It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Creation is a Scientific Fact

page: 8
11
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:59 PM

The key is that there is not 'right one'. The 'time' is not relevant, only the number of times that it was attempted. Do you really think that if our universe collapses back into a singularity and expands again then it will stop if it can not contain life??

The only reason we are here to think about us as 'special' is because we have no concept of the infinite number of times that the universe/multiverse expanded and collapsed.

Like I said, it could be 10^10000 to get it like we are, and it could do it many times after this one.
Or it could have been done on the first time. Depending on the amount of tries, the probability of success changes.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:06 PM

Thanks for finding the line 1in 10^150 do you have a linky? I can't find it.

So is that what is called statistical absurdity or impossible.

There might be 2 of them I can't recall and I sold my damn stats text book from school for stuff to eat - ya know back in college food was hard to come by sometimes

The point still stands its not one constant wit oods like 1in 10^40 but many all in combination and occurring simultaneously shortly after creation time zero. So you quote Dembski is that what he's saying it's over 1 in 10^150 for the combination?

Taken as a whole it's obviously much greater than 1 in 10^40 - as that's only for a single element.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:09 PM

The key is that there is not 'right one'.

Yes there is!! We are talking about the chance for the constant to support life.

1 in 10^40 - the 1 is the right answer. 10^40 -1 are wrong answers.

So that's a nonsensical point. And all the right constants have to happen together. If the universe was running infinite scenarios why did it stop "running scenarios" and let this one exist? There's no evidence for that anyway it's pure conjecture. It seems like you are really grasping at straws to dismiss overwhelming odds against chance. Sorry it's pretty weak to say it's "possible". The flying spaghetti monster riding side saddle Bertrand Russell's teapot is possible.

At least there are personal testimonies, eye witness accounts of miracles, archaeological evidence, and fulfilled prophecies for a Biblical God.

Nothing personal - this goes to all, I find it quite amusing and more than ironic that me saying "God did it" is laughed at; yet a 1 in 10^40 chance gets vehemently defended as "possible". It really shows the lengths some are willing to go to dismiss even a chance of intelligence being involved. I find it very unreasonable to dismiss intelligent cause a priori in light of this evidence. To do so requires an agenda.

Hey maybe "Impossible" was an over simplification. In the video it was meant to be humorous if you watch it in context. It's quite reasonable for the layman to call those impossible odds.

I doubt any of you want to bet your house on a 1 in 10^40 shot
You made some valid points but i don;t feel like you diminished the stength of the argument for design in the slightest. Just brushed up a few statistical concepts. That's cool. Thanks

I'm tired guys.

good night.

[edit on 7/7/2008 by Bigwhammy]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Mantys
Depending on the amount of tries, the probability of success changes.

However, that would depend on whether the events are independent or not. If they are independent, like dice rolls, then even if I roll 1000 sixes in row, then next six is still 1/6.

However, if we have a special die where the number rolled disappears, then we have variable change.

But statistically, for 10^40 rolls of a 10^40 sided die, we would expect one special whammy universe, and 10^40-1 different universes which many could well hold some form of life, but that's something we should brush under the carpet.

This also applies to an attempt to just plop all the constant probabilities together. Are they independent? From what I gather, many vary together. Some might not even be able to vary, being essentially static - no tuning required.

Who knows? Makes calculating probabilities all but impossible.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Thanks for finding the line 1in 10^150 do you have a linky? I can't find it.

You'd have to trawl dembski's stuff (ugh!). He calls it the UPB, or 'Universal Probability Bound'. Google should take you to his work.

So is that what is called statistical absurdity or impossible.

It's what he calls it.

There might be 2 of them I can't recall and I sold my damn stats text book from school for stuff to eat - ya know back in college food was hard to come by sometimes

The point still stands its not one constant wit oods like 1in 10^40 but many all in combination and occurring simultaneously shortly after creation time zero. So you quote Dembski is that what he's saying it's over 1 in 10^150 for the combination?

Taken as a whole it's obviously much greater than 1 in 10^40 - as that's only for a single element.

I think it would be very fair to say that 10^40 is exceedingly unlikely. It just isn't impossible. But then, neither is 10^150. Just even more exceedingly unlikely.

It's just the way probability is. It might be some rather large number to be dealt two consecutive royal flushes in poker, but it's not impossible. You could play the game all your life and never get one. You could play it first night and get two in succession.

ABE: I missed part of the post - dembski uses the UPB universally, so applies in all cases. Anytime probability falls over the UPB, he suggests it cannot be a chance event.

But as I noted, you could perform an event that breaks that threshold right now, if we calculate after the fact. However, if we specify a specific outcome beforehand, then the probability can apply better. But if we performed 10^166 deals of the two decks, we should get one specified random event. If we do 10^166 simultaneously every 10 minutes, we'd have 1 every 10 minutes.

This is why I think probability arguments like this suck. Even moreso when we don't fully understand the problem space. Doing it for cards is easy, we know everything about the event.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:31 PM
Thanks meltonin.

A universal probability bound is a probabilistic threshold whose existence is asserted by William A. Dembski and is used by him in his works promoting intelligent design. It is defined as "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."

Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

* 10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
* 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
* 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.

Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

en.wikipedia.org...

I still think there is a line that statisticians call it so unlikely that is considered statistically absurd. I think I heard that some where at school before Demski came up with this... I'll look around

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Thanks meltonin.

No problem.

I still think there is a line that statisticians call it so unlikely that is considered statistically absurd. I think I heard that some where at school before Demski came up with this... I'll look around

Probably. I think the French dude Borel (?) also had something similar. But the same caveats apply to any such probability threshold. They don't really mean much as far as impossibility goes.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:18 PM
Quick humorous observation.

1 in 10^40 odds this happened accidentally to support life.

Atheist: It's still possible!

50/50 odds God exists.

Atheist: Pfft! Theists are delusional.

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by AshleyD
Quick humorous observation.

1 in 10^40 odds this happened accidentally to support life.

Atheist: It's still possible!

50/50 odds God exists.

Atheist: Pfft! Theists are delusional.

Yeah you remember when whammy gave that link to the random mutator and Mel dismissed it showing us Dawkins me thinks i'm a weasel mutator ?

I love it how probability is on the side of the gambler when they got nothing to lose but when its on the side of a creator,,

whoaaa then they just don't want to play no more

gimmee my pale n shovel,

im out of this sandbox

- Con

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:31 AM

Watch some of his videos, they might explain some stuff to you.

Now, on the video. Religious videos typically just annoy me and this one was no different. The argument frankly comes back to this.
"We know B, but we don't know A, so God must have created A."
Putting your ignorance on a pedestal and calling it "God" is what most scientifically minded people would call a logical fallacy. Instead of defaulting to the easiest explanation, finding the real answer is more productive.

As a friend of mine put, religion requires a certain amount of faith. Science simply can't validate religious beliefs, no matter how much you twist the truth.

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Rytak

Watch some of his videos, they might explain some stuff to you.

Now, on the video. Religious videos typically just annoy me and this one was no different. The argument frankly comes back to this.
"We know B, but we don't know A, so God must have created A."
Putting your ignorance on a pedestal and calling it "God" is what most scientifically minded people would call a logical fallacy. Instead of defaulting to the easiest explanation, finding the real answer is more productive.

As a friend of mine put, religion requires a certain amount of faith. Science simply can't validate religious beliefs, no matter how much you twist the truth.

Yet Science as has been proven many times here on ATS and in the Science community takes no less faith to believe. They have the so called scientific method to weed out the logical fallacy because theyare full og logical fallacy. We know B but we don't know A so it must be spontaneuous life forms! Anotherwords MAGIC! Then after the magic we climed out of the protozoa and magic ever since.

Whats Religion got to do with this video annoying you?

- Con

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:07 AM
The more I think about "stuff",the more I begin to lean toward the theory that everything is what we believe it is,only because that is what we believe.If we stop believing in it,it no longer exists.
Governments are soul-less legal fictions,which are created to use coercion and physical force to make you believe they exist,when in reality,they don't......to reap the fruits of anothers labor,to kill love,to kill anyone,or anything,which would tend to make people think that maybe,just maybe they do not exist.
And they don't.The only way they exist is through inflicting pain,and supplying substances for one's addiction,which keeps one from thinking freely,and making them go away,because in reality they are just a figment of their own imagination.
You can't stop believing in everything else,because it won't go away,so it matters not if you believe in it or not.
The only thing that is real is now,and it is gone in a flash,or is it we are trapped into perceiving things the way we do to teach us something we need to know later?..........................................................................

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Rytak

Watch some of his videos, they might explain some stuff to you.

Now, on the video. Religious videos typically just annoy me and this one was no different. The argument frankly comes back to this.
"We know B, but we don't know A, so God must have created A."
Putting your ignorance on a pedestal and calling it "God" is what most scientifically minded people would call a logical fallacy. Instead of defaulting to the easiest explanation, finding the real answer is more productive.

As a friend of mine put, religion requires a certain amount of faith. Science simply can't validate religious beliefs, no matter how much you twist the truth.

Yet Science as has been proven many times here on ATS and in the Science community takes no less faith to believe. They have the so called scientific method to weed out the logical fallacy because theyare full og logical fallacy. We know B but we don't know A so it must be spontaneuous life forms! Anotherwords MAGIC! Then after the magic we climed out of the protozoa and magic ever since.

Whats Religion got to do with this video annoying you?

- Con

And thus you make the divisions between a hypothesis and a theory. While science has changed and evolved to accommodate new knowledge, religion continues to dwell on the "magic" angle. Sure it takes some faith to believe in, everything does.

And the reason it annoys me is because it is religious pseudoscience.

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 04:20 AM

Originally posted by Rytak

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Rytak

Watch some of his videos, they might explain some stuff to you.

Now, on the video. Religious videos typically just annoy me and this one was no different. The argument frankly comes back to this.
"We know B, but we don't know A, so God must have created A."
Putting your ignorance on a pedestal and calling it "God" is what most scientifically minded people would call a logical fallacy. Instead of defaulting to the easiest explanation, finding the real answer is more productive.

As a friend of mine put, religion requires a certain amount of faith. Science simply can't validate religious beliefs, no matter how much you twist the truth.

Yet Science as has been proven many times here on ATS and in the Science community takes no less faith to believe. They have the so called scientific method to weed out the logical fallacy because theyare full og logical fallacy. We know B but we don't know A so it must be spontaneuous life forms! Anotherwords MAGIC! Then after the magic we climed out of the protozoa and magic ever since.

Whats Religion got to do with this video annoying you?

- Con

And thus you make the divisions between a hypothesis and a theory. While science has changed and evolved to accommodate new knowledge, religion continues to dwell on the "magic" angle. Sure it takes some faith to believe in, everything does.

And the reason it annoys me is because it is religious pseudoscience.

sounds to me like you hate the religious implication science or scientists have discovered exist. That isn't a science issue then, it is a psychological issue. I don't see science accomodating jack squat unless it agrees with their materialist BS. That isn't science, thats dogma.

Science says, if God "IS" then,,

I don't want to know,,

cowards

- Con

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 06:07 AM

God of the Gaps

again? (again?)

[edit on 7/8/2008 by JPhish]

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:26 AM
BigWhammy you like all other poor misguided fools who blindly follow the path of lies and ignorance we call religion are obviously suffering from a severe form of psychosis, i despair of you and all other people involved in your life. Even if the universe was created by some all powerful entity, how do you know it's YOUR GOD!?

Btw if christianity isn't a false religion like all others, if it were the one true faith why wasn't it practised by man since the dawn of his existence? why were there dozens of religions predating even Judaism the precursor of your religion. The Bible certainly isn't factual, the old testament was written by a group of deranged jeriatric isralites two thousand odd years ago as a tool of manipulating and controlling peoples lives.

It is also quite humorous how you stated in your fictional video that materialism is a primitive thought process, ha! Religion is the most primitive of human thought processes it was a conveniant way for primitive humans to explain all the things that they didn't understand and were afraid of death for example. God was nothing more than a dream of good government. Im afraid your scrambled mind cannot be salvaged, hopefully those of us that are logical and SANE will be able to overcome and eradicate religion some day...

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:00 AM

Lucky I found this video. Saves me a lot of wasted time if I were to get into a meaningless debate with the OP. Watch it and decide for yourself. Whichever way you decide, I definitely trust and respect your decision. It's ok to create your own little videos but just don't belittle others by attaching yourself like a leech to science.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by Gigantopithecus]

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:10 AM

Originally posted by AshleyD
Quick humorous observation.

1 in 10^40 odds this happened accidentally to support life.

But you don't know this is the odds. It's just an assertion. As demonstrated earlier, it appears possible to remove one of the constants altogether and potentially lead to a universe capable of many of the features of this universe. And as the article states, it is possible that both the features of the weak force and cosmo constant are not really related to whether potential universes can support some form of life.

Stenger has done the same with many of the other constants. Maybe particular constants are essentially fixed, maybe others can vary. We just don't know.

You are assuming that this style of universe is the only possible one that could hold some form of life. However, even if it was 1 in 10^40, we still know very little about the mechanisms underpinning the formation of a universe and its physical features.

It's like trying to guess the probability of something without fully knowing the variables or bounds.

Atheist: It's still possible!

It's a fact it is still possible. Exceedingly unlikely at such odds. That's what you get with positive probabilities. It's easier to demonstrate with smaller numbers:

If we have 1 in 100. Does that mean we have to wait 100 events to find the specified 1? Not at all. We could get it first time, 50th, last, or even not at all. Same applies even for 1 in 10^40. Could be first event, 10000000 millionth, or the 10^40th, or never.

It's statistical in nature.

50/50 odds God exists.

Atheist: Pfft! Theists are delusional.

Heh, and where does the 50/50 come from? Yes/No? Is it also 50/50 that leprechauns exist?

I'd give you possibly 1% (for Oom) and less (for Super Santa). Of course, I just pulled the number from my ass like you.

But I do base this on a subjective Baysian-style analysis, generally sourced from lack of real evidence for any supernatural forces, vacuity of religious claims, anthropomorphic features of human gods, the idiosyncratic subjective nature of such claims, the evolution of religion over time, the presence of cognitive biases that potentially underpin religious beliefs, the inconsistent emotion-based claims of religious people, the tendency of religious people to believe even when faced with contradictory evidence, the cultural nature of such god belief, potentially along with other things I can't be bothered dragging from my mind.

That will do. You have a book, subjective feelings, and ever shrinking gaps in knowledge into which to shove your pet god. However, I do think this is the biggest gap for you. Much better than arguing against evolutionary theory, that makes theists look rather silly. But it's still a gap argument - it's too complex and difficult for natural mechanisms, therefore we need a very complex intelligent designer for this process - and it is the god-man-son, super-santa, spookish Jesus!

History isn't on your side for such arguments.

There have been many religions over human history, they can't all be right. But they can all be wrong. Indeed, that is the most likely case in my opinion.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:25 AM

Um, waiter? May i have some credentials with this serving of speculations, please?

[edit on 7/8/2008 by JPhish]

posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Yeah you remember when whammy gave that link to the random mutator and Mel dismissed it showing us Dawkins me thinks i'm a weasel mutator ?

I love it how probability is on the side of the gambler when they got nothing to lose but when its on the side of a creator,,

Oh, con. Come on.

It was meant to be a simulation of evolutionary processes. It used a solely random mechanism, where evolution is not solely random. Evolution has non-random selection processes.

In this case, we don't even know the mechanisms. It's similar to the situation before Darwin. It all looks so improbable it must be god, rofl.

As noted above, history just isn't on your side, and as Sean Carroll states - don't bet against the scientific enlightenment. We have pushed the 'neccessity' for god claims back further and further.

But I do understand you have a need for a god belief. There'll always be the possibility of just plopping it on top of nature.

[edit on 8-7-2008 by melatonin]

top topics

11