Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[abu afak]

ie, this Thrashing among a dozens:

....... (x100)

So you already lost on ODDS because your Failed to be able to enumerate the amount of chances there were to overcome them.
Also, as I said, even your simpleton math was wrong because of molecular tendencies.

Rational Wiki
Argument from Incredulity (FALLACY)

​

"...Contrary to the instincts of many creationists, lack of an explanation does not justify confecting whatever explanation one would prefer. The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.​

​

Sometimes Creationists compute the Astronomical odds against a molecule having a certain structure from the simple probability of n atoms arranging themselves so. They gloss over the Fact that Chemical Laws Trim most of the extraneous possibilities away.​

For instance, there are many ways to theoretically arrange hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms in a molecule, but in reality, most of what forms is H2O. Note that the creationist's fundamental error is not his ignorance of this fact, but the assumption that there is nothing more to know.".."​

Argument from incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen or does not exist because they cannot personally understand the workings.

rationalwiki.org

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm pretty sure I demonstrated your Theory of Evolution with respect to how life first started is mathematically impossible

No.
Several times, with and without Links, I demonstrated you had no clue and merely posted the raw inaccurate 'oidds of success,' WITHOUT posting the chances like had to form that is necessary to conclude any number .
Further:

Reports of the National Center for Science Education
Volume 20, #4
Creationism and Pseudomathematics

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like. Thus they argue that it is irrational to believe that the event in question could have happened naturally (they mean "by chance") without the aid of intelligent design. In some cases, such as the chance formation of habitable planets, one may avoid a technical discussion of the physical processes involved and respond simply by pointing out that the universe is a very big place, containing countless galaxies, stars, and planetary systems, thus providing so much opportunity for the natural occurrence of the event in question that the probability may be quite high that such an event would occur somewhere. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite, providing the event with infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurrence of the event is a virtual certainty. Thus creationist probability arguments can often be undermined by pointing out that any event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited.

This principle is sometimes illustrated with the following thought experiment (of which the reader has probably heard one version or another): Suppose that a monkey, trained to hit the keys of a typewriter one by one in a truly random fashion, types forever, producing infinitely many pages of text. No one doubts that the monkey would type page after page of gibberish, but it follows from the above principle that sooner or later the monkey would type all of the works of Shakespeare from beginning to end, without error, solely by accident.

Unfortunately, this result of the thought experiment, and thus the principle itself, is sometimes explicitly rejected by creationists. One way of trying to justify their denial of this principle is by an appeal to what creationists refer to as Borel's single law of chance - a claim made by the French probability theorist Emile Borel. According to creationists, Borel's single law of chance says that any event with a probability lower than 1 in 1050 is so improbable as to be impossible (Kennedy 1980: 57; Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 183; Harber 1998: 33; Mastropaolo 1999: iii). The implication is that, since the origin of life, the evolution of humans, and many other events may have a probability below this limit, they could not possibly have happened by chance no matter how much opportunity there may have been for them to occur.

Thus creationists attempt to protect their probability arguments from our sufficient opportunity principle by invoking this single beloved mathematical law. Borel did in fact propose such a law. However, just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. So what did Borel really mean? Here is an illustration.

Lightning Strikes - Often!
Hardly any of us really worries about getting struck by lightning. The probability that any individual will ever be struck by lightning is extremely low. But with so many people in the world, there is ample opportunity for this rare event to happen from time to time. It would be amazing if it never happened; and indeed many of us do know of such an event. Thus there are some highly improbable events that may be rationally expected to happen occasionally.

On the other hand, we can imagine other events (such as a monkey's accidentally typing Shakespeare) that are so improbable that the entire observable universe cannot provide enough opportunity for us rationally to expect the event in question to occur. Any event of this sort that has any probability at all is still possible - it is just that it would be foolish to bet on its occurrence, not only at a particular place or time, but anywhere ever (within the spatial and temporal confines of the observable universe). Borel said that such events, having a probability of no more than roughly 1 in 1050, never occur (Borel 1965: 57). But this law of chance is not literally true, for, as we shall see, such events can and do happen. I think that a more accurate way to say what Borel had in mind is that in reality, no such event can be rationally predicted ever to occur.

Unfortunately, because, I suspect, of the carelessness of creationists' research, they have failed to grasp Borel's law and instead have taken his claim at face value - as saying literally that events of such low probabilities cannot possibly occur! For example, according to Scott Huse, "[M]athematicians generally consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 1050 as having a zero probability ([that is] it is impossible)" (Huse 1997: 123). So in effect we are told that according to Borel's single law of chance, even if the observable universe did provide unlimited opportunity for their occurrence, such events are just too improbable ever to occur (Ankerberg and Weldon 1998: 329-30). It is this claim with which I take issue (as would Borel), for though one need not be learned in mathematics to find the claim questionable, many laypeople, I fear, may find it all too easy to believe.

All Nonzero Probabilities Are Possible
The probability of an event is expressed as a real number from 0 to 1; the more probable the event, the higher the number. An event can have only one probability at any time, just as a person at any given time can have only one age. However, anti-evolutionists misconstrue Borel's law of chance to imply the absurdity that low-probability events are assigned 2 different probabilities - their true probability and a probability of 0.

By way of example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 10-100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0 (see the Huse quote above). But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 and a probability of 0 (unless we think that 1/10100 = 0, which is as false as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5). Moreover, since the conceivable outcomes are what mathematicians call mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, the sum of all their individual probabilities must equal 1, which they cannot do if they are all 0.

Fortunately, one need only carry out this experiment to see the anti-evolutionists' version of this "law of chance" falsified. For surely some outcome must be realized when we instruct the computer to select 100 random digits, despite the fact that the calculated probability of each outcome that the computer could produce falls far below the supposed threshold of possibility. (Borel, on the other hand, would say that no preconceived outcome could be rationally expected to occur, because the probability of successfully guessing the outcome in advance is too low for it to be expected to happen in the real world.) Thus we see that the anti-evolutionist appeal to Borel's law of chance fails to refute the principle that any event with a positive probability, no matter how small, is bound to happen somewhere sometime if given infinitely many chances.
[.......]
[.......]

Creationism and Pseudomathematics | National Center for Science Education

We are well aware of anti-evolutionists' fondness for presenting their audiences with numbers of dizzying magnitude that they use to represent incredibly low probabilities for such events as the chance formation of a protein molecule, the origin of life, and the like.

ncse.ngo

`

Yawn.

WTF is an anti-evolutionists????

Sounds like the Climate Change Cult.

The article is off by several billion orders of magnitude.

The odds of a functioning DNA strand in a functioning cellular nucleus forming by random chance are prohibitive. That it exists is not an argument that it can only be happenstance

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Around and around, the math fails your theory so you reject the math, then claim I'm the frothing fundamentalist bitterly clinging to my ideology.

You lost the Math several times.
So you are stupid a well as Dishonest.
You do NOT know the math because you do not know the amount of chances had to overcome any [exaggerated] odds.
Your "math' is also perverse as was explained to you in detail.

You did NOT/Could NOT answer my refutation of your 'math' on pages 12-15 and 20. (and more)
IAC...
Who the **** would trust deluded Trailer Park Trash like you with math?

BTW your repeated posts/intentionally annoying idiotic 'incredulity' Trolls are promoting MY thread/My title.
Be glad to humor you for a few hundred pages.
Who's good at math?

`

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

 

[abu afak]

Yawn.

WTF is an anti-evolutionists????

Sounds like the Climate Change Cult.

The article is off by several billion orders of magnitude.

The odds of a functioning DNA strand in a functioning cellular nucleus forming by random chance are prohibitive. That it exists is not an argument that it can only be happenstance

You've lost the beginner trope 'complexity'/'Incredulity' debate (Fallacies) like 30 times in this thread.

Do you have anything else?
Any HARD EVIDENCE of a god instead of another 'God of the Gaps'/'It must be god because I can't understand it'?
Because your disbelief/lack of understanding is NOT evidence... it's ignorance trailer-park guy.

Now go check the propane tank before it blows up.

With your help/stupidity I think I can get this over 100 pages and all-time dominant in the section.




`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yawn.

WTF is an anti-evolutionists????

Sounds like the Climate Change Cult.

The article is off by several billion orders of magnitude.

The odds of a functioning DNA strand in a functioning cellular nucleus forming by random chance are prohibitive. That it exists is not an argument that it can only be happenstance

You've lost the beginner trope 'complexity'/'Incredulity' debate (Fallacies) like 30 times in this thread.

Do you have anything else?
Any HARD EVIDENCE of a god instead of another 'God of the Gaps'/'It must be god because I can't understand it'?
Because your disbelief/lack of understanding is NOT evidence... it's ignorance trailer-park guy.

Now go check the propane tank before it blows up.

With your help/stupidity I think I can get this over 100 pages and all-time dominant in the section.




`

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

 

[abu afak]

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')

If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.

Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
IOW, you got nothing.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')

If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.

Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
IOW, you got nothing.
`

You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so. You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.

Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA? They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.

Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer

Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?

 

[abu afak]

`

`

 

[Hollie]

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')

If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.

Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
IOW, you got nothing.
`

You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so. You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.

Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA? They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.

Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer

Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?

Your screeching comments that followed your "fallacy" nonsense reflect abhorrent ignorance of biological systems.

Be honest. You really did flunk out of 8th biology, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

`

View attachment 475050

`

LOL!

You can explain how the DNA and organelles "randomly" assembled?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')

If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.

Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
IOW, you got nothing.
`

You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so. You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.

Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA? They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.

Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer

Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?

Your screeching comments that followed your "fallacy" nonsense reflect abhorrent ignorance of biological systems.

Be honest. You really did flunk out of 8th biology, right?

Do you know what an organelle is? DNA?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Information in DNA Determines Cellular Function via Translation.

snip.... Redundancy in the genetic code means that most amino acids are specified by more than one mRNA codon. For example, the amino acid phenylalanine (Phe) is specified by the codons UUU and UUC, and the amino acid leucine (Leu) is specified by the codons CUU, CUC, CUA, and CUG. Methionine is specified by the codon AUG, which is also known as the start codon. Consequently, methionine is the first amino acid to dock in the ribosome during the synthesis of proteins. Tryptophan is unique because it is the only amino acid specified by a single codon. The remaining 19 amino acids are specified by between two and six codons each. The codons UAA, UAG, and UGA are the stop codons that signal the termination of translation.....

This system can about randomly? From molecules bumping into each other?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')

If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.

Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
IOW, you got nothing.
`

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

• 4400 mya – The Earth's first oceans formed

https://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/media/1514/geological-timeline-pack.pdf

When did the first cells appear?

• 3850 mya – The first life appeared on Earth.

https://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/media/1514/geological-timeline-pack.pdf

So, it's 550,000,000 years

How many organelles were in the first cell?

Go away! Just go Away!

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

See Go away, just go away above

How many times must you shake together inorganic compounds to create Life?

Infinity

 

[Hollie]

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')

If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.

Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
IOW, you got nothing.
`

You calling it a "Fallacy" does not make it so. You want to buleeeeve that a cell was RANDOMLY created with all of the organelles perfectly aligned and functioning and with an exact DNA that would replicate it.

Which came first, the perfectly formed and aligned organelles or the DNA? They had to "evolve" randomly together, right because one with out the other is half an arch.

Go post more of your "fallacies" because we both know you have no other answer

Do you know how complex an individual organelle is?

Your screeching comments that followed your "fallacy" nonsense reflect abhorrent ignorance of biological systems.

Be honest. You really did flunk out of 8th biology, right?

Do you know what an organelle is? DNA?

Quite a sidestep. So yes, you did flunk out of 8 th grade biology.

 

[Hollie]

`

View attachment 475050

`

LOL!

You can explain how the DNA and organelles "randomly" assembled?

DNA and organelles would not "randomly" assemble.

Can you explain how your gods supernaturally created DNA and failed to realize how really inept their magical creation was?

 

[Hollie]

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

When did the first cells appear?

How many organelles were in the first cell?

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

Your Trivia quiz is useless, and another stupid attempt at the Incredulity fallacy. (with a minor in the 'demand endless detail fallacy')

If you don't like that, just refer to my last two posts on this page which answer you completely and for which you have/had NO answer.

Do you have any HARD EVIDENCE of god instead of the 'God of the Gaps' Fallacy. ("I don't understand/it's too complicated so it must be god")
IOW, you got nothing.
`

Let's try this:

How long ago did Earth form?

• 4400 mya – The Earth's first oceans formed

https://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/media/1514/geological-timeline-pack.pdf

When did the first cells appear?

• 3850 mya – The first life appeared on Earth.

https://www.dynamicearth.co.uk/media/1514/geological-timeline-pack.pdf

So, it's 550,000,000 years

How many organelles were in the first cell?

Go away! Just go Away!

How many nucleotides in the single cell DNA?

See Go away, just go away above

How many times must you shake together inorganic compounds to create Life?

Infinity

“When did the first cells appear?

3850 mya – The first life appeared on Earth.”

Where did the first cells come from? Which gods magically created those cells.

 

[LittleNipper]

I fully believe that GOD has provided man and the animals the means to cope with environmental changes. Man builds houses and invented various means of both heating and cooling them. As man lost servants, the GOD inspired ability of inventiveness came into play. Man made cars, washers, dryers, planes, ships, clocks, tools, etc., etc., etc... In the very same way animals adapted to the cold, the warmth, the light and the dark. Where I draw the line is that single celled organisms developed into multicellular organisms that then developed into the various animals and eventually led to man. And this form or application of the word EVOLUTION is the one I totally abhor. This is not what GOD did at all.

 

[abu afak]

I fully believe that GOD has provided man and the animals the means to cope with environmental changes. Man builds...

Most of the predecessors of ALL extant animals, including ours are EXTINCT from lack of adaptation.
Infinitely more species existed (gods' errors) than exist now.

We are what's Left of them because we are best suited to present conditions.
We and all creatures/life are still evolving.
It's a process that never stops.

Learn the facts.
No one gives a **** what CRAP you believe except on Sunday Morning or the RELIGION section here.
This however is the SCI section
STAY THE **** OUT.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

WTF is an anti-evolutionist

Find a mirror. You are embarrassing yourself by saying the most idiotic things, all to try to shit on evolution. You have a problem.

 

[abu afak]

Yawn.

WTF is an anti-evolutionists????

Sounds like the Climate Change Cult.

The article is off by several billion orders of magnitude.

The odds of a functioning DNA strand in a functioning cellular nucleus forming by random chance are prohibitive. That it exists is not an argument that it can only be happenstance

You can't and haven't posted the chances of life occurring naturally.
Until you post Chances for vs Chances against, you have No real odds.
(not to mention even your one side of equation is exaggerated/Wrong as I've explained/Gutted you on several times with and without sources.)

The Creationist word 'evolutionist' is wrong, redundant, and unnecessary.
It's like calling someone a 'gravitationalist.'
It's believing an well known/accepted fact/goes without saying.
A word with no meaning except as an epithet used by religious retards that has outlived any usefulness.
`