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.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
But how does non-living building blocks come together to form life? There are no basic life forms teeming in space so I miss you point there.
I think my points are more along the lines that if a person believes that random events create life then it would be hypocritical to also believe that intelligent Alien contact is plausible . My other point is since we have no proof as to how life started in the universe then all hypotheses are equally correct or incorrect since none can be proven, and so the OP’s title is moot.
I know this part is slightly off topic, but it strikes me funny that an atheist would believe that UFOs are alien design, or that we would ever be visited by one.
Originally posted by melatonin
I don't think UFOs are alien design. I think they are nothing but elements of human activity, anomalies, and a bit of wishful thinking. Just my opinion, of course
However, I still think that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is more likely than your interdimensional supernatural biochemist.
Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by Fromabove
What is wrong with you? Just look up two post...
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by Fromabove
and the time and place were right for a bolt of lightning to come down and in impossible odds, it hits the pool.
Heh, impossible odds?
Come on, you're not being serious? If this is the sort of event that is required, over a period of a billion years it would be impossible for a strike of lightening to hit one in any number of such pools?
Your argument shows it vacuity right at the start. I mentioned this earlier (in this thread or t'other), but this sort of post-hoc probability argument is naff. You don't even know the probability of such events, and even if you did, even at 1 in 128567639590400272652648902684932020029376192, it could happen on the very first trial.
Billions of galaxies, billions of habitable planets, billions of years, billons of simultaneous trials. One abiogenesis event required on one planet (although life could be all over the universe for all we know, time will tell).
But as AV points out, still not a positive argument for creation.
[edit on 19-1-2008 by melatonin]
Originally posted by Fromabove
So again, math has proven evolution impossible leaving only creationism to shine in the sun.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by Fromabove
So again, math has proven evolution impossible leaving only creationism to shine in the sun.
Keep telling yourself that. The big problem is that you really don't understand what you are talking about. You clearly showed this by the 'impossible odds' of a lightning strike and a pool of chemicals. We don't need to 'get it right first time' at all. We have billions of years, billions of planets, billions of galaxies, and billions of your pools of chemicals.
You have no understanding of statistics and probability, or what is required from abiogenesis.
[edit on 21-1-2008 by melatonin]
Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
I've never had any qualms with life in an evolutionary sense, but one thing that has plagued me, especially as a secular "Humanist" has been the origin of time and space. No one here can claim they know anything about where the physical energy in it's origin created itself or "how" it was created. Even Earthly physics negates the notion that it has always "been," as energy cannot be created or destroyed, but is in an infinite lingo of kinetic and potential. I know as a species, we're still in what can and should be considered as our infancy of science and technologies, but even taking into consideration of what we know now, it still boggles my mind.
And as a counter argument, one could probably say the same about modern science. As it seems our current sciences are probably just as far away as to figuring out where and why as their religious counterparts.
Originally posted by Fromabove
In order to validate creationism, one has to invalidate the opposing view. So one cannot argue in behalf of one view without annuling the other viewpoint.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Originally posted by Fromabove
In order to validate creationism, one has to invalidate the opposing view. So one cannot argue in behalf of one view without annuling the other viewpoint.
actually... if you could, for the sake of argument, invalidate evolution, you wouldn't prove creationism.
you'd still have to independently prove creationism...
so get cracking on that 'prove creationism' thing
Originally posted by Fromabove
Take ten sets of dice. Let's say that you need to have every one be a six when you roll them. Start now and write back in about five years and tell me how it went. But before that, every time you get it right you add another dice and do it again, and they all must be sixes except the eleventh dice which is a number nine, followed by eight, and so on, this accounts for mutations and improvements with modifications. And every third time you get it right you have to start over to allow for enviromental conditioning, then come back in 100 billion years and let us know how it went. Except that at that time the sun will be a white dwarf star and the Earth will be a black cinder with no atmosphere or life on it.
So, math makes it simply impossible to achieve an evolutionary model.
Originally posted by melatonin
Originally posted by Fromabove
Take ten sets of dice. Let's say that you need to have every one be a six when you roll them. Start now and write back in about five years and tell me how it went. But before that, every time you get it right you add another dice and do it again, and they all must be sixes except the eleventh dice which is a number nine, followed by eight, and so on, this accounts for mutations and improvements with modifications. ...
So, math makes it simply impossible to achieve an evolutionary model.
[Parabol's emphasis]
Taking the simplistic dice model you want to play with, it's not a case of rolling say 10 dice and needing all sixes in one throw. The odds of that would be p=.167 for each dice, for 10, raised to the power 10: p=1.6x10^-8.
But this is not how evolution would occur. It would be more a case of throwing ten dice, then selecting the most adaptive (a six) , or roll again. Then throwing the remaining 9 looking for a six to select, and so on and so forth.
Thus, the odds of finding a six in one throw with 10 dice is p=1/6 x 10 > 1 Then, a six in 9 dice, 1/6 x 9 = p>1; etc etc.
Originally posted by Fromabove
only that "chance" evolution is. What would "progressive advancement" be...
I sincerely doubt random evolution....
and not the speculative random chance evolution of some science minded people...
It would be manipulated. It is just impossible for random evolution to happen...
Now try it instead with the double helix DNA and try to get it right the first time. There are billions of combinations. And take into account that survival takes desire to live and continue. chemical reactions do not "know" they must live, nor do they desire to do so.
Universal Probability Bound
A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in. Universal probability bounds have been estimated anywhere between 10^50 (Emile Borel) and 10^150