Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

Yawn

1:1 is absolute certainty on unshuffled decks.

But that's fact.

Now back to your rabbit trailing...

 

Going for red herrings now? You like to add more fallacies to your list of argument methods.

You did nothing to address the heart of my argument. That is to say, you did nothing to tell us why it is that you feel justified in ignoring the dozens of peer reviewed papers that have been presented to you showing that your assertions are not true.

Will you ever put an actual fact into play.

Will you ever discuss a single reference presented to you?

Will you ever modify your arguements when counter arguments, with support, are presented that show that your first assertion was factually wrong?

I think we know.

I never claimed such.

I just pointed out that you say that scientists have failed and that you cannot tell us anyone who tried and failed.

More to the point, if someone succeeded, would you change your stance. Take a look at this.

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2004/09/02/getting_closer_to_lifes_dawn.php

 

You do not read any posts before responding do you?

Look up a couple of posts.

Here, I'll shorten it to just the revelent part for you.

Did you see it that time?

 

Surely they are not TRYING to create a cell are they??

UTEOTW just swore that no one is attempting any such thing!!!

Well - another one of UTEOTW's untruths exposed BY UTEOTW again.

BTW when atheist darwinists speak of "protocell" they mean "NOT a cell that you will find in nature"!!

Note that living things are made up of REAL cells - not atheist-darwinist "stories" told IN PLACE of science fact!

 

Obviously UTEOTW is not reading the post or the link because he HAS NO interest in the science --

But I am sure we have those here who DO !

And I am really trying not to have to READ THIS TO you UTEOTW.

 

I believe I said that you could not support your assertion that no one had tried and failed by telling us someone who had. I never meant to say that no one would ever try or that no one was trying.

But I see that you are content to continue to obfuscate on that point.

So if someone succeeds, would you change your mind?

Another strawman fallacy.

Just why would anyone expect that a protocell would resemble anything alive today that has been subject to four billin years, give or take a few hundred million, of evolution.

NOthing but fallacies from Bob. No facts. No references. No response to real references and facts.

Just obfuscation, fallacies and unsubstantiated assertions.

 

I see you have no response to an actual reference showing an actual catalyst that actually makes mono chiral sequences.

 

I see you have no response to my post

As for "SUGARS" making up the solution for living cells -

Try again -

Oops! That's right you said the atheist darwinists are not even trying to do that!

I keep forgetting that you have no intention of showing them trying to PROVE their abiogenesis story telling by TRYING to generate the living cell components.

 

First UTEOTW tried his "hat trick" -- I mean "card trick" where he OBFUSCATES the point of PREDICTING a 52 card sequence and replaces it with HAVING a 52 card sequence. Obviously the odds of HAVING a 52 card sequence when you HAVE 52 cards is 1:1. But PREDICTING the sequence in a truly randomized deck is impossible.

Nicely obfuscated for us in UTEOTW's card trick.

But then his slavish devotion to atheist darwinist "trickery" pops up here in yet "another rabbit trail".

I have provided a link (that UTEOTW is faithfully and devotedly - avoiding in honor of his faith in atheist darwinism) that SHOWS the statistical science that debunks pure story-telling myths of atheist darwinists on the subject of abiogenesis in its parts not just in totality.

IS UTEOTW's question to me - -"peer reviewed" -- obviously not.

Do REPORTS that SHOW the statistical science and published statements of known experts -- NEED to ALSO be peer reviewed to be accepted.

(Does your newspaper get peer reviewed before publishing gas prices or publishing a report given by a politician) -- obviously not!

That is not how the peer review process works.

So why is UTEOTW bringing up PEER review on a REPORT of the facts already published?? Because this is the "old hat trick" of atheist darwinists when their stories are being debunked!!

I might as well ask where every comment that UTEOTW makes on this thread is "peer reviewed". Nothing of the sort is being done.

The second telling point about this antic is that when an atheist darwinist talks about "peer review" they do NOT mean "PEER as in PHD, scientist, ... etc" as in the case of AIG articles. They mean "PEER as in ATHEIST DARWINIST".

He really is saying "when you debunk atheist darwinism CAN you show other atheist darwinists that agree with you".

That mindnumbingly bogus argument is made by devotees to the cult of atheist darwinism -- all the time.

Sad that it gets space here as well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh Bob, I am not ignoring you.

You seem to have failed miserably to get the point of my post and so I was going to just move on. You have this nasty habit of ruining all debate by going on endlessly about something after you have been proven wrong without even really addressing why you think you are right as a way of avoiding the real facts being brought up.

In plain English.

Everytime you shuffle a deck of cards, you end up with an arrangement whose odds before you shuffled were "impossible" according to your own definition.

Simple enough?

And I am done with card shuffling. Reply all you wish.

 

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. I think you are confusing two different areas of discussion.

The sugars show that your claims about racemic mixtures are untrue. Or, more specifically, what you make with the sugars.

A simple and common catalyst can facilitate taking ribose sugar, making nucleobases from the ribose, and ssembling all properly right handed RNA from this mixture. It also stabilizes the mixture.

Once you have the right chiral oriented RNA then it can eventually make the right chirally oriented amino acids.

YOur argument is thus disproven.

 

Go read again.

I said that you could not justify you claims about anyone having failed to do so because you could not point to us anyone who had tried and failed for it had not happened.

I never claimed that no one would ever try nor did I claim that no one had started an attempt.

Interesting how you try to obfuscate there.

But the fact is that you claim failure when you cannot point out anyone who has failed while I pointed you to a group that is close to succeeding.

But I can safely predict that you will not address that and will continue to obfuscate by putting words in my mouth and ignoring the inconvenient details.

 

Bob, you arguments are based on fallacious strawmen. I have pointed out the strawmen and why they are such. YOu have nothing based in fact to even try and refute.

I have provided references to most of this previously to you. I have recently provided you with a list of such references.

The fact is that you know as well as I do that my arguments are actually based on the current literature and that it would be a simple task to provide specific citations for most of what I claim.

Since I have done this in the past and you have ignored them and since I ma sure that you have zero intention of searching out any citation and actually reading it, please tell me why I should clutter my posts with them when I have already given them to you only to be ignored.

You, on the other hand, are arguing against the tide of all of science. To him who makes extrodinary claims, extraordinary support is needed. All we get from you is unsupportable assertions and fallacies instead.

 

So Bob, straightup.

YOu told us that it was not possible to make non-racemized sequences.

I provided you a reference where they made chirally pure sequences.

Do you withdraw that assertion?

Or can you show us that the scientists did not actually make chirally pure sequences as they claimed?

I predict that you will ignore completely this question or give a non-responsive answer that fails to address the article in question.

 

UTEOTW "straighten up" -- try quoting ME - and then showing where you think you have a point.

Your continual trick of "making stuff up" is not working here any more than it worked on your other failed threads on this section of the board.

 

Quote:
I might as well ask where every comment that UTEOTW makes on this thread is "peer reviewed". Nothing of the sort is being done.

How is it that the "DETAILS" in each point are always glossed over and missed in your every response??? This can not possibly be ACCIDENT - you have to be doing it on purpose!!

Your post above IS NOT PEER REVIEWED just like most of the rabbit trails you post here are NOT peer reviewed - because your atheist darwinist "peers" don't READ YOU!

This is the same point I was making about the LINK on statistics and DNA and the total debunking of your "story telling" you refuse to look at.

This link is merely reporting published FACT - it is not INTRODUCING some new idea or theory. Merely publishing what is already known and published does not GET PEER REVIEWED.

AND YET you continue with that drivel about how you are not about to read any stinking Christian work in science that supports the Bible unless enough atheist darwinists go along with it first.

 

Try quoting you? Ok.

Now, I showed how there actually is a way to make optically pure RNA amd then RNA makes the optically pure amino acids.

Problem solved complete with a quote from you.

Now will you withdraw your assertion and admit that optically pure sequences can, in fact, be made?

 

"French mathematician and Nobel prize winner - Emile Borel. Borel maintained that if the probability against a selected event is less than one in 10 EXP 50 (that's a one followed by fifty zeroes), then the event does not happen anywhere in the universe--ever. In other words, we may consider the probability as not merely small, but zero.

"My question is -- when you define the group "liars" did you include Borel?"

No, not as long as all he did is "maintain" it. Did he also maintain that odds of 1 in 10^49 are workable? If not, then whence commeth 10^50?

He is entitled to his opinion. Now, if he claimed it is a law of God or somesuch . . . .

 

We will keep reminding UTEOTW of the link he is avoiding to WATCH all the many ways he has of "avoiding it some more"

Note to the reader - this does not address Emile Borel's assertion and does not address the link above.

It is merely "a rabbit trail".

#1. you said that NOT shuffling would result in the same random sequencing EVEN THOUGH we all know that a deck NOT shuffled - right from the start is ALWAYS ordered and thus reproducible 1:1. I keep pointing out your own goof and you keep circling back to your rabbit trail.

#2. Your "Shuffle and deal" merely shows that one can not be expected to PREDICT the result. In your example you do NOT PREDICT the result and say "SEE I did what is statitically supposed to be IMPOSSIBLE TO DO".

INSTEAD you SHOW the mindnumbingly stupid point that HAVING 52 cards you CAN come up with a "52 card sequence" which is another 1:1 100% statistical result!! But then "craftily" you SWITCH what you SHOW -- with the statistically IMPOSSIBILITY of having PREDICTED the sequence. And THEN claim "victory over yourself".

How "pathetic" (to quote you on another thread)

Your bait and switch was just "another failed rabbit trail" exposed EARLY in your game.

I was happy to do it!

WRONG. Obviously.

Simple enough?

You end up with the fact that HAVING 52 cards you had a 100% chance of HAVING a 52 card SEQUENCE.

What you did not SHOW was the accomplishment of the "statistical impossibility" which is that HAVING 52 radomized you could PREDICT which of the unlikely SEQUENCES would result.

The statistical likelihood OF a 52 card sequence was 100%. But the likelihood of ONE selected one - predicted by you ahead of time - was "impossible".

YOU CLAIMED to do the IMPOSSIBLE by simply HAVING a 52 card sequence.

Again - mindnumbingly vaccuous on your part. But you seem satified to use it in your endless pursuits of story-telling and rabbit trailing instead of dealing with science and facts.
And I am done with card shuffling. Reply all you wish.[/quote]

 

I see - that little French guy has "his statistical opinion" and you have yours.

Got it.

I think I will go with the French guy for now.

Turns out it is very helpful for debunking atheist darwinism and it is in support of the Romans 1 fact dealing with what is "CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" by the unbelieving pagans on earth so that 'they are without excuse".