Evolution has been Disproven

welcome to the fray, Whirlwind.there is an easier way to do quote boxes here:type [qs]it's easy[/qs] and it becomes: enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray Gordon.The problem with most {creationist\IDist} "probability" calculations is that they fail to find the bound of what is possible first, and without knowing what is possible you cannot determine which result has what probability within that set. I'm not sure that your paper cited does what you imply it does.While this paper seems to address the probability issue to some extent, I find that it still misses the mark. I see no real attempt to determine the actual possibilities involved.And it ends up concluding that help was needed, making the (weak) anthropic principle argument, and it thus appears to support ID more than natural causes (via the "we ran out of reasons" argument).{abe} One clue to this is the repeated reference to "fine tuning" in the paper, another is that it comes from http://www.iscid.org/ {/abe}I would also be interested in seeing more on the actual calculation methodology for the probabilities in the paper, as I get the impression that they make the same calculation error that the {creationists\IDists} do {abe} - especially given the source of the paper {/abe}.See
http://EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problem
and
http://EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problemFor a discussion of the common errors in such calculations, and you may see why I come to this conclusion.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*07*2005 09:53 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Correct, in fact a probability of 1 is no longer a probability but a certainty. So this is setting up a rather impossible end goal as well as making the usual false argument. Leaves the conclusion almost a begging the question issue.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm not touching that one .... Interesting analogy though. It still does not address having multiple sized clumps coming into contact.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*08*2005 07:29 PM

LOLthe reaction adds one (1) 'molecule' of water^(*) in the process of making the dipeptide ...H₂NCHRCOOH +H₂NCHR’COOH ’ H₂NCHRCONHCHR’COOH + H₂OIn a solution that is mostly water ... and this amount of water is suddenly a problem for the next reaction?Safarti is just trying to minimize the fact that a dipeptide was formed by normal chemical processes that could have occured on an early earth.I'd say more but your new here. Welcome to the fray.^(*) while we normally talk about water being H₂O molecules, they actually form weakly linked supermolecules aligned in chains due to a slight polarization of the molecule from the asymmetrical shape. Adding another molecule to such a chain does not alter its behavior.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

He's quoting from AnswersInGenesis, an article by Safarti. I don't think he understands the errors that Safarti makes either.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*13*2005 08:45 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.