- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbar
I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.
A recent science that has developed is the science of probability. Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia, applied all the laws of probobility studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existance by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries have been revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth-all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino-acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single molecule by chance combination would take 10 to the power 262 years. Most of us do not have any idea what that means. to get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H 39, would take 10 to the power 119,841 years. That means if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote one and then zeros after them, you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, one smaller than any human cell!
09 Apr 05
5 edits
A recent science that has developed is the science of probability.Since when has statistics been a new science?
This is unanswerable without a reference. I'd guess he assumed that the base materials were at an even concentration throughout the oceans, that way the dilution would be enough to stop anything happenning. If you ignore volcanos and other events like meteorite strikes or lightening that generate all sorts of wierd chemical events, and the possibility of localised concentrations of materials then you will get a dead planet. Also the figure of 1 trillion times faster is something I'm highly sceptical about - why assume that? Did he also have an ambient temperature of absolute zero? Also the last time someone showed me a mathematical biology paper they'd done their sums wrong....
Anyway they tryed it in a laboratory in plausible conditions (sorry I can't supply a reference here either, it was a documentary probably Horizon) and guess what...
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by DeepThought
Since when has statistics been a new science?
No you miss read him. It wasn't statistics being a new science it was : "the laws of probobility studies."
I'm not sure what a 'probobility' is. Perhaps a small proboscis? Can you shed any light on this new science?
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis is typical of you and your ilk. I make a claim about whether the universe is an effect of a prior cause, and you respond by cut and pasting some junk about the origins of cells.
[b]Originally posted by bbar
I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.
A recent science that has developed is the science of probability. Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia, applied all the la ...[text shortened]... . That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, one smaller than any human cell![/b]
Note to dj2becker: When I am talking about the universe, I am not talking about cells. As a heuristical device, when trying to determine what people are talking about, you may want to refer to the actual words that appear in their posts.
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'd like to see this guy's assumptions.
[b]Originally posted by bbar
I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.
A recent science that has developed is the science of probability. Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia, applied all the la ...[text shortened]... . That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, one smaller than any human cell![/b]
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis should give you a pretty good overview of his assumptions:
I'd like to see this guy's assumptions.
http://creationsafaris.com/jfc.htm
Please note that the Ph.D. this fellow received was in theology, not any relevant quantitative science. I guess all you need is your Bible to do the calculations! Hooray for the new creationism!
09 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerLook at it this way :
[b]Originally posted by bbar
I am claiming (for the n-teenth time now) that there is no good reason to assume that the universe is an effect of any prior cause.
A recent science that has developed is the science of probability ...[text shortened]... uld take to make one living cell, one smaller than any human cell![/b]
The chance that you are in any given square meter on earth is
1.956 x 10 ^ -15
which is to say you probably aint there. and if you aint there you must be here, but Im here and so you aint here ,Now since you're not here or there you must be nowhere, which is exactly where trying to prove the existence of god with probability theory will lead you.
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompThat was an incredibly intelligent way of saying something pretty moronic.
Look at it this way :
The chance that you are in any given square meter on earth is
1.956 x 10 ^ -15
which is to say you probably aint there. and if you aint there you must be here, but Im here and so you aint here ,Now since you're not here or there you must be nowhere, which is exactly where trying to prove the existence of god with probability theory will lead you.
Humans have free will, something that throws probability off quite a bit, wouldn't you say?
Cells "randomly trying* to form" ARE subject to probability.
*I say trying in a totally random kind of way, since Nature didn't have a goal.
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrAs usual with you, Bennett, you attack the person and not the argument.
This should give you a pretty good overview of his assumptions:
http://creationsafaris.com/jfc.htm
Please note that the Ph.D. this fellow received was in theology, not any relevant quantitative science. I guess all you need is your Bible to do the calculations! Hooray for the new creationism!
Your readers may be beginning to suspect that you CAN'T come up with decent arguments. Tuck it in, your bias is beginning to show.
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThe absence of relevant credentials is directly relevant. The guy isn't a doctor
As usual with you, Bennett, you attack the person and not the argument.
Your readers may be beginning to suspect that you CAN'T come up with decent arguments. Tuck it in, your bias is beginning to show.
of biology and, as such, one has good grounds to dismiss his arguments because
of his demonstrable lack of education.
By contrast, other biologists, who show that the probability is well within the
several billion year time frame -- ones with degrees in the field they represent
and have a general consensus on the issue -- are more credible.
Surely you recognize that.
Nemesio
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by NemesioI'd like to see these elusive probabilities by these elusive biologists.
The absence of relevant credentials is directly relevant. The guy isn't a doctor
of biology and, as such, one has good grounds to dismiss his arguments because
of his demonstrable lack of education.
By contrast, other biologists, who show that the probability is well within the
several billion year time frame -- ones with degrees in the field they r ...[text shortened]... a general consensus on the issue -- are more credible.
Surely you recognize that.
Nemesio
And though you being Bennett's Lancelot is cute, Nemesio, he's still the master of ad hominems.
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI don't need to attack the argument, Darfius. The argument is has no bearing on the claim I made to which dj2becker was responding. Please, try to follow along, it's tiring to have to correct you erroneous inferences again and again. I was making a claim about the universe, not about the origins of cells. Is that getting through to you? Seriously. Stop, take a breath, and read this again: I was making a claim about the universe, not about the origins of cells.
As usual with you, Bennett, you attack the person and not the argument.
Your readers may be beginning to suspect that you CAN'T come up with decent arguments. Tuck it in, your bias is beginning to show.
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrThen you shouldn't have commented about the Doctor's credentials. Don't climb up the ladder if you're not man enough to slide down.
I don't need to attack the argument, Darfius. The argument is has no bearing on the claim I made to which dj2becker was responding. Please, try to follow along, it's tiring to have to correct you erroneous inferences again and again. I was making a claim about the universe, not about the origins of cells. Is that getting through to you? Seriously. Stop ...[text shortened]... and read this again: I was making a claim about the universe, not about the origins of cells.
09 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusSince dj2becker used his supposed credentials to try to establish the legitimacy of his argument to wit: "Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia,", to show those credentials are bogus is a direct refutation of a point raised by dj2becker and is clearly relevant. It is dj2becker who should withdraw his claim that this clown has any credentials in Biology or Probability; not Bbarr who (truthfully) said he had none.
As usual with you, Bennett, you attack the person and not the argument.
Your readers may be beginning to suspect that you CAN'T come up with decent arguments. Tuck it in, your bias is beginning to show.