Intelligent Design proven

[macintologist]

Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at NYU, has estimated that the probability of randomly assembling a typical enzyme (composed of two hundred linked L-form amino acids) in a single try is approximately 1 in 10^20. (That's one to the 20th power, I don't know how to superscript in vbulletin).

Let's assume an amino acid stew once covered the earth to a depth of ten kilometers, and that reactions took place in every cubic micron of the stew, thus 5 x 10^36 seperate flasks. We'll assume this went on for the fossil evidence maximum of one billion years (3 x 10^16 seconds), which gives us a total of 1.5 x 10^53 attempts.

So the chances of getting a single enzyme 1 in 10^20 in 1.5 x 10^53 attempts is very good, better than 99.99%. The only problem is that a typical bacterium is around two thousand different enzymes. So the chances of a single viable bacterium being formed in a billion years with six miles of amino acid soup covering the earth is:

1 x 10^39,950

Shapiro cautions however that this estimate is likely way too optimistic, "In fact, things are much worse. A tidy set of twenty amino acids, all in the L-form, was not likely to be available on the early Earth." He endorses the probabilities by Dr. Harold Morowitz, Yale University physicist, that there is one chance in 10^100,000,000,000 that a viable bacterium ever evolved on Earth.

So that's just one bottleneck of many:

<Massive Mod Snip>

Just remember everyone, don't be a criminal, none of the above is to be said at a government school. If your teacher asks you must tell her that you believe in evolution and you don't require proof. I take no responsibility if you break the law.



Mod Note: Read the posts from which this was extracted by following the links here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2079363#post2079363).

Since the OP of this thread seems to be a C&P from the two posts macintologist provided, and since wholesale reproduction of posts from other sites is prohibited without appropriate permission for the reproduction, I've edited the OP down to introductory material and provided a link to macintologist's post with the links. (Apologies to those who were fisking it point by point.)

RBH
E/C Moderator

[DiffyQ]

And how is this proof of ID exactly? Do you realize how many planets there are in the universe? Even if the probably of assembing an enzyme were 1 in 10^1000 there would still be an excellent chance of life existing somewhere.

[Y.B]

Why do you spread misinformation? :huh:

For one, the universe is estimated 13,7 billion years old. Secondly, the mass extinction of dinosaurs happened 65 million years ago. That's the kind of facts even a layman like me knows off the top of my head - I won't even try to tear your post apart bit by bit, as others here will surely do it. I do have to say that your trying to "prove" ID by arbitrarily correlating the six creation days with the age of the universe has to be one of the lamest attempts at proving ID I've ever seen.

[keebs]

Sure, the numbers are high if you consider the spontaneous, random assembly of something like that...but the problem is that's not how it happened. You'd be much better off calculating the probability of getting a very small self replicator that acts as it's own enzyme (such as RNA), and then over the course of time bacteria eventually emerged. The enzymes that are needed for life don't just spontaneously form, as the article shows.

[Unaffiliated]

Really, can't the creationists come up with something new? Actually the probability of these things is 100% because they did happen.

[maurile]

Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at NYU, has estimated that the probability of randomly assembling a typical enzyme (composed of two hundred linked L-form amino acids) in a single try is approximately 1 in 10^20. (That's one to the 20th power, I don't know how to superscript in vbulletin).
Good one!

What's the probability of assembling a typical elephant (composed of five hundred linked elephant parts) in a single try? Elephants must be intelligently designed as well!

[The Defenestrator]

Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at NYU, has estimated that the probability of randomly assembling a typical enzyme

Typical modern enzyme


(composed of two hundred linked L-form amino acids) in a single try

What constitutes a "try"?

is approximately 1 in 10^20. (That's one to the 20th power, I don't know how to superscript in phpbb).

Let's assume an amino acid stew once covered the earth to a depth of ten kilometers, and that reactions took place in every cubic micron of the stew, thus 5 x 10^36 seperate flasks. We'll assume this went on for the fossil evidence maximum of one billion years (3 x 10^16 seconds), which gives us a total of 1.5 x 10^53 attempts.

So the chances of getting a single enzyme 1 in 10^20 in 1.5 x 10^53 attempts is very good, better than 99.99%. The only problem is that a typical bacterium is around two thousand different enzymes. So the chances of a single viable bacterium being formed in a billion years with six miles of amino acid soup covering the earth is:

1 x 10^39,950

Shapiro cautions however that this estimate is likely way too optimistic, "In fact, things are much worse. A tidy set of twenty amino acids, all in the L-form, was not likely to be available on the early Earth." He endorses the probabilities by Dr. Harold Morowitz, Yale University physicist, that there is one chance in 10^100,000,000,000 that a viable bacterium ever evolved on Earth.


What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution? I notice you use the word evolution incorrectly in your post.


So that's just one bottleneck of many:
-- Were the Earth's average air temp ten degress higher or lower, no life.

That's funny, since I'm pretty sure the average air temperature has dropped more than ten degrees since the Mezozoic Era. I'm also pretty sure we've found single-celled organisms in very hot and cold places-extremophiles, they're called.

-- Had the Earth fallen into a slightly tigher orbit around the sun, no life.

define "tigher" IIRC, the variance in the Earth's orbit is several million miles.

-- If the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed. (Lawrence Krauss, Yale University, compared the odds of the universe expanding at the right rate to "the odds of someone guessing exactly how many atoms are in the sun." Scientific American, Oct 1990)

:confused: how does this work?

-- Minute changes in the strength of electromagnetic or nuclear Strong and Weak forces, and no formation of carbon and hydrogen.
-- Slight alterations in the strength of the gravitational force, no planets and stars.
-- The possibility that all the forces would randomly settle at the precise strengths necessary to sustain a biotic environment is infintesimal,

You make the mistake of assuming that this is the only possible world in which life can exist. In a different universe, things would be different, and different patterns would be produced.

as is the probability that they would maintain that perfect alignment every moment for the last 30 billion years.

only if you assume that laws of physics are prone to changing spontaneously.

Now the six thousand year biblical timeline begins with the first human souls of Adam and Eve.

Wrong. Humans have been around for tens of millions of years.

All carbon readings on archeological sites perfectly match the Bible from after this point.

Why do I not believe you? :rolleyes:

As to the six days before...

The three methods for measuring the age of the universe, [velocity distance relationships between galaxies, radioactive dating methods, and models of stellar evolution] all put it at 15 billion years, give or take a billion or two, but 15 billion years is the consensus.

As Einstein's theory of relativity proved, as gravity goes up, time slows down. The time on any given planet is measured by light. The frequency of lightwaves are the timepieces of the universe. So the question is by what standard are those first six 24 hour days measured?

It can't be an Earth-based perspective because for the first two of those six days there was no Earth. ("And the earth was unformed..." Gen 1:2) The only perspective available for the full six days is of the total universe, one that encompasses the entire creation.

one that doesn't have days.

In 1965 Penzia and Wilson discovered cosmic background radiation (CBR), the only source of radiation present and ubiquitous since the creation. By measuring the frequence of this radiation we can measure the beat of the cosmic clock.

The big bang did not produce matter directly. It produced a pure hot radiant energy of such a high level that matter was able to form from the energy. This transition from energy to matter occurred .00001 seconds after the big bang.

As the universe expands, the initially concentrated energy is cooling as it becomes more dilute within an ever larger volume. Once it fell below a certain minimum value matter cold no longer form, a threshold MIT prof Gerald Schroder refers to as quark confinement.

Waves of radiation that have been propagated in space since the early universe have been stretched and expanded by the same proportion that the universe has expanded. The velocity of radiation remains constant, it is only the wavelength that changes.

The temperature and frequency of radiation energy at quark confinement has been measured in physics labs, and is shown to be a million million times (10^12) longer (and hotter) than today's radiation energy, so ticks on the cosmic clock are a million million times slower now than they were at the big bang.
did you build this argument out of a research paper?

So we established the universe is 15 billion years old. Divide that by a million million. You know what it works out to? 6 days.
5 1/2

So the bible's time perspective is not on Earth looking backwards, but right after the big bang looking forwards. As the CBR expands, its waves gets longer and time gets slower.

Sure, just like the radio gets slower the farther away you get from the broadcasting station

That million million is average of the fifeteen billion years, but it's not a straight line descent but a Cartesian curve (the mathematical expression of spirals, found all throughout nature from seashells to galaxies).

I'll skip the math

8,000,000,000/(2^[n-1])

and just list how it works out:

forward cosmic perspective/earth backwards perspective based on ticks of the cosmic clock:

Day one/24 hours/8 billion years
Day two/24 hours/4 billion years
Day three/24 hours/2 billion years
Day four/24 hours/1 billion years
Day five/24 hours/half billion years
Day six/24 hours/quarter billion years
Total: six days/15 and three quarter billion years

DAY ONE 15,750,000,000 - 7,750,000,000 B.P. (before present)
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

For a creative interpretation of "light"

DAY TWO 7.75 billion years B.P. - 3.75 billion years B.P.
Most of the stars of the Milky Way form.
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning.

Actually, it's the Sun that's a star, not the Earth.

DAY THREE 3.75 billion years B.P. - 1.75 billion years B.P.
Geophysical evidence of weathered rocks show the appearance of cooled and liquid water 3.8 billion years ago after massive raining of meteors.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.

THIS is the verse that talks about stars.

DAY FOUR 1.75 billion years B.P. - 750 million years B.P.
Earth science show it was during this period that the atmospheric concentration of photosynthetically produced oxygen rose to concentrations comparable with today's atmosphere, and formerly translucent, it became transparent and heavenly bodies became visible.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

Oh! That's where all those Precambrian-Era bird and fish fossils come from! :rolling:

DAY FIVE 750 million years B.P. - 250 million years B.P.
Cambrian period. Fossil record reveals a sudden explosion of the first animal life in the oceans 530 million years ago. Amphibian reptiles and winged life 360 million years ago.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

Your days haven't been in sync since day 1

DAY SIX 250 million years B.P. - 6,000 years B.P.
Paleontology records approx 250 million years ago, mass extinction of 90 percent of life (dinasours)

no.

followed by repopulation. Animal life flourishes.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image...
Why would God look like humans? What environment did he evolve in?

Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, "The fossil material is now so compete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material." Synthetische Artbildung (1954)

What lack of transitionals?

David Raup, curator of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record."

Professor Murray Eden of MIT, "An adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws--physical, physico-chemical and biological."

Marcel P. Schutenberger, University of Paris, "We believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."

Professor Ernst Chain, Nobel laureate chemistry, "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."

Dr. Francis Crick, Cambridge University, won Nobel Prize for DNA research, admitted life could not have evolved on Earth and must have been "sent here long ago in the form of germinal material, from elsewhere in the universe."..."The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle."

Stephen Hawking, theoretical phycisist at Cambridge University, "The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order."

Context and dates for these quotes? How many of those people know anything about Biology?

Just remember everyone, don't be a criminal, none of the above is to be said at a government school.

Public school teacher's aren't supposed to endorse religion on the job.

If your teacher asks you must tell her that you believe in evolution and you don't require proof.

You have no idea how science works, do you?

I take no responsibility if you break the law.

I'll leave you to those who study this stuff for a living to correct me and point out things I missed.

[TySixtus]

Hee Hee!

*Grabs a beer and sits down to watch!*

Ty

[Y.B]

Stephen Hawking, theoretical phycisist at Cambridge University, "The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order."

Isn't quote mining such a wonderful form of argument? So Hawking talking about natural laws of the universe somehow proves he thinks life must be "intelligently designed"? :rolleyes:

[Jack the Bodiless]

I don't know if anyone is counting, but doesn't this break some sort of record for the greatest number of scientific errors in a single post here?

I really don't know where to start. Of course, this is probably a drive-by (post count 1, so far), so I don't know whether it's worth making a start...

(Edit: I just noticed that the thread-starter describes himself as an atheist in his profile. So this is a quote from somewhere, or what?)

[jcain6]

:banghead:

[macintologist]

I laid out all the math in my posts. The million million ratio of CBR waves at quark confinment vs. what they are today has been measured and verified in physics labs. If you're wondering where I got my informaiton:

Sources:
M. Fukugita, C. Hogan, P.J.E. Peebles, "The History of Galaxies," Nature 381:489, 1996.

A. Grunmaum, "Pseudo-Creation of the Big Bang," Nature 344:821-822, 1990.

M. Harwitt, "Cosmic Curvature and Condensation," The Astrophysical Journal 392:394-402, 1992.

J. Levy-Leblond, "The Unbegun Big Bang," Nature 342:23, 1989

J. Levy-Leblond, "Did the Big Bang Begin?" American Journal of Physics 58:156-159, 1990.

C. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1971, pp. 659, 776

G. Schroeder, The Science of God, Broadway Books, New York, 1997, pp. 52-59

J. Silk, The Big Bang, W.H. Freeman, New York, 1989, p. 72

B. Smith, "A Short History of the Universe," National Geographic, January 1994

S. Weinberg, "Life in the Universe," Scientific American, October 1994.[/quote]

[abaddon]

That something's probability is relatively low doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. It certainly does not mean that a god is necessary to make the improbable probable.

Another way to look at is that if it's probable at all, then why be surprised when it does happen given the enormous number of variables involved?

If you could prove life on earth is impossible without an "outside agent", then god (and especially not just the biblical god) is not the single alternative among "outside agents." It could still be space aliens in an alternate universe rather than Yahweh. And what's the probability of Yahweh spontaneously forming himself from nothing at all? Yahweh is less probable than extraordinarily talented super-aliens in an alternate universe because that's a natural (though not empirically observed) explanation rather than a supernatural one.

And why try to relate it all to the bible rather than the Upanishads or another collection of scriptures?

[macintologist]

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=57670&start=90
http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=57854

The origins of this post are Alan Lipton of protestwarrior.com He believes in ID.

[Flint]

I think someone should point out that enzyme formation isn't a random process, even for the very first one. There are, to paraphrase Dawkins, ramps up the backside of this particular mount improbable as well. When something vanishingly unlikely seems to have happened, it's always a good idea to wonder whether the model under which it is so unlikely is the correct model, or whether a step-by-step model might also work, where each step has a decent chance of happening and a decent chance of being preserved.

As well as the process of assembly being mischaracterized, we have no indication to believe (and strong reason to doubt) that a "typical" modern enzyme was the first one to form. Furthermore, we have strong reason to doubt that the first self-replicating molecule was even an enzyme. Numerous plausible scaffolding proposals have been demonstrated.

As a rather whimsical (but nonetheless accurate) analogy, let's say I refused to believe that it's possible to hit a major league home run. Immediately I am faced with a practical difficulty: the evidence that major league home runs ARE hit is pretty daunting. But belief trumps reality, so off I go. The probability of a typical citizen facing a major league pitcher is vanishingly small. The probability of even touching the bat to the ball if someone DOES face such a pitcher is also very small. The probability that that touch results in a home run is negligible. The probability that all these things will happen in a major league game is infinitesimal. Multiply all these together to get the total probability, and it's (gasp!) 1 in 10^39,950. Clearly, the math is incontrovertible. Home runs aren't ever hit, QED. Evidence? Who needs it?

And all you people pointing to the actual home runs? Your irrational religious belief does you no credit. Can't you SEE the math? There it is!

[Jack the Bodiless]

Well, the probability of spontaneous assembly of a bacterium from amino acids is obviously irrelevant: no biologist believes in anything so ridiculously implausible. All you need is a self-replicating molecule of some sort, then evolution kicks in.

Conditions on the Earth: also irrelevant. Plenty of planets in the Universe.

The whole Genesis stuff: complete bunk. Especially as, in the Bible, the Earth WAS created in the very first verse of Genesis (only its surface was without form, i.e. lacking continents yet), and the creation sequence contains numerous errors (trees before land animals, birds before land animals etc.

Universal constants: the cosmological fine-tuning argument. Two problems: we have no means of canculating the actual probability that they would turn out as they did (we don't know what the constraints are, or the range of actual possibilities), and ours could be only one of an infinity of Universes with different parameters.

Quote-mining: worthless.

[Angrillori]

Robert Shapiro, professor of chemistry at NYU, has estimated that the probability of randomly assembling a typical enzyme (composed of two hundred linked L-form amino acids) in a single try is approximately 1 in 10^20. (That's one to the 20th power, I don't know how to superscript in vbulletin).

Let's assume an amino acid stew once covered the earth to a depth of ten kilometers, and that reactions took place in every cubic micron of the stew, thus 5 x 10^36 seperate flasks. We'll assume this went on for the fossil evidence maximum of one billion years (3 x 10^16 seconds), which gives us a total of 1.5 x 10^53 attempts.

So the chances of getting a single enzyme 1 in 10^20 in 1.5 x 10^53 attempts is very good, better than 99.99%.

Actually, this makes it a statistical certainty.

And right up until this point, you almost sound like you know what you're talking about.



Then you blow it.


The only problem is that a typical bacterium is around two thousand different enzymes. So the chances of a single viable bacterium being formed in a billion years with six miles of amino acid soup covering the earth is:

1 x 10^39,950

Shapiro cautions however that this estimate is likely way too optimistic, "In fact, things are much worse. A tidy set of twenty amino acids, all in the L-form, was not likely to be available on the early Earth." He endorses the probabilities by Dr. Harold Morowitz, Yale University physicist, that there is one chance in 10^100,000,000,000 that a viable bacterium ever evolved on Earth.


See, no one ever claimed life started with a modern bacterium, fully formed.

In fact,

#1) Evolution is silent on origins.
#2) All that's required to get evolution going is ONE (1) imperfectly self-replicating enzyme. It might be a protein enzyme, might be RNA, might be a proto-NA, or even a crystal of some sort.

Evolution wouldn't NEED a bacteria to start. it just needs one enzyme, and your Shapiro fellow has graciously "proven" that it is statistcailly certain that any given enzyme could have formed in the primordial soup.

So, thanks for proving evolution!

While you're basking in the glory of having proven evolution, you may, may want to go to your local library, and check out a book on what evolution ACTUALLY is. It could only help.

P.S. When you "make up" what your opponent's argument is, and craft your fakery in such a way that it makes your opponent's argument appear falsely weakened, you have commited what is known in logic as the "Strawman fallacy." You may want to look that one up too. A great example is where a person claims that evolution says a thing which would be easy to disprove, when in fact evolution says nothing of the sort.


So that's just one bottleneck of many:

Oh joy. Another copy-and-pasted list of "why evolution couldn't happen."
(In case you thought you were being witty and exposing us to something we had never considered, you ought to consider this: whoever could REALLY disprove evolution, would receive a Nobel Prize. Why hasn't the person from whose website you copied and pasted this, received a Nobel Prize?

More importantly, if this were new, why would there already exist a website (http://www.talkorigins.org) thouroughly debunking each and all of the above claims, and why would some of these even be regarded by creationist websites as "arguments not to be used?")


I'll address them too, but if you want an easier format, check out: http://www.talkorigins.org


-- Were the Earth's average air temp ten degress higher or lower, no life.


Strange since there exist lifeforms which exist within temperature ranges of 100's of degrees, from well below 0, to well well above? Archaebacteria can survive in polar ice, and in superheated steam geysers.

No, a 10 degree temperature change is certainly no life-elimnator.

So, claim #2, in the toilet.


-- Had the Earth fallen into a slightly tigher orbit around the sun, no life.

First, see right above. Earth closer=warmer=still could be life.

But more importantly, if earth were closer to this sun, do you know for a fact that there would be no planet anywhere else in the whole universe that would have the same orbit as earth does now?

So, claim #3, in the toilet.


-- If the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed. (Lawrence Krauss, Yale University, compared the odds of the universe expanding at the right rate to "the odds of someone guessing exactly how many atoms are in the sun." Scientific American, Oct 1990)

And do you have any reason to believe that the rate could have been any different?

If I drop a rock off a building, it will accelerate at exactly one rate. The "chances" of that rate, one in a million million million million million, but you know what? Every time I drop a rock, it will fall at the EXACT same rate. Why? That's the ONLY rate it CAN fall at. Since the early universe's expansion was governed by the EXACT same forces that govern the fall of my rock, we can know that each and every time this universe forms, it will form the same way. Just as I know that the rock will fall at the same rate. No chance involved.

Claim #4. You guessed it. In the toilet.


-- Minute changes in the strength of electromagnetic or nuclear Strong and Weak forces, and no formation of carbon and hydrogen.

See above.

#5. Flush.


-- Slight alterations in the strength of the gravitational force, no planets and stars.

See above.

#6. Flush.


-- The possibility that all the forces would randomly settle at the precise strengths necessary to sustain a biotic environment is infintesimal, as is the probability that they would maintain that perfect alignment every moment for the last 30 billion years.

See above.

#7. Ba-woosh.

By the way, I'll interject here. What's with the appeals to "randomness" by creationists? They want to throw "randomness" in everywhere it's inappropriate. Like if there's no cosmic sky-daddy putting all the pieces in place all the time, everything just descends to chaos. They (creationists) often seem to ignore the non-random laws of the universe, the non-random binding of chemicals, the non-random selection process involved in evolution, and on and on.

It's especially strange, because if you actually put a sky-daddy in the picture, things get MORE random than the naturalistic universe is. In a naturalistic universe, things work according to set tendencies and fit into the "laws" of nature. Put a sky-daddy in, and suddenly what we know as universal, space and time symmetric laws, become mutable atthis beings entirely random whim.

What are the chances a deity randomly decides to make humanity on this planet, exactly as it is now? Infinitely slimmer than the chances that the universe, operating according to it's nature, will allow intelligent, conscious beings to evolve somewhere.

Oh well.

Back to the sillyness.


Now the six thousand year biblical timeline begins with the first human souls of Adam and Eve. All carbon readings on archeological sites perfectly match the Bible from after this point. As to the six days before...

What in the world are you talking about?

We have cave paintings, stone tools, campsites, religious figurines, all sorts of stuff predating the bible, and most dating absolutely FAILS to verify biblical accounts. For example, the exodus wandering is almost perfectly falsified by the archaeology. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah described in the bible run counter to the archaeological evidence. And so on and so forth.

So, where were we...ah yes! I'll call that #8 in the crapper!


The three methods for measuring the age of the universe, [velocity distance relationships between galaxies, radioactive dating methods, and models of stellar evolution] all put it at 15 billion years, give or take a billion or two, but 15 billion years is the consensus.

With a 15 second Google search you could have discovered the error here. (Well any of the several errors.) Let's leave this one to the viewers at home.

Who can use Google to see:
How many methods are used to determine the age of the universe?
What is the consensus age of the universe?

The winner gets the chance to help make the world a bit smarter place, and be the one to officially post that claim #9 is swirling its way to oblivion.


Damn, gotta go.

Get the rest later.

[Sauron]

I laid out all the math in my posts. The million million ratio of CBR waves at quark confinment vs. what they are today has been measured and verified in physics labs. If you're wondering where I got my informaiton:

Followed by more cut-and-paste from the website where you copied the original text. You didn't "get" your information from anyone, nor did you actually read or verify any of the math you carelessly tossed into your post. Nope - you merely copied someone else's website, and their list of references.

Fraud.

[cjack]

Okay, so the chance of an enzyme or bacterium randomly forming is so small as to make it virtually impossible. If we accept this line of reasoning, the next question is:

What's the chance of a super-duper intelligent being able to design the aforementioned enzymes and bacteria just poofing into existence?

I'd hazard a guess that it would be several orders of magnitude even more impossible!

So if Intelligent Design is true, we can't possibly exist!

Damn...and I was pretty sure I was real...

:eek:

[Majestyk]

He believes in ID. And that is the difference between religion and science, macintologist. Regardless of whether, you understand what you have posted or parroted someone else' work, it does not prove Intelligent Design. Yours our anyone else' "belief" is irrelevant.