Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
I see here in my book that I confused it with the calculated number of electrons in the whole universe, which is 10^80. But according to my book with some notes one have calculated the chance to be:
* One out of 10^40.000
* One out of 10^57.800
* one out of 10^450
According to Borel, a french expert on probability, an event shouldnt never ever anywhere in universe occur if the probability for it is smaller than one out of 10^50

---

Borel's law is only suitable for use in everyday events, not scientific ones.In his book Probability of Life (1962 Dover English translation of the French version published in 1943 as Le Probabilites et la Vie) Borel, in chapter 3, states:When we stated the single law of chance, "events whose probability is sufficiently small never occur," we did not conceal the lack of precision of the statement. There are cases where no doubt is possible; such is that of the complete works of Goethe being reproduced by a typist who does not know German and is typing at random. Between this somewhat extreme case and ones in which the probabilities are very small but nevertheless such that the occurrence of the corresponding event is not incredible, there are many intermediate cases. We shall attempt to determine as precisely as possible which values of probability must be regarded as negligible under certain circumstances.It is evident that the requirements with respect to the degree of certainty imposed on the single law of chance will vary depending on whether we deal with scientific certainty or with the certainty which suffices in a given circumstance of everyday life.Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html------------------
compmage

And a chance of 10^40.000 is very very much smaller than 1 of 10^50. So if one of 10^50 is on the very limit, one of 10^40.000 would be out of order.Another calculation in my book.10^80 electrons in the whole universe.
Each electron would have took part in 10^12 reactions per second.
Calcultated maximum existence time for universe: 3 x 10^10 years3 x 10^10 x 365,25 x 24 x 3600 x 10^12 x 10^80 = 9,46728 x 10^109Less than 10^110 reactions to occur. An event with a probability of 1 of 10^110 wouldnt possibly occur. How could then an event with a probability 1 of 10^450. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe got a more recent calculation about 1 of 10^40.000Chance of A PART of evolution: 1/(10^40.000)
Chance of creation: 1 - 1/(10^40.000)So whats the problem???????What would convince me that evolution has happened?

Evolution is a two step process. You're forgetting the second step:
-1.Chance
-2.SelectionThe probabilities change radically if someone (artificial selection) or something (natural selection), intervenes discarding certain elements and choosing others.

You have an interesting concept of probabilities,
but what I was mainly asking is how was the 10^40,000
derived.I'll point out now that there is no such thing as
an impossibility. If the probability can be calculated
that means it CAn happen, but is extremely unlikely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
And a chance of 10^40.000 is very very much smaller than 1 of 10^50. So if one of 10^50 is on the very limit, one of 10^40.000 would be out of order.

---

Did you even read my post or the webpage linked to it? You are using a 'law' to discredit evolution (a science) when the author of that law himself stated that his 'law' is not applicable when you move into the realm of science.Probabilities have no meaning when you are working with science.

Correct, Octopice.These probability arguments are silly. I can conclude that Zauruz does not exist.If an average man produces 3,650,000,000 sperm in one lifetime, and an average woman produces 360 ova in her lifeftime, the probability of any one of us being conceived is 1:1,314,000,000,000. And that does not count the improbability of our parents being paired. That alone could be as improbable as one in three billion. But then we have to factor in the improbability of BOTH of our parents being conceived, and our grandparents, etc., the probability of THEM being pared up, and suddenly even the most extreme abiogenesis probability calculations become moot. These insanely large numbers would have to go back generation upon generation for us to find out just how improbable our birth was, even given the existance of our species.Thus by Zauruz's logic, he does not exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

You just said that NOTHING could ever be presented to you that would convince you that Evolution occurs. This means that you will not ever accept any evidence which would convince you, right?

​

Are you now changing your mind, and there is some evidence, if it came to light, which would convince you? If so, please explain.

---

You totally misunderstood me. The evidence I mentioned is that abiogenesis is impossible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Um, no, not necessarily. Talking about proteins or whatever, yet all the while being unwilling to budge one inch WRT the evidence and how you view a scientific theory, no matter what evidence comes before you, means that you are not thinking scientifically.

​

To think scientifically, you must always be willing to change your views if the evidence suggests that you do so. Science is evidence-driven, not driven by religious or dogmatically-held views. You have already stated that you are not willing to do this. Therefore, you are not thinking scientifically. It doesn't matter how much you talk about proteins; you aren't doing so with a scientific mindset. What you are doing is deciding ahead of time what is "true" and attempting to pick and choose what evidence confirms your ideas and ignoring the rest. Science is conducted by gathering the evidence first, then theories are built around that evidence.

---

Im the one whos willing to change my view. Creationists see the facts as they are. We dont dogmatically think every organism descend from the same ancestor. We do research about it. You just assume all organisms have a common descent. You adapt your view of the age of the earth so that evolution might be possible. I and many creationists adapt the age of the earth by researches.And about scientifically thinking. I youre gonna get to the truth you must rely on both scientifically and supernaturally thinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
Because they should engage in trying to convince me. Tell me how abiogenesis is possible then, so that I stop having a closed mind.

​

quote:

---

Considering that you entered the discussionb saying "nothing you say will convince me of evolution. So it stops right there for me!!", engaging in trying to convince you seems rather futile. If you want to engage in debate, it's senseless to enter it in this manner.The actual probability arguments should go elsewhere - this discussion is supposed to be what evidence creationists would accept. You've already answered this with "none". End of discussion. If you want to discuss the probability arguments, look in another thread.

Here is what Borel had to say about the applicability of his "law" to the origin of life:(from the same website as you were previously pointed to:

quote:

---

From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126:

​

The Problem of Life.

​

In conclusion, I feel it is necessary to say a few words regarding a question that does not really come within the scope of this book, but that certain readers might nevertheless reproach
me for having entirely neglected. I mean the problem of the appearance of life on our planet (and eventually on other planets in the universe) and the probability that this appearance may
have been due to chance. If this problem seems to me to lie outside our subject, this is because the probability in question is too complex for us to be able to calculate its order of
magnitude. It is on this point that I wish to make several explanatory comments...

---

You can go to the site for the comments, which I omit for space.RE: abiogenesis: Evolution can be true whether or not abiogenesis is true. Let's assume, for discussion, that we know that God created the first life (Darwin implied as much in Origin of Species, actually)What evidence would you accept that this original life has since evolved?

You've not provided any evidence against abiogenesis yet ...
although I have to say that this thread was actually
about evolution (see other posters comments on that).You have said that the probability of spontaneous creation of
the first cell is 10^40,000. Without stating how that was
derived, nor why you feel that a probablistic approach is
applicable to this problem.

Are there "scientists" who will NOT change their minds even when they are presented with "sufficient evidence"?Dyed-in-the-wool naturalists are incapable of changing their minds except in very rare instances. This is because people very rarely base their perspectives on primarily empirical data. The net result of an incorporation of actual empiricism upon the thinking of a population (of philosophically naturalistic individuals, for example), would be that they would regard such naturalistic philosophy and its inevitable implications, with at least the same dubiety as that group (of naturalists) has historically displayed toward creationism.

Creationism or Evolutionism not the only two possibilities?What could be posited as an answer to origins other than the two contending philosophies which assert either that an omnipotent Creator is responsible for existence, or that existence came about through purely naturalistic means?

Who will suffer eternally?Answer: ...at a minimum, those who have heard the biblical gospel of Jesus, understand it, and yet reject it.The Bible a compilation of recycled myths?In spite of the many proofs available (ELS data for instance), you seem unwilling to abandon the old yarn that characterizes the Bible as something less than what it is: the record of the least flawed "religion" in the world. I find that interesting, common, and unfortunate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Creationism or Evolutionism not the only two possibilities?

​

What could be posited as an answer to origins other than the two contending philosophies which assert either that an omnipotent Creator is responsible for existence, or that existence came about through purely naturalistic means?

---

Evolutionism is not particularly concerned with the origin of life, per se, but with ways in which life comes to be as it is now. Whatever, you still you have a number of possibilities to be considered as alternatives:no creator, life emerges by naturalistic means, life develops complexity by naturalistic means;no creator, life emerges by naturalistic means, life develops complexity by intelligent intervention;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by naturalistic means;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by creator's intervention;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by intelligent intervention by other than creator;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by naturalistic means;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by creator's intervention;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by intelligent intervention by other than creator;That's 8 to be getting on with ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
Creationism or Evolutionism not the only two possibilities?

​

What could be posited as an answer to origins other than the two contending philosophies which assert either that an omnipotent Creator is responsible for existence, or that existence came about through purely naturalistic means?

---

Evolutionism is not particularly concerned with the origin of life, per se, but with ways in which life comes to be as it is now. Whatever, you still you have a number of possibilities to be considered as alternatives:no creator, life emerges by naturalistic means, life develops complexity by naturalistic means;no creator, life emerges by naturalistic means, life develops complexity by intelligent intervention;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by naturalistic means;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by creator's intervention;creator not omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by intelligent intervention by other than creator;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by naturalistic means;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by creator's intervention;creator omnipotent, life as we know it develops complexity by intelligent intervention by other than creator;That's 8 to be getting on with ...