It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creation vs Evolution is pointless.

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 



I'm proposing that the mathematical probability of evolution is astoundingly ridiculous.

The problem is that the odds were not computed properly. The odds were purposely done incorrectly. I call the method a purposeful lie.

Your Borel claim is meaningless in light of the flawed nature of the probabilities you have referenced.


Mathematically the chances of this cell forming is 1 in 10 119,879

Again a meaningless probability since the computations are unlikely to be done correctly if they were done as before.

The issue is evolution and here you refer to abiogenesis. Evolution does not cover abiogenesis.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 



Enter mathematical probabilities and you have a very solid case for a B.S. flag to waived high.

The probabilities you have posted are highly flawed and for the reasons I stated. I would not be surprised to learn of other flaws in the math as well.


it doesn't change the fact that not a single one of you has addressed the issue of mathematical improbability (impossibility?) of the evolutionary theory.

I suppose you purposely overlooked the post in which I pointed out the serious flaws in the crap passe off as math. I even posted a satirical computation in which I proved the impossibility of the Saints wining the last Super Bowl. I used the same jackass methods as the probabilities you referenced.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 




The simplest reproducing cell known to man is the H39 strain of PPLO (mycoplasma) which contains 625 proteins, with an average of 400 amino acids in each protein.
...
So unless we're going to say that there is a better than 1 in 1050 chance that a single celled organism popped out of the goo, the entire argument is moot.
...
wait a second... "It's not very clear, but most likely..." What the hell is that?
...
The "first membranes" forming is a complete guess at how the protein structures were able to jump into a cellular formation. There is NOTHING out there to back this up.


The title of the thread is Creation vs Evolution is pointless. Why do you insist in pulling it off topic into Abiogenesis. Lack of complete understanding about Abiogenesis is not an argument either for nor against Evolution. Evolution deals with what happens to life, it does not deal with what happens to non-life.

The first 'life' was not in the form of a cell, so incredulity at the complexity of the simplest modern cell is irrelevant. The odds of chemical reactions taking place between organic molecules in a (appropriate) solution is absolutely positive.

It is true that science has not yet reached common agreement on a Theory of Abiogenesis, but there are many hypotheses being tested and progress is being made at a synthesis. I repeat, this is not an argument either for nor against Evolution, it is just a demonstration that scientists still have work to do. Unlike theologians.

Please review the following video from one of the leading biologists in the field of Abiogenesis. (For those who came in early, sorry for the repeat, I linked this video on the second page)





I didn't say Tiki fish was irrelevant, I said that rnna whined that a fish with legs would disprove the MES theory, yet Tiki exists and is a major part of evolutionary theory.


No I didn't. In fact I showed you an example of a fish that has evolved leg like structures thus demonstrating the plausibility of it happening, despite your 'mathematical improbablility. The existence of handfishes and their use of their 'legs' to walk is unequivale and not subject to misinterpretation. Tiki is a fossil and thus it is possible that it could be misinterpreted as you charge. Handfishes demonstrate that the Tiki explanation is plausible. Fishes with legs do not disprove the MES.

A fish that turns into a rat in a generation would disprove MES. A fossil of a fish with fur and buck teeth would disprove MES.

There is no contradiction in my statement.

And I am not whining. I am laughing.



[edit on 27/5/2010 by rnaa]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
stereo:
the problem with your probability of the Saints losing is that really the probability is 50/50. There is a 1 in 2 chance they win.

You can't get around the fact that someone has to win. With the life equation there is no absolute of it happening. It's not a 50/50 shot.

Now, if you were to say that Drew Brees would have done a fake reverse sweep pass with Reggie Bush to score the 56th touchdown in the game with exactly 2:34 left in the 3rd quarter and this would happen at 3:47pm on Super Bowl Sunday while you were eating some hot wings and the sauce dripped on your shirt just as Drew caught the pass and your girlfriend slapped your ass and yelled "Who Dat!".....

Then we'd be talking the same kind of odds here.


rnna:
So let me get this strait:
When I say that the creation of life by accident is completely improbable and detail the reasons why you change the topic to just the formation of RNA.

And even though early on this all got going with us because I said that Creation and Evolution are not the same at all because Creation is about where it all started and Evolution is about what happened after that... now you're telling me that I've got it wrong because YOU are suddenly enlightened to that thought?

I have no issue with debating about how animals have evolved. I simply don't ascribe to the Universal Ancestor theory. And that's it. It's a theory - not everyone (even fully qualified scientists) believes in that theory either.

It seems to me that the only argument that's being going here is really about the initial creation, not the evolution. On that one I've been content for a long time to agree to disagree.

My only assertion that you guys are avoiding completely is the overwhelming improbability (essentially a mathematical chance of 0%) of life developing out of the primordial goo with no intelligent or intentional assistance.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


The Saints was not a 50-50 chance win. Just because 2 outcomes are possible does not mean that the chances are the same for each outcome. That is one of the problems with the idiotic odds calculation in the reference you used. I've already posted that issue.

There are other issues on top of that. I listed those as well.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by gncnew
 


The Saints was not a 50-50 chance win. Just because 2 outcomes are possible does not mean that the chances are the same for each outcome. That is one of the problems with the idiotic odds calculation in the reference you used. I've already posted that issue.

There are other issues on top of that. I listed those as well.


FAIL stereo.

You're statistic wasn't about them winning, it was about the odds of the 2 million people betting on the winner.

They've only got a 50/50 shot of being right, so you can't compound the odds of them being right by the amount of people picking.

The odds get compounded because of the amount of decisions to make. There were only two decisions to make - thus a 50/50 shot (i.e. true/false, win/lose). The creation of life involves hundreds of thousands of independent events that must happen. Those hundreds of thousands of things are not all working in concert depending on the same yes/no outcome.

Thus the odds become exponentially impossible.

Come on now, don't suddenly get all dense on me.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


Good you got part of the problem. I am glad you are looking at the stupidity I wrote for math. Haven't I labeled my math as being downright bad? I also stated that I used the same idiotic notions used in the probabilities you referenced.

The probabilities you quoted only apply if the events are as they state. Guess what? That's not how evolution works. Whatever idiotic numbers they calculated are meaningless in representing evolution.


You still don't seem to understand that the odds are not 50/50. The odds of the Saints winning was 1/3. That's what the odds makers chose. Just because there are 2 possible outcomes does not mean that the odds are even.


Thus the odds become exponentially impossible.

Completely wrong. Do you understand under what conditions probabilities are multiplied?



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



Yes. That's just it.

Let's say I've got a 1:6 chance of rolling a four on a six-sided die. If I am going to see the probability of rolling a four two times in a row I need to multiply 1:6 * 1:6. this gives me a 1:36 chance of rolling the four twice in a row.

Ok great. Now, let's look at the current "theory" (I use that term VERY loosely here) of how RNA became a cell:



a group of organic molecules including proteins, and primitive fatty acids formed into a droplet, or bubble-like structure, which had the ability to combine with external elements, such as proteins not a part of it. Eventually, these droplets would grow, and divide. These droplets would eventually evolve into the first true cell. These early cells would have been autotrophs, which are organism which produce their own energy, usually from sunlight. Some of these cells would then evolve into heterotrophs (organisms which ingest organic material as a nutrient source)
first cell short

So, we're going to ignore all of the probabilities we've had to overcome to this point and just start at a clean slate.

Chances of
A. Organic molecules
B. Proteins
C. Primitive fatty acids
all combining into a droplet.

That's A, B, and C all having to happen. Now we'll allow a seriously more than generous 1:500 chance that the non-life elements here can combine and not just float off on their own, evaporate, break down into simpler elements, etc...

So I've at 1:500 chance for A to combine with something, B: to combine with something, and C to combine with something. Oh, and we're also ONLY allowing A, B, and C into the equation (again - seriously generous).

This gives us a 1:125,000,000 chance that they combine together.

Now all we've gotten to is that they combined. Not that they grew, divided, or mutated into photosynthetic cells.

Do if I've got a 1 in 125 million chance of just combining these three elements together, I have to MULTIPLY that against the probability of them then growing. So if I need this to happen say three times (?? remember, it's a really loose theory how all this happened) to make the first cell that could divide I've now got (1:125,000,000) to the third power. This is going to be roughly 1:1,953,125,000,000,000,000,000,000


Soooooo now we're talking some pretty ridiculous numbers, but wait - it gets better.

Without going any further (i.e. going into exponential notation) we need to address the fact that we've been doing all of this math on finite spaces.

In other words we're doing this on the premise that there is a finite set of events that could occur when saying A, B, and C will combine. But in truth there is an infinite space of events.



Attempts to define probabilities for all subsets of the real numbers run into difficulties when one considers 'badly-behaved' sets, such as those which are nonmeasurable.
Event theory
If you go on to read this you'll note that the only way to work this is to use sigma-algebra in which we have to apply an artificial subset of spaces for the problem.

So essentially what I'm saying in layman's terms is that I gave A, B, and C each a 1:500 chance of occurring. This means I artificially limited the set of spaces to only 500 events that could occur. AND I limited the spaces of things that could interact.

So I short changed the probabilities on both sides of the equation pretty severely just to come up with a 1:1.953 septillion chance of occurring.

That's roughly 1:10 to the 27th power chance of happening.

Guess what, when I multiple this by itself (say to cover the chance of the droplet splitting into another droplet successfully?) I've already jumped the shark.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by gncnew]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
concerning my last post - remember that common mathematical theory is that anything over 10 to the 50th power is considered mathematically proven as impossible.

Not saying you're wrong, just saying I'm not full of crap, the numbers dont lie on this.

I think you've gotten the idea that "creationists perpetuate math lies" because they don't bother even let the picture look this possible. They usually go right out there and give you the unreal level of probability of the whole thing. And when you look into the freaky world of probability theory things get pretty crazy.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by gncnew]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 



Let's say I've got a 1:6 chance of rolling a four on a six-sided die. If I am going to see the probability of rolling a four two times in a row I need to multiply 1:6 * 1:6. this gives me a 1:36 chance of rolling the four twice in a row.


Do you know the conditions under which you calculated these odds? What is it that makes multiplication the correct way to compute these odds? If you say that's what you do, then you do not understand the issue.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


The discussion here is on evolution, not on biogenesis.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 



I think you've gotten the idea that "creationists perpetuate math lies" because they don't bother even let the picture look this possible. They usually go right out there and give you the unreal level of probability of the whole thing. And when you look into the freaky world of probability theory things get pretty crazy.


1. You claim that the events are independent
2. You claim that the probabilities are uniform
3. You imply that only one instance is being considered

I suggest that you have no evidence that any of these are true. In fact, I have shown number 1 and 2 to be false.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   


"If god created the heavens and earth before light...that means he created them IN THE DARK!! That's amazing!"

Muahahahahahahaha!!!

[edit on 28-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


O.K. you are using the word of a British actor/comedian as the truth?!?! WAKE UP XYZ!!!! THIS GUY IS NO SCIENTIST! DON'T TAKE HIS WORD FOR GOSPEL!
P.S. Gospel means truth in Greek so it's not a purely religious term I've had that problem with several Atheists.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by gncnew
 



I think you've gotten the idea that "creationists perpetuate math lies" because they don't bother even let the picture look this possible. They usually go right out there and give you the unreal level of probability of the whole thing. And when you look into the freaky world of probability theory things get pretty crazy.


1. You claim that the events are independent
2. You claim that the probabilities are uniform
3. You imply that only one instance is being considered

I suggest that you have no evidence that any of these are true. In fact, I have shown number 1 and 2 to be false.


Are you proposing that the events that created the first cell were NOT independent? If they were related, under what pretense is it exactly that they're related?

I only claimed the probabilities were uniform to show the simplicity of the concept of the math. In fact I showed you at the end how my artificial spaces set a finite amount of events that actually limited the probabilities to a much smaller level.

By the way - you multiply them because while a probability is less than one, since it's a positive number, adding them actually increases your probability of it happening. This is a case where the events happening actually ARE happening independently of each other instead of something like say rolling a six and a four in your first three rolls.

In this case you add them because you're odds get better after the first roll or get better after you roll one of the numbers.

Why are you seriously arguing about this. I honestly put this as strait forward as it can be.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 



Are you proposing that the events that created the first cell were NOT independent? If they were related, under what pretense is it exactly that they're related?

It's your math. It's your claim. Please show that these events are independent.


I only claimed the probabilities were uniform to show the simplicity of the concept of the math. In fact I showed you at the end how my artificial spaces set a finite amount of events that actually limited the probabilities to a much smaller level.

You used an assumption of uniform probabilities because it suited you. The web page you reference used uniform probabilities because it suited their lie.


By the way - you multiply them because while a probability is less than one, since it's a positive number, adding them actually increases your probability of it happening.

That is proof that you do not understand probabilities.


This is a case where the events happening actually ARE happening independently of each other instead of something like say rolling a six and a four in your first three rolls.

And again you demonstrate that you do not understand probabilities. Not only did you make err once, but you erred twice just to make it clear that you do not understand what you are claiming.


Why are you seriously arguing about this. I honestly put this as strait forward as it can be.


Yes. I am definitely trying to make it clear that you and that lie you referenced are basing your claims on a lack of understanding of probabilities.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Truent2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


O.K. you are using the word of a British actor/comedian as the truth?!?! WAKE UP XYZ!!!! THIS GUY IS NO SCIENTIST! DON'T TAKE HIS WORD FOR GOSPEL!
P.S. Gospel means truth in Greek so it's not a purely religious term I've had that problem with several Atheists.



I do realize it's a comedy...but all he really did is recite how evolution works, and then what the bible tells us about creation. Not my fault if the bible's version sounds like the brain child of some insane person, he didn't add anything that isn't in the bible...yet if you listen carefully, you realize it's actually quite funny. Name one thing he said about creation that isn't in the bible...



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 





Are you proposing that the events that created the first cell were NOT independent? If they were related, under what pretense is it exactly that they're related?


Independent of what exactly? The first cellular organism would have evolved from non-cellular life which developed from straightforward chemical reactions from common organic molecules that were present in the pre-biotic environment.

Attempting incredulity at the odds of a fully formed cell 'popping' out of the 'chemical soup' is a straw man and irrelevant to anything what-so-ever. It could not have happened that way and no biologist would suggest that it is so.

What don't you get about the fact that spontaneous generation hasn't been an accepted hypothesis in science for something like 300 years? Yes, that is right: spontaneous generation was rejected by science even before Darwin. So why aren't you attacking Francesco Redi or John Needham or Lazzaro Spallanzani or Louis Pasteur?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Of course the flip side is that if abiogenesis doesn't rely so improbable odds, did life arise multiple times independently on earth?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
"The tough mind is sharp and penetrating, breaking through the crust of legends and myths and sifting the true from the false. The tough-minded individual is astute and discerning. He has a strong austere quality that makes for firmness of purpose and solidness of commitment. Who doubts that this toughness is one of man's greatest needs? Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

"Softmindedness often invades religion. ... Softminded persons have revised the Beautitudes to read "Blessed are the pure in ignorance: for they shall see God." This has led to a widespread belief that there is a conflict between science and religion. But this is not true. There may be a conflict between softminded religionists and toughminded scientists, but not between science and religion. ... Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]




top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join