Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 44 (9233 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChemEngrMBA
Post Volume: Total: 921,673 Year: 1,995/6,935 Month: 119/306 Week: 51/47 Day: 0/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Review and Confirm The Mathematical Proof of God
ChemEngrMBA
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-25-2025


Message 300 of 314 (922618)
03-25-2025 11:05 AM


Your faith in Nature's God, as He is called in America's Declaration of Independence, will likely be challenged many times in your life, by atheists and perhaps by difficulties you face. It is important for you to have a firm foundation for your most important beliefs. I sincerely hope this analysis helps you in your lifelong journey of prayer, hope, and wisdom. Please share it with family and friends. for their benefit.
_______________________________
The Insuperable Statistics of Naturalistic Polypeptide Synthesis - In Other Words, Nature Cannot Design Complex Proteins
Titin is the largest protein in the human body. It consists of 38,138 amino acid residues in a precise sequence. The first, original synthesis, whether stepwise or in one single, continuous process, consisted of "selecting," in any manner you contemplate, 1 out of the 20 amino acids making up humans, one at a time, 38,138 times in succession. The probability of this event is 1/20 to the 38,138 , which equals 1 in 10 to the 49,618, times the other factors. The pretense of claiming that "sections" of any protein were "assembled" overlooks the unassailable fact that any "section," however small, had to be assembled under the same statistical constraints. Whether one does the computations of building the sequence in one step or 10,000 steps, the figures are beyond dispute. They get a great deal worse, in fact.
[Don't be intimidated by exponential notation. It is shorthand meaning "the number of zeroes behind 1". For example 10 to the 10=10000000000.]
Only Levorotary (left-handed) amino acids, not Dextrorotary (right-handed) amino acids are present in human proteins.* So to account for this chirality factor, the first computation of 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power, which is equal to 1 in 10 to the 11,480th power. 1 in 10 to the 49,618 x 1 in 10 to the 11,480 = 1 in 10 to the 61,198th power. [You add exponents in order to multiply the rational number, so 10 to the third power times 10 to the third power, 1,000 times 1,000 equals 10 to the sixth power, or 1,000,000.]
*
Since all protein bonds are peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, the previous product has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power again. The product of these three essential elements of original Titin synthesis is therefore 1 chance in 10 to the 72,578th power (not even multiplying by whatever is an appropriate probability for the precise folding of the extremely long chain.) [49,618 + 11,480 + 11,480 = 72,578]
Finally, "selection," that magic word Darwin so popularized, demands that at each successive naturalistic step, there must be some advantage conferred to the organism, otherwise the random mutation cannot prevail and multiply. It is impossible for anyone to explain how 1072,578 small, individual steps in this original synthesis will each provide separate, useful functions en route to their final complex formula of Titin. Nobody has ever attempted such an explanation, and they never will. There are only 3 x 109 seconds in 100 years!
Titin is one of at least 20,000 proteins* and enzymes in humans, each of which is statistically impossible to originally design without the Intelligent Creator. * Entry - *188840 - TITIN; TTN - OMIM \
Darwinian evolution, from a single celled organism, to humans, is impossible times at least 20,000.
The only rational conclusion is that they are creations of Nature's God.
What is a protein? A biologist explains#
If the "sections" were pulled from many other polypeptides, as some argue, it still requires new and separate mechanisms for each and every section, and there would have to be many trillions of trillions of them.
To avoid the hurdle of 10to the -40, which is evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins' definition of "impossible," you have to restrict original polypeptide synthesis to a scant 21 amino acids, calculating chirality and peptide bonding.
__________________________________
In 1943, the distinguished French mathematician Émile Borel stated that “events with a sufficiently small probability never occur” (Institute of Mathematical Statistics). Dr. Borel chose a fairly safe number, 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power, or 10 to the -50 . *
Let’s look at the volume of 1050 marbles, one centimeter in diameter.
There are 100 such marbles per meter, and 100 times 1,000 per kilometer = 10 to the 5 marbles per km .
However, when identical spheres are stacked, they drop into the valley of three other spheres, which reduces their equivalent cubic volume to 74% of their diameter.
Therefore the volume of 10 to the 5 marbles cubed equals (.74 x 10 to the 5) cubed = 4.05 x
10 to the 14 cubic kilometers.
The volume of earth is 108.3 x 10 to the 10cubic kilometers. **
4.05 x 10 to the 14 marbles/cubic km x 108.3 x 10 to the 10cubic kilometers per earth volume = 2.28 x 10 to the 26 earth sized spheres
This is 228,000 billion billion earth sized spheres filled with marbles, with only one chance to pick the special unique marble on the first and only try. This is the definition of "one chance in..." No probability is ever shown as an infinite number of chances.
* owlcation.com
** Earth Fact Sheet
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
________________________
The misleading atheist claims that (1) science and religion are mutually exclusive, and (2) Christians are ignorant and anti-science, are destructive lies which have led too many to abandon their religious faith.
Eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates in the Twentieth Century were Christians and Jews. (100 Years of Nobel Prizes, by Baruch Shalev) They were neither ignorant nor unscientific. Modern science accords far better with Nature's God than it does with atheist nihilism.
___________________________
"His (Dawkin’s) metaphor of climbing the mountain (Climbing Mount Improbable, by Richard Dawkins) is loaded with intentionality, not randomness, the driving force of any mutation. No climber ever reached the summit of a high and difficult mountain without a powerful sense of wanting to get there. The very fact that Dawkins admits to aiming for the summit, or in his own words, “only accepting mutations that improve optical performance”, is surely the most blatant admission that his version of neo-Darwinism is, despite claims to the contrary, profoundly goal-centered and purposeful." - How Blind is the Watchmaker, by Neil Broom, page 167
Mathematics Professor, John Lennox, gives a fifteen-minute lecture on what he considers the proof of God.
Oxford Mathematician DESTROYS Atheism In Less Than 15 Minutes (BRILLIANT!) (youtube.com)
Former atheist, Peter Hitchens, explains the nonsense of atheism in just minutes
"People who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do." - Steve Jobs (1955-2011)
--------------------------
Added footnote March 25: This is not a cut and paste. It is my own creation whcih can be seen at my website https://MathProvesGod.bloggspot.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Percy, posted 03-25-2025 11:15 AM ChemEngrMBA has not replied
 Message 302 by Percy, posted 03-25-2025 11:16 AM ChemEngrMBA has not replied
 Message 304 by dwise1, posted 03-25-2025 1:43 PM ChemEngrMBA has not replied
 Message 305 by dwise1, posted 03-25-2025 2:09 PM ChemEngrMBA has replied
 Message 306 by Admin, posted 03-25-2025 4:06 PM ChemEngrMBA has not replied

  
ChemEngrMBA
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-25-2025


Message 308 of 314 (922629)
03-25-2025 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by dwise1
03-25-2025 2:09 PM


Atheists are nothing if not arrogant, condescending and rude.
I submitted this to a professor of biochemistry who agreed with me completely.
The ratio of non-functional polypeptides to functional polypeptides is ten to the seventy-seventh to one. So your pretense of randomness in polypeptides is powerful evidence of your utter ignorance.
Ten to the minus fifty is an impossible statistic. Twenty thousand of them in humans, all precise and functional, is insuperable. You have no concept of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dwise1, posted 03-25-2025 2:09 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Taq, posted 03-25-2025 4:28 PM ChemEngrMBA has not replied
 Message 312 by dwise1, posted 03-25-2025 4:33 PM ChemEngrMBA has not replied
 Message 313 by dwise1, posted 03-25-2025 4:41 PM ChemEngrMBA has not replied

  
ChemEngrMBA
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-25-2025


Message 309 of 314 (922630)
03-25-2025 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Taq
03-25-2025 4:15 PM


Dunning-Kruger indeed. He is not only stuck on the ignorance peak, but incapable of learning anything new. He still thinks new proteins evolve by random assembly of amino acids, for crying out loud. Don't they teach RNA transcription and protein translation in high school biology? Perhaps they don't. - Taq
"Evolution" is your word. I specifically stated "original synthesis."
How was the FIRST titin protein synthesized? You hopped right over that urgent question out of bald-faced necessity.
Then duplicate it 20,000 times for the other human proteins.
Perhaps you didn't get much out of your classes in English grammar and definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Taq, posted 03-25-2025 4:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Taq, posted 03-25-2025 4:33 PM ChemEngrMBA has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025