Need some help refuting this creation argument...

[popeyespappy]

never mind

[Darkstar]

never mind

Same as me, eh? I was about to rip that argument apart until I saw that he added it was 10^18 seconds and not 1080 seconds.

[DaveSumm]

Re-copied with ^'s added:

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10^18 seconds) of assumed earth history. 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 10^18 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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Happy to do my part

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10^18 seconds) of assumed earth history

Assumed earth history eh? So it isn't just evolution this one feels he's thoroughly debunked by means of his lucky numbers but geology, cosmology, and physics as well? Good for him.

Therefore, let us imagine

Down this road lay only tears. You know why you see this phrase so often in creationists arguments? Because that's all they have, imagining. They don't like observing...because it fails to paint the picture they hope to hang on their wall. Thankfully we don't need to "imagine" this stuff. We have observation and experiment.

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 10^18 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.

The probability of any future hand of cards being dealt to you in a game of poker is infinitesimally low, but calling a specific hand that you hold "too improbable to have been dealt therefore impossible to be holding" is a bit absurd...don't you think? Now what what conclusion was this shitbird hoping to draw about biology and evolution again...and how was hoping to draw it?

[DaveSumm]

...and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over...

I think this is the point to focus on, this is the biggest flaw in it. As far as I can make out, this is essentially a mathematical version of the "half an eye is useless" argument: it claims that any unsuccessful mutations suddenly cancel out any previous ones and we start from useless noise again.

I'm also looking into the second part of his doubts - the "where's the man/monkey fossils" part. I know that we don't know for sure which species was the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, but that it was some time before Australopithecus (I believe there was some possibility that maybe Chimpanzees evolved from them, but this isn't widely held now?).....but what I'm wondering is, do we have a name for the most recent known common ancestor? I mean, we're aware of species preceding mammals entirely, so there must be a 'most recent ancestor' that we can point to and say "both Chimps and Humans definitely (you know, science 'definitely') evolved from this species" even if it's not necessarily the most recent one?

[pocaracas]

When in doubt, wiki it!

Divergence of the human clade from other Great Apes
A reconstruction of a female Australopithecus afarensis

Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics). The fossil record of gorillas and chimpanzees is limited. Both poor preservation (rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone) and sampling bias probably contribute to this problem. Other hominins likely adapted to the drier environments outside the equatorial belt, along with antelopes, hyenas, dogs, pigs, elephants, and horses. The equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago. There is very little fossil evidence for the split of the hominin lineage from the lineages of gorillas and chimpanzees. The earliest fossils that have been argued to belong to the human lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus;

[Minimalist]

"where's the man/monkey fossils"

Running the Creation Institute?

[Anomalocaris]

"where's the man/monkey fossils"

Running the Creation Institute?

That would be slime mold / Earth worm fossil.

[Minimalist]

I'm just judging by the amount of shit they fling, Chuck.

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

This thread is such a beautiful illustration of atheist fundamentalism or fanaticism. Please notice the point when atheism crosses the line foom something reasonable to faith-based fanaticism.

If someone thinks God doesn't exist, ok. That's a reasonable position to take.

But when someone who can't absolutely defeat an opposing argument, and who has all kinds of huge holes and improbabilities in their argument, but who still insists he's right at all costs, and that it's simply not possible that anyone else has a reasonable position... that's called fundamentalism.

I just want to add an option for you to think about: There is lots of stuff you don't know. The idea that everything comes from nothing and then evolved from physics and chemistry is an interesting idea, but far from proven. It's not the only reasonable idea around. At least humbly admit that. You're welcome to argue all the creationist arguments, and you may be right about them. But if someone else is still persuaded by the other side, even after you've given all your best arguments, why are you disturbed?