RE: Fundies Will Be Shitting Bricks
May 13, 2011 at 8:11 am
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2011 at 8:13 am by orogenicman.)
Statler Wrote:My examples were completely valid. We are talking about unobserved events, and their probabilities of occurring. I say the probabilities of abiogenesis occurring are so small any statistician would just round it off to p = 0. Usually values smaller than 1 in 10^50 are rounded off to zero anyways. Or at least they were when I was taking statistics in university. Who knows, they may have changed that rule just to preserve abiogenesis.
Erm, there are many very small numbers that no scientist in his right mind would ever round down to zero. Examples are Avagadro's number, Planck length, and Planck time.
This goofy idea that abiogenesis has virtually no chance of ever happening ignores the fact that over 70 amino acids (many of which are the building blocks of cells) have been detected in meteorites. It also ignores all of the recent research into the subject, and it does so for one simple fact. If creationists can ignore the science by simply making stupid probability statements, it makes them feel much more comfortable getting on their knees and declaring "God did it" with respect to any phenomenon we might discuss. And the simple truth is that "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. It is not a scientific statement. And neither is the statement that abiogenesis has zero probability of ever occurring. People who make unsupported statements like that have historically been the ones who ended up wiping mud off their faces when their goofy ideas are refuted. People like Bishop Ussher, for instance.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero