Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-18-2019 4:21 PM
143 online now:
1.61803, AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo (7 members, 136 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,434 Year: 3,471/19,786 Month: 466/1,087 Week: 56/212 Day: 17/39 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creatonist argument for probability
LexM1985
Junior Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 06-02-2012


Message 1 of 2 (665286)
06-11-2012 2:58 PM


Many of you have probably at some point come across the creationist argument for probability which often uses calculations to make the case that the formation of the universe and life could not have arose by "chance." This argument differs slightly from the argument for intelligent design in that it not only examines the alleged complexity, design, and order of structures (for example examining the complexity/design of a molecule), but the probability that each component of the universe needed to sustain life could have developed independently and function seamlessly. This argument is commonly used to try to disprove abiogenesis and strives to demonstrate that earths position in the universe is too perfect to have gotten there by chance (Goldilocks argument). The calculations made to support these arguments result in staggeringly huge numbers like 3.34 x 10^450 and are usually followed with Borel's law.

Without even thinking too hard about it, I see a few things wrong with this argument

1) It assumes that that the development of the universe is random, when in reality it is driven by the laws of nature

2) The universe is practically infinitely vast. For the one planet that did develop within a life sustaining solar system, there are countless others that did not.

3) It only looks at the way life DID develop ex post facto instead of all the ways it COULD HAVE developed with only slightly different conditions.

Any thoughts?


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2012 10:05 PM LexM1985 has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 2 (665320)
06-11-2012 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LexM1985
06-11-2012 2:58 PM


Not a bad new topic, but...
...there is something to be said for keeping relevant discussion in an existing topic.

And, amazingly enough, such a topic has been found and bumped - RAZD has copied your message 1 to here at the "The old improbable probability problem" topic.

So anyway, welcome to evcforum.net. A nice topic proposal, but we (as I dare speak for all the admins) are going to let it be diverted to the above cited.

Or something like that.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LexM1985, posted 06-11-2012 2:58 PM LexM1985 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019