The Problem With Odds

[Starman]

My response is that there are a far greater number of atoms in the universe, all of which are 'flipping coins' for assembly options every 1 millisecond. Therefore, life is likely to emerge 1000 times every second somewhere.

Atoms, flipping coins, from which life emerges, 1000 times every second.

There is a breathtaking *science* lesson if ever I had one.

In the imitable manner of so many atheists, "please provide evidence" of such emergence.

 

[bilby]

My response is that there are a far greater number of atoms in the universe, all of which are 'flipping coins' for assembly options every 1 millisecond. Therefore, life is likely to emerge 1000 times every second somewhere.

Atoms, flipping coins, from which life emerges, 1000 times every second.

There is a breathtaking *science* lesson if ever I had one.

In the imitable manner of so many atheists, "please provide evidence" of such emergence.

It's a big universe. Nevertheless, one example of life that arose can be seen by looking in any mirror.

Of course, it is futile to attempt to debate this with you; you arrived at your present belief without recourse to reason, and so no amount of reason will shift you from it.

 

[Kharakov]

Atoms, flipping coins, from which life emerges, 1000 times every second.

There is a breathtaking *science* lesson if ever I had one.

In the imitable manner of so many atheists, "please provide evidence" of such emergence.

It's a big universe. Nevertheless, one example of life that arose can be seen by looking in any mirror.

Of course, it is futile to attempt to debate this with you; you arrived at your present belief without recourse to reason, and so no amount of reason will shift you from it.

Hmm, some of my humans have greater ability to reason, yet get caught up in antireligious fervor. Others lack the ability to reason, and go around stirring up antireligious fervor by making crazy comments trying to help me out. Do I allow them to grow side by side, and mold their development by focusing on the ones that I have some hope will actually get it? sigh....



What are the odds (big chart).

 

[skepticalbip]

Translation: "I have set an arbitrary standard for impossibility and then, using only loosely defined assumptions, surpassed it! Amino Acid formation is impossible."

The unfortunate reality is that this 'proof' only demonstrates that amino acid formation is "impossible" under the assumption set promulgated by the author. A question begging exercise if ever there was one. And the author still has to bump into the unfortunate conclusion that here we sit. (Nah, couldn't be the assumption set).

The authors calculated probabilities based on reasonable assumptions which you simply glossed over in a breathtakingly casual, arrogant, condescending, and ignorant manner. The proof of your own casual argument is shown by your own words
"protein" - not "amino acid", as you said above - "protein" 4.9 x 10 to the minus 191.

A protein is a precise, complex chain of many amino acids, not simply "amino acid."

A "cell" - not "amino acid", as you said above, a "cell" - 1 in 10 to the 40,000

You should at least make some effort to quote the sources you so arrogantly and improperly condemn for the ignorance in them you so derisively condemn.
They're not ignorant, sir. It clearly is you who is ignorant, and extremely so.

The problem isn't their "calculations". It is their absurd assumptions that the "calculations" are based on and their conclusions. The chance of two atoms combining to form a molecule is not based on some assumed chance meeting of two particular atoms but on the valence of the atoms, them being in some proximity, and the number of such atoms.

Also, something that has the odds of a billion to one of occurring will result in an almost certainty that it will happen to seven people on Earth. There are odds of about a 170,000,000 to one that any person will win the powerball lottery but someone wins it all the time.

 

[Kharakov]

Also, something that has the odds of a billion to one of occurring will result in an almost certainty that it will happen to seven people on Earth. There are odds of about a 170,000,000 to one that any person will win the powerball lottery but someone wins it all the time.

There is probably about zero chance that 2 minds could come up with an interesting idea that neither has experienced before if they engage in the free exchange of ideas, without being overly defensive. I clearly said warm mongers.

 

[Duke Leto]

Atoms, flipping coins, from which life emerges, 1000 times every second.

There is a breathtaking *science* lesson if ever I had one.

In the imitable manner of so many atheists, "please provide evidence" of such emergence.

There's a starman waiting in the sky
He'd like to come and meet us
But he thinks he'd blow our minds
There's a starman waiting in the sky
He's told us not to blow it
Cause he knows it's all worthwhile
He told me:
Let the children lose it
Let the children use it
Let all the children boogie...

 

[Atheos]

My response is that there are a far greater number of atoms in the universe, all of which are 'flipping coins' for assembly options every 1 millisecond. Therefore, life is likely to emerge 1000 times every second somewhere.

Atoms, flipping coins, from which life emerges, 1000 times every second.

There is a breathtaking *science* lesson if ever I had one.

In the imitable manner of so many atheists, "please provide evidence" of such emergence.

My take was not that this was reality, it was an attempt to demonstrate with simplicity and elegance how easy it is to use odds to support an unwarranted conclusion. The fact is that there isn't evidence of such emergence but the odds as presented here imply that it is an inevitable certainty.

Arguments from incredulity work best if they are presented in a manner that ignores the counter-arguments and/or evidence. We don't know with certainty the mechanism and circumstances by which life emerged on our planet but there is incredibly strong evidence that it did so approximately 3.5 billion years ago.

Only a few centuries ago our best guesses at the causes of epilepsy, influenza, earthquakes, lightning and cancer (as well as thousands of other mysteries) all involved the intervention of supernatural elements. In every case once the answer was discovered there was no need to invoke the supernatural. Not once, ever, has it actually been discovered that "God" actually did do it. Either god is "due" or (more likely) god is an unnecessary relic of a superstitious past.

We don't know how life emerged yet. But we know with absolute certainty that plant life wasn't here before the sun and moon, that snakes never talked, that magical fruit doesn't inject knowledge into human brains or cause them to live forever. Only a few continue to hold fast to these primitive superstitions of bygone days.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is a breathtaking *science* lesson if ever I had one.

You're not the only one that questions whether you have.

 

[Kharakov]

There is a breathtaking *science* lesson if ever I had one.

You're not the only one that questions whether you have.

That's crazy. He's from space, of course he's taken lessons in science.

 

[Starman]

Atoms, flipping coins, from which life emerges, 1000 times every second.

There is a breathtaking *science* lesson if ever I had one.

In the imitable manner of so many atheists, "please provide evidence" of such emergence.

Arguments from incredulity .....

We don't know how life emerged yet. But we know with absolute certainty that plant life wasn't here before the sun and moon,

Deep, that. Those who impute "Arguments of Incredulity" to others invariably practice the Argument from Trivialization themselves.
In other words, it's all so easy, learning it is just around the corner.... for people as smart as *us*. Really.

that snakes never talked, that magical fruit doesn't inject knowledge into human brains or cause them to live forever. Only a few continue to hold fast to these primitive superstitions of bygone days.

You speak nonsense and evidently pretend that it pertains to me. I never mentioned these things of which you speak. You did. The subject is insuperable statistics of polypeptide synthesis, of just one molecule, human hemoglobin. Can you address that and that alone? In scientific terms?

 

[Atheos]

I lack the scientific knowledge to address that. But not knowing the answer to every question that exists is no reason to invent imaginary friends as answers. Are you proposing that someone created polypeptides and human hemoglobin? If so you've only replaced one question with another, as now we have to figure out where this astronomically more enigmatic creator came from. We know polypeptides exist, but we have no evidence the creator of the polypeptides exists other than someone's theory that it might be one possible explanation.

 

[Starman]

I lack the scientific knowledge to address that. But not knowing the answer to every question that exists is no reason to invent imaginary friends as answers. Are you proposing that someone created polypeptides and human hemoglobin? ...

The whole of scientific inquiry is based on cause and effect. If you release an object more dense than air in the atmosphere, it will fall to earth.
When we find something that is elegant and functional, not like a snowflake, which is merely a useless crystalline form, but like a computer code, or braille code, or Morse code, we understand that there was a designer, a maker of this elegant and functional object. How is it that atheists make the fatuous pretense that the entire universe simply .... happened? Multiplying infinite time times nothing, gives you nothing. To the extent you believe otherwise, please give convincing evidence of your contention. Don't just keep demanding that others "prove" their claims.

As to who "made God," if someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?

Of the hundreds of millions of people who saw 2001 a Space Odyssey, not one inferred that the black granite obelisk first seen on the moon made itself.
Everyone took for granted that it had an intelligent designer, and rightly so. How much more elegant and difficult to create are the cycles of nature, the beauty surrounding us, and the elegance of self-perpetuating life? The answer to these questions is not *nothing*.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As to who "made God," if someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?

Wow.
Out of all the bullshit, a nice summation of the atheist position. Good one.

 

[Atheos]

What an absurd response. I have no reason to believe a god exists much less that a god would necessarily have to be uncreated in order to be a god. I never said that the creator of the polypeptides had to be a god. I only asked how you account for the creator of the polypeptides.

 

[bilby]

What an absurd response. I have no reason to believe a god exists much less that a god would necessarily have to be uncreated in order to be a god. I never said that the creator of the polypeptides had to be a god. I only asked how you account for the creator of the polypeptides.

"Oh mighty Ribosomes, without whom we are naught, guide us your children upon our journey. Keep us safe from harm, provide for us each day your bounty, and let the Queensland Maroons win the 2015 State of Origin series. Amen".

That kind of thing?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Multiplying infinite time times nothing, gives you nothing.

Well, technically no. Infinity multiplied by zero is actually an  indeterminate form

To the extent you believe otherwise, please give convincing evidence of your contention. Don't just keep demanding that others "prove" their claims.

...said the guy asking for evidence.

aa

 

[Atheos]

We live in a time when we find it humorous that people used to be so simple as to believe the earth rested on the back of a giant tortoise. We also live in a time that will provide amusement for future people. They'll laugh at how some of us insisted that polypeptides were designed by a mysterious polypeptide designing creature.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sheesh this thread... I don't even..

 

[Kharakov]

We live in a time when we find it humorous that people used to be so simple as to believe the earth rested on the back of a giant tortoise. We also live in a time that will provide amusement for future people. They'll laugh at how some of us insisted that polypeptides were designed by a mysterious polypeptide designing creature.

Well, yeah, because they'll know the creature by then.

 

[Atheos]

Yeah, and it'll turn out that it was us all along, time-travelling back from the future to seed the first polypeptides in precambrian Earth - a la Interstellar.