The Problem with Christians

[Cyberman]

Deal out a standard deck of 52 cards. Now, what are the odds of getting that specific arrangement in that specific order? Yet you just did it on your first try.

[AAA]

Deal out a standard deck of 52 cards. Now, what are the odds of getting that specific arrangement in that specific order? Yet you just did it on your first try.

Look at what I said to Robvalue. Your example is a bad analogy for the same reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a common misunderstanding. The chance that someone wins the lottery is 100%.

-your response was inadequate, because it was wrong.  The lottery can -and routinely does- go many, many drawings without a winner.  Why is his analogy a bad one, again?

Probability seems to be the new thing, when the next update hits the popular apologist sites they'll all harp on that to compete with each other and we'lll see it here. Next year, round this time...we'll see this probability business make a return. Just like we see the "justified true belief" bit every december, and the historicity song and dance leading up to easter. He is risen, he is risen indeed...lol. If anyone ever wanted to put their finger on the pulse of apologism you only need to tune into the am dial.

[athrock]

That's a common misunderstanding. The chance that someone wins the lottery is 100%.

-your response was inadequate, because it was wrong.  The lottery can -and routinely does- go many, many drawings without a winner.  Why is his analogy a bad one, again?

And yet, by conducting multiple drawings, the lottery board DOES eventually find a winner. Or several winners.

[AAA]

How is it 100% someone wins the lottery?

Yes, the numbers are different. My point is that any event can be calculated as exceedingly unlikely if you rewind far enough back in time. But once it's happened, it's no longer an issue. You can't infer magic by looking at numbers.

Sorry, lets say there is 100% chance that a ticket will be drawn. But it is unlikely to be your ticket. Does that make sense? And yeah, once it happened, it isn't an issue. But there is no guarantee that it will happen. To think that it did happen without direction is going against what the numbers tell us about likelihood. It is almost guaranteed not to happen. You really have to have faith to assume it did.

[LadyForCamus]

Okay...so...for abiogenesis we have preliminary (though speculative), observable, measurable data.  For the Christian God we have...zilch.   And some how you think this research detracts from the likelihood of abiogenesis and enhances the likelihood of God?   ...What?!

No, there is not measurable data for abiogenesis for several reasons.
1. It occured in the past, and is therefore immeasurable/unobservable unless it is still occurring, which I don't think anyone believes to be true. 
2. We were talking about the origin of glycolysis. And the measurable data were just that molecules changed from one type to another. This is hardly evidence for the origin of glycolysis, let alone abiogenesis. 

I do not think that this research detracts from the likelihood of abiogenesis, and I do not think that it enhances the likelihood of God. I think it is pretty irrelevant to both. I was just responding to it because you seemed to think that glycolysis had been created in the lab by some sort of accident, which is incorrect.

They found a single pyruvate first...by accident; before conducting their experiment. Is one single pyruvate undeniable proof of anything? Of course not. But, the reason I brought it up was because you were going on about how improbable it would be for such intricate metabolic reactions to ever occur without DESIGN...intelligent, that is.

[The Grand Nudger]

-your response was inadequate, because it was wrong.  The lottery can -and routinely does- go many, many drawings without a winner.  Why is his analogy a bad one, again?

And yet, by conducting multiple drawings, the lottery board DOES eventually find a winner. Or several winners.

Indeed it does.  That doesn't change the odds of a winner at a drawing -which aren't 100%, so whats the point of your response - to double down on someones else's painted barn?  Ironically, you stumbled upon the simplest reason that probabilities mean nothing in the face of life's origins. Perhaps you should explain that to your compatriot, who seems to have missed the very same barn hitting him at 90 miles an hour.

[AAA]

That's a common misunderstanding. The chance that someone wins the lottery is 100%.

-your response was inadequate, because it was wrong.  The lottery can -and routinely does- go many, many drawings without a winner.  Why is his analogy a bad one, again?

Ok fine, but that is irrelevant to the point. Let's go with Stimbo's example then. If you draw a random sequence of 10 cards, what are the odds that you would get the sequence you get? pretty low. But if you draw 10 cards, you are guaranteed to have some sequence of 10 cards. However, what if we said that only a few of these sequences are acceptable, then what are the odds that you would get one of these sequences of 10 cards are low. 

If all sequences of 10 are acceptable, then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is 100%. If only a few sequences are acceptable (as is the case with proteins) then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is low.

[Crossless2.0]

-your response was inadequate, because it was wrong.  The lottery can -and routinely does- go many, many drawings without a winner.  Why is his analogy a bad one, again?

Ok fine, but that is irrelevant to the point. Let's go with Stimbo's example then. If you draw a random sequence of 10 cards, what are the odds that you would get the sequence you get? pretty low. But if you draw 10 cards, you are guaranteed to have some sequence of 10 cards. However, what if we said that only a few of these sequences are acceptable, then what are the odds that you would get one of these sequences of 10 cards are low. 

If all sequences of 10 are acceptable, then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is 100%. If only a few sequences are acceptable (as is the case with proteins) then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is low.

But then you deal out 10 cards millions, billions of times. What happens to your odds then?

[AAA]

That's a common misunderstanding. The chance that someone wins the lottery is 100%.

-your response was inadequate, because it was wrong.  The lottery can -and routinely does- go many, many drawings without a winner.  Why is his analogy a bad one, again?

Ok fine, but that is irrelevant to the point. Let's go with Stimbo's example then. If you draw a random sequence of 10 cards, what are the odds that you would get the sequence you get? pretty low. But if you draw 10 cards, you are guaranteed to have some sequence of 10 cards. However, what if we said that only a few of these sequences are acceptable, then the odds that you would get one of these sequences of 10 cards are low. 

If all sequences of 10 are acceptable, then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is 100%. If only a few sequences are acceptable (as is the case with proteins) then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is low.