Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8963 total)
327 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, Hyroglyphx, jar (4 members, 323 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 870,861 Year: 2,609/23,288 Month: 800/1,809 Week: 232/225 Day: 45/46 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If complexity requires design, where did the Deity come from?
dennis780
Member (Idle past 3188 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 106 of 111 (588204)
10-22-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Adequate
10-22-2010 4:59 AM


quote:
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.

Just answer the question:

Is chemical evolution reasonable, mathematically speaking?

quote:
What I am saying is that stupid creationist liars tell stupid creationist lies.

So the odds of chemical evolution are so likely there is no other plausible explanation for the origin of life then?

quote:
You should not interpret this as advice on your retirement fund.

But you just said that 10^118 is not impossible to achieve. So if lottery odds are a minut fraction of that, then the odds of winning the lottery are so good I'd be stupid NOT to play.

I'm using your logic here. You agree that 10^118 (best possible odds of chemical evolution, since each particle would have to react with every other one, even though we know this is not the case) is an extremely likely possibility. I'm not a math doctor, you are. I have to take your advice on this. If you think those odds are likely, then my lottery retirement should be in my account by year end.

quote:
If you don't, that's good too. I am not urging you to be wrong about something else

Wrong? Are you sure? Because I bought a lottery ticket today. If I win, you are right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2010 4:59 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Nij, posted 10-22-2010 10:16 PM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 108 by NoNukes, posted 10-22-2010 11:33 PM dennis780 has not yet responded
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 10-24-2010 5:30 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 3301 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 107 of 111 (588210)
10-22-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by dennis780
10-22-2010 9:19 PM


Is chemical evolution reasonable, mathematically speaking

Yes, perfectly reasonable.
That is, as long as you use reasonable numbers and statistics combined with real knowledge of chemistry and physics, instead of creationist pseudoscience fucktarding.

So the odds of chemical evolution are so likely there is no other plausible explanation for the origin of life then

The problem is with your misunderstanding of what "impossible" and "possible" mean.
"Possible" does not mean"likely".

Either way, this is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion, since you are assuming only a single trial instead of the multiple trillions of trillions that actually would have occurred -- what, you seriously didn't think that in a sizeable portion of the billion cubic kilometres of water on our planet, containing quadrillions more particles than there are stars in the observable universe, receiving hundreds of Watts of energy on every square metre, only one reaction would ever happen? -- and that this happened in one instant as opposed to the several dozen million years it obviously did.

Wrong? Are you sure? Because I bought a lottery ticket today. If I win, you are right.

Ah yes, the classic false experiment: tie the likelihood of two independent events by a comparison, then equate the occurrence of one to the occurrence of the other.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't work like that. Your winning the lottery does not bear any relation whatsoever to chemical evolution. Just as your criticism bears no relation to the actual theory of evolution or any hypotheses of abiogenesis.


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

  
NoNukes
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 yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1513 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 109 of 111 (588375)
10-24-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by dennis780
10-21-2010 4:10 AM


Is chemical evolution reasonable, mathematically speaking?

Yes, that was an easy question.

Considering trillions of chemical reactions are occurring across 92 billion light years of the universe, and innumerable amount of planets and stars every millisecond, chemical evolution is indeed occurring. Atoms spontaneously combine together to form molecules and molecules form together to form even larger molecules including the building blocks of life, amino acids. With this plethora of the building blocks of life around the universe, it is not surprising that life would form. Once primitive self-duplicating RNA/DNA chains are formed, there is no end to the diversity of life that can come about.

So the odds of chemical evolution are so likely there is no other plausible explanation for the origin of life then?

The question really is where the data and evidence points. Besides, why couldn’t God use chemical/biological evolution to create life in the universe? It is not necessarily an exclusively either/or proposition.

But you just said that 10^118 is not impossible to achieve.

Let’s go back to see how you came up with this ludicrous #:

Borel's Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10^50 is "mathematically impossible."

Actually, there is no such thing as “Borel’s Law”. A scientific ‘law’ has a specific meaning and definition which Borel’s offhanded remark in a non-scientific artlicle about the odds of 1 out 10^50 being ‘impossible’ does not meet. Emile Borel was using the number 10^50 loosely as a reference of implausibility of something occurring 1 out 10^50, nothing more, which in fact is true, it is rather implausible.

However, do you see what is left out of the above ‘equation’? Why, time of course. There is no time mentioned above. The 1 in 10^50 is a one time event. If biological evolution stated that all the diversity of life around us was created at one instance of time than of course this would fall be weeded out by Borel’s ‘10^50’ axiom. In fact it is spontaneous creation rather than slow, gradual biological evolution over billions of years that is prime for the ‘axe’ of this ‘axiom’.

There are 10^80 particles (electrons and protons) in the universe (best number I could find online) estimated.

This is totally speculative but let’s use that number.

Even if each particle in the universe performed (10^20) events per second, and the universe was 15 billion years old
(10^18 seconds), then 10^80 x 10^20 x 10^18 = 10^118.

Why are using time to decrease the odds of something is occurring?

Does not a series of events that could occur over a longer period of time vice a shorter period, INCREASE the chance that something will occur not DECREASE it?

Even in the most generous situation, the number far exceeds Borels Law.

Borel’s ‘law’ or odds of something occurring is talking about a single occurrence not one over time. If you want to use Borel’s number than you must divide the # of occurrences predicted over a series of time i.e. how many exact chemical reactions occur in a specific area of space-time over the total timeframe these reactions occur.

That is, all the particles in the universe divided by the total amount of time the universe has existed. However since particles can react in very small fractions of time than you have to reference time in fractions of seconds.

But even using this convoluted equation all that you are doing is predicting the frequency of chemical reactions that occur, which is a number we can and have already computer and extrapolate.

This says nothing about biological evolution. You would have to thrown in other factors such as the frequency that inorganic molecules form organic molecules needed to form life. This is a totally separate and much more complex calculation.

You have better odds of winning the lottery (1:13,983,816, 6/49), than convincing me that Borels Law does not apply to chemical evolution.

Not only are your calculations wrong but the odds for these two events as shown above are totally and completely unconnected. It really makes no sense to compare the two.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 4:10 AM dennis780 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 10-24-2010 6:59 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17908
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 110 of 111 (588381)
10-24-2010 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by dennis780
10-22-2010 9:19 PM


dennis780 writes:

So the odds of chemical evolution are so likely there is no other plausible explanation for the origin of life then?


You have two separate ideas there:
  1. The chances of chemical evolution are so likely that no other explanation is necessary.

  2. There is no other plausible explanation. People have speculated about a creator or designer but they have no explanation of how it's supposed to work

dennis780 writes:

But you just said that 10^118 is not impossible to achieve. So if lottery odds are a minut fraction of that, then the odds of winning the lottery are so good I'd be stupid NOT to play.


Your chances of winning the lottery don't depend on how stupid you are.

The fact that somebody always wins - i.e. the event is possible - scuttles your whole "magic number" argument.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

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

  
NoNukes
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


quote:
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.

http://www.religiouslyincorrect.com/...micalEvolution5.shtml

quote:
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 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 © 2020