Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[MaudDib]

How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? This article Infinite Monkey Theorem - Rational Disciple, which is predicated on the realizations of Stephen Meyer, Doug axe and Bill Dembski,
is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.
Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”

For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.

Throw a little selection pressure into the mix though and it gets better.

 

[Aussie Pete]

How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? This article Infinite Monkey Theorem - Rational Disciple, which is predicated on the realizations of Stephen Meyer, Doug axe and Bill Dembski,
is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.
Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”

For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.

If you eliminate all other possibilities, you are left with a Creator. It is conceivable that life arose spontaneously. The chances of this happening are so remote as to classify it "impossible". The "infinite monkey" idea is silly as the universe is not infinite. Professor James Tour scientifically skewers the whole "
Origin of Life" industry, pointing out facts from the point of view of an extraordinary scientist. Check him out. He is a born again Christian, but he speaks as a scientist.

 

[Shemjaza]

How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? This article Infinite Monkey Theorem - Rational Disciple, which is predicated on the realizations of Stephen Meyer, Doug axe and Bill Dembski,
is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.
Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”

For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.

Seems sciencey, but it falls down the same way all ID descriptions do.

It doesn't define an objective measure or unit of "information". Lacking that, you just end up with an argument from ignorance. Which is fallacious.

Also, as with so many confident declarations about the probability of life or higher life developing, there aren't any detailed calculations about the specifics.

 

[Jimmy D]

is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life?

Is there?

 

[Shemjaza]

If you eliminate all other possibilities, you are left with a Creator. It is conceivable that life arose spontaneously. The chances of this happening are so remote as to classify it "impossible". The "infinite monkey" idea is silly as the universe is not infinite. Professor James Tour scientifically skewers the whole "
Origin of Life" industry, pointing out facts from the point of view of an extraordinary scientist. Check him out. He is a born again Christian, but he speaks as a scientist.

Why is a Creator the default choice? Surely infinite beings of limitless power shouldn't be considered likely?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why is a Creator the default choice? Surely infinite beings of limitless power shouldn't be considered likely?

Why not? I see it the other way around. I look at the creation with utter amazement and awe at the wisdom and power that brought it into being. I look at a sculpture and I know that someone carved it. I drive a car that was carefully designed by intelligent people. I've been transported around the world on aircraft that defy the law of gravity. There is intelligence behind aircraft design and construction. If you eliminate any other possibility, and the reality is that there is no other possibility, then an all powerful, all wise Creator is the only option. Billions of people believe as I do, including Christians, Deists, Muslims, and Jews.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why not? I see it the other way around. I look at the creation with utter amazement and awe at the wisdom and power that brought it into being. I look at a sculpture and I know that someone carved it. I drive a car that was carefully designed by intelligent people. I've been transported around the world on aircraft that defy the law of gravity. There is intelligence behind aircraft design and construction. If you eliminate any other possibility, and the reality is that there is no other possibility, then an all powerful, all wise Creator is the only option. Billions of people believe as I do, including Christians, Deists, Muslims, and Jews.

I know how cars and planes are built and designed. I don't know how reality can be built and designed.

It's an assumption with no evidence that timeless beings more vast then the universe can exist.

 

[SkyWriting]

How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? ...I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.

While they say that evolution is random, they avoid admitting that even the evolution process is brilliantly designed. Instead they focus on the discussion of random selection and progress. As for design, they mentally attribute this to the pressure of natural selection to imitate good design. It's a "religious" decision to attribute all good design and engineering to natural selection.

 

[SkyWriting]

I know how cars and planes are built and designed. I don't know how reality can be built and designed.

It's an assumption with no evidence that timeless beings more vast then the universe can exist.

Here you go. (a local, in-forum link)

Who Else Wants Evidence that a Timeless Vast God Answers Prayers?

 

[Jimmy D]

While they say that evolution is random, they avoid admitting that even the evolution process is brilliantly designed. Instead they focus on the discussion of random selection and progress. As for design, they mentally attribute this to the pressure of natural selection to imitate good design. It's a "religious" decision to attribute all good design and engineering to natural selection.

Not only is your post against forum rules, it’s also devoid of any meaningful content.

If you want to attempt to demonstrate evidence of a designer please do so, vague generalities about what you think other people think do nothing to further your argument, whatever it is.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not only is your post against forum rules, it’s also devoid of any meaningful content. If you want to attempt to demonstrate evidence of a designer please do so, vague generalities about what you think other people think do nothing to further your argument, whatever it is.

I don't think it's against forum rules,
but please do report me because you think so.
If I am gone for 30 to 60 days, then you will be justified.
If not...then........

 

[Larniavc]

How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? This article Infinite Monkey Theorem - Rational Disciple, which is predicated on the realizations of Stephen Meyer, Doug axe and Bill Dembski,
is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.
Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”

For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.

What calculation was performed to get the probability of higher life being the result of evolution? And what calculation was performed to get the probability of the air craft forming in a junk yard?

 

[SkyWriting]

For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life?

A scientist with a PhD? That's a doctorate in philosophy.

Most likely all life was planned and executed by an all encompassing intelligence that not only formed matter, but created life that reflects the size and complexity of the creator.

If we (scientifically) assume some losses in conversion (just for amusement) then God is much bigger and more complex than the Cosmos.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I know how cars and planes are built and designed. I don't know how reality can be built and designed.

It's an assumption with no evidence that timeless beings more vast then the universe can exist.

If evidence was water you'd be drowning in it. Not only is there zero evidence for evolution, it can be scientifically proven impossible. Even atheists admit the improbability factor:

Nobel prize winner and evolutionist Dr Francis Crick:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle" and, "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."

Dr Crick was almost right. The origin of life is a miracle. There is no other plausible explanation.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not? I see it the other way around. I look at the creation with utter amazement and awe at the wisdom and power that brought it into being. I look at a sculpture and I know that someone carved it. I drive a car that was carefully designed by intelligent people. I've been transported around the world on aircraft that defy the law of gravity. There is intelligence behind aircraft design and construction. If you eliminate any other possibility, and the reality is that there is no other possibility, then an all powerful, all wise Creator is the only option. Billions of people believe as I do, including Christians, Deists, Muslims, and Jews.

And a large percentage (perhaps almost all) of those Christians, Deists, Muslims and Jews think ID is crap. What you are trying to do is turn the ID/evolution debate into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism. It's nonsense.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think it's against forum rules,
but please do report me because you think so.
If I am gone for 30 to 60 days, then you will be justified.
If not...then........

Even if it's not against forum rules, it is a very poor debating strategy to fabricate your opponent's position in such an obvious way. It makes it seem as if you have no argument against his actual position.

 

[SkyWriting]

Even if it's not against forum rules, it is a very poor debating strategy to fabricate your opponent's position in such an obvious way. It makes it seem as if you have no argument against his actual position.

I do have no argument against his actual position. You are awesome!!
Three of the sentences are fact based.
The forth was my opinion but a valid commentary.
The OP did not call for any debate. You might be thinking of
some other conversation from years past.

• - While they say that evolution is random, they avoid admitting that even the evolution process is brilliantly designed.
  [*]- Instead they focus on the discussion of random selection and progress.
  [*]- As for design, they mentally attribute this to the pressure of natural selection to imitate good design.
  [*]- It's a "religious" decision to attribute all good design and engineering to natural selection.

 

[Speedwell]

Three of the sentences are fact based.
The forth was my opinion but a valid commentary.
The OP did not call for any debate. You are completely lost in some other time loop.

Let's take a look.

While they say that evolution is random,

Who's "they?" Certainly no one who understands how evolution works.

they avoid admitting that even the evolution process is brilliantly designed.

The distinction between the process of evolution being designed and the life forms being designed instead of evolved is an important one. ID unequivocally rejects the former.

Instead they focus on the discussion of random selection and progress.

Natural selection isn't random.

As for design, they mentally attribute this to the pressure of natural selection to imitate good design.

Possible equivocation fallacy. Are you talking about "design" as intention? Or "design" as functional arrangement of components?

It's a "religious" decision to attribute all good design and engineering to natural selection.

Perhaps so, but it is a decision which those who understand evolution don't make. No one attributes evolution to natural selection alone.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's take a look.
Who's "they?" Certainly no one who understands how evolution works.The distinction between the process of evolution being designed and the life forms being designed instead of evolved is an important one. ID unequivocally rejects the former. Natural selection isn't random. Possible equivocation fallacy. Are you talking about "design" as intention? Or "design" as functional arrangement of components? Perhaps so, but it is a decision which those who understand evolution don't make. No one attributes evolution to natural selection alone.

You are awesome!