Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the old improbable probability problem
Mirabile_Auditu
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 76 (254366)
10-24-2005 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-14-2004 10:45 AM


RAZD wrote: We see them over and over .... this or that could not possibly have happened because the improbability is just too great.
Usually these are based on very restrictive "all-at-once-out-of-nothing" linear calculations where the errors involved are multifold and pervasive:
Mirabile Auditu responds: We see them over and over.... excuses from atheists or Darwinists as to why any statistical computation - any one at all - is wrong, and Darwinism must march on in this godless universe.
====================================
The calculation is a mathematical model of reality and not the reality itself.
Mirabile Auditu responds: What do you bet that a calculation of how often a coin will turn up heads, or how often the ace of spades will turn up when picking a card at random will very accurately predict the "reality itself" when a large number of trials are held? What do you bet? Las Vegas has built a few casinos on "statistical models" that predict almost exactly the "reality itself."
===============================
The calculation fails to account for the known pre-existing molecules used in the formation of life that are found throughout the universe, and this failure means the calculation with creation-all-at-once including these molecules is unnecessarily extended downward, starting with too much simplicity.
Mirabile Auditu responds: There has already been "too much simplicity" in the foregoing critique of other people's statistics.
========================================================
The calculation fails to account for the fact that the first life need not be as complicated as a modern cell, that the minimum configuration is much simpler as shown by the LUCA studies. This failure means that the calculation is unnecessarily extended upward, ending with too much complexity.
Mirabile Auditu responds: What, pray tell, is "a modern cell"?
Bacteria? Viruses? We are always hearing from Darwinists that this life form or that is "unchanged in 350,000,000 years," and that the most "primitive" life forms are one-celled. How much simpler can things get than viruses, which cannot exist alone? Even so, nobody has provided anything remotely resembling an explanation for the origin of a virus.
==========================================
The calculation fails to account for combinations of groups of such molecules in Sm?sbord fashion instead of in assembly line fashion all at once all from nothing. And further, that all those "failed" experiments are still available to be cut and reassembled into new experiments without having to go through all the preliminaries. It fails to account for actual combination process as used in natural assembly of large organic compounds. Amino acids are assembled into larger molecules like peptides and not from extending amino acids by adding atoms. This failure means that all the ways to reach the final necessary combination are not included and thus it unnecessarily excludes possible combination methods.
Mirabile Auditu responds: Darwin posited a profoundly "slow" step-by-step process. Today, Darwinists posit "assembly line fashion" and utilizing "failed experiments" to quickly make what is statistically unsupportable. Clever wordplay does not good science make.
If the "experiment" "failed," then the two-step Darwinian process did not occur. 1. Random change, followed by 2. Selection.
A "failure" necessarily precludes "selection." Cleverly invoking selection without selection is rather like promising that if we keep working on it, we'll surely find the right answer, by golly.
=========================================
The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities?
Mirabile Auditu responds: By thinking. The "probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket" is quite a different number than the "probability that the lottery will be won." Attempting to reconcile dissimilarities is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual.
Moreover, when an insuperable statistic is argued to a Darwinist, they inevitably decry it using anti-scientific and anti-intellectual arguments. Example: Give a probability of "one chance in 10exp50" and Darwinists will argue the entire lottery argument, and try an infinite number of attempts. Sorry, but "one chance" in finding a grain of sand out of a pile of 10exp50 grains does not give you license to keep trying forever. One chance in 10exp50 means... "one chance." That does not remotely imply that there is only one chance for a chemical reaction to occur, merely that the odds are not as fanciful as Darwinists pretend.
================================
Finally, the improbability of a thing occurring is not proof of impossibility of it occurring. It could well be that this is the only planet in all the universe that has life on it because it is a very improbably (sic) event. And if you divide the surface of the planet into all the different types of environments and do the same for all the other planets and moons and asteroids in the solar system alone you will have billionsXbillions of little experimental crucibles for carrying out experiments and if that is carried out over several billion year periods (4.55 billion year old earth, in a 13.7+ billion year old universe) with multiple "experiments" in a {day?hour?minute?} ... billionsXbillions of time periods, and do the same for all the billionsXbillions of stellar systems throughout the universe it does not take long to create an equally mind boggling number that reduces improbability down towards a definite probability. I'm at 1054 possiblities already on this one aspect alone ... and for a 1 in 106 chance that looks pretty good.
Mirabile Auditu concludes: Infinity times infinity yields.... homo sapiens. This has long been promoted as science. But then again, these same folks who gave us one fraud after another are now peddling "multiverses." If life and fine tuning are insuperable, by golly we'll just be the only universe out of an infinite number of them where everything comes together. So you see, these hucksters jump out of one statistical fire and into another, far sillier one.
We're the the one universe in an infinite number of "multiverses" where everything came out JUST RIGHT ! No problem there.
Lucky us!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2004 10:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-24-2005 2:24 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 29 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 11:03 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2005 7:04 PM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2005 8:06 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024