Q about arguments for God's existence.

[alexwenzel]

ODDS OF A SINGLE CELL:

1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That is 30 times more particles believed to exist in the entire universe hock:

Lot of mysterious lottery winnings

Using computer models and statistical methods: Read it bellow in National Geographics

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...1p_us_se_w#

Those aren't the odds you were looking for. . .

Your article says Douglas Theobald calculated the odds of:

The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" [which] has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts [at 1 in 10 to the 2,680th power].

Ker Than for National Geographic News Not the odds of a single cell

Read your source Luke, Read your Source. Jeeez!

Theobald was calculating the odds for evolution from more than one source of life. He wanted to test the single source of ancestry model. Where you got the "single cell" idea I can't imagine unless you didn't read or couldn't understand the article. The odds you quoted are for the two sources of life theory.

Theobald calculated the odds of a human origin separate from the rest of the animal world at: 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

Pretty good case for single source huh?

---

Proof carbon dating lies:

Fresh dinosaur soft tissues has been found! hock:

Blood vessels will not last for more than 10,000 years and finding a 80 million year old dinosaur with soft tissue left scientists scratching their heads. "We may have to think of our basic models..." says one of them.

Im sure they will eventually come up with a good little story how the soft tissue survived millions of years.

Indeed they did. Mystery solved. Last year in fact. You can read about it here: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained The really fun part is that we may actually get some dino DNA out of it.

bla bla bla... full of proofs!

---

Those aren't the odds you were looking for. . .

Your article says Douglas Theobald calculated the odds of: Ker Than for National Geographic News Not the odds of a single cell

Read your source Luke, Read your Source. Jeeez!

Theobald was calculating the odds for evolution from more than one source of life. He wanted to test the single source of ancestry model. Where you got the "single cell" idea I can't imagine unless you didn't read or couldn't understand the article. The odds you quoted are for the two sources of life theory.

Theobald calculated the odds of a human origin separate from the rest of the animal world at: 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

Pretty good case for single source huh?

---

Indeed they did. Mystery solved. Last year in fact. You can read about it here: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained The really fun part is that we may actually get some dino DNA out of it.

bla bla bla... full of proofs!

If I was to show you the odds of the entire human body it looks even scarier. Let alone the entire universe. "The miracle of evolution" hahahaha

[Jenny A]

If I was to show you the odds of the entire human body it looks even scarier. Let alone the entire universe. "The miracle of evolution" hahahaha

I repeat that the odds you cited are the odds AGAINST multiple ancestry, NOT the odds of a single cell.

And yes, the odds of the human body, even as created by evolution as opposed to randomly thrown together, are probably pretty low, perhaps fantastically low (but you might at least try to find a citation that actually quotes your number whatever it is). So are the odds of any other animal in particular. But it doesn't prove much of anything. You see even though the odds are against it for any one person, the odds are almost 100% that someone will win the lottery.

If you don't get this, look at it this way: if there were an intelligent designer (and there's no evidence of that), the odds that he would choose to make any particular animal would be equally fantastic. Actually, given the vestigial organs and other design flaws in most animals, the odds against would be even higher given an intelligent designer--but who's counting 10 to 1000 here or there anyway?

Try thinking first and post again.

[Dystopia]

Dear alexwenzel, I've only picked up the discussion now and I haven't read the whole content of the arguments. You seem to be talking about odds to prove your belief correct, I'm assuming you are a creationist since you're here questioning the probability scientific theories have of explaining our whole existence and where do we come from. I must however ask you the following (and be happy I'm in a good mood today) - Even if the odds for evolution/the big bang were minimal to result in our current living conditions and the earth's existence, can you really compare them with the probability of an invisible supernatural being, full of contradictory characteristics and lacking any evidence to assert it's necessity existing? You seem to be the one going against probabilities

[Simon Moon]

If I was to show you the odds of the entire human body it looks even scarier. Let alone the entire universe. "The miracle of evolution" hahahaha

The entire attempt to calculate the odds after the results are known, is flawed. The main flaw is that creationists think that life, or a life sustaining universe are some kind of goals.

Here's an example that may explain the problem with this way of thinking.

When one is dealt a random bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is one in 635,013,559,600 (pretty high odds, right?). Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable.

Now, if someone is dealt a bridge hand of all spades all in sequence (a perfect hand), the odds are no greater than a hand of 13 random cards.

We only imbue that hand with special meaning because of the rules of the game.

[alexwenzel]

Dear alexwenzel, I've only picked up the discussion now and I haven't read the whole content of the arguments. You seem to be talking about odds to prove your belief correct, I'm assuming you are a creationist since you're here questioning the probability scientific theories have of explaining our whole existence and where do we come from. I must however ask you the following (and be happy I'm in a good mood today) - Even if the odds for evolution/the big bang were minimal to result in our current living conditions and the earth's existence, can you really compare them with the probability of an invisible supernatural being, full of contradictory characteristics and lacking any evidence to assert it's necessity existing? You seem to be the one going against probabilities

In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. That's an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose of astronauts were to find on the back side of the moon a pile of machinery there, that had not been left by american or Russian cosmonauts, what would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly would be some sort of exterrestrial intelligence that left the machinery there, and you don't have to have an explanation of who these exterrestrials were, or came from, or how they got there, or anything of that sort to recognize that the best explanation of these machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.

[The Grand Nudger]

But you do have to have an explanation of machinery. Or else, how would you recognize it? Kindly point me to something that was not intelligently designed? That way, the next time I see something, a toaster or a daisy - I can recognize the difference, I'll have an explanation of machinery.

You've attempted to assume your conclusion in the example you gave (of a false dichotomy), btw.

Fail. This is the trouble with this nonsense. Not a shred of evidence....and then you can't even form a cogent argument? Jesus christ.....

[The Valkyrie]

Dear alexwenzel, I've only picked up the discussion now and I haven't read the whole content of the arguments. You seem to be talking about odds to prove your belief correct, I'm assuming you are a creationist since you're here questioning the probability scientific theories have of explaining our whole existence and where do we come from. I must however ask you the following (and be happy I'm in a good mood today) - Even if the odds for evolution/the big bang were minimal to result in our current living conditions and the earth's existence, can you really compare them with the probability of an invisible supernatural being, full of contradictory characteristics and lacking any evidence to assert it's necessity existing? You seem to be the one going against probabilities

In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. That's an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose of astronauts were to find on the back side of the moon a pile of machinery there, that had not been left by american or Russian cosmonauts, what would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly would be some sort of exterrestrial intelligence that left the machinery there, and you don't have to have an explanation of who these exterrestrials were, or came from, or how they got there, or anything of that sort to recognize that the best explanation of these machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.

So, your justification is yet another argument from ignorance.

Gotcha.

[The Grand Nudger]

What else could he argue from?

[The Valkyrie]

What else could he argue from?

On behalf of creationism? Nothing ast all.

[alexwenzel]

But you do have to have an explanation of machinery. Or else, how would you recognize it? Kindly point me to something that was not intelligently designed? That way, the next time I see something, a toaster or a daisy - I can recognize the difference, I'll have an explanation of machinery.

You've attempted to assume your conclusion in the example you gave (of a false dichotomy), btw.

Fail. This is the trouble with this nonsense. Not a shred of evidence....and then you can't even form a cogent argument? Jesus christ.....

Keep reading your google bible

---

In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. That's an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose of astronauts were to find on the back side of the moon a pile of machinery there, that had not been left by american or Russian cosmonauts, what would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly would be some sort of exterrestrial intelligence that left the machinery there, and you don't have to have an explanation of who these exterrestrials were, or came from, or how they got there, or anything of that sort to recognize that the best explanation of these machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognized that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.

So, your justification is yet another argument from ignorance.

Gotcha.

Once there was nothing... BAM... then there was everything! Including matter, time and space. Show me YOUR ignorance and proof to that.

Hurry! run to your google bible!!