Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 6, 2011 at 7:38 pm (This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 7:40 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 6, 2011 at 6:52 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
waldork Wrote:Even when Creationists spot you points (the bare minimum amino acid count and all the interactions in the history of time) you guys still lose.
No waldork. Creationists dont "spot us points" and then science still loses. Creationists twist words and numbers because they lost a long time ago.
Now, by all means, publish that equation into a scientific journal and allow it to go through the world wide gauntlet... you will learn every single thing about how wrong you are.
..but hey, if it makes you feel like a winner...."*sure* the creationists are spotting us points, oh golly, we evolutionists need more points. Please creationists, can you spot us more points so that we dont lose? Your mighty god science is making a mockery of our godless faggot monkey science.. we have no hope of defeating Christ Jesus no matter how many children we convert to the devils ways in biology class."
You just displayed your ignorance with this "argument" laced with hypostatization. Science is a tool, it cannot win or lose. Darwinism can win or lose.
Creation guys are published in journals all the time, the guy who authored that book was publish in Nature when he was only 22. You are just throwing out the same old piss-poor arguments hoping they stick this time.
(May 6, 2011 at 7:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:you will learn every single thing about how wrong you are.
He won't learn shit.
I've only been here a few months and you are already starting to repeat your images. *Yawns*
waldork Wrote:First of all I think you mean "ark" not "arc" right?
Who gives a shit. A pile of bullshit mythology by any other name or spelling is still a pile of bullshit mythology.
waldork Wrote:I picked a 5000 digit pin number because those are the actual odds there genius-boy.
I'm such a young and ignorant fucker.
waldork Wrote:If you had also taken the time to actually read my post or comprehend it you would realize that even if you took all the interactions between particles in the entire universe since the beginning of time you still would have odds no better than 1 in 10^4000. So your "well given enough time" argument is hog-wash.
Like Ive never seen that bullshit argument before. If your argument is so great then publish it in a scientific journal and be done with it..in the end my opinion doesnt mean shit.
waldork Wrote:Not an appeal to authority either, just saying my achievements in life are evidence that I am far from stupid, or at least more intelligent than you :-)
Waldork + Creationism = stupid
waldork Wrote:Actually it was a direct quote from Dr. Sarfati's book, nothing to do with Hoyal.
Then he needs to publish it in a scientific journal and let it go throught the world wide scientific community gauntlet. What me and you say have no bearing on the matter.
waldork Wrote:I'm secretly gay and I hate myself for it.
Its the 21st century. It's okay to be gay.
waldork Wrote:I also have a bad crack habit.
If it wasnt for former crack addicts, the modern Christian movement would have one third less adherents than it does. You will fit in well at Answers in Genesis.
Quote:I've only been here a few months and you are already starting to repeat your images. *Yawns*
Surely you don't think a delusional asshole like yourself is worth originality? Hang out with other creationist morons down at the trailer park and maybe they will indulge your apparent need for self-importance.
waldork Wrote:First of all I think you mean "ark" not "arc" right?
Who gives a shit. A pile of bullshit mythology by any other name or spelling is still a pile of bullshit mythology.
waldork Wrote:I picked a 5000 digit pin number because those are the actual odds there genius-boy.
I'm such a young and ignorant fucker.
waldork Wrote:If you had also taken the time to actually read my post or comprehend it you would realize that even if you took all the interactions between particles in the entire universe since the beginning of time you still would have odds no better than 1 in 10^4000. So your "well given enough time" argument is hog-wash.
Like Ive never seen that bullshit argument before. If your argument is so great then publish it in a scientific journal and be done with it..in the end my opinion doesnt mean shit.
waldork Wrote:Not an appeal to authority either, just saying my achievements in life are evidence that I am far from stupid, or at least more intelligent than you :-)
Waldork + Creationism = stupid
waldork Wrote:Actually it was a direct quote from Dr. Sarfati's book, nothing to do with Hoyal.
Then he needs to publish it in a scientific journal and let it go throught the world wide scientific community gauntlet. What me and you say have no bearing on the matter.
waldork Wrote:I'm secretly gay and I hate myself for it.
Its the 21st century. It's okay to be gay.
waldork Wrote:I also have a bad crack habit.
If it wasnt for former crack addicts, the modern Christian movement would have one third less adherents than it does. You will fit in well at Answers in Genesis.
Your childish admiration for the peer review system is silly. The work on the DNA double-helix was never published, does that mean it was just a bunch of crap?
You violated the forum rules by misquoting me, I hope the mods take care of this please.
May 7, 2011 at 7:08 am (This post was last modified: May 7, 2011 at 7:11 am by lilphil1989.)
(May 6, 2011 at 6:20 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually it was a direct quote from Dr. Sarfati's book, nothing to do with Hoyal.
Fred Hoyle made the exact same argument, so it seems likely that's where Sarfati got it from.
Quote:Did you even read the post? Even taking into account all the particle interactions in the universe throughout the history of time (which would certinaly include parallel trials silly) you odds are no better than guessing a 4000 digit pin number.
What you're calculating is this:
If I randomly throw 20*357 amino acids together 10^110 times, what is the probablility that they'll form into one specific arrangement.
So you're forming the phase space, but erroneously concluding that the relevant part of the phase space for the problem is a single point.
The actual idea is that there is a step-by-step process, formation of amino acids -> formation of proteins -> simple protein structures -> more complex protein structures.
So what you need to do for a more reasonable calculation, is to form conditional probabilities for each step given the previous one.
And you also need to consider the correct amount of the phase space by summing over all possible permutations for each step i.e. there are lots of ways to form an amino acid from a given set of atoms and lots of different amino acids, lots of ways to form a protein from a set of amino acids, and lots of different proteins, etc.
Will the number still be small? Probably, although not nearly as small as you claim.
Finally, you're fallaciously assuming that unlikely things cannot happen.
To illustrate the point, let's imagine we're in the year 1911, and want to compute the probability of lilphil1989 existing in 100 years time.
Firstly, one particular sperm of my great-grandfather's has to impregnate my great-grandmother.
Next, a particular one of my grandfather's sperm has to impregnate my grandmother, and similarly with my father and mother
There are ~100million sperm per ejaculate for a human male, so that the probability of my existence is 1 part in 100,000,000^3 = 1 in 10^24. Tiny, I'm sure you'll agree.
But why stop there? Let's imagine we're 2000 years in the past and want to calculate the probability of my existence. Assuming four generations of ancestors per century (or, average age of parents at birth 25), the probability is 1 part in 10,000,000^(20*4) = 1 in 10^640.
What about the probability of you existing too?
Also 1 in 10^640.
What about the probability of both of us existing?
1 in 10^1280
The exponent is now of the same order of magnitude as that which came out of your calculation.
And that probability is so small, it's much more reasonable to think that we weren't the product of sperm making their way to eggs, but rather that you and I were placed on the earth just as we are. The idea of our births following our fathers' births, following our grandfathers' births is an idea that you'd be silly to believe, just look at the probabilities!
And poof! Our respective ancestries (to (mis)quote Douglas Adams) disappear in a puff of logic.
I hope this demonstrates that just because the a priori probability of something happening is very small, that doesn't in any way mean that it can't happen, or suggest that it's unreasonable to think that it could.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Doesn't the fact that scientists replicated in a lab mean that no form of magic was used to do it the first time? While the odds of conditions being right in nature, of everything going perfectly and simple amino acids eventually becoming multicellular organisms are astronomical, it is a big universe, with billions of permutations of planets and conditions. So to put it simply, if it did not happen here, in this ordinary solar system with it's ordinary star on this ordinary planet, it would have by sheer mathematical probability happened elsewhere, and we would be on another planet in another solar system discussing how something so complex could have happened on it's own.
Theists in general tend to stick to the notion that we are somehow unique, we are modeled after some creator, the end result of his workshop and tinkering before space was space and time was time. But natural processes dictate everything in the universe, natural processes keep us alive, not magic, removing the space god with superpowers theory. Creationism fails because magic doesn't exist in the real world.
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
May 9, 2011 at 9:37 pm (This post was last modified: May 9, 2011 at 10:19 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(May 7, 2011 at 6:43 am)Zen Badger Wrote:
(May 6, 2011 at 7:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Science is a tool, it cannot win or lose. Darwinism can win or lose.
And Evolution(not "Darwinism") is part of that science.
Not your bible and its fables about great floods and talking snakes and the like.
No matter how hard you try.
I assume when you say "Evolution" you mean Darwinian Evolution and no it is not "part" of that tool. It is a theory developed by that tool. So are many theories developed by the Creation community. Stop making category errors.
Quote: Fred Hoyle made the exact same argument, so it seems likely that's where Sarfati got it from.
Sarfati used different numbers than Hoyal.
Quote: What you're calculating is this:
If I randomly throw 20*357 amino acids together 10^110 times, what is the probablility that they'll form into one specific arrangement.
So you're forming the phase space, but erroneously concluding that the relevant part of the phase space for the problem is a single point.
The actual idea is that there is a step-by-step process, formation of amino acids -> formation of proteins -> simple protein structures -> more complex protein structures.
So what you need to do for a more reasonable calculation, is to form conditional probabilities for each step given the previous one.
And you also need to consider the correct amount of the phase space by summing over all possible permutations for each step i.e. there are lots of ways to form an amino acid from a given set of atoms and lots of different amino acids, lots of ways to form a protein from a set of amino acids, and lots of different proteins, etc.
Will the number still be small? Probably, although not nearly as small as you claim.
I disagree. It has to be a singular point because the arrangement required for survival and self replication is very specific. We have actually spotted you lots of points because we have completely ignored the obvious chemical problems associated with abiogenesis (necessary monochirality, entropy associated with the presence of oxygen etc). So the numbers in all honesty would be even worse for you. Remember, amino acids have zero natural tendencies to arrange themselves, so the numbers Sarfati uses are completely legitimate. You seem to forget just how knowledgeable he is in these things.
Quote: Finally, you're fallaciously assuming that unlikely things cannot happen.
To illustrate the point, let's imagine we're in the year 1911, and want to compute the probability of lilphil1989 existing in 100 years time.
Firstly, one particular sperm of my great-grandfather's has to impregnate my great-grandmother.
Next, a particular one of my grandfather's sperm has to impregnate my grandmother, and similarly with my father and mother
There are ~100million sperm per ejaculate for a human male, so that the probability of my existence is 1 part in 100,000,000^3 = 1 in 10^24. Tiny, I'm sure you'll agree.
But why stop there? Let's imagine we're 2000 years in the past and want to calculate the probability of my existence. Assuming four generations of ancestors per century (or, average age of parents at birth 25), the probability is 1 part in 10,000,000^(20*4) = 1 in 10^640.
What about the probability of you existing too?
Also 1 in 10^640.
What about the probability of both of us existing?
1 in 10^1280
The exponent is now of the same order of magnitude as that which came out of your calculation.
And that probability is so small, it's much more reasonable to think that we weren't the product of sperm making their way to eggs, but rather that you and I were placed on the earth just as we are. The idea of our births following our fathers' births, following our grandfathers' births is an idea that you'd be silly to believe, just look at the probabilities!
And poof! Our respective ancestries (to (mis)quote Douglas Adams) disappear in a puff of logic.
I hope this demonstrates that just because the a priori probability of something happening is very small, that doesn't in any way mean that it can't happen, or suggest that it's unreasonable to think that it could.
First of all, I am not just arguing against unlikely events happening, I am arguing against the the likelihood of statistically impossible events from happening. Your analogy is completely false though. First of all, we know that sperm uniting with eggs produce humans naturally. We have never observed amino acids to naturally align without the presence of DNA. So that alone makes abiogenesis just a form of storytelling. Secondly, you have retroactively defined yourself as the necessary outcome after you already knew it happened. If I told you an event happened in the past but you knew the probability of this event actually occurring was 1 in 10^600 you’d be crazy to take my word for it. I mean if we are going to play this game we can just believe anything.
“I don’t believe in big foot.”
“Oh really why not?”
“Well I just think the chances of a creature of that size never leaving any testable physical evidence is just too small.”
“Are you fallaciously arguing against the occurrence of unlikely events? Let me give you an analogy about sperm my friend!”
In your world DNA evidence would never be accepted in a court of law because the chances of it being one of the other 5 people on Earth with similar DNA is far greater than 1 in 10^600! Maybe defense attorneys need to just start giving the jury your little sperm analogy, somehow I get the feeling it would convince them about as much as it convinced me.
Come on, get real man : - )
Quote: Doesn't the fact that scientists replicated in a lab mean that no form of magic was used to do it the first time? While the odds of conditions being right in nature, of everything going perfectly and simple amino acids eventually becoming multicellular organisms are astronomical, it is a big universe, with billions of permutations of planets and conditions. So to put it simply, if it did not happen here, in this ordinary solar system with it's ordinary star on this ordinary planet, it would have by sheer mathematical probability happened elsewhere, and we would be on another planet in another solar system discussing how something so complex could have happened on it's own.
Theists in general tend to stick to the notion that we are somehow unique, we are modeled after some creator, the end result of his workshop and tinkering before space was space and time was time. But natural processes dictate everything in the universe, natural processes keep us alive, not magic, removing the space god with superpowers theory. Creationism fails because magic doesn't exist in the real world.
Well it’s a good thing Creationists do not believe in “magic” then huh?
You are making a category error by confusing mechanism with agency. Even if abiogenesis could happen (which it can’t), or even if it did happen (which it didn’t) this would by no means disprove God’s existence because it could have just been the mechanism He used.
Your “well given enough different worlds and attempts” argument has already been addressed. As I demonstrated earlier, even if you took all the interactions that have ever taken place through the history of supposed deep time in all of the universe and treated it as a trial- the odds of obtaining life are no greater than 1 in 10^4000. I think the odds of magic doing it are even greater than that haha.
This really just goes to show that unregenerate sinners will believe absolutely anything rather than admitting there is a God who owns them.
![[Image: creationistPosterMed.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_7n7vg1DT9eE%2FS0OnCdmTkbI%2FAAAAAAAAAF8%2Fk359gL5_7lc%2Fs400%2FcreationistPosterMed.png)
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
