Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[theVOID]

It's a false dichotomy grounded in incredulity

---

Abiogenesis is impossible; the P Values are so ridiculous that they would just be rounded to zero in any other field of Science.

Gravity is rounded to zero in most equations in QM... Does gravity not exist?

Also, a low P is not a zero P. Take any group of 100,000 stars, their positions relative to each other out of every possible set of relative positions is near zero, does that mean that 100,000 stars cannot be in an arbitrary configuration? Of course not, so you cannot claim that Abiogenesiss is false because a low probability event is near zero, it's plainly illogical.

It works out as:

If P ~>0.n then ~p

That is false, it is only true 'If P =0 then ~p'

Any non zero value does not necessitate that ~p.

But because Secular Scientists are rooting so hard for a naturalistic explanation for life they will accept it no matter how improbable.

You want to argue against the existence of improbable events? Go ahead, amuse us with your stupidity.

Could you imagine if some Scientist said, “Hey I figured the chances of there being a God is the same as guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try (the chances of Abiogenesis happening), we should totally believe in God now!”?

False analogy, the example is only valid if they are stating that "because the chances of god happening is as low as guessing a 5000 digit pin number in one go he therefore necessarily does not exist".

Just like Abiogenesis, if the chances of that P >0 then it is not necessarily true that ~P. This also does not rule out evidence coming to light that changes the constraints. Again with the star analogy, the chances of any 100,000 stars being in configuration x relative to each other is near zero. If the configuration x has a grouping of 5 values (154,325,164,976,352) and we determine that these 5 values exist in a set of relative positions of 100,00 stars then the probability of that configuration being real have just become more likely.

Finding evidence for parts of the abiogenesis set does the same thing. Finding amino acids forming in predicted early-earth conditions increases the probability, having self-replicating RNA massively increases the probability, finding hundreds of extremophiles increases the probability etc, the more evidence we find corresponding to the Abiogenesis set the more likely it becomes that the set is 'true'.

He’d be laughed at, but when Scientists say they believe in Abiogenesis, even though the odds of it happening are the same as guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try, they get published in Journals. It’s absurd.

You want to find me a single published paper on Abiogenesis that has such a pithy backbone? You won't, because like always you creationists are required to resort to straw-man caricaturisations.

As to the open system thing, I am well aware the Earth is an open system, but energy is only necessary for life, it is not sufficient. So the fact that the Earth is an open system really is not sufficient to get life.

Of course not, if all that was necessary was an open system then everything from a dust cloud to an asteroid would be sufficient. The point of earth being an open system is nothing more than a refutation of the creationist claim that "The second law disproves evolution".

As I point out (and as you did when you mentioned photosynthesis), there has to be a mechanism already in place to convert the sun’s energy to a form that can be used by the organism.

Any phoyosensitive system gathers solar energy and converts it to energy necessarily. Photosynthesis is an example of an nth generation photo-type structure that evolved from simple photosensitive structures.

Skin burns are an example of photo sensitivity, so is a rock blackening in the sun.

These mechanisms are built using the energy converted by the same mechanisms in other cells.

That is false. Photosynthesis deals with turning carbon into organic compounds and is powered by solar energy, you can have (and there are literally millions of examples) of photo sensitive cells (and inorganic) that convert solar energy by some mechanism.

You really need bio 101 if you have such a piss-poor understanding of photosynthesis.

This argument is even on AiG's "don't use these arguments because they're debunked to fuckedy" list.

It’s just like saying, “Well if I let a bull out in a china shop we can expect new china to be produced because the shop is now an open system.” No, you would only expect all of your existing china to be destroyed. Now if you tied the bull up and had him turn the crank on a potter’s wheel you could start making new pottery. Until this mechanism is in place, the raw energy from the bull only breaks things down.

Not only is the argument your analogy is based on a false premise, but you couldn't even manage to find a valid analogy. Lucky for you we can already see what you were getting at (because like I've mentioned it's debunked) else you'd be nearly totally incomprehensible.

Atheism is actually classified as a religion using the “Seven Degrees of Religion” which are used in archeology. However, that is probably a topic for a different thread.

Atheism is less than a single position, it is a statement about belief. In this case from the latin "A Theos" which means literally "without belief in god". That isn't even a position on the existence of God (disbelief vs lack of belief)... Some religion.

I love that shit-stained brush you're using in this argument. It's like the "you're just as bat-shit as me" argument, which is not only misplaced in this circumstance, but it's also fucked because of the intended support for a position that necessarily cannot arise. It is like "you're just as unsupported as me therefore i'm right (or not wrong)" The reality is that this argument has absolutely no impact on the validity of the position being espoused.