Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Esquilax]

Here is another algorithm for you to wrap your mind around:

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

So what? Low probability is not no probability, and a low probability also doesn't mean we must appeal to magic to make it happen. That's just an argument from personal incredulity: the fact that you personally find something unlikely doesn't make it magic.

Oh, and just for fun: how did you derive those calculations of probability, anyway?

[SteelCurtain]

It's putting the cart before the horse, as well.
If you roll a die a million times, record the numbers, and try it again, the odds are astronomically low that you'll get the same results.

Looking at probability after something has happened is just dumb. It happened. The probability of it happening is 1.

And what the fuck does "the probability of a cell" even mean?

[Tonus]

Oh, and just for fun: how did you derive those calculations of probability, anyway?

I was wondering if someone would ask that. Most of those "improbability odds" figures are pulled out of thin air. I really would like to see an explanation of how they determine the probability of something as vague as "a single cell."

[pocaracas]

Oh, and just for fun: how did you derive those calculations of probability, anyway?

I was wondering if someone would ask that. Most of those "improbability odds" figures are pulled out of thin air. I really would like to see an explanation of how they determine the probability of something as vague as "a single cell."

Single cell, also known as amoeba (it's the only bacteria they know of)... the one most complex living being, if you look at its DNA.

Then they wonder why people laugh at their calculations.

[Esquilax]

Oh, and just for fun: how did you derive those calculations of probability, anyway?

I was wondering if someone would ask that. Most of those "improbability odds" figures are pulled out of thin air. I really would like to see an explanation of how they determine the probability of something as vague as "a single cell."

Precisely why I asked: it's relatively easy to bandy numbers around. Here:

Odds of god: 1 in 10 to the twenty billionth trillionth power. That's 1 followed by, like, a kabillion zeroes!

Is my argument any more true because I cavalierly tossed around some big numbers without explaining a methodology? To Alex, I suppose it must be, if he weren't expecting special pleading to cause us to accept the same argument from him that he'd reject if it disagreed with his own predrawn conclusion.

It's even more ridiculous in cases like this one where, even if he actually did have a calculation of probability, it wouldn't be working with anywhere near a complete set of data. A sample size of one, where the genesis of cells isn't even completely understood, and all possible permutations of life origins aren't known, and the set of conditions everywhere in the universe isn't known, and the set of conditions of a prebiotic Earth aren't entirely known, and the interference those conditions had isn't entirely known? That's what you're working on to get the probability of this stuff?

Yeah, that's a calculation I'm definitely going to take seriously, given that literally all the pertinent data points are incomplete...

[Chad32]

What better example would you need than a computer that looks at the stuff you do, sees a pattern, and points you towards something that it thinks you may also want to do?

Aside from just creating other members of our species.

Here is another algorithm for you to wrap your mind around:

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

But it is apparently possible. Given enough time, all possible things will happen, regardless of how slim the chances. We know particles can come into existence, because we've proven they can. We have yet to prove it possible to speak things into existence.

God "has hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." - Luke 10:21

"God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important." 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28

If he only reveals truth to fools and children, it's no wonder why most people on this planet consider it foolish and childish. Trying to confound people who are learned about how reality works helps no one. Him or us.

[Natachan]

What better example would you need than a computer that looks at the stuff you do, sees a pattern, and points you towards something that it thinks you may also want to do?

Aside from just creating other members of our species.

Here is another algorithm for you to wrap your mind around:

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

I'm noticing you've posted this exact same thing multiple time. It shows that you don't understand abiogenesis. It also shows you're desperate.

If you're really curious cells aren't the earliest forms of "life" on this earth. And I put life in quotes because if you go back far enough the idea of what is alive seems to be fuzzy. Are amino acids alive? Are lipids alive? What is life? What do you have to have to be considered alive?

[Tonus]

God "has hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." - Luke 10:21

"God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important." 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28

Presumably, the people who wrote this were either fools or children. Maybe we shouldn't be taking fools and children seriously on the question of whether god exists and ancient 'holy' books are legitimate sources of truth.

[Jenny A]

Here is another algorithm for you to wrap your mind around:
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

[Large and colored fonts removed for brevity]

You cite a source for this statistic in another thread:

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

[url=http://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?tid=26578&replyto=709613

The odds are in that article, but they have nothing to do with the odds of a single cell. In the article you cited Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University is reported to have tested the single cell source model of evolution by calculating the odds of other possibilities based upon the DNA and other chemical signatures in the cells of living animals in the genome.

Your article says that 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

Where you got the "single cell" idea I can't imagine unless you didn't read or couldn't understand the article.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a standard quote mine, nothing new.