- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
A conscience is arguably mankind's greatest achievement, that we have evolved into beings with the mental ability to analyse and reflect, empathize and regret. Why anybody would want to handover this great achievement to a fictional deity is beyond me.
Probability of a Cell Evolving - Programming of Life
[/youtube]
OR
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipAnd what is the probability of a god-like creature creating the universe and all life, Sonship?A conscience is arguably mankind's greatest achievement, that we have evolved into beings with the mental ability to analyse and reflect, empathize and regret. Why anybody would want to handover this great achievement to a fictional deity is beyond me.
[b] Probability of a Cell Evolving - Programming of Life
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuMvRExazAw [/youtube][/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Great King RatWatch the video first. You couldn't have seen it that fast.
And what is the probability of a god-like creature creating the universe and all life, Sonship?
Only seven minutes and some seconds.
And then I will try to answer your question with a post.
20 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI'm at work.
Watch the video first. You couldn't have seen it that fast.
Only seven minutes and some seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuMvRExazAw
And then I will try to answer your question with a post.
I can't watch Youtube videos.
Is the conclusion that the chance a cell coming into existence and evolving the way it did is astronomically small?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Great King Rat1.) A "god-like creature" did not create the universe.
And what is the probability of a god-like creature creating the universe and all life, Sonship?
God did.
2.) The probability of God with "eternal power" (Rom. 1:20) calling into being a creation from nothing, is high IMO.
3.) Acknowledging that God with "eternal power" brought the universe and life into being does not preclude that we cannot study how it all works.
We can say we believe God with eternal power is responsible for the universe and life and have many happy years discovering more and more about how the mechanics of the whole thing work.
If a woman or a man has a propensity and aptitude for scientific study, there is no reason why that person cannot have a fruitful career in science and an privately a spiritual admiration for God the Creator too. That is assuming that scientist has not been blackballed or shut out of a career by anti-theistic gatekeepers of the science industry.
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipYou've not really answered the question have you?
1.) A "god-like creature" did not create the universe.
God did.
2.) The probability of God with [b]"eternal power" (Rom. 1:20) calling into being a creation from nothing, is high IMO.
3.) Acknowledging that God with "eternal power" brought the universe and life into being does not preclude that we cannot study how it all works.
...[text shortened]... t been blackballed or shut out of a career by anti-theistic gatekeepers of the science industry.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 Apr 16
5 edits
You've not really answered the question have you?
Knob,
And what is the probability of a god-like creature creating the universe and all life, Sonship?
My answer in short was two part.
1.) A "god-like creature" creating the universe I know nothing about.
2.) God with eternal power creating the universe and life, I wrote "IMO" has a high probability.
I expect you to be honest.
I wrote an answer. Maybe you didn't like the answer that I wrote.
But I wrote one. So be honest.
A question for you:
A poster spoke of fictional god/s.
Does counterfeit money prove that real money does not exist ?
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipGoodness gracious, sonsip. You seriously use way too many words.
1.) A "god-like creature" did not create the universe.
God did.
2.) The probability of God with [b]"eternal power" (Rom. 1:20) calling into being a creation from nothing, is high IMO.
3.) Acknowledging that God with "eternal power" brought the universe and life into being does not preclude that we cannot study how it all works.
...[text shortened]... t been blackballed or shut out of a career by anti-theistic gatekeepers of the science industry.[/b]
The correct response was: "I don't know, Great King Rat."
You really shouldn't use statistics and probabilities to somehow attempt to disprove abiogenesis and evolution if the alternative you cling to is by its very definition entirely untestable and unprovable.
.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Great King RatYou mean to say the words you wish to put into my mouth, I used too many words.
Goodness gracious, sonsip. You seriously use way too many words.
The correct response was: "I don't know, Great King Rat."
You really shouldn't use statistics and probabilities to somehow attempt to disprove abiogenesis and evolution if the alternative you cling to is by its very definition entirely untestable and unprovable.
.
But I don't intend to say what you would say.
But you're at work. And there is not much difference between watching a YouTube when you should be working and being in an Internet debate when you should be working.
So, since the conscience is such a great achievement of evolution, I better let you listen to yours and put in a good days worth of work for your employer.
Originally posted by sonshipOK.
Watch the video first.
It starts out by asking the probability of a cell evolving. Clearly the speaker is confused. I think he meant a cell naturally occurring by random assembly of molecules. So, strike one, speaker doesn't know what he is talking about.
Next he claims that the probability of a protein being formed by undirected natural processes is 1 in 10 ^ 164.
But he gives no justification for this figure. And what constitutes an 'undirected natural process' anyway?
Clearly he is just pulling figures out of the air and doesn't really have a clue what he is talking about.
Next he claims the probability of a cell evolving by undirected natural processes is 1 in 10 ^ 340,000,000
Again, no explanation for where he got that figure.
Should I really sit through the rest of the 7 minutes of nonsense?
Did you seriously think the video makes sense? Where do you think those figures came from?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The very first thing that the video states is a question.
"What is the probability of a simple cell evolving by undirected natural processess?"
It is not the second thing stated. It is the first thing.
Regardless of the title of the video, which titles are sometime short, advertizement, or even sometimes misleading, the question asked is the first thing spoken by the speaker.
The Ad of course does not count.
And though one poster says it is a waste of his time to sit through 7 minutes of it, that does not mean it is waste of everyone's time to watch.
I found it not a waste of time and would re-recommend it immediately.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Because it appears to confirm what you want to believe?
Genetic fallacy, I think.
So I WANT to believe that a randomly arranged living cell is stupid?
So I see something that confirms what I want to believe about that?
That in and of itself does not make the rational incorrect.
Yea, I want to believe what makes SENSE - a designed cell manifesting virtually infinite intelligent skill.
Now watch for your supervisor ! No, not your boss, your splendid human conscience.
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by Great King RatThat is the usual religious set MO. So small a probability it could never have happened without the help of a deity.
I'm at work.
I can't watch Youtube videos.
Is the conclusion that the chance a cell coming into existence and evolving the way it did is astronomically small?
Which I say Bullocks myself. They seem to forget when the prebiotic stuff is around and there are energy sources and water and maybe clays to imitate membranes, one molecule becoming another more complex molecule has a low probability of happening but what they fail to understand, or try to suppress, is the fact that these low probability experiments take place by the trillions of trillions and like the lottery, eventually SOMEBODY will win.
That part of it is sloshed over or actively suppressed.