A Message To All Creationists (page 2)

Megachusen

First off, I'm not using a strawman because I'm not misrepresenting anyone's arguments. If person A says that within Y X cannot happen and then I explain how X could happen within Y I am not generating any ad hominems.

Scotsman, I think you're missing my point. I'm not claiming that there is any natural process that could create a working car. I'm saying that the probability of all the atoms of a car coming together in this or any universe that is bound by the same laws as the one we are currently in is so incredibly small that on a finite scale it would be nearly impossible. When you switch to an infinite scale than the chances of that same car's atoms coming together in just the right order are greatly increased.

For example, the chances of a lump of iron superficially resembling a formless lump seems to be quite high in our universe. But what of a lump of iron that superficially resembles a human face? What are the odds of that coming about? Most likely it is a very small chance yet there is bound to be a lump of iron in the universe that looks like a human face. Why is that? What about a lump that looks like George Washington? The odds of that most likely are much smaller -- yet with enough time it is still possible.

That is just an example of what might happen in our most-likely finite universe. What about an infinite universe? Well, that's when things with an extremely small probability ratio can happen.

bohm

Megac.: "No one would claim that the simplest device- such as, say, a pen, could EVER come about, given all Eternity, by ACCIDENT!"

Clearly thats a giant strawman and an argument from false analogy. Its so dumb it makes AIG look smart and since i havent seen one original idea from TMJW yet, i wish he would begin to plaguarize someone more intelligent.

Now, as i understand TMJW what he wants to argue against is evolution, ie. that very complex lifeforms can arise from more simple ones by a number of simple natural processes.

Ofcourse, the statement above does nothing of the kind since the pen is (obviosly) not a lifeform, and the processes of evolution cannot act on a pen. For example, a pen cannot reproduce, a pen does not have a genomen which can accumulate mutations, there is no variation in a gene pool consisting of 'a pen' - these all appear to be simple observations that are above the TMJWs reasoning skills.
For these reasons no counter argument to what TMJW wrote above is needed; it is not even wrong.

My previous point had to do with the fact you take up TMJW statement, ie. what can happend in 'eternity', and argue against that; it is hurtfull to do so (i think) because first off, i doubt any of us is really qualified to discuss that point, and more importantly, it has nothing to do with the real world, specifically evolution. I hope i made the point more politely after i had my first cup of coffee :-).

There is a 'law' in statistical mechanics (more like a saying): Things either happend with propability 1 or 0 (ie not at all). Looking for probabilities when discussing stuff like evolution and abiogenesis is making a huge mistake in my oppinion, one that i have only seen creationists make (yes i study statistics).

Megachusen

"For these reasons no counter argument to what TMJW wrote above is needed; it is not even wrong."

You can't actually say it isn't wrong without knowing the exact mechanics of probability within a universe with infinite time. He made a claim of absolute certainty and I explained how it was incorrect. As you know, time itself is simply a concept of a chain of events. An infinite chain of events would imply that every single possible effect would be eventually caused.

This creationist probably has no real knowledge about abiogenisis, evolution, atomic theory, quantum mechanics or any other scientific field. But I wasn't targeting him for that. I was calling him out for his (and other creationists) use of the word "eternity".

I wasn't making an argument for abiogenisis or evolution.

And once again, I didn't use a strawman.

bohm

Megac.: I think i understand you better now. You are debating the technicallity IF a PEN could come about by ACCIDENT given all ETERNITY . My statement that it was not even wrong was that in the context of evolution or abiogenesis the argument is not even wrong because it has nothing to do with those things. My comment about the 'strawman' was not meant in a personal way, it was meant to the whole 'pen' illustration in the context of evolution or abiogenesis; that IS very much a strawman.

Regarding time, infinity, eternal - i invite you again to check up on what infinite really mean, specifically countable and uncountable infinite.

jaguarbass

Since they would no longer aknowledge God, God gave them up to their own foolish thinkng.

Thats you and the pen.

Romans 1:28

Your out to lunch your brain is fried and gone.

Megachusen

Oh jaguar...

You didn't even undestand a single word of anything we just posted did you?

Edit after reading bohm's comment: Sorry about that Jaguar. My bad...

Looks like I do need some sleep...

bohm

i think JB was talking about TMJW..

notverylikely

Yes you are correct - which means if I purchased a Lottery ticket each week I would eventually win the jackpot.

Ah, see, that's NOT right. The probablity goes up over time and approaches one, but never actually reaches it, even over infinity. But again, the creationists use infinity as a strawman.

Well, that's when things with an extremely small probability ratio can happen.

Things with small probability ratios can happen in a finite time universe as well. While probablitites go up in infinite time universes (theoretically). Adressing infinity is a rathole they love to go down and some people dutifully follow them down with the car or watch example. Yes, the probablity goes up, but that doesn't mean it necessarily reaches 1 or even a number meanfully close to that.

bohm

NVL: I am just addressing some basic facts of probability theory so they do not get in the way of the debate.

The probability in the lotto example is, in any meaningfull way, 1. I wont get into detail but an argument could be something like this: In infinite time (technical, some limiting procedure) the probability must have a value. (why? 2 reasons: It is bounded and increase with time). IF that value is less than 1, what is it? (eg. something like: 0.999999999...99999974). It is easy to see that after sufficient time, the probability will rise above that bound hence you arrive at a contradiction.

But I totally agree, addressing infinite, eternal, 'the probability is very low', is not something that should be done since it has nothing to do with anything.

notverylikely

But I totally agree, addressing infinite, eternal, 'the probability is very low', is not something that should be done since it has nothing to do with anything.

I'm with you. I was just addressing the point the idea that over an infinite time, the probablity of something (or everything) happening is 1, or as some like to put it, everything that can happen will happen.

Obviously if you win the lotto, the probability jumped to 1, but there is nothing that says it HAS to rise to 1.

I am not a statistician, but I do deal with the maths and failure rates a LOT and deal with mean time between failures, stuff that involves probablities and protecting against them.

A Message To All Creationists

Share this