A question to Atheists...

[CabVet]

I've seen this before. Here's a link that helps show that the experiment you described isn't quite right:

The Probability of Evolution - Frames of Reference

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Negative, the very same argument that he uses to debunk the card example can be used to debunk the evolution example.

Still using the card example, he says that "predicting a sequence of cards as it is dealt is impossible", but here is where the mistake is. He assumes that the odds of evolution are like the odds of predicting the sequence, but that is wrong, the sequence is already here, we are the shuffled deck already in the order that allowed for evolution to happen.

Want another example? Go out in your car and look at the 10th license plate then write that number down. What are the odds that you are looking at that number and not any other number? Astronomically low, yet it did happen.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well the probablility of life evolving is between 0 & 1, and life is here, so we know it happened. When you consider that there are billiions of galaxies, and there are 100 sextillion stars (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), it certainly seems possible, and almost certainly plausible.

We're currently trying to work out the best explanation, and abiogenesis seems to be the best hypothesis.

 

[Elendur]

I've seen this before. Here's a link that helps show that the experiment you described isn't quite right:

The Probability of Evolution - Frames of Reference

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Arguing from unlikeliness is useless.

Example:
I flip a coin 100 times.
The odds of getting that exact order of heads or tails is one of 2^100 (or 1,2676506 × 10^30).
Or why not flip 1'000'000 times?
The odds for that is about one of 9,9 × 10^301029.

So the odds of me making that exact order is really close to zero, but I still did it (not in real life, but still).

There are statistically impossible things occurring all the time, everywhere.

 

[Metal Minister]

Thank you so far for the responses. I believe I am beginning to understand your pov much better!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Elendur]

Thank you so far for the responses. I believe I am beginning to understand your pov much better!

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Arguing from unlikeliness is useless.

Example:
I flip a coin 100 times.
The odds of getting that exact order of heads or tails is one of 2^100 (or 1,2676506 × 10^30).
Or why not flip 1'000'000 times?
The odds for that is about one of 9,9 × 10^301029.

So the odds of me making that exact order is really close to zero, but I still did it (not in real life, but still).

There are statistically impossible things occurring all the time, everywhere.

There's a reason they're called unlikely events.

 

[Elendur]

There's a reason they're called unlikely events.

Exactly

 

[Metal Minister]

There's a reason they're called unlikely events.

But isn't there a difference between unlikely and improbable? 10^320+ seems closer to improbable or even impossible than simply to unlikely...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

*edit* and don't scientists agree that beyond 10^190 is deemed as zero possibility?

 

[quatona]

I´m not sure how the odds of life being possible have any relevance for the explanation as to how it happened. It seems to me that e.g. the odds remain the same, not matter whether we assume a creator entity to have created all the conditions for there to be life exactly right or favour any other explanation.

 

[CabVet]

I´m not sure how the odds of life being possible have any relevance for the explanation as to how it happened. It seems to me that e.g. the odds remain the same, not matter whether we assume a creator entity to have created all the conditions for there to be life exactly right or favour any other explanation.

That too, good point. But even with that, the odds are irrelevant because it did happen.

 

[Metal Minister]

I´m not sure how the odds of life being possible have any relevance for the explanation as to how it happened. It seems to me that e.g. the odds remain the same, not matter whether we assume a creator entity to have created all the conditions for there to be life exactly right or favour any other explanation.

Well no, because if God created us then the odds are 100%. I'm more or less just trying to understand what people think about the odds of it happening sans God.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[quatona]

Well no, because if God created us then the odds are 100%.

How so? Please explain your calculation.

 

[CabVet]

Well no, because if God created us then the odds are 100%. I'm more or less just trying to understand what people think about the odds of it happening sans God.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

Let's apply the same logic to evolution, shall we?

"Well no, because if we are a product of evolution then the odds are 100%."

See how silly calculating odds are? And if you want to insist on God creating us, I might still ask, which God? And you will probably point to the Bible, which brings up this circular argument:

Or this one:

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well no, because if God created us then the odds are 100%. I'm more or less just trying to understand what people think about the odds of it happening sans God.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

And the odds of a god existing? What would that be?

As I said, we're here, so between 0 and 1, it's one. Putting numbers to things is useless, unless you contend we're not here. If you would like to suggest your god is responsible, then you're free to give evidence for our consideration.

A more compelling question, IMO, is why is there something, rather than nothing?

 

[Elias512]

See how silly calculating odds are?

So R U saying that in order to believe in evolution you have to ignore the math that says it's impossible?

 

[CabVet]

So R U saying that in order to believe in evolution you have to ignore the math that says it's impossible?

No, I am saying those statistics do not matter because the event already happened.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So R U saying that in order to believe in evolution you have to ignore the math that says it's impossible?

Anecdotal stories are neat. Do you also believe that bees don't fly?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No, I am saying those statistics do not matter because the event already happened.

Cdesign proponentsists often have trouble with this one. Not too mention that these numbers are completely arbitrary and only useful for hypothetical discussions.

As I keep piointing out, the chances were between 0 & 1, and we're here. The question then becomes how?

 

[Elias512]

No, I am saying those statistics do not matter because the event already happened.

You have no evidence that the events already happened. In fact if you look at the study on fruit flys evolution has already been falsified. No matter what, you start out with a fruit fly and you end up with a fruit fly. Nothing has evolved and no one has ever shown evolution to be true. Evolution is like Edison when his failed so many times. Yes he learned so much though all of his failed attempts. Good we have the theory because we have learned so much though the effort people make trying to prove that it is true. Even though they have failed to prove the theory.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

You have no evidence that the events already happened. In fact if you look at the study on fruit flys evolution has already been falsified. No matter what, you start out with a fruit fly and you end up with a fruit fly. Nothing has evolved and no one has ever shown evolution to be true.

Does the scientific community yet know this?