Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based

[Subduction Zone]

The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ

This will be my last post because I can't help you see what you refuse to see. I posted this article from a pro evolution site and about how evolution explains it could "create" DNA etc.

I will comment on this part of it. It notes the odds. Not counting the impossibility of biogenesis which is a law of science stating that life CAN NOT come from NON LIFE. Which if you are honest and you are not always honest about evolution which you have proven on here. At some point in the evolutionary chain that is exactly what you have to "believe" on "faith" has to have happened despite the science law against it. Then you just claimed it happened and off you go. Ignoring conveniently what you cant ignore an honest scientific law. Which btw since you claim evolution is responsible for all that exists it means evolution creates laws it then breaks.

Nonetheless here is my comment on the above article. Even it admits the odds are 10 to 40th power which is very very low it admits but as you guys claim due to its small odds due to lifes existence basically had to have happened that once and then gone forward. Here is the MAJOR mistake. It then acts like after that the odds get better instead of actually getting worse. They actually get worse because see what takes such large odds has to happen too many times over and over again and again. Thus making the odds exponentially grow. It has to hit the 10 to 40th over and over consecutively again and again. Law of Probability makes it get bigger not smaller. It is like saying throwing winning a lotto with odds 10 to 40th power. then winning it again and again over and over as it evolves per each step. That makes it mathematically impossible. You won't admit it. You refuse to see the difference between "appears" designed and "functional design" which is MASSIVE!

A person could take a bunch of dominos and make a intricate design to look like a sophisticated design of something. Sure it shows ID. But when its not functional it doesn't matter as it can't do anything ie to help the creature live. But when it is FUNCTIONAL DESIGN it is so much more than "appears designed" because it actually works and functions like it has to for the creature etc to live and function.

I'm saddened you refuse to see what is so obvious.

Sadly one day you will find the truth even against your will and it may not be to your liking but it won't be because you were never told or had the chance to recognize the truth you just intentionally ignored it. Thankfully many of the people I work with that are highly educated and decorated and esteemed Dr. of so many fields of science. They were once like you but decided to open their minds and recognize the oh so obvious truth they had once chosen to ignore. I hope you join them someday!

Wow! You found an article that refuted the idiotic lies of creationists and you could not understand it. Too bad that you are running away because I would let Vento help you understand that fairly simple article.

By the way, you conceded the evolution debate by moving t he goalposts to abiogenesis. Thanks for admitting that you are an ape.

 

[John53]

It does appear so.

I consider it all a plus. I met a couple of new and interesting posters. We all had to wade through intellectual manure to do it, but that was nothing.

It's not the destination but the journey I usually enjoy more...

I just noticed that he now claims to work with highly decorated, esteemed and intelligent scientists he has managed to convert which is strange because I seem to remember him saying at the start of the thread he was on some kind of disability pension and had been a maths teacher.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not the destination but the journey I usually enjoy more...

I just noticed that he now claims to work with highly decorated, esteemed and intelligent scientists he has managed to convert which is strange because I seem to remember him saying at the start of the thread he was on some kind of disability pension and had been a maths teacher.

I would have to look, but I thought he said he was on disability and had been PE teacher slash famous, research scientist spy for the CIA. Well, I may have misunderstood that last part, but PE teacher I do believe I recall.

 

[John53]

I would have to look, but I thought he said he was on disability and had been PE teacher slash famous, research scientist spy for the CIA. Well, I may have misunderstood that last part, but PE teacher I do believe I recall.

Don't put yourself through rereading the dribble.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Don't put yourself through rereading the dribble.

Not worth the trouble. Still, it is interesting how his story just kept getting bigger all the way to the end. He must have had an incredible life as a duke, spy, astronaut, cowboy, PE teacher, physician janitor. I hear they pay those guys really well and all you can eat.

 

[Patriottechsan]

No I'm ready to discuss. We aren't discussing. You refuse to acknowledge obvious common sense & logic & then use false logic & non sense to bully pulpit atheism. I'm on my phone but can't copy & paste this article. But I'll reference it. I know evolutionist use it often. It's from The Talk Origins Archive.
The article I'm going to reference from that site is entitled
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistica, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

I find his title very ironic with the misleading he does & out right lies he gives.

He gives stats & then uses an example of throwing 4 straight heads himself as if that's close to relevant to 10 to 40th power. Plus he gives the impression because you have "chemicals everywhere w/o explaining where chemicals came from nothing. Then saying you have all these reactions occurring all the time. How does he know? How does he explain all that energy being released over & over all the time.

It's ironic that he makes it seem so likely to occur yet with all evolutions scientist knowledge etc. They still can't produce life ever! Some much in that article uses words & phrases like, could have, possibly,could be, or either , not likely, not unlikely. Etc. Then just says, like just so story, slowly climbs towards organismhood rather than making one big leap. Oh Really. Where is scientific proof. You can't recreate life to prove so make up just so stories.

As I said earlier the odds for each step grow exponentially due to odds being so high originally but must happen again & then second, third, fourth etc step must happen in consecutive order.

Here is his quote about (1/20)32th. You realize that's 1/20 multipled by itself 32 times. That's greater than 10 to 50th power which is considered impossible in math.

His conclusion is interesting. His own math infallacies are wrong & misleading.

"Yet even he admits At the moment since we have no idea how probable life is, it's vertically impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities......"

Yet as much as science knows now & can stack the deck with everything in their favor & all the numerous continuous testing. No life has been produced by our Intelligent Design as humans. But you want me to believe a cosmic accident made all this diversity & extreme complexity of Functional Design. Really?

At the end of his conclusion he says

" ...the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed and is unknown.
However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying not coin flipping."

So after all that evolution still has no idea & still has problems & has many theories to explain the problems. Yet you have the audacity to claim & teach it as if proven truth. When in real TRUTH it is in fact not!!

Even your sources. Read how they word things with discernment. I doubt you will because For too many your atheism, not honest science is at stake.

As I said earlier, that makes me sad for your sake.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I'm ready to discuss. We aren't discussing. You refuse to acknowledge obvious common sense & logic & then use false logic & non sense to bully pulpit atheism. I'm on my phone but can't copy & paste this article. But I'll reference it. I know evolutionist use it often. It's from The Talk Origins Archive.
The article I'm going to reference from that site is entitled
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistica, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

I find his title very ironic with the misleading he does & out right lies he gives.

He gives stats & then uses an example of throwing 4 straight heads himself as if that's close to relevant to 10 to 40th power. Plus he gives the impression because you have "chemicals everywhere w/o explaining where chemicals came from nothing. Then saying you have all these reactions occurring all the time. How does he know? How does he explain all that energy being released over & over all the time.

It's ironic that he makes it seem so likely to occur yet with all evolutions scientist knowledge etc. They still can't produce life ever! Some much in that article uses words & phrases like, could have, possibly,could be, or either , not likely, not unlikely. Etc. Then just says, like just so story, slowly climbs towards organismhood rather than making one big leap. Oh Really. Where is scientific proof. You can't recreate life to prove so make up just so stories.

As I said earlier the odds for each step grow exponentially due to odds being so high originally but must happen again & then second, third, fourth etc step must happen in consecutive order.

Here is his quote about (1/20)32th. You realize that's 1/20 multipled by itself 32 times. That's greater than 10 to 50th power which is considered impossible in math.

His conclusion is interesting. His own math infallacies are wrong & misleading.

"Yet even he admits At the moment since we have no idea how probable life is, it's vertically impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities......"

Yet as much as science knows now & can stack the deck with everything in their favor & all the numerous continuous testing. No life has been produced by our Intelligent Design as humans. But you want me to believe a cosmic accident made all this diversity & extreme complexity of Functional Design. Really?

At the end of his conclusion he says

" ...the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed and is unknown.
However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying not coin flipping."

So after all that evolution still has no idea & still has problems & has many theories to explain the problems. Yet you have the audacity to claim & teach it as if proven truth. When in real TRUTH it is in fact not!!

Even your sources. Read how they word things with discernment. I doubt you will because For too many your atheism, not honest science is at stake.

As I said earlier, that makes me sad for your sake.

I am sad for you. You have zero knowledge of science. You DO NOT want to discuss anything. You are rude. All these post you make are bordering on delusional.

You can not stay on any point and bounce around all over he place.

Yes. I am very sad for you. Knowledge is just at your fingertips and you REFUSE to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I'm ready to discuss. We aren't discussing. You refuse to acknowledge obvious common sense & logic & then use false logic & non sense to bully pulpit atheism. I'm on my phone but can't copy & paste this article. But I'll reference it. I know evolutionist use it often. It's from The Talk Origins Archive.
The article I'm going to reference from that site is entitled
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistica, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

I find his title very ironic with the misleading he does & out right lies he gives.

He gives stats & then uses an example of throwing 4 straight heads himself as if that's close to relevant to 10 to 40th power. Plus he gives the impression because you have "chemicals everywhere w/o explaining where chemicals came from nothing. Then saying you have all these reactions occurring all the time. How does he know? How does he explain all that energy being released over & over all the time.

It's ironic that he makes it seem so likely to occur yet with all evolutions scientist knowledge etc. They still can't produce life ever! Some much in that article uses words & phrases like, could have, possibly,could be, or either , not likely, not unlikely. Etc. Then just says, like just so story, slowly climbs towards organismhood rather than making one big leap. Oh Really. Where is scientific proof. You can't recreate life to prove so make up just so stories.

As I said earlier the odds for each step grow exponentially due to odds being so high originally but must happen again & then second, third, fourth etc step must happen in consecutive order.

Here is his quote about (1/20)32th. You realize that's 1/20 multipled by itself 32 times. That's greater than 10 to 50th power which is considered impossible in math.

His conclusion is interesting. His own math infallacies are wrong & misleading.

"Yet even he admits At the moment since we have no idea how probable life is, it's vertically impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities......"

Yet as much as science knows now & can stack the deck with everything in their favor & all the numerous continuous testing. No life has been produced by our Intelligent Design as humans. But you want me to believe a cosmic accident made all this diversity & extreme complexity of Functional Design. Really?

At the end of his conclusion he says

" ...the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed and is unknown.
However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying not coin flipping."

So after all that evolution still has no idea & still has problems & has many theories to explain the problems. Yet you have the audacity to claim & teach it as if proven truth. When in real TRUTH it is in fact not!!

Even your sources. Read how they word things with discernment. I doubt you will because For too many your atheism, not honest science is at stake.

As I said earlier, that makes me sad for your sake.

If you want to discuss that article that is fine with me. It appears that you did not understand it.

Let's go over the errors and lies of the creationists. I found the article from your description for those that want to follow along here is a link:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations


But one point before we go on. Do you realize that you have conceded the evolution argument? We are no longer discussing evolution we are discussing abiogenesis. You moved the goalposts. Evolution does not rely on one particular source of first life. It could have been magically poofed into existence by your God.

From the article:

"1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all."

Do you understand how this is a gross error by those oppose abiogenesis?

 

[Astrophile]

Here is his quote about (1/20)32th. You realize that's 1/20 multiplied by itself 32 times. That's greater than 10 to 50th power which is considered impossible in math.

What you meant to say is that 1/20 multiplied by itself 32 times is less than 10 to the -50th power. In fact (1/20)^32 = 2.328×10^-42, as you can find out by using a calculator. What grounds have you for saying that 10^-50 is considered impossible in math?

 

[John53]

Anyone know what bully pulpit atheism means?

 

[John53]

No I'm ready to discuss.

Then start discussing and stop preaching.

We aren't discussing.

I know.

You refuse to acknowledge obvious common sense & logic

No, I refuse to acknowledge that your preaching is factual. You do realise people can have a discussion without agreeing? In my experience if all parties agree the discussion ends very quickly.

& then use false logic & non sense to bully pulpit atheism.

I have no idea what this means but no one is about at the moment to explain it so I will carry on regardless. I call myself an atheist but really I am not sure what I am. I can't be sure if there is no supreme being but I am yet to find one that makes logical common sense to me. Evolution doesn't provide evidence for or against atheism because evolution doesn't seek to explain how life first started. It seeks to explain what happened after there was life. There is a lot of evidence to support ToE so the logical thing is to follow the evidence.

I have no idea how life started, I don't understand abiogenesis and I don't believe any of the creation stories I have researched. Hopefully this helps your confusion.

 

[Darkstorn]

Anyone know what bully pulpit atheism means?

He's projecting. He thinks he's behind a pulpit making a sermon and imagining himself as Martin Luther King or something. Then he makes the mistake of thinking just because he's doing it, all his opponents are doing the same thing and are in the same con-game.

Which is obviously hilarious.

 

[Polymath257]

As I said earlier the odds for each step grow exponentially due to odds being so high originally but must happen again & then second, third, fourth etc step must happen in consecutive order.

This is only true if you assume each step is probabilisticly independent of all other steps and that the steps have to happen in a specific order and that they have to restart at the beginning if there is a failure.

None of these assumptions is correct in the real world.

Here is his quote about (1/20)32th. You realize that's 1/20 multipled by itself 32 times. That's greater than 10 to 50th power which is considered impossible in math.

First, you did the calculation wrong. 20^32 is NOT bigger than 10^50.

Second, I am a mathematician and there is NOTHING in math that says odds of 1 in 10^50 are impossible. In fact, they happen all the time.

Flip a coin 200 times. The probability you get *that specific sequence* of heads and tails is about 1 in 10^60. And yet it happened.

The point is that asking for one specific sequence, or one specific protein is asking the wrong question. Instead, you should ask what the probability is that *some* sequence or *some* workable protein will arise. And *that* probability is much, much, much larger than the one you are asking above.

This is a common creationist ploy: ask the wrong question and use the wrong probabilities to make a case that something is impossible. Well, that is simply mathematically wrong.

 

[Audie]

I quite following this long since, but-
did even one Christian step in to say
that such behaviour brings shame to
the Christian faith?

 

[ecco]

This will be my last post because I can't help you see what you refuse to see.

Promises, promises, promises.

 

[ecco]

Nonetheless here is my comment on the above article. Even it admits the odds are 10 to 40th power which is very very low it admits but as you guys claim due to its small odds due to lifes existence basically had to have happened that once and then gone forward. Here is the MAJOR mistake. It then acts like after that the odds get better instead of actually getting worse. They actually get worse because see what takes such large odds has to happen too many times over and over again and again. Thus making the odds exponentially grow. It has to hit the 10 to 40th over and over consecutively again and again. Law of Probability makes it get bigger not smaller. It is like saying throwing winning a lotto with odds 10 to 40th power. then winning it again and again over and over as it evolves per each step. That makes it mathematically impossible.

Did you actually read the article? If you did read it, it is clear that you did not understand it.

 

[ecco]

Here is his quote about (1/20)32th. You realize that's 1/20 multipled by itself 32 times.

First, you did the calculation wrong. 20^32 is NOT bigger than 10^50.

Maybe it's too early and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

Isn't 1/20^32 a very, very small number?

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe it's too early and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

Isn't 1/20^32 a very, very small number?

Yes, I was looking at 20^32, the reciprocal of (1/20)^32. So 20^32 < 10^50 which makes 10^(-50)<20^(-32).

 

[tas8831]

Here is his quote about (1/20)32th. You realize that's 1/20 multipled by itself 32 times. That's greater than 10 to 50th power which is considered impossible in math.

Can you provide a source that indicates that according to math, something with a 1 in 10^50 chance is impossible?

And why do you never actually reply to people, just vomit out these overly verbose missives?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Anyone know what bully pulpit atheism means?

No idea. I thought our discussion was about science an the theory and fact of evolution in particular. Nobody other than Patriottechsan has been bringing up atheism.