The probability that life could occur without the aid of God

Originally posted by twhitehead
This keeps coming up so I thought it worthy of its own thread.
Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
Is anyone able to counter this assertion? ie can anyone give a reasonable scenario in which such a probability can be calculation and have useful meaning?

Without reading over every post again I recall that in one instance you used two phrases "at random" and "without the aid of God".

In an subsequent version I only say the phrase "without the aid of God" or "without God" . I am going on memory and not cutting and pasting. And I wonder if you are refining your challenge to only apply to "without the aid of God."


But for the moment just take up to the phrase "at random" then. Have Evolutionists used probability to attempt to apply statistical analysis to the theory of Evolution ? Have they applied statistics to show the result of randomness in some way related to the probability of evolution having taken place ?

That the first thing.
The second thing is do you consider it NONSENSE for them to attempt to do this ?

One scientist says "Statistical analysis of evolution is fraught with assumptions."
That indicates to me that Evolutionists have applied these statistical methods of probability to their theory. Do you say that it has been NONSENSE for them to have done so ?

Yes or No.

Originally posted by sonship
Without reading over every post again I recall that in one instance you used two phrases "at random" and "without the aid of God".

In an subsequent version I only say the phrase "without the aid of God" or "without God" . I am going on memory and not cutting and pasting. And I wonder if you are refining your challenge to only apply to "without the aid of God."

The distinction seems important to you but you don't say why. Instead you just keep rambling on about it without ever making a point.

That indicates to me that Evolutionists have applied these statistical methods of probability to their theory. Do you say that it has been NONSENSE for them to have done so ?

Yes or No.
I believe scientists have applied statistical method within the study of evolution. I that is what you are asking, then no, it is not NONSENSE for them to have done so.
If you are asking whether they have used statistical analysis to determine the validity of the theory as a whole, I wouldn't know, but I suspect not. Without more detail I could not say whether or not it was NONSENSE.

Originally posted by sonship

Do only Evolutionists have the right to attempt to apply probability analysis to the origin of a cell ?

Yes or No.

Which "evolutionists" have applied "probability analysis" to the origin of a cell?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what is your basic prerequisite for intelligence? when can an organism be identified as intelligent?

That's simple. If you're are human, and can think, you meet the basic prerequisite for intelligence.

Originally posted by josephw
That's simple. If you're are human, and can think, you meet the basic prerequisite for intelligence.

So in your view "intelligent" is the same as "(conscious) human"? No other species could possibly be considered "intelligent"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. Well, one could equally say that the existence of life is all the evidence one needs to know that life exists because it was pooped out by a pink elephant. Unfortunately, both assertions are not backed up by evidence.

Do you believe life was "pooped out by a pink elephant"? But you know life exists, right? You do know you exist don't you?

If you think life came into existence by chance without a cause, then you may just as well believe life was pooped out by a pink elephant.

And if you can't provide an intelligent post to support your assertions, then it's no wonder you don't know how life began. You may as well just go find a playground and play with children your own intellectual, emotional and psychological age.

Originally posted by sonship
Do only Evolutionists have the right to attempt to apply probability analysis to the origin of a cell ?

Yes or No.

Anyone has the right to attempt it. Anyone who claims to have successfully done so and quotes a figure is talking nonsense.

Originally posted by josephw
You may as well just go find a playground and play with children your own intellectual, emotional and psychological age.

That's rich coming from you given your posts in this thread so far.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps if there had been an intelligent designer, he could've made humans smart enough to figure out there was one. As it stands, no trace of an intelligent designer has been found.

Or much for intelligent designees either.

Originally posted by sonship
Without reading over every post again I recall that in one instance you used two phrases "at random" and "without the aid of God".

In an subsequent version I only say the phrase "without the aid of God" or "without God" . I am going on memory and not cutting and pasting. And I wonder if you are refining your challenge to only apply to "without the ai ...[text shortened]... o their theory. Do you say that it has been NONSENSE for them to have done so ?

Yes or No.

You are confusing evolution with life origin studies. We have to keep driving it into the religious set, THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE SCIENCE DISCIPLINES.

Can you possibly understand that?

Evolution is the study of how life changes.

Life origin is the one where we try to figure out how life got here.

TWO SEPARATE SUBJECTS. PERIOD.

Religious folk try to put down the idea of mud creating life however we may think about that by saying the probability is way too low for random chemicals coming together to have made RNA and DNA and so forth but they refuse to recognize the fact these molecules undergo many quadrillions of trillions of quadrillions of combinations and it only takes one hit to make a prebiotic set of molecules to be able to reproduce others like it and start off the process that leads to life.

Its like the lottery, when the prize goes up, so do the buys, and the odds are something like a half billion to one of winning but when millions of people buy multiple tickets someone almost always wins.

Sure the probability of one molecule becoming RNA is extremely low but the religious set somehow neglects to even begin to visualize just how many molecules there are in prebiotic conditions say 3 billion years ago, with comets depositing big organic molecules all the time, mixing in mud puddles and they know for instance, clay can be a substitute for cell membranes at least till the stuff gets going.

So comets raining down organic materials (we know 100% for sure comets have organic stuff on them, look at Rosetta) and then heat from underwater volcanic vents, volcano activity, lightning all adding energy to drive reactions that can take simple organics and make more complex organics, we have already done the kind of experiments in the labs that recreates deep past atmosphere conditions and adding lightning bolts on a small scale in a flask generates much more complex molecules like amino acids and such.

So early Earth was awash with quadrillions of quadrillions of such organic molecules which for sure would not be considered life but each new combination happened hundreds of quadrillions of quadrillions of times and it only takes one lucky combo to make a protocell.

That is all poo poo'd out of hand by the religious crowd, even religious organic chemists and such. Can't happen so they would say and come up with the same tired old arguments why it had to be a god or the god that made life possible here.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you believe life was "pooped out by a pink elephant"? But you know life exists, right? You do know you exist don't you?

If you think life came into existence by chance without a cause, then you may just as well believe life was pooped out by a pink elephant.

And if you can't provide an intelligent post to support your assertions, then it's no wonde ...[text shortened]... find a playground and play with children your own intellectual, emotional and psychological age.

I don't believe life was pooped out by a pink elephant. I also don't think it was pooped out by a beardy man in the sky. I also don't believe life came into existence "by chance without a cause."

Fortunately there is something intelligent we can say about how life began. People have in fact seriously pondered this question. Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Originally posted by twhitehead

As pointed out by others, it has been has been done.

Please point me to this huge break through in science that has been kept from all major scientific journals.

But where are you going with this. Are you saying that the same argument could be used to prove the sun is not natural? ie since scientists have not created the sun in a lab, it cant have come about naturally?

No I'm not. Nice attempt at a strawman though. Well played.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
No I'm not. Nice attempt at a strawman though. Well played.

So where are you going with it?
You first said something that suggested that since scientists hadn't created life in the lab, then God did it.
Then when someone said scientists had done it, you said 'well that proves God did it'. Now, you won't apply the same reasoning to other things man has or has not made in the lab? Why not?

And no, there was no strawman in my post. Sorry.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you believe life was "pooped out by a pink elephant"? But you know life exists, right? You do know you exist don't you?

If you think life came into existence by chance without a cause, then you may just as well believe life was pooped out by a pink elephant.

And if you can't provide an intelligent post to support your assertions, then it's no wonde ...[text shortened]... find a playground and play with children your own intellectual, emotional and psychological age.

... no wonder you don't know how life began...

Nome of us know how life began. Some of us believe we know, but this is not the same as knowing, regardless of how certain one might feel.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So where are you going with it?
You first said something that suggested that since scientists hadn't created life in the lab, then God did it.
Then when someone said scientists had done it, you said 'well that proves God did it'. Now, you won't apply the same reasoning to other things man has or has not made in the lab? Why not?

And no, there was no strawman in my post. Sorry.

Which of these two scenarios is most probable?

A) intelligent life arises from non-life by an intelligent intervention/mechanism.

B) intelligent life arises from non-life by some dumb random processes without an intelligent intervention/mechanism.

I didn't say anything about God did it. Put on your reading glasses.

I did not agree that scientists have created life in the lab. All I am saying is even if they did, that would support option A not B.

You comparing life (something living) to the sun (something non-living) is a feeble attempt at a strawman. I am so sorry if you can't see that.

Oh and probabability calculations could probably be done on the above scenario. But then again you could also just use common sense to make a conclusion.