Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus



If one of the links doesn't fit your sensibilities, try a different one.

There's plenty of meat in several of them.

BO XIAN
By all means outline the differences per your perspective.

I did. You stated that there was not enough time for evolution to take place and the two links I commented on argue against abiogenesis and not evolution. They are two different topics.

reply to post by Helious


But what about the idea that the big bang and evolution are all just tools of a creator?

Its was all preplaned and set in motion right from the very beguining.

Maybe evolution is not all random chance, maybe DNA is meant to change when certain preset conditions are met?

If a creator had infinate wisdom then surely the big bang is a very viable way to start things off?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


In terms of applied probability principles, theory . . .

what on earth do you construe as a meaningful difference between

evolution vs abiogenesis?

It seems to me you are attempting to make much ado about nothing.

Which, actually, is a fair description of both evolution and abiogenesis.

BO XIAN
In terms of applied probability principles, theory . . .

what on earth do you construe as a meaningful difference between

evolution vs abiogenesis?

Evolution has happened, therefore the probability of it occurring is at least 1 applying the same methodology your links employed.

It seems to me you are attempting to make much ado about nothing.

Which, actually, is a fair description of both evolution and abiogenesis.

The fact that you used links which equate evolution with abiogenesis does one of two things. It shows that the authors of these sites:

Either purposefully misrepresent that both topics are the same thing

or

They are too stupid to recognize that these are individual topics

Either way this seems to be a common tactic when attempting to discredit evolution. I still have not seen a link to supporting documentation that upholds your claim that the universe is too young for evolution to have occurred.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Ahhhhhhhhhhh it is as I suspected . . .

some philosophical slight-of-hand DOGMA from the Religion of Scientism interjected as a viable "rational" argument about probabilities.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Balderdash.

The notion that "evolution" has happened is one of the most absurd fantasies to ever afflict mankind.

That you consider the theory an absolute fact is telling.

Ahhh wellll, enjoy the fantasy while you still may. It's days are numbered even on the part of the satanic globalist oligarchy.

They are on the brink of trashing it in favor of PANSPERMIA.

It has served them well, however. It was engineered to trash traditional values and trust in God's Word and it's succeeded at that extremely well. The philosophical Eloi have shuffled off into the mental caverns of the Morlachs en masse extremely obediently, compliantly.

I realize that the trap with one's passions, urges & rebellions was compelling. Nevertheless, the time to pay the Piper will arrive like Clockwork Orange.

In terms of probability theory as it relates to evolutionary THEORY and/or abiogenesis . . . quality applications of probability to such CONJECTURES still stand . . . and perceptive folks understand that quite well.

Of course, the following wisdom from Psalms still stands, too:

Psalm 14:1

The Message (MSG)
A David Psalm

14 Bilious and bloated, they gas,
“God is gone.”
Their words are poison gas,
fouling the air; they poison
Rivers and skies;
thistles are their cash crop.

New Living Translation (NLT)
Psalm 53
For the choir director: A meditation; a psalm[a] of David.

1 Only fools say in their hearts,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;
not one of them does good!

.
Psalm 53:1
The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that does good. KJV

Soiling one's own nest with nonsensical values and constructions on "reality" is a fascinating psychological and sociological as well as philosophical and religious set of phenomena.

There's not a microscopic shred of serious evidence that meticulous complex order has ever spontaneously arisen totally out of, by and from chaos strictly on the basis of chance + time.

Yet the acolytes, priests, high priests and bishops of the Religion of Scientism CHANT ENDLESSLY that it has done just that.

What impressive fantasies they have woven accordingly.

It will be interesting to see the looks on their spiritually eternal faces when their fantasies evaporate quicker than a Phoenix morning fog in July.

I suspect that "Ooooops" won't quite cover it.

Evolution has happened and has been observed happening all around us, have you never had a cold? Or seen all the breeds o dog/cat there are?

The stupidity and ignorance involved in your posts is beyond comprehension. All your posts do is remove more credibility from creationist types.

reply to post by bastion


You know, that is a good point. The mere fact that antibiotics are quickly becoming ineffective is pretty much proof of evolution in action.

Antibiotic resistance: delaying the inevitable

Evolutionary theory predicted that bacterial resistance would happen. Given time, heredity, and variation, any living organisms (including bacteria) will evolve when a selective pressure (like an antibiotic) is introduced. But evolutionary theory also gives doctors and patients some specific strategies for delaying even more widespread evolution of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are becoming dangerously ineffective, says World Health Organization

The world is entering an antibiotic crisis in which routine injuries such as a skinned knee could potentially be fatal, according to the World Health Organization (WHO.) Dr. Margaret Chan, director general of the WHO, has warned that bacteria carried by humans are starting to become so resistant to common antibiotics that every antibiotic ever developed, including drugs used to treat tuberculosis and malaria, is at risk of becoming useless.

BO XIAN
some philosophical slight-of-hand DOGMA from the Religion of Scientism interjected as a viable "rational" argument about probabilities.

The probabilities address abiogenesis, not evolution. You are being intellectually disingenuous at best.

The notion that "evolution" has happened is one of the most absurd fantasies to ever afflict mankind.

It is apparent to anyone who cares to observe nature in even a passing way.

That you consider the theory an absolute fact is telling.

Telling of what? My rationality?

Ahhh wellll, enjoy the fantasy while you still may. It's days are numbered even on the part of the satanic globalist oligarchy.

Satan? Really? You run in fear of science and instead believe in a fictional boogeyman like Satan?

They are on the brink of trashing it in favor of PANSPERMIA.

Even if panspermia became de rigeur it has nothing to do with evolution, this would still be addressing abiogenesis.

In terms of probability theory as it relates to evolutionary THEORY and/or abiogenesis...

It did not address evolution, only abiogenesis and it completely failed to address your assertion that there has not been enough time for evolution to occur.

There's not a microscopic shred of serious evidence that meticulous complex order has ever spontaneously arisen totally out of, by and from chaos strictly on the basis of chance + time.

Are you talking about abiogenesis again? Why do you have some much difficulty distinguishing between the two? Is it a total and fundamental inability to grasp scientific principles or does it make you scared?

You will have to forgive me if I did not address the sentences dealing with your apocalyptic beliefs, I found them to be off topic and irrelevant to the conversation.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


You have yet to address the issue of

What on earth do you consider any meaningful DIFFERENCE

between evolution vs abiogenesis

with respect to the discussion of probabilities?

The DOGMATIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF that evolution is a fact

doesn't cut it.

I love this growing theroy amoung scientists that the universe is a simulation.


Basicaly they are saying there is a creator


There no two ways about it simulation = fancyfull way to say we were created

BO XIAN
What on earth do you consider any meaningful DIFFERENCE

between evolution vs abiogenesis

with respect to the discussion of probabilities?

One deals with the origins of life, the other with how organisms change over time due to various influences. I have no answer for how life began but the probability of evolution is 100% as evidenced by even a casual observation of nature.

The DOGMATIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF that evolution is a fact

doesn't cut it.

So how do you explain speciation?

BO XIAN
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

You have yet to address the issue of

What on earth do you consider any meaningful DIFFERENCE

between evolution vs abiogenesis

with respect to the discussion of probabilities?

The DOGMATIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF that evolution is a fact

doesn't cut it.

Lets try to c,adrift something here since you simply refuse to disjoin evolutionary theory from the hypothesis of abiogenesis. First, one is a theory the other is a hypothesis. To understand those differences, a Theory in science is based on testable and repeatable experiments or observations. Both the fossil record whether you accept it or not, as well as copious genetic data validate common ancestry. A hypothesis is an idea postulated that is still in the testing phase.Te evils of peer review determine the difference also. if a hypothesis meets publisjing criteria and passes muster and can be tested independently with repeatable results then it passes into the realm of theory.I am sorry that you think that proponents of evolutionary theory are in league with satan and our sole goal in life is to denounce the faithful and dismantle all organized religion but believe it or not, when in a clAss room, laborotory or in the field, what religious proponents believe or think is the very last topic of discussion that comes up. Dawkins is not representative of the worldview of the majority of Anthropologists or evolutionary biologists. But I digress... Second, abiogenesis is the study of potential chemical properties of early earth that could have led to the unique circumstances that created RNA from what was originally simple proteins. Evolution on the other hand is the. Study of observable phenomena that can be and has been tested and verified. 3rd, the fact that you don't grasp the level of hypocrisy you bring in with your condemnation of "dogmatic religious belief in evolution" while quote mining the newest en vogue biblical translations to support why science is both wrong and dogmatic just makes me smile. HS it ever entered your mind that evolution and your omnipotent creator are NOT mutually exclusive concepts? Everyone seems to think the world is no longer their oyster but the Burger King drivvethru where everything is their way right away while ignoring the rest of the world possibilities around them.

BO XIAN
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

You have yet to address the issue of

What on earth do you consider any meaningful DIFFERENCE

between evolution vs abiogenesis

with respect to the discussion of probabilities?

The DOGMATIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF that evolution is a fact

doesn't cut it.

Abiogenesis - How life began
Evolution - How life adapts

They're two completely different things and whether Panspermia or Abiogenesis are true does not change the fact life evolves.

Panspermia cannot occur without evolution as a life form would have to adapt to a new environment to survive.

Wow. Thank you for posting the link to that video. My initial thought was this man is amazing, but as I watched it realized he is really, as it states in the title for this post (Mathematics, common sense and the origin of man), just state common sense.

I have always identified myself as being 'spiritual' because I had denounced mainstream religions after seeing and learning of the horrors which have resulted from them all throughout history. I do admit though, as I always have, the ancient religious texts do have amazing information in them.


Thanks again

BO XIAN
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

This is a decent one . . . briefer than some . . . a bit tedious . . . but that goes with the territory.

www.universitycad.com...

Okay,

Here's a quote from this one:

When we take the probability of creating a single protein of left-handed amino acids (1 chance in 10^301), and figure in the maximum possible reactions in the universe over 15 billion years (10^143), it will yield a probability of 1 chance in 10^158. We can conclude that the random chance of biological evolution to create a single protein anywhere in the universe over 15 billion years is essentially zero. The probability can be compared to a monkey being given only one chance to type this sentence.

I'm sure the math is right, but he's not calculating the odds of biological evolution creating anything. Instead, he's calculating the odds of a 1,000 aa protein just popping up from an abiotic system. Note the difference.

reply to post by rhinoceros


SOUNDS LIKE another distinction without a difference, to me.

Certainly not, to my mind, a significant difference in terms of probabilities.

Something is either likely or it isn't.

In terms of theoretical probabilities, as I understand them . . .

when the probabilities get to be extreme enough . . . the functional reality is that the chance that something will happen is functionally zero.

The lottery proves that in millions of lives and those probabilities are NOT AT ALL as extreme as the ones involved in these issues.

You keep chanting your mantra without articulating any significant difference (in terms of probability theory etc) between the two things you are hollering so much about being different.

reply to post by BO XIAN


You still did not answer my question:

BO XIAN
The DOGMATIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF that evolution is a fact

doesn't cut it.

So how do you explain speciation?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


IIRC, I asked you first to explain how you see abiogenesis so markedly and signficantly different

in terms of probability theory and its implications

from evolution.

About all you've done is repeat your chanted mantra that they are different.

Speciation . . . You seem to assume some markedly SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE regarding speciation in a PRESUMED EVOLUTION context vs in an ID/Creation context.

That sounds like an irrational leap, to me.

BO XIAN
IIRC, I asked you first to explain how you see abiogenesis so markedly and signficantly different

in terms of probability theory and its implications

from evolution.

Again. One, abiogenesis, is the origins of life. The other, evolution, is the diversification of life. They are two entirely different topics. Evolution has and is occurring so the probability is 100%. The links you provided do not even address this and deal with abiogenesis by either purposefully misleading the reader or by sheer ignorance and lump them together.

About all you've done is repeat your chanted mantra that they are different.

Then explain why they are related.

Speciation . . . You seem to assume some markedly SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE regarding speciation in a PRESUMED EVOLUTION context vs in an ID/Creation context.

What is presumed? Are you stating that evolution has not or is not taking place?