It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic
My conclusion: The Drake equation is about as useful as an equation to speculate about the number of advanced civilizations of pink unicorns living on other planets in our universe, originating there by chance.
You also didn't prove evolution is impossible, just far beyond your ability to fathom. A million years of stewing chemicals can have that effect.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
Can we see the equation where you calculated the odds of life developing by chance? I would like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that it is impossible.
... the real issue, what is the chance, or are the odds of this mythological event to occur in a universe that consists of less than 10^100 atoms and has existed less than 15 billion years (limiting the amount of events where atoms and molecules interact, the amount of possible chemical reactions by chance according to the forces of nature). ... referring to the earlier quoted estimates of the odds regarding some specific components of this evolutionary storyline. Like "the odds against the material in an organic soup ever taking the first rudimentary steps toward life at one in 10^1,000,000" ...
...
Just to be clear, I don't actually agree with the numbers quoted there because the people coming up with these numbers have a tendency to be too generous to the storyline in skipping some problems that cause the odds of this happening to be best described by the phrase I prefer: 'no way in hell!' (there are insurmountable hurdles for this to happen by chance and the forces of nature alone, that cannot be put in such numbers because they are insurmountable, the forces of nature on their own operating by chance do not have the effect of creating or developing machinery and technology from individual molecules and their chemical reactions governed solely by the earlier mentioned causal factors; or as James Tour puts it at 10:25-14:10 in the video shared earlier: "Molecules don't care about life. Organisms care about life. Chemistry, on the contrary is utterly indifferent to life. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never." ...
...
When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. In their book Evolution From Space, the noted British astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe assert that the chances of life’s springing from some ancient random mixing of chemicals are so “outrageously small” as to be absurd “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” [which we know it doesn't] They give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.” They write that “Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [chain of essential life substances] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival. This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory.”
Why have scientists aware of this failed to “blow the whistle”? “If Darwinism were not considered socially desirable . . . it would of course be otherwise,” answers the book. When an entire society “becomes committed to a particular set of concepts, educational continuity makes it exceedingly hard to change the pattern,” it adds. “You either have to believe the concepts or you will be branded a heretic.” Evolutionists fear that any retreat would “open the flood-gates” of irrationalism. In other words, even cracking the door to the only possible alternative—creation by a higher intelligence—would force them to face all the issues that such a conclusion implies.
Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”(24) Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,”(25) as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life.(26) In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?
...
24. Evolution From Space, pp. 30, 31.
25. The Selfish Gene, p. 14.
26. Evolution From Space, p. 31.
originally posted by: cooperton
You presume that intelligence came from non-intelligence and support the Drake equation. Yet you think it is "special pleading" for me to postulate that intelligent things require intelligent creators?
You have tossed logic out the window.
originally posted by: carsforkids
Sorry I can speculate and postulate about God all I want.
As much as you wish you were a tyrant and could stop me
from showing the perfect sense of it all you can't. Why you
are so determined to be completely one hundred percent wrong
about something so important is on you. But you not
wanting others to read for themselves what they will never
read or hear any where else is fanatical. I got you're goat pal and
you've made it obvious. You want to drag others down with you
as far as I'm concerned. Science has nothing to do with proving
the existence of God and yet the only way you know how to argue
is thru science.
You must be joking!
originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Joecroft
Your equation is only interested in finding out the probability of life existing out there and your equation would work whether the Universe was created by God or Not…
I absolutely love you!
No Barcs this member gets it Pal. lol
You are the first one to say it perfectly.
You get a cookie!
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: neformore
...
If one really wants to believe something is possible, the word "impossible" can indeed be a hard thing to swallow. As demonstrated in this thread. Nevertheless, regarding the notion of the spontaneous generation of life by chance in any imaginable environment, the word “impossible” is easy to remember, and it is just as accurate as any of the figures proposed by the scientists* mentioned in my initial comment; ... (*: and evolutionists and philosophical naturalists)
Once more because it can't be stated enough:
To many scientists, it seems logical to believe that if life could evolve from nonliving matter on this planet, that could be true on others as well. As one writer put it: “The general thinking among biologists is that life will begin whenever it is given an environment where it can begin.” But that is where evolution faces an insurmountable objection. Evolutionists cannot even explain how life began on this planet.
Scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe estimate that the odds against life’s vital enzymes forming by chance are one in 10^40,000 (1 with 40,000 zeros after it). Scientists Feinberg and Shapiro go still further. In their book Life Beyond Earth, they put the odds against the material in an organic soup ever taking the first rudimentary steps toward life at one in 10^1,000,000.
Do you find these cumbersome figures hard to grasp? The word “impossible” is easier to remember, and it is just as accurate.
Any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. ...
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TzarChasm
...
Some people just don't want to admit that it's perfectly reasonable to reach that conclusion from the evidence available, everything we know about the machinery, technology and code that makes up living organisms (biology), what kind of chemical reactions will happen to specific types of molecules (chemistry, James Tour gets deeper into this*) and physics. You don't need much math when the chance of something specific happening is non-existent (0?), i.e. it's never gonna happen, or in this context, it never happened that way, by chance (coincidence).
...or as James Tour puts it at 10:25-14:10 in the video shared earlier: "Molecules don't care about life. Organisms care about life. Chemistry, on the contrary is utterly indifferent to life. Without a biologically derived entity acting upon them, molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life. Never."
In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”(1)
1. How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.
originally posted by: Barcs
YOU are the one assuming that because intelligence exists, it must come from another intelligence.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Barcs
YOU are the one assuming that because intelligence exists, it must come from another intelligence.
Do you admit that intelligent systems are much more likely to be created by an intelligent being rather than by random chance?
originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Barcs
You avoid the question because you know deep inside that it is obvious that intelligent ordered systems are much more likely to have been created by intelligence rather than random chance.