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.

 

God/Intelligent Design proved Mathematically?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
This is quite a long read but extremely well laid out and logical.

www.geocities.com...




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Good Info - The subject is certainly repressed by academia which itself is a kind of proof that Evolution is a scam.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Excellent article


You should paste some quotes from it into your OP, just to give people the basics.

Great find



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
-Just because we don't know how something happened is no reason to insert "GOD did it!"-


-Nevermind what observation and current scientific study actually reveal. I have faith that my naturalistic philosophy will be proven true. Just give it more time.-



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
-Just because we don't know how something happened is no reason to insert "GOD did it!"-


-Nevermind what observation and current scientific study actually reveal. I have faith that my naturalistic philosophy will be proven true. Just give it more time.-


Nope, the link he provides doesn't even mention God. In fact the link says it's important not to mention God.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
-Just because we don't know how something happened is no reason to insert "GOD did it!"-


-Nevermind what observation and current scientific study actually reveal. I have faith that my naturalistic philosophy will be proven true. Just give it more time.-


Nature and God aren't separate, which people always seem to forget and or conveniently ignore.

I'll have to read the rest later, looks good.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon12
 



well, I was parroting the naturalists in my initial post. I guess the sarcasm was lost on some.

But I disagree that nature and God are one in the same. I believe that nature reflects God. But I'm no pantheist.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
These sort of probability arguments are the result of poor understanding of both the use of probability and the claims underpinning abiogenesis or evolution.

Meh.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
These sort of probability arguments are the result of poor understanding of both the use of probability and the claims underpinning abiogenesis or evolution.

Meh.


mel,

How is his understanding of probability poor? I'd like to see you do a better job at this. I think he understands and presents a valid scientific argument.

You're far more close minded then any of us. All the more power to you, but don't say he done a poor job or understands probability poorly.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
mel,

How is his understanding of probability poor? I'd like to see you do a better job at this. I think he understands and presents a valid scientific argument.

You're far more close minded then any of us. All the more power to you, but don't say he done a poor job or understands probability poorly.


lol, of course.

He is just pulling numbers from his ass. I've been over this a number of times here. Do you want me to do it again?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
mel,

How is his understanding of probability poor? I'd like to see you do a better job at this. I think he understands and presents a valid scientific argument.

You're far more close minded then any of us. All the more power to you, but don't say he done a poor job or understands probability poorly.


lol, of course.

He is just pulling numbers from his ass. I've been over this a number of times here. Do you want me to do it again?


Sure if you want to, I haven't seen you do it yet. Remember I've only been here a short while. Might be interesting.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


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.



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 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 according to some. Your god was not required.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by melatonin]




Originally posted 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.


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]



Originally posted by melatonin

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]



Originally posted by melatonin
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]


And then it all goes quiet on the creationist probability front.

Enjoy.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The link for the above posts is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


This is why your calculations are not correct.

Read:


www.geocities.com...
Some darwinists have put forward a fallacious criticism of arguments similar to the one advanced in this present WorldView Site article, by offering an explanatory illustration much as follows:

--- "Suppose we have a deck of cards before us. There are about 1068 (a one with 68 zeroes after it) different orderings of the 52 cards in the deck. Any of the 52 cards might be first, any of the remaining 51 second, any of the remaining 50 third, and so on. This is a tremendous number, but it's not hard to devise even everyday situations that give rise to much larger numbers.

"Now if we shuffle this deck of cards quite well, and then examine the resulting order, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 1068. This is a very small chance. ---But we would not be justified in concluding that the result of this shuffle could not have possibly resulted in this specific ordering, just because its probability is (a priori) so very tiny ---because, obviously, some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this particular one did!

And then --one shuffle after another-- we have new card-orderings which the probability calculations show to have almost "no chance" of occurring, according to the Intelligent Design advocates. But they keep occurring. --So, we see "highly improbable" things happening repeatedly --in fact, all the time.

Here is where the above criticism fails:

The card-shuffling illustration assumes that basically ANY ordering of the cards is an acceptable outcome --and, comparing it to life-chemistry, this would be the equivalent of saying that almost any ordering of the amino acids would work to build a functional protein. So, whatever one might randomly come up with is basically "easy" to achieve --no matter how "unlikely" the probability calculations might make it seem.

However, the critic unwittingly brings out the correct perspective when he says we are basically looking for one "particular ordering of the cards" --because the research just previously cited in this article (esp. from Behe), points out that --in reality-- only about one specific sequence of amino acids out of 1060 possible sequences is adequate to produce a properly folding protein which could be used by actual life. The rest are junk, and useless to life.

Therefore --to more accurately represent the life-chemistry situation-- the card-illustration should actually be restricted to say that there are only a few specific orderings of the cards which are the acceptable outcomes of the random shuffles of cards. That is, only about 24 out of the 1068 possible outcomes will do. --For example, the only good outcomes in cards would be: a well-shuffled deck must randomly end up with all four suits in proper numerical order starting with the Ace, then the 2, then the 3, etc., on up through to the King. All four suits must be so ordered. --Specificity is required.

It is the same with the "functional complex specified information" (FCSI) of life.

Such a critic's smoke-screen may sound good on the surface, but it misses the mark.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
The card-shuffling illustration assumes that basically ANY ordering of the cards is an acceptable outcome --and, comparing it to life-chemistry, this would be the equivalent of saying that almost any ordering of the amino acids would work to build a functional protein. So, whatever one might randomly come up with is basically "easy" to achieve --no matter how "unlikely" the probability calculations might make it seem.


But there is no target.

You are specifying the target post-hoc.


However, the critic unwittingly brings out the correct perspective when he says we are basically looking for one "particular ordering of the cards" --because the research just previously cited in this article (esp. from Behe), points out that --in reality-- only about one specific sequence of amino acids out of 1060 possible sequences is adequate to produce a properly folding protein which could be used by actual life. The rest are junk, and useless to life.


Again, there is no specific target. You are determining it post-hoc.


Therefore --to more accurately represent the life-chemistry situation-- the card-illustration should actually be restricted to say that there are only a few specific orderings of the cards which are the acceptable outcomes of the random shuffles of cards. That is, only about 24 out of the 1068 possible outcomes will do. --For example, the only good outcomes in cards would be: a well-shuffled deck must randomly end up with all four suits in proper numerical order starting with the Ace, then the 2, then the 3, etc., on up through to the King. All four suits must be so ordered. --Specificity is required.


Again, there is no specific target. You are determining it post-hoc.


It is the same with the "functional complex specified information" (FCSI) of life.

Such a critic's smoke-screen may sound good on the surface, but it misses the mark.


Nope, it doesn't.

Applying such probability post-hoc is BS. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of probability and also evolutionary processes/abiogenesis (as it is not random).

ABE: The example is very comparable. In this case, we have a random process - well-shuffled card decks and dealing a sequence. After the dealing, we calculate the probability for that exact sequence. It is a real small number and very improbable. We have now specified a sequence.

However, we only specify after the process has taken place. Then we say, that's improbable, therefore design. It is the exact same problem - you look at a protein, organism...whatever, then try to calculate the probability of that specific event post-hoc. Funny thing is, it's also wrong because chemistry and evolution are not random.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


From my understanding both Natural Selection (not as random) and Genetic Drift are both random processes.

Simplified Definitions:
-------------------------
Natural Selection - serial and small random changes in traits. (Not random is the selection of these changes).

Genetic Drift - random changes in the occurrence of traits.

Or am I misunderstanding this?

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
From my understanding both Natural Selection (not as random) and Genetic Drift are both random processes.

Natural Selection - serial and small random changes in traits. (Not random is the selection of these changes).

Genetic Drift - random changes in the occurrence of traits.

Or am I misunderstanding this?


lol, so you state that natural selection is 'random changes in traits', yet note in brackets the selection is not random.

Genetic drift is random. The production of variations/mutations are predominately random with respect to the needs of the organism. Selection is non-random. Thus, natural selection is non-random. It is not chance that those most adapted to the environment reproduce most successfully and come to dominate a population. Even chemistry is not random. Otherwise, it would be a pretty impossible science. And it's not.

So the whole calculation is nothing but a pointless strawman. Of course, the point is little more than to wink the hoods.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Where exactly is the mathimatical proof in that long rambling permanent digression. For your viewing pleasure my favorite quote from the OP's link.

"-However, the researchers would have evidence to produce a virtually conclusive proof of complex specified information from intelligence if they then also received (from another solar system) the following 200 decimals in sequential order:

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751
05820974944592*64062862089986280348253421170679
82148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128
48111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196"

On what planet does proof = dependant on a hypothetical future transmission from beyond venus that says just what the author wants.

Bloody ridiculous stuff IMHO.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hulkbacker
... I have faith that my naturalistic philosophy will be proven true. Just give it more time.-

You realize what you just said?

Besides that, we've given it 150 years. That's long enough for any "theory". It's not accurate, predicts nothing, and cannot be falsified. Sounds more like "faith" than "theory" to me.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Well, the reason I put in brackets (Not as random) is because there are levels of randomness. One of the main problems with software programming applications or games, etc, is to generate a truly "random" number, which we still have a hard time doing (we can't generate a "true" random number). What I meant was Natural Selection is random to an extent. There is that "random" variable that has to be included.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join