"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Therefore your gedankenexperiment is wrong

I was illustrating the fact that even if we could 'harness' every cubic millimetre of space with some kind of 'tiny pinhead' pseudo-life ... even this vast number of 'things' could only 'explore' a tiny fraction of the combiatorial space of a 100 chain protein ... even with each 'tiny pinhead' 'churning out' a compete sequence every second during 13.9 billion years!!

sponsoredwalk

1) Why did you lie telling everyone evolution involves only 1 mechanism -
chance? I gave a list of 6 factors in this post.

J C wrote: »

... and yet the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

Were you honestly lying or is it just your mis-education speaking?

2) Why are you ignoring the fact that a mutation to a protein can
beneficially alter the protein making it better?

J C wrote: »

If it is along a critical sequence, it will completely destroy the functionality of the protein. It's the same with any other information-rich system ... and the only way of overcoming the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there for all information-rich systems is the appliance of intelligence.
Trying to 'search' it using random processes like Mutation will be defeated by the sheer scale of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there.

3) Why are you lying about people who believe evolution to be true?
you claimed we believe that iron filings mixed with ferric oxide will
produce a human - nobody believes that! Was it you just plain lying or
were you serious - as your response certainly made clear - and you really
know nothing?

4) Why are you still referring to a "proof" that
a) Showed no evidence you actually calculated it
b) Gave completely incorrect figures for 3 of the ingredients of your calculation
c) Is talking about a snail moving an electron when snails can't move in
space, electrons aren't rigid or pushable by a snail etc... :P
d) Didn't show how you arrived at your final figure using all those ingredients you used...
If one link in the chain of a mathematical proof is wrong the whole thing
crumbles, we've found 3 wrong in your theory so why are you claiming
it's still correct? Furthermore, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Your theory is talking about probability theory combinatorics etc...
This has nothing to do with evolutionary mechanisms of which there are
6 that I've quoted in the post above. This bull∫hit you've quoted doesn't
answer any of the bullet point mechanisms in the post linked to in my
first point.

5) Why are you ignoring the question of macroevolution.
You clearly stated you believe microevolution to be true. Now, if
microevolution is true, as you believe, it instantly makes macroevolution
true seeing as they are the exact same process. The only difference is
that macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution events.

J C wrote: »

I accept that micro-evolution (using pre-existing CFSI) occurs, indeed it appears to have been Intelligently Designed into organisms at Creation.
I don't accept that either Macro-evolution or abiogenesis occurred.
Evolutionists freely admit that they don't have a clue about how Abiogenesis occurred ... and life started

6) Why do you reject the idea of abiogenesis when it has been shown to
occur in a labratory using only materialistic ingredients that simulated
the early earth. You are telling us that evidence is wrong and giving
no reason why. You are telling us reality in front of our eyes is wrong.
It clearly isn't seeing as we've got evidence. Why?

J C wrote: »

I don't accept that either Macro-evolution or abiogenesis occurred.
Evolutionists freely admit that they don't have a clue about how Abiogenesis occurred ... and life started

Fluffybums

J C wrote: »

The 1.27E+130 is the number of premutations choosing from the 20 common Amino Acids at every point along a 100 Amino Acid sequence protein chain ... it is 20^100 which is equal to 1.27E+130.
This is the enormous combinatorial space that faces any non-intelligently directed system that is 'searching' for a specific functional sequence to perfor a specific function.
If Materialistic Evolution is true this problem must have been overcome billions of times, because living organisms have literally billions of these specific functional sequences throughout their cells.
I have yet to see any non-intelligently directed mechanism that can do this.

Sorry but I don't get how this proves anything. Are you trying to 'prove' that the chance of life appearing on this planet by the mechanism proposed in an earlier post are infinitesimally small?

sponsoredwalk

Oh my god, in my first point above he referred to NS, i.e. Natural Selection,
as being a question of chance - I think he was confusing the evolutionary
mechanism known as natural selection with the entire concept of
evolution seeing as he responded to a question about evolution as a
whole by talking specifically about natural selection. :pac:

It's funny because in this post he said that this was "the heart of the
matter" J C, you know evolution does not rest solely on the concept of
natural selection? You know there is a distinction? You know natural
selection interacts and responds to an organisms phenotypic characteristics?
You understand that by basic genetic shuffling, phenotypic variations are
bound to occur regardless of mutations? You understand that natural
selection works off of this kind of process? Need we talk about
geographical environment or sexual selection? Tell me how [latex] 1.27 \ x \ 10^{130}[/latex]
is involved in this?

smokingman

So the pagan cries out and demands people look at him, throwing his toys out of his cot, time and time again.

J C wrote: »

Things that are dead remain dead

So pagan, you still haven't answered why you call yourself a christian when you deny the resurrection and even an afterlife by the above statement.

Oh, I know why!

J C wrote: »

I don't know what the HELL is going on in Rome these days!!!!

So he doesn't pay any heed to anything the spiritual descendant of Peter the apostle, Jesus' wingman, has to say.

Does he actually hate real christians?

J C wrote: »

... some of the stuff that I have seen so-called 'religious types' engaging in would make you laugh ... if you didn't cry first!!!

Does he enjoy his creationism?

J C wrote: »

... are you trying to start up the Creationist Thread over here ... I don't want that ...

Why's that then?

J C wrote: »

Why am I such an embarassment to you?

oh, that's why...is there a reason for this?

J C wrote: »

Creationism leads to retardation and should be wiped from the face of the earth

All the above are actual quotes from him - check and verify if you don't believe. So we have a pagan who doesn't believe anything he actually says for years. He claims to be christian and yet, is not.

If I was trying to debate with a creationist, methinks I'll try and fine one that has faith first.

sponsoredwalk

All those comments are hidden behind the pink limo, aren't they? :P

smokingman

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

All those comments are hidden behind the pink limo, aren't they? :P

Right beside the bumper sign that says "Evolution is rubbish, you can't reproduce with half a penis or quarter a vagina" :pac:

J C

So ye have decided to not seriously address the subject at issue ... and to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

Guys ... you can fool some of the people all of the time ... but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!!!

Love you all ... and Jesus Christ loves you all too.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

So ye have decided to not seriously address the subject at issue ... and to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

You can fool some of the people all of the time ... but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!!!

Love you all ... and Jesus Christ loves you all too.

Haha! You tripped yourself up with your own pure bull**** and now you
can't answer us! Haha! Oh man, how funny. There are 6 questions above
showing how foolish you are, how foolish your proofs are and how foolish
your whole outlook is on evolution. J C, I feel sorry for you having to run
off because you can't withstand a bit of discussion, go off the the big
creationist thread and indulge in your fantasies - it may be a delusion but
if it makes you happy enjoy it. Time spent happy isn't wasted time -
just know there are 6 questions waiting for you should you be willing to
face reality.

Marcus.Aurelius

J C wrote: »

So ye have decided to not seriously address the subject at issue ... and to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

You have failed to even comprehend the facts that make your assertion baseless. You cannot begin with a conclusion.

Welcome to Circular Reasoning, a common enough tool of those who suffer with religiously-inspired cognitive dissonance, and another method of false argumentation.

Evolution has nothing to do with chance, it merely exists as a process that by its very nature ensures that sucessful genes are passed down through subsequent successful generations. If you cannot understand the difference between natural selection and your ridiculous lottery-style all-or-nothing reply, then you are wasting the intellect of all your interlocutors thus far.

Having said all of that, I have found you to be one of the most polite creationists I have come across in a long time, although your quips have failed to divert attention from your obvious lack of understanding of quite basic scientific facts and understanding. I would implore you to research through scientist-authored books/journals/articles that favour the evolution side, look at the evidence and the argumentation employed, compare it to that of creationists, and you will soon see where the dishonest argumentation truly lies. I was a Jehovah's Witness for some time, they have the same problem of fundamentally misunderstanding evolution, they also repeat the mantra of "chance".

Good luck.

sponsoredwalk

House wrote: »

although your quips have failed to divert attention from your obvious lack of understanding of quite basic scientific facts and understanding.

Not for lack of trying

J C, I've lost it a bit with you & I apologise, you have to understand
that we've been dealing with you constantly ducking our responses and
repeating the same things we've answered already. If we didn't stick with
some of these arguments you would have continued using this stuff as
ammunition on your side although we'd all read it previously and seen these
things debunked. It gets frustrating. There are 6 questions up there for you,
I hope you'll give them honest answers and not dishonestly repeat debunked
assertions.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

So ye have decided to not seriously address the subject at issue ... and to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.

What's there to address JC? You see you are making stuff up at this stage. You don't have any mathematical proof despite claiming you did. This is called a lie.
We've called you on this lie and you've refused to even try and back up your claims.

So it's kinda rich that you're bitching about us "Not addressing something".
But it's not a surprise really that you're a hypocrite as well as a liar.
Suppose you have to be to be a creationist.

Fluffybums

J C wrote: »

There are none so blind as he who will not see!!

Here is it again for you to address ... try looking through your fingers ... that way you can instantly shut your mind off when you get to the bottom where you will be faced with the proof!!

If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimal fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
So you can forget about ever producing even one small protein using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!

I take it this is to refute abiogenesis. If you remember the post by Sponsoredwalk no.1371 and the wee video with Beethoven's 9th Choral symphony "Ode to Joy" as the musical accompaniment, the chemicals required were present on the earth rather than bombing about randomly in the universe. Your mathematical proof seems to rely on there not being any planets present on which the chemicals are trapped in various phases which therefore increase the likelihood of thermodynamics driving their association.

(I'm guessing things will now move onto the origin of the universe rather the addressing the above point which in itself does not concern evolution)

sponsoredwalk

Fluffybums wrote: »

(I'm guessing things will now move onto the origin of the universe rather the addressing the above point which in itself does not concern evolution)

Just like nearly everything John May says in his videos and radio interviews :pac:

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Just like nearly everything John May says in his videos and radio interviews :pac:

Settle down boys and girls ... and let's get back on topic ... so let's hear some words of wisdom from John May ...
"I now address myself to scientists who proclaim evolution as fact...
... The social carnage of the 20th century can surely be placed at the door of evolution and her "high priests of the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable!"
Evolution is intellectual defecation, mental pollution, cognitive dissonance; it is cocaine for some in the thinking classes to give a false high for a true low!
As a theory it has nothing to recommend it, nothing to support it, (and) nothing to be proud of."

DISCUSS

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Settle down boys and girls ... and let's get back on topic ... so let's hear some words of wisdom from John May ...


DISCUSS

Nope we're done discussing that idiot and his long debunked bull****.

Now we're focusing on your bull****.
Answer the questions you keep dodging. Or are you, like we can all plainly see by now a liar who is incapable of an actual discussion?

Fluffybums

Fluffybums wrote: »

I take it this is to refute abiogenesis. If you remember the post by Sponsoredwalk no.1371 and the wee video with Beethoven's 9th Choral symphony "Ode to Joy" as the musical accompaniment, the chemicals required were present on the earth rather than bombing about randomly in the universe. Your mathematical proof seems to rely on there not being any planets present on which the chemicals are trapped in various phases which therefore increase the likelihood of thermodynamics driving their association.

(I'm guessing things will now move onto the origin of the universe rather the addressing the above point which in itself does not concern evolution)

Discuss

J C

Fluffybums wrote: »

Discuss

OK 'Fluffy' here are the figures:-

light yrs diameter of the Universe 9.30E+10 Light Years
Km in one light year 9.46E+12 Km
mm in one light year 9.46E+18 mm
Radius of the Universe in mm 4.40E+29 mm
Volume within the Universe in mm cubed 3.57E+89 mm^3
Seconds in 13.7 billion years 4.38651E+17 Seconds

If every mm^3 of the Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively could only produce in 20 billion years 1.56E+107 Possible number of permutations 'explored'

... and the number of AA permutations in a 100 chain protein is 1.27E+130 number of permutations .

If non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce a specific biomolecule where and when it is needed, then the whole Evolutionist bandwagon collapses ... and the high priests of the highly improbable will find it increasingly difficult to continue foisting the impossible on the impressionable!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... and the number of AA permutations in a 100 chain protein is 1.27E+130.

JC we aren't impressed with math you've copy pasted from some nonsense site.
Specially when this number you keep quoting is entirely made up.

Back it up with a proper source in the next post or you will have admitted you are making it up.
Cause we both know you've no intention or ability to actually back it up.

Fluffybums

J C wrote: »

OK 'Fluffy' here are the figures:-

light yrs diameter of the Universe 9.30E+10 Light Years
Km in one light year 9.46E+12 Km
mm in one light year 9.46E+18 mm

Radius of the Universe in mm 4.40E+29 mm

Volume within the Universe in mm^3 3.57E+89 mm^3


Seconds in 13.7 billion years 4.38651E+17 Seconds
If every mm^3 of the Universe volume had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively could only produce in 20 billion years 1.56E+107 Possible number of permutations 'explored'

... and the number of AA permutations in a 100 chain protein is 1.27E+130 number of permutations .

If non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce a specific biomolecule where and when it is needed, then the whole Evolutionist bandwagon collapses ... and the high priests of the highly improbable will find it increasingly difficult to continue foisting the impossible on the impressionable!

But my point was that the molecules that could have come together via thermodynamics as outlined in Sponsoredwalk's post were NOT bombing around randomly in the universe so how is the above applicable?

Improbable

J C wrote: »

If non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce a specific biomolecule where and when it is needed, then the whole Evolutionist bandwagon collapses ... and the high priests of the highly improbable will find it increasingly difficult to continue foisting the impossible on the impressionable!

What is this nonsense about "specific biomolecule where and when it is needed" about?

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC we aren't impressed with math you've copy pasted from some nonsense site.
Specially when this number you keep quoting is entirely made up.

Back it up with a proper source in the next post or you will have admitted you are making it up.
Cause we both know you've no intention or ability to actually back it up.

Don't go into denial on me ... and the figures are based on the current measurements of the Universe.

Fluffybums

Fluffybums wrote: »

But my point was that the molecules that could have come together via thermodynamics as outlined in Sponsoredwalk's post were NOT bombing around randomly in the universe so how is the above applicable?

?????????

J C

Fluffybums wrote: »

But my point was that the molecules that could have come together via thermodynamics as outlined in Sponsoredwalk's post were NOT bombing around randomly in the universe so how is the above applicable?

But that's not how it is observed to work ... the information in the DNA specifies the Amino Acid sequence in the biomolecule ... so thermodynamics don't affect the assembly of any specific protein.

sponsoredwalk

Honestly J C, we've caught you out. You can't come back here and act as
if everything is fine, you're going to continue arguing John May's case and
we're going to keep refuting you but if you'll just be honest and answer
these questions we can continue showing you how you totally
misunderstand evolution and why you're being conned by John May.
Here is the original point I was making in this thread, again , John
May is talking about Abiogenesis and cosmology mostly, he gives no
substantial argument/evidence against evolution at all.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

1) Why did you lie telling everyone evolution involves only 1 mechanism -
chance? I gave a list of 6 factors in this post.





Were you honestly lying or is it just your mis-education speaking?

2) Why are you ignoring the fact that a mutation to a protein can
beneficially alter the protein making it better?


3) Why are you lying about people who believe evolution to be true?
you claimed we believe that iron filings mixed with ferric oxide will
produce a human - nobody believes that! Was it you just plain lying or
were you serious - as your response certainly made clear - and you really
know nothing?

4) Why are you still referring to a "proof" that
a) Showed no evidence you actually calculated it
b) Gave completely incorrect figures for 3 of the ingredients of your calculation
c) Is talking about a snail moving an electron when snails can't move in
space, electrons aren't rigid or pushable by a snail etc... :P
d) Didn't show how you arrived at your final figure using all those ingredients you used...
If one link in the chain of a mathematical proof is wrong the whole thing
crumbles, we've found 3 wrong in your theory so why are you claiming
it's still correct? Furthermore, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Your theory is talking about probability theory combinatorics etc...
This has nothing to do with evolutionary mechanisms of which there are
6 that I've quoted in the post above. This bull∫hit you've quoted doesn't
answer any of the bullet point mechanisms in the post linked to in my
first point.

5) Why are you ignoring the question of macroevolution.
You clearly stated you believe microevolution to be true. Now, if
microevolution is true, as you believe, it instantly makes macroevolution
true seeing as they are the exact same process. The only difference is
that macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution events.



6) Why do you reject the idea of abiogenesis when it has been shown to
occur in a labratory using only materialistic ingredients that simulated
the early earth. You are telling us that evidence is wrong and giving
no reason why. You are telling us reality in front of our eyes is wrong.
It clearly isn't seeing as we've got evidence. Why?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Don't go into denial on me ... and the figures are based on the current measurements of the Universe.

Wait, so you admit you were using incorrect figures in your original "proof".
This original "proof" you linked to earlier today was an exact proof of your
claim but now you're telling us your earlier proof was wrong because then
you used figures from 10 years ago & now you're using correct numbers?

When will the deceit end J C?

Fluffybums

J C wrote: »

But that's not how it is observed to work ... the information in the DNA specifies the Amino Acid sequence in the biomolecule ... so thermodynamics don't affect the assembly of any specific protein.

But the mechanism proposed in Sponsored's post talks about the formation of replicating molecules which is several steps BEFORE the formation of protein via translation.

So again my point is that your maths does not apply since the molecules were NOT randomly bombing around the universe.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Don't go into denial on me ... and the figures are based on the current measurements of the Universe.

I wasn't talking about those figures, which are probably wrong as well.
I was refering to the 10^130 number you keep brandying around. And that was very very clear in the post.
Thi snumber is totally fictional.

But you've admitted you can't back this number up.
Thus you have been shown to be a liar.
Well done JC.
Thanks for showing everyone how honest creationism is.

Fluffybums

King Mob wrote: »

I wasn't talking about those figures, which are probably wrong as well.
I was refering to the 10^130 number you keep brandying around. And that was very very clear in the post.
Thi snumber is totally fictional.

But you've admitted you can't back this number up.
Thus you have been shown to be a liar.
Well done JC.
Thanks for showing everyone how honest creationism is.

1.27x10^130 arises from there being 100 amino acids in JC's putative protein and at each position, 1 of 20 amino acids can be present, with there being a choice of 1 of 20 amino acids the number he arrives at is 20^100, ie 1.27x10^130. Hope that makes more sense than JC's lack of explanation, though I still don't get his reasoning since, as I've now pointed out three times, the elements/molecules involved in abiogenesis were NOT bombing around randomly in the universe, they were part of a planet.

King Mob

Fluffybums wrote: »

1.27x10^130 arises from there being 100 amino acids in JC's putative protein and at each position, 1 of 20 amino acids can be present, with there being a choice of 1 of 20 amino acids the number he arrives at is 20^100, ie 1.27x10^130. Hope that makes more sense than JC's lack of explanation, though I still don't get his reasoning since, as I've now pointed out three times, the elements/molecules involved in abiogenesis were NOT bombing around randomly in the universe, they were part of a planet.

Oh I understood where he thought he was getting the numbers, just that these numbers are entirely made up by either him or some idiot creationist.