Zero probability for Evolution

[McBell]

God is hiding because He does not want to be scientifically proven. He wants to be loved, not proven!

So you really should be doing all your whining and complaining to god then, right?
I mean if god does not want to be proven scientifically, what chance in hell do you have in proving him?

 

[ecco]

YECs must argue against an earth billions of years old. They must reject the fact that dinosaurs and cockroaches lived much, much longer than humans on this earth. They must reject these things because they need to feel special.

They want to believe that their god made this earth just for them. In addition to much other science, they ignore that this earth is on the fringes of a very ordinary galaxy containing 100 thousand million other stars. They ignore that this galaxy is just one of 2 trillion known galaxies. Their god made all this just to put them on just one little planet. How special.

Look up the video of atheist Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube. She "finds" a perfect match between the dog's butt and the face of Jesus Christ. She will hate believers even more if God becomes reality for her.

Do you think your comment addresses my post?

 

[questfortruth]

Do you think your comment addresses my post?

Yes, your point is what it seems, that there is "no God". But there is God, He is just hiding from disbelievers.

So its not that science has "failed to prove" consciousness (it would be interesting to hear what a neurologist would say about your claim -- probably scoff) but "failed to define", due to disagreements on what the precise definition should be and what characteristics it includes.

If the thing is not even defined, then there is reasonable doubt, that it even exists. Therefore, it is not yet proven to exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, your point is what it seems, that there is "no God". But there is God, He is just hiding from disbelievers.

You think God has to hide from people? Does he disguise Himself too?

If the thing is not even defined, then there is reasonable doubt, that it even exists. Therefore, it is not yet proven to exist.

So anything that has not been defined or described does not exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I
It is not different from any good scientific paper. I bet, you would say "word salat" to any of Dr. Hawking's papers. Provided, if he is not PhD and not peer-reviewed.

I bet Dr Hawking wouldn't make rudimentary mistakes that a 4th grader wouldn't even make either.

 

[Polymath257]

Because the P is probability, then holds not P = C*N, but 0 < P < 100 %.

OK, 1-(1-P)^n. For P small, this is approximately nP.

 

[Polymath257]

The exact probability of Abiogenesis is unknown in Neo-Darwinism. The lowest limit
is 0, and the upper limit is 1/(250!), where 250 is the number of proteins, the
(!) is factorial of 250. Therefore, mine p=100/N belongs to 0<100/N<1/(250!).

Nope, you have the upper bound wrong because you assumes probabilistic independence of the steps.

 

[questfortruth]

Nope, you have the upper bound wrong because you assumes probabilistic independence of the steps.

No, I have all right. Look: there are 250! possibilities only. Only one possibility is realized. Thus, by definition of probability, the chance is 1/(250!)

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I have all right. Look: there are 250! possibilities only. Only one possibility is realized. Thus, by definition of probability, the chance is 1/(250!)

Probability is seldom so simple as the reciprocal
of the number of possibilities. Old joke...
If you randomly rearrange parts in a watch,
it could either be degraded or improved.
Is there a 1/2 chance it will be improved?

Another issue with abiogenesis is that we don't
know the number of ways life could arise. One
cannot presume the number of proteins needed.

 

[metis]

But there is God, He is just hiding from disbelievers.

Why would God supposedly hide from disbelievers when He supposedly mandates that all must believe in Him?

 

[questfortruth]

Why would God supposedly hide from disbelievers when He supposedly mandates that all must believe in Him?

Not must, but are free to believe or not.
And not all: God is not interested in Adolf Hitler, Judas, and satan.

Probability is seldom so simple as the reciprocal
of the number of possibilities. Old joke...
If you randomly rearrange parts in a watch,
it could either be degraded or improved.
Is there a 1/2 chance it will be improved?

Another issue with abiogenesis is that we don't
know the number of ways life could arise. One
cannot presume the number of proteins needed.

There are two outcomes, but they are originated from the low level of activity.
Hereby it is assumed, that probability of this activity is uniform. Thus, there is always this unproven assumption is Probability Theory: each of the original combinations (250!) are of equil probability.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not must, but are free to believe or not.
And not all: God is not interested in Adolf Hitler, Judas, and satan.



There are two outcomes, but they are originated from the low level of activity.
Hereby it is assumed, that probability of this activity is uniform. Thus, there is always this unproven assumption is Probability Theory: each of the original combinations (250!) are of equil probability.

Your assumptions are simply unjustified.
We don't know the number of or kinds of pathways
possible for abiogenesis. We also don't know the
number of occurrences of these potential events.
Even if very unlikely, the occurrence opportunities
are massive....billions of years, millions of square
miles, & gazillions of molecules per square mile.
You've not taken this into account.

I have a wonderful book from back in the day in
school...Probabilistic Systems Analysis. It sheds
light on the difficulties of dealing with even simple
systems of which much is known. Abiogenesis
is vastly more difficult to apply probability.

I know just enuf to know that what I know & can
do are woefully inadequate to the task.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not must, but are free to believe or not.

Consider the scenario of someone holding a gun to your head and asking your for your wallet.

Then he goes on to say "hey, it's your free choice... you are free to give me your wallet and you are free to refuse. I'll shoot you in the head if you don't, but you are free not to".


Isn't that nice. Giving you such a "free" choice of deciding to hand over your wallet or not.

 

[metis]

Not must, but are free to believe or not.
And not all: God is not interested in Adolf Hitler, Judas, and satan.

Why do you think you can speak for God?

 

[Polymath257]

No, I have all right. Look: there are 250! possibilities only. Only one possibility is realized. Thus, by definition of probability, the chance is 1/(250!)

You have to assume that all the probabilities are the same, that there is not a process directing it, and that we know all the relevant variables. You are assuming probabilistic independence when we *know* it is false.

 

[ecco]

Yes, your point is what it seems, that there is "no God". But there is God, He is just hiding from disbelievers.

Well, let's see. Let's examine the logic behind your assertion.

Most children grow up "believers". That means they see God. Yet very few ever say they see God. Why? You would think children who are believers would want to tell everyone that they see God. You would think that everyone who is a believer would tell everyone they see God. But that rarely happens.

Most children grow up "believers". That means they see God. Some of these children become disbelievers - they become atheists. When they become atheists, God is hidden from them. That would be very, very traumatic. They would immediately become believers again. There would be no atheists.

Very few children or adults claim they see God.
There are many atheists.
Therefore, your assertion is illogical.

 

[questfortruth]

You have to assume that all the probabilities are the same, that there is not a process directing it, and that we know all the relevant variables. You are assuming probabilistic independence when we *know* it is false.

The formula 1/(250!) is the definition of probability for this given case.

 

[questfortruth]

They would immediately become believers again. There would be no atheists.

satan sees God but hates Him. Thus, it is not sufficient and even dangerous for Earth's stability to prove God.

 

[ecco]

satan sees God but hates Him. Thus, it is not sufficient and even dangerous for Earth's stability to prove God.

Another non-answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think you can speak for God?

It is his turn this week.

Don't worry, next week it is my turn. One word of caution, stock up on party supplies. You are going to need them.