18 Feb '19 16:19>
@proper-knob saidOkay sure!
@KellyJay
I know what I'm talking about. I have no idea what you're talking about.
@kellyjay saidA simple protein is made of something like 30 amino acids. So it is extremely likely (considering the conditions) that one protein will form.
First an apology I read what you said and even though I knew you said amino acid I was thinking protein, because that was what I have been reading about. I'd say you could indeed say odds for that could be 1 since they have been found around comets and so on. It isn't the acids I've been overly concern with as with proteins. The limitations would be the environment.
@stellspalfie saidThe size and what proteins are and do are varied, your complaints seem selective and bias. A simple protein, if you’re going suggest misleading numbers you can be guilty about your presentation here as well. I could suggest you are mIsleading, maybe you lack knowledge, possibly malicious, and on and on, you think motivation mongering actually adds to a discussion ... interesting!
A simple protein is made of something like 30 amino acids. So it is extremely likely (considering the conditions) that one protein will form.
Now what you video continently leaves out (possibly through lack of knowledge rather than anything malicious) are two very important factors that effect the probability of more complex proteins forming -
1 - Proteins are not ...[text shortened]... ontinues the chain.
The numbers in your video are bogus. You have been mislead by pseudo science.
@stellspalfie saidDid you run the numbers on your 30 amino acids, to see what your example requires?
A simple protein is made of something like 30 amino acids. So it is extremely likely (considering the conditions) that one protein will form.
Now what you video continently leaves out (possibly through lack of knowledge rather than anything malicious) are two very important factors that effect the probability of more complex proteins forming -
1 - Proteins are not ...[text shortened]... ontinues the chain.
The numbers in your video are bogus. You have been mislead by pseudo science.
@sonship saidGawrsh, Jay, it was just a joke. I even put the little winky face at the end to convey my non seriousness.
@BigDoggProblem
Was the point that you finally realized you ought to stop plagiarizing?
Nope. Not at all. But now that you mentioned it, even if someone plagiarized a hundred times your sorry excuses for dodging the significance of probability problem would be just as incompetent.
And it appears here that the big copycat jumping on a bandwagon of imitation is you.
@kellyjay saidWhat I would like to see is for you, or any other similar theist that believes the probability argument carries weight, to calculate the odds of a God being present to do the creation of everything else.
I'm sorry measuring if God is real, you can give me odds if you disagree with the ones I gave. If you don't like the probability argument what arguments do you prefer the proof by contradiction? I'm not sure what it is you want, can you spell it out for me, give me some specifics? Not trying to insult you, but you are not being very clear here.
The probability argument do ...[text shortened]... 't do it does not automatically mean what I believe it true, not even close, but one step at a time.
@bigdoggproblem saidThere is a problem with what you are asking, verses what has been put forward in argument and videos. The protein is made up of parts, you can count the parts and calculate the odds for random processes getting it right during its formation. If there are only 2 possible outcomes and only one gives us success, we know it’s a 1 in 2 probability for success. It is no different if there is a 1 in 20 chance, we know it’s 1 in 20.
What I would like to see is for you, or any other similar theist that believes the probability argument carries weight, to calculate the odds of a God being present to do the creation of everything else.
That way, we can see if that possibility is actually more likely than a universe that happens at random.
@kellyjay saidThat's my point exactly! The probability argument is a double standard. Worse, the very people who swore off using math and science to try and figure out what happened with the universe now having the audacity to come back and tell those who bothered that they can't possibility be right, based on some math the creationists did.
There is a problem with what you are asking, verses what has been put forward in argument and videos. The protein is made up of parts, you can count the parts and calculate the odds for random processes getting it right during its formation. If there are only 2 possible outcomes and only one gives us success, we know it’s a 1 in 2 probability for success. It is no different ...[text shortened]... rt life is simply amazing from what I see when looking at the micro and macro parts of the universe.
@bigdoggproblem saidHow can there be a double standard when one thing lends itself to study and one does not. The odds for the proteins can be found because we see them today and see how they are put together. Knowing that allows us to see what it would take for them to be thrown together randomly.
That's my point exactly! The probability argument is a double standard. Worse, the very people who swore off using math and science to try and figure out what happened with the universe now having the audacity to come back and tell those who bothered that they can't possibility be right, based on some math the creationists did.
@kellyjay saidThe size and complexity of the protein isn't particularly relevant. The main point you should be taking is that proteins do not form randomly as suggested in your video.
The size and what proteins are and do are varied, your complaints seem selective and bias. A simple protein, if you’re going suggest misleading numbers you can be guilty about your presentation here as well. I could suggest you are mIsleading, maybe you lack knowledge, possibly malicious, and on and on, you think motivation mongering actually adds to a discussion ... interesting!
@kellyjay saidIt could be a huge number...but that's not the point. The point is that the guys in your video do not understand how proteins and amino acids work...which makes their numbers wrong.
Did you run the numbers on your 30 amino acids, to see what your example requires?
@stellspalfie saidNo the point is however they form this is what needs to happen, over come. You think that there is a natural process that directs them all?
The size and complexity of the protein isn't particularly relevant. The main point you should be taking is that proteins do not form randomly as suggested in your video.
I could be lying, its good that you are being sceptical....I just wish you would treat creationist science with the same level of suspicion. The only way to find out if its me or your video people wh ...[text shortened]... scientific community, read some papers, listen to the experts....and not watch dodgy youtube videos
@stellspalfie saidIf you were not belittling would you have anything to say? No ONE said that is how they formed, only those were the numbers that had to be overcome. I have stressed that to you before.
It could be a huge number...but that's not the point. The point is that the guys in your video do not understand how proteins and amino acids work...which makes their numbers wrong.
@kellyjay saidBelittling???
If you were not belittling would you have anything to say? No ONE said that is how they formed, only those were the numbers that had to be overcome. I have stressed that to you before.