Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[pitabread]

How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability?

Probabilities arguments are invariably crap because they are based on calculations without enough fundamental information to make the calculations relevant.

IOW, they are a case of garbage-in, garbage-out.

 

[pitabread]

Not only is there zero evidence for evolution, it can be scientifically proven impossible.

Neither of these claims is true. But they are common things that creationists need to tell themselves.

 

[Jimmy D]

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........

why do you think I’d like to see you banned? I can assure you that I don’t.
I was referring to this in the statement of purpose....

“Do not flame other views. Christianity cannot be called a myth, and science cannot be called a religion or made up. Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.”

So maybe you’re right, it was merely off topic.

My comments regarding your post still stand however.

 

[Yttrium]

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.

The only part in there that has to do with an "evolutionist" is the origin of human life. If you mean "naturalist" (someone who believes everything came about through purely natural means) then you should use that term instead of "evolutionist".

As for probabilities, consider the following. I shuffle cards and pull one out at random, then record it. I proceed to repeat this a thousand times. Whatever list of cards I come up with at the end is extremely improbable, yet there it is. Similarly, whatever mutating DNA comes up with after billions of years will be extremely improbable (even with natural selection helping out), but there it is. Whether it had help or not, the chances of intelligent life happening in the universe are 1 in 1, since here we are discussing it.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are awesome!

Is that a retraction of those comments of yours addressed by Speedwell?

 

[Kenny'sID]

”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.”

You are being very kind.

When we start from nothing, there is no tornado and no junkyard to help things along.

 

[eleos1954]

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.

Both scientists and people of faith believe life began out in the cosmos.

It doesn't matter what "theories" are put forth regarding "earthly life" .... what was the initial "spark of life" .... or ... evolution-wise, what all (in fact) took place out in the cosmos for life to begin? And of course there are many scientific theories about that as well.

It is good that science pursues these questions .... but there are a lot more questions than there are answers ... and I suspect always will be ;o)

They are theories and there are many of them.

 

[Kenny'sID]

As for probabilities, consider the following. I shuffle cards and pull one out at random, then record it. I proceed to repeat this a thousand times.

And if you had no cards to start with?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why is a Creator the default choice?

Have you ever seen anything come into existence without it being created?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Have you ever seen anything come into existence without it being created?

Have you ever seen anything come into existence, period?

Perhaps you should try to define what it means to "come into existence". As for me, I've never seen anything come into existence at all.

 

[Speedwell]

Have you ever seen anything come into existence without it being created?

Off topic. This isn't a discussion about whether God exists or not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Have you ever seen anything come into existence, period?

Yes, we do it all the time, and creating it is the only way we can.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Off topic. This isn't a discussion about whether God exists or not.

But because you are on the same side, not word to the person I relied to, whose post had to be of topic as well, or is this the part where you start splitting hairs in order to keep your point alive?

I've seen entirely too much of these petty little cop outs today.

"If it hurts our side, we'll determine it off topic instead of rendering an intelligent reply.". Or maybe they didn't have one?

Firstly, it wasn't off topic to that which I replied, and #2 Have you ever posted off topic? No3, who cares?

Geez

 

[Kenny'sID]

Perhaps you should try to define what it means to "come into existence". As for me, I've never seen anything come into existence at all.

With all due apologies to Speedwell, look in the mirror.

And you may want to difine existence for yourself, I already know what it means.

 

[Speedwell]

But because you are on the same side, not word to the person I relied to, whose post had to be of topic as well, or is this the part where you start splitting hairs in order to keep your point alive?

I've seen entirely too much of these petty little cop outs today.

"If it hurts our side, we'll determine it off topic instead of rendering an intelligent reply.". Or maybe they didn't have one?

Firstly, it wasn't off topic to that which I replied, and #2 Have you ever posted off topic? No3, who cares?

Geez

Just a reminder is all I meant my post to be. We have already had an attempt to derail the ID/evolution debate by turning it into a contest between theism and atheism.

 

[sesquiterpene]

If you eliminate all other possibilities, you are left with a Creator.
Origin of Life" industry, pointing out facts from the .

How do you eliminate the possibilities you haven't thought of?

 

[Yttrium]

And if you had no cards to start with?

I always have dice available for my analogies if necessary.

 

[durangodawood]

...And you may want to difine existence for yourself, I already know what it means.

What does it mean to you?

 

[Jimmy D]

Have you ever seen anything come into existence without it being created?

a tornado?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... 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.”

This false analogy has been rebutted countless times. Hoyle was known for being a great astronomer and also a stubborn maverick contrarian - he once said, "it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right" , which gives some insight into the value of his opinions.

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.

The scientific method is a product of the philosophy of science.

I haven't checked the maths in the article, but if Hoyle's tornado in a junkyard was a remotely suitable analogy for abiogenesis, it could well be right. This is, of course, precisely why no-one working in the field thinks that's how it happened

If you want to find better hypotheses, this should help.