Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
3 Candidates State they don't believe in Evolution

Home // Evolution Versus Creationism



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Na I clearly dont understand math, only a poor engineer with a math minor. Sad

Anyways ill help you out. with 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and a probability of the first cell to be 10^4000, then get out your algebra book and re-learn how to divide exponentials.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:

Anyways ill help you out. with 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and a probability of the first cell to be 10^4000, then get out your algebra book and re-learn how to divide exponentials.


Anyone can make up numbers.
You need to substantiate your claims.

And I believe what you actually mean is:
"the probability of the first cell to be one in 10^4000"

Because 10^4000 as the odds of something happening is actually pretty good.

It's worth noting that the number of elementary particles in the universe is entirely irrelevent to your point. What matters in this context is the age of the universe.
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
false. because evolutionists use the number of stars and galaxies to help there cause, second mathematicians dont write repeated functions "1x10" "10^-x" ect.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
because evolutionists use the number of stars and galaxies to help there cause,


Which *is* relevent.

Why?

Because life happens on planets. Not on elementary particles. The number of opportunities that life has to happen is proportional to the number of suitable sites for life (such as planets) and the amount of time during which those sites exist.

The number of elementary particles has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

second mathematicians dont write repeated functions "1x10" "10^-x" ect.


So you meant to write "10^-4000"?

Whatever. I think we both know what you meant.


And i still want you to substantiate that number. What makes you claim that the odds of life arising are 1 in 10^4000?
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Its hard to sum up all of the possible sites for life on planets, hence i gave evolutin the benefit of the doubt and allowed for every particle to have a chance?
Back to top
InherentLogic
Newbie


Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://library.thinkquest.org/.....hances.htm

nobel prize winners, mathematicians etc etc

Numbers effectively zero for evolution.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2020
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/creation/chances.htm

nobel prize winners, mathematicians etc etc

Numbers effectively zero for evolution.


You're quoting Holye again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_Fallacy

Quote:
In evolutionary biology, Hoyle's fallacy is a common misrepresentation of Darwinian theory, colloquially named, among evolutionary biologists, after the astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, although it has been current almost since the time of Darwin himself.[1]

Hoyle's formulation concerns the probability that a protein molecule could achieve a functional sequence of amino acids by chance alone. He calculates this as being of approximately the same order of magnitude as the probability that a whirlwind would pass through an aircraft hangar full of airplane components and result in the assembly of a functional Jumbo Jet.[1]

Hoyle's Fallacy is a mainstay of creationist, intelligent design, orthogenetic and other anti-Darwinian criticisms of evolution. The reason why it is a fallacy has been explained at length by Richard Dawkins, principally in his two books The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.[1]

As Ian Musgrave explains in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:

These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.

- They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
- They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
- They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
- They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
- They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.[1]

[1] Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations - An explanation at the TalkOrigins Archiveby Ian Musgrave Last Update: December 21, 1998


It has been shown the criticism that have never been addressed by Hoyle and his devotees. Perhaps you have the means to address them?
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
InherentLogic wrote:
Its hard to sum up all of the possible sites for life on planets, hence i gave evolutin the benefit of the doubt and allowed for every particle to have a chance?


Live arising on elementary particles?

You're talking incoherently. You use words, but you don't seem to have a full understanding of what they actually mean.
Back to top
Might Makes Right
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Being of no professional qualifications what so ever, or no intrest in mathmatical probabilities. I will throw in my own two cents.

The universe has to have been indeed created with intelligence, not just some random reaction of total nothingness into somethingness. I do belive that matter cannot be created or destroyed, or so they tell us in school. However I do belive everything has a beggining and an end. Therefore I do not belive that the big bang goo that everything happened to fall into the exact right place.

On top of that, I am convinced that evolution is not true. There are some MAJOR MAJOR holes in the theory itself. Darwin belived that cells were very simple forms of lifes, and thought they were basicly "jelly", but we now know that its is highly complex with using many many small parts to carry out certain duties, and the probability that enough elements got together to form just the right bonds to become life is improbable. Also when it comes to the Monkeys to Humans is why did the monkeys (the supposed start position) survive, while the humans (the supposed finish position) survive all this time while the intermediate species died off.
Back to top
Turk
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3337

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Who cares they have a right not to believe in evolution.
Evolution is a theory just like global warming.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Might Makes Right wrote:
Being of no professional qualifications what so ever, or no intrest in mathmatical probabilities. I will throw in my own two cents.

The universe has to have been indeed created with intelligence, not just some random reaction of total nothingness into somethingness. I do belive that matter cannot be created or destroyed, or so they tell us in school. However I do belive everything has a beggining and an end. Therefore I do not belive that the big bang goo that everything happened to fall into the exact right place.

On top of that, I am convinced that evolution is not true. There are some MAJOR MAJOR holes in the theory itself. Darwin belived that cells were very simple forms of lifes, and thought they were basicly "jelly", but we now know that its is highly complex with using many many small parts to carry out certain duties, and the probability that enough elements got together to form just the right bonds to become life is improbable. Also when it comes to the Monkeys to Humans is why did the monkeys (the supposed start position) survive, while the humans (the supposed finish position) survive all this time while the intermediate species died off.


Darwin was wrong, to disbelieve modern evolution because Darwins building blocks had holes is akin to saying that you can't live in a hotel because the building blocks aren't habitable.



Fellfire, to that hoyles thing, another point, just because the probability of something happening is really low, you cannot say after it occurs that it didn't occur, just because the possibility is really low, it already happened! It was obviously possible.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2020
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Might Makes Right wrote:
Being of no professional qualifications what so ever, or no intrest in mathmatical probabilities. I will throw in my own two cents.

The universe has to have been indeed created with intelligence, not just some random reaction of total nothingness into somethingness. I do belive that matter cannot be created or destroyed, or so they tell us in school. However I do belive everything has a beggining and an end. Therefore I do not belive that the big bang goo that everything happened to fall into the exact right place.

On top of that, I am convinced that evolution is not true. There are some MAJOR MAJOR holes in the theory itself. Darwin belived that cells were very simple forms of lifes, and thought they were basicly "jelly", but we now know that its is highly complex with using many many small parts to carry out certain duties, and the probability that enough elements got together to form just the right bonds to become life is improbable. Also when it comes to the Monkeys to Humans is why did the monkeys (the supposed start position) survive, while the humans (the supposed finish position) survive all this time while the intermediate species died off.


Thank you for your two cents.

As to more change into the pot:

The assertion that the Universe had to have been designed begs the question of who then designed the designer. If it is your statement that it was magically created by an omnipotent and onmiscient being for the sole purpose of provide a whole helluva lot of space for a race of beings to exist, then I certainly don't begrudge you your religious belief. Please don't try and insinuate that they can be proven scientifically (i.e. "Intelligent Design theory").

I find it interesting that you are "convinced that evolution is not true", considering that you don't know what "evolution" is given your response here.

If you are convinced because of your faith, that's cool, faith is something that is very personal and I would not presume to debate your faith.

If your are saying that you are convinced that evolution is not true because the scientific theory is incomplete and is to this day continually being studied and refined, then you don't understand science that well. I would recommend looking into what science considers a theory and ask yourself why science still studies such things as gravity and other well accepted theories - we are still learning and refining them - evolution is no different.

If you are saying that you are convinced that evolution is not true because you have categorical proof of its invalidity, well, you are looking at a Nobel Prize, just provide that proof.

Might Makes Right wrote:
On top of that, I am convinced that evolution is not true. There are some MAJOR MAJOR holes in the theory itself. Darwin belived that cells were very simple forms of lifes, and thought they were basicly "jelly", but we now know that its is highly complex with using many many small parts to carry out certain duties, and the probability that enough elements got together to form just the right bonds to become life is improbable.


There are no major holes in the Theory of evolution. There are still refinements being made and additional evidence is uncovered, but there has been no evidence discovered that can not be explained by the theory and there are several predictions the theory makes that have since been discovered. That is what valid scientific theories do - they predict and they stand up to the evidence. Intelligent Design or Special Creation do neither and are thus not science.

Might Makes Right wrote:
Also when it comes to the Monkeys to Humans is why did the monkeys (the supposed start position) survive, while the humans (the supposed finish position) survive all this time while the intermediate species died off.


This is what prompted me to state you don't know what evolution is. No credible scientist claims Human evolved from modern monkeys. Humans and Monkeys share a common ancestor. That means that there was something that was neither fully a human nor fully a monkey whose evolutionary path branched into two different species. There is no "start" or "finished" position.

To reiterate my position, having faith that something does or does not exist is a personal conviction and I appreciate that. But it is radically different then having proof of a theory or evidence of a theories failure.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Might Makes Right wrote:

The universe has to have been indeed created with intelligence, not just some random reaction of total nothingness into somethingness.


And why do you believe that?

Quote:

I do belive that matter cannot be created or destroyed, or so they tell us in school.


Matter can, in fact, be created and destroyed.

Quote:

However I do belive everything has a beggining and an end.


Why?

Quote:

Therefore I do not belive that the big bang goo that everything happened to fall into the exact right place.


The right place for what?

You're assuming that the universe was somehow intended to be the way that it is.

Quote:

On top of that, I am convinced that evolution is not true. There are some MAJOR MAJOR holes in the theory itself. Darwin belived that cells were very simple forms of lifes, and thought they were basicly "jelly", but we now know that its is highly complex with using many many small parts to carry out certain duties, and the probability that enough elements got together to form just the right bonds to become life is improbable.


If you understood how cells worked, you wouldn't consider it so improbable.

Quote:

Also when it comes to the Monkeys to Humans is why did the monkeys (the supposed start position) survive, while the humans (the supposed finish position) survive all this time while the intermediate species died off.


That's not how evolution works.

You should read about biology. At this time, you don't seem to understand much about it.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Turk wrote:

Evolution is a theory just like global warming.


And gravity.
Back to top
Turk
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3337

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Turk wrote:

Evolution is a theory just like global warming.


And gravity.
No gravity is a fact global warming and evolution have never been proven.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Evolution Versus Creationism All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites