the old improbable probability problem

So basically creationists argue that the magician must have worked real magic because we can't consider any alternatives to that, other than pure chance...

Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are

I can honestly say I do not believe in magic can you?

Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are

Exactly, biologists know which proteins are common to all life, the Chirality, the amino acid components and a great number of other facts about the genome in essence they know what the cards are

this only goes to show a estimation of a probability can be made.

Many of you have probably at some point come across the creationist argument for probability which often uses calculations to make the case that the formation of the universe and life could not have arose by "chance." This argument differs slightly from the argument for intelligent design in that it not only examines the alleged complexity, design, and order of structures (for example examining the complexity/design of a molecule), but the probability that each component of the universe needed to sustain life could have developed independently and function seamlessly. This argument is commonly used to try to disprove abiogenesis and strives to demonstrate that earths position in the universe is too perfect to have gotten there by chance (Goldilocks argument). The calculations made to support these arguments result in staggeringly huge numbers like 3.34 x 10^450 and are usually followed with Borel's law.Without even thinking too hard about it, I see a few things wrong with this argument1) It assumes that that the development of the universe is random, when in reality it is driven by the laws of nature2) The universe is practically infinitely vast. For the one planet that did develop within a life sustaining solar system, there are countless others that did not.3) It only looks at the way life DID develop ex post facto instead of all the ways it COULD HAVE developed with only slightly different conditions.Any thoughts?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the PHD in biochem to form an original opinion about the science behind these claims ...

I also read some criticism that this board was too evolution-biased and self-affirming. Maybe some people from here should post on The Evolution Fairytale and vice versa for more lively discourse.

LexM1985 writes:I also read some criticism that this board was too evolution-biased and self-affirming. Maybe some people from here should post on The Evolution Fairytale and vice versa for more lively discourse.

RAZD writes:Anyone care to play?

If there ever was non-existence there would be zero chance of existence beginning to exist.

I do not know much about probability or improbability, things just are or they are not.But if there was a beginning to exist you would have none of the things mentioned.If there ever was non-existence there would be zero chance of existence beginning to exist.If you disagree please explain how existence could begin to exist if there was no existence.God Bless,

If you have a thousand decks of cards all mixed together, how many different ways can you form a royal straight flush in spades? A billion decks? Would you agree that these would be a much larger number of possible ways than could occur from a single deck?

Just like to point out that with a thousand decks of cards you've got a much larger "sequence space" from which only a fraction will yield a useful combination of cards (in the context of a poker game). In other words, increasing the number of decks doesn't make it any more probable that you'll get a royal flush.