Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,243 Year: 5,500/9,624 Month: 525/323 Week: 22/143 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would it take?
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 49 (25062)
11-30-2002 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
11-30-2002 1:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
A question I am frequently asked is; What would it take for me to accept that God is real.
However, I would like to turn this around and ask the theists:
What would it take to convince you that God does not exist?

hmmm... fair question, i think... let's see... for me, if a tornado blew through a junkyard clearing everything from it in its path yet leaving behind my car from high school, a midnight black '67 malibu ss, 396 cu in, 6 deuces, hirsch shifter, perfect condition, perfect running order... that would be pretty good evidence that design can come from chaos i think... but what are the odds? think they're even remotely close to the odds of life being on earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 11-30-2002 1:52 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 11-30-2002 2:27 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 8 by David unfamous, posted 12-09-2002 6:37 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 49 (25097)
11-30-2002 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
11-30-2002 2:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
For this to convince you that there is no god you would have to assume that God didn't send this tornado to construct your old car as a gift for your faith.
i don't understand... you asked a question, i answered it... i didn't qualify my answer in any way, merely asked a couple questions at the end

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 11-30-2002 2:27 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 12-01-2002 3:55 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 49 (25939)
12-08-2002 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
12-01-2002 3:55 AM


hi brian, apologies for the delay but my time is far more limited now than it had been...
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Since the question was about what would it take to convince a theist that there is no God, I assumed that you were saying if the tornado can leave your car in its wake then life can arise from chaos without a designer (God).
My apologies for misunderstanding your post.
Best Wishes.
Brian.
i'm not sure if you misunderstood my post or not.. i did ask whether or not you had an opinion as to the odds of a car being left, as described, if a tornado blew through a junk yard and how those odds would stack up against the odds of humans existing on earth... iow, which is more likely to occur?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 12-01-2002 3:55 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2002 5:42 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 12-10-2002 5:39 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 49 (26088)
12-09-2002 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by David unfamous
12-09-2002 6:37 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by David unfamous:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
hmmm... fair question, i think... let's see... for me, if a tornado blew through a junkyard clearing everything from it in its path yet leaving behind my car from high school, a midnight black '67 malibu ss, 396 cu in, 6 deuces, hirsch shifter, perfect condition, perfect running order... that would be pretty good evidence that design can come from chaos i think... but what are the odds? think they're even remotely close to the odds of life being on earth?
That's is so flawed, I can't even think where to start.

oic... thanks for your input

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by David unfamous, posted 12-09-2002 6:37 PM David unfamous has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 49 (26090)
12-09-2002 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
12-09-2002 5:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
I always thought that birth defects--babies being born without arms or legs, etc.--was very good evidence of a lack of design. Obviously most people in this world disagree with me, and I would like to know your reasons.
not sure... if you came upon a structure with, say, three walls leaning inward, no roof, half a porch, would you consider that as evidence it wasn't designed and something went wrong? i'd really like someone to address my two questions in my post above, they seem like fair and reasonable ones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2002 5:42 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by David unfamous, posted 12-10-2002 5:27 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 49 (26170)
12-10-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by David unfamous
12-10-2002 5:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
Your tornado and junkyard have absolutely no parallel with life and the universe.
Just as the order of life and the universe can be explained through natural processes, your car can only exist through unnatural processes.
It's a pointless and irrelevant analogy.
As for the deformed babies thing, you seem to be suggesting that deformed babies are designed by God on purpose, or badly designed at least.

you say the tornado/junkyard analogy was "pointless and irrelevant" because the car would only exist thru "unnatural processes"... accidently, in other words, or supernatural? as for life on earth, i was speaking of the first instance of such life... do you really mean to say that a tornado is an unnatural process?
btw i'd really like to hear your explanation as to the natural vs. supernatural (or accidental) nature of tornados
as for deformed babies, i can get into that if you want, but i'm certain you don't... any mention of sin seems to drive some almost rabid... not necessarily you, but some... in any case, robin said a deformed baby was proof to her that design didn't exist... i simply asked a question to clarify in my mind her thinking... i assume you agree with her in this, therefore my question is also directed toward you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by David unfamous, posted 12-10-2002 5:27 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 49 (26172)
12-10-2002 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brian
12-10-2002 5:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i'm not sure if you misunderstood my post or not.. i did ask whether or not you had an opinion as to the odds of a car being left, as described, if a tornado blew through a junk yard and how those odds would stack up against the odds of humans existing on earth... iow, which is more likely to occur?
There are so many factors that need to be considered here that havent been addressed, for example, you need to have the correct materials available in the junkyard to have ANY chance of your car being left in the tornado's wake. For the sake of argument we will assume that all components for your car are there. Both scenarios are likely to be in the billions to one category, there is a chance that both COULD happen, even if it is one chance in a billion billion, there is still that chance.
But regarding life on earth, the odds get reduced after each stage of evolution. So, as we know life has evolved, there is no doubt about this, and, as far as I know, no one has seen your car appear after the tornado, or the jumbo jet in the original argument, then life on earth would have the most chance of happening.
As to the question about design and disabled babies, God is meant to be perfect and his designs should also be perfect. If God creates something that has a faulty component then that negates God's omniscience.
Brian.
brian, the odds of life appearing on earth has been calculated (sorry, i don't have the sources) to be greater than the combined total of all electrons in the universe to 1... imagine what had to occur for life to first appear here... those gas clouds had to cool to just the right temperature, gravity had to be just right, energy sources, all the crashing and spinning had to be perfect, not only in this tiny solar system but in each... and this had to occur for 15 billion years (give or take).. if you feel comfortable subtracting 3 or 4 billion so evolution can account for life after the first life, go ahead... the point stands
do you think the tornado is as unlikely to produce that car as bb is to lead to life here? for the odds to hold, there would have to be cars and jumbo jets all over the place

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 12-10-2002 5:39 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brian, posted 12-10-2002 10:30 AM forgiven has not replied
 Message 17 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 11:12 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 49 (26357)
12-11-2002 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Primordial Egg
12-10-2002 11:12 AM


hi p.e.
quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Can you see what's wrong with this analysis?
PE
i guess i wasn't as clear as i thought i was being... abiogenesis is possibly the leading theory of life on earth amongst the no-Creator branch... this is what i was speaking of, the odds of life *at all* being here... take into account not only the accidental nature of this solar system, but of this planet... then the perfect distances from the sun and moon... tilt of the axis, etc etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-10-2002 11:12 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 5:14 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 49 (26395)
12-12-2002 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Primordial Egg
12-12-2002 5:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Thats exactly what I thought you were saying, and I've applied the same logic to the chances of you being here and come up with effectively zero. If you can see whats wrong with my analysis then that should make you go back and requestion the odds of abiogenesis you've alluded to above (which are normally far greater than the chances of you existing as calculated in my prev post).
PE
i can't quite wrap my mind around your example, p.e. ... there are too many invariables for a specific human example, such as number of times fertilization was attempted, health of sperm/egg, etc... and i don't know enough about genetics to know whether or not only one spermatozoa of a zillion can result in pregnancy... however, i do find your last sentence interesting... do you mean by it that the odds of all things being perfect for original life (chemically and also the physical sciences aspect) are lower than for one human?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 5:14 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 9:30 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 49 (26458)
12-12-2002 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Primordial Egg
12-12-2002 9:30 AM


hi p.e.
quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
The truth is that nobody can produce a probability, or even estimate one for abiogenesis, and anyone who claims to is probably using probability calculations no different from my example above. To which you have to apply the same standard of credibility to their' conclusions as you would to mine.
PE
maybe you're right, i certainly don't have the math needed to even attempt such an undertaking... but maybe you're as, if not more, qualified for the endeavor as fred hoyle and chandra wickramasinghe... then again, maybe their work in this area has been superceded by that of other, more qualified, scientists... but here for your amusement are some of the things they have to say (their point is that life could not have originated on earth, full article found here)
They point out that the earth only became inhabitable about 3.8 billion years ago, and they argue that the time available before the appearance of the oldest stromatolites about 3.6 billion years ago leaves too narrow a window for life to have originated on earth.
They then examine the probability that an enzyme consisting of 300 residues could be formed by random shuffling of residues, and calculate a value of 10—250, which becomes 10—500000 if one takes account of the need for 2000 different enzymes in a bacterial cell. Comparing this calculation with the total of 1079 atoms in the observable universe, they conclude that life must be a cosmological phenomenon. They argue that once an unlikely event has produced a viable cell somewhere in the universe the enormous multiplicative power of replication will produce enormous quantities of living material very fast (e.g. a doubling time of 2—3 h implies that one cell can generate the mass of a cluster of galaxies in 20 days).
from the same site is the following new (so the author says) objection to their theory:
The theory of the origin of life favoured by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe depends heavily on their calculation of the probability that an enzyme could be produced by shuffling amino acids is no better than one in 106900. There are many objections to this sort of calculation, but one that we have not seen mentioned previously is that it takes no account of actual observations of the catalytic properties of random co-polymers of amino acids. For example, random co-polymers of glutamate and phenylalanine imitate the bacteriolytic activity of lysozyme quite well, with about 3% of the activity of the enzyme from hen egg white on a weight for weight basis [5], and there are similar observations on other systems from other groups [6].
i left the footnote numbers in because i was too lazy to take them out ... as i said, i don't have *nearly* enough math to either confirm or refute anything either they or their detractors said... but p.e., if you don't either then it might not be wise to say, as you did above, "The truth is that nobody can produce a probability, or even estimate one for abiogenesis...."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Primordial Egg, posted 12-12-2002 9:30 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John, posted 12-12-2002 10:37 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 49 (26485)
12-13-2002 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by John
12-12-2002 10:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
You are missing the point that it is impossible to calculate probabilities without the relevant information, and the relevant information does not exist.
Think of trying to calculate the probabilities for getting a 1 when you roll dice. The catch is that you don't know how many dice there are, how many sides are on the dice, what numbers are on the sides, what surface you are going to roll the dice on.... Get it? Yet this is what the "chances for abiogenesis" calculations are like.
well if i am missing the point, so are hoyle and wickramasinghe and countless other statiticians, would you agree? but my question was, are the posters on this board more qualified than they in this area?
edited to fix quotes
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John, posted 12-12-2002 10:37 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John, posted 12-19-2002 2:09 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 49 (27408)
12-19-2002 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John
12-19-2002 2:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
There are a couple of people on this board whom I'd say are at least as qualified as H & W. I do not count myself as one of them. But I am starting classes in January. Nonetheless, it does not take a deep understanding of statistics to figure out that if you don't have the data on which to apply the statistics, you can't do the math.
oh.... and did you notice that the article you cited is a CRITICISM of the H & W argument and statistical methods?
i'm sure there are a few as qualified, there are some smart people posting here... and yes, i even gave an example of one of the criticisms

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John, posted 12-19-2002 2:09 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John, posted 12-30-2002 3:56 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 49 (28145)
12-30-2002 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
12-30-2002 3:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i'm sure there are a few as qualified, there are some smart people posting here... and yes, i even gave an example of one of the criticisms
I can't tell. Does this mean that you understand why these calculations are flawed?

i don't know that they *are* flawed, no more than i [b][i]know[/b][/i] that the math of humphreys is in error and that of his detractors sound... they say their calculations aren't flawed, you say they are... so far it's a "he says they say" thing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 12-30-2002 3:56 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-30-2002 10:40 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 49 (28176)
12-31-2002 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
12-30-2002 10:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i don't know that they *are* flawed, no more than i [b][i]know[/b][/i] that the math of humphreys is in error and that of his detractors sound...
It has nothing to do with the math. You don't need to know the math. No one-- creationist or evolutionist-- will claim to know precisely what the conditions for abiogenisis are or must be. This is PRECISELY the information needed to work out the figures Humphreys et al propose. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA. Humphreys et al apply math to FIGURES THEY HAVE MADE UP. This is flawed, even if the math is impeccable. Why can you not understand this?

john, why do humphrey's critics pretend that they are refuting him? don't they know there isn't enough data? is it possible they don't share your views? maybe they should spend less time in their flawed pursuits and more reading this board, so they won't waste so much time in flawed endeavors

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 12-30-2002 10:40 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John, posted 12-31-2002 9:46 AM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 49 (28220)
12-31-2002 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John
12-31-2002 9:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
john, why do humphrey's critics pretend that they are refuting him?
Pretend? Pointing out that the method is flawed IS a refutation.
no john they put their own mathmatics forward in an attempt to refute his... not to show that the computations can't be done, but to show that humphrey's are in error... in spite of your use of "flawed," others (some of whom may actually understand the math involved) disagree
quote:
maybe they should spend less time in their flawed pursuits and more reading this board, so they won't waste so much time in flawed endeavors
quote:
Aren't you 50-something? This is the type of argument I'd expect from of twelve year old. Of course, that is still above the level of understanding you are displaying here.
you seem intent on moving back to your brand of argument, that of attacking a person instead of providing sound arguments... you sound almost petulant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John, posted 12-31-2002 9:46 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John, posted 12-31-2002 9:28 PM forgiven has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024