has anybody here actually changed their view?

Originally posted by ua41
Then for your definition of religion, your view holds. Just keep in mind not every aspect of spirituality is confined to the supernatural and plenty ideals don't even account for it

I cannot find any better universal definition of 'religion', and I've thought of it for years.
'Spirituality' is a part of 'religion', and can be treated with the same methods.

Too many have tried to prove me things about religion, like 'miracles' which is very unscientific in its very nature. He started with "In the bible you can read...' And I asked him "Why do you think the bible is true?". He answered "Because it is inspired of God." Then can you prove that god exists?" (The basic foundation of the christian religion.) If god does not exist, then the truth of the bible can be disputed, and any proof base of the bible is weak.

I'm open minded. I would like someone to prove to me the existance of od. Everyone who tried, failed. So far.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1.Evolution From Space, p. 24.
2.New Scientist, “Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,” by Leslie Orgel, April 15, 1982, p. 151.

I like your sources for your information. You don't hide it like others do. Thank you.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I like your sources for your information. You don't hide it like others do. Thank you.

Most of my references have been form the Watchtower Society and their many publications. But if youy've noticed we do refer to many other countless publications, the internet, etc, as I know your speaking of me..
You don't like me to past but if I'm to get the point out that we may be speaking of and it is a longer responce, then I will past. Thanks...

Originally posted by galveston75
Most of my references have been form the Watchtower Society and their many publications. But if youy've noticed we do refer to many other countless publications, the internet, etc, as I know your speaking of me..
You don't like me to past but if I'm to get the point out that we may be speaking of and it is a longer responce, then I will past. Thanks...

References like "Read the watchtower yourself" isn't very serious. There is always an author behind. It's rather secteristic to hide the true author. I wouldn't believe anything an author writes if he is a known racist, holocoust-denier, or a paedofile. So without a good reference, the copy and paste is of no value other than fundamentalists who believe anything from anywhere as long as ithe texts mirrors his own fundamentalistic views.

In science it's a good etiquette. It works well.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
References like "Read the watchtower yourself" isn't very serious. There is always an author behind. It's rather secteristic to hide the true author. I wouldn't believe anything an author writes if he is a known racist, holocoust-denier, or a paedofile. So without a good reference, the copy and paste is of no value other than fundamentalists who believe a ...[text shortened]... irrors his own fundamentalistic views.

In science it's a good etiquette. It works well.

I totally understand that it is of no value to you, but there are others here who read all post and might consider the info as worth reading. Again..If you don't like them, don't read them as I've told you a few times now. If you have more important things to do, then go do them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i do know that there is only one possible sequence,

Are you saying there is one particular protein you have in mind that is essential for life? If so, which is it?

for it there were not, proteins would not have been formed and the cell would not have functioned. please look at the characteristics of a single cell for confirmation.
I don't follow the argument here. Could you rephrase it?

Time is still irrelevant, the probability of hitting a three on the first role of the dice is still the same whether it takes me one hours our three days to do so. You are erroneously confusing the time taken with frequency of throws, they are not synonymous.
I am making no such confusion. We wish to know the probability of a protein necessary for life occurring by chance. In order to calculate it we must know:
1. The probability of one 'throw' resulting in the given protein.
2. The total number of throws that have been made.
3. In order to calculate 2, we probably need to know the frequency of throws and the time period over which they occurred.

It is possible to avoid calculating exact figures for 2. and 3. if you can show they have an upper bound lower than 1. For example if you show that amino acid reactions never occur above a certain frequency and that if every atom in the universe was an amino acid reacting at that frequency over the lifespan of the universe would still result in a figure several orders of magnitude lower than the figure in 1. then you might have a case. But do you actually have these figures, or is it pure speculation?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
But any event that has one chance in just 1x10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.

This is simply not true. If a computer was to pick out amino acids at random, it could spit out sequences of 20 every couple of milliseconds. Each sequence would have just one chance in just 1x10^50 (by your claim), yet they would occur every couple of milliseconds.
Equally, the probability of any given sequence occuring would as pointed out by Palynka tend towards 1 as time tends towards infinity.
Probability is a tricky animal.
And mathematicians never say never when it comes to infinity.

Originally posted by galveston75
I totally understand that it is of no value to you, but there are others here who read all post and might consider the info as worth reading. Again..If you don't like them, don't read them as I've told you a few times now. If you have more important things to do, then go do them.

Again - what's the point of hiding the author?

If I copy-and-paste an article who says that paedophilia is a part of the philosophy of Jehovas Witness, wouldn't you want to know who the author is, especially if he is a well known anti-JW operationg from the paranoia department of a mental hospital? Do you really trust me when I say that he is alright and don't bother with the source?

If so, then you are very gullible. And I know that you are not. So why this secrecy of the source of your copy and paste articles? What is the problem if the author is of high morals? Your secrecy shows that something is fishy.

Again I say that secrecy of sources is a very bad attitude in the world of science. Isn't it as bad attitude in your world?

@ twhitehead, if you have any comments on the actual text that would be fine.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is simply not true. If a computer was to pick out amino acids at random, it could spit out sequences of 20 every couple of milliseconds. Each sequence would have just one chance in just 1x10^50 (by your claim), yet they would occur every couple of milliseconds.
Equally, the probability of any given sequence occuring would as pointed out by Palynka t ...[text shortened]...
Probability is a tricky animal.
And mathematicians never say never when it comes to infinity.

perhaps you can state an real life event (not one in your make belief cyber world) that has occurred within a 1X10^50 probability, if you please.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps you can state an real life event (not one in your make belief cyber world) that has occurred within a 1X10^50 probability, if you please.

In front of me, there are 20 DVDs on a shelf. I placed them there in random order. I have over 100 DVDs. The probability of the sequence occurring (on first try) is the same as the probability of 20 amino acids forming a given protein (on first try). You claim it never happens, yet there it is in front of me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
@ twhitehead, if you have any comments on the actual text that would be fine.

I commented on some of your key points. My comments apply equally well to the 'actual text'.
The 'actual text' introduces further probabilities, but it would be best to settle the basic question of the first one before continuing.
You are yet to address the following concerns:
1. Your claim that one particular sequence of amino acids is required for life. This implies one particular protein is required for life. I would like more details as to why you believe this to be the case.
2. An estimate for the number of possible amino acid reactions throughout the universe during the whole lifespan of the universe to date needs to be made or we cannot estimate the probability of a given reaction having occurred.
At a minimum an upper bound on the above would be useful.

There are of course a whole host of other objections I haven't yet addressed. For example, is it known, given a soup of amino acids, do proteins emerge at random, or are some more common than others?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Again - what's the point of hiding the author?

If I copy-and-paste an article who says that paedophilia is a part of the philosophy of Jehovas Witness, wouldn't you want to know who the author is, especially if he is a well known anti-JW operationg from the paranoia department of a mental hospital? Do you really trust me when I say that he is alright a rces is a very bad attitude in the world of science. Isn't it as bad attitude in your world?

Your not worth answering with your useless thoughts that mean nothing to anyone but yourself... Take your hate out on someone else.

Originally posted by galveston75
Your no worth answering with your useless thoughts that mean nothing to anyone but yourself... Take your hate out on someone else.

Please, read my postings once more. I don't think you've done this yet. Because you don't comment the most important issues.

And skip your silly words about hate. You project your own feelings, it's obvious.

Read again, and answer the important passages.

Or continue to be ignorant...

Originally posted by twhitehead
In front of me, there are 20 DVDs on a shelf. I placed them there in random order. I have over 100 DVDs. The probability of the sequence occurring (on first try) is the same as the probability of 20 amino acids forming a given protein (on first try). You claim it never happens, yet there it is in front of me.

no its not, your dvds have not moved, unless of course by an outside agency, Massive FAIL! Therefore you shall be pleased to offer a real life event that has actually happened with a probability in the region of 1x10^50, if you cannot, will not, are unable to, you shall now go a step further and retract your initial assertion and convert to Christianity.