So what then, are the chances of all space-time energies coming together in a cohesive form to create your infinitely complex god?

(April 1, 2016 at 6:59 pm)AAA Wrote: So you think that something that has a one  in 7.89 x 10^131 chance of happening is probable?

Is this a one-shot event, or a cumulative process leading to its present state?

(April 1, 2016 at 6:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 6:00 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, well if I don't grasp probabilities, then show me where I went wrong in the calculation??????? They aren't made up. You can actually get a high precision calculator open online and follow along with what I did.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Yeah, I calculated the odds of a protein forming because we know that proteins are necessary for current life. We can leave observable science and suppose that there was a simpler molecule long ago and far away, but I figure that we should stick with what we know about current life. 

What you guys don't seem to see is that one protein is not even close to sufficient for life. It needs hundreds. You act like we are being unrealistically complicated with just one protein, but the reality is that it would take more than that.

No matter if proteins were the first biomolecules, they still needed to form at some point.

(April 1, 2016 at 6:59 pm)AAA Wrote: So you think that something that has a one  in 7.89 x 10^131 chance of happening is probable?

Mathematically there is a 1 in  25 x 10^666 chance of the Christian God being the creator of the Universe. 

So you think that something that has a 1 in 25 x 10^666 chance of happening is probable?

(March 30, 2016 at 9:31 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 8:05 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligen...telligence

DNA has an ability to perceive information, eg that an error has occurred in the process of replication. It retains this knowledge through subsequent generations. It also uses this retained knowledge to make adaptive behaviours, ie to conduct very complex, multi-stage repair processes. How is it that this does not qualify as intelligent?

So we're finally just down to the bald assertion phase of theistic argumentation, are we? No interest in demonstrating that DNA "perceives" anything- rather than it just being a case of all those permutations of DNA that couldn't repair died out- nor any interest in demonstrating that it "knows" anything, just a hugely tortured argument from analogy fallacy without a shred of evidence?

Are you backed into a corner, or is this just a lazy, lazy fuckin' day for you?

I gave you a a perfectly reasonable definition of intelligence and showed you how perfectly DNA fits the definition. You then completely avoided the question, "How is it that this does not qualify as intelligent?" I would like an answer to this please.

I presume you know that DNA senses errors, retains the knowledge of what is correct and what is incorrect sequencing and conducts complex repair procedures. If this is not the case, I can point you to any one of hundreds of papers laying it out for you.

(April 1, 2016 at 7:06 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 6:59 pm)AAA Wrote: So you think that something that has a one  in 7.89 x 10^131 chance of happening is probable?

Is this a one-shot event, or a cumulative process leading to its present state?

It's a one shot event of a very, very, very, small protein. It's not a one shot for a cell or life. It's just one tiny protein. What cumulative process do you mean?

Well, I can only conclude neither of have any idea what non-designed life would be like. In which case, you're assuming all life is designed. Assuming your conclusion. There is no test criteria.

(April 1, 2016 at 6:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: There is no "so unlikely it must have been magic" branch of mathematics.

You have no alternative hypothesis, it's just an argument from ignorance. Unlikely does not equal made-up explanation inserted instead.

And I ask again, what would non-designed life be like, for comparison?

That's an impossible question to answer. If you don't believe life was designed, then what would designed life look like for comparison?

I'm not the one making claims about whether it was designed or not designed. I have no beliefs about it.

It's impossible for you to describe non-designed life? Well you're done, then. You're assuming your conclusion.

(April 1, 2016 at 7:47 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 7:07 am)AJW333 Wrote: How about 100% 

Do you realize how idiotic this makes you appear after pages and pages of harping about calculations?

You guys pretend like you care about science; waste weeks of people's lives; people with a wide breadth of knowledge willing to take the time to talk through evolutionary biology with you in detail; but in the end it always comes down to:

it's god, because I want it to be god."

No, it's God because there is no other reasonable alternative. What you believe takes more faith than believing in a designer/God. This is because the extreme complexity of AA sequences makes DNA development from scratch impossible. You reject the numbers presented not because they are incorrect, but because statistical impossibilities mean nothing to you. This is because you have a predetermined view that cannot be changed.