Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,079 Year: 5,336/9,624 Month: 361/323 Week: 1/204 Day: 1/21 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?
Inactive Member

Message 103 of 111 (588176)
10-22-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Nuggin
10-22-2010 5:58 AM

Re: More idiocy
As a bit of help to dennis780, the way this bit of pseudo science is normally done is to assess the probability at something like one in 10150 and to compare that with the number of events available, i.e. 10118.
Of course even when this PRATT is done right, it is still pointless. The reason the calculation is meaningless is because the underlying assumption in calculating the tiny probability is that nature is trying to reach a single predetermined state in a single step from absolute chaos using random chance. That's not a proper model for either abiogenesis or evolution.
With regard to the entropy argument. I can understand 780's confusion about entropy meaning disorder. Nearly every article/book written for lay persons and dealing with the concept of entropy links increasing entropy with increasing disorder, and gives the bastardized statement of the 2nd law that disorder must always increase.
What is peculiar is a lay person's refusal to give up on this misconception even when confronted with real science. Counter examples of this goofy restatement of entropy are staring you right in the face. The freezer in your refrigerator will reduces the entropy of its interior as long as you put in warm stuff, close the door and supply electricity.
I blame this refusal to accept science on organizations like ICR who make it appear that accepting pseudo scientific defenses of Genesis is an essential part of being a real Christian.
That said, 780's attempts to teach math to Dr. A are pretty entertaining. Hopefully that will continue...
Edited by NoNukes, : forgot to spell check.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Nuggin, posted 10-22-2010 5:58 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 10-22-2010 5:24 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Inactive Member

Message 108 of 111 (588224)
10-22-2010 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by dennis780
10-22-2010 9:19 PM

10 118
Seriously, dennis780. You should consider dropping the 10118 number from your argument. It is making you look silly. That number is supposed to be a generous over-estimate of the number of opportunities or trials available in the universe. It is deliberately huge in order to put tiny probability numbers perspective in response to people saying given enough trials anything can happen.
As has been pointed out, given 10118 trials, even things with a probability of 1 in 1050 are bound to occur.
Further because the number is known to be an over estimate, using it to estimate probabilities really under cuts your argument. Heck, most of those events didn't even occur in our galaxy and are irrelevant.
For example, look at how silly this sounds:
Given that there are only 10118 possible events in the universe, what are the chances of me rolling a 6 in three trials of a single die?
I recommend sticking with probability estimates numbers in making your point. As a hint, those probabilities will be epressed as ratios less than one (e.g. 1:10150 or 10-50 or 1 in 6) and not big numbers like 10118.
Just some advice. You don't have to take it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 9:19 PM dennis780 has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 111 of 111 (588383)
10-24-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate
10-24-2010 2:59 PM

Why are using time to decrease the odds of something is occurring?
Dennis780 apparently lost track of why he was computing that huge 10118 number.
Most of the stuff he's posted minus some but not all of 780s unique logic errors can be found in an article on Reliously Incorrect.
If these numbers are reasonable, this means that in our universe there could have been, to date, no more than roughly 10118 chemical events (1080 x 1020 x 1018 = 10118)in other words, 10118 "possible" interactions among all the protons and electrons in the immeasurable history of our universe.
I say "possible" because it's quite certain there were far less than that. Why?
(illogical Borel stuff snipped)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-24-2010 2:59 PM DevilsAdvocate 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