God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[ChemEngineer]

The odds of just 52 proteins randomly assembling into a functional cell are approximately

85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1

You’d had to have just those 52 proteins locked in a hermetically sealed container and jumbled together 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times EVERY SECOND since the formation of Earth just to have the odds

The average cell has 2,000 proteins

Frank, you are on the right track but you are pumping the handles up and down on a handcar and not getting very far. There are prodigious differences in the complexity of proteins, with the largest being 38,138 amino acids long. As I computed elsewhere, the probability of original, naturalistic synthesis of titin is 1 chance in 10 to the 72,000th power.

One chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible, as stated by an eminent statistician, Emil Borel.
Ten to the 50th marbles one centimeter in diameter would fill 928,300 billion billion spheres the size of earth. Pick THE UNIQUE marble, while blindfolded, on your first and only try. "One chance in" does not mean an infinite number of tries. It means ONE TRY. That's the definition of "one chance in..."

There are 20,000+ different proteins in humans. Evolutionists are delusional, unscientific, archaic, out of touch with statistics and reality.
____________________________

 

[scruffy]

Frank, you are on the right track but you are pumping the handles up and down on a handcar and not getting very far. There are prodigious differences in the complexity of proteins, with the largest being 38,138 amino acids long. As I computed elsewhere, the probability of original, naturalistic synthesis of titin is 1 chance in 10 to the 72,000th power.

One chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible, as stated by an eminent statistician, Emil Borel.
Ten to the 50th marbles one centimeter in diameter would fill 928,300 billion billion spheres the size of earth. Pick THE UNIQUE marble, while blindfolded, on your first and only try. "One chance in" does not mean an infinite number of tries. It means ONE TRY. That's the definition of "one chance in..."

There are 20,000+ different proteins in humans. Evolutionists are delusional, unscientific, archaic, out of touch with statistics and reality.
____________________________

You suck at math.

And you still don't know diddly about probability.

Go read some Kolmogorov, then get back to us.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, we do not believe they exist. We KNOW that they exist. We merely need to find them.

I will accept that assertion as true only if you are willing to accept this: "I know God exists", fair enough?

Thus, if a theory lacks evidence for support, you formulate new methods to find that evidence, whether it be by observations, or experiments.

That's goal driven endeavor and as such means a belief that a goal can be reached.

Many times the tools to measure don't exist, so they must be invented.

Yes, a goal driven endeavor, that entails belief that some future goal is attainable.

That is the essential nature of science.

Yes, belief is an essential part of scientific discovery.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thus why you fail, though fine admission.

"History clearly reveals that" you're a stodgy bastard with some big axes to grind. Why do you hate atheists and scientists so much? What, did some pick on you in school? Pull your ears? Make fun of your clothes?

Other than disagreeing with you, what have I done that justifies such an irrational and vitriolic tantrum?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Other than disagreeing with you, what have I done that justifies such an irrational and vitriolic tantrum?

Exactly!

 

[scruffy]

I will accept that assertion as true only if you are willing to accept this: "I know God exists", fair enough?
.

lol

lmao

You can't even define God.

Go ahead, give it a try.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

lol

lmao

You can't even define God.

Go ahead, give it a try.

Scripture defines God, when asked the answer was "I am". God is also "defined" by the universe, it reveals God's power and creativity.

Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[scruffy]

Scripture defines God, when asked the answer was "I am". God is also "defined" by the universe, it reveals God's power and creativity.

So?

I am too.

So what?

The rules for science are "independently observable and repeatable".

You're supposed to design an experiment that I can do in my own lab and see the same results.

ESP doesn't qualify.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So?

I am too.

So what?

You asked and I answered you.

The rules for science are "independently observable and repeatable".

Yes, that's right the universe has that remarkable property, it is rationally intelligible, predictable, a stroke of luck indeed.

You're supposed to design an experiment that I can do in my own lab and see the same results.

You asked me to define God, that's all you asked, so what "experiment" are you talking about?

ESP doesn't qualify.

I agree, no dispute on that point, why did you even bring it up?

 

[westwall]

I will accept that assertion as true only if you are willing to accept this: "I know God exists", fair enough?

That's goal driven endeavor and as such means a belief that a goal can be reached.

Yes, a goal driven endeavor, that entails belief that some future goal is attainable.

Yes, belief is an essential part of scientific discovery.

Belief in something that

I will accept that assertion as true only if you are willing to accept this: "I know God exists", fair enough?

That's goal driven endeavor and as such means a belief that a goal can be reached.

Yes, a goal driven endeavor, that entails belief that some future goal is attainable.

Yes, belief is an essential part of scientific discovery.

No, belief is not an essential part of scientific discovery. If I see a natural process occurring, an earthquake as an example, I don't need to believe they exist. I have lived through them. So now as a scientist I wish to understand how they occur.

Thus I formulate a hypothesis, generate experiments, or describe physical objects, and methods of determining where earthquakes have occurred in the past, so I can use them to describe the earthquakes to come.

Once again, there is no "belief" system. There is cause and effect. That ANYONE can see, and experience.

You "believe" that God exists. You have no evidence to support your belief, thus you rely on "faith". Faith is the realm of religion. Your belief in God is based on YOUR personal feelings.

No one else on Earth can feel what YOU feel. You can describe your feelings, but they are YOUR feelings, and yours alone.

On the other hand, I can take someone to an earthquake fault. Show them how it functions, and now they can go anywhere on Earth and see where other faults are, and they will KNOW how they function, and what they will do in the future.

ANYONE.

I don't care that you believe in God, that is your right, and if it makes you happy, or gives you a sense of peace I am happy for you.

My understanding of the physical world does the same for me. I am a pure agnostic. That means that while I know that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, I also realize that there is no evidence that a god DOES NOT exist.

ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

 

[scruffy]

Frank, you are on the right track but you are pumping the handles up and down on a handcar and not getting very far. There are prodigious differences in the complexity of proteins, with the largest being 38,138 amino acids long. As I computed elsewhere, the probability of original, naturalistic synthesis of titin is 1 chance in 10 to the 72,000th power.

One chance in 10 to the 50th is impossible, as stated by an eminent statistician, Emil Borel.
Ten to the 50th marbles one centimeter in diameter would fill 928,300 billion billion spheres the size of earth. Pick THE UNIQUE marble, while blindfolded, on your first and only try. "One chance in" does not mean an infinite number of tries. It means ONE TRY. That's the definition of "one chance in..."

There are 20,000+ different proteins in humans. Evolutionists are delusional, unscientific, archaic, out of touch with statistics and reality.
____________________________

Miller and Urey created 10 types of dipeptides in less than a week, you idiot.

Your math stinks.

These are the peptide bonds that charlatans like you, claim are difficult to impossible.

You're so stupid you're trying to deny the reality that's right in front of you.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, you arrogant fool.

Fucking hypocrites trying to deny God's handiwork even as they invoke His name to claim it never happened.

So called chemical engineers that don't know anything about salts and copper ions.

Or the fact that glycine catalyzes other amino acid.

This kinda crap is why creationists have a bad name.

A real chemical engineer would know that 3M NaCl catalyzes peptide bond formation. It happens in the microsecond to millisecond time frame. You'll have a whole library of dipeptides in less than a day.

You should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself claiming math credentials. Do the world a favor and pull down your web site before some little kid reads it and starts believing your bullshit.

 

[scruffy]

You asked and I answered you.

Okay. An answer is an answer.

What do you think it means?

Are you familiar with the psychologist Julian Jaynes?

He wrote a book called "The Origins of Consciousness" where he claims the word "I" only acquired meaning about 1000 BC.

It's an interesting theory actually, he traces it through all manner of historical writings.

If you believe him, it means that at some point in history, "I" was a great mystery, and only a very few people knew what it meant.

Yes, that's right the universe has that remarkable property, it is rationally intelligible, predictable, a stroke of luck indeed.

"On average" that's probably true. So far.

You asked me to define God, that's all you asked, so what "experiment" are you talking about?

An experiment to measure the subjective.

"I" is subjective. No one can see it except the person speaking it.

If you're into Christianity, take a look at the usage of the word "me" in the New Testament. It was rarely if ever used in reference to a physical body. Mostly it refers to a state of mind.

We read that stuff 2000 years later, and introduced our own word meanings into it. Which leads to some pretty strange beliefs.

I agree, no dispute on that point, why did you even bring it up?

Because human conceptions of God are anthropomorphic. How many times have you heard the expression "God's will"? Who said God has a "will"? What does that even mean?

Mostly people use it as an excuse to explain random outcomes. In'sh Allah and all that. As if God were controlling every roll of the dice.

The interesting thing is, there's one and only one place in this universe where we find true randomness, and even that may be an illusion. (Caused by the Law of Large Numbers, which makes everything seem Gaussian).

The rest of it is due to attractors that magnify initial conditions.

"For our purposes", at our scale, observed randomness is good enough. If we could see down to the Planck scale, who knows what we'd find.

Elsewhere I raised the issue of "weak measurement" which requires an ensemble. Any time there's an ensemble, that's the Law of Large Numbers. To prove anything is "not random" would require tools we don't have yet.

 

[scruffy]

I wish to emphasize that Chem Engineer's math is completely full of shit.

Proteins do NOT form "one amino acid at a time". They just don't. There is abundant and overwhelming evidence that they don't. This was first proven FORTY years ago, in the early 80's.

Since then, there is plenty of evidence of brand new previously unknown proteins forming from small peptide segments. Starting once again in the 80's, when bacteria were discovered in the wild, that could break down nylon.

And, in early 2000, we discovered there are MANY other ways this can happen, including but not limited to mutations in "stop" codons.

Chem Engineer is simply COMPLETELY WRONG on all fronts. I want our readers to understand this beyond any shadow of a doubt, because this kind of disinformation is dangerous. It sets back science, like that asshole Marvin Minsky who also made bogus claims of impossibility because he was an arrogant insecure jackass that needed his ego validated.

Sorry but I'm not pulling any punches on this one, and I have no intention of being polite on this topic. Chem Engineer's claims are FRAUDULENT, mathematically, scientifically, and every other way.

Tell them Scruffy said so. Use my name. I'll put my scientific and personal reputation on the line on this. There is NO truth to what Chem Engineer is saying. Zero. Nada. Zip. Squat.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

An experiment to measure the subjective.

Then it would not be subjective would it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I wish to emphasize that Chem Engineer's math is completely full of shit.

I hope you don't write scientific papers that rely on that kind of reasoning.

Proteins do NOT form "one amino acid at a time". They just don't. There is abundant and overwhelming evidence that they don't. This was first proven FORTY years ago, in the early 80's.

Since then, there is plenty of evidence of brand new previously unknown proteins forming from small peptide segments. Starting once again in the 80's, when bacteria were discovered in the wild, that could break down nylon.

And, in early 2000, we discovered there are MANY other ways this can happen, including but not limited to mutations in "stop" codons.

Chem Engineer is simply COMPLETELY WRONG on all fronts. I want our readers to understand this beyond any shadow of a doubt, because this kind of disinformation is dangerous. It sets back science, like that asshole Marvin Minsky who also made bogus claims of impossibility because he was an arrogant insecure jackass that needed his ego validated.

Sorry but I'm not pulling any punches on this one, and I have no intention of being polite on this topic. Chem Engineer's claims are FRAUDULENT, mathematically, scientifically, and every other way.

Tell them Scruffy said so. Use my name. I'll put my scientific and personal reputation on the line on this. There is NO truth to what Chem Engineer is saying. Zero. Nada. Zip. Squat.

Email Tour then loudmouth, and share the correspondence with us, he can be easily reached:

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Belief in something that


No, belief is not an essential part of scientific discovery. If I see a natural process occurring, an earthquake as an example, I don't need to believe they exist. I have lived through them. So now as a scientist I wish to understand how they occur.

So you believe it can be understood, see? it's ever present, there is no way to pursues science without holding some kind of unproven assumption, a belief, no escaping it.

Thus I formulate a hypothesis, generate experiments, or describe physical objects, and methods of determining where earthquakes have occurred in the past, so I can use them to describe the earthquakes to come.

Once again, there is no "belief" system. There is cause and effect. That ANYONE can see, and experience.

There's the belief that nature is causal.

You "believe" that God exists. You have no evidence to support your belief, thus you rely on "faith". Faith is the realm of religion. Your belief in God is based on YOUR personal feelings.

No one else on Earth can feel what YOU feel. You can describe your feelings, but they are YOUR feelings, and yours alone.

On the other hand, I can take someone to an earthquake fault. Show them how it functions, and now they can go anywhere on Earth and see where other faults are, and they will KNOW how they function, and what they will do in the future.

Only if you believe that every experiment under the same conditions will always yield the same results. That's why people say that science relies on inductive reasoning, it declares a belief that if I some experiment I will get some result, but until one does that experiment one doesn't know they will get that result they only believe they will.

ANYONE.

I don't care that you believe in God, that is your right, and if it makes you happy, or gives you a sense of peace I am happy for you.

My understanding of the physical world does the same for me. I am a pure agnostic. That means that while I know that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god, I also realize that there is no evidence that a god DOES NOT exist.

ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

 

[scruffy]

I hope you don't write scientific papers that rely on that kind of reasoning.

Email Tour then loudmouth, and share the correspondence with us, he can be easily reached:

View attachment 999077

Who is Tour?

Does he post here?

Does he matter?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Who is Tour?

Does he post here?

Does he matter?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's also this which I'm about to listen to:

​

 

[scruffy]

There's also this which I'm about to listen to:

​

Harvard is woke.

It's not at all surprising they'd engage in fraud.

The other guy, unless he's making fraudulent claims there's no reason to talk to him.