Statistical impossibility??

welcome to the fray, mg1962. If you select the {Peek Mode} button at the top right of the window with the "Text of message you're replying to:" you will see how these quote boxes are made.I guess a semi-trailer rolling over would be a black hole ...

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

btw ... I hope you (and everyone else) realizes that "statistical impossiblity" is NOT an oxymoron but an actual contradiction:

If it is impossible, then there is no statistical question, the results are known.

​

If there is a statistical question, then it is not impossible -- no matter how improbable it is, it still could {be true \ have happened}.

​

... I do think that it is worthwhile looking at the number of things that are required to be exactly correct for us to exist and then come to your own conclusion about which is most likely; good luck or good design.

​

But all you are doing is making uneducated (because nobody knows) guesses based on faith and employing the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

​

Enjoy.

​

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

"life (as we know it)"Those three little words in parentheses, it seems to me, blow the whole claim out of the water. Even if it is accurate to say that it is statistically impossible for the precise set of physical characteristics that the universe presents to exist in one universe, for that fact to be significant one would have to assume that this set of physical characteristics is the only set that would produce life. If it's not, then the claim is fairly inconsequential.Sounds to me like the claim falls into the category of "We don't really know the answers, but gosh, it sure sounds unbelievable to me, so I don't believe it." This is more commonly called an argument from ignorance.The whole thing strikes me as being quite nonsensical. How can one determine the odds of any particular "factor" being present? What are the odds that the speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s as opposed to 250,000,000, or 10? What are the odds that pi is 3.14159265... as opposed to 2.49897543... or 42? What are the odds that gravity works to attract bodies to one another as opposed to repel?According to your arguement, am I to understand that since "we really don't know" then neither side can prove themselves?

firstly i would challenge any Physisict to be able to list all the factors ...would you be interested in listing all the factors to prove your theory? And if so, I'm sure we would conclude the same thing that you conclude for creationists. "You don't really know"life is a product of the universe as it IS , .. how the universe got to the way it is , why it got to the way it is , is irrelavent .."life as we know" is "life as we know" because of all the factors that go into the universe , not the the other way round ...To say the statistical chance of this universes set of factors arrising is near impossible is meaningless .. firstly as we know it has happened , secondly it makes bad use of statistical method .You seem to not understand the viewpoint. We do not believe that the universe is impossible. We believe it is possible and that an intelligent designer was responsible for it. Simply put, all the evidence points to intelligence and you insist on stupidity. If I were to say that your car, by chance, pieced itself together, you would have a field day getting me to come up with the evidence to support that idea. You could say, "well whats to argue, the car is here and I don't see any other way that it could have happened" so therefore, suddenly, your ignorance as to how it happened are suddenly not relevant to the fact that 'how it happened' is just as important as 'that it did.'The logic that the evolutionist follows seems utterly unscientific. For science, that goes by fact, you have surely admitted into the equation a mess of improbabilities and act as though they do not exist and should not cause the evolution theory to be reconsidered.I am not pushing my religion. But if you want someone to go from believing in an intelligent reason for such intricacies to believeing in unintelligent reasons, you are worse than any bible thumper I have ever encountered. You claim intelligence came from nothing, and I claim that it came from intelligence.

But all you are doing is making uneducated (because nobody knows) guesses based on faith and employing the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.Enjoy.I would like to list the following that I found that indicate the idea that evolutionist’s beliefs are also improvable like they claim of creationist’s belief’s. That all their assumptions are just that, assumptions and therefore places them in the religious category of believing something that they cannot prove but insist on believing it anyway and teaching it as truth."From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."(sounds a lot like the improbability that evolutionist claim for creation beliefs)A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, actually computes the odds against such an occurrence at only one chance in 10(160). That means 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number too large even to articulate. Another scientist expressed it this way:
"The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than that in the whole universe. For it to occur on earth alone would require many, almost endless, billions of years." The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, p. 23.(That certainly sounds more improbable than an intelligent designer wouldn’t you think?)How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background? And how can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing points of view? The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth. To acknowledge a superior wisdom has been too long cultivated by the evolutionist community. They have repeated their assumptions for so long in support of their theories that they have started accepting them as facts. No one objects to their assuming whatever they want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.The above is just a few of the brief arguments I would like to see refuted by some of the evolutionists. I am simply a truth seeker. If you can prove my Christian beliefs are not exactly the same as your beliefs in so far as, both sides require a certain amount of faith in order to believe, then I would be delighted to hear it.

Hello, warner. Welcome to evcforum.When quoting another poster, it helps to put the quote inside a quote box.I'll demonstrate how to do it. will show up as Incidently, the "qs" comes from "quote shaded".

---

It certainly sounds improbable, but in the absence of any idea what they actually based that calculation on it is pretty much a meaningless number.How familiar was Guye with biochemistry? What were his assumptions? Why should we give any more credence to Guye's figure than to Hoyle's or than to a figure I come up with?This seems especially obtuse since you are replying with a theoretical calculation base on assumptions which we can't scrutinise.You haven't provided a scintilla of actual scientific evidence to contradict any evolutionary assumption just a set of counter assumptions.You haven't even provided any real argument to rebut, your whole argument hinges on the reliability of the calculations you quoted to give an accurate measure of probability presumably supposed to reflect on abiogenesis.Since there is no reason to beieve that it is an accurate estimate the rest of your argument seems superfluous. Why not provide some scientific evidence contrary to evolution before asking... This sounds like you are ready to plunge down a philosophical rabbit hole of epistemology as soon as the emptiness of your 'scientific' arguments are demonstrated.TTFN,WKP.S. This is really off topic here, perhaps you would be better off posting to a thread on abiogenesis since that seems to be what your arguemnt is focusing on, there are a number of such threads ongoing in the Origin of Life.

so are you saying you have scientific evidence to prove that the orgigin of life did indeed begin by accidental chance? This thread and forum is NOT related to life. As was pointed out to you, the origin of life has a whole forum devoted to that question. In addition, abiogenesis is not evolution or cosmology.

​

Please take any discussion of the origin of life to the appropriate venue.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

We don't even know if life arose abiogenetically on this planet to suppose that it may arise somewhere else. That some stars in the universe enable conditions that support life might tell us where we should head when we destroy our own environment. But they say nothing at all about the chances of life arising in those solar systems. Its a very common mistake: to suppose life supporting = life arising.

This is a flat falsehood. Amino acids have repeatedly been produced by non-biotic reactions. It takes mere days and can be done in the confines of a laboratory. No. Creationist beliefs are not improbable. They are false. And since experiments have proved him wrong, the assumptions underlying his math were flawed.NB: You mean 10^160 or 10¹⁶⁰. Of course, proteins are not produced by "shaking matter together", so such a calculation is irrelevant. The obvious answer to your question is that scientists do in fact have opinions which are consistent with their scientific background, whereas you, being a non-scientist, have been bamboozled by a lot of unscientific nonsense.Since it is bleedin' obvious that scientists understand science, you could have thought of this yourself instead of lowering yourself to your paranoid rantings about "bigotry" and "suppression" and "dogmatism" and "dishonesty".

One explanation could be that what evolutionists believe is actually not so "out of character" as you think it is. If you consider that the scientific method has given us knowledge about germs, gravity, and thermodynamics, which has resulted in things that actually work, like antibiotics, satellites, and refridgerators, don't you find it plausible that the same scientific method applied to biology would yield some trustworthy conclusions in that field too? We can't. And unless you present us with some verifyable, documented evidence that this is the case, we needn't even bother. Again, unless you can provide some evidence that evolutionary scientists are so disposed, it isn't obvious at all, especially in light of the fact that scientists in general are actually overjoyed when someone overthrows the ruling paradigm to replace it with something better. That's how they know that they have come closer to the truth. If there's one thing scientists abhor, it's dogma. A documented example of this practice would be greatly appreciated.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Sorry Para, but all of that is OFF TOPIC. Please do not continue.

O well, never mind then.

sorry guys, I'm new to this. Didn't mean to get off topic. I have a ton of questions really. I am not a scientist at all, but do love seeking the truth about matters on all levels. Since it is you guys who are the experts I will ask more questions.I quoted that thing earlier from something I had read. I'm sorry now that I did. I won't quote any more unless it is relevant and I will ask a question concerning the quote. I do not want to fight about the facts or ideas we have. I would like to know first hand what indeed is believed by evolutionist. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt despite what my christian collegues think. I know that it does not help in anyway to call names or to criticise ones opinion even if we feel it is wrong or seems blasphemous to us. Ones opinion does not threaten the truth, since truth is not determined by it. If I am right and evolutionist are wrong, then it is my prayer that you have because my beliefs tell there is trouble for you. But then, the truth that I live by, holds us only accountable to the truth that is revealed to us. If it is true what the Bible says, then, He knows what kind of creatures we are. By nature very inquisitive and needing to understand. It is what is so different about us from the rest of all living things that we know and observe. I feel that true science and the truth that we all seek are one and the same. I think that if Christianity and science worked together, then we may end up at a crossroad that leads in the same direction.Anyway, my question to you guys, if it can be answered in short, is, what can I ask on this forum that would state more or less your beliefs on the topic of this forum.Also, is there a shorter way to get to this forum without haveing to click on the link in my e-mail, then click on forum discussions, then click on the next topic then click on this topic then look for the thread that was responded to???I get kind of dizzy, I was hoping there was a shortcut somebody could help me out with.I would like to end with, I look forward to getting to know the people in here, I'm sure there is much to be learned and I am excited to learn it.Thanks for the patience