either are too far to combine or are too close to the bangs heat that they cannot. And when i say they are to far, it is physically impossible. Statistics never enters the equation because the reaction CANNOT take place. Can hydrochloric acid burn you when you pick up a jar comtaining it? NO!

Strawman. I never claimed they combined if they were far apart. Quote me doing so or admit you put words in my mouth.

My point was that the space created by the Big Bang was hardly the space we have now, which means that if they were "at opposite ends of the universe" they would actually be pretty close. Of course, not close enough to combine... so? Like I said, the smaller the space, the higher the probability to be closer to each other, and furthermore, no matter how long the space is, they have the exact same probability to be created right next to each other, than to be created at opposite ends.

Moreover, I already told you that nucleosynthesis (so therefore the formation of amino-acids, proteins etc), begins to occur when the heat is formidable. Hence that is as well refuted.

quote:Im incorporating that into my example. I dont doubt that if the big bang ever did happen that thats exactly what happened. Many atoms would combine. But they still have to have a proximityin order to do so.

Correct. So? Given that they would have the same probability of being created at opposite ends, as they would have of being created right next to each other. If you see it so likely that they would be created at opposite ends, then why not that they would be created next to each other?

Moreover, the space would be a lot smaller, hence more probabilities for them to be closer.

quote:Are you fucking daft? Of course not. But a ball spontaneously jumping up has the same probability of happening, if not less so. The atoms of the ball are moving randomly. It could so happen that their momentum could coincide and imart that momentum and the ball leaps off the ground. Of course thats never happened. But that isnt to say it couldnt...

Lets say that an amino does develop. You still havent given me the inclination that two events in E64 would happen just angstroms away.

Really? Give me the possibilities of a ball spontaneously jumping.

Are you telling me, that millions upon millions of hourly attempts at creating an amino-acid, would not produce a result, in YEARS? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote: You didnt disprove anything. You dont even argue against them. Im not pulling this stuff out my ass. Im GIVING a simple amino!

You have got to be the stupidest evolutionist ever. With insurmountable odds against you, i give you an event that has a chance of occuring in 32 attempts and you say it is nil. You have got to be a fucking moron to do that.

If you really believe I did not disprove it then I suggest you read it again.

Where you using a more complex protein (which is why I even posted in the first place, not you had to correct it which shows how fucking correct I was)? Check.

Are your calculations inaccurate? Check.

Are you using an incorrect level of Carbon? Check.

Are you not taking into account the small space created immediately after the Big Bang? Check.

I would call that refuted. Thank you very much.



Also, where did I say it was "nil"?

quote:Wow, you call my generous statistical evaluations of the simplest amino of no count, offering no place that i was wrong, and yet you say you are not sunk.

Ive met some pretty stupid people in my life, but i give you the simplest "amino" that could ever form and you say its wrong. I give you the holy grail, the building block of all life, the greatest discovery in all of evolution and you turn it down. What a smart person you are.

Think of it, in less than two rolls of the dice you could have an amino, and you throw it away...

Another thing, you still havent shown me where scientists have prven that an amino can be frmed from elements not consisting of carbon or consisting of less than 9 elements and then form a protein. But you generously give yourself the benefit of the doubt.

What a moron.

Where have I "thrown it away"? Because I argued it was wrong? It IS wrong!Sorry, but I'm not about to cling on something wrong, solely because it may or may not support me. I'm not a moron.



Also, I don't need to show you where Scientists proved amino acids can form without Carbon, because your calculation of Carbon are completely incorrect. They are wrong. I suggest you go and read about the Big Bang, before you come and claim again, that it would have had the same amount of Carbon we do now.

Oh, and thank you for the insults. Jesus, god, and the rest of your Christian pals would be proud: Not only did you provide a weak argument, but you had to result to insults. A shame.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-12-2005).]

Carbon is currently the 4th most common element in the universe. I don't see where you're going with the carbon argument.

About the amount in the big bang:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

Carbon was not created in the Big Bang due to the fact that it needs a triple collision of alpha particles (helium nuclei) to be produced. The universe initially expanded and cooled too fast for that to be possible. It is produced, however, in the interior of stars in the horizontal branch, where stars transform a helium core into carbon by means of the triple-alpha process. It was also created in a multi atomic state.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spic Power:

[b]I am the most tolerant there can be, so if you flame me then you suck.

And if there was someone more tolerant than you, every other point or opinion you expressed would be void. And as there are 6520752699 other people in the world, the chance of you being the most tolerant is 6520752699:1 against. It is therefore logical to assume you are not the most tolerant, and therefore all other points of view expressed are void.

***

[This message has been edited by osmandius (edited 05-12-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Carbon is currently the 4th most common element in the universe. I don't see where you're going with the carbon argument.

About the amount in the big bang:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

Carbon was not created in the Big Bang due to the fact that it needs a triple collision of alpha particles (helium nuclei) to be produced. The universe initially expanded and cooled too fast for that to be possible. It is produced, however, in the interior of stars in the horizontal branch, where stars transform a helium core into carbon by means of the triple-alpha process. It was also created in a multi atomic state.

Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source for info, since it is not always factual, and is compiled from the "knowledge" of it's fan base.

While some of the definitions may be 100% accurate, the definitions are also riddled with anti-God rhetoric.

Digital_Savior: Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source for info, since it is not always factual, and is compiled from the "knowledge" of it's fan base.

Hearsay. The only problem I've found with Wikipedia is that it doesn't contain enough information. All of it is double-checked for accuracy, mistakes are changed or removed.

While some of the definitions may be 100% accurate, the definitions are also riddled with anti-God rhetoric.

Wikipedia works with a NPOV, meaning that if you see something like this you should inform the editors by posting in the discussion tab at the top of the article. Articles found to be biased are marked at the top for people to know, and for correction.

And thanks to the neutral point of view, you can still see creationist arguments on relevant articles. If it was a purely secular project like most scientific encyclopedias, you wouldn't find that.

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 05-13-2005).]

Completely wrong.

You gave the RATIO of Carbon. The RATIO of Carbon, would be a relevant statistic., if it were the RATIO of carbon FOLLOWING THE BIG BANG. It isn't.

You know why it is not? Because Elements didn't just magically exist after before the Big Bag, nor one second after it. They formed through nucleosynthesis! At the time the amino Acids would be forming, nucleosynthesis would be happening constantly! Hence the RATIO is in now way close to the RATIO you give now. Hence, you were wrong.

I prefaced my calculation saying that my figure was the amount of carbon we have today, dumbass.

And what the fuck are you talking about? Elements dont exist before or after the bang? WTF?!! Ill let you explain that to me, because you have damned your entire argument if your saying what i think you said.

My point was that the space created by the Big Bang was hardly the space we have now, which means that if they were "at opposite ends of the universe" they would actually be pretty close. Of course, not close enough to combine... so? Like I said, the smaller the space, the higher the probability to be closer to each other, and furthermore, no matter how long the space is, they have the exact same probability to be created right next to each other, than to be created at opposite ends.

Moreover, I already told you that nucleosynthesis (so therefore the formation of amino-acids, proteins etc), begins to occur when the heat is formidable. Hence that is as well refuted.

Wrong wrong wrong. You cannot have a reaction when your reactants are not in proximity. Thats why neptune doesnt erupt into a massive ball of flame when someone lights a lighter n earth. Reactions do not, nor will ever, take place when the reactants cannot combine. You lack of understanding in chemistry is teeming over into your arguments.

Yes, they may have the same probability to form just after the heat dies down and they are angstroms away as they would lightyears away, but if they are not close enough, it is IMPOSSIBLE, read it, IMPOSSIBLE for them to ever combine.

And what do you mean, the heat is formidible?[/b]

Correct. So? Given that they would have the same probability of being created at opposite ends, as they would have of being created right next to each other. If you see it so likely that they would be created at opposite ends, then why not that they would be created next to each other?

Moreover, the space would be a lot smaller, hence more probabilities for them to be closer.

That point is of no count. It doesnt matter whether r not if they were created close or far away. I am simply trying to get it through your head that things dont underg chemical reactions when they are not close.

And how small a space are we talking about? Judging from the big bang making all the planets and whatnot at once, we must assume that it was at least as big as the combined volume of all dense matter in this universe.

Really? Give me the possibilities of a ball spontaneously jumping.

Are you telling me, that millions upon millions of hourly attempts at creating an amino-acid, would not produce a result, in YEARS?

I dont have any statistics, nor does anyone else. But a rudimentary delving int a physics book will allow you to ascertain that fact.

Your last paragraph doesnt even have anything to do with my statement, i dont know why you even bothered to type it.

If you really believe I did not disprove it then I suggest you read it again.

Where you using a more complex protein (which is why I even posted in the first place, not you had to correct it which shows how fucking correct I was)? Check.

No, i was simply putting down the statistics of all "complex" proteins and putting in smaller figures to account for simpler aminos.

Are your calculations inaccurate? Check.

If you say that the statistic for the modern protein is correct, then yes. Its up to your interpretation of how i went about deriving them.

Are you using an incorrect level of Carbon? Check.

No, i gave the ratio of carbon to hydrogen as we have today. I derived my figures from the relative amount of hydrogen we know that our universe consists of and its mass.

Are you not taking into account the small space created immediately after the Big Bang? Check.

I submit to you that either the entire mass ofour universe was created at once. This means that the universe would have to be at least as large as the combined volume of all dense matter of today.

Or that the matter spewed out of the bang for some time.

Either way, you have an event that makes it nearly impossible for the two aminos to ever find each other. The other way makes it impossible for us to determine just how long that the aminos had to form and they have the same plight as the former in that they would also never find each other.

I would call that refuted. Thank you very much.

Lets see, you havent given me any information as to why you think that chemicals can simply combine with some relatively immense gap between them.

You havent said anything in regards to the statistics of the atoms actually being close enough to combine under tyhe chemstry that we know of.

You fail to mention where the extra carbon from jusst after the big bang has gone.

You fail to note that any living thing, even microscopic, contains many more proteins than just one. What makes you believe that there wasnt to many failed attempts at deriving a protein that wouldnt leave nearly all the carbon in unusable proteins, or those that the protein could never reach?

You have left out the most crucial points to your own argument. You have failed at this.

Respond with something more than tired reiterations of your same circular logic. Where has the carbon gone? And what makes you think that there was more carbon at the time?

"Ohh, well evolution must be true. Since we dont have enough carbon today, there MUST have been more back then."

^^^^^ Is that your reasoning?

Where have I "thrown it away"? Because I argued it was wrong? It IS wrong!Sorry, but I'm not about to cling on something wrong, solely because it may or may not support me. I'm not a moron.

And yet nowhere have youpointed out HOW it was wrong

Also, I don't need to show you where Scientists proved amino acids can form without Carbon, because your calculation of Carbon are completely incorrect. They are wrong. I suggest you go and read about the Big Bang, before you come and claim again, that it would have had the same amount of Carbon we do now.

I didnt even include carbon in ANY of my calculations. The parameter allowed for any combination of two or three elements. See? You cant even follow my argument, much less make your stand.

Oh, and thank you for the insults. Jesus, god, and the rest of your Christian pals would be proud: Not only did you provide a weak argument, but you had to result to insults. A shame.

Excuse me, you havent even answered some the questions that maintain the crux around your ENTIRE argument. If you cannot even answer any of my questions on the apparent flaws of your sayings, dont bother to post in this frum because you have failed as an evolutionist. Good day to you, sir.

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 05-13-2005).]

Also, who else has any critical evalutation of mine or Rust's posts?

What are your thoughts on this?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

I prefaced my calculation saying that my figure was the amount of carbon we have today, dumbass.

And what the fuck are you talking about? Elements dont exist before or after the bang? WTF?!! Ill let you explain that to me, because you have damned your entire argument if your saying what i think you said.



Which is EXACTLY why it is wrong, since you're using the ratio of Carbon from TODAY!

And yes, elements did not exist immediately after, since the heat would make nucleosynthesis impossible. Nucleosynthesis occurred shortly after, but not immediately after.

quote:

Wrong wrong wrong. You cannot have a reaction when your reactants are not in proximity. Thats why neptune doesnt erupt into a massive ball of flame when someone lights a lighter n earth. Reactions do not, nor will ever, take place when the reactants cannot combine. You lack of understanding in chemistry is teeming over into your arguments.

Yes, they may have the same probability to form just after the heat dies down and they are angstroms away as they would lightyears away, but if they are not close enough, it is IMPOSSIBLE, read it, IMPOSSIBLE for them to ever combine.

And what do you mean, the heat is formidible?

Big, gigantic strawman.

Quote me EVER saying that the reaction will take place if the reactants are not close together! Either do so, or admit that you're putting words in my mouth.

I KNOW it would be impossible. What I am arguing is that with a much smaller space, comes a much higher probability of them being closer, which serves as a counter-argument to your "they would be created at opposite ends" argument.

quote:That point is of no count. It doesnt matter whether r not if they were created close or far away. I am simply trying to get it through your head that things dont underg chemical reactions when they are not close.

And how small a space are we talking about? Judging from the big bang making all the planets and whatnot at once, we must assume that it was at least as big as the combined volume of all dense matter in this universe.

Which is a STRAWMAN, since I NEVER, NOT ONCE, said they could! Quote me saying they could! Please!

quote:No, i was simply putting down the statistics of all "complex" proteins and putting in smaller figures to account for simpler aminos.

Which was wrong, because the first aminos were not complex. Thank you for proving me correct.

quote:No, i gave the ratio of carbon to hydrogen as we have today. I derived my figures from the relative amount of hydrogen we know that our universe consists of and its mass.

Which is WRONG since the ratio of Carbon today is not the ratio of Carbon at the time of big bang nucleosynthesis, nor the formation of amino-acids. Thank you for proving me correct.

quote:I submit to you that either the entire mass ofour universe was created at once. This means that the universe would have to be at least as large as the combined volume of all dense matter of today.

Or that the matter spewed out of the bang for some time.

Either way, you have an event that makes it nearly impossible for the two aminos to ever find each other. The other way makes it impossible for us to determine just how long that the aminos had to form and they have the same plight as the former in that they would also never find each other.

Certainly not nearly impossible. As possible as them being created far apart.

quote:Lets see, you havent given me any information as to why you think that chemicals can simply combine with some relatively immense gap between them.

Why would I? I'm NOT arguing that! Quote me ever saying they did or admit that you';re putting words in my mouth.

quote:

You fail to mention where the extra carbon from jusst after the big bang has gone.



READ. For the love off god. READ.

I said the RATIO. Do you even know what RATIO is? A higher ratio back then DOES NOT mean a higher amount back then!

Here, let me explain it to you:

If we have, now, 10 Carbon, for every 20 Hydrogen, then the ratio is 1:2 Right?

We may have 1X10^30 Carbon atoms in the world, but the ratio with Hydrogen is 1:2.

Let's say the Big Bang, had a ratio of 5:1. Does that mean the amount was larger? NO! It means the RATIO is larger. There could have been 5 Carbon and 1 Hydrogen in the entire fucking universe!

quote:

You fail to note that any living thing, even microscopic, contains many more proteins than just one. What makes you believe that there wasnt to many failed attempts at deriving a protein that wouldnt leave nearly all the carbon in unusable proteins, or those that the protein could never reach?

What makes you believe there were?

quote:

"Ohh, well evolution must be true. Since we dont have enough carbon today, there MUST have been more back then."



Yup. That's my argument. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Please read what I', saying you're making a fool out of yourself.

quote: And yet nowhere have youpointed out HOW it was wrong

I pointed out how your reasoning was completely incorrect. And, how it could have happend, fairly easily, with the numbers you give.

quote:I didnt even include carbon in ANY of my calculations. The parameter allowed for any combination of two or three elements. See? You cant even follow my argument, much less make your stand.

I know this... YOU mentioned carbon in the first place! I'm replying to a comment by YOU about the amount of carbon! Geez, fucking read your own arguments!

--

Again, thank you for the insults. Very Christian like.

Is there some reason you didn't respond to me? Must I try to explain every little bit?

ArgonPlasma2000: Id like to state an article about carbon. 200-300 atoms per 10^6 of hydrogen. Thats not that much to work with.

You probably know about the gas giants, right? Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. Well, on those planets, the large quantities of gas that were there during the solar system's formation are still there. However, on the planets closer to the sun such as Earth, solar wind blew most of the lighter elements away. So really, that statistic doesn't apply to the situation on Earth.

I don't really see how hydrogen would stop the carbon from interacting with the other elements anyway, especially when you consider that they aren't all evenly distributed in some huge glob of matter. Instead, you have your core and mantle, with a lot of the heavy elements; the atmosphere, with the majority of the gasses; and the crust, where all the elements required for life accumulated.

I definitely see no lack of carbon, because it's all around us. This really isn't some profound statement, but... there's enough carbon on earth to make up every life form and carbon based material you see. Well, because they're there, and they're made of carbon. Yeah, obvious, but that sounds like a lot of carbon, doesn't it?

Which is EXACTLY why it is wrong, since you're using the ratio of Carbon from TODAY!

And yes, elements did not exist immediately after, since the heat would make nucleosynthesis impossible. Nucleosynthesis occurred shortly after, but not immediately after.

Rust, i prefaced my numbers that for our sake, that was the amount of carbon in the universe today. Nothing else. I was just putting it up there to ask you how much more carbon did you need to make evlution work. Nothing more.

So basically the big bang blew out a bunch of protons neutrons and electrons. Is that it? So if a proton and electron happened to be close by they combine and make neutrons and release energy.

Is this what nucleosynthesis is supposed to be? Electrons dont naturally want to orbit a proton, especially not at the temperature of the big bang.

But how does elements form, even hydrogen, from a lone electron and proton?

I KNOW it would be impossible. What I am arguing is that with a much smaller space, comes a much higher probability of them being closer, which serves as a counter-argument to your "they would be created at opposite ends" argument.

I never said they would be at opposite ends of the universe. I said they had the same odds of being there as they would if they developed nearby.

But even so, it doesnt matter how close, they may have a hgher probability of combining, but if they are (for arguments sake) one fot away, they arent going to combine. They have a higher probability of combining than a pair that are lightyears away, but they still wont do it.

Which is a STRAWMAN, since I NEVER, NOT ONCE, said they could! Quote me saying they could! Please!

You know that i can quote anything you believe from evoltuion into question. They are impled and dont necessarilly have to be stated for me to say them. I dont care if you said t or not, its the only way your theory work so i HAVE to address that issue.

Which was wrong, because the first aminos were not complex. Thank you for proving me correct.

Are you a moron or something? I used the same statistical formula for complex aminos and put in numbers that allowed for simpler aminos. WTF? Simple and complex aminos operate on the same statistics and thats why yu can use the same formula. WTF is wrong with that?

Which is WRONG since the ratio of Carbon today is not the ratio of Carbon at the time of big bang nucleosynthesis, nor the formation of amino-acids. Thank you for proving me correct.

This point has absolutely no bearing in this debate. I did not once say the amount of carbon today had any coorelation to that after the bang. I never once said the ratio of carbon tday was the same for after the bang. Never once.

Certainly not nearly impossible. As possible as them being created far apart.

That not what im saying. Im saying that for your theory to work, they aminos have to find each other. If they have a nearly impossible chance f finding each other, it is of no count what odds they have of forming.

For that point i gave you two aminos formed under random statistice. But if they cant find each other then your theory falls.

I said the RATIO. Do you even know what RATIO is? A higher ratio back then DOES NOT mean a higher amount back then!

Here, let me explain it to you:

If we have, now, 10 Carbon, for every 20 Hydrogen, then the ratio is 1:2 Right?

We may have 1X10^30 Carbon atoms in the world, but the ratio with Hydrogen is 1:2.

Let's say the Big Bang, had a ratio of 5:1. Does that mean the amount was larger? NO! It means the RATIO is larger. There could have been 5 Carbon and 1 Hydrogen in the entire fucking universe!

Thats all you had to say. So it appears then (for nte takings sake) that for there to be an inbalance of ratio of today and after the bang, that the bang must have spewed out matter over time. Correct or not?

I agree you got me on that point as i didnt quite understand your point in relation to the entire argument.

That said, the ration doesnt matter either, its the shear number of carbons and whatever else you need to make your random amino. If you have 5 carbons and 1 hydrogen you very well have a 5:1 ration, but how many tries does carbon get to for an amino?

What makes you believe there were?

ok, lets say carbon and a few other elements form into a monster amino. It comes in contact with another monster amino. Uhh hhh! They are mismatched and their formation doesnt yeild a protein! Ohh dear, well thats two aminos that wont work. Looks as though it is garbage. Gotta throw it away.

Also with that point stated we should see evidence of those aminos that couldnt form proteins scattering the universe shouldnt we?



I pointed out how your reasoning was completely incorrect. And, how it could have happend, fairly easily, with the numbers you give.

Ok, what then is wrong with my claculations on the probability of the amino forming? I gave yu my derivations in previous posts. Please tell me where i am wrong.

I know this... YOU mentioned carbon in the first place! I'm replying to a comment by YOU about the amount of carbon! Geez, fucking read your own arguments!

I only needed to mention carbon because we dont have any non carbonus lifeforms today. Can you show me one not based on carbon? So, if you cant, carbon must be a prerequisite for life as we know it. And thats why it was necessary to mention carbon.

But that still doesnt address the issue since you avoid the question entirely and preface your rebuttal on your misinterpretation of my notes on the supposed ratio nd what you think my calculation on the number meant.

Again, thank you for the insults. Very Christian like.

Yur not halping yurself out you know. Cheap shots like that only show what kind of person you are to people not nvolved here. The insults are between you and me. We are discussing various statistics relating to evolution, any namecalling between us stays with us. Caling religion into the question sahows just how litle material you are working with.

You know, we dont call ourselves perfect so you shouldnt expect us to be. Im going to throw this n for giggles: you fucktard, you should have known that!

By the way, where are any of your statistics relating to my points?



Is there some reason you didn't respond to me? Must I try to explain every little bit?

ArgonPlasma2000: Id like to state an article about carbon. 200-300 atoms per 10^6 of hydrogen. Thats not that much to work with.

You probably know about the gas giants, right? Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus. Well, on those planets, the large quantities of gas that were there during the solar system's formation are still there. However, on the planets closer to the sun such as Earth, solar wind blew most of the lighter elements away. So really, that statistic doesn't apply to the situation on Earth.

I don't really see how hydrogen would stop the carbon from interacting with the other elements anyway, especially when you consider that they aren't all evenly distributed in some huge glob of matter. Instead, you have your core and mantle, with a lot of the heavy elements; the atmosphere, with the majority of the gasses; and the crust, where all the elements required for life accumulated.

I definitely see no lack of carbon, because it's all around us. This really isn't some profound statement, but... there's enough carbon on earth to make up every life form and carbon based material you see. Well, because they're there, and they're made of carbon. Yeah, obvious, but that sounds like a lot of carbon, doesn't it?

[b] If you even bothered to read me and Rusts discussion, youd note that by todays standards we dont have enough carbon, at least with diluting effects of ther elements.

And that ratio isnt the ratio on earth, its the ratio of carbon:hydrogen in the universe.

I'm not going to take the time to dig up what your arguments mean by looking through that mess of a debate with Rust. I just decided to respond when I saw this:

"These figures dont reflect the rarity of elemental carbon, which is the rarest non-isotopic element in the universe."

Which is wrong. It is the fourth most abundant element in the universe. It is also the fourth most abundant element in the solar system, which reflects the amount of carbon at the creation of the solar system (because it's a mostly closed system).

Abundance of elements (universe) (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/elcosmic.html)

Abundance of elements (solar system) (http://www.greenspirit.org.uk/resources/ElementAbundance.htm)

If you have a point, then state it clearly and logically. Otherwise, you might as well not speak at all, because no one is going to care to find out what the hell you're talking about.

quote:Rust, i prefaced my numbers that for our sake, that was the amount of carbon in the universe today. Nothing else. I was just putting it up there to ask you how much more carbon did you need to make evlution work. Nothing more.



So basically the big bang blew out a bunch of protons neutrons and electrons. Is that it? So if a proton and electron happened to be

close by they combine and make neutrons and release energy.

Is this what nucleosynthesis is supposed to be? Electrons dont naturally want to orbit a proton, especially not at the temperature of

the big bang.

But how does elements form, even hydrogen, from a lone electron and proton?



No. You certainly did not just "preface". You were arguing that it

would be impossible for proteins to form given the small ratio of

Carbon. Hence, completely justifiable for me to argue that those

figures are completely INCORRECT.

Also, it is not my burden to give you a lesson on what you're supposed

to know in the first place, if you want to carry out an intelligent

discussion about abiogenesis. Read up on nucleosynthesis, I don't have

to do that for you.

quote:I never said they would be at opposite ends of the universe.

I said they had the same odds of being there as they would if the developed nearby.

But even so, it doesnt matter how close, they may have a higher probability of combining, but if they are (for arguments sake) one fot

away, they arent going to combine. They have a higher probability of

combining than a pair that are lightyears away, but they still wont do

it.



You where arguing that the probability existed. For your argument to make any sense, for it to be relevant, you must be arguing that the probability of them existing at opposite ends, serves to show how improbable the creation of proteins was. Hence, why I argue that they had the same probability of being created right next to each other.

quote:You know that i can quote anything you believe from evoltuion into question. They are impled and dont necessarilly have to

be stated for me to say them. I dont care if you said t or not, its the only way your theory work so i HAVE to address that issue.



What fucking theory? Either quote me ever saying that, or an argument which necessitates me believing that, or please shut up. You're putting words in my mouth. NOTHING that I have said necessitates me believing that reactions could occur of the reactants where far apart.

quote:Are you a moron or something? I used the same statistical

formula for complex aminos and put in numbers that allowed for simpler

aminos. WTF? Simple and complex aminos operate on the same statistics

and thats why yu can use the same formula. WTF is wrong with that?



I'm saying that your FIRST numbers where completely incorrect.

quote:This point has absolutely no bearing in this debate. I did

not once say the amount of carbon today had any coorelation to that

after the bang. I never once said the ratio of carbon tday was the

same for after the bang. Never once.



Of course it does. It may not have a bearing on the numbers you give,

but it most certainly does have a bearing on your other argument, that

the level of Carbon was too low.

You have been refuted. Admit and stop looking like an idiot.

quote:That not what im saying. Im saying that for your theory to

work, they aminos have to find each other. If they have a nearly

impossible chance f finding each other, it is of no count what odds

they have of forming.

For that point i gave you two aminos formed under random statistice.

But if they cant find each other then your theory falls.



... and I am saying that the probability of them finding each other is

the same as the NOT finding each other! If you're claiming that the

probability of them not finding each other is so high, that it is

improbable to find each other, then you must also claim by default,

that the probability of them finding each other (which is just as

large) makes it probable!

quote:Thats all you had to say. So it appears then (for nte

takings sake) that for there to be an inbalance of ratio of today and

after the bang, that the bang must have spewed out matter over time.

Correct or not?

I agree you got me on that point as i didnt quite understand your

point in relation to the entire argument.

That said, the ration doesnt matter either, its the shear number of

carbons and whatever else you need to make your random amino. If you

have 5 carbons and 1 hydrogen you very well have a 5:1 ration, but how

many tries does carbon get to for an amino?



No. Nucleosynthesis keeps occurring, which amounts of changes in the

amount and ratio of elements

And no. The amount of carbon is irrelevant in considering the

possibility of a carbon-based amino forming. The RATIO of carbon to

other elements, is what is relevant.

quote:ok, lets say carbon and a few other elements form into a

monster amino. It comes in contact with another monster amino. Uhh

hhh! They are mismatched and their formation doesnt yeild a protein!

Ohh dear, well thats two aminos that wont work. Looks as though it is

garbage. Gotta throw it away.

Also with that point stated we should see evidence of those aminos

that couldnt form proteins scattering the universe shouldnt we?





Nice strawman. You asked my what made me sure that all combinations

and all elements where not exhausted in "bad aminos". I asked you what

made you sure they were. I am not denying there could have very well

been combinations that did not work. Hence this is a strawman on your

part.

quote:Ok, what then is wrong with my claculations on the

probability of the amino forming? I gave yu my derivations in previous

posts. Please tell me where i am wrong.

I already stated that I am taking THOSE numbers as correct. Whenever I

have said some numbers are wrong, I was specifically speaking of the

first numbers you gave.

quote:I only needed to mention carbon because we dont have any non

carbonus lifeforms today. Can you show me one not based on carbon? So,

if you cant, carbon must be a prerequisite for life as we know it. And

thats why it was necessary to mention carbon.

But that still doesnt address the issue since you avoid the question

entirely and preface your rebuttal on your misinterpretation of my

notes on the supposed ratio nd what you think my calculation on the

number meant.



Pathetic. You chastise me for mentioning carbon, and when I show you

how YOU mentioned it first, now you want to debate it.

Like I said, I never claimed Science knew everything. The one making

claims is YOU, not me.

quote:Yur not halping yurself out you know. Cheap shots like that

only show what kind of person you are to people not nvolved here. The

insults are between you and me. We are discussing various statistics

relating to evolution, any namecalling between us stays with us.

Caling religion into the question sahows just how litle material you

are working with.

You know, we dont call ourselves perfect so you shouldnt expect us to

be. Im going to throw this n for giggles: you fucktard, you should

have known that!

By the way, where are any of your statistics relating to my points?



YOU insult me, YOU name call, and know you bring this pathetic attempt

at taking the high road? When I am pointing out the insults in an

effort to make you stop? And then suddenly I am supposedly "working

with little material" because I point this out, but of course you're

not "working with little material" when you insult me? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Thanks for the fucking laughs.

Again, very Christian.

P.S. Please tell me what statistics I have to bring. Remember YOU made

the claim, not I. I'm here simply refuting the crappy numbers you

gave, and the subsequent argument, which I have done successfully.