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
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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).
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.
Although I don't agree with everything the website says, it raises a lot of good questions.
Originally posted by Parabol
To Evolutionists (non-Christian):
What do you care if they believe something that you find logically ridiculous?
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.
Originally posted by melatonin
It just does, no 'wanting' required.
Originally posted by ALLis0NEActaully, I think you are mistaking.
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.