A quote for the atheists to consider.

[BashfulAnthony]

Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this?  Get googling, chaps!

"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began... For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114

[Nearly Sane]

Why is a quote for atheists to consider?

[Shaker]

Comprehensively skinned, gutted and filleted here:

http://goo.gl/stqlfV

and I feel faintly besmirched for having given a creationist dingbat the few seconds of attention it took to find that link.

[BashfulAnthony]

Comprehensively skinned, gutted and filleted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

and I feel faintly besmirched for having given a creationist dingbat the few seconds of attention it took to find that link.

So, instead of just frantically googling (as usual) try voicing your own opinion.  And what is to say that Musgrave, is any more likely to be correct than the quote I posted, which, incidentally, I read today in a magazine  -  not googled!

Incidentally, the only thing that truly "besmirches" you, is your unpleasantness.  Get that?  Every time you disagree with someone, you cannot resist the temptation to revile them.  What is wrong with you?

[Nearly Sane]

So, instead of just frantically googling (as usual) try voicing your own opinion.  And what is to say that Musgrave, is any more likely to be correct than the quote I posted, which, incidentally, I read today in a magazine  -  not googled!

Incidentally, the only thing that truly "besmirches" you, is your unpleasantness.  Get that?  Every time you disagree with someone, you cannot resist the temptation to revile them.  What is wrong with you?

Please explain the significant difference between reading something in a magazine and  using a search engine?

[Shaker]

You raised a scientific matter, so it requires a response from a scientist on scientific turf.

As for the rest of your swivel-eyed rant: I have an intense dislike of stupidity.

[Shaker]

Please explain the significant difference between reading something in a magazine and  using a search engine?

It wasn't even via a search engine - whole swathes of TalkOrigins, which I've read and loved for donkey's years, are bookmarked on my machine

[BashfulAnthony]

It wasn't even via a search engine - whole swathes of TalkOrigins, which I've read and loved for donkey's years, are bookmarked on my machine

Oh, I forgot:  you've read every book, ever!

[Shaker]

Oh, I forgot:  you've read every book, ever!

Not yet, but I'm giving it my best shot.

And TalkOrigins isn't a book.

[BashfulAnthony]

You raised a scientific matter, so it requires a response from a scientist on scientific turf.

As for the rest of your swivel-eyed rant: I have an intense dislike of stupidity.

Your charm knows no bounds!   

[Shaker]

Your charm knows no bounds!   

I commend your perspicacity.

[BashfulAnthony]

I commend your perspicacity.

Keep kidding yourself:  it's the one thing you are truly adept at!   

[SusanDoris]

People can work out what the chances are of something happening  for ever into multiple trillions to one if they like - but the fact is that if something has happened, working out the probability
of it happening by chance is a waste of time isn't it?

If I have expressed that incorrectly from a mathematical point of view, would someone please correct it. Not you, though, BA!

[BashfulAnthony]

People can work out what the chances are of something happening  for ever into multiple trillions to one if they like - but the fact is that if something has happened, working out the probability
of it happening by chance is a waste of time isn't it?

If I have expressed that incorrectly from a mathematical point of view, would someone please correct it. Not you, though, BA!

I don't pretend to be a scientist, as you don't,  judging by your sllly post.

[BashfulAnthony]

Why is a quote for atheists to consider?

Because I said so!

[Gordon]

What you refer to in your OP, BA, is debunked creationist drivel and isn't worth further comment.

I'm surprised you even bothered to post this since, as far as I know, youv'e never nailed you colours to such idiocy before: perhaps you are winding us up to see if we cotton on or not!

[torridon]

Because I said so!

You've been listening to too much New York Dolls.

[SqueakyVoice]

"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power],

Starts with an utterly meaningless statement, then gets worse.

The only thing even vaguely worth pondering is why an hitherto unknown creationist is stooping to post it.

To which the most generous answer is that Trolling Ant is trolling as normal.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

I commend your perspicacity.

Now I know that word.

Here's another long word, sesquipedalian.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Perhaps one of our resident "experts" on here can counter this?  Get googling, chaps!

I'm not sure expertise is required, but here goes.

"The probablility of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10[to the 161th power], using all atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...

Which is lovely, but meaningless. Has anyone suggested that complex protein molecules occurred by chance? No, amino acids can occur by chance, significantly more simply. Once you have those amino acids in close proximity they a) encourage the development of more and b) tend to form into chains - those protein molecules you referred to.

For a minimum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is 1 in 10 [to the 119,879th power]. It would take 10[tothe power of 119,841] years on the average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10 [to the power of 119,831] times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119, 831 zeroes. -Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible?, pg. 110, 114

I'd question the claim that all 239 proteins are needed for the smallest theoretical life - indeed, there are theoretical life-forms that aren't even carbon based, let alone those that require fewer than this. I'd also point out that there are self-replicating molecules that aren't considered alive, but are the precursors of life and are capable of encouraging other arrangements around them which are also not alive.

Regardless of that, even if these claims were relevant, and that really was the odds of this happening... so what? You still don't have an alternative explanation, you've got a fairy story about 'magic'.

O.

[Red Giant]

Evolution: Possible or Impossible?

Nothing is impossible for His Noodliness.

Yes I know the FSM is a made-up god.  They're all made-up gods.

The difference is, the FSM doesn't come with meaningless mumbo-jumbo like "God sent his only-begotten Son".

[Jack Knave]

My answer would be the laws of physics that govern how atoms etc. interact.

[BashfulAnthony]

What you refer to in your OP, BA, is debunked creationist drivel and isn't worth further comment.

I'm surprised you even bothered to post this since, as far as I know, youv'e never nailed you colours to such idiocy before: perhaps you are winding us up to see if we cotton on or not!

Gordon, I'm sure you're aware that if I said today is Monday, I'd get an argument!     

Of course I don't subscribe to the post:  I don't have the scientific knowledge to make any definitive decision in any way:  as is the case with every other poster; googling aside, that is!  It'a merely a topic for debate, and not really for getting stuck into me, again.   

[Shaker]

Gordon, I'm sure you're aware that if I said today is Monday, I'd get an argument!     

Of course I don't subscribe to the post:  I don't have the scientific knowledge to make any definitive decision in any way:  as is the case with every other poster; googling aside, that is!  It'a merely a topic for debate, and not really for getting stuck into me, again.   

Can I remind you we have at least two professional scientists as members here, as well as others with scientific qualifications.

[BashfulAnthony]

Can I remind you we have at least two professional scientists as members here, as well as others with scientific qualifications.

Who says?  And are they qualified to pronounce on this particular OP?  Find out before you post.