Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Kenny'sID]

Hmm. How do ideas have "objective independent existence" (per the definition of "real" you quoted)?

You cant show me one. Or can you?

I wouldn't even bother to try. Surly you know there were several ways of using the term, yet you grab one and say if you can't prove this you are wrong about the others? What exactly is your point?

Let's cut back to the chase... did I use the term wrongly? You know, what started the argument.

I should have stuck with my original "ignore the silly question" lol

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

AKA we know that abiogenesis if it happened would be chemistry, it would be the natural forming of the various chemicals that comprise it naturally coming together, no more random then the miracle that hydrogen and oxygen randomly comes together every day to form water.

We know that the chemical process would be relativly fast, and very small, so you could have millions of the reactions happening over miles and miles of the surface of the earth every second over billions of years.

We know that extremly rare things can happen with relative certainty with enough events.

We know that there are potentially 100 billion stars within our galaxy, with potentially 100 billion galaxies out there, some bigger, some smaller.

So around many of these planets you have places where these chemical reactions happen all the time, constantly.

And since it's chemistry not random chemicals that just happen to randomly get thrown together to form something, it's inevitable.

 

[durangodawood]

I wouldn't even bother to try. Surly you know there were several ways of using the term, yet you grab one and say if you can't prove this you are wrong about the others? What exactly is your point?

Let's cut back to the chase... did I use the term wrongly? You know, what started the argument.

I should have stuck with my original "ignore the silly question" lol

Say what?

I used the term exactly as you said you meant to use it.... right down to the dictionary definition you provided.

 

[loveofourlord]

Time will prove just how wrong evolution is. Many scientists are deserting evolution, and not just Christians. I was blessed to be taught both as a possible scenario. I was not a Christian. My dad was an atheist and pushed me towards evolution. I could not accept evolution.

ahhh yes the unprovable lies of, "More don't beleive but are afraid, and people are leaving evolution in droves." funny how thats been said for 20+ years now and neither has been shown to be true, while in that time we've found feathered dinosaurs and other things that help show evolution to be right.

 

[Kenny'sID]

We know that tornado's ocasionally put together some pieces of mechanical parts together.

and every day the creation of the new cylinders would be happening a million times a second, potentially ending up with the 747.

And what do you think the "potential" likelihood is of that ending up a 747?

Here is the failure of the tornado in a junk yard analogy, here is how the reality of it is.

I'm afraid you just created the failure, and made that Tornado analogy look good.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I used the term exactly as you said you meant to use it.... right down to the dictionary definition you provided.

Was I wrong in my use of the term? Or did i already ask that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

And you aren't paying attention.

Hmm. How do ideas have "objective independent existence" (per the definition of "real" you quoted)?

Did you happen to notice other definitions for "real" there?

 

[loveofourlord]

When scientists conflate adaptation and evolution, that is dishonest.

when creationist pretend that something that was considered part of evolution day one to not be evolution it's dishonest.

 

[durangodawood]

And you aren't paying attention.



Did you happen to notice other definitions for "real" there?

I picked the first one.

See, this is exactly why we cant just assume we can "check the dictionary" to figure out what another person intends to say in discussions like this.

 

[loveofourlord]

And what do you think the "potential" likelihood is of that ending up a 747?



I'm afraid you just created the failure, and made that Tornado analogy look good.

Only failure is that you don't understand chemistry or evolution, I was putting the failed tornado example in a way that fits with reality, everything in my version is how it works in reality. There is nothing random about formation of life, any more then it's random that hydrogen and oxygen magickly form water.

 

[46AND2]

I can tell you that evolution is a crock. Non-evolutionists are doing the same work with just as good results. James Tour has restored a rat's severed spine to where the rat has almost normal mobility. The tech is patented and will eventually be used for human injuries. Non evolutionists are designing gene therapies to solve inherited genetic disorders.

How is this relevant to what pitabread said?

When you can tell me how life came into being by some spontaneous event, I may change my mind. Until then (and science has been striving for 60 years to find out), I will not accept evolution. Oh, I'm 68. OOL research is no further advanced than it was when Miller first started out. There is only one reason that scientists embrace evolution. It gives them an excuse to reject God. I can assure that the excuse will not hold good in the next life.

Once again, I ask how evolution is affected if the topic of OOL is conceded? I will grant you, for this discussion, that god created first life. What does that have to do with how life has changed since then?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I picked the first one.

See, this is exactly why we cant just assume we can "check the dictionary" to figure out what another person intends to say in discussions like this.

Then you now know not to just grab the first one?
That is unless you want to be contrary and create a completely needless argument like here.

Just because you grabbed the wrong sense of the term out of several doesn't mean we can't assume the right one is not in the dictionary. We have to use a bit of common sense along with the dictionary.

3rd time I believe... Did I use the term correctly?

 

[durangodawood]

Then you now know not to just grab the first one?
That is unless you want to be contrary and create a completely needless argument like here.

Just because you grabbed the wrong sense of the term out of several doesn't mean we can't assume the right one is not in the dictionary. We have to use a bit of common sense along with the dictionary.

3rd time I believe... Did I use the term correctly?

I dont even know how you used it. I'm just defending the idea that if someone is confused about possible different meanings of word you used, dont be awkward and pedantic.... just tell them which meaning you intended and save a lot of grief.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I dont even know how you used it. I'm just defending the idea that if someone is confused about possible different meanings of word you used, dont be awkward and pedantic.... just tell them which meaning you intended and save a lot of grief.

Go look.

I'm not telling them anything. Use common sense or be contrary, that's the choice. But I will say, creating confusion is no way to defend an argument, it only stalls the inevitable.

Every physical thing that is real, exists, and nothing I have ever seen existed unless it was created.

 

[pitabread]

I can tell you that evolution is a crock. Non-evolutionists are doing the same work with just as good results. James Tour has restored a rat's severed spine to where the rat has almost normal mobility. The tech is patented and will eventually be used for human injuries. Non evolutionists are designing gene therapies to solve inherited genetic disorders. When you can tell me how life came into being by some spontaneous event, I may change my mind. Until then (and science has been striving for 60 years to find out), I will not accept evolution.

First, it seems you've completely confused origin-of-life with the theory of evolution. Not the same thing.

Second, bringing up examples of biological application not involving evolution is completely irrelevant to the fact that the theory of evolution has real-world application. The latter is simply a fact.

So when you say that "evolution is a crock", this runs contrary to the fact that real companies utilize it and have even filed patents based on the theory of evolution. That is why I hold up industry as the best evidence of the success or failure of the Theory of Evolution. If evolution was really a "crock" as you put it, nobody in industry would use it and there would be a huge need for an alternative explanation for biological forms, species, etc.

Yet, that isn't the case which suggests your claim that "evolution is a crock" is itself a crock.

Oh, I'm 68. OOL research is no further advanced than it was when Miller first started out.

Not true; there has been quite a bit of work in origin-of-life research in the decades since the Urey-Miller experiment including things like determining biochemical origins for DNA nucleotides.

There is only one reason that scientists embrace evolution. It gives them an excuse to reject God.

Not true in the slightest given the multitude of theists (including Christians) that also accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Go look.

I'm not telling them anything. Use common sense or be contrary, that's the choice. But I will say, creating confusion is no way to defend an argument, it only stalls the inevitable.

Every physical thing that is real, exists, and nothing I have ever seen existed unless it was created.

You've seen lots of things you haven't seen created.

 

[pitabread]

I dont even know how you used it. I'm just defending the idea that if someone is confused about possible different meanings of word you used, dont be awkward and pedantic.... just tell them which meaning you intended and save a lot of grief.

I don't even need to unhide the ignored posts to surmise that Kenny is back isn't he?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't even need to unhide the ignored posts to surmise that Kenny is back isn't he?

And--get this--he's arguing about the definitions of words.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Only failure is that you don't understand chemistry or evolution,

LOL, there's that tired old cop out, and so early into this.

I understand the numbers so again, roughly what were those odds I asked for?

Also, with the tornado/junkyard you were graciously given physical things to start with, so how does this all work ifyou don't have that head start? Seems to me the odds in favor would be nearly non existent compared to the odds of creation taking care of it all.

"Let's go build a house from Popsicle sticks, I'll create mine and you reserve a space and sit and wait.

Anything happening yet? You say you need just a little more time? WAIT! WAIT! oh, never mind."

I know it sounds like I'm making fun, but that's all I know to do to get the point across. To some of us, it's all just that silly to believe if we wait long enough life/the universe will start and change into what we have today. Honestly, I can't even wrap my mind around that and never could, yet some seem fine with it, meaning, to me anyway, something is way off.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You've seen lots of things you haven't seen created.

That was informative.