Johnnys Question regarding the 144,000

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually no, the proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the
chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?
Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But
any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never
happening. A ...[text shortened]...
your search for truth to unintelligent agencies, to me such a course is quite simply
absurd.

you say 'actually no' but it was you who said 'improbable and almost impossible'. now you say the maths says 'impossible'. the magic number you have pulled up 10^113, personally i never seen or heard an evolutionist come to this conclusion. but for arguments sake lets run with it. the reason you gave for its importance is that its more than the ESTIMATED number of atoms in the universe.

so ESTIMATED is another word that doesnt mean 100%, another word used that acknowledges by a tiny percent that it could be wrong. and even if that number was the correct number, it doesnt take into account all other scientific theories.

so bearing in mind that the reasons you have accepted life is not materialistic do not in themselves disprove completely other theories that may lead to materialistic creation of life. for example the theory you use regarding atoms in the universe would fall apart if multiple universe theories were correct. as your theory doesnt disprove a multiple universe theory. it is therefore fair to say that you do not know if the theory you have chosen to support your beliefs is 100% true.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Never going to happen.

Maybe, when Christ returns and destroys all the unbelievers. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
There is no I repeat no absolutely no proof none at all of any God.
You are deluded.

There is only what you see around you.

Absolute tangible proof that we must put all our differences aside and work together as one human family.

That's common sense my friend. It has nothing to do with communism or the Republicans or the Democrats or any other religion or political party.

Can you see common sense? Can you see intelligence? Can you see conscience or intuition? Can you see gravity?

We see the creation around us and this is proof of the Creator God, Who we do not see.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Indeed, where else? Its a quotation taken from one of our books, which quotes an
article from the 1980's i think and yes we have been here before.

The article where this number came from was written by a creationist. Why are you claiming that 'evolutionists' acknowledge this number when that is simply not true?

The number comes from Dr. Jean Sloat Morton, from an article called Impact, published by the Institute for Creation Research.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
do your books provide for the possibility of intelligence being involved, no, i thought
so.

Well actually it does, after all, countless of people worldwide who believe in a God of some description accept the evidence for evolution.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
When you are gone you are gone.
There is nothing coming later.
No religion will save you.
If you are going to be a remarkable human being,
then you had better be one now.

Yes, no afterlife. No future, no past, just now. Although many people think they have experienced "now" , I can assure you it is not the "now" of the timeless unmanifest void. It is not "living in the now" either, but that is strongly recommended.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Well actually it does, after all, countless of people worldwide who believe in a God of some description accept the evidence for evolution.

The are really accepting the evidence for adaptation, falsely called evolution. 😏

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, no afterlife. No future, no past, just now. Although many people think they have experienced "now" , I can assure you it is not the "now" of the timeless unmanifest void. It is not "living in the now" either, but that is strongly recommended.

The "now" becomes the "past" before you realize you are living it. 😏

P.S. My wife has said she hated the way her mother gave directions. Her mother would say turn righ here! But by the time my wife realized it, "here" was back there.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The "now" become the "past" before you realize you are living it. 😏

huh? did you speak?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The article where this number came from was written by a creationist. Why are you claiming that 'evolutionists' acknowledge this number when that is simply not true?

The number comes from Dr. Jean Sloat Morton, from an article called Impact, published by the Institute for Creation Research.

yes, isn't it beautiful!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, isn't it beautiful!

That's not an answer to my question?!

Why are you claiming that 'evolutionists' acknowledge this number when that is simply not true?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you say 'actually no' but it was you who said 'improbable and almost impossible'. now you say the maths says 'impossible'. the magic number you have pulled up 10^113, personally i never seen or heard an evolutionist come to this conclusion. but for arguments sake lets run with it. the reason you gave for its importance is that its more than the ESTIMATE ...[text shortened]... y that you do not know if the theory you have chosen to support your beliefs is 100% true.

this is just the usual semantic arguments based upon, definite, probable and almost
impossible, but it fails to recognise that they are two distinct entities, you asked if I
thought my religion could possibly be wrong, the answer was no, you asked why and I
told you of the improbability of life having arisen by chance, these are not one and the
same thing, are they?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's not an answer to my question?!

Why are you claiming that 'evolutionists' acknowledge this number when that is simply not true?

I did not claim it, its written in a publication of Jehovahs witnesses which i quoted, if
you want to take the matter up with them, write to the Ridgeway in London, they will
reply. Now here is your chance to deny the probability, are you denying the chances of
getting the correct sequence of 22 amino acids from a known 100 in the correct
sequence to produce complex proteins, no i didn't think so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not claim it, its written in a publication of Jehovahs witnesses which i quoted, if
you want to take the matter up with them, write to the Ridgeway in London, they will
reply. Now here is your chance to deny the probability, are you denying the chances of
getting the correct sequence of 22 amino acids from a known 100 in the correct
sequence to produce complex proteins, no i didn't think so.

I've had this conversation with you before about this article and what it claims. The fact is that no evolutionist makes any claim with regard to that number, it's a number from creationist literature. I've told you this and yet you still make this incorrect claim.

As for your number, nobody really knows how life formed, so how can anyone make a claim as to what the probability is?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I've had this conversation with you before about this article and what it claims. The fact is that no evolutionist makes any claim with regard to that number, it's a number from creationist literature. I've told you this and yet you still make this incorrect claim.

As for your number, nobody really knows how life formed, so how can anyone make a claim as to what the probability is?

I like the quotation. Its good.