Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have a very modern and narrow understanding of ”truth”.
No its not.The odds that life appeared on earth are 1:1.
The odds that life appeared because of random bonding of chemicals in a prebiotic soup: beyond impossible.
And THAT’S how probability works.
No, it really hasnt.Truth has a very narrow parameter, yes.
Their base assumptions are irrelevant .. and your research is way out of date.Odds of abiogenesis:
To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7
Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."
Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9
Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9
I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.
Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.
No, it really hasnt.
Try to learn some real history and theology.
Do you?
Their base assumptions are irrelevant .. and your research is way out of date.
C'mon, guys.What are you, 12?
No, the odds are still 1:1.Abiogenesis odds get higher every year as more is learned about how incredibly complex even the simplest cell is, so time isn’t helping you refute the facts.
-snip-
The odds of dying are 1:1.
The evolution of autocatalytic sets in molecular replication, (ie: Abiogenesis), is a function of time .. which is supported by evidence of the complexity seen in the simplest cells.Abiogenesis odds get higher every year as more is learned about how incredibly complex even the simplest cell is, so time isn’t helping you refute the facts.
That meant odds of 1 x 10 to the 97 millionth power. and was a typo I didn’t catch.
Here’s some more odds:
Through his research on proteins, Axe has discovered that the odds of producing functioning proteins by chance were beyond his wildest imagination.
… I was able to put a number on the actual rarity—a startling number. With only one good protein sequence for every 1074 bad ones, I had found functional proteins to be…rarer than Denton’s criterion! Unless this number was overturned somehow, a decisive blow had been dealt to the idea that proteins arose from accidental causes.[8]
To put that 1x1074 probability in perspective, it is estimated that the “…number of stars may very well be around 1.2×1023 – or just over 100 sextillion.”[9] Through a process of randomly mutating sequences of the amino acids in proteins, Axe discovered that chance alone could not explain the origins of these molecules. Therefore, the identification of specified complexity in DNA forces researchers to look for answers in places other than random recombination.
Axe, and yet again you, simply ignore the possibility of sequences building from the most basic of beginings to much larger conglomerations.
I might point out that you have just about lost the argument from the get-go when some comparison is felt needed to be made with grains of sand or number of stars or seconds since time began.
You seem impressed with Very Large Numbers to the extent that anyone pointing out the fallacy that generated them are simply ignored.
1:1 that life appeared.No, the odds are still 1:1.
The research does not suggest its random.1:1 that life appeared.
Zero chance it arrived from random chemicals.
So what’s your graduate degree, and list of peer reviewed articles and research you’ve done that qualifies you to claim Axe, and many others are wrong?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?