Freeday Just Doesn't Get It! Evolution!

[freeday]

The truth of the matter is that we all have presuppositions whether you believe it or not.

 

There is a huge differance between basing pressupositions on your 5 senses and understanding of reality in comparison to basing them on what you want reality to be, whether you believe it or not. Grow a spine, and use logic. If logic doesnt work for you, accept that and grab the guts to admit that your wrong. Attacking the vey essence of logic with pressupositionalist crap only succeeds in proving how pathetically desperate you are.

 

I was simply asking how science can prove life came from an inanimate molecule. You have answered that by saying that science cannot prove it. You have also said that "science is not faith." However, it would seem to me that it would be a giant leap of faith to take something as fact that simply cannot be proven. Amazingly enough, God can fill those gaps as you said "God of the Gaps." Since we know this to be true then previous arguements that the Bible was written by unintelligent people simply cannot be true.

 

Science isnt a magic that claims to know everything, its a system to figure something out that is unknown. The fact that you dont even recognize this basic point proves what I said earlier - You dont want to get it. You arent interested in getting it. You probobly never will get it. Im only saying this for shits and giggles. You may tell yourself you want to get it, but here you are questioning the absolute drop dead basics without even attempting to further comprehend the big picture. You would rather make unsupportable claims to fill in any gaps, failing to understand that "gaps" in science are not really gaps.

It seems to me that you truely read every other post here you would see where you all seem to contradict each other. Also, if you want to base things on logic then let's do. "Failing to understand that 'gaps' in science are not really gaps", either they are are they aren't? They can't logically be gaps and not be gaps.

 

Also, earlier before edited your post, I believe you said in response to presuppostions, "Ours are based on science, yours are not". So, basically, you admit you have presuppostions.

It is impossible not to. Either you take evolution as fact or you don't. Logically, this makes sense and this would be presupposition. I can take science and apply it to things read in the Bible and it fits and it does reveal the "Big Picture" as you said. If in evolution, you can't prove where life started then there is some breakdown in the system. The probability of the nauturalistic assembly of the first life through mathmatical equations would be 1 in10 to the 121 power. If you would like a breakdown of this, it will be lengthy, but I can show you. Just so you know, scientist, regard anything with less than 1 in 10 to the 50 power as essentially impossible or absurd. If that were not the case then we could argue that even gravity may not always hold and I don't think any sane person would go jump off a cliff to try and prove that.

[freeday]

If God is a Spirit, which the Bible clearly states that He is, then He could exist outside of time and matter. Therefore He is capable of creating life.

 

What does "spirit" mean? What does it mean to exist outside time and matter?

 

My question is if there is no God, how do inanimate molecules come to life in the first place?

 

I don't know and neither do you. "Goddidit" is a cop out though. Before we learned that bacteria and viruses caused illness people thought that goddidit as well. God of the gaps is a logical falacy.

 

BTW, ToE does not adress this issue. Perhaps you should learn what it is before you criticize it.

 

You're pretty heady for someone who admits they know nothing about ToE other than that it is wrong. No need to start getting rude here. I don't care what you believe.

Why does ToE not address this issue? This is what you take for fact, right? Or am I wrong? If I am please tell me what it is you do take for fact. I may not have known alot about the subject when I first came to this site, but I have taken this seriously and looked up everything I have been told. I have looked at sites suggested by other members here and have also read up on the subject matter on Berkley's website. I am trying to grasp the whole idea, but it seems when I question something on this site I seem to be met with defensive comments and that no one wants to explain what they take for fact. This tends to make me wonder if you all are free thinking or if you simply do not know what it is that you think. If I myself were a free thinker this would make me start to question what it is that I actually thought. It seems funny to me though, that when asking questions the only response I get is another link to check out. However, if I am asked a question members here expect an answer and are not going to view any site that I suggest. Because my belief is grounded in the Bible, however, I do not mind sharing what I believe. Unlike free thinkers I know exactly what it is that I think. I was directed to this site by a friend who simply could not answer his free thinking when questioned. I was told much more knowledgeable people on this site could answer me. However, if knowledge is simply leading people from one site to another that doesn't say a lot for the knowledge here. Either you take it as fact, or you do not. I would hope if you do that you have some knowledge on the subject. If you have that knowledge I would suggest that you share it instead of picking apart every little thing I say and never backing up this that you believe to be true. Before you post, I am asking about macroevolution not microevolution. I am not questioning microevolution. But, just because we know micro to be true is not a basis that macro must be. Please enlighten me on how you have come to the conclusion that macroevolution must be fact.

[Antlerman]

I was simply asking how science can prove life came from an inanimate molecule.

I'll get to the rest of my response later, if time permits today. Here's something to put out there for you that addresses your question:

 

 

The creationist contention that a cell or a strand of DNA arose "all at once" is a straw man. No one has ever suggested that an entire living cell or biomolecule "poofed" into being all at once, intact. Instead, the appearance of the first replicating molecule (as well as the first living cell) was a steady process of step-by-step building, beginning with a proteinoid and adding bits and pieces from there. No evolutionary biologist has ever asserted that biomolecules or living cells must have arisen all at once, in complete and final form. Since a whole series of intermediate chemical steps preceed their formation, the creationist argument that intact biomolecules could not have arisen by chance is completely irrelevant.

 

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Han...probability.htm

 

I'll also add this now for later discussion that I anticipate about odds of improbablities:

 

If we have a number of amino acids in solution, for instance, they do not combine "randomly"---they combine according to their chemical properties. Thus, any given mixture of amino acids will always combine in the same ways, in accordance with the laws of chemistry. The idea that there are an astronomical number of possible combinations is simply wrong. The laws of physics narrow the possible chemical combinations to a very much smaller number --the possible number of electron configurations in the outer shell of those atoms. All of the other "possible" combinations are forbidden by the laws of chemistry and physics.

 

(same link)

[Vigile]

Why does ToE not address this issue?

 

Spare me the emotional rantings. I'm not here to educate you. You want to learn, kudos for you, just don't expect a free education from me.

 

Macro/micro? Sounds like a way for creationists to isolate that which is obvious from that which they feel they can pull the wool over the sheep's proverbial eyes with.

 

Evolution, carbon based life forms evolve over time.

 

Not evolution, how carbon based life forms came to life in the begining - this is abiogenisis and has as yet not reached the lofty hights of scientific theory.

 

How did I come to my conclusions? I studyied the subject in Botony.

 

Now kindly piss off.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

If God is a Spirit, which the Bible clearly states that He is, then He could exist outside of time and matter. Therefore He is capable of creating life.

 

 

Please provide proof that the bible is any more true than the Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita or my freshman year Classical Mythology textbook. They all tell quite different tales about "god".

 

Why does being a "spirit" and existing "outside of time and matter" afford this god of yours the ability to create life? What support can you give for this theory of yours? Angels are supposedly "spirit beings" and exist "outside of time and matter". Does this mean they have the ability to create life? Are they all "little gods" with their own microcosms under their watchful eye?

 

You have no evidence to support your supposition that the bible god is the creator. Your holy book is inadmissable as a reliable and unbiased source and does not constitute "evidence" of anything other than the fact that man has sought to find reasons for his existence for far longer than you and I have been on this earth and has even gone so far as to write mythical stories to explain the conundrum.

 

I've been where you are Freeday. Exactly where you are. I told non-christian members of boards such as this one that there was no way I would change. There is no way I would renounce my "lord and saviour." I knew that I knew that I knew that he was real and loved me and died for me on the cross. I staunchly advocated creationism and denied evolution. But then, I stopped accepting everything I was told by others and "used the eyes god gave me" (awfully imperfect eyes for being created by a perfect god too). Eventually I realized that creationism didn't have a leg to stand on. I decided that God had used evolution as his tool for creation.

 

Soon, it became painfully obvious that there are glaring contradictions and falsehoods in the bible. Thus, it couldn't be the "Infallible Word of God". Studying the history of Christianity lead to more questions and finally to the realization that Christianity is NOT a logical conclusion based on all the evidence. It became evident that the god of the bible as well as many other gods proposed by man do not fit logically into the grand scheme of things.

 

So keep searching, Freeday. Hopefully someday you'll find the TRUE truth.

[Kuroikaze]

I am asking about macroevolution not microevolution. I am not questioning microevolution. But, just because we know micro to be true is not a basis that macro must be. Please enlighten me on how you have come to the conclusion that macroevolution must be fact.

 

 

The micro/macro debate is a strawman, Modern biology doesn't make a distinction between the two, only creationist do.

 

Do you know why there is no distinction? Its because such a distinction would be silly, and there is no scientific way of determining which is which

 

How far does something evolove before it become Macro? Where is this supposed barrier that suddenly kicks in to stop natural selection and says "whoops, you almost evolved too much there, you better stop now.

 

If something can change a little over a short time, it can change a lot over a long time, UNLESS, there is some force that stops change after a certain point. Unless you or creationist can show evidence of such a force the distinction between micro and macro is just made up stupidity.

[Ouroboros]

How do inanimate molecules come to life in the first place? Amazingly enough, I have yet to see anyone post an answer or even an opinion to that question.

 

The short answer is, it didn't, it couldn't and it wont. DNA is not the source of the information but the carrier.

To answer your question, we have to establish what life is.

 

So what is life?

 

And how can I see life?

 

How does life look like?

 

What's the behavior, properties, etc of life?

 

If you can establish that, we're on a better start.

[Antlerman]

I was simply asking how science can prove life came from an inanimate molecule. You have answered that by saying that science cannot prove it.

Ok, I do have a few minutes to reply. I have said there are some things that science cannot address because it falls outside the natural world. Questions like what happened before the big bang cannot be addressed by science. Questions about "why" are outside science. Questions about "how" are within the domain of science.

 

You have also said that "science is not faith."

Science is not a faith. Science is a tool for knowledge. It is the best tool available today to best determine the veracity of claims, by taking advantage of a system of checks and balances to reduce or eliminate personal biases from contaminating the findings.

 

However someone interprets what has been shown to be valid; now that's a matter of personal interpretation, and by that I mean what value it has. The facts are not in dispute. Only those who don't like what they feel it might be suggesting (notice my use of "feel", "might", and "suggest") will make accusations to deny the results. However, there are plenty of scientists who accept the data, not denying evolution, who find absolutely no problem with it affecting their belief in a God. Only those few extreme literalists who view the Book of Genesis as a book of science and history.

 

For me, I conclude more a materialistic philosophy from what the facts show. The facts do not mean my interpretation of the meaning of life is "true" objectively. That is a matter of personal belief. Did you know there is not just one type of creationism? Check this out: http://www.reverendatheistar.com/The_Creat...n_Continuum.htm

 

However, it would seem to me that it would be a giant leap of faith to take something as fact that simply cannot be proven.

Not really. Like I said before nothing so far in the study of the natural world has failed to provide a natural explanation. It may take time, and the answer may never be attainable because of available resources, but it's a long, long way from an unswerving history of natural causes for the natural world, to magic happening randomly in it. Magic has no support in the natural world. Natural causes has endless support in the natural world, so it's hardly a leap of faith to anticpate the answers will be found there.

 

Amazingly enough, God can fill those gaps as you said "God of the Gaps." Since we know this to be true then previous arguements that the Bible was written by unintelligent people simply cannot be true.

I have never in my life said that the Bible was written by unintelligent people. My point in bringing up God of the Gaps is to illustrate the behavior of humans trying lend credibility to their religious beliefs by having God explain current gaps of understanding in the natural world. If we don't know how bumble bee's can achieve flight, this became a proof of the divine for many an apologist. Now that we know how they can fly with their oversized body mass, suddenly you no longer here this offered as proof. So no, God of the Gaps is not a valid evidence of God. It's wishful thinking that has never stood the test of time, and offers no reason to look to it for answers tomorrow.

 

I think that we can all agree that life does exist. Therefore, there must be some explaintion as to why.

Or not. Why must there be? It happened. It's here. Live it. Enjoy it. That's my belief. That's what I get from accepting the reality of the natural world. If you don't that's fine, I can respect that. If you have to deny the natural world to prop up your adopted beliefs from a 3500 year old desert culture, then I feel badly for you. As Carl Sagan said, "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." But that's my opinion.

[freeday]

I was simply asking how science can prove life came from an inanimate molecule.

I'll get to the rest of my response later, if time permits today. Here's something to put out there for you that addresses your question:

 

 

The creationist contention that a cell or a strand of DNA arose "all at once" is a straw man. No one has ever suggested that an entire living cell or biomolecule "poofed" into being all at once, intact. Instead, the appearance of the first replicating molecule (as well as the first living cell) was a steady process of step-by-step building, beginning with a proteinoid and adding bits and pieces from there. No evolutionary biologist has ever asserted that biomolecules or living cells must have arisen all at once, in complete and final form. Since a whole series of intermediate chemical steps preceed their formation, the creationist argument that intact biomolecules could not have arisen by chance is completely irrelevant.

 

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Han...probability.htm

 

I'll also add this now for later discussion that I anticipate about odds of improbablities:

 

If we have a number of amino acids in solution, for instance, they do not combine "randomly"---they combine according to their chemical properties. Thus, any given mixture of amino acids will always combine in the same ways, in accordance with the laws of chemistry. The idea that there are an astronomical number of possible combinations is simply wrong. The laws of physics narrow the possible chemical combinations to a very much smaller number --the possible number of electron configurations in the outer shell of those atoms. All of the other "possible" combinations are forbidden by the laws of chemistry and physics.

 

(same link)

 

The odds of any human being being struck by lightning are enormously improbable, yet every year at least a dozen people are killed in the United States by lightning bolts. Is the chance of any particular person being struck by lightning "too improbable" to have happened by chance?

 

I read your article, very interesting. I have quoted about the question of lightning being improbable. I checked the national safety council and found that the odds of being killed by lightning are 1 in 4,362,746.But, to err on the safe side I'll say your odds are 1 in 1,000,000,000. This would make it far more improbable than it actually is. That being said, your chances of being killed by a lightning bolt this year are 1 in 10 to the 9th power. Still, in the realm of what scientist consider to be possible. They consider anything less then 1 in 10 to the 50th power possible. That said, the odds of the naturalistic assembly of the first life are 1 in 10 to the 121 power. Well outside the realm of what science considers possible. By this explaination, one can see how being killed by a bolt of lightning is not even in the same ballpark as far as probabilties go.

[Ouroboros]

Can anyone tell me if there are valid link tags on this forum?

It's very simple. You just type in the address like http... etc, and the editor will convert it to tags.

[Antlerman]

That said, the odds of the naturalistic assembly of the first life are 1 in 10 to the 121 power.

Based on what data? Does this mathematician, scientist, theologian, plumber, or whoever came up with this number you are using have acceptance by peer review? What's his methodology? I ask because I've seen these number games played by the ID folk and they have been trashed by peer review. Back to the Scientific Method being the best system for checking the veracity of claims. These folk regularly miss the mark, yet of course they will cry "foul", the true mark of a non-scientist.

 

BTW, Did I address your "how" question on the first part of the quote since you've moved onto what I anticpated you might?

[Ouroboros]

The odds of any human being being struck by lightning are enormously improbable, yet every year at least a dozen people are killed in the United States by lightning bolts. Is the chance of any particular person being struck by lightning "too improbable" to have happened by chance?

 

I read your article, very interesting. I have quoted about the question of lightning being improbable. I checked the national safety council and found that the odds of being killed by lightning are 1 in 4,362,746.But, to err on the safe side I'll say your odds are 1 in 1,000,000,000. This would make it far more improbable than it actually is. That being said, your chances of being killed by a lightning bolt this year are 1 in 10 to the 9th power. Still, in the realm of what scientist consider to be possible. They consider anything less then 1 in 10 to the 50th power possible. That said, the odds of the naturalistic assembly of the first life are 1 in 10 to the 121 power. Well outside the realm of what science considers possible. By this explaination, one can see how being killed by a bolt of lightning is not even in the same ballpark as far as probabilties go.

Have you compared it to the odds of winning lotto? But yet people do win in lotto. It's in the numbers, the amount of participating players.

 

You know they say "lightning never strike twice in the same place", which is also based on statistics, but it's not true. Empire State building get struck hundreds of times a year.

 

Damn lies and statistics, no big difference.

 

---

 

One more thing, the whole idea of even trying to use statistics for Abiogenesis is utterly ridiculous.

 

If no one have figured out how the Abiogenesis happened, then how can anyone know what to base their numbers on for the statistics?

 

Was it 10 gallons of amino acids or 10 billion gallons? Was there 1 lightning a second or 32,000 a second?

 

I can give you the exact number for the chance of abiogenesis: it's 1 to somewhere between 1 and 10^100. See how exact I can be.

 

To calculate chance doesn't say anything. The chance of getting struck by lightning you said, well, some people do get struck by lightning, and some people more than once, and some even die. So even if the chance of getting struck by lightning was 1 in 1 fantazillion, it is still happening.

[Antlerman]

Ok, I looked this up, but as I suspected it's misleading statistics.

 

...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981].

 

This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

 

The odds that Hoyle uses overlooks contributing factors. It's not just radom events. Like I said in my first post.

 

Here's another quote that's good:

 

... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos

[Ouroboros]

Ok, I looked this up, but as I suspected it's misleading statistics.

All statistics regarding abiogenesis is misleading. It's always based on an hypothesis of how it happened. But since it's not established how, then no one can say "how-many" or "how-often".

[freeday]

I was simply asking how science can prove life came from an inanimate molecule. You have answered that by saying that science cannot prove it.

Ok, I do have a few minutes to reply. I have said there are some things that science cannot address because it falls outside the natural world. Questions like what happened before the big bang cannot be addressed by science. Questions about "why" are outside science. Questions about "how" are within the domain of science.

 

You have also said that "science is not faith."

Science is not a faith. Science is a tool for knowledge. It is the best tool available today to best determine the veracity of claims, by taking advantage of a system of checks and balances to reduce or eliminate personal biases from contaminating the findings.

 

However someone interprets what has been shown to be valid; now that's a matter of personal interpretation, and by that I mean what value it has. The facts are not in dispute. Only those who don't like what they feel it might be suggesting (notice my use of "feel", "might", and "suggest") will make accusations to deny the results. However, there are plenty of scientists who accept the data, not denying evolution, who find absolutely no problem with it affecting their belief in a God. Only those few extreme literalists who view the Book of Genesis as a book of science and history.

 

For me, I conclude more a materialistic philosophy from what the facts show. The facts do not mean my interpretation of the meaning of life is "true" objectively. That is a matter of personal belief. Did you know there is not just one type of creationism? Check this out: http://www.reverendatheistar.com/The_Creat...n_Continuum.htm

 

However, it would seem to me that it would be a giant leap of faith to take something as fact that simply cannot be proven.

Not really. Like I said before nothing so far in the study of the natural world has failed to provide a natural explanation. It may take time, and the answer may never be attainable because of available resources, but it's a long, long way from an unswerving history of natural causes for the natural world, to magic happening randomly in it. Magic has no support in the natural world. Natural causes has endless support in the natural world, so it's hardly a leap of faith to anticpate the answers will be found there.

 

Amazingly enough, God can fill those gaps as you said "God of the Gaps." Since we know this to be true then previous arguements that the Bible was written by unintelligent people simply cannot be true.

I have never in my life said that the Bible was written by unintelligent people. My point in bringing up God of the Gaps is to illustrate the behavior of humans trying lend credibility to their religious beliefs by having God explain current gaps of understanding in the natural world. If we don't know how bumble bee's can achieve flight, this became a proof of the divine for many an apologist. Now that we know how they can fly with their oversized body mass, suddenly you no longer here this offered as proof. So no, God of the Gaps is not a valid evidence of God. It's wishful thinking that has never stood the test of time, and offers no reason to look to it for answers tomorrow.

 

I think that we can all agree that life does exist. Therefore, there must be some explaintion as to why.

Or not. Why must there be? It happened. It's here. Live it. Enjoy it. That's my belief. That's what I get from accepting the reality of the natural world. If you don't that's fine, I can respect that. If you have to deny the natural world to prop up your adopted beliefs from a 3500 year old desert culture, then I feel badly for you. As Carl Sagan said, "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." But that's my opinion.

 

I want to say thank you for being honest with me. I was not meaning you when I said the Bible was written by unintelligent people. That is just a basic statement I have heard from many who do believe in evolution. I can respect your honesty and I do appreciate your information and can look at any evidence shown to me. Basically, that is all I came here to do. I enjoy hearing first hand what other's opinions are. I can even graciously agree to disagree. It doesn't mean that I will stop believing what I believe or that you will stop believing what you believe. It simply means that we will both walk away with a better understanding of what the other believes.

 

I don't base my beliefs on feelings. Feelings come and go. I base my beliefs on what I take as truth. In many instances science can actually go hand and hand with religion. By examining evidence I form my belief in God. In an earlier post by someone else I was asked what a spirit is. Webster's defines it many ways, two of which are:an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms

2 : a supernatural being or essence:

This is how I view God. Not something that is bound by time or space. This is what makes Christianity possible. God is not an old man with a white beard resembling Father Time. He is very simply a Spirit. He can exist very simply because He is not bound by time and space. To accept Christ is to have life and to have it in abundance(John 10:10). My prayer is that you all may find true life and live it in abundance.

[Antlerman]

Ok, I looked this up, but as I suspected it's misleading statistics.

All statistics regarding abiogenesis is misleading. It's always based on an hypothesis of how it happened. But since it's not established how, then no one can say "how-many" or "how-often".

Yes, thanks. I just caught your post above about this. You're right it is really misleading to assign a statisitical probablity to something like this. The major point behind this though is that there were causes, whatever the probability odds were. These were NOT something from nothing events. That would be true magic. Again, not necessary in the natural world.

[ubergeek]

Can anyone tell me if there are valid link tags on this forum?

It's very simple. You just type in the address like http... etc, and the editor will convert it to tags.

 

I noticed that after posting. Actually, what I was trying to do is name the link. For example, www.google.com would show up as Google. Bruce was kind enough to answer this for me also.

 

Thanks, and sorry for the off-topic distraction.

[Antlerman]

I want to say thank you for being honest with me. I was not meaning you when I said the Bible was written by unintelligent people. That is just a basic statement I have heard from many who do believe in evolution. I can respect your honesty and I do appreciate your information and can look at any evidence shown to me. Basically, that is all I came here to do. I enjoy hearing first hand what other's opinions are. I can even graciously agree to disagree. It doesn't mean that I will stop believing what I believe or that you will stop believing what you believe. It simply means that we will both walk away with a better understanding of what the other believes.

This is a good thing for everyone if we can have mutual respect for other beliefs. The thing that I will push back against is this whole denial of credible science over someone's religious beliefs. This to me offends reason. I see no purpose or benefit to it. On the contrary, those that adjust their beliefs to whatever comes, I will have respect for, no matter if that belief is secular or religious in nature. I remember being impressed when a Muslim friend of mine said to me, "If science shows us something that doesn't agree with our faith, then we are misunderstanding our faith." I was duly impressed!! The Creationist folks do not impress me. They offend me. They are not scientists, they are religious pseudo-scientists. They do a disservice to the idea of God in society.

 

I can respect what religious belief has to offer humans. But when it sets itself against reason, then it is doing humanity a disservice to both the mind and the spirit. It becomes political and anti-spritual.

 

Thanks for your comments, now back to the issues....

[freeday]

Ok, I looked this up, but as I suspected it's misleading statistics.

All statistics regarding abiogenesis is misleading. It's always based on an hypothesis of how it happened. But since it's not established how, then no one can say "how-many" or "how-often".

Yes, thanks. I just caught your post above about this. You're right it is really misleading to assign a statisitical probablity to something like this. The major point behind this though is that there were causes, whatever the probability odds were. These were NOT something from nothing events. That would be true magic. Again, not necessary in the natural world.

 

I have found an article written by Emerson Thomas McMullen, PhD(Assistant Professor of History of Science in Technology and Medicine)at Georgia Southern Unversity http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/CHEM.htm

 

Please take a look at this as maybe it can explain better what I was trying to say. I have got to get off for while. Sorry.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, thanks. I just caught your post above about this. You're right it is really misleading to assign a statisitical probablity to something like this. The major point behind this though is that there were causes, whatever the probability odds were. These were NOT something from nothing events. That would be true magic. Again, not necessary in the natural world.

 

Yeah. I know. I just wanted to be overly anal and point it out one more time. I kind of do that a lot. Rub-it-in, is my middle name.

[Ouroboros]

I have found an article written by Emerson Thomas McMullen, PhD(Assistant Professor of History of Science in Technology and Medicine)at Georgia Southern Unversity http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/CHEM.htm

 

Please take a look at this as maybe it can explain better what I was trying to say. I have got to get off for while. Sorry.

 

 

 

I'm taking one segment of that article to show to you how wrong thinking leads to wrong results:

I once entered the Sports Illustrated magazine sweepstakes. If I had won, they would have paid me one million dollars, tax-free, in twenty-five installments of $40,000. In the fine print, the magazine said the odds of winning that year were one in 1.2 x 108. This means, on the average, I would win once every 120 million years. Let's say I happen to live for the next 120 million years and the contest is conducted each year. Normally I would expect to win just once. What do you think the chances are for me to win the grand prize each and every year for the next 120 million years? Sounds impossible? According to Sir Fred Hoyle and others, I have a fantastically better chance of winning the Sports Illustrated Sweepstakes 120 million years in a row, than of life forming on earth by naturalistic means. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculate an extremely low probability for the formation of an enzyme: one in 1040,000 - that's 10 with 40,000 zeros behind it. Winning the Sports Illustrated contest 120 million years in a row has a probability of only 1.44 in 1016

 

It's true, one player, low chance.

 

But what about if you ask this question instead, what are the chances that one, just one person, out of 5,000,000 people would win once?

 

The calculation and example you see from the article assume that only one particle in the whole universe would have a chance ever in the lifetime of the universe to ever react with something else.

 

Imagine an ocean of billion and billions of molecules. If the chance was 1 in a billion for two of the molecules to react, and you have billion of billions, that means that this reaction have a chance a billions times! So we get down to the chance of 1 to 1!!! Do you follow?

 

My question to you is, did no one win the Sports Illustrated Magazine sweepstakes the author is talking about?

 

Every player that were in the sweepstakes had the chance of 1.2x108, but still ONE PLAYER DID WIN!!! How is that possible?

 

The argument that abiogenesis can't happen because the chances are so low, is a false argument, since a chance is a chance is a chance is a chance.

 

You have 49% chance of winning against the house in black jack, but still you do win sometimes!

 

If a low chance means that it NEVER happens, then odds wouldn't even be 1.2x108 but it would be 1 to infinity. But it isn't. So there is a chance!

 

A chance of get hit by lightning is low, but still, some frikking idiots does get hit by lightning. It does happen! It's freaky, but chance doesn't mean never!

 

 

---edit---

 

I'm getting really frustrated with people arguing against evolution and abiogenesis using statistics. It's the dumbest argument ever.

 

What's the chances of getting a 6 when you roll a die? Answer: 1/6

 

How many times does it takes to get a 6? Answer: 1 time, or infinite number of times. You friggin don't know, it's just statistics, that in average you would balance out to 1 out of 6. But it doesn't take 6 times to get a 6. It can take 1 time, 2 times, 5 times, 100 times. It's called pure luck (or bad luck depending on situation).

 

What are the chances I will get killed on the freeway today? 10% chance? Does it mean that every 10 times I drive I will be killed?

 

What are the chances that someone will be killed by cutting the cables to a street light? 1 in 1 billion? And yet: Scott Millet did.

 

 

---edit---

 

Unfortunately, no one has a good theory for abiogenesis yet. There are lots of speculations, but not definite answer. So making assumptions on statistical numbers would be like following example:

 

I have a box of an unknown number of socks at home.

They are of different colors.

 

Now, tell me, what are the odds I will get the same color when I pull two socks out of it?

 

The answer is: I have not frigging clue!!!

 

Why? Because you need to know the number of socks and the number of colors to calculate the probability, any other calculation would be based on pure speculation.

 

Okay, the next thing, if a scientist say "these are the probabilities to abiogenesis", that means, indirectly, that this scientist finally, in world history, figured out the process of abiogenesis! The conundrum is that he HAS TO KNOW HOW Abiogenesis happened, BEFORE HE CAN CALCULATE THE PROBABILITY! *gasp* So either he is lying about his numbers, or he knows how abiogenesis is done but is hiding the truth. So in either case, he has an agenda and is intentionally misleading us. He is disingenuous. So understand this from now on, every scientist claiming some probability for abiogenesis either is lying or hiding the truth, and hence are evil. RAmen. Praise Darwin.

[freeday]

I have found an article written by Emerson Thomas McMullen, PhD(Assistant Professor of History of Science in Technology and Medicine)at Georgia Southern Unversity http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/CHEM.htm

 

Please take a look at this as maybe it can explain better what I was trying to say. I have got to get off for while. Sorry.

 

 

 

I'm taking one segment of that article to show to you how wrong thinking leads to wrong results:

I once entered the Sports Illustrated magazine sweepstakes. If I had won, they would have paid me one million dollars, tax-free, in twenty-five installments of $40,000. In the fine print, the magazine said the odds of winning that year were one in 1.2 x 108. This means, on the average, I would win once every 120 million years. Let's say I happen to live for the next 120 million years and the contest is conducted each year. Normally I would expect to win just once. What do you think the chances are for me to win the grand prize each and every year for the next 120 million years? Sounds impossible? According to Sir Fred Hoyle and others, I have a fantastically better chance of winning the Sports Illustrated Sweepstakes 120 million years in a row, than of life forming on earth by naturalistic means. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe calculate an extremely low probability for the formation of an enzyme: one in 1040,000 - that's 10 with 40,000 zeros behind it. Winning the Sports Illustrated contest 120 million years in a row has a probability of only 1.44 in 1016

 

It's true, one player, low chance.

 

But what about if you ask this question instead, what are the chances that one, just one person, out of 5,000,000 people would win once?

 

The calculation and example you see from the article assume that only one particle in the whole universe would have a chance ever in the lifetime of the universe to ever react with something else.

 

Imagine an ocean of billion and billions of molecules. If the chance was 1 in a billion for two of the molecules to react, and you have billion of billions, that means that this reaction have a chance a billions times! So we get down to the chance of 1 to 1!!! Do you follow?

 

My question to you is, did no one win the Sports Illustraded Magazine sweepstakes the author is talking about?

 

Every player that were in the sweepstakes had the chance of 1.2x108, but still ONE PLAYER DID WIN!!! How is that possible?

 

The argument that abiogenesis can't happen because the chances are so low, is a false arguemnt, since a chance is a chance is a chance is a chance.

 

You have 49% chance of winning against the house in black jack, but still you do win sometimes!

 

If a low chance means that it NEVER happens, then odds wouldn't even be 1.2x108 but it would be 1 to infinity. But it isn't. So there is a chance!

 

A chance of get hit by lightning is low, but still, some frikking idiots does get hit by lightning. It does happen! It's freaky, but chance doesn't mean never!

 

 

---edit---

 

I'm getting really frustrated with people arguing against evolution and abiogenesis using statistics. It's the dumbest argument ever.

 

What's the chances of getting a 6 when you roll a die? Answer: 1/6

 

How many times does it takes to get a 6? Answer: 1 time, or infinite number of times. You friggin don't know, it's just statistics, that in average you would balance out to 1 out of 6. But it doesn't take 6 times to get a 6. It can take 1 time, 2 times, 5 times, 100 times. It's called pure luck (or bad luck depending on situation).

 

What are the chances I will get killed on the freeway today? 10% chance? Does it mean that every 10 times I drive I will be killed?

 

What are the chances that someone will be killed by cutting the cables to a street light? 1 in 1 billion? And yet: Scott Millet

 

thank you very much, your information was very well presented and very informative. i appriciate it.

 

 

Antlerman posted something i think on page 3 that really got me thinking. and will end a lot of bickering/long lenghty post, with it. i am going to make a statement, please tell me if you agree. you look at science and see evidence of ToE, and also feel that in due time "the truth is out there" (yes i am an x-files fan). I look at science and see evidence of a creator and feel in due time the bible will validate itself. We both have beliefs that will be proven after we are dead. its all in how you look at the evidence. when studing DNA back in microbiology, i remember thinking, wow, it works to perfectly for there not to be a creator. and there are many other examples of "working perfectly together in nature." you look at the perfectness of the ammino-acid chains as a result of evolution and natural selection.

 

now my next question would be, how has your belief affected your life? i will let you know how it affected my life if you want, but it would be more of a testimony. that is based on personal feelings. just so you know at one time in my life, i could have cared less for God.

[Ouroboros]

thank you very much, your information was very well presented and very informative. i appriciate it.

My pleasure.

 

(yes i am an x-files fan).

There's hope for you yet!

 

I look at science and see evidence of a creator and feel in due time the bible will validate itself. We both have beliefs that will be proven after we are dead. its all in how you look at the evidence. when studing DNA back in microbiology, i remember thinking, wow, it works to perfectly for there not to be a creator. and there are many other examples of "working perfectly together in nature." you look at the perfectness of the ammino-acid chains as a result of evolution and natural selection.

 

now my next question would be, how has your belief affected your life? i will let you know how it affected my life if you want, but it would be more of a testimony. that is based on personal feelings. just so you know at one time in my life, i could have cared less for God.

I understand. You base you faith on the feelings. That's natural, and that what faith is. Faith and belief (according to the Bible, Heb 11) is not based on the facts or what can be seen but by the things we feel (believe) to be true.

 

My belief affect my life? I can say losing my belief in Christian version of God was a relief. I don't have any belief in any god now, but I don't see a god of some kind as an impossibility, only as improbable, or nonsensical idea. My life turned to the better when I de-converted.

[Jedah]

Also, earlier before edited your post, I believe you said in response to presuppostions, "Ours are based on science, yours are not". So, basically, you admit you have presuppostions. silverpenny013Hmmm.gif

 

So basically, you admit to being a presupositionalist.

 

Which means you know full well what your own presupositions mean.

 

Which means you know damn well that your pre-biased against evolution and cannot be convinced of it by your own psuedologic.

 

Which means you are knowingly lieing about wanting us to educate you.

 

Come back when your willing to be honest.

[freeday]

There's hope for you yet!

 

 

at least we can agree on something.

 

i will end this thread by saying i will not post anymore trying to discredit ToE. instead i will post opposite views in order to get the rebuttle. so that we both can learn something out of all of this. speaking of which, i have learned a lot since i have been here. i now believe in the big bang theory. it was explained in a christian perspective that really made sense to me.

 

got to go to work now, talk to ya later.

 

Also, earlier before edited your post, I believe you said in response to presuppostions, "Ours are based on science, yours are not". So, basically, you admit you have presuppostions. silverpenny013Hmmm.gif

 

So basically, you admit to being a presupositionalist.

 

Which means you know full well what your own presupositions mean.

 

Which means you know damn well that your pre-biased against evolution and cannot be convinced of it by your own psuedologic.

 

Which means you are knowingly lieing about wanting us to educate you.

 

Come back when your willing to be honest.

 

please read the post that is 2 above yours. i think we finally came to a conclusion.