thehomer:

Nope. The same error is there. The key is for you to note what you're comparing which are a probability/improbability figure and the age of the earth.

And it is perfectly logical so to do.

If a certain event has a probability of lets say 1 in One zillion - any event at all - what are the chances that such an event will occur within any specifically given vastly shorter period of time - say, in the next ten seconds.

As far as I am concerned, the age of the earth cannot accommodate the timespan required for -

1. Chemical elements to form the supposed first-unicellular-life and -

2. Unicellular life to develop into super-complex creatures such as humans.

- - -> If it is assumed that there is no intelligence or guidance behind the process.

caezar:

There might be a technical error in comparing different values of different units but the meaning of the post is quite clear. The statistical improbability of complex designs means that, given the age of the earth, it cannot be realistically expected that complex organisms evolved via micro-evolution in such a relatively short period.

Since there is such an error, then that comparison cannot be done. Consider this, what is the statistical improbability that you came to exist given the age of the earth?

Another thing you're failing to consider is that geometrical changes can have very significant effects with just a tiny change. Consider the difference between 2⁶³ and 2⁶⁴. Or the difference between 10⁶ and 10⁷.

Deep Sight:

And it is perfectly logical so to do.

If a certain event has a probability of lets say 1 in One zillion - any event at all - what are the chances that such an event will occur within any specifically given vastly shorter period of time - say, in the next ten seconds.

As far as I am concerned, the age of the earth cannot accommodate the timespan required for -

1. Chemical elements to form the supposed first-unicellular-life and -

2. Unicellular life to develop into super-complex creatures such as humans.

- - -> If it is assumed that there is no intelligence or guidance behind the process.

See my post above.

Sir Deepsight,
if i may in come here, i've been following your explanations and what i can get is that (correct me if i'm wrong) you posit that there must be a Creator or the Prime mover, who is not necessarily any of the religion's God. But since this Deist God is not definable, infact less definable and understandable than Yahweh or Allah, dont you think you are explaining a mystery (origin of life) with a bigger mystery (unknowable and "un-understandable" God)

scientists know more today about life's origin and complexity than they did 300 years ago, so what if in many many years from now all these mysteries can be explained and even demonstrated, does it mean that this Creator will be becoming less and less relevant when explaining life's origin and complexity?

While science HAS NOT YET unravelled all these mysteries, i personally believe that the origin and complexities of life is a JUST a mystery among many others that science and advancing human knowledge will eventually unravel as time progresses, i dont think there is any need to plug in any creator there, especially when that creator is NOT understandable and definable. That's just my position and i'm not trying to say you're wrong or right.

Cheers.

Deep Sight:


As far as I am concerned, the age of the earth cannot accommodate the timespan required for -

1. Chemical elements to form the supposed first-unicellular-life and -

2. Unicellular life to develop into super-complex creatures such as humans.

- - -> If it is assumed that there is no intelligence or guidance behind the process.

GhostOfSparta: How long does it take a lava to mature into a butterfly?

RELIGION APOLOGIST: Dude, are you daft? Why bring a butterfly into the picture? Is it as super-complex has the human we are talking about here. I used the word 'develop', not mature.

GhostOfSparta: If by 'develop' you meant evolve (implying that unicellular cannot develop to complex creature), then God's(Yaweh/Allah) instant creation of all creatures including the pterodactyl and butterfly contradict the scientific truth that:

1. The butterfly must pass through a evolutionary-cycle of egg->larva->pupa->adult(butterfly). Please don't argue that God created the egg first, otherwise that will conflict with Bible's age of the earth if we were to go by another scientific fact that

2. The earliest known butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, between 40–50 million years ago.

RELIGION APOLOGIST: *scratching head*

In discussing the Origin of Life, first question should be: Is God Life??

Concerning Statistical Improbabilities/Impossibilities

The chances of you existing:

If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10100 or
1 in 60000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000.
In gambling, even a chance of 1 to 100 is not worth a gamble.
Are you ever lucky to be alive!!

If you go back 1 million years or 40 000 generations (each generation is considered 25 years), your chance of being born is at most 1 in 1.8 x 10403167 or
18 with 403,166 zeros after the 1.

In other words your chances of existing is essentially zilch, even if we were considering this possibility only a short 250 years ago.
Right now you do exist, so the actual chance is 100%, but the predicted likelihood in the past of you being born would be essentially zero.

The calculations of these numbers (calculations shown below) tend to overestimate your chances of being.
They only include numbers based on your father's contribution, his father's contribution, his father contribution, and so on. In other words the calculations are based only on the direct male line.
They do NOT include the following factors that would make the chances of your existence even less:
- your mother's contribution
- the men and women that died in war, famine, disease without or with fewer offspring-- in some generations 50% of humanity.
- the men and women that died from natural causes.
- children that died before reaching the age of reproduction.
- fetuses and fertilized eggs that died and were naturally aborted.

You are the result of many generations of survivors. One of the people that died prematurely could have been your Dad or your Dad's Dad and so on. Somehow, none of your forefathers died before passing on his genes to the next man in your lineage. Because of the deaths mentioned most human lineages died out, while luckily yours survived. Lo and behold, here you are!
Because of these deaths, your odds of existing were actually much less than the odds given below.

The Calculations:

As mentioned above, these calculations assume only your father, his father, his father, and so on. The number of spe.rm produced by your father is astronomical compared to the number of eggs produced by your mother, so this is a reasonable procedure to show how slight your existence chances were.
Also I am assuming that each separate reproductive generation consists of 25 years

Some background statistics based on the book "Spe.rm Wars" by Robin Baker, University of Manchester.
On average a man between puberty (I suggest age 15 y) and 30 years produces 300 million spe.rm/day (300,000,000).
On average a man between 30 y and 50 years produces 230 million spe.rm/day (230,000,000)
On average a man between 50 and 75 years produces 50 million spe.rm/day (50,000,000)

The last two spe.rm/day numbers were calculated as follows:
At age 50 years the average man produces 175 million/day -- so averaging 300 million/day and 175 million/day you get 230 million/day.
At age 70 years the average man produces 20 million/day -- so I could average 175 million and 20 million, but to be on the safe side I decreased it to 50 million/day (keeping my results on the conservative side -- I will round lower for the calculations that follow).
Each spe.rm has a unique set of DNA.
These spe.rm will appear in intercourse, masturbation, nocturnal emission. They all have to go somewhere.

On average 2 to 3 offspring survive that will reproduce. This average seems to be fairly constant in modern societies, agricultural societies and in hunter-gatherer societies. So, for all generations it hovers around 2 to 3 reproducing survivors. On average, 2 to 3 sperm will result in the fertilization of eggs that results in 2 or 3 reproducing individuals -- the rest of the spe.rm are doomed.

Kind of sperm:
An average man produces 3 kind of spe.rm:
(1) Killer Sperm constitute about 83% of all the spe.rm -- these are spe.rm that attack any sperm from another man that may be in the woman. These spe.rm carry a lethal dose of poison in their head, seek out foreign spe.rm and inject it with this poison, killing it. Apparently after a few injections the Killer Spe.rm has spent all it's energy and also dies.

(2) Blocker Spe.rm constitute about 16% of all the spe.rm -- these try to block entrances and storage places so that any spe.rm from another man cannot reach the woman's egg.

(3) Egg Getter Spe.rm constitute about1% of all the spe.rm -- these are the spe.rm that can possibly fertilize the woman's egg if they ever get there.

So 99% of sperm make war on other men's spe.rm to annihilate them so that they won't fertilize the woman's egg, and 1% have the potential to fertilize the woman's egg.

In our calculations we will only use the numbers for the Egg Getter Spe.rm.

The Actual numbers:
(A) The number of Egg Getter Spe.rm produced by an average man in his lifetime:

In the following calculations I will round off the numbers lower to be even more conservative.
(1) Between puberty (15 years old) and 30 years:
At a rate of 1% of 300,000,000 = 3,000,000 Egg Getter Spe.rm/day
15 years has 5475 days.
Therefore, on average a man will produce 5475 days x 3,000,000 Egg Getter Spe.rm/day = 1.6 x 1010 Egg Getter Spe.rm during this time (16,000,000,000).

(2) Between 30 years and 50 years:
At a rate of 1% of 230,000,000 = 2,300,000 Egg Getter Spe.rm/day
20 years has 7300 days.
Therefore, on average a man will produce 7300 days x 2,300,000 Egg Getter Spe.rm/day = 1.6 x 1010 Egg Getter Spe.rm during this time (16,000,000,000).

(3) Between 50 years and 75 years:
At a rate of 1% of 50,000,000 = 500,000 Egg Getter Spe.rm/day
25 years has 9125 days.
Therefore, on average a man will produce 9125 days x 500,000 Egg Getter Spe.rm/day = 4 x 109 Egg Getter Spe.rm during this time (4,000,000,000).

On average, in a man's lifetime he produces 16,000,000,000 + 16,000,000,000 + 4,000,000,000 = 36,000,000,000 Egg Getter Spe.rm for a possible 36,000,000,000 unique offspring (3.6 x 1010).

(B) Fraction of Egg Getter Spe.rm that result in offspring that will reproduce:

Since an average man will have 2 to 3 surviving offspring (let's take 3 to be on the conservative side) the fraction of all the Egg Getter Spe.rm that will result in another person is: 3 x 1 / 3.6 x 1010
or 1 / 1.2 x 1010
or 1 / 12,000,000,000.
Let's be even more conservative and take this fraction to be your probability of being instead of the probability of 3 survivors.
In other words of all the Egg Getter Spe.rm your father produces, the chances are that the spe.rm with your name on it that will actually become you is 1 to 12,000,000,000 -- not great odds!

If you take 2 generations. Your Dad and his Dad. The chances that your Dad's Egg Getter spe.rm will become you is 1 / 12,000,000,000.
The chances that your Dad's Dad's Egg Getter Spe.rm will become your Dad is the same, that is, 1 / 12,000,000,000.
Considering your Dad's Dad, the odds that "your spe.rm" will successfully produce you after 2 generations will be
1 /12,000,000,000 x 1 / 12,000,000,000 = 1 / 144,000,000,000,000,000,000
or 1 to 144,000,000,000,000,000,000
or 1 / 1.44 x 1020.

If you take 10 generations (10 generations x 25 years/ generation = 250 years) you must multiply 1 / 12,000,000,000
ten times, or (1 / 1.2 x 1010)10 = 1 / 6 x 10100
or 1 to 6 x 10100. This is the number given at the beginning of this page for 10 generations.

If you take 1 million years of evolution (actually one should use many millions of years, but to be conservative we will limit our calculation to 1 million years):
40,000 generations
(1 / 1.2 x 1010)40000 = 1 / 1.8 x 10403167 chance that you should exist. (a lot of wasted sperm, eh?)

This is mind boggling odds of 1 to 18 with 403,166 zero's after it. In other words your chances of being are essentially zero.

(C) Try to visualize these numbers:


The age of the universe since the Big Bang is 13.7 billion years.

In seconds: 13.7 x 109 year x 365 day/year x 24 h/day x 3600 seconds/hour = 4.32 x 1016 seconds
or 43,200,000,000,000,000 seconds is the age of the Universe -- a very, very long time!!

If 1 Egg Getter Spe.rm were produced every second of the lifetime of the universe then it would take:
6 x 10100 / 4.32 x 1016 = 1.4 x 10 89 universe lifetimes to definitely result in you becoming, that is, if you calculate only 10 generations back (250 years).
14 with 88 zeros after it of universe lifetimes -- essentially an infinite time!

If you go back 1 million years it would take 42 x 10403149 universe lifetimes to definitely result in you.
42 with 403,149 zeros after the 42 of it lifetimes of the Universe!

All these numbers err on the side of caution -- a lot of caution.

(D) Aren't You lucky?

If you consider almost any time in the past and try to calculate the probability of you coming into being, even 2 generations ago, your possible existence is so low that it's almost not worth thinking about.
Aren't you happy you're alive? ? ? Lucky YOU!

O. Hooge, BC, Canada.
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_of_you_existing.htm

Review/Criticize.

ghostofsparta:

GhostOfSparta: How long does it take a lava to mature into a butterfly?

RELIGION APOLOGIST: Dude, are you daft? Why bring a butterfly into the picture? Is it as super-complex has the human we are talking about here. I used the word 'develop', not mature.

GhostOfSparta: If by 'develop' you meant evolve (implying that unicellular cannot develop to complex creature), then God's(Yaweh/Allah) instant creation of all creatures including the pterodactyl and butterfly contradict the scientific truth that:

1. The butterfly must pass through a evolutionary-cycle of egg->larva->pupa->adult(butterfly). Please don't argue that God created the egg first, otherwise that will conflict with Bible's age of the earth if we were to go by another scientific fact that

2. The earliest known butterfly fossils date to the mid Eocene epoch, between 40–50 million years ago.

RELIGION APOLOGIST: *scratching head*

this, a supposed response to deepsight's short but insightful questions, is quite pathetic.

davidylan:

this, a supposed response to deepsight's short but insightful questions, is quite pathetic.

As pathetic as you are unable to deal with it.

ghostofsparta:

As pathetic as you are unable to deal with it.

Lets be clear... your post was incomprehensible. Its got nothing to do with my ability (or inability to) deal with it. There was just nothing that warranted a credible response.

davidylan:

Lets be clear... your post was incomprehensible. Its got nothing to do with my ability (or inability to) deal with it. There was just nothing that warranted a credible response.

If you are truly sincere about my post to be 'incomprehensible' then I'm sincerely left to think you lack deductive reasoning. No offence intended.

2 factual scientific truth that conflicts with creationism.

Let me ask you one thing...did your creator made the T-rex?

ghostofsparta:

If you are truly sincere about my post to be 'incomprehensible' then I'm sincerely left to think you lack deductive reasoning. No offence intended.

2 factual scientific truth that conflicts with creationism.

Let me ask you one thing...did your creator made the T-rex?

I rarely give more than a passing glance to the comments of someone who had no idea what the term "missing link" refers to in the context of evolutionary theory. Unfortunately there is no icon for rolling the eyes. It would have been a perfect response to this waffle.

Let me humor you... did your random chaos create the T-rex?

davidylan:

I rarely give more than a passing glance to the comments of someone who had no idea what the term "missing link" refers to in the context of evolutionary theory. Unfortunately there is no icon for rolling the eyes. It would have been a perfect response to this waffle.

Let me humor you... did your random chaos create the T-rex?

Don't shove 'random chaos' down my throat. If you are referring to the Bing B4ng/evolution, yes it did. Afterall, the bible writers never saw that coming, else they would have somehow inserted these Jurassic complex multi-cellular creatures into the book, weaving it around a fictional tale of how a bokoramite fought with one great leviathan/behemoth, and please don't tell me T-rex is the dragon the Bible was talking about.

ghostofsparta:

Don't shove 'random chaos' down my throat. If you are referring to the Bing B4ng/evolution, yes it did. Afterall, the bible writers never saw that coming, else they would have somehow inserted these Jurassic complex multi-cellular creatures into the book, weaving it around a fictional tale of how a bokoramite fought with one great leviathan/behemoth, and please don't tell me T-rex is the dragon the Bible was talking about.

You know next to nothing.

1. The big b[i]a[/i]ng = random chaos... i'm not shoving it down your throat... you're the one making the claim.

2. The ice age began 2.6m years ago. The bible events took place 6000 years ago... perhaps that is why you dont see T-rex in the bible?

davidylan:

You know next to nothing.

1. The big b[i]a[/i]ng = random chaos... i'm not shoving it down your throat... you're the one making the claim.

2. The ice age began 2.6m years ago. The bible events took place 6000 years ago... perhaps that is why you dont see T-rex in the bible?

The big bang isn't some random chaos, a so super-duper-ultra-dense matter got extremely compacted to an unfathomable size and so it exploded with a sound 'b4ang!'.

Random = no pattern
Chaos = no order

So WTF are you saying at your bolded tautology?



Some cosmologist have it that after the big b4ng was 'chaos' and not your big b4ng = random chaos.

davidylan:

You know next to nothing.

1. The big b[i]a[/i]ng = random chaos... i'm not shoving it down your throat... you're the one making the claim.

2. The ice age began 2.6m years ago. The bible events took place 6000 years ago... perhaps that is why you dont see T-rex in the bible?

Big Bang is not chaotic.

Kay 17:

Big Bang is not chaotic.

Thats the problem, not a lot of people understand what the big b@ng is all about. Neither do they know what the theory doesnt understand yet.

Only 80 years ago or less, we discovered that our galaxy was 1 of billions in the universe. Before this, the univers was only our milkyway galaxy. look how far we've come now. With the discoveries and ongoing research at CERN, we'll only understand more.

God will keep receding until he vanishes.

God of the gaps indeed

Kay 17:

Big Bang is not chaotic.

Oh really? Why don't u explain to us?

It shown simply a mechanical effect of the point of singularity to the Universe! There is nothing random about it.

Kay 17: It shown simply a mechanical effect of the point of singularity to the Universe! There is nothing random about it.

And u know this from what empirical evidence?

davidylan:

And u know this from what empirical evidence?

Why don't you go ask NASA astonomers/astrologers, if you can't atleast google your answer.

davidylan:

And u know this from what empirical evidence?

No No No! The question is not on whether there is empirical evidence, rather whether the theory of the big ban.g espouses a random cause for the Universe, of which it didn't contrary to the layman's ideas.

ghostofsparta:

Why don't you go ask NASA astonomers/astrologers, if you can't atleast google your answer.

Absolutely incredulous. So you make a claim then tell me to ask NASA when i ask you to substantiate it? Dude, you're starkly ignorant and it is just painful to read from you.

Kay 17:

No No No! The question is not on whether there is empirical evidence, rather whether the theory of the big ban.g espouses a random cause for the Universe, of which it didn't contrary to the layman's ideas.

You made a claim about how the big b[i]a[/i]ng occurred and i asked you for empirical evidence... where is it? I'm in no mood for this feckless game of musical chairs from ignorant cowards today.

ghostofsparta:

Another religionist apologist wannabe.

Quite unlike you, I am an intellectual capable of constructing rational thoughts in light of science and religion. And definitely a Christian. This is in contrast to your dogma-infested intellectual bankruptcy, that inspires you to reject anything Christian or God related without having the courage to profess intelligent reasons or evidences to back up your position. I have been on and off this forum for a long time, hence, I know your type.

If God breathed 'life' into Adam and Eve to make them 'alive' and 'conscious'...who/what breathed 'life' into animals to make them 'alive' and 'conscious'. Don't tell me its God (Yaweh/Jeovah/Allah) because

Your assertion here is quite STUPID.

The bible asserts that God created the animals. At no point was it asserted that they were made to have souls or in the image and likeness of God or to have dominion. Genesis 1:20 tells of God decreeing that the waters bring forth creatures that have LIFE. Verse 21 proceeds to tell of God creating this animals that already contained life.

1. He has to do that to all kinds of animals, including the dinosaurs

No apologies, but you are quite DUMB. You state that God does not exist, you also state that He did not create the earth. Yet you are here dictating how he should have done it if he did it. Just shows the level of intellectual poverty by atheists here.

2. There is no record in the Bible that he did no.1

Genesis 1:20-21; I am assuming that you can read and are educated.

I hope you don't feel too trapped.

I await your answer, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

I have read your posts, you are incapable of constructing intelligent arguments. answer the following questions to start with:

1. What is your explanation for the origin of life as we know it today?

2. If the creation story is untrue, what is the alternative?

3. Mention the reasons why you find the existence of God to be implausible?

davidylan:

You made a claim about how the big b[i]a[/i]ng occurred and i asked you for empirical evidence... where is it? I'm in no mood for this feckless game of musical chairs from ignorant cowards today.

You mentioned the Big Ban.g being an implausible random event which isn't suitable as the Cause of the Universe.

The proof for the Big Ban.g?! Its credible as a scientific theory with great reliance on empirical evidence and enjoys a good concensus with scientists.

Kay 17:

The proof for the Big Ban.g?! Its credible as a scientific theory with great reliance on empirical evidence and enjoys a good concensus with scientists.

This is quite dumb. In order words you have no proof for it. It is a theory cooked up by the imagination of one man and accepted as a concesus amongst scientist, still without empirical evidence. In order words, these men rely on FAITH to ASSUME that life was kick started by a big ban.g.

Please hide your face in shame, the next time you question the credibility of creationism.

You do believe the Big Ban.g has no empirical basis??

Kay 17:

You mentioned the Big Ban.g being an implausible random event which isn't suitable as the Cause of the Universe.

The proof for the Big Ban.g?! Its credible as a scientific theory with[b] great reliance on empirical evidence[/b] and enjoys a good concensus with scientists.

Please can u define "empirical" pls?

Where will defining empirical lead to?

Kay 17: Where will defining empirical lead to?

It will determine whether you really have any idea what you are talking about or not because it seems to me that your basic problem is a lack of understanding of the terminology you throw around so frivolously.

You are therefore implying that scientific theories aren't empirically focused?