Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Comments
-
Typical evolutionists....
have so much doubts about their mud to man atheistic fantasy...
they just shout, censor and insult the rational scientist heroes who fight to restore sanity
...the shunned scientists have the truth on their side....
the mathematical proven intelligent design theory...
evolutionist will just keep crying louder and louder holding onto their delusion.:eek::D:):D
But you're avoiding the question JC, I've told you that the way you're
using probability theory has absolutely nothing to do with what we're
discussing.
:pac::pac:
Proteins (also known as polypeptides) are organic compounds made of
amino acids arranged in a linear chain and folded into a globular form.
The amino acids in a polymer are joined together by the peptide bonds
between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues.
The sequence of amino acids in a protein is defined by the sequence of
a gene, which is encoded in the genetic code.[1] In general, the genetic
code specifies 20 standard amino acids; however, in certain organisms
the genetic code can include selenocysteine—and in certain archaea
—pyrrolysine. Shortly after or even during synthesis, the residues in a
protein are often chemically modified by post-translational modification,
which alters the physical and chemical properties, folding, stability,
activity, and ultimately, the function of the proteins. Proteins can also
work together to achieve a particular function, and they often associate
to form stable complexes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
Do you know what this says? It says the same thing I've been saying
which is that proteins are made of polymers. To go to the basics a
monomer is an atom or a small molecule. Amino Acids are classed as
monomers. I've described to you in the abiogenesis post how these
things form by simple materialistic processes. I just want you to
understand how the basics of proteins can form by materialistic
processes.
Now, once we have that out of the way we see there are 20 that
can be put into this sequence. Each have specific properties that are
determined by side chains and are specific, i.e. 7 are hydrophobic etc...
This drastically specifies the combinatorial options, i.e. makes the no.
smaller. Further, the atoms making them up drastically reduce possible
combinations further, i.e. only some electrons are available to bond etc...
You pulling out combinatorics out of your ass does nothing to understand
the complex specifics, the evidence suggests that all possible
combinations are extremely structured due to only a small window
of possible bonds.
To show you how low the possibilities are, I'll do my best. Hopefully
I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. Of 20 amino acids they form chains due
to condensation & hydrolysis reactions allowing covalent bonds:
So we see that in fact proteins are composed of even less thanNot every protein contains
all kinds of amino acids, nor an equal number of different
ones. The diversity in amino acid content and sequence is
the source of the diversity in protein structures and functions.
-Life: The Science of Biology 7th ed.
all 20, so our combinations are even lower. All natural materialistic
processes account for how this is possible. There are other
factors affecting what gets placed where, and originally they were
more simple and gradually built up.
Does your probability model factor in the fact that molecules along
a protein can only bond with very specific other molecules?
Does your model account for natural selection? NO!
The fact that you accept natural selection defeats you're whole
atrgument, along with your acceptance of microevolution, both theories
join to explain how complex life did evolve from simple life. I'll show you
a model:
creation rocks
dfghk
this just allows the organism to survive
dfghk
dfghk
dfghk
dfghk
No change yet, each generation had loads of kids
dfghk
dfghk
ffghk
ifghk
ofghk
cfghk
now there's been a mutation that benefits the organism! This could be
the beginning of an enzyme! If you know anything about enzymes you'll
know how important this is!
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
Uh oh, a mutation in a place where it doesn't benefit the organism,
looks like this one will die before it has children! Luckily, if we use that
rare thought process called abstraction we remember that the
first two generations in
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
all had children,
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
So we can pick up the evolutionary tale with either of
cfghk
cfghk
children.
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
No change, but look! cfghk has had loads of kids now, these kids have a
better chance of surviving than dfghk so already we see how natural
selection could benefit a mutation.
cfghk
cfghk
Kfghk
uh oh! There was a mutation in the good place! Luckily there are about
1000 children of children's children from all of the other organisms before,
cfghk
cfghk
Kfghk
In this generation, the first two cfghk also had loads of children, lets
resume the evolutionary tale with either of " cfghk"'s kids, okay:
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
coghk
coghk
coghk
crghk
:eek: Already we see another beneficial mutation! The environment will
give crghk an even better chance at surviving because it can do things
faster than coghk. After a load of generations crghk will out-perform
coghk. :eek: NATURAL SELECTION!, YOU MEAN THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS?
THIS IS THE ATHEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTIC THING THAT I'VE ADMITTED
TO BELIEVING? :pac::D:):p:eek:
If you think crghk is too short to spell creation rocks, genetics 101 or
even basic chemistry tells you how easy something like this could happen,
crghk
crghk
crghk
crghk
crghe
:eek: LOOK!!! that particular "e" is a molecule that bonds very easily to
others and it needs another molecule to join to it to satisfy the
atomic lust to satisfy it's electron shell!
A stray strand in the area joins up!
crgheiohidfdggelogwj
Wow! Basic chemistry explains this again...
We've already read you deny basic chemistry, what else are you capable of?
0 -
Typical evolutionists....
have so much doubts about their mud to man atheistic fantasy...
they just shout, censor and insult the rational scientist heroes who fight to restore sanity
...the shunned scientists have the truth on their side....
the mathematical proven intelligent design theory...
evolutionist will just keep crying louder and louder holding onto their delusion.:eek::D:):D
Let me address your statement by completely ignoring it and picking a previous answered topic which I can submit back to you in a newly formatted manner.
0 -
Yes, I too went through the shouting phase of “cognitive dissonance”, when I was an evolutionist ... but eventually I couldn't stand the denial of reality ... and I became a Creationist.Rev Hellfire wrote: »
... and did you know that, even as a young boy, Charlie Darwin wasn't the most logical kid on the block!!!
0 -
... sounds like something is going nowhere in a hurry there!!!sponsoredwalk wrote: »But you're avoiding the question JC, I've told you that the way you're
using probability theory has absolutely nothing to do with what we're
discussing.
:pac::pac:
Proteins (also known as polypeptides) are organic compounds made of
amino acids arranged in a linear chain and folded into a globular form.
The amino acids in a polymer are joined together by the peptide bonds
between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues.
The sequence of amino acids in a protein is defined by the sequence of
a gene, which is encoded in the genetic code.[1] In general, the genetic
code specifies 20 standard amino acids; however, in certain organisms
the genetic code can include selenocysteine—and in certain archaea
—pyrrolysine. Shortly after or even during synthesis, the residues in a
protein are often chemically modified by post-translational modification,
which alters the physical and chemical properties, folding, stability,
activity, and ultimately, the function of the proteins. Proteins can also
work together to achieve a particular function, and they often associate
to form stable complexes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
Do you know what this says? It says the same thing I've been saying
which is that proteins are made of polymers. To go to the basics a
monomer is an atom or a small molecule. Amino Acids are classed as
monomers. I've described to you in the abiogenesis post how these
things form by simple materialistic processes. I just want you to
understand how the basics of proteins can form by materialistic
processes.
Now, once we have that out of the way we see there are 20 that
can be put into this sequence. Each have specific properties that are
determined by side chains and are specific, i.e. 7 are hydrophobic etc...
This drastically specifies the combinatorial options, i.e. makes the no.
smaller. Further, the atoms making them up drastically reduce possible
combinations further, i.e. only some electrons are available to bond etc...
You pulling out combinatorics out of your ass does nothing to understand
the complex specifics, the evidence suggests that all possible
combinations are extremely structured due to only a small window
of possible bonds.
To show you how low the possibilities are, I'll do my best. Hopefully
I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. Of 20 amino acids they form chains due
to condensation & hydrolysis reactions allowing covalent bonds:
So we see that in fact proteins are composed of even less than
all 20, so our combinations are even lower. All natural materialistic
processes account for how this is possible. There are other
factors affecting what gets placed where, and originally they were
more simple and gradually built up.
Does your probability model factor in the fact that molecules along
a protein can only bond with very specific other molecules?
Does your model account for natural selection? NO!
The fact that you accept natural selection defeats you're whole
atrgument, along with your acceptance of microevolution, both theories
join to explain how complex life did evolve from simple life. I'll show you
a model:
creation rocks
dfghk
this just allows the organism to survive
dfghk
dfghk
dfghk
dfghk
No change yet, each generation had loads of kids
dfghk
dfghk
ffghk
ifghk
ofghk
cfghk
now there's been a mutation that benefits the organism! This could be
the beginning of an enzyme! If you know anything about enzymes you'll
know how important this is!
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
Uh oh, a mutation in a place where it doesn't benefit the organism,
looks like this one will die before it has children! Luckily, if we use that
rare thought process called abstraction we remember that the
first two generations in
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
all had children,
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
So we can pick up the evolutionary tale with either of
cfghk
cfghk
children.
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
No change, but look! cfghk has had loads of kids now, these kids have a
better chance of surviving than dfghk so already we see how natural
selection could benefit a mutation.
cfghk
cfghk
Kfghk
uh oh! There was a mutation in the good place! Luckily there are about
1000 children of children's children from all of the other organisms before,
cfghk
cfghk
Kfghk
In this generation, the first two cfghk also had loads of children, lets
resume the evolutionary tale with either of " cfghk"'s kids, okay:
cfghk
cfghk
cfghk
coghk
coghk
coghk
crghk
:eek: Already we see another beneficial mutation! The environment will
give crghk an even better chance at surviving because it can do things
faster than coghk. After a load of generations crghk will out-perform
coghk. :eek: NATURAL SELECTION!, YOU MEAN THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS?
THIS IS THE ATHEISTIC EVOLUTIONISTIC THING THAT I'VE ADMITTED
TO BELIEVING? :pac::D:):p:eek:
If you think crghk is too short to spell creation rocks, genetics 101 or
even basic chemistry tells you how easy something like this could happen,
crghk
crghk
crghk
crghk
crghe
:eek: LOOK!!! that particular "e" is a molecule that bonds very easily to
others and it needs another molecule to join to it to satisfy the
atomic lust to satisfy it's electron shell!
A stray strand in the area joins up!
crgheiohidfdggelogwj
Wow! Basic chemistry explains this again...
We've already read you deny basic chemistry, what else are you capable of?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Rev Hellfire wrote: »Let me address your statement by completely ignoring it and picking a previous answered topic which I can submit back to you in a newly formatted manner.....YES AND I THINK I'LL ADD SOME STUPID LITTLE CREATIONIST CARTOONS FROM MY PERSONAL COLLECTION OF STUPID CREATIONIST CRAP
J C please watch this short educational clip i've posted on your behalf.....;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25N-4zrk3900 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Some meaning of the word "hilarious" I was heretofore unaware ofLots more of these hilarious cartoons here
Actually, a few years back, Ham used to publish those cartoons nice and big, but now they're tiddly. Must have been because his fellow-creationists were stealing them and publishing them as their own work.
Imagine that: creationists acting dishonestly! Who'da thought?0 -
does anyone else think that any time now JC is going to jump out from behind a tree and whip off his mask to reveal that he's actually jeremy beadle and this whole thread has been a prank set up by dawkins to send us all doolally?
i'm actually still having a lot of trouble believing that JC is a real person who actually believes the drivel he spouts. its just very hard to swallow the idea that people like this actually exist outside of the bible belt in the US.0 -
ok guys I just typed in combinatorial space into AIG's search engine and it came up with this crap....(reading it almost killed me)A “fitness function,” assumed for the process of evolution, is then applied to each result. It should be pointed out that this genetic algorithm is purely a numerical calculation method, and definitely not an algorithm which describes real processes in cells. Numerical methods cannot describe the origin of information.
OK so evolutionist's are not allowed to use algorithms or any numerical methods for that matter as proof of evolution or abiogenesis but J C feels fine to use them to disprove it....... 0 -
-
-
-
Fluffybums wrote: »Had a bit of a revelation in the shower:o.
One of John May's arguments against evolution is that there is no written evidence of humans before about 6000 years ago (he was on about this on The Panel last week). I suggest he wrote the book because if he does not leave any written evidence of his existence, he will not have existed:eek:. Mind you if lack of written evidence is needed as proof of existence, then about 99% of the rest of past humanity never existed.
yes, and when we go to sleep at night the fact that the earth is moving very fast in space is proof that god exists .......:pac:......i know he says on his website that his book is wrote from a non-academic point of view.....but fcuk me sideways
I wonder if J C could work out the probability of May having another revelation in the shower and realising how much he's embarrassing himself???????????????0 -
An interesting creationism proposition
John May may wish to address the fallacy of saying there are no written records of humans before 6000 years ago; therefore there were none. There are plenty of fossils to say otherwise. A lack of one kind of evidence does not mean lack of any other kind.0 -
yes, and when we go to sleep at night the fact that the earth is moving very fast in space is proof that god exists .......:pac:......i know he says on his website that his book is wrote from a non-academic point of view.....but fcuk me sideways
I wonder if J C could work out the probability of May having another revelation in the shower and realising how much he's embarrassing himself???????????????
The combinatorial space of thoughts that John May could have is so high
that it's literally impossible for him to have a revelation, 10¹³⁵ thoughts
could come into his head instead, and you evolutionists believe people
think without divine intervention :rolleyes:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
To be fair the transition from 48 chromosomes to 46 is also explained through copious amounts of incest
Belief in mud to man pondslime morphological evolution means believing in incest as natural and just!?:eek::D... Keep the delusions coming evolutionists. :eek::eek:... Accept O Lord Jesus Christ into your life and you shall be saved.:D 0 -
Caesar Augustus wrote: »John May may wish to address the fallacy of saying there are no written records of humans before 6000 years ago; therefore there were none. There are plenty of fossils to say otherwise. A lack of one kind of evidence does not mean lack of any other kind.
Which is a bit like saying there's no evidence of me on the internet before 1994 therefore I couldn't possibly have existed before 1994 - that is to say ignoring all other types of evidence for my existence.
Anyway not only are his conclusions wrong, his facts are wrong, here's an example of a script that's 8,600 years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiahu_Script0 -
Lots more of these hilarious cartoons here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/image/cartoons/creationwise
The next is particularly good:
It's nice to see theists care so much about how bad it is to scapegoat,
they would never stoop to something so low and dirty:
Adam? Scapegoating Adam you think? No!!! It's different because
you have to read the metaphor... You're so ignorant to ignore 2000 year
old interpretations in ancient Hebrew... It's so oppressive... I can't
believe you'd even stoop...
This next one sums up the argument in this thread:
Oh, and more lies out of J C, I mean he's claiming evolution a fairytale
yet his own boys have an illustration of evolution in action right here:
(Notice "liberal on the guys T-shirt, it's important! :P).0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »
Wait a minute, were dinosaurs like T-Rex all cuddly and toothless before "the fall"? How did they get their clearly carnivorous traits so quickly before they died out? For someone who complains about probability so much, these creationists have very little ability to apply the principle to their own ludicrous beliefs.0 -
-
-
Caesar Augustus wrote: »An interesting creationism proposition
John May may wish to address the fallacy of saying there are no written records of humans before 6000 years ago; therefore there were none. There are plenty of fossils to say otherwise. A lack of one kind of evidence does not mean lack of any other kind.
We also have carvings (which could or could not be considered writings depending on your definition) from 8,000 years ago.
Of course as soon as Creationists see this though they start going on about the flaws in dating systems :pac:0 -
-
It is indeedsponsoredwalk wrote: »Clearly they were peaceful herbivore's before that horrid temptress known as
woman forced noble Adam, against his noble will, to eat the forbidden fruit :rolleyes:
I'm sure it's in the good book somewhere, right?
Gen 1:29-31 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. 0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement