Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Alter2Ego

Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

47 posts in this topic

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"

The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that HAPPENS BY CHANCE and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

Notice that an accident, by definition, is something unplanned aka it "happened by chance." Notice the similarity of the definition for "spontaneous" (as in "spontaneous event").

DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS":

"Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse."

http://www.yourdicti...com/spontaneous

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography)

SIDE NOTE: Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, are:

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*yawwwwwn* :td: :td:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone isn't familiar with chaos theory.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precision in nature is proof only that the universe as we see it needs a certain set of parameters in which to exist. So your argument can be boiled down to - "the universe exists therefore God made it".

Not even really an argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Why does precision need deliberation? My cat can knock over a vase and break it into precisely eight pieces, but I am pretty sure he didn't think that this vase is going to break into precisely eight pieces when he knocked it over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precision in nature is proof only that the universe as we see it needs a certain set of parameters in which to exist. So your argument can be boiled down to - "the universe exists therefore God made it".

Not even really an argument.

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.

  1. All designs have a designer
  2. The universe is intricately designed
  3. Therefore the universe has a designer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.

  1. All designs have a designer
  2. The universe is intricately designed
  3. Therefore the universe has a designer

Oh look I can do the same thing.

  1. All designs have a designer
  2. The universe isn't designed
  3. Therefore the universe has no designer

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.

  1. All designs have a designer
  2. The universe is intricately designed
  3. Therefore the universe has a designer

Except that your first premise is blown out of the water by evolution by natural selection.

It’s not logical; it’s an argument from ignorance. And ignorance is this case is not stupidity, but lack of knowledge of natural selection.

Natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of these small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so.

Design just raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? An intelligent designer must itself be far more complex and difficult to explain than anything it is capable of designing. So by using your logic (flawed as it is) a designer being complex and having an appearance of design itself therefore must have a designer.

Edited by Odin11
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.

  1. All designs have a designer
  2. The universe is intricately designed
  3. Therefore the universe has a designer

That isn't logical, as you're assuming that the universe is designed. As the basis of an argument that's completely flawed.

Of course the universe looks fined tuned to support life. If it didn't we wouldn't be here to observe it.

There may have been billions of universes before this one where the numbers were completely different, but as they would have been unable to support life, you wouldn't have had any one around to say "well this universe isn't particularly fine tuned".

Any life supporting universe would *have* to look find tuned. Doesn't mean it's been designed tho. Again, when you boil it down it's simply not an argument.

Edited by Emma_Acid
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"

Science is not written for the average person. In science we use language in a very precise manner. That is so that our readers will know what we mean. So if we're going to talk about scientific ideas, we use scientific definitions, not Webster's. Start by tossing your Webster's New World College Dictionary on the trash heap.

Precision is how far we can carry the calculations. If we carry them out eight places, then we have a number like: Pi = 3.14159256. But if our measuring device only allows us to measure to two places, then our accuracy is: Pi = 3.14. Accuracy is how close you come to reality to absolute Truth. Precision is an arithmetic exercise.

My microscope can measure the width of a tree ring out to the nearest micron. But the cross-hair in the eyepiece is 8 microns thick, so the precision is to the micron, but the accuracy is 8 microns. On the printout the number goes out four places, but the accuracy only goes three. Precision and accuracy are two DIFFERENT things. "Exactness" is not defined. The word is gibberish.

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world.

This is your first problem. Being highly precise does not make an estimate at all accurate. Get your terms straight.

This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events.

Because events are not fully understood, does not mean that they are without cause. You are getting cause-and-effect mixed up. A couple of ideas currently being tossed around in cosmology are that the universe is eternal: the Big Bang was really the Big Bounce in which all matter collapsed ALMOST to a singularity, then rebounded to its present state. That ALMOST renders your statement "inexact," "imprecise (You didn't quite carry the calculation out far enough to capture reality.)" and inaccurate.

Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Wrong again. There is all sorts of room for error in even the most precise calculations. I don't care how precise you are; I want to know how accurate you are.

I have to leave, but to quote Arnold, "I'll be back."

Doug

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.

  1. All designs have a designer
  2. The universe is intricately designed
  3. Therefore the universe has a designer

Another member brought up a great reply in regards to the watchmaker fallacy (your argument here). I've yet to seen any of the pop-in creationists (including ID creationists, who are really just more wordy creationists) address it. In fact it is quite funny to watch. Here is the premise:

No single, individual watchmaker working alone has ever located a source of ore, mined it, refined the metal from it, made his or her own watchmkaing tools, ..., stayed with the watch to attend that it remains properly wound for the rest of its service life.

The single watchmaker does not even fashion the workbench seat that holds up his or her butt, a necessary condition for the watch to be made.

Obviously, however prominent a role the single self-designated "watchmaker" may play, he or she is one member of a vast society of makers who collectively bring it about that a watch gets made.

I conclude, then, that there must similarly be a society of intelligent designers, in order to account for the intelligently jury-rigged design we see all around us. The true gods are many; perhaps yours is one of them. Perhaps like the human "watchmaker," he takes credit for the contributions of the many gods, all of whose work comes together in an actual watch.

Arguments by analogy are ladydogs, Guyver. Four star ladydogs.

-

[1] There is no evidence of unicity of intention in the design of even the simplest organism.

[2] The watchmaker argument clearly shows that a society of intelligent agents is needed to make even something as simple as a watch.

[3] I wrote a story, using a pseudonym, about having had a dream in which a god told me what happened.

I hope Eight bits doesn't mind me quoting him here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random.

I'm back.

Another problem with definitions. "Random" does NOT mean "haphazard." A random distribution has very definite characteristics. It has a mean of zero with a normal distribution. That distribution has inflection points at +/- one standard error from the mean. In such a population, 95% of the observations fall within 1.96 standard errors of the mean. Chance DOES NOT equal random.

Perhaps you've heard of the "Laws of Chance." Things in Nature follow those laws. Dice on a gaming table follow those laws. Cosmic rays striking DNA molecules follow those laws.

Perhaps you've heard of the "Laws of Chaos." Those are another set of laws that matter conforms to, as in the waving of a flag in the breeze.

A random occurrence may entrain a series of events that, once started, follow very predictable course.

In short, you have totally failed to unseat evolution. From what you've posted, it's difficult even to tell what it is you're talking about.

Doug

P.S.: If you really believe in your god, then you don't need science for support. Faith alone is sufficient. That you are trying to use science to bolster your faith only indicates that your faith is not strong enough to support itself. That you use pseudo-science to support your faith only means that your faith is propped up by mistakes.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for saving me a lot of typing out doug, much appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

.

obviously they COULD, because they DID.

.

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

.

no. it isn't.

.

3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?[/size][/font]

.

this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

.

it would appear that someone is trying to come across as being clever when they aren't.

.

and succeeding spectacularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim that there is precision or design to be seen in nature is false. I look at Versailles, and I say, there is the design. I look at a forest and mountain range, and I see randomness, no design. The trees may obey a tree-line that wanders up and down according to local conditions, but that is just a response to local conditions, not design. Mountains and rivers make their random wanderings.

That there are natural processes, the most famous being natural selection, that creates an illusion of design is true enough, but only in limited ways and as a result of perfectly understandable reasons.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to Doug's great post on "random" and "chance", this is something I've addressed here a lot with creationists. It seems you guys either weren't paying attention in high school biology class or you like knocking down your own strawmen.

Evolution (the biological fact) is fuel by something that is the exact opposite of random: natural selection. Let me say that again, biological evolution is driven by something not random. Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of organisms in a population. I've repeated that to creationists so many times its not even funny. I often wonder if, because of their lack luster education and understanding of science, they have difficulty understanding the word differential. So let me say it in another way: the chance that one organism in a population will survive and reproduce is not the same chance that another member of the population will. If evolution were random, the chances that each organism in a population would survive and reproduce would be equal.

Considering this is something I've covered before I have a nice post on the math and 'chances' of evolution typed up for you already;

Please address it Alter2Ego

Now consider it mathematically with a game. Yes a game. Here is the rules. We have 3 dice, each dice represents a nucleotide. We are going to build a gene and we have two ways of doing so. The first way, we will assume the rules Dembski provides for us. Now, arbitrary rules notwithstanding, I'm going to be the environment and decide that any gene that will be useful to a population must arise within 25 generations-After that cut off, it would simply be too late to be useful in a changed environment. Each roll of the dice, we will consider a generation.

Game 1

To search for a particular gene we are going to do as Dembski suggests and rely upon blind chance alone. The target in this case is, or sequence of our gene is 6/6/6 (that's a 6 on each die).

Throwing one die we have a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 and 5/6 chance to land on anything but 6. Thus we have 6 possible outcomes of our roll. With 2 dice we would have (6*6) 36 potential outcomes and with 3 dice we would have 216 potential outcomes (6*6*6).

Of all outcomes, only one is 6/6/6 so we have chance of 1/216. Certainly not astronomical odds, but considering our limitation of generations, I wouldn't bet on it.

So how many generations would we expect to go through before we reach our target gene?

Its going to get a little more mathy, but I think you'll be able to follow along. If not, just point out where I'm loosing you.

Let's, for arbitrary reasons, call the probability we succeed on the first roll, A. The probability then for succeeding on the second roll would simply be A(1-A). (Follow how we did that?)

So the probability of succeeding in finding the target on the third roll is simply A(1-A)(1-A). See the pattern evolving here?

The fourth roll; A(1-A)(1-A)(1-A) etc. We can rewrite this as A(1-A)3 =A4, where A4 simply denotes the roll.

From this we can derive a simple statistical rule. Since the term (1-A) is simply multiplied to the rule for each additional roll, we can say that the probability to succeed on any roll (An) is simply A(1-A)(n-1).

For example, the probability to find our target gene on the 27th roll (generation) is simply A(1-A)26.

Since, the game must be completed by a certain generation, we have an expectation for completion which we'll arbitrarily call E.

The expectation is simply the sum of all of the probabilities of each round till the game is won. Mathematically that simply means that;

ΣE*A(1-A)(E-1).

Since our expectation has to be a positive real number, we know it can be any number from 0 to infinity. Taking the limit of the above equation we would get;

A*1/A2=E, where is the expected number of generations to find our target.

To solve this, remember that A is the probability of succeeding on the first roll or 1/216. So plugging that into our equation we get E=216.

Obviously then, we wouldn't expect evolution to produce target complexity without the intervention of an intelligent agent. Or would we?

Game 2

In this game we are going to play more akin to how I described evolution above. By using blind trials but saving positive outcomes into the next generation. A positive outcome in this example would be a 6.

So whenever a die is rolled that lands on a 6, that die is saved to the next round (a free pass).

We can then go about calculating the number of rounds or generations we would expect to play to win the game.

Consider when we roll 1 die, we had a 1/6 chance of 6 and a 5/6 chance of not 6. To calculate our expectation, arbitrarily defined as x, we;

Equation 1:

x1 = 1 + 5/6 * x1

1/6*x1 = 1

x1 = 6

With 2 dice we have a 1/36 chance of finishing the game in one step 6/6, a 10/36 chance of rolling one 6 and a 25/36 chance of rolling no 6 at all, thus;

Equation 2:

x2 = 1 + 10/36* x1 + 25/36* x2

11/36*x2 = 1 + 10/36 * 6 (the 6 comes from the above answer to equation 1)

x2= 36/11 * 8/3 = 96/11 or that is we expect on average to play the game 8.72 rounds

So with 3 dice we have a 1/216 chance of finishing the game in one step, a 75/216 chance of rolling a single 6, a 15/216 chance of rolling two 6’s and a 125/216 chance of rolling no 6 at all.

So our equation becomes;

Equation 3:

x3 = 1 + 75/216 * x1 + 15/216 * x2 + 125/216 *x3

91/216*x3 = 1 + 75/216 * 6 + 15/216 * 96/11

x3 = 216/91 * 487/132

x3 = 8766/1001 or 8.76 rounds

We then would most often, win the game. The implication of this then, if you haven't followed it through the two games, is that by adding selection and heredity into the mix evolution by natural selection is capable of generating complex information. And in it does this in a evolutionary timely manner with the assistance of heredity and selection.

In fact, the argument gets worse for Dembski, the more we liken it to the real world. Because in evolution, there are many, many, many simultaneous trials (organisms) each playing the game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

law of chance - if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 1045 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses.

CETI by Carl Sagan

Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

Edited by runekazter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

law of chance - if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 1045 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses.

Who are these evolutionists? And why are you throwing out a page number without a book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at a forest and mountain range, and I see randomness, no design.

Hey! Wait a minute!

I study forests and trees. I look at them and I see order. Order created by the flow of energy through the system. Douglas-firs make food using solar energy. Tussock-moths eat Douglas-fir needles, getting their energy that way. Insect-eating birds eat tussock-moth caterpillars, getting their energy that way. An acre may contain two million pounds of wood and three tons of caterpillar, the two million pounds of tree being defended by four pounds of bird. Those numbers are controlled by the energy flows. Order everywhere - and nothing but energy controlling it.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

No they would not have.been able to- because of the fact that if the elements did not have this precise relationship then none of us would exist to make the observation that they have a precise relationship.

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

It absolutely could have resulted from chance aka spontaneously aka by accident. I don't know if it is evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer/God, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is evidence for a lack of complete understanding on our part.

3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Evolution/natural selection has mountains of evidence backing it up. The big bang admittedly has less evidence for it, but it has objective evidence, which is more than the God hypothesis has. Your argument here holds no water. We do not know if the elements could be interrelated in any other way than they are. The fact is that there could be a trillion universes for every one universe like ours, but you will always 100% find yourself in a universe like ours. In the face of infinity, either infinite time, or infinite universes (take your pick) even if our type of universe is so rare that it only happens one out of every 10^100,000 universes. Which is an unimaginably large number, even with these slim to nothing odds our universe is 100% assured to happen. Given either infinite time or infinite universes. Infinite time would mean that there are unimaginably long stretches of time in between life supporting universes, infinite universes would mean literally an infinite number of universes like ours, even with such unlikely odds.

Creator God, no creator God, infinite time or infinite universes. We just don't know, but it sure is awe inspiring to think about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

law of chance - if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 1045 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses.

CETI by Carl Sagan

Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

And where do these numbers come from? How do we know what the probability of life evolving on a given planet are? The equations that lead to these numbers are probably good equations, but the numbers you plug into these equations ultimately are just guesses. Garbage in-> garbage out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wonder if, because of their lack luster education and understanding of science, they have difficulty understanding the word differential.

A comment on fundamentalist education:

A friend of mine was home schooled. Her mother was of a strongly fundamentalist bent and didn't think the public schools would do a good job.

After a home-schooled high school, she attended a Bible college and got a "Bachelors" degree. She then transferred to a big state university, intending to continue with graduate school. She flunked out of that program in her first semester because she had little training in reading and writing and none at all in the sciences (She failed both Freshman algebra and chemistry.). In order to pursue her chosen career she will have to repeat her entire "education." Her mother failed her and her Bible college defrauded her. She is hopelessly unprepared for even a job as a sales clerk.

Lest you think I am against home schooling: another friend of mine was home schooled during junior high and grade school. His parents made him do a "senior project." He was looking for ideas for a project involving historical research, so I gave him my grandparent's names and some background and he traced them for me using records from Ellis Island. I hadn't known my great-grandmother's name, but there it was on the passenger manifest. This person got a scholarship to study in Europe and is now a professor at St. Andrews in Scotland.

An acquaintance teaches at a Baptist high school. The subject - biology and evolution! He gets a lot of flack from the parents and students, but defends it with this line: "Evolution is the basis for modern biology. If you go on to any sort of career in the life sciences, you will be expected to know and use it. You can believe anything you want, but if don't put down the right answers on the test, you will not pass." He says that all but six of his students who went on to medical and/or natural science programs have wound up accepting evolution. Of those six, three majored in geology. Two of those are working as mud loggers where knowledge of evolution doesn't matter. The third was unemployable in the sciences and settled for a job as a curator of a creationist pseudo-science museum. It's really hard to believe in creationism and work with living things.

Doug

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And where do these numbers come from? How do we know what the probability of life evolving on a given planet are? The equations that lead to these numbers are probably good equations, but the numbers you plug into these equations ultimately are just guesses. Garbage in-> garbage out.

I thought talkorigins gave a better indepth look at the probability of abiogenesis, not just throwing random numbers out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution/natural selection has mountains of evidence backing it up.

About 2.1 MILLION published and refereed journal articles, I am told - by a local geology professor.

Evolution never disproved creationism. It just buried it.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comment on fundamentalist education:

A friend of mine was home schooled. Her mother was of a strongly fundamentalist bent and didn't think the public schools would do a good job.

After a home-schooled high school, she attended a Bible college and got a "Bachelors" degree. She then transferred to a big state university, intending to continue with graduate school. She flunked out of that program in her first semester because she had little training in reading and writing and none at all in the sciences (She failed both Freshman algebra and chemistry.). In order to pursue her chosen career she will have to repeat her entire "education." Her mother failed her and her Bible college defrauded her. She is hopelessly unprepared for even a job as a sales clerk.

Lest you think I am against home schooling: another friend of mine was home schooled during junior high and grade school. His parents made him do a "senior project." He was looking for ideas for a project involving historical research, so I gave him my grandparent's names and some background and he traced them for me using records from Ellis Island. I hadn't known my great-grandmother's name, but there it was on the passenger manifest. This person got a scholarship to study in Europe and is now a professor at St. Andrews in Scotland.

An acquaintance teaches at a Baptist high school. The subject - biology and evolution! He gets a lot of flack from the parents and students, but defends it with this line: "Evolution is the basis for modern biology. If you go on to any sort of career in the life sciences, you will be expected to know and use it. You can believe anything you want, but if don't put down the right answers on the test, you will not pass." He says that all but six of his students who went on to medical and/or natural science programs have wound up accepting evolution. Of those six, three majored in geology. Two of those are working as mud loggers where knowledge of evolution doesn't matter. The third was unemployable in the sciences and settled for a job as a curator of a creationist pseudo-science museum. It's really hard to believe in creationism and work with living things.

Doug

really?? lol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.