21 Jul 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis for me is perhaps the best arguement against the article I have heard thus far. How can one accurately calculate the statistical chances of something without knowing all the facts about what is occuring. Then again what you could argue is that the odds of having the perfect environment for abiogenesis to occur are astronomical which would make the odds of abiogenesis equally astronomical.
Anyone who claims to be able to accurately calculate the statistical chance for abiogenesis occuring is lying. Not enough facts are known to do the calculation.
Scientists claim to have a general idea of what occured despite being unable to duplicate the process themselves. Again the arguement shifts to time and financial limitations in regards to duplicating abiogenesis. For those that think that the odds of abiogenesis are not astronomical let me ask this question. Assuming abiogenesis is correct, how many times has abiogenesis knowingly occured in the billions of years the universe has existed? Considering this little bit of information the odds seem pretty astronomical to me.
21 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThis statement betrays such a fundamental misunderstanding.
How can one accurately calculate the statistical chances of something without knowing all the facts about what is occuring.
In the presence of full knowledge, what need is there for probability at all?
Probability is nothing more than a measure of information.
To say that probabilities are only meaningful when all information is available indicates a serious confusion of ideas. On the contrary, the main power of the scientific application of probability lies in dealing with a lack of complete information.
21 Jul 06
Originally posted by whodeyNo, God is a defined endpoint that you extrapolate to, in science we extrapolate and see where it takes us. As has been pointed out before, you could extrapolate to Muffy, or the FSM, or Allah, or the Giant Celestial Chicken if you wanted to. But a scientist can't do that, because there is no evidence whatsoever for the supernatural.
The same can be said for the existence of God.
21 Jul 06
Originally posted by whodeyActually the chances of abiogenesis under the conditions occurring when life began is very close to one, although the chances of any single event causing the evolution of life is very close to zero. You just do not understand probability.
What am I smokin? Not the same stuff abiogenesisists are smokin. Here is a web site that talks about the statistical chances of abiogenesis occuring.
http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay44.htm
Statistically the chances of abiogenesis occuring are basically zero. Therefore, what alternative is left? There you have it, statistics and logic used to back up the God theory. Now take a puff or two and tell me how wrong I am.
21 Jul 06
Originally posted by whodeyAnd yet you do it every time. You're not trying to be obfuscatory, are you whodey? That would be most unlike a christian 😛
Try the web site again. I did'nt bype it in right the first time. Sorry, my bad. There is nothing I hate worse than typing in http addresses.
21 Jul 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadAll depends on whether you believe people have souls. I do not. Soul maybe, but not souls.
The concept of the soul combined with an acceptance of evolution, of course raises the immediate question of when exactly humans aquired souls. Of course it depends on your particular concept of the soul as to whether this is a problem. For example many people claim that all living things have souls
Ethics suffers from a similar dilema, is another being ...[text shortened]... e of thought (embrios or brain dead people for example) to fall in a different ethical category.
21 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou problem with trying to replicate abiogenesis is that you have to keep everything absolutely sterile. Plus the environment 4 billion years ago was very different to what it is now. That would have to be recreated (all of which must be sterile, and all of which costs money). The chances of any single event leading to an abiogenic event is very small, which is why, the first time round, it took something around 50,000 - 100,000 years in a test tube the size of the earth. The chances of abiogenesis may be a billion to one but in 50,000 years there are 18.3 million days. That only requires about two chemical configurations to be produced per hour over the entire planets surface and life WILL occur. The actual rate of chemical reactions in the reducing atmosphere / ocean system must have been many BILLIONS times higher than this.
This for me is perhaps the best arguement against the article I have heard thus far. How can one accurately calculate the statistical chances of something without knowing all the facts about what is occuring. Then again what you could argue is that the odds of having the perfect environment for abiogenesis to occur are astronomical which would make the odds ...[text shortened]... as existed? Considering this little bit of information the odds seem pretty astronomical to me.
You want to fund a project the size of the earth for 50,000 years? Fine, go ahead.
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by telerionI think I understand what you are trying to say. So in your opinion how would one accuratly go about calculating the statistical chances of abiogenesis occuring or is it even possible?
Originally posted by whodey
[b]This for me is perhaps the best arguement against the article I have heard thus far.
Then you failed to understand my post.[/b]
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by borissaWhat kind of nonsense is that? You just automatically assume, if there is a god, you think this god did not grant Neanders a soul?
I would say that from my view of Christianity this poses no problems. Sure, Neanderthal man existed before Homo sapiens. Sure, he was intelligent and social. But, he wasn't human. He didn't, by my beliefs, have a soul, because God only gave humans souls.
Scientists can create cells, they can modify DNA, but I very much doubt they'd be able to make a fully ...[text shortened]... ink, but I don't expect a lot of people would agree. Anyway, it's an interesting question.
What makes you an expert on what god could have or could not have done? You are putting words into this god's mouth, if it has one.
I was unaware there was so much expertise on the inner workings of a god on this planet. I was SO wrong.
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by whodeyWell for instance, what is wrong with my calculations? Do you think that it is so unlikely that two people would be named Jessica in that group?
I think I understand what you are trying to say. So in your opinion how would one accuratly go about calculating the statistical chances of abiogenesis occuring or is it even possible?
A lot of what's wrong with my example is what is wrong with that essay.
22 Jul 06
Originally posted by telerionSetting the essay aside, how would one go about honestly calculating the possibility of abiogenesis? Or are you saying that such a calculation, no matter how it is done, would be just as meaningless as the statistical chances of two Jessica's?
Well for instance, what is wrong with my calculations? Do you think that it is so unlikely that two people would be named Jessica in that group?
A lot of what's wrong with my example is what is wrong with that essay.