proof against evolution

stemann · Jul 12, 2006

Oh my gosh, ok please let me tell you this, the odds of getting a royal flush in one hand of poker are 649,739/1 against.

What are the odds of scientific constants and all the physical laws being fixed perfectly to form (something or other)?

WE DON'T KNOW! YOU CAN'T WORK IT OUT! IT'S BEYOND THE REALMS OF PROBABILITY!

You cannot liken some probability to these odds because they are not odds, per se.

I have never had a royal flush, for the record.

Tiberius · Jul 12, 2006

Super Universe said:
When have you heard of someone actually getting a royal flush?

When the odds get that high, it doesn't happen. Ever.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

Go and deal out a full deck of 52 cards in a random order. There is a HUGE number of possible ways to deal out the cards - 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
different possible combinations of those 52 cards (52! - that's fifty two factorial). So, the odds that you would deal out the cards in that particular order are 1 chance in 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. According to you, it's impossible. And yet you do it every single time you deal out the cards randomly.

Here's a link with some more information. http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/articles/5655.html

Just because the chances of something happening are incredibly small, it does not mean that it can't possible happen.

When you drive to work in the morning rush hour, what are the chances that you'd be stuck behind that car in front of you, that one car out of all those thousands of cars on the road? Incredibly unlikely events happen all the time.

scitsofreaky · Jul 12, 2006

What if the "constants" aren't very constant, how does that affect what you think? (By 'you' I mean anyone who feels like answering)

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 12, 2006

stemann said:
What are the odds of scientific constants and all the physical laws being fixed perfectly to form (something or other)?

That depends. What is the probability of "scientific constants and all the physical laws being fixed perfectly" to not form anything? If you cannot show a probability of 1, you have completely undermined your argument. I'll wait ...

stemann · Jul 13, 2006

Tiberius said:
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

Go and deal out a full deck of 52 cards in a random order. There is a HUGE number of possible ways to deal out the cards - 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000
different possible combinations of those 52 cards (52! - that's fifty two factorial). So, the odds that you would deal out the cards in that particular order are 1 chance in 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000. According to you, it's impossible. And yet you do it every single time you deal out the cards randomly.

Here's a link with some more information. http://catlin.casinocitytimes.com/articles/5655.html

Just because the chances of something happening are incredibly small, it does not mean that it can't possible happen.

When you drive to work in the morning rush hour, what are the chances that you'd be stuck behind that car in front of you, that one car out of all those thousands of cars on the road? Incredibly unlikely events happen all the time.

Tiberius!!!! Nooooo!!!!!! I will explain some statistics to you:

If you deal out 52 cards, the chance that they will come out in any order is.... certain, by definition.

The chance they will come out in some specific order is 1 in 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000 (I haven't checked this, but it doesn't matter, it could just be any gigantic number).

But they don't come out in some specific order, they come out in random order. It would only be specific if you defined an order beforehand (no pun intended) and then dealt them out that exact way, without looking. Your link just shows the odds of dealing the deck some specific way.

The same goes for the car example- the chances that you will be behind any car is certain (given the premise) but if you pick a specific car beforehand then the chances of being behind that particular one are, I don't know, one in a few thousand, say.

Jayhawker Soule said:
That depends. What is the probability of "scientific constants and all the physical laws being fixed perfectly" to not form anything? If you cannot show a probability of 1, you have completely undermined your argument. I'll wait ...

By 'not form anything' do you mean nothing exists? Or do you mean not 'form' anything, in that random particles just fly about in the universe with no formation?

Tiberius · Jul 14, 2006

But the order is specified after you dealt. Let's say you dealt the king of hearts, nine of diamonds etc through the deck. That is your order right there. What are the odds that you would have dealt the deck in THAT particular order?

stemann · Jul 14, 2006

1 in 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000.

But it was certain that it would be dealt out in some way. It's like the lottery: there's a one in fourteen million chance of winning, but almost all the time, somebody wins.

stemann · Jul 14, 2006

Say I wrote down an order: king of hearts, nine of diamonds etc. all the way to 52 cards. Then you deal out a randomly shuffled deck. The chance of getting the combination that I have chosen is 1 in 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000. This would not happen; it's too improbable.

Opethian · Jul 15, 2006

So your logic is "Because it's big and old, anythings possible."

What's more probable given the odds that so many things (millions) had to form exactly as they are and in a precise order?

Only the initial circumstances are important because everything we observe in this universe today is a result of these initial circumstances/laws and its interaction with energy/matter, so there aren't nearly as many things to take into consideration as you think. On top of that, why do you think this is the only universe that ever formed? It's just as likely that an infinite amount of universes formed with all kinds of different parameters, among them many universes that immediately collapsed or could not harbor life. The fact that we live in a universe that is able to harbor life does not mean that it had to be created, it just means that this universe happened to have the right parameters to develop and allow life to form. We were not created, we got lucky.

Intentional direction or complete random creation? Atoms create themselves, and they somehow create their own set of physical rules to govern themselves, then atoms create time (Hmm, I wonder why they did that?), then atoms give sentience to certain groups of atoms...

If you're going for intentional direction you're going to have to explain how some god created himself, which leaves you with the very same problem. The difference is, in the random creation hypothesis, we can scientifically look for explanations and test them. In intentional direction, you can only make imaginary things up. Besides, you say atoms create time, but in fact there is no time. Time is a human construct and does not exist beyond the way we employ it. Atoms did not give "sentience" to a certain group of atoms, that is just your oversimplification and lack of understanding of the evolutionary theory. "Sentience" evolved because centralisation of information processing offered an advantage to a large group of organised molecular structures (organisms).

It's your choice to live in a box or open your mind and see what's out there.

Exactly.

When have you heard of someone actually getting a royal flush?

When the odds get that high, it doesn't happen. Ever.

Are you really being serious? If I were you, I'd get your head checked because something is very wrong with your logical reasoning. Royal flushes happen all the time, and I know because I play poker on the internet (Full Tilt Poker, if anyone knows it). Besides, how about someone rolling a perfect ball consisting of 10^1000 molecules, and seeing on which of those 10^1000 molecules it ends up when it stops rolling. The chance is 1/10^1000, but according to you, that's not possible, so it's also impossible to roll the ball...

rocketman · Jul 15, 2006

There appears to be a contradiction in your logic. You say:

Opethian said:
It's just as likely that an infinite amount of universes formed with all kinds of different parameters....

Then you go on to declare

Opethian said:
We were not created, we got lucky.

How is it that on the one hand you allow that you don't know what happened then
you seem to say you do know what happened? I just want to know what you are actually saying, that's all.

On a seperate note, when you said:

Opethian said:
"Sentience" evolved because centralisation of information processing offered an advantage to a large group of organised molecular structures (organisms).

..did you have a scientific proof in mind regarding sentience or is this just a hypothesis? I ask because I have never seen a scientific measure of sentience. Again, not looking for a debate, just want to know where you are coming from.

fantome profane · Jul 15, 2006

stemann said:
Tiberius!!!! Nooooo!!!!!! I will explain some statistics to you:

If you deal out 52 cards, the chance that they will come out in any order is.... certain, by definition.

The chance they will come out in some specific order is 1 in 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000 (I haven't checked this, but it doesn't matter, it could just be any gigantic number).

But they don't come out in some specific order, they come out in random order. It would only be specific if you defined an order beforehand (no pun intended) and then dealt them out that exact way, without looking. Your link just shows the odds of dealing the deck some specific way.

The same goes for the car example- the chances that you will be behind any car is certain (given the premise) but if you pick a specific car beforehand then the chances of being behind that particular one are, I don't know, one in a few thousand, say.

By 'not form anything' do you mean nothing exists? Or do you mean not 'form' anything, in that random particles just fly about in the universe with no formation?

But Tiberius is absolutely correct in criticizing the argument some people make regarding the odds of the universe coming into being. Looking at the universe the way it is now and calculating the odds of it becoming that way is very much like laying out a deck of cards and then calculating the odds of them being in that order.

Lets just do 5 cards. Lets say the queen of spades, the two of spades, the jack of diamonds, the four of hearts and the six of clubs. The odds of dealing these five cards in this order are one in 311,875,200 (if I did the math right). Go ahead and try it, I will bet you cant do it (without cheating). But guess what, I did. It happened.

Obviously I just dealt out five cards and recorded the result, nothing spectacular about it. The point is that even when the odds get that high, or even astronomically higher, things still happen. The point is that observing the odds after the cards are dealt is meaningless. Just like observing the odds of the universe retroactively.

Simon Gnosis · Jul 16, 2006

stemann said:
Say I wrote down an order: king of hearts, nine of diamonds etc. all the way to 52 cards. Then you deal out a randomly shuffled deck. The chance of getting the combination that I have chosen is 1 in 80658175170943900000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000. This would not happen; it's too improbable.

Incorrect, improbable is not the same is impossible.
Given enough time that combination would re occur, as sure as water flows over the path offering the least resistance.

Silicon Hero · Jul 16, 2006

sandy whitelinger said:
How about we start with proof that God exists?

Albert Einsteins equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.

By applying Albert Einsteins formula, the universe must have a creator because the universe has mass (M). God does not need a creator because God does not have mass (M). God is energy (E).

Thus when people ask the question, If God created mankind, who created God?, they mistakenly imagine God as having a form or mass. Only mass needs a creator, not energy.

The creator of mass is of course, energy. The theory of Gods existence is in line with mathematical theory.

I dont have time to read through 11 pages so here is my reply to this.
Energy=Mass x the speed of light, squared
Energy = Mass
If mass has a creator energy must therefore also have a creator since they are equal entities. God is most certainly not energy because for him to be energy he must also be physical. He clearly states in the bible he is beyond the physical. Time, Space, The Laws of Physics, these do not apply to him.

painted wolf · Jul 16, 2006

you know I often wonder how people manage to mangle "simple" scientific ideas like E=

Naturally energy needs a creator... otherwise we wouldn't have so many problems with gas prices right now. :banghead3:

This allong with the completly buggered use of "statistics" is frustrating to no end.
Such uses of genuine science to give creationism a scientific patina is like any ceep coating, scratch the surface and you find the truth underneath.

Having said that, I would love to see some genuine science being done on the other end. Rather than mis-use and mis-quoting of other peoples work.

wa:do

Opethian · Jul 16, 2006

Rocketman said:
There appears to be a contradiction in your logic. You say: Quote:Originally Posted by OpethianIt's just as likely that an infinite amount of universes formed with all kinds of different parameters.... Then you go on to declare
Quote:Originally Posted by OpethianWe were not created, we got lucky.

How is it that on the one hand you allow that you don't know what happened then
you seem to say you do know what happened? I just want to know what you are actually saying, that's all.

It's just what I think happened. No one can know what actually happened.

rocketman said:
On a seperate note, when you said:

Quote:Originally Posted by Opethian"Sentience" evolved because centralisation of information processing offered an advantage to a large group of organised molecular structures (organisms). ..did you have a scientific proof in mind regarding sentience or is this just a hypothesis? I ask because I have never seen a scientific measure of sentience. Again, not looking for a debate, just want to know where you are coming from.

Just a hypothesis.

Edit:sorry for the very messy format

stemann · Jul 16, 2006

fant&#244 said:
But Tiberius is absolutely correct in criticizing the argument some people make regarding the odds of the universe coming into being. Looking at the universe the way it is now and calculating the odds of it becoming that way is very much like laying out a deck of cards and then calculating the odds of them being in that order.

Let’s just do 5 cards. Lets say the queen of spades, the two of spades, the jack of diamonds, the four of hearts and the six of clubs. The odds of dealing these five cards in this order are one in 311,875,200 (if I did the math right). Go ahead and try it, I will bet you can’t do it (without cheating). But guess what, I did. It happened.

Obviously I just dealt out five cards and recorded the result, nothing spectacular about it. The point is that even when the odds get that high, or even astronomically higher, things still happen. The point is that observing the odds after the cards are dealt is meaningless. Just like observing the odds of the universe retroactively.

I agree to an extent, but the retroactive "calculating of the odds" is done based on the fact that sentient life has evolved in the universe, which Intelligent Design Cosmologists see as "special."

In cards, queen of spades, the two of spades, the jack of diamonds, the four of hearts and the six of clubs is statistically no different from ace of hearts, three of clubs, seven of hearts, four of diamonds, and nine of clubs. But it is claimed that "Universe with intelligent life" is a lot different from "Universe with only bits of rock and atoms flying about."

Simon Gnosis said:
Incorrect, improbable is not the same is impossible.
Given enough time that combination would re occur, as sure as water flows over the path offering the least resistance.

I know this, it is still possible for something to happen with those odds. I just said it would never happen because the odds are that it will never happen. Obviously there is a chance that it could.

rocketman · Jul 17, 2006

Opethian said:
It's just what I think happened. No one can know what actually happened.

Just a hypothesis.

Edit:sorry for the very messy format

Thanks for answering.
Yeah, splitting quotes is tricky. I just copy and paste the start/finish tags, but I find I have to use CTRL+C and CTRL+V or it won't work.

fantome profane · Jul 17, 2006

stemann said:
I agree to an extent, but the retroactive "calculating of the odds" is done based on the fact that sentient life has evolved in the universe, which Intelligent Design Cosmologists see as "special."

In cards, queen of spades, the two of spades, the jack of diamonds, the four of hearts and the six of clubs is statistically no different from ace of hearts, three of clubs, seven of hearts, four of diamonds, and nine of clubs. But it is claimed that "Universe with intelligent life" is a lot different from "Universe with only bits of rock and atoms flying about."

Yes I think you got it there. But it must be based on the assumption that life is not only special, but that sentient life is actually the purpose. And many people will be quite content to assume that. So much so that they hardly even recognize that they are making that assumption.

If you assume that sentient life is the purpose, then suddenly the odds become very significant. But you cannot use the odds to prove that sentient life is the purpose in the first place.

Opethian · Jul 17, 2006

fantôme profane said:
Yes I think you got it there. But it must be based on the assumption that life is not only special, but that sentient life is actually the purpose. And many people will be quite content to assume that. So much so that they hardly even recognize that they are making that assumption.

If you assume that sentient life is the purpose, then suddenly the odds become very significant. But you cannot use the odds to prove that sentient life is the purpose in the first place.

Why does there have to be a purpose?

fantome profane · Jul 17, 2006

Opethian said:
Why does there have to be a purpose?

Please dont misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that there is a purpose to the universe. The point I was trying to make is that the probability of the universe being in the state that it is in now is not relevant. That is unless you have already made the assumption that there is purpose. I do not make that assumption, but I have no quarrel with those who do. But I am just trying to show that it is an assumption.

Person 1: The odds against the universe coming from random chance to be the way it is now is so incredibly unlikely that it must have been intentional.

Person 2: But if the universe were different in some small way, it would still just as unlikely.

Person 1: But that universe wouldnt have life. If you wanted to create a universe that had life like ours, it would have to be exactly like this one.

Person 2: Now you are assuming that something wanted a universe that had life like ours.

For the first persons argument to work, you must assume purpose. And that is fine. But it is clearly not proof of purpose. (I am using the word purpose here as being synonymous with intent or plan)

proof against evolution

Time Bandit

Well-Known Member

Active Member

-- untitled --

Time Bandit

Well-Known Member

Time Bandit

Time Bandit

Active Member

Out there...

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Active Member

Member

Grey Muzzle

Active Member

Time Bandit

Out there...

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Active Member

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice