Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Here are more journals to review Trip:

Evolution From Space, written by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe (Dent, 1981; immediately reprinted by Simon & Schuster that same year, under the title Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism) - Evolution From Space, written by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe (Dent, 1981; immediately reprinted by Simon & Schuster that same year, under the title Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism)

In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, 1986), John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler - They produce one other statistic of this sort, stating that "if we take the average gene to have 1800 nucleotide bases...then 180 to 360...are immutable for each gene" so that "the odds for assembling a single gene are between 4.3 x 10^-109 and 1.8 x 10^-217" (p. 565)

Evolution: Possible or Impossible by James F. Coppedge (Zondervan, 1973) - On page 102 Coppedge calculates the odds against proinsulin forming by chance as 1 in 10^106. "getting [even a single] usable protein" as 1 in 10^240 in one try (p. 104), or 1 in 10^161 "in all the history of the Earth" (p. 109)

Should I keep going trip?

 

They are rejected by atheists. They aren't rejecting the numbers; just explaining how it could be another way. All I have to prove Trip is 1: 10^113. Anything higher than that proves it's improbable. Some are highly improbable, others are closer; but none are under the probability.

 

And you are missing the main point. The fact that it would take "ALL" the known atoms in the known universe and somehow focus it on little ole planet earth for the 10^113.

 

funny quote from that link. Exactly what happened here, it seemed. Grab the numbers, ignore the rest.

 

....

 

You are misinformed and believing the straw man rebuttals. And the greatest ignorance is ignoring the one that actually won the nobel prize for physics. But go on and ignore away.

 

believing straw man rebuttals? What are you talking about? You used these numbers, yet seems like ignored the information that came after. Just grabbed long numbers.

 

No, you still aren't seeing the problem. The odds you are citing are for the random formation of something that was never believed to form randomly! Do you see the problem? Nobody -- NOBODY -- argues that the first self-replicating molecule was a strand of modern human DNA. This makes your intended use completely impossible.

 

You are aware that just "protein" cannot create life, yes?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated

As you see that rebuttal doesn't factor the building blocks for nucleic acids.

 

I know that, but I am showing other improbabilities as well.

 

Ah -- so what is the final number? What are the odds for building some type of self-replicating protein? Not an organism, not a human, not a 747... Just something that replicates?

It's a rhetorical question -- nobody knows. But I'll tell you this: it's a hell of a lot more likely than any of the numbers you are citing for complex modern structures!

 

You are aware what trip is rebutting? They don't have to answer the complexity of a fully developed "human DNA mole". I have given the numbers on just a single self replicating mole for life. And even that is 10^150. That is what we know now.

And factor that with all the molecules in the known universe, somehow concentrating on planet earth, in less than 1.7 billion years (evolutionist beliving when life started on this planet).

I use the entire universe lifespan to exploit how incredibly insane that thinking is. Now bring that down to the surface area of planet eart; 1.7 billion years; and factor other complexities as well and you got the greatest argument on this thread.

 

You are showing that your numbers are for structures that are many, many times more complex than those believed to be the first form of life. You are showing that your argument #7 is based on unusable statistics and refuted logic.

 

Where did you get this new 10^150 number? And where did the moles come from?

 

What I've read is 1:10^150. I'll look it up for you.

 

Ok, I've got to get back to work. Later y'all -- watch out for mole attacks!

 

[video=youtube;YinrToIKJtg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YinrToIKJtg#t=155s[/video]

Here is a simple break down. Just 10 components is 1: 3.5 million attempts. 11 components now is 1:39.9 million attempts.

But the simplest living cell has 400 components. But even smaller is 100 component, is 1 chance in 100 million, billion, billion, billion, billion.

So even if a super simple lifeforce of 100 components is 1: 10^400

And I even gave you 1: 10^150 and still extremely improbable.

 

We have no idea what form the first self-replicating molecule took. None. You are assuming that it looked just like modern organisms, and therefore could never have formed randomly. This is like claiming that toddlers have no chance to ever get into college based on their exceptionally low SAT scores.

Sorry -- I know I said I'd get back to work. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!

 

So even on the Abiogenesis issue; you have a 60 component first mole; which is still more than 1: 10^150