Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Would it not suit your argument better to respond to the posts refuting it, than responding to posts that insult you? Unless of course you don't have much faith in your argument.
SW wrote: » It's nonsense because it's equivalent of shuffling the 2-decks of card (mentioned in the post you continue to ignore) and then drawing each one-by-one to get a resulting 104 card sequence. You're suggesting that I couldn't arrive at that 104 card sequence because it exceeds the UPB. The mistake is thinking I was drawing the cards to arrive at a specific combination. It's the same with your deeply flawed misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution wasn't working to create humankind, humankind is a result of evolution. There two very different things. You're working from the premise that the universe/God etc. is working to create our species. This is an assumption based on your religious beliefs. You're adding something in that currently has no place in the scientific explanation.
Brian Shanahan wrote: » No. JC and Paddy are sub-normal. Edit: Though "believe" is the wrong word when talking about scientific theory. "Accept" is much better, it has the virtue of being accurate.
JC01 wrote: » What the hell are people arguing about? Iv clicked into it a few times and can't make heads or tails of it. Is there still normal people who don't beleive in evolution?
J C wrote: » Evolutionism is also subject to the charge of confirmation bias,Anyway, can we please get back to critiquing the basis for ID ... which is the prime scientific challenger to Darwins Theory. ... so please tell me where this is wrong? Quote:- "(Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities: 10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. 10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time). 10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang." These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound). This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound. For example, there are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB). ... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB. The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced. ... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other specific biomolecules working in highly integrated systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.
J C wrote: » Yes the Miller Urey experiment did this ... and came up with a few biomolecules ... and plenty of tar and other biotoxins. It also relied on an intelligently designed system to 'harvest' the molecules as soon as they were formed because otherwise they would be destroyed again by the other chemicals in the poisonous mix that was created. Anyway, the issue in my posting 1660 is what happens when we have DNA ... and random changes are being made to it to produce different amino acid combinations in biomolecules. There are 20 common amino acids that can be placed at each point in a protein chain. A protein chain of just 116 amino acids has a combinatorial space of 20^115 or 10^150 which is equivalent to the Universal Probability Bound (UPB). ... so the odds against the non-intelligently directed production of a specific functional protein is greater than the UPB ... in addition this is required in a specific biological process in a specific organ in a specific organism as well, thereby exponentially increasing the odds again.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Creationism really is a prime example of confirmation bias.
kingchess wrote: » And yet here we are:;)
floggg wrote: » Per Wikipedia, Dembski is the only person who has put forward this UPB thing. By your own rules of debate, surely you aren't allowed cite this here. Its somebody else's work - the same reason you used to refuse to answer other people's posts.
Chunners wrote: » Actually no, have you ever heard of hydrocarbons? I'm guessing not because religious people hate admitting they exist, see if you put hydrogen, carbon and oxygen in a closed system and add some electricity what happens is they bind and become this thing called RNA (Ribonucleic acid) and then if you throw Nitrogen into they mix it becomes DNA all without any outside influence, those four atoms only need to be together and they create DNA, they don't need a god, they don't need anything, life will out, it does not need someone to stir the pot. Your God can't even control me having a dump and you expect us to believe it can control something as complex as life? life is random because no one intelligent enough to create it would sit back then and watch it destroy itself
obplayer wrote: » And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster caress you to sleep with his Blessed Noodly Appendages.
Terrlock wrote: » It's only ludicrous to the unbeliever (Also the air was probably quite thick back then)- God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. As sure as 1 + 1 = 2 God created man. If you don't believe it then just ask God to prove it to you.
Vivisectus wrote: » That is pretty much it: like most religious viewpoints, it only makes sense if you already believe it. That is why Mary never miraculously appears to devout Buddhists.
Vivisectus wrote: » You may find this and other gems of ID wisdom in the link below.Home Soc Religion & Spirituality Atheism & Agnosticism The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Nine years on. Still going stong. Learn how Sabretooth tigers used their fangs to dig up roots, how spiders used to suck plant juices, and how T-rex was a herbivore before the Fall! Also features magic climate-equalizing clouds and tropical hardwoods growing in deserts!
floggg wrote: » Any links to the veggie T-Rex, or does J C want to explain himself?
Squeedily Spooch wrote: » If Creationists were to see how ludicrous the idea that we all descended from a man created from thin air and a woman created from his rib (although quite why God would need his rib is another question, he just literally created a man from dust, why not a woman?) then the rest of it would fall apart. If there's no Adam and Eve there's no Christianity, it's really that simple. Speaking of women, I wonder does JC think that female childbirth and the pain involved are a result of Eve's sin?
Vivisectus wrote: » But you go a lot further than that: you make up stuff that allows you to believe that there is not some vague intelligence, but that it is the god(s) described in the Bible that is behind it, and that the biblical narratives around creation, the flood, and adam and eve are literally true. You have even proposed vegetarian tyrannosaurs, sharks and spiders and magical climate-equalizing clouds in order to hang on to these beliefs. That is a lot more than discerning a hint of an unknown intelligence. That is just plain old starting with a belief and then working backward.
JC01 wrote: » This thread has gone on a looooong time after being answered in post 4 or 5... What the hell are people arguing about? Iv clicked into it a few times and can't make heads or tails of it. Is there still normal people who don't beleive in evolution?And I'm not having a sneaky swipe at religion I know plenty of devout Catholics but even they laugh at the whole Adam and Eve crac, I was of the opinion Darwins Theory was almost universally accepted in Ireland by now.
floggg wrote: » Em - you've argued that adam was made by God, the flood and ark were real and that genesis was real. That sounds to me like the abrahamic god. Im sure it doesn't account with most other non-abrahamic faiths creation stories. So are you saying that there is actually no way to know of any of that genesis stuff is true or not (other than personal faith and belief)?
