what is the ratio of protons to neutrons in the human body?

Answer 1

In a stable atom, the ratio of protons to neutrons within the nucleus is about 1 to 1.
Therefore, in the human body, the ratio of protons to neutrons should also be about 1:1.

This result is also confirmed when you think of the percent abundance of the isotopes of the most common elements which make up our body....Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen.
In all three of these cases, the most common isotopes of these elements, BY FAR, have ratios of protons to neutrons of 1:1.

Answer 2

Hi. About 1 to 1.

Answer 3

I only have a limited amount of space to respond, so I'll just point out some flaws in your first few paragraphs. "There must be a god, there is so much that science can explain but it misses the more important aspects." No matter how many things we DON'T know, none of that is evidence for a god. You are making a "god of the gaps" argument here, along with an argument from ignorance. (See links below.) "The chances of this earth being created are so minute that it boarders on impossible." First, read up on the "anthropic principal". Second, shuffle a deck of cards. The odds of that particular shuffle of 52 cards is around 1 in 10^68 (a 1 with 68 zeros after it), which is "so minute that it borders on impossible", but you can't deny you did it, right? Things have to happen in SOME way. Keep in mind that there are around 10^23 stars in the universe, and many have multiple planets. If the odds against earth-like planets being in the position that Earth is around any particular star is, for example, 1 in 10^22, then you still have 9*10^22 Earths. When you have so many chances the odds get much better. "Volcano's emit large amounts of gases into the atmosphere to balance out oxygen levels." No, they don't. They emit a fairly constant amount of gases (over the long term, that is), and plants and algae produce more or less oxygen depending on the amount of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. It's life that balances out the oxygen levels, not volcanoes. Also, when oxygen producing life first appeared on Earth, it nearly killed off all life on the planet. (See link below.) "The moon controls the tides which allot of marine life depend on." You're thinking about it backwards. Marine life depends on the tides because it EVOLVED to take advantage of the existing tides. If there were no tides then it wouldn't have evolved that way. "The very idea that pure matter would form to create simple organisms seems theoretically impossible, let alone the idea of forming conscious beings." It may seem impossible to you, but it doesn't to the people who the people who have seriously studied the problem. You're making another argument from ignorance here, and I'd recommend you take a look at some of the research on abiogenesis before jumping to conclusions. Skipping to the end: "My point is that how can we dismiss something because of it's lack of proof, with something that almost has less proof?" You should dismiss things that are asserted without evidence simply because there is no sufficient reason to believe that they are true. This is basic burden of proof stuff here. However, to say that science has even less proof is absurd, since you can't have less than zero evidence, and you're completely ignoring the mountains of evidence that science does have. Even when science doesn't have the answers, that just means that science doesn't have the answers yet. "I don't know" never equals "I DO know, and it's God". I recommend more research in the science that you're discussing, because there is so much evidence for it that even those studying the fields have a hard time keeping up with all of the latest discoveries that just further confirm what we've discovered.

Answer 4

Depends on the isotopes of the MANY different atoms in the human body, but generally 1 to 1. Who asks these questions here?!