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.

 

creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

page: 23
5
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by melatonin
Maybe look up 'universal probability bound' on wiki. I'm sure it will be on there.

But, I don't care how vast they are. I just want something to use to make a point. I can work with 10^150. That's very improbable.


I see your point in probabilities, but that seems to be based on infinite time where carbon has been around about 9 billion in the universe, and using the earth as a typical example we are talking about 4 billion years to get past small organisms. So other life might at best be 2 to 3 billion years older than life on earth, and more likely closer to our time line. Since we are here the probability for life cannot be assigned a true value of zero, but when you add time to the equation and in this case 9 billion at the max for the start of a 4 billion year process the 10^150 for an impossibility is much too high. As we ignore vast distances of the universe we also seem to ignore big numbers too.

For a 1 component organism to evolve into a 200 component organism much less that of a millions of component organism such as animals are today it would be a probability of about 10^60.

“Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 10^14 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 10^9) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 10^18/10^2, or 10^16, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10^14 (10^9) (10^16), or 10^39 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10^60, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10^39 attempts might be successful is only one out of 10^60/10^39, or 10.21.
cite

We tend to think in terms of billions when we talk about our Galaxy and a good chunk of the universe such as 15 billion years for the age of it, 9 billion years for when carbon first arrived on the scene, 300 billion stars in our galaxy, 30 billion like our sun, 5 billion years for the life of the earth, 4 billion years for the process of life, and 1 billion of our closest galaxies and even with all these billions the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.



[edit on 21-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



You are good at explaining this. Thankyou.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Xtrozero
but when you add time to the equation and in this case 9 billion at the max for the start of a 4 billion year process the 10^150 for an impossibility is much too high.


I haven't really attempted to apply it yet. I think Dembski's stuff is BS and so is Morris' - he hasn't applied probability properly either.

But lets just get a number to work with.

Is 10^150 good for you, 10^60 if you really want it? An event with a probability at this level cannot happen by a random process, it must be designed?

I'll get to Henry Morris after we've got this first part completed that I spent hours with last night.

Like nailing jello to the wall...

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]


If all you were trying to do with our endless discission last night was to establish that life has a designer, I believe this. The reason I use math and instinct or "to know" and to "desire" is because for life to be said to be "alive" it must exist and desire to continue, and must be aware. Yet because the odds and probablility factors are too great to overcome, evolution by itself alone is left wanting at the roadside. It would never happen.

Now that we have established the number to at least 10^60, lead on so we can listen.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
If all you were trying to do with our endless discission last night was to establish that life has a designer, I believe this.


No, I'm trying to show why the probability arguments used by creationists are BS.


Yet because the odds and probablility factors are too great to overcome, evolution by itself alone is left wanting at the roadside. It would never happen.

Now that we have established the number to at least 10^60, lead on so we can listen.


You haven't established that the odds/probabilities are too great at all. You've just asserted it without any real numbers. Indeed, all you've shown is that you really don't understand this stuff, but think it is impossible anyway. That's what's called an 'argument from incredulity'.

OK, 10^60 or 10^150. An event in this range and above cannot be due to random processes according to some people. You agree now I assume.

Now we have some numbers, I'll post again after dinner.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
OK, firstly. I'll extend on the dice ideas earlier, however, I'm going to ignore the fact that evolution is not just a random process. For a pure random process we'll use a sequence of cards drawn from multiple decks of 54 well-shuffled cards labelled numerically. The sequence of cards is random.

We take one decks of 54 shuffled cards. We deal them out.

The odds for that particular sequence is 2.7 x 10^71 (i.e. 1 in 54! or 1 in 54X53X52 etc)

We take three shuffled decks and deal them out, one by one.

That's 162 cards. The odds of this exact sequence of cards is:

7.29 x 10^213

That's impossible. How could that happen? According to Dembski such events with probabilities of this magnitude (> 10^150) cannot be random, there has to be a designer. But the sequence is on the floor in front of me, and we know it's a random process.

There's a problem here, I know what it is. And it is a problem that is common in such creationist probability calculations. Any ideas?

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
OK, firstly. I'll extend on the dice ideas earlier, however, I'm going to ignore the fact that evolution is not just a random process. For a pure random process we'll use a sequence of cards drawn from multiple decks of 54 well-shuffled cards labelled numerically. The sequence of cards is random.

We take one decks of 54 shuffled cards. We deal them out.

The odds for that particular sequence is 2.7 x 10^71 (i.e. 1 in 54! or 1 in 54X53X52 etc)

We take three shuffled decks and deal them out, one by one.

That's 162 cards. The odds of this exact sequence of cards is:

7.29 x 10^213

That's impossible. How could that happen? According to Dembski such events with probabilities of this magnitude (> 10^150) cannot be random, there has to be a designer. But the sequence is on the floor in front of me, and we know it's a random process.

There's a problem here, I know what it is. And it is a problem that is common in such creationist probability calculations. Any ideas?

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]


Let me see if I understand you correctly, after you lay out the cards and know the sequence they are laid out in, you use the Dembski method to calculate the probability factor, is that correct for me to assume or am I still missing you on that point. I intend to give a statement on it once I know I'm following your method.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Let me see if I understand you correctly, after you lay out the cards and know the sequence they are laid out in, you use the Dembski method to calculate the probability factor, is that correct for me to assume or am I still missing you on that point. I intend to give a statement on it once I know I'm following your method.


I'm not really caring about Dembski at the moment, I've just calculated the probability of the sequence of 162 cards sitting in front of me.

It's above Dembski's probability bound of what could be considered a random process. But we know the sequence was random, it was well-shuffled.

So what happened? What's gone wrong?

It's comparable to me looking at some protein or DNA sequence, and saying, 'the probability of that particular arrangement by chance is impossible, therefore goddidit'.

But in this case I'm looking at a sequence of cards produced randomly which was very improbable, indeed, should be impossible by chance according to some. Your god was not required.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Fromabove
Let me see if I understand you correctly, after you lay out the cards and know the sequence they are laid out in, you use the Dembski method to calculate the probability factor, is that correct for me to assume or am I still missing you on that point. I intend to give a statement on it once I know I'm following your method.


I'm not really caring about Dembski at the moment, I've just calculated the probability of the sequence of 162 cards sitting in front of me.

It's above Dembski's probability bound of what could be considered a random process. But we know the sequence was random, it was well-shuffled.

So what happened? What's gone wrong?

It's comparable to me looking at some protein or DNA sequence, and saying, 'the probability of that particular arrangement by chance is impossible, therefore goddidit'.

But in this case I'm looking at a sequence of cards produced randomly which was very improbable, indeed, should be impossible by chance. Your god was not required.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]


Would that not be true if you laid out the 162 cards in the correct sequence to form life, and got it right ? yet, now you need to reshuffle the deck, only this time use 52 cards and record the sequence. Then reshuffle (but keep the second 52 on hand). The next time you get the exact same sequence, lay out the second 52 cards and record that sequence, then reshuffle (but keep the third 52 on hand). Now the next time you get the second sequence, lay one card at a time from the third deck of 52, recoed and reshuffle, then lay out another and so on until all the 162 cards have been laid out. calculate the probabilities of being able to accomplish this task against the age of the earth which should expire in about 4 billion years or so. And just to bring in enviromental factors, every third successful attempt, throw all the cards in the waste can and start over at the very beginning.

It is one thing to lay out all the cards and then calculate the odds of that happening in that order. It is another thing to see the finished product and calculate the probabilities of getting it right by natural selection and random probabilities to achive the end result of the finished product. And considering de-evolution probabilities and natural events that hinder and even extinguish the proccess.

On the other hand, Let's say that God set the sequence in order by direct interference and manipulation by taking the 162 cards and setting them in exact order as they were planned. The chances of you not doing this are "0".



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
There's a problem here, I know what it is. And it is a problem that is common in such creationist probability calculations. Any ideas?
[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]


I think the problem here is the error by first establishing a preset path and then calculating the probability to reach the end of that preset path. In the case that I laid down 1 billion cards the probability that I did this is 1 (100%) and the probability of how they ended up is also 1.

If I write down a sequence of 1 billion cards and to randomly place the cards to that predetermined sequences is where the odds shoot up there around 10^60 or 10^150 area. Taking humans, if we are not predetermined to be here then the probability for us to be here is 1 (since we are here).



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
It is one thing to lay out all the cards and then calculate the odds of that happening in that order. It is another thing to see the finished product and calculate the probabilities of getting it right by natural selection and random probabilities to achive the end result of the finished product. And considering de-evolution probabilities and natural events that hinder and even extinguish the proccess.


You haven't really answered the problem.

A friend just came into the room and I asked him if it was possible for that sequence of 162 cards to occur by chance. He got out his calculator, did some maths and said 'not according to dembski'. This is comparable to looking at some particular protein or DNA sequence and doing some probability calculations then saying 'not by chance'.

Your really just starting to obfuscate. I'll get to Henry Morris' canard in time. He uses a process to calculate which is more akin to evolution, but still completely and utterly wrong. Thank you for your patience.

What is wrong with the calculation? We have a limit of 10^150 for chance processes, but the particular random sequence in front of me is well above that.

There's three obvious possibilities. The application of probability in the way I just did it is rubbish and, therefore, so are many creationist applications; events of 10^150 happen all the time; or a designer produced the sequence?

Just go away and think about it. Forget about evolution for now. This is a purely random process, evolution isn't - although you appeared to think it is. When I get to Morris, we'll get closer to what evolution can do.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think the problem here is the error by first establishing a preset path and then calculating the probability to reach the end of that preset path. In the case that I laid down 1 billion cards the probability that I did this is 1 (100%) and the probability of how they ended up is also 1.

If I write down a sequence of 1 billion cards and to randomly place the cards to that predetermined sequences is where the odds shoot up there around 10^60 or 10^150 area. Taking humans, if we are not predetermined to be here then the probability for us to be here is 1 (since we are here).


Bingo! That will do.

So, what I did was calculated for that particular sequence. But it wasn't specified beforehand. Thus, the lesson here is that applying probability post-hoc readily leads to BS numbers if applied incorrectly. If I now wanted to produce that specific sequence a second time, the probability calculation would readily apply. Indeed, every single sequence has the same probability. We had to have some outcome. An outcome was p=1, but any specific outcome was 10^213.

First lesson of the day. Evolution has no predetermined path. You can't look at a particular DNA sequence post-hoc and say 'the odds of that by chance is 10^167 therefore it is impossible' and expect to be making a coherent argument against evolution.

Firstly, evolution is not random, so this type of calculation would not apply. Secondly, evolution would in no way be aiming for a particular process. There would be innumerable processes which could also be an outcome. It just moves through fitness space producing organisms that can survive and reproduce. There is no target apart from that. Dembski does use this probability bound for specific outcomes, so he is above one misuse, but evolution doesn't work that way, it has no specific target.

Anyway, if that's cool we'll move on to Henry Morris' BS maths.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
all of the arguments on here have been refuted time and again.. except for two of them... and i think that's just because the arguments are far too...well, stupid.


You will have to explain what you mean because I haven't been keeping up with this thread and every single comment like others. Do you mean "here" as in this thread or did you mean to say "there" as in the links posted above.

If you are talking about the links then this might help you understand what I said before. Quote:


Although I don't agree with everything the website says, it raises a lot of good questions.


As to what has been said on this thread- no clue. Not keeping up with everyone but only pop in from time to time.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
To Evolutionists (non-Christian):

What do you care if they believe something that you find logically ridiculous?

To Creationists:

Do you think God cares which one you believe in? Or how long it took? Do you think He bases your judgment on such trivial things that have no affect on His message? As a Christian, I think it's pointless to argue these things. There is no end. No stopping point. Just a continuous waste of time.

The psychologist in me (a whole bachelors worth) would say the need to prove this argument is a means to prove to your faith to yourself. To spread God's message or word. This is not His word. He spoke for a few moments about creation because it's really not that important. Living a good life is important. Faith, hope, and love is important. This is trivial.

Do you really want to show someone God this way? Is this how you would convince non-believers? By arguing it into them? What happened to finding your own way?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
The basic concept that all ignore, is the most simple answer to all life.

When you say bacteria and other small life forms don't "want" or "know" you are basicly telling yourself a lie. Because even things that are not alive still "want" and "know".

At a sub-atomic scale, ALL THINGS are guided by the same "want" and "know". Even things that you think are not alive. That "want" and "know" is the key to life and all things.

It's simple, EVERYTHING is made of "electric charges" in your current theory. A positive charge, and negitive charge have a law to go by. LIKES REPEL, OPPOSITES ATTRACT is the key to all creation, all phenomenon, and all of everything, it is the law.

How does one charge "know" the other is an opposite? Why does one charge "want" to be with their opposite? As you can see, even non living things that are made of charges "want" and "know". Maybe not exactly by your defininition, but in a sense they do.

That law "likes repel, opposites attract" is basicaly the 0NE LAW OF ALL CREATION. G0D only had to create that ONE law in order to create everything we see, and no matter what, man can not change that law.

So when you talk about chemical reactions, you are just talking about that law that GOD CREATED. Evolution is: G0D AT WORK RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
To Evolutionists (non-Christian):

What do you care if they believe something that you find logically ridiculous?


I don't.

I just like to deny ignorance. Whether they want to believe the earth is 6000 years old or not is no great care of mine.

However, usually you will find that they are not just satisfied with having such beliefs, they also want to push them where they don't belong.

Good to see you have a psychology degree. I am also interested in this stuff from a more academic point of view (i.e. beliefs and emotions).

"Ideas, engulfed by an overpowering emotion, are more likely to conform to the emotion than to objective evidence" G. Allport (1954)


[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
How does one charge "know" the other is an opposite? Why does one charge "want" to be with their opposite? As you can see, even non living things that are made of charges "want" and "know". Maybe not exactly by your defininition, but in a sense they do.


Well, I sort of accepted that you could extend 'want' and 'know' to Sodium 'wanting' to form sodium hydroxide in the presence water. But it's quite teleological. It just does, no 'wanting' required.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
It just does, no 'wanting' required.


Actaully, I think you are mistaking. What most don't know about Alchemy and Chemistry, is that all you are basicly doing is playing with small sphere magnets. For any chemical reaction to happen, there must be attraction and repulsion.

Attraction = Want
Repulsion = Don't Want

edit add:

Here is a pop quiz for you, what does water wan't? If you can get this question right, you are on the track to knowing all things.



[edit on 22-1-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
OK, I'll assume everyone agrees with the illustration of why we shouldn't apply probability in such ways for evolutionary processes. There just isn't a specific outcome, but many are possible.

Anyway, we'll actually apply a specific outcome for the next example, as that is what Morris does. It's a better example, as it is no more specific than adding new adaptive parts/components via mutation, but it's still not correct. He also makes erroneous claims in that article numerous times - most mutations are actually neutral, beneficial mutations have been observed.

So, what he is saying is that if we set a specific target of 200 components produced by mutation at a probability of 50% for beneficial, each being successive, we end up with a really big number (10^60).

The problem here is, firstly, that evolution doesn't require successive mutations and, secondly, that this must happen to one organism. If we actually do it using a proper evolutionary mechanism, it is very easy.

So, using the 50% stuff, it's a bit like heads or tails. We start with a head as the first component. We need heads each time for beneficial.

Thus, HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH (200 parts)

Using a proper evolutionary approach this is easy-peasy. Say we have one asexual organism that starts as 'H', it produces 4 new organisms in its lifetime which each having one mutation producing one new part, but conserves the Hs.

Thus, H -------> H/T H/T H/T H/T, then dies.

For the first generation on average we would have HH HH HT HT (HT die due to negative mutations - i.e. selected out).

Second generation we have 2 x HH -----> HHH HHH HHT HHT (HHT die) x 2 (i.e. 4 x HHH)

Third generation, we have 4 x HHH ------> HHHH HHHH HHHT HHHT (HHHT die) x2 (8 HHHH).

etc etc.

We would have hundreds of the 200 component organisms PDQ. Obviously this is very simplified - you could make the Hs available for mutation, we might have a probability for any mutation at all, we might have double mutations, sexual selection, neutral mutations, drift etc. But mutation and selection is very capable of producing new systems. Even if we do take the mutation rate as being much less, we would also have massive populations, and much more than single point mutations.

Of course, this is evolution. Abiogenesis is rather different, as selection would only kick in at a particular point. But again, we must take account of massive numbers of trials and long periods of time with no real specific targets, just chemistry doing its stuff making complex chemicals.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NEActaully, I think you are mistaking.


I think you have an issue with promiscuous teleology.


Here is a pop quiz for you, what does water wan't? If you can get this question right, you are on the track to knowing all things.


Heh, to pass through your kidney?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
to mamasita and ppkjjkpp

you both asked for proof of evolution. evidence was given but i guess because it was at the microscopic level you felt the need to dispute it.
about 30 seconds of googling will show you animals that have thrived because of mutation. the first example i saw was of a fish called the stickleback. if you read on it you will see that it has mutated to survive in fresh water. it is totally different then its saltwater brother yet able to survive none the less.

you also brought up mutation in humans. there are all sorts of changes in humans from all around the world that helps them in surviving in there environment. more hair in colder regions, darker skin with more melanin in warmer regions.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
On a totally humorous note to help ease the tensions on this thread:

"In the last days scoffers will come... They will deliberately forget that long ago God created the heavens and earth and that the world of that time was destroyed by the flood." - II Peter

"Turn away from the opposing ideas of what is falsely called science which some have professed." - I Timothy

The moral: The theory of evolution and the denial of the flood is supposed to be happening at this time. Trying to stop those from believing it will postpone the second coming.



I know. I'm not as funny as I think I am.

[edit on 1/23/2008 by AshleyD]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join