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 HappyBunny
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Originally posted by MrXYZ
I'd love to play poker against anyone applying "creationist probability calculations"
Hope they understand Borel's Law...
says that if there is less than a 1 in 10^50 chance for something to happen, it will never happen, no matter how much time is allowed.
So happybunny - you should be able to show us how life is possible then using Borel's Law.
From the Big Bang to the formation of a simple DNA Code - all by unguided chance event.
tick tock - clock is ticking....edit on 9-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: able able
Oh, grow up why don't you.But thanks for taking the bait.
I've explained this a hundred times already. Probability doesn't even apply here--you clearly do not understand Borel's Law and what he was saying--but you do keep continually misapplying it and that's what's so funny and makes you look silly. Why? Because we're talking about an event that happened; therefore, the probability is 1. Everything else is meaningless. Life DID happen. If it arose on its own, then it did so in a way that precludes chance. It originated in tandem with natural laws and the laws of physics. Period, end of discussion.
That's not what Borel's law says, either. There is no such thing as a probability so small it is equivalent to impossibility: IT IS STILL > 0. "Unlikely" does not equal "impossible", because seemingly impossible things happen every second of every single day, and have for the last 4.5 billion years the Earth has been in existence.
Let's take my favorite example: license plates. I like this one because it's easy for the mathematically challenged like yourself to understand. Even my kids got it on the first try, it's so easy to get.
There are 247 million registered vehicles in the US. That's not counting the ones that come over the borders from Canada and Mexico, but to make it easier let's just go with the 247 million. All plates have a unique tag, a 7 digit combination of letters and numbers. Throw in the state identifier and you've got a 9 digit combination, each one unique. (This is how we get such long protein strands, not to mention DNA and RNA, out of a finite number of amino acids and nucleotides, by the way. You combine them!)
What are the odds that I'd see the license plate PA ABC 1234 this morning?
You do the math. The odds against are astronomical, yet per you by a misapplication of Borel's Law it's impossible. Yet it happened.
Now, if you really believe that a 10^50 chance against that life arose by itself, you must also accept that the chance of their being a creator is even LESS than that. But still greater than 0.
edit on 7/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)
Life DID happen.
If it arose on its own, then it did so in a way that precludes chance. It originated in tandem with natural laws and the laws of physics. Period, end of discussion.
Life DID happen.
Is carbon a living molecule?
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by uva3021
So Mr. Fudd what's gonna be?
did the team created life from a non-living material or from a pre-existing life?
Originally posted by edmc^2
You got this all upside down - inside out.
I've proven my case already - practically and scientifically! Heck you even confirmed it!
Life comes from life. Okay sure, we know this.
So what remains is to prove your claim - that the silly abioGenesis hypothesis is a workable idea. That YOU can spontaneously create life from inanimate things without any INTELLIGENT guidance then evolve it to become a INTELLIGENT Life.
After all this is where the ENTIRE evolutionary theory rest on.
Come on show us that the evolution theory has a foundation, if not I rest my case once again that your belief is baseless if not an utter philosophical nonsense masquerading as science.
This is your problem - not mine because I know it already that Life comes only from pre-existing life.
Like I said - give it up because you can't win this argument. Facts are NOT in your side.
They stored the sequence of nucleotides that were linked on the chromosome in a database, then synthesized the exact same sequence using raw material, and there was little to no discernible difference in function. There is nothing inherent in how the DNA is formed that suggests any sort of ultimate purpose, which is obvious. A chance bonding of molecules can lead to bio-mechanical function.
Great - might as well be a philosopher, after all abiogenesis was concocted by ancient philosophers. And just like you, they "DON'T KNOW" where life came from.
I've proven my case already - practically and scientifically!
So what remains is to prove your claim - that the silly abioGenesis hypothesis is a workable idea.
After all this is where the ENTIRE evolutionary theory rest on.
Facts are NOT in your side.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Noncompatible
huh??? what a contradictory nonsense -
So you say
There is zero requirement for a guiding intelligence and zero objective evidence for the same.
then you say
Anything other than "we don't know" is currently either blind faith or simple ignorance.
So if you "don't know" the origin of life then how do you know that "There is zero requirement for a guiding intelligence and zero objective evidence for the same"?
Know what I mean? Either you know or you don't know - make up your mind dude/dudette.
And in my book believing on something you don't know is pure BLIND FAITH based on simple IGNORANCE.
Originally posted by HappyBunny
Oh, grow up why don't you.But thanks for taking the bait.
I've explained this a hundred times already. Probability doesn't even apply here--you clearly do not understand Borel's Law and what he was saying--but you do keep continually misapplying it and that's what's so funny and makes you look silly. Why? Because we're talking about an event that happened; therefore, the probability is 1. Everything else is meaningless. Life DID happen. If it arose on its own, then it did so in a way that precludes chance. It originated in tandem with natural laws and the laws of physics. Period, end of discussion.
That's not what Borel's law says, either. There is no such thing as a probability so small it is equivalent to impossibility: IT IS STILL > 0. "Unlikely" does not equal "impossible", because seemingly impossible things happen every second of every single day, and have for the last 4.5 billion years the Earth has been in existence.
Let's take my favorite example: license plates. I like this one because it's easy for the mathematically challenged like yourself to understand. Even my kids got it on the first try, it's so easy to get.
There are 247 million registered vehicles in the US. That's not counting the ones that come over the borders from Canada and Mexico, but to make it easier let's just go with the 247 million. All plates have a unique tag, a 7 digit combination of letters and numbers. Throw in the state identifier and you've got a 9 digit combination, each one unique. (This is how we get such long protein strands, not to mention DNA and RNA, out of a finite number of amino acids and nucleotides, by the way. You combine them!)
What are the odds that I'd see the license plate PA ABC 1234 this morning?
You do the math. The odds against are astronomical, yet per you by a misapplication of Borel's Law it's impossible. Yet it happened.
Now, if you really believe that a 10^50 chance against that life arose by itself, you must also accept that the chance of their being a creator is even LESS than that. But still greater than 0.
edit on 7/10/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)
Ah huh, right.
The issue is this:
If it arose on its own, then it did so in a way that precludes chance. It originated in tandem with natural laws and the laws of physics. Period, end of discussion.
Is this a fact or just your OPINION - base on WHAT? Based on what YOU DON'T KNOW, correct? So it's not just an opinion but a massive speculation.
A speculation that Life according to you spontaneously arose from inanimate materials without any INTELLIGENCE or GUIDANCE.
That at some point in time by chance event a massive amount of energy formed into a singularity then burst into what we know as the physical universe. Then at some point in time by chance event all of the ingredients for life that resulted from the "Big Bang" somehow by chance event got together in one place and against all odds formed itself into a self-replicating life-form then had the intelligence to protect itself from all harmful effects of its deadly environment. Then eventually evolved into many "species" that we see today.
Is this what you believe happened? Or is it YOU don't know?
But if "Probability doesn't even apply here" then where are you basing your OPINION/SPECULATION from?
Magic?
Originally posted by uva3021
Is carbon a living molecule?
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by uva3021
So Mr. Fudd what's gonna be?
did the team created life from a non-living material or from a pre-existing life?
Evidently you didn't read the article. They stored the sequence of nucleotides that were linked on the chromosome in a database, then synthesized the exact same sequence using raw material, and there was little to no discernible difference in function. There is nothing inherent in how the DNA is formed that suggests any sort of ultimate purpose, which is obvious. A chance bonding of molecules can lead to bio-mechanical function.
I guess we should just stop researching and experimenting on the origin of life and just say some supernatural sky monster did it.
Imagine someone who doesn't have a job. Since he doesn't yet have a job should he stop looking for a job since its been EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED that a job for him doesn't exist, and that JOBS can only come from PRE-EXISTING JOBS?
Originally posted by uva3021
Is carbon a living molecule?
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by uva3021
So Mr. Fudd what's gonna be?
did the team created life from a non-living material or from a pre-existing life?
Evidently you didn't read the article. They stored the sequence of nucleotides that were linked on the chromosome in a database, then synthesized the exact same sequence using raw material, and there was little to no discernible difference in function. There is nothing inherent in how the DNA is formed that suggests any sort of ultimate purpose, which is obvious. A chance bonding of molecules can lead to bio-mechanical function.
I guess we should just stop researching and experimenting on the origin of life and just say some supernatural sky monster did it.
Imagine someone who doesn't have a job. Since he doesn't yet have a job should he stop looking for a job since its been EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED that a job for him doesn't exist, and that JOBS can only come from PRE-EXISTING JOBS?
Response to edmc: Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...
Originally posted by Noncompatible
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Noncompatible
huh??? what a contradictory nonsense -
So you say
There is zero requirement for a guiding intelligence and zero objective evidence for the same.
then you say
Anything other than "we don't know" is currently either blind faith or simple ignorance.
So if you "don't know" the origin of life then how do you know that "There is zero requirement for a guiding intelligence and zero objective evidence for the same"?
Know what I mean? Either you know or you don't know - make up your mind dude/dudette.
And in my book believing on something you don't know is pure BLIND FAITH based on simple IGNORANCE.
Such a shame. There is nothing contradictory in anything I said, unless you start with the assumption that there was/is an intelligence involved, which you do.
Not knowing how it began is simply where we are, stating "Ha! god did it then!" is where you argue from.
Finally, if "we don't know" is a belief then I guess "off" is a TV channel.
We know that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis.
You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story
A supernatural sky monster is logically obvious?
Originally posted by edmc^2
The "I Don't Know (yet)" point of view replaces what is logically obvious.
Originally posted by edmc^2
You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story
So how do want me to prove this?
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
We know that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis.
Not "just a hypothesis" but a silly hypothesis.
As for this silly statement
You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story
So how do want me to prove this?
edit on 12-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: silly silly siily
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs
We know that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis.
Not "just a hypothesis" but a silly hypothesis.
As for this silly statement
You can't prove that life cannot come from non life. End of story
So how do want me to prove this?
edit on 12-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: silly silly siily
Like he said, you CAN'T prove it...which is why it's so laughable that you keep repeating it.
EXACTLY my point. It's laughable because it can't be proven and have no basis, no logic and NO common sense whatsoever can be attached to it.
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny
Response to edmc: Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...
happybunny not so happy??? lately???
Since you're the "grown up" here as you claim - may I suggest to hop, hop hop around like a happy bunny and smell the roses then come back when the rainbows and unicorns are over the horizon.
In short take a brake dude.