Why are kids taught in public schools to believe in next to impossible chance, rather than God?

reply to post by Cuervo

Actually, the moment you place significance on a number, it becomes a statistical liability. Sure, you can pick any random sequence of numbers and say that it is just as significant as something that is a rare occurrence but... it's not.

If you say that "six" is important on the die, then you have two groups; 1-5 and then 6. Then it is a rare event. Your example is just as flawed as that Gamblers Fallacy theory. It just isn't right in practice or endogeny.

You seem to have missed my point as well.

If you roll a Dice, what are the odds that it will land on A NUMBER?

Not any specific number, mind you.... what are the odds that it LANDS ON A NUMBER?

Go ahead.. answer.

reply to post by addygrace

Rolling a dice 30 times to show a probability is not miraculous.

I agree.

It didn't matter what you rolled, the probability is the same whether you rolled 30 6's or your combination.

Exactly.

Now if that sequence would have turned into life, then I would agree, that was miraculous.

You are still missing my point.


The odds of ANY event occuring are astronomical.

But these things happen all the time, because THINGS are occuring.


The genetic code of human beings IS what it IS, that at least we can agree on.

and the probability of it being THAT SPECIFIC combination of Guanine, antonine, cytocine, or thyamine is clearly ASTRONOMICAL........

just as a 30 rolls of a 6 sided dice landing on ANY combination is astronomical.


But looking at what has HAPPENED, and claiming the improbability of it as proof of the divine, is ignorant of causality, and probability.

The entire argument of the odds of the genetic code being what it is, as proof of the divine is a rediculous argument.

It's a red herring

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by addygrace

 

Thank you. I said next to impossible, not because of probability, but because abiogenesis breaks the law of biogenesis.

Do you understand what you are saying?

or are you just winging it?

C'mon, are you just being facetious? It doesn't matter how hard you try you can't break the law of biogenesis. Probability doesn't matter. If I punched you in the face 40 times would you turn into a frog? According to you eventually you would because everything is possible. If this is how science is taught, then I think we've lost our way.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by addygrace

 

Rolling a dice 30 times to show a probability is not miraculous.

I agree.

It didn't matter what you rolled, the probability is the same whether you rolled 30 6's or your combination.

Exactly.

Now if that sequence would have turned into life, then I would agree, that was miraculous.

You are still missing my point.


The odds of ANY event occuring are astronomical.

But these things happen all the time, because THINGS are occuring.


The genetic code of human beings IS what it IS, that at least we can agree on.

and the probability of it being THAT SPECIFIC combination of Guanine, antonine, cytocine, or thyamine is clearly ASTRONOMICAL........

just as a 30 rolls of a 6 sided dice landing on ANY combination is astronomical.


But looking at what has HAPPENED, and claiming the improbability of it as proof of the divine, is ignorant of causality, and probability.

They are not astronimical!!!! They are 1 to 1

reply to post by addygrace

C'mon, are you just being facetious? It doesn't matter how hard you try you can't break the law of biogenesis.

A: Biogenesis is not a law, it is a theory.

B: you don't seem to understand much of anything, actually.

Probability doesn't matter. If I punched you in the face 40 times would you turn into a frog?

Threats of violence, and appeals to ridicule will not help you here, i'm afraid.

According to you eventually you would because everything is possible.

See? you don't understand anything, and are attempting to use ridicule to hide the absurdity of your position.

I never claimed anything even REMOTLEY like what you are offering as "My Position"

This is known as a strawman tactic, and it's kind of sad.

If this is how science is taught, then I think we've lost our way.

It's not.

You just weren't paying attention when it WAS taught.

reply to post by addygrace

They are not astronimical!!!! They are 1 to 1

Yes... in hindsight, EVERYTHING is 1 to 1

Which is my entire point.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Actually, the moment you place significance on a number, it becomes a statistical liability. Sure, you can pick any random sequence of numbers and say that it is just as significant as something that is a rare occurrence but... it's not.

If you say that "six" is important on the die, then you have two groups; 1-5 and then 6. Then it is a rare event. Your example is just as flawed as that Gamblers Fallacy theory. It just isn't right in practice or endogeny.

You seem to have missed my point as well.

If you roll a Dice, what are the odds that it will land on A NUMBER?

Not any specific number, mind you.... what are the odds that it LANDS ON A NUMBER?

Go ahead.. answer.

I totally get your point. Here's the issue: Let's say there are 300 trillion possible outcomes and only one produces life. Sure, it's as likely to hit any other one of those numbers as it is the one that produces life but each one--each individual number--has a one-in-300 trillion chance.

So the argument is simply one of statistical weight. Does it seem more or less likely than 1 in 300 trillion chance that life was somehow created or designed rather than random chance?

Depending on where you place your acceptance of creationist notions on that scale, dictates which one you find more probable.

But to answer your question, the odds are %100 the die will land on a number but only %17 chance of it landing on one you specify and %83 chance of it not. The latter is what we should concern ourselves with.

reply to post by Cuervo

I totally get your point. Here's the issue: Let's say there are 300 trillion possible outcomes and only one produces life. Sure, it's as likely to hit any other one of those numbers as it is the one that produces life but each one--each individual number--has a one-in-300 trillion chance.

So the argument is simply one of statistical weight. Does it seem more or less likely than 1 in 300 trillion chance that life was somehow created or designed rather than random chance?

if a tree falls in a forest, what are the odds that it crushes a squirrel?

the odds are quite astronomical again.

But what if you find a dead, crushed squirrel under a tree?

The odds of what HAPPENED, having HAPPENED, are STILL astronomical... but... they did.

I'm still trying to teach probability and causality.

Looking at the improbability of what has already occured, and claiming that it is proof of the divine is quite absurd.

Everythig that has happened, DID HAPPEN, despite the improbability of it.

And it has nothing to do with supernatural forces, it's just the effect of asigning probabilities to events that have already occured.

It's NUTS.

Depending on where you place your acceptance of creationist notions on that scale, dictates which one you find more probable.

And what If I believe that god created the universe in such a way as to NATURALLY produce life through purely chemical and biological means, without his crude interferance in creation, ex post facto?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by addygrace

 

They are not astronimical!!!! They are 1 to 1

Yes... in hindsight, EVERYTHING is 1 to 1

Which is my entire point.

So why are you claiming the odds of any event as being astronomical, when clearly you mean 1 to 1?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

 

The odds of ANY event occuring are astronomical.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

 

Yes... in hindsight, EVERYTHING is 1 to 1

I knew you were just being facetious. That was hilarious, though.

reply to post by addygrace

So why are you claiming the odds of any event as being astronomical, when clearly you mean 1 to 1?

Because this thread is describing humanity, and it's DNA as an astronomical probability, despite the fact that ANY possible combination of DNA would ALSO be astronomical, and that it DOES exist.

IT's a dumb argument to claim that the improbability of 30 dice rolls landing on a specific number is a miracle, if you already rolled the dice before you calculated the probability, said the number, and announced the miracle.

I knew you were just being facetious. That was hilarious, though.

No, I am NOT being facecious... I am trying to enlighten you about probability, and causality.


Tell me, what are the odds that the United States of America Exists?

reply to post by addygrace


You said it all, "imaginative". As in imaginary, made up, figment of your imagination, false, hallucination. Nursery rhymes and fairy tales stop in 1st or 2nd grade. That's why that hogwash isn't being taught to our impressionable young minds. They are leaving the brainwashing to folks like you. And nice word usage in your op.

reply to post by addygrace


Who says they are taught to believe in Evolution over God?

God is purposefully left out of Science classes because that's a subject for religion.

Honestly, do the Conservatives really want to see an era in Education in which the Government teaches young children about God.. when ultimately that's a ball game for parents, churches, and what ever sort of embodiment of religious pursuit you can toss in there.

Evolution is a Scientific theory, that's why it's taught. It has nothing to do with God.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Dear ErtaiNaGia,

LOL, please spell out everything further as you seem to believe that I don't understand anything you have said. Dumb it down for me. I love being taught. You wish to teach probability, I like probability, heck, I play tournament poker and know that math is illogical (Barry Greenspan said that, a professional player). You completely ignore my starting point, things can be predicted and the accuracy rate is based on the assumptions, it is philosophy more than math.

The accuracy of your your base model, assumptions, determines the frequency of your correct results. To just say that everything is random is foolishness if you understand predictability and assurance. I will make it simple because you believe me to be simple. Things can be understood, if we understand then we accept that we are imperfect and are not always right, that does not mean that all our assumptions are wrong. Are you following this or am I too stupid to explain myself? I apologize for being slow, be sincere and explain better for those of us that you already identified as incapable of being coherent.

If someone gives their reasons for believing a thing will occur in advance and it is highly unlikely and then it occurs, that does not mean they had the right logic; but, it should be compared to others that had also accurately predicted the unlikely. We have brains, we calculate possibilities, some of us are better at it then others, should we not consider their bets?

Now to the OP, will you, as someone fascinated by probability, say that there is absolutely no probability that there is a God? You say anything is possible, is God possible? And remember I am against teaching about God in public school. Dont forget the OP.

reply to post by AQuestion

If someone gives their reasons for believing a thing will occur in advance

So... you knew that humans would be here... before they were here?

is this what you are saying?

You predicted the existance of humanity?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Cuervo

 

I totally get your point. Here's the issue: Let's say there are 300 trillion possible outcomes and only one produces life. Sure, it's as likely to hit any other one of those numbers as it is the one that produces life but each one--each individual number--has a one-in-300 trillion chance.

So the argument is simply one of statistical weight. Does it seem more or less likely than 1 in 300 trillion chance that life was somehow created or designed rather than random chance?

if a tree falls in a forest, what are the odds that it crushes a squirrel?

the odds are quite astronomical again.

But what if you find a dead, crushed squirrel under a tree?

The odds of what HAPPENED, having HAPPENED, are STILL astronomical... but... they did.

I'm still trying to teach probability and causality.

Looking at the improbability of what has already occured, and claiming that it is proof of the divine is quite absurd.

Everythig that has happened, DID HAPPEN, despite the improbability of it.

And it has nothing to do with supernatural forces, it's just the effect of asigning probabilities to events that have already occured.

It's NUTS.

Just because it happened, doesn't make it any less rare. When we see somebody at a casino get a royal flush 52 straight times, I agree that would be NUTS. Yet I disagree with your assertion, that this is just happenstance. I think that person would be escorted out of the casino, because in the real world people are rational. And rational thought would say, "Hey I think that man cheated.".

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


We both see eye-to-eye on the probability aspect. The difference is that you find it totally acceptable for educators to be sold-out on one bizarre theory and not even entertain the possibility of the other. Both would have to beat astronomical odds to take place.

Chance of life from big bang?
Next to impossible.
Chance of a life form being created who, in turn, creates life on Earth (or any other creation theory)?
Next to impossible.

Both are equally absurd and should be covered in schools.

reply to post by AQuestion

will you, as someone fascinated by probability, say that there is absolutely no probability that there is a God?

We have absolutley no way of knowing.

You say anything is possible, is God possible?

Sure, thought it depends on WHAT you mean by god.

And remember I am against teaching about God in public school. Dont forget the OP.

That's nice.

reply to post by Cuervo

We both see eye-to-eye on the probability aspect. The difference is that you find it totally acceptable for educators to be sold-out on one bizarre theory and not even entertain the possibility of the other.

Explain how the theory of evolution is bizarre.

Both would have to beat astronomical odds to take place.

In what way?

Chance of life from big bang?
Next to impossible.

Are you sure about that?

Chance of a life form being created who, in turn, creates life on Earth (or any other creation theory)?
Next to impossible.

Are you sure about that?

Both are equally absurd and should be covered in schools.

No, one is testable, the other is not.


"God" does not explain anything about the world, we can't see evidence of it, and we can't make predictions about what we SHOULD see if the God Hypothesis is true, because it lies outside the realm of logic, and the observable universe.

The theory of evolution DOES however, make testable and accurate predictions of reality that we can actually USE.

That is the difference between knowledge, and speculation.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

 

Now to the OP, will you, as someone fascinated by probability, say that there is absolutely no probability that there is a God? You say anything is possible, is God possible? And remember I am against teaching about God in public school. Dont forget the OP.

I believe God is absolutely true. I actually believe Jesus is the truth. I believe in taking abiogenesis out of the science classroom, unless we include all forms of God in the classroom.

reply to post by addygrace

I believe God is absolutely true. I actually believe Jesus is the truth. I believe in taking abiogenesis out of the science classroom, unless we include all forms of God in the classroom.

By what mechanism does god create life?

OR the universe?