Evidence that god exists

[MadeFromDust]

not that many percentage-wise. DNA and the phenotypical expression of DNA is a quite inefficient and wasteful system, exactly as we would expect if it had evolved naturally.

DNA is a complex language that gives the instructions for life, there are essentially 200,000 encyclopedias in every cell in your body. Explain to me how this was organized from a non-intelligent force.

 

[Denny Crane]

LAMO! wrong... The universe has time, according to your big bang. I gave you the entire universe for the primordial soup. Time is still needed to make that soup. Then time is needed to actually have the right combinations in that soup. Then you limit it to just Earth. Then you limit it to 1.8 billion years. Your dice analogy doesn't apply here.

You denying the math and logic doesn't make you right. In other words, you're still wrong.

 

[magnifier661]

You denying the math and logic doesn't make you right. In other words, you're still wrong.

That's what you think. Because if you believe in that; I can offer you a 1 chance out of 10 to the 40,000th power that this 100k land I am selling you will have more gold than Fort Knox.

Wanna buy it?

 

[RR7]

Yeah and what does that have anything to do with it? We are talking about life on this planet.

My point is that to stand on earth, it seems highly improbable to think wow, life sprung here, with all the combinations possible, and the small chance of it happening. Minuscule.

but to stand and view ALL the planets, you would think, it's probable one of these will "sprout" life, for lack of a better term.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's what you think. Because if you believe in that; I can offer you a 1 chance out of 10 to the 40,000th power that this 100k land I am selling you will have more gold than Fort Knox.

Wanna buy it?

Your 10 to the 40,000th power number is wrong. I've shown you the mathematical proof why it is, but you don't get it. Maybe you should stay away from complex math, probability, and that sort of thing.

 

[Denny Crane]

My point is that to stand on earth, it seems highly improbable to think wow, life sprung here, with all the combinations possible, and the small chance of it happening. Minuscule.

but to stand and view ALL the planets, you would think, it's probable one of these will "sprout" life, for lack of a better term.

The probability, according to his math, that there is more than one planet, let alone star or galaxy, is 1:10^40,000

 

[magnifier661]

Your 10 to the 40,000th power number is wrong. I've shown you the mathematical proof why it is, but you don't get it. Maybe you should stay away from complex math, probability, and that sort of thing.

LOL I'm wrong? Look it up Denny. Wanna wager I'm wrong on those odds? We are talking numbers from "non-creationists" mathematicians. This isn't coming from a "Christian" website.

 

[Denny Crane]

LOL I'm wrong? Look it up Denny. Wanna wager I'm wrong on those odds? We are talking numbers from "non-creationists" mathematicians. This isn't coming from a "Christian" website.

What are the odds that the earth exists?

Calculate it out for me.

 

[magnifier661]

The probability, according to his math, that there is more than one planet, let alone star or galaxy, is 1:10^40,000

No that probability isn't even a planet Denny. We are talking about a simple single cell life form. From what is known right now; that is 1:10^40,000. That is 1 cell made by chance. We aren't even talking about other life forms here. That is another mathematical problem.

 

[magnifier661]

What are the odds that the earth exists?

Calculate it out for me.

Don't know. All I need is life itself. A single cell life form. Who gives a shit about the planet? LOL

 

[crowTrobot]

I don't really care what scientists think about abiogenesis or the "blind chance" argument, since there is no proof that abiogenesis happened or is even possible.

scientists don't think it would have happened by chance. that's the point. they think (among other possibilities) there could have been a selection-type system already in place (natural self-replicating crystals or something similar) that led to greater and greater complexity being selected over a long period of time, similar to how evolution works. scientists DON'T argue that a bunch of molecules somehow organized themselves into life by "blind chance". that's simply propaganda - something creationists misprepresent in order to validate their straw man statistical improbability arguments.

Of course they'll say that in order to defend their views, but it's not actually based on any sort of evidence because there is none.

if by "their views" you mean scientists expect to someday find a natural explanation rather than supernatural, there is a mountain of evidence for that. that evidence is that they have ONLY found natural explanations for everything else that has EVER been explained in all of human history.

much less something that resulted from a random explosion.

there are no major mysteries involved in getting from the big bang to molecules. that's very well understood.

 

[crowTrobot]

No that probability isn't even a planet Denny. We are talking about a simple single cell life form. From what is known right now; that is 1:10^40,000. That is 1 cell made by chance. We aren't even talking about other life forms here. That is another mathematical problem.

scientists don't think it happend by chance. that's all denny really needs to say.

 

[magnifier661]

there are no major mysteries involved in getting from the big bang to molecules. that's very well understood.

Gonna say something; but I want your debate with Oden without me involved. But I seem to remember that in the Big Bang; it really wasn't an explosion; but rather expansion? That part confused me.

 

[MadeFromDust]

scientists don't think it would have happened by chance. that's the point. they think (among other possibilities) there could have been a selection-type system already in place (natural self-replicating crystals or something similar) that led to greater and greater complexity being selected over a long period of time, similar to how evolution works. scientists DON'T argue that a bunch of molecules somehow organized themselves into life by "blind chance". that's simply propaganda - something creationists misprepresent in order to validate their straw man statistical improbability arguments.

Cool. I think God is the mastermind behind life. I guess we're both operating on "faith" now, right?

if by "their views" you mean scientists expect to someday find a natural explanation rather than supernatural, there is a mountain of evidence for that. that evidence is that they have ONLY found natural explanations for everything else that has EVER been explained in all of human history.

I meant by their views because there is no reason to believe in abiogenesis, especially given the evidence we have for a Creator.

there are no major mysteries involved in getting from the big bang to molecules. that's very well understood.

Very well understood, yet no one was there to observe it, verify it, or duplicate it. Amazing how we know so much about our precious universe

 

[magnifier661]

scientists don't think it happend by chance. that's all denny really needs to say.

Yeah I think they are leaning more and more on intelligent design.

 

[Denny Crane]

scientists don't think it happend by chance. that's all denny really needs to say.

That's partly true.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 1^390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

 

[magnifier661]

That's partly true.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 1^390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

You are going with the "unknown". That is a theory that hasn't had evidence to back up that theory. So we get to toss out the unimaginable now? Okay God exists just because!

 

[crowTrobot]

That's partly true.

http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 1^390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

thought we were talking about the odds of a cell forming randomly, but yeah the key there is you have self-replicating molecules at work.

 

[crowTrobot]

Gonna say something; but I want your debate with Oden without me involved. But I seem to remember that in the Big Bang; it really wasn't an explosion; but rather expansion? That part confused me.

explosion is just a descriptive term for very fast expansion.

 

[magnifier661]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallest_organisms

Candidatus Carsonella ruddii; genome consists of a circular chromosome of 159,662 base pairs. Nanoarchaeum equitans; genome is 490,885 nucleotides long.

 

[magnifier661]

explosion is just a descriptive term for very fast expansion.

That's what I thought. Wanted to be clear. Too many people think of it as an explosion. I think of it like you described. Still doesn't change my opinion on thermal dynamics though. But I will leave you two to debate.

 

[crowTrobot]

Cool. I think God is the mastermind behind life. I guess we're both operating on "faith" now, right?

unlike you scientists don't claim to know what happened, so no. as i said they expect to find a natural explanation for abiogenesis because it would fit a very well established pattern, but they are wide open to evidence to the contrary if it emerges.

Very well understood, yet no one was there to observe it, verify it, or duplicate it. Amazing how we know so much about our precious universe

verify what? the big bang is verified beyond all reasonable doubt by the CBR. hubble has directly observe gravity collapsing gas clouds into stars. we've verified that stars can cook heavy elements and directly observed their spectra in the expulsion gas of supernovea. we can create our own molecules from elements in labs. not much of a gap for god in those processes.

as long as you are going to god-of-the-gaps it up you're better off asking "where did the laws of nature come from"? : )

 

[Denny Crane]

thought we were talking about the odds of a cell forming randomly, but yeah the key there is you have self-replicating molecules at work.

His math is wrong. It assumes that only 2 atoms can combine for form a molecule per Planck time. The number is more like 1x10^80 x 1x10^80 just for combinations of 2 atoms. And that blows his whole 1:40,000 out of the water.

 

[TripTango]

as long as you are going to god-of-the-gaps it up you're better off asking "where did the laws of nature come from"? : )

Alright, wiseguy, where DID the laws of nature come from?

YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!

[video=youtube;lq65hlbxdmk]

 

[Denny Crane]

as long as you are going to god-of-the-gaps it up you're better off asking "where did the laws of nature come from"? : )

I already asked this question (why is the speed of light 186,000 miles/sec?) The answer is that it's "precision" for some unexplained reason.

 

[magnifier661]

His math is wrong. It assumes that only 2 atoms can combine for form a molecule per Planck time. The number is more like 1x10^80 x 1x10^80 just for combinations of 2 atoms. And that blows his whole 1:40,000 out of the water.

LMAO! Dude seriously? You have two atoms equaling 1 living organism. You are seriously reaching here. There is about 40,000 atoms on the tip of a pencil. All you did was make it even harder to imagine.

How many atoms are there in a graphite pencil
Around 51,898,920,151,726,200,000,000 atom For a calculation... I didn't account for the wood content, only graphite. General size of pencil had 2 mm diameter of graphite and 15 cm in length....

 

[Denny Crane]

LMAO! Dude seriously? You have two atoms equaling 1 living organism. You are seriously reaching here. There is about 40,000 atoms on the tip of a pencil. All you did was make it even harder to imagine.

Exactly. According to you, it would take 40,000 planck times to make the tip of a pencil. It would take 1 planck time if all the atoms were lined up right.

 

[TripTango]

Third. The universe is fine tuning; which would mean the universe has purpose. Purpose = design. Which equals a designer. Hey if we want to make two threads exactly alike; that's fine by me.

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!" -Feynman

 

[magnifier661]

Exactly. According to you, it would take 40,000 planck times to make the tip of a pencil. It would take 1 planck time if all the atoms were lined up right.

Yep, and if you believe the universe is from the "Big Bang"; that remains the biggest mystery, eh? I mean all was heavily compacted in the first self replicating molecule; no?

 

[magnifier661]

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!" -Feynman

And still isn't even close to the probability to the "mathematical probability" of the first living cell. In comparison, and even then not even close.

"Hey I was on the beach and I dug up some sand. I took the sand home and just felt the need to study just one of them. I couldn't believe that that spec of sand under the microscope actually had my name on it?!?! What are the chances?!?!" --- Mags