My Evolution Challenge

[Skaloop]

Now, here's what I don't get: You seem perfectly content with coming up with ways that things could have happened the way you think the Bible says it did. Now, why not keep going with trying to find out how it was done instead of throwing up your arms and just saying "goddidit" when hitting a snag in the explanations?

Perhaps because he doesn't want to weave a tangled web. Minimizing the explanations he gives minimizes the chances of him absolutely and totally contradicting himself (though that strategy has not been completely successful).

 

[The Lady Kate]

Now, here's what I don't get: You seem perfectly content with coming up with ways that things could have happened the way you think the Bible says it did. Now, why not keep going with trying to find out how it was done instead of throwing up your arms and just saying "goddidit" when hitting a snag in the explanations?

Because "goddidit" isn't what he uses to justify the Bible... it's what he uses to justify himself.

Av1611VET's explanations "support" the Bible, and when they fail, "goddidit" "supports" him.

 

[Tomatoman]

The Lady Kate, as you are a christian, I'd be interested in knowing if you think opinions like AV's are helpful, harmful or irrelevant to the way christianity is perceived. I told AV yesterday that mainstrean christianity regards those who hold opinions similar to his as an embarrassment. He seemed incredulous. Was I being fair or unfair?

 

[Greg1234]

I have to admit that after looking for a definition of 'integrated complexity,' I couldn't find one and all I kept finding were articles and quotes by Anthony Flew about how 'integrated complexity' in biology shows obvious signs of intelligent design.

So, could you either link to me a definition of 'integrated complexity' or explain it to me, please?

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

Knock yourself out

 

[Tomatoman]

Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com

Knock yourself out

Are you under medical supervision, greg?

 

[Greg1234]

The change in allele frequency over time is an observable, testable, repeatable FACT.

Don't forget to read the fine print.

 

[Tomatoman]

Don't forget to read the fine print.

Were your learning difficulties first identified at school, greg, or did you slip under the net? If you were by-passed as a mere educational statistic, I have to say it is a shame that people can be let down like this.

 

[Naraoia]

Maybe all of the parts randomly came into existence over millions of years and - little bang - Poof! - A computer. This one makes more sense since there are so many of them to inspect, and they are evolving upward all by themselves. It's amazing. If you believe this, ask someone to tell you about the theory of evolution, but that will be harder to believe.

One question.

When did you last see a computer reproduce?

You know, if a Darwinist wanted to, he could lead you to belive that a computer couldd be assembled through chance.

Why in the name of flaming ribosomes would he want to do so, when the whole analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution?

Add a little "science against religion" paradigm, sprinkle some ad hom at creationists, and bam, computers building themselves is backed up by "scientific evidence".

Have you noticed that NONE of us claim that computers can build themselves?

For good reason, too. If you can't figure out the reason, I suggest you take a few biology courses. Or just look up the definition of "life" on Wikipedia.

Good -- but to ask for the definition of evolution, and get one of the supporting facts as an answer, is not giving the whole picture.

Evolution is much more than just alleles changing over time.

And much more than that is established fact. I don't suppose you need the observed speciation list, the coloniality-in-100-generations paper, the wall lizard adaptation paper etc etc. linked again?

 

[Targ]

When did you last see a computer reproduce?

I'm curious - I've been here for almost a month now and I've probably heard the argument of "Boeing 747s / watches / computers / [insert any non-biological object here] cannot evolve by fluke lol" about 5-10 times. How many times do you reckon you've heard these kinds of arguments during your time here?

 

[Cabal]

One can be photographed, one can't.

[av]I'm not going to look at this "artist's impression" of the ark[/av]

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm curious - I've been here for almost a month now and I've probably heard the argument of "Boeing 747s / watches / computers / [insert any non-biological object here] cannot evolve by fluke lol" about 5-10 times. How many times do you reckon you've heard these kinds of arguments during your time here?

I believe the argument goes something like this:

It is more likely that a tornado will go through a junkyard and produce a Boeing 747, than it is for evolution to occur.

Someone once calculated the chances of evolution occurring as 1/10[sup]4000[/sup].

And since 1/10[sup]50[/sup] is considered mathematically improbable, that would make evolution nearly impossible.

ETA: Since the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that comes out to 432,043,200,000,000,000 seconds, or 4.32 x 10[sup]17[/sup].

Since the chances of evolution happening are 10[sup]4000[/sup], and there are only 4.32 x 10[sup]17[/sup] seconds allotted -- the conclusion is that evolution did not occur.

 

[Targ]

I believe the argument goes something like this:

It is more likely that a tornado will go through a junkyard and produce a Boeing 747, than it is for evolution to occur.

Someone once calculated the chances of evolution occurring as 1/10[sup]4000[/sup].

And since 1/10[sup]50[/sup] is considered mathematically improbable, that would make evolution nearly impossible.

Yeah, that's the point that has been refuted a thousand times. It's a deeply flawed argument and the numbers sound like they've been pulled out of a hat. I've never seen any valid working out that leads to probabilities like 1/10[sup]4000[/sup].

 

[Cabal]

And since 1/10[sup]50[/sup] is considered mathematically improbable

No, it's not. Depends on the scenario.

Deck of cards, remember?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, that's the point that has been refuted a thousand times. It's a deeply flawed argument and the numbers sound like they've been pulled out of a hat. I've never seen any valid working out that leads to probabilities like 1/10[sup]4000[/sup].

Oh, I see.

You have never seen the calculations, therefore the numbers 'sound like they have been pulled out of a hat', therefore, it's a 'deeply flawed argument' and a PRATT.

Hmmm -- sounds like your mind is made up.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's not. Depends on the scenario.

Deck of cards, remember?

The Improbability of Evolution

Here's a quote:

Numbers this large don’t really have much meaning, as it is not possible to comprehend their size. So, let’s get some perspective. It is estimated that the known universe consists of a total of 10 to the power of 80 atoms. So the chance against one modest-sized protein having all levo molecules is 10 to the power of 40 times greater than the total number of atoms in the universe!

 

[Targ]

Oh, I see.

You have never seen the calculations, therefore the numbers 'sound like they have been pulled out of a hat', therefore, it's a 'deeply flawed argument' and a PRATT.

Hmmm -- sounds like your mind is made up.

It is a PRATT because it has been refuted thousands of times. And my reasons for rejecting the argument have already been stated on this forum on multiple occasions. See my recent posts on the Chromosome 2 thread for example.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is a PRATT because it has been refuted thousands of times.

Well, I'd say you have a few more to go on this one, since we're dealing with 10[sup]4000[/sup].

They that don't know the past are condemned to repeat it, and you are on your way to doing what people ever since Darwin have done -- dying of old age trying to refute creationism.

 

[Cabal]

Well, I'd say you have a few more to go on this one, since we're dealing with 10[sup]4000[/sup].

Not even relevant.

They that don't know the past are condemned to repeat it, and you are on your way to doing what people ever since Darwin have done -- dying of old age trying to refute creationism.

Nope - Darwin refuted it long before he died. Some Christians have just not learned from the past of the ridiculousness of avoiding reason and clinging to their outdated personal interpretations of the Bible.

 

[Cabal]

Oh, I see.

You have never seen the calculations, therefore the numbers 'sound like they have been pulled out of a hat', therefore, it's a 'deeply flawed argument' and a PRATT.

Hmmm -- sounds like your mind is made up.

The point is that when this argument is presented, it is usually presented without calculations, which are necessary to reasonably justify the conclusion in order to convince the target of the argument.

It has nothing to do having one's mind made up - if creationists want to change people's minds, they should consider how they present their argument. It doesn't help that on the rare occasion they do present the calculations they are laughably wrong.

The Improbability of Evolution

Here's a quote:

Yup, that doesn't change the fact that this "10^-50 probability is considered improbable" line is still wrong.

And fyi, that article is laughably wrong in pretty much the exact same way as most of those arguments are - they assume that genes are dice. This person is screaming to be educated in basic thermodynamics.

ETA: ...and not to mention genetics, obviously.

 

[Split Rock]

I believe the argument goes something like this:

It is more likely that a tornado will go through a junkyard and produce a Boeing 747, than it is for evolution to occur.

Someone once calculated the chances of evolution occurring as 1/10[sup]4000[/sup].

And since 1/10[sup]50[/sup] is considered mathematically improbable, that would make evolution nearly impossible.

ETA: Since the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that comes out to 432,043,200,000,000,000 seconds, or 4.32 x 10[sup]17[/sup].

Since the chances of evolution happening are 10[sup]4000[/sup], and there are only 4.32 x 10[sup]17[/sup] seconds allotted -- the conclusion is that evolution did not occur.

These probability calculations are useless and have nothing to do with evolution nor even with abiogenesis (which is really what most are supposed to be about). Stuff like, "What is the probability of a protein coming together from amino acids by a single random event?" You can come up with a probability for that, but what good is it, considering no one is claiming such a thing has ever happened? It makes for good Creationist Propaganda, though... doesn't it?