No, scientists propose the Big Bang theory, not just atheists. There is a difference you know, not least because the majority of scientists are religious.
By the way, the Big Bang was not an explosion. The word you are groping for is expansion.
quote:There are many problems with this theory; but one basic one is an explosion causes:
A BIG MESS
Have you looked at the skies recently? They are both big and messy. Besides, the Big bang was not an explosion.
quote:As always the evidence does not agree with such a story. When God created this universe he created this universe and earth in such a way to allow life. One of the things that he did to ensure that life would flourish on earth is to place this earth just far enough away from the sun.
Oh really? Do tell...
quote:THIS EARTH IS 93 MILLION MILES AWAY FROM THE SUN.
Wrong. The Earth is an average of about 93 million miles, or about 150 million km away from the Sun.
quote:IF THIS EARTH WAS ANY CLOSER TO THE THE SUN, ALL LIFE WOULD BURN UP.
Wrong. The Earth has an elliptical orbit, as every schoolchild should know. The distance between Sun and Earth varies at different points in it's orbit. This has been known for centuries, but it seems to have passed you by.
quote:IF THIS EARTH WAS FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SUN ALL LIFE WOULD FREEZE.
Wrong again. The distance between the Sun at aphelion (furthest point from the Sun) and perihelion (closest point to Sun) is about 5 million km!. You would know this already if you had payed attention at school. You would also know this if you had bothered to do the slightest bit of research, even as little as a cursory Google or check on Wikipedia. Apparently, you can't be bothered, even though you are setting yourself up as a self-proclaimed educator of children. Do you think it acceptable to teach children such pathetically wrong nonsense Wheely? I would hope not.
quote:An explosion can not cause such a fine-tuned job.
Expansion. Not explosion.
quote:This is just 1 example of how this earth and universe is so finely tuned. There are hundreds of examples within our universe and all of these display the hand of God.
Even if your claims were not so transparently false, your general argument would still be absurd. We live in a universe that supports (some) life. Why are you surprised at this? Would you expect to be observing this fact from a universe that did not support life? The Anthropic Principle answers this tired old canard quite adequately. No need to invoke God.
Put simply, this whole page is bullshit and completely unsuitable for education purposes. All it can do is fill a child's head with rubbish. Epic fail.
Mutate and Survive
"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
I never suggested that scavengers eat teeth. I was saying that if an animal was to die, with a combination of scavengers, entropy and the elements the animal will be gone before it can be encased into a layer of sediment and fossilized. In order for that to happen, it has to happen very fast.
I have seen first hand how rapid bones can become covered with sediment. At my little fishing hole, there was a cow that died trying to reach the water. It smelled for weeks until bacteria and scavengers stripped the carcus of the decaying flesh. After the decompsition process was finished all that remained were the bones of the animal. It has now been two years since that happened and when I recently went back to the spot that the animal had died at, all the bones were covered by at least three inches of sediment. So obviously just from first hand expierence, your statement about no bones remaining to be buried, I know is false.
my friend says in the resources I provide above is that it has been scientifically proven that ‘fish’ decompose within no time; that is days. To my recollection he doesn’t say how fast shark bones decompose, but sharks are fishes, so I am making an assumption that they also disintegrate very quickly; perhaps not as fast as say the fish in your fish tank will, but still very quickly.
The reason why we find so many fossilized shark teeth and not shark skeletons. Is because of the fact that sharks skeletons just like fish skeletons are primarily composed of cartilage, not bone. The only thing made of bone is the teeth. Which is why sharks decompose so quickly and utterly, leaving behind only the teeth for preservation via fossilization. 'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
Is because of the fact that sharks skeletons just like fish skeletons are primarily composed of cartilage, not bone. The only thing made of bone is the teeth.
The sentiment is right (shark skeletons are made up of cartilage, which is a soft tissue, unlike bones, which are largely calcium phosphate; the only bony part of a shark is the tooth). The only problem is that most fish species are actually bony. Of the roughly 28,000 known species of "fish", about 27,000 are bony. Another ~970 are sharks, rays, and chimeras, and the rest being lampreys and hagfish.
Fish is in quotation because apparently, the class Pisces is out of favor, and fish are now defined as any non-tetrapod chordate that has gills throughout its life, and if it has limbs, they are shaped as fins.
I stand corrected. Thank you for the accurate defintions. The point still remains that shark teeth, as oppossed to skeletons, are found in aboundance due to as (percy already pointed out) sharks shed teeth throughout their life. And the material compostion of tooth vs. skeleton, which leads to fossilization of the teeth but not the rest of the skeletal remains. Thank you again for the clarification. 'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
No I didn’t. I know he found just teeth, but teeth are attached to a jawbone, which is attached to a skull which is attached to a body: a skeleton. I know he didn’t find a skeleton, but if shark’s teeth were on a mountain, then so was the rest of it at some point in time. So, therefore how did it get there, on the mountain embedded into rock layers?
Others have already pointed out that shark skeletons are composed of cartilage and so do not fossilise well. Another fact to consider is that sharks constantly lose and replace their teeth, with some sharks losing up to 30,000 teeth through their lifetime. So finding fossil shark teeth does not mean they were initially associated with a whole skeleton.
Also as you stated you are not here to get into a debate about the articles on your website, but will you be correcting the various errors in your articles as already highlighted? Are you going to properly research the articles based on what science says and what the theory of evolution actually describes, rather than basing your knowledge on dodgy youtube videos and your fabricated 'evolutionist'?
By the way, if you click on the peek button next to reply it will show you how people format their posts, so should help you with quote boxes and such.
Hey Wheely, I've got a little free time now to pick up some of the bits and pieces. Hope you don't mind if I spend some time on this.
Message 9 The ‘tongue stones’ were actually discovered to be sharks teeth, not stones.
Note that this is back when fossils were first being understood as evidence of past life, rather than as mystical objects. Science was not developed, and intellectual thought was just recovering from the dark ages.
Message 14 (recap) No I didn’t. I know he found just teeth, but teeth are attached to a jawbone, which is attached to a skull which is attached to a body: a skeleton. I know he didn’t find a skeleton, but if shark’s teeth were on a mountain, then so was the rest of it at some point in time. So, therefore how did it get there, on the mountain embedded into rock layers?
As has been pointed out, sharks shed teeth continually and the skeletons of sharks are made of cartilage instead of bone. Cartilage is not as durable as bone and bone is not as durable as teeth. There are few fossils that have cartilage in them, and there are many cases where only teeth are found.
An open minded skeptic will not claim that something is there until he finds evidence of it, and we don't want to teach kids to jump to conclusions.
You highlighted a section then commented that Steno wouldn’t have known about the ‘chemical composition of fossils’. If he didn’t know about it in 1660 then how was he able to comment on it? ... It states that “Steno added to Colonna’s theory…” by arguing the chemical composition. How could he argue something that he didn’t know about?
He was able to determine the chemical components of the fossils and see that they were different from the modern specimen. We now know that this process occurs by permineralization and replacement, but poor Nicholas did not have the benefit of that knowledge and figured out a significant part of it by himself.
Again, this is information that is 340 years old, from the rebirth of scientific thought.
So…how did a shark get buried in rock layers on mountains near Steno’s homeland? The argument that I have heard from an evolutionist is that they died and over the course of millions of years the sharks skeletons took a ride up, as the mountain grew via many tectonic plate activity.
Good question, and you appear to have some grasp of the answer.
The argument you will hear from evolutionists is that this is geology no evolution, and the evidence you will hear from geologists is that plate tectonics is the only theory that explains all the evidence of mountains and layers of rocks, and that they have been unable to find any evidence of a global flood.
We can measure these very same processes going on today in mountains and valleys all over the world, and guess what? Many mountains are still rising, and their rate of rise is sufficient to explain their height from the times their rocks are dated to be on a sea bottom.
There is evidence of marine life on almost every mountain, including everest, but the marine life is NOT evidence of a (less than a year duration) flood. Why?
Because (a) it involves life forms like Brachiopods that are born as a free moving larvae, but that settle on the bottom where they find a suitable habitat (not too silty, not too much current) and then they grow a clam-like bivalve on a rather fragile stalk attached permanently to the bottom - and without those conditions you would not have Brachiopods growing to form fossils in that location.
Because (b) once the Brachiopods have attached, they are not capable of moving about like clams, but can only continue to grow in place, which they do, getting bigger and forming annual rings like clams and trees and corals, and in these fossil deposits the brachipods range in ages from a few years to 30 or 40 years, as evidenced by the growth rings and sizes - a period of time much longer than any biblical (or other global) flood account I am aware of.
Because (c) the marine deposits preserve not only Brachipods with intact stalks, but intact delicate coral structures, things that show that the demise of these organisms was not cataclysmic.
Because (d) the marine deposits show complete and mature ecosystems, with burrowing worms and plant (seaweed) roots preserved by mineral casting, organisms which also take more than a year to grow.
Because (e) these marine deposits lie on top of other marine deposits, that lie on top of other marine deposits ... etc, etc, etc. and all showing peaceful mature marine ecologies with organisms that took much more than a single year to grow.
Because (f) these marine layers are continuous and cover large tracts of land, and the only disruption they show is due to the lifting process of plate tectonics, long after the sediments have become rock.
Because (g) you can sometimes find evidence of terrestrial life in between layers of marine life, layers with the same evidence of roots and burrows and small fossils to show that it too was a mature ecology that lasted many years before the sea once again covered this section of land.
The rational conclusion is that these layers were indeed underwater, but they were underwater for extensive periods of time, time measure in centuries and millenia, not once but several times, and only later did the land rise above sea level.
As noted previously, Leonardo da Vinci fingured out long ago that a single catastrophic flood did not fit the evidence, and that the marine fossils formed in a marine environment without a flood:
quote:How did those shells come to lie at the tops of mountains? Leonardo's answer was remarkably close to the modern one: fossils were once-living organisms that had been buried at a time before the mountains were raised: "it must be presumed that in those places there were sea coasts, where all the shells were thrown up, broken, and divided. . ." Where there is now land, there was once ocean. It was possible, Leonardo thought, that some fossils were buried by floods -- this idea probably came from his observations of the floods of the Arno River and other rivers of north Italy -- but these floods had been repeated, local catastrophes, not a single Great Flood. To Leonardo da Vinci, as to modern paleontologists, fossils indicated the history of the Earth, which extends far beyond human records. As Leonardo himself wrote:
Since things are much more ancient than letters, it is no marvel if, in our day, no records exist of these seas having covered so many countries. . . But sufficient for us is the testimony of things created in the salt waters, and found again in high mountains far from the seas.
If you think a flood cause this evidence then please explain each detail listed above and then (for extra credit) show how flood water makes the sediment at the bottom rise up into mountains and suddenly become rock.
“As for giant floods leaving the sharks teeth on mountains, there is absolutely no evidence for this.”
Yes there is! There is a smorgasbord of it! View the resources above; enjoy.
(1) I will point out a small pet peeve of mine: it is possible to find evidence to support any position you care to invent. For instance every road map is evidence of a flat earth - it shows the earth being flat.
When you only consider information that appears (or can be interpreted to) support your argument this is called Confirmation Bias:
For an argument to be valid it must not only show that there is evidence supporting it, but that there is no known evidence contradicting it. If you just deny out of hand evidence that contradicts your argument without considering the validity of the argument, this is called Cognitive Dissonance:
These are not tools used by open-minded skeptics to determine the truth of concepts.
(2) I don't debate information that is by someone not in the debate, and if you want to include this information, I suggest you ask your friend to participate. Strangely I doubt that he is any better prepared than you are to deal with the complete mountains of evidence for plate tectonics, the age of the earth, and the evolution of life over the last 3.5 billion years.
(3) when you present information like this instead of putting it in your own words, it appears that you are too lazy to summarize or present even a single argument. Perhaps you would like to pick one that you feel best presents the case.
I will repeat: there is no evidence of floods depositing things on tops of mountains. None. Nor do floods deposit sharks teeth (or any other fossil) inside rock. Nor do floods "make" rock. Nor do floods deposit things neatly. Floods deposit in the low points all jumbled together and sorted by relative density.
Message 16 The teeth that we are dealing with are fossilized teeth, as you pointed out. It is because the are fossilized that they won’t deteriorate, because a fossil is basically rock. However fossilization is a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be composed before it becomes a rock. All of our fossils is due to Noah’s flood.
Curiously, your "rapid fossil formation" means you now need to explain the lack of the rest of the shark in this fossilization process. For fossilization to occur too fast for normal decay to decompose organic forms, then it must also fossilize the undecayed sharks.
Strangely, there is also no scientific evidence of water turning organic material into rock or mineral.
Curiously, your opinion is completely unable to alter or change reality in any way. It cannot make chemical processes happen at a faster rate, nor keep nature from continuing to behave in the same natural manner as the last several billion years.
If an animal dies it will decompose before it is ever becomes fossilized.
Which, of course, is why fossils are rare rather than plentiful. The conditions that lead to fossilization include rapid burial, but they can also include different biochemical conditions: acidic (peat bog mummies), desert (natural mummies), ice (mammoths and Otzi), anaerobic lakes, etc etc etc. One cannot assume that decomposition always occurs, only that it normally does.
If an animal is left out in the elements, scavengers, ... will turn the animal into compost ...
Strangely, scavangers will eat the flesh and sometimes carry off or redistribute the bones, but they don't turn an animal into compost.
If an animal is left out in the elements, ... the elements ... ... will turn the animal into compost ...
Amusingly the elements have been shown to preserve organic material, either through desert dehydration, freezing, acidic sterilization, etc.
The elements are also not a process of decay, and they don't turn an animal into compost.
If an animal is left out in the elements, ... the natural process of entropy will turn the animal into compost ...
Interestingly, entrophy is not a biological process of decay. When you talk about entropy properly you are talking about the entropy of systems, such as of the sun and the planets, or of the universe. Entropy is the steady loss of energy. You can measure the entropy of decaying systems, but entropy is not causing that decay.
When you misuse words like this it shows an ignorance of science, not a knowledge of it. Science uses specific terms to mean specific things, and if you do not use those terms to mean the same things then you are not talking about the science, but some personal fantasy.
Entropy is not a "natural process" in biology related to decay and does not turn an animal into compost.
If an animal is left out in the elements, scavengers, the elements and the natural process of entropy will turn the animal into compost ...
So what are we left with? What is missing from this picture?
What turns an animal into compost is bacteria eating it, breaking down the proteins to use in building new bacterial organisms. We call this natural process decay. Any process that prevents bacterial decay will preserve organic matter for fossilization.
... before it can be slowly buried into sediment, which Evolution propounds: that over the course of millions of years, animals got slowly buried.
Nope. In many cases the evidence shows that the fossil was rapidly buried - and then fossilized over many years, as minerals replaced organic compounds.
Fossils can also form when dead organisms preserved from bacterial decay by other means.
You are correct that bones do last a long time and one thing that my friend says in the resources I provide above is that it has been scientifically proven that ‘fish’ decompose within no time; that is days. To my recollection he doesn’t say how fast shark bones decompose, but sharks are fishes, so I am making an assumption that they also disintegrate very quickly; perhaps not as fast as say the fish in your fish tank will, but still very quickly. In addition, even though bones do take a fair length of time to disintegrate, I am pretty positive it doesn’t take millions of years, perhaps hundreds, but I highly doubt ‘millions’ or even ‘hundreds of thousands’. Furthermore in order for a shark to be buried it needs to be on the ground. When a shark dies it floats, just as any other fish. The sharks and every other sea creature that we see in the fossil record was deposited in the rocks and buried.
Babble. Ignorant babble. Silly ignorant babble, seeing as the structure of sharks has already been discussed.
Fish bones are bone, similar to the bone in your body. Sharks use cartilage, similar to the cartilage used in joints in our body. I've seen fish bones preserved on rocky ground (sea shore) for years. I've also seen them covered in sand, and then years later being uncovered. Bones don't "disintegrate" on their own.
I've also seen fishermen use dogfish sharks as crab bait. They sink, but even something that floats when it dies will sink when decay opens the body cavity and releases gases that cause the dead body to float. Even wood sinks in time. And many lakes and bays have anaerobic bottoms that preserve organic matter that sinks.
Wheely. As in millstone? (Matt 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2) How appropriate!
So those vids are by your "friend". And does your "friend" have a name? Or better yet, why did you not tell us your "friend's" name? Do you have any reason why you'd want to conceal that information from us?
His name is Ian Juby. Not that I could get that from the tapes which did not name him, but rather from one of the YouTube suggested links. Inspired by Carl Baugh, who is discredited even among many creationists, and contributed to displays to convicted fraud Kent Hovind's theme park. Nice crowd he runs around with.
As soon as he tried that old nonsense of "evolutionists say that this formation was laid down in x years, so that works out to this fraction of a millimeter per year", I knew exactly what I was looking at. As WC Fields said, "There comes a time in the affairs of men where you have to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation." He's just offering the same old crap that they've been hawking for decades. Sure, the smart ones try to dress it up differently -- Hovind just stole Gish's old jokes wholesale -- , make it seem individual and unique, but it's still the same old false crap.
OK, how long have you been feeding on that swill? You're in university, so you're a kid between 18 and 22. Hopefully on the low end, because right now you're in the right place to actually learn something -- more on that later. You've only been getting this stuff for maybe a few years -- unless you're unfortunate enough to have been raised on it -- , so it all seems so new and wonderful. I've been following creationism for about 28 years, so I can tell you for a fact that it's neither. Those false claims of theirs have literally be around for decades and have been refuted over and over again -- we call them PRATTs (I keep getting the details wrong: "points refuted a thousand times") and believe you me we have seen them repeatedly for years. You present the truth about that PRATT, but the creationist doesn't want to see it. Well, usually. Most creationists can only remain deluded for so long, but they eventually have to grab that bull by the tail and face the situation. What keeps those PRATTs going -- and the creationists like Ian Juby in business -- is the PT Barnum Effect: there's a sucker born every minute and right now you're it!
OK, what you need to do is to seek the truth! And being at university, you're in the ideal place for it. What's your major? What minors could you go for? Mind you, I'm assuming that the system up there is similar to ours in the US. You'll have certain general education requirements, including in the sciences. Juby makes claims about geology, so learn something about geology. He claims to tell you what "evolutionists" say, so go and find that out for yourself, see if he's telling you right. Same with paleaontology, astronomy, biology. Physical anthropology for learning hominid fossil evidence and evolution -- in the US, too often the biology classes don't teach evolution, but you should still take biology anyway.
Even if you don't take the classes, you still have the library there so you can do the research. When a creationist makes a claim, check it out. They quote a scientific source, look that source up, see if they represented it correctly. For example, Henry Morris publically claimed that a NASA document from 1976, "well into the space age", showed from direct measurements that there should have been hundreds of feet of meteoric dust on the moon. His book, "Scientific Creationism", made that same claim. When I pulled that NASA document off the library shelf, I immediately knew that Morris was either lying or had never ever seen that document: it was a 1967 printing of papers from a 1965 conference. His actual source was a claim made by Harold Slusher who ignored what his source actually said in order to inflate his calculations for the moon by 10,000 -- actually, I've come to suspect that even Slusher had never actually seen that document himself; they both said it was Volume II when it was actually Volume 11 and there was no way you could mistake that 11 for a II. Get the message? Verify, verify, verify!
BTW, your protein probability claim is completely wrong. More on that later.
PS Take English! Spell checkers will not help you at all because you just plain use the wrong words! You accept something, not "except" it. Using "to" where you needed to use "too".
One thing that might help would be to take a foreign language. When I was at university in North Dakota, we were told that a graduation requirement in Canadian universities was being bilingual English/French (though rumor had it that that only applied to native English speakers; according to that rumor les Québécois didn't need to know English). So French might help to clue you in on what word to use (eg, accept/except -- I had never before seen anyone confuse those two!). At the very least, foreign language study should help you learn that grammar is the key to using a language and that words actually mean something and that you're not just stringing together disassociated sounds.
Oh, while I'm thinking of it: what's your source for that claim? If you learn nothing more in university, always cite your sources. Yes, I do realize that the hallmark of creationist "research" is sloppy scholarship. We're lucky if a creationist provides a bibliography and really lucky when that bibliography isn't just filled with other creationists (though that was handy when I was trying to trace back which creationists had contributed what to the bogus "leap second" claim).
OK, here it is:
quote: > I know you know too much about protein to honestly think that teh > materilaistic arguments of their origin are stronger than the argumet > they are the result of design, plan and purpose.
At least I know enough about proteins to see the errors in your presentation of standard creation science doctrine concerning proteins. It's a pity that your "open and testing mind" never scrutinizes creation science claims.
quote: "Life requires many things. Long amino acids chains make proteins...chains in the proper order and shape. Miller's experiment did NOT produce any chains. Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. Never have chains of DNA or RNA been produced. A cell membrane has never been produced.
"The faith that even one protein arose by chance is tremendous. Lets look at statistics. Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids, just like a train is made up of box cars. A chain of box cars makes up a train. A chain of amino acids makes up a protein. Humans have 20 different types of amino acids that make up our proteins, and the average human protein is 400 amino acids long. Remember, the arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk.
"Imagine many box cars at a train station, and these box cars are made up of twenty different colors. The owner of the station tells you he wants a train to be 400 box cars long, and you are to pick the combination of colored box cars, but if it is not the order he has in mind (and he didn't tell you it) he will fire you.
"What are the odds you will get the box cars in the right order? They are the same odds the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one protein in you. The odds are 20 to the 400th power! This is the same as 10 to the 520th power, that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros! You have better odds of winning California Super Lotto every week for 11 years than the odds of one protein in your body having the amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are really much worse because the amino acids must be left handed, they must form a chain "in series," no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you need an oxygen free environment, etc etc. And remember, this is for just one protein. Your body has countless trillions of proteins.
"The model that a brilliant designer made proteins requires much less faith than to trust random chance and natural processes."
First, we both know (now that you have read some actual protein sequences in my HUMAN.CMP file) that your assumption that every single amino acid in a protein is specified so that any change in the specific sequence would destroy the protein's functionality ("Remember, the arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk."). For many amino acid positions it is the class of amino acid (eg, hydrophyllic, hydrophobic, charged, uncharged) and not the amino acid itself that is important.
In reality, only some positions on a protein require a specific amino acid, others require any of a few different amino acids, and many will accept practically any amino acid. Indeed, it is precisely this fact that allows us to compare the differences in the same FUNCTIONAL protein in different species and find that the degree of difference between more closely related species to be less than between less closely related species.
Creation science is well aware of the fact that the same FUNCTIONAL protein can have different sequences (at the same time that they claim that any change in that specific amino acid sequence would destroy a protein's functionality; honestly, would a little consistency be too much to expect of creation science?) and of what the patterns of relatedness that those differences show. Which is why there are so many false creation science claims of distantly related species having more similar proteins than more closely related ones. Like Walter Brown's blatantly deceptive rattlesnake protein claim. And Duane Gish's infamous bullfrog protein (which claim he made on national TV, then refused to produce his source, except to let slip at one point that it was based on a joke he had heard, and which thereafter caused similarly outrageous creation science claims to be met with the cry of "Bullfrog!" -- I have a file which tells the entire story, if you'd like to read it).
Rather than brandying about a hypothetical protein, let's look at a specific case. In the class notes of Frank Awbrey & William Thwaites' creation/evolution class at SDSU (the Institute for Creation Research conducted half the lectures and Awbrey & Thwaites the other half), they give the example of a calcium binding site with 29 amino acid positions: only 2 positions (7%) require specific amino acids, 8 positions (28%) can be filled by any of 5 hydrophobic amino acids, 3 positions (10%) can be filled by any one of 4 other amino acids, 2 positions (7%) can be filled with two different amino acids, and 14 of the positions (48%) can be filled by virtually any of the 20 amino acids.
The sequence of the 15 specified positions is: L* L*L* L*D D* D*G* I*D* EL* L*L* L*
Where: L* = hydrophobic - Leu, Val, Ilu, Phe, or Met Prob = (5/20)^8
D* = (a) Asp, Glu, Ser, or Asn Prob = (4/20)^3 OR (b) theoretically also Gls or Thr Prob = (6/20)^3
D = Asp Prob = (1/20)
E = Glu Prob = (1/20)
G* = Gly or Asp Prob = (2/20)
I* = Ilu or Val Prob = (2/20)
Remaining positions = any of 20 Prob = (20/20)^14 = 1^14 = 1
Total Prob = Prob(L*) * Prob(D*) * Prob(D) * Prob(E) * Prob(G*) * Prob(I*) = (a) 3.05 x 10^(-12) OR (b) 10.2 x 10^(-12)
Your own calculation of the probability of a functional order coming up (ie, the standard creation science method) would be: (1/20)^29 = 1.86 x 10^(-38).
Comparing the lower probability to yours shows it to be 1.64 x 10^26 times greater.
This invalidates your colored-box-car analogy as it stands (to correct it, you would need to allow for a variety of different combinations) and it invalidates your probability calculations.
The second problem lies the assumptions of your protein model, exemplified in your statement: "[The odds for success in the box car analogy] are the same odds the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one protein in you." Whatever is that supposed to have to do with evolution? What your model describes is CREATION EX NIHILO, not evolution.
Do you believe that proteins are formed by "aligning themselves by chance"? That is not how life works. I will not patronize you by describing how cells produce proteins based on DNA base sequences transcribed onto RNA; you should know about that already and doubtless do.
An evolutionary accounting for modern proteins would be that they had EVOLVED through their "descent with modification" (the basic definition for the "fact of evolution") from ancestral proteins; ie, that the genes for modern proteins were inherited from a long line of ancestors and had undergone changes along the way. The evolutionary account does not depend upon modern proteins being created ex nihilo, whereas the creationist account does. Hence your probability arguments apply to creationism and not to evolution, which uses an entirely different model to which different probabilities apply, as examined in my MONKEY program (attached).