Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

[magnifier661]

There is the entire page you linked. I don't see reference links.

Oh you are ignoring the other links and quotes from the "Nobel Prize Winner for Physics" too? That's called "wagging the dog". As you see from my orginal point; I gave 3 quotes from very established people in the scientific realm. I guess you are ignoring them.

 

[magnifier661]

Huh? Who brought Dawkins to the party?

Your link silly. The debunking of Hoyle's fallacy. Read further down.

 

[TripTango]

Your link silly. The debunking of Hoyle's fallacy. Read further down.

You are mixing up two different uses of the Boeing 747 metaphor. Almost completely unrelated.

 

[RR7]

nope, all I said was doesgodexist isn't a journal? You qouted that and said there were reference links like wikipedia. There were not. I was referencing ONE link you provided. You used that, and referenced the others, oddly. Anyways, 7 down.

 

[magnifier661]

And then some.

Hardly... We can always break it down to an even lower figure.

How about we use the figures from "Frank Salisbury. "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene" by Frank Salisbury in Nature (vol. 224, Oct. 25, 1969, pp. 342-3) - 1 in 10^415

Or Henry Quastler - The Emergence of Biological Organization (1964) - a low estimate of the information content of a bacterium" is "10^3 bits...[which] corresponds to...a single choice among 2^1000 possibilities." This means that "the probability of making such a choice by accident is 10^-301" (p. 4)

or

Hubert Yockey's article "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory" in Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981) pp. 13-31 - 1.26 x 10^130

or

Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973) - (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human)

or

Julian Huxley "bastion of the theory of evolution" - The calculated result is 1 x 10,000^1,000,000 (p. 46)

or

Harold J. Morowitz Energy Flow in Biology (p. 99) - 1 chance in 10^339,999,866

Do I need to go on?

 

[magnifier661]

nope, all I said was doesgodexist isn't a journal? You qouted that and said there were reference links like wikipedia. There were not. I was referencing ONE link you provided. You used that, and referenced the others, oddly. Anyways, 7 down.

I posted the journals below. Some are even higher, and even the lowest proves the improbility.

 

[TripTango]

Hardly... We can always break it down to an even lower figure.

How about we stop using junk statistics based on events that aren't even believed by evolutionary biologists? Do you see what ALL of those numbers have in common? They are all examining the odds of a modern protein (or 20,000 of them!!) forming at random. Again: THIS IS NOT WHAT ANYBODY BELIEVES HAPPENED. In other words, these statistics are (drum roll please) beating up a straw man!

 

[RR7]

selective editing there, nice.

1 in 10^415, but, as he says himself, this is only true "if only one DNA molecule [1000 nucleotides large] were suitable" to get biology going. In other words, if many possible molecules could be substituted, these odds change for the better, as they also do if a smaller molecule could have gotten things started. Salisbury himself notes that the odds are rather good that at least one 141-nucleotide (or smaller) replicator could have formed, given the age and expanse of the universe as then understood.

Of course, Quastler knows very well that life did not begin with a bacterium, and so he does not say that these are the odds against the origin of life, but simply demonstrate that life must have begun simpler. That is, natural selection can build up the information content of this complex bacterium beginning with something smaller.

When he considers numerous other factors for a possible original replicator, even the worst chance of life beginning naturally he finally figures to be 10^-20, which is well within the realm of the possible [see 1]. Quastler concludes that this "suggests that the probability of obtaining a complete set of enzymes by coding proteins from 10^7 nucleotide pairs may be quite high"

i'll stop at the first two.

 

[Denny Crane]

And this is for Denny; since he keeps bringing up the dice analogy. This is how you can mathmatically make "designer" 100% probable, accident 0% probable and "not sure" 0% probable. Denny kept trying to talk about things can happen at the exact same time. This has been factored on this link.



http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html

Yeah LOL garbage in garbage out my ass!

Still GIGO. There are 10^80 x 10^80 trials nature can run per Planck time. That's for combinations of two atoms. For combinations of three its 10^80 cubed.

 

[TripTango]

Mags, take some time and examine this excellent summary of these statistical flaws. Literally every single one of the numbers you cited are explained, and rejected for the use that you are attempting.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

 

[magnifier661]

Here are more journals to review Trip:

Evolution From Space, written by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe (Dent, 1981; immediately reprinted by Simon & Schuster that same year, under the title Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism) - Evolution From Space, written by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe (Dent, 1981; immediately reprinted by Simon & Schuster that same year, under the title Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism)

In The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, 1986), John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler - They produce one other statistic of this sort, stating that "if we take the average gene to have 1800 nucleotide bases...then 180 to 360...are immutable for each gene" so that "the odds for assembling a single gene are between 4.3 x 10^-109 and 1.8 x 10^-217" (p. 565)

Evolution: Possible or Impossible by James F. Coppedge (Zondervan, 1973) - On page 102 Coppedge calculates the odds against proinsulin forming by chance as 1 in 10^106. "getting [even a single] usable protein" as 1 in 10^240 in one try (p. 104), or 1 in 10^161 "in all the history of the Earth" (p. 109)

Should I keep going trip?

 

[magnifier661]

Mags, take some time and examine this excellent summary of these statistical flaws. Literally every single one of the numbers you cited are explained, and rejected for the use that you are attempting.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

They are rejected by atheists. They aren't rejecting the numbers; just explaining how it could be another way. All I have to prove Trip is 1: 10^113. Anything higher than that proves it's improbable. Some are highly improbable, others are closer; but none are under the probability.

 

[magnifier661]

And you are missing the main point. The fact that it would take "ALL" the known atoms in the known universe and somehow focus it on little ole planet earth for the 10^113.

 

[RR7]

Nevertheless, Sagan's words are used against him by Christians who grab at the numbers without paying attention to their context, or indeed to the fact that Sagan uses extremely simplified equations and assumptions

funny quote from that link. Exactly what happened here, it seemed. Grab the numbers, ignore the rest.

 

[RR7]

....

James F. Coppedge (this book is discussed in more detail below). It even shows the typical path and lunacy of these things. Coppedge, on p. 234 of his book, cites an article by Ulric Jelinek in Campus Challenge (Campus Crusade for Christ, Arrowhead Springs, CA, Oct. 1961), which claims that the odds are 1 in 10^243 against "two thousand atoms" (the size of one particular protein molecule) ending up in precisely that particular order "by accident." Where did Jalenik get that figure? From Pierre Lecompte du Nouy's book Human Destiny (1947, pp. 33-4), who in turn got it from Charles-Eugene Guye, a physicist who died in 1942. Guye had merely calculated the odds of these atoms lining up by accident if "a volume" of atoms the size of the Earth were "shaken at the speed of light." In other words, ignoring all the laws of chemistry, which create preferences for the formation and behavior of molecules, and ignoring that there are millions if not billions of different possible proteins--and of course the result has no bearing on the origin of life, which may have begun from an even simpler protein. This calculation is thus useless for all these reasons, and is typical in that it comes to Coppedge third-hand (and thus to us fourth-hand), and is hugely outdated (it was calculated before 1942, even before the discovery of DNA), and thus fails to account for over half a century of scientific progress

 

[magnifier661]

funny quote from that link. Exactly what happened here, it seemed. Grab the numbers, ignore the rest.

You are misinformed and believing the straw man rebuttals. And the greatest ignorance is ignoring the one that actually won the nobel prize for physics. But go on and ignore away.

 

[RR7]

believing straw man rebuttals? What are you talking about? You used these numbers, yet seems like ignored the information that came after. Just grabbed long numbers.

 

[TripTango]

They are rejected by atheists. They aren't rejecting the numbers; just explaining how it could be another way. All I have to prove Trip is 1: 10^113. Anything higher than that proves it's improbable. Some are highly improbable, others are closer; but none are under the probability.

No, you still aren't seeing the problem. The odds you are citing are for the random formation of something that was never believed to form randomly! Do you see the problem? Nobody -- NOBODY -- argues that the first self-replicating molecule was a strand of modern human DNA. This makes your intended use completely impossible.

 

[magnifier661]

....

You are aware that just "protein" cannot create life, yes?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated

But James Ferris, a prebiotic chemist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., doubts that atmospheric electricity could have been the only source of organic molecules. "You get a fair amount of amino acids," he says. "What you don't get are things like building blocks of nucleic acids." Meteors, comets or primordial ponds of hydrogen cyanide would still need to provide those molecules.

As you see that rebuttal doesn't factor the building blocks for nucleic acids.

 

[magnifier661]

No, you still aren't seeing the problem. The odds you are citing are for the random formation of something that was never believed to form randomly! Do you see the problem? Nobody -- NOBODY -- argues that the first self-replicating molecule was a strand of modern human DNA. This makes your intended use completely impossible.

I know that, but I am showing other improbabilities as well.

 

[TripTango]

You are aware that just "protein" cannot create life, yes?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated

As you see that rebuttal doesn't factor the building blocks for nucleic acids.

Ah -- so what is the final number? What are the odds for building some type of self-replicating protein? Not an organism, not a human, not a 747... Just something that replicates?

It's a rhetorical question -- nobody knows. But I'll tell you this: it's a hell of a lot more likely than any of the numbers you are citing for complex modern structures!

 

[magnifier661]

believing straw man rebuttals? What are you talking about? You used these numbers, yet seems like ignored the information that came after. Just grabbed long numbers.

You are aware what trip is rebutting? They don't have to answer the complexity of a fully developed "human DNA mole". I have given the numbers on just a single self replicating mole for life. And even that is 10^150. That is what we know now.

And factor that with all the molecules in the known universe, somehow concentrating on planet earth, in less than 1.7 billion years (evolutionist beliving when life started on this planet).

I use the entire universe lifespan to exploit how incredibly insane that thinking is. Now bring that down to the surface area of planet eart; 1.7 billion years; and factor other complexities as well and you got the greatest argument on this thread.

 

[TripTango]

I know that, but I am showing other improbabilities as well.

You are showing that your numbers are for structures that are many, many times more complex than those believed to be the first form of life. You are showing that your argument #7 is based on unusable statistics and refuted logic.

 

[TripTango]

You are aware what trip is rebutting? They don't have to answer the complexity of a fully developed "human DNA mole". I have given the numbers on just a single self replicating mole for life. And even that is 10^150. That is what we know now.

Where did you get this new 10^150 number? And where did the moles come from?

 

[magnifier661]

Ah -- so what is the final number? What are the odds for building some type of self-replicating protein? Not an organism, not a human, not a 747... Just something that replicates?

It's a rhetorical question -- nobody knows. But I'll tell you this: it's a hell of a lot more likely than any of the numbers you are citing for complex modern structures!

What I've read is 1:10^150. I'll look it up for you.

 

[TripTango]

Ok, I've got to get back to work. Later y'all -- watch out for mole attacks!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Ok, I've got to get back to work. Later y'all -- watch out for mole attacks!

[video=youtube;gdB2-4F8UYY]

 

[magnifier661]

[video=youtube;YinrToIKJtg]

Here is a simple break down. Just 10 components is 1: 3.5 million attempts. 11 components now is 1:39.9 million attempts.

But the simplest living cell has 400 components. But even smaller is 100 component, is 1 chance in 100 million, billion, billion, billion, billion.

So even if a super simple lifeforce of 100 components is 1: 10^400

And I even gave you 1: 10^150 and still extremely improbable.

 

[TripTango]

Here is a simple break down. Just 10 components is 1: 3.5 million attempts. 11 components now is 1:39.9 million attempts.

But the simplest living cell has 400 components. But even smaller is 100 component, is 1 chance in 100 million, billion, billion, billion, billion.

So even if a super simple lifeforce of 100 components is 1: 10^400

And I even gave you 1: 10^150 and still extremely improbable.

We have no idea what form the first self-replicating molecule took. None. You are assuming that it looked just like modern organisms, and therefore could never have formed randomly. This is like claiming that toddlers have no chance to ever get into college based on their exceptionally low SAT scores.

Sorry -- I know I said I'd get back to work. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!

 

[magnifier661]

So even on the Abiogenesis issue; you have a 60 component first mole; which is still more than 1: 10^150