Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 111 (578004)
08-31-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by dennis780
08-31-2010 6:46 AM


Re: Is there a point?
"Again, entropy is not the same as order and disorder. The creo sites are lying to you."
So is wikipedia?
No, which is why you were obliged to misunderstand some of it and ignore the rest all by yourself, instead of having a creationist website do it for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by dennis780, posted 08-31-2010 6:46 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 2:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 111 (578059)
08-31-2010 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by dennis780
08-20-2010 10:12 PM


No. I'm basing it on real calculations from scientific websites.
That isn't a scientific website, it's a creationist lie-fest. Let's look at what they have to say, shall we? ---
Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.
It follows that since any particular ordering of 52 playing cards is 1 in 8*10^62, it will NEVER HAPPEN that shuffling a pack of cards will produce any given order.
And yet somehow every single time I shuffle a pack of cards they end up in one of these 8*10^62 orders.
You might conclude from this that this "Borel" chap was a halfwit with no understanding of probability theory. But you would be wrong. The real explanation, of course, is that creationists are lying about what Borel's law is.
Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that
the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism
known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One out of ten to the 340 millionth power is
unimaginable odds. This large figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you can
see, Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely more than
1*10^50, making them impossible.
The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time.
As we know that they have lied about Borel, it would not be beyond them to lie about Sagan and Morowitz (who?)
I should like therefore to see these supposed calculations in the words of Sagan and Morowitz rather than in the words of a liar and a fraud. Especially as the statements attributed to them (like the imaginary "law" attributed to Borel in place of his real one) display the sort of mathematical and scientific illiteracy that one associates more with creationists than with men of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:12 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 3:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 82 of 111 (578185)
09-01-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by dennis780
09-01-2010 2:42 AM


Re: "Thermo" means heat
The suns rays (discussed earlier as evidence that the earth is not a closed system) are generally harmful, causing harmful effects in humans including dry skin, sunburns, actinic keratosis, and changes in skin collagen.
Since the sun introduces ultraviolet rays, that are harmful (minus plants and other organisms that can harness the energy), entropy should increase over time.
That's a nice line in pseudoscience you've got there.
I don't suppose you could show your working? Oh, right, you haven't done any.
Well, how about measurements of the increase in entropy. The sun was shining today, how much did the entropy of the biosphere increase?
No?
No, you've just got a pointless jumble of words fabricated out of your ignorance of thermodynamics, in which the sun may be the ultimate source of energy for all life on Earth (except arguably the communities living round "black smokers") but it gives people sunburn. Sure, they'd be dead without it, but it's still bad, and "bad" means "causing an increase in the entropy of the Earth's biosphere", for reasons that are obvious to any idiot ... but, strangely, not to people who have studied thermodynamics.
Your pseudonobel pseudoprize for pseudophysics is in the post.
Which is also a perfectly valid arguement for everything (energy included) tends to disorder. Since energy is required for work to maintain order in a system.
And when, thanks to increasing entropy, the sun goes out, the biosphere will indeed collapse.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 2:42 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 111 (578186)
09-01-2010 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by dennis780
09-01-2010 2:46 AM


Re: Is there a point?
I notice you poked fun at my source ...
No I didn't. Stop making stuff up.
... yet offered no rebuttal to the information provided.
I had no objection to the information provided, but rather to the way that you misunderstood a tiny bit of it and then completely ignored the rest.
If in any way the information I quoted was incorrect ...
I had no objection to the information provided, but rather to the way that you misunderstood a tiny bit of it and then completely ignored the rest.
See previous post with wikipedia quote. Theres no point in reposting it. You don't like creation science sites, only evolution sites.
I do tend to prefer truth to bullshit, yes. But tastes differ.
---
P.S: It occurs to me that the post to which I am replying would be slightly less stupid if it was intended as a reply to my post 78 rather than my post 76. But there's not much in it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 2:46 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 3:57 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 111 (578200)
09-01-2010 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by dennis780
09-01-2010 3:51 AM


Either you didn't bother to read up on the law ...
Not only did I read up on the law, I linked you to it so that you could see that it said no such thing.
Since your odds of getting results that were predetermined are next to impossible.
And what is "predetermined" about life? Are you committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy?
Moreover, your statement of this made-up "law" said nothing about being "predetermined".
This book (written by Emile Borel) seems to disagree with you:
That's not a quotation from Borel. That's a quotation from Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology in which he says what he thinks Borel means. Having read the mess that Dembski has made out of the statements of other scientists (for example, his nonsense about the No Free Lunch Theorem) I am not inclined to take his word about what anyone else means by anything.
Got any quotes from Borel?
(And if Borel had written that, which he didn't 'cos he isn't Dembski, it still wouldn't be "Borel's Law", because "Borel's Law" refers to something else.)
Since this probability far exceeds even Dawkins allowances, I fail to see who is on your side...since everyone seems to be on mine.
And you base this on ... a non-quote from Borel, a non-quote from Morowitz, and a non-quote from Sagan.
Really, if everyone is on your side you'd think you could quote some of them saying so.
---
The relevance of all this to any actual biological question remains somewhat unclear.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 3:51 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 4:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 95 of 111 (587862)
10-21-2010 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by dennis780
10-21-2010 4:10 AM


Borel's Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10^50 is "mathematically impossible."
But it doesn't. It just doesn't. Borel's Law is just the Law Of Large Numbers as it applies to the statistics of experiments.
And I believe that I have already explained why things at long odds are not actually "mathematically impossible".
You see that "Dr" thing in my name, just before it says "Adequate"?
Well, the subject in which I have a PhD is in fact mathematics. Do not misuse the phrase "mathematically impossible" in my presence unless you want me to hunt you down and slap you about the face with a wet fish.
---
Your irrelevant quotations which are not relevant to this question are in fact irrelevant because of them not being relevant to this question. When I asked: "Got any quotes?" I didn't mean any quotes relating to anything you might want to get off your chest, I meant any relevant quotes.
Indeed, looking at my post, I find that what I actually wrote was: "Got any quotes from Borel?". (Emphasis added.)
If you wish to be shamefully and ludicrously wrong about something that is not on topic in this thread, then start another thread.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 4:10 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 97 of 111 (588050)
10-22-2010 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by dennis780
10-22-2010 4:35 AM


Fair. So then would you perform an experiment 10^118 chances of getting the desired outcome? You are a math whiz. Do the math.
Pointing out that Borel's Law does not say what creationist liars say it says does not require me to do any math so much as have a passing familiarity with it.
So you are saying that the lottery is the best bet for retirement savings...
No, I am not.
You can tell that I'm not saying it by the way that I'm not saying it.
What I am saying is that stupid creationist liars tell stupid creationist lies.
You should not interpret this as advice on your retirement fund.
You asked me for quotes twice. Read your message.
I have in fact read my post #87, the one to which you were replying. Indeed, by a freakish coincidence, I wrote it. And it contains the words: "Got any quotes from Borel?" And it does not contain the words "Has anyone ever said anything stupid about anything?"
Again, I would urge you that if you want to be wrong about something else entirely you should start a new thread. If you don't, that's good too. I am not urging you to be wrong about something else, I am merely pointing out that if that is what you wish to do, there is an established mechanism for doing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 4:35 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 9:19 PM Dr Adequate 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