Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I am arguing specifically with this nonsense of yours:
All these things and others have
to fall into place, and as I pointed out having endless time to get it wrong
does nothing to add to the discussion, it actually means you have more
time to get it wrong which works against you.

You never have endless time to get it right! You have a window that
appears only when all things are there at the same time to get it right!
The longer everything is mixed up and not right, the greater the chance
that they can turn into something that will never allow it to occur.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You never have endless time to get it right! You have a window that
appears only when all things are there at the same time to get it right!
The longer everything is mixed up and not right, the greater the chance
that they can turn into something that will never allow it to occur.
Kelly

You are quite seriously confused about probability.
Generally, for any event that has a given probability of occurring in a given time, the more time you have, the higher the probability that it will occur.
You are incorrectly claiming the opposite.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are quite seriously confused about probability.
Generally, for any event that has a given probability of occurring in a given time, the more time you have, the higher the probability that it will occur.
You are incorrectly claiming the opposite.

you two are not referring to the same way of measuring the probability. He is referring to the probability in chemical biology. You are referring to general probability in which you start over from the beginning and keep adding time as long as is needed until the desired outcome is reached.

In chemical biology, he believes there is a limited "window" of time and a limited number of chemicals, etc. to work with. Once certain chemicals combine and the desired result is not obtained, then those chemicals may no longer be available to use to start over. So you must start with new unused and uncombined chemicals and repeat the process to see if you can get the correct orderly combination a second time.

So you can see that in this case as more unsuccesful attempts are accumulated the supply of available chemicals are reduced each time it is repeated. So the probability of the desired outcome is also reduced because the available chemicals and the available time are each being reduced.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
you two are not referring to the same way of measuring the probability. He is referring to the probability in chemical biology. You are referring to general probability in which you start over from the beginning and keep adding time as long as is needed until the desired outcome is reached.

In chemical biology, he believes there is a limited "window" of ...[text shortened]... because the available chemicals and the available time are each being reduced.

The Instructor

You nailed it.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
you two are not referring to the same way of measuring the probability. He is referring to the probability in chemical biology.

Probability is mathematics and it is not different just because you are talking about biology.

You are referring to general probability in which you start over from the beginning and keep adding time as long as is needed until the desired outcome is reached.
No, I am referring to any event for which the probability of it occurring over a given unit of time is known.

In chemical biology, he believes there is a limited "window" of time and a limited number of chemicals, etc. to work with.
Well then he has to make his case that that is so. It still contradicts his claim that more time reduces the probability because you are explicitly saying that time is limited or fixed.
He is confused, as are you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Probability is mathematics and it is not different just because you are talking about biology.

[b]You are referring to general probability in which you start over from the beginning and keep adding time as long as is needed until the desired outcome is reached.
No, I am referring to any event for which the probability of it occurring over a given ...[text shortened]... ty because you are explicitly saying that time is limited or fixed.
He is confused, as are you.[/b]

I agree that probability is mathematics. However, probabilty may also vary depending on the rules being applied. I may not understand exactly how he is applying the rules, but I was only giving my opinion based on what I believed he was saying.

This is all theoretical anyway, since it seems impossible for us to repeat this chance occurrence if that is what it is. However, I am sure you know that I believe God did it and there is no chance probability involved. So to argue probability is really of no importance to me anyway.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree that probability is mathematics. However, probabilty may also vary depending on the rules being applied.

Of course probability is calculated based on the scenario. However you seemed to be pretending that probability is different because the scenario is chemical biology.

This is all theoretical anyway, since it seems impossible for us to repeat this chance occurrence if that is what it is.
What occurrence are you talking about? And why would 'we' need to repeat it? What has that got to do with the probability of it happening? And why is it impossible for us to repeat it?

However, I am sure you know that I believe God did it and there is no chance probability involved. So to argue probability is really of no importance to me anyway.
Then don't, because you clearly won't get it right.
However, the poster who started this thread claimed that probability was of great importance to him, and was part of the reason he became creationist.
Kelly also claims to put some stock in a probability argument although that may not affect his beliefs at all.
Both King Tiger and Kelly are getting their probability calculations all wrong, so they would be well advised to either study it further and get their calculations right, or stop basing any arguments/beliefs on the results.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I agree that probability is mathematics. However, probabilty may also vary depending on the rules being applied. I may not understand exactly how he is applying the rules, but I was only giving my opinion based on what I believed he was saying.

This is all theoretical anyway, since it seems impossible for us to repeat this chance occurrence if that is w ...[text shortened]... ty involved. So to argue probability is really of no importance to me anyway.

The Instructor

Simply stated there are some basic prerequisites, missing any of the
requirements means the process will not achieve the goal of starting life
from non-life let alone maintaining it. All of the prerequisites must be in
place only then does the clock start ticking on if there can be attempts
at successfully overcoming the odds. If the chemicals that are required
are not there, nothing can be done, time is meaningless, if the
temperature is to hot or to cold the environment is wrong, time is
meaningless. If the chemicals required are not properly put together for
life and they turn into chemicals not required or worse yet chemicals
that could hinder a successful process, the clock is not ticking, time is
meaningless.

The only time that counts in this is when everything is perfect, that
window is not endless, it is only as large as long as everything being
just right can occur and stay perfect, any of the requirements break down
and or go away, the clock stops. Now I'm not saying time stops, or that
chemical reactions stop, both of those will continue, and if they are not
setting up all the proper conditions, they are not adding anything useful
to the process, and could be destroying all the needed chemicals.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Simply stated there are some basic prerequisites, missing any of the
requirements means the process will not achieve the goal of starting life
from non-life let alone maintaining it.

And the probability of those prerequisites existing at any given place in the universe increases over time. It does not decrease as you formerly implied.

The overall probability of abiogenesis occurring is a function of the probability of the necessary prerequisites being in place and the probability of the necessary prerequisites causing abiogenesis.
Generally, the more time there is, the higher the probability that life will occur. There is no scenario in which the probability goes down as time increases.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course probability is calculated based on the scenario. However you seemed to be pretending that probability is different because the scenario is chemical biology.

[b]This is all theoretical anyway, since it seems impossible for us to repeat this chance occurrence if that is what it is.
What occurrence are you talking about? And why would 'we' ...[text shortened]... t further and get their calculations right, or stop basing any arguments/beliefs on the results.[/b]

I assume we were all talking about the chance occurrence of the first life on earth. Were you talking about something else?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I assume we were all talking about the chance occurrence of the first life on earth. Were you talking about something else?

The Instructor

I was talking about the probability of events in general although it applies to abiogenesis too.
The probability of abiogenesis taking place somewhere in the universe is the probability of the right conditions occurring times the number of locations where those conditions may occur times the amount of time available for them to occur.
Similarly for the probability of life occurring on earth.
Kelly incorrectly claimed that having more time would reduce the probability. He is confused.
I suspect he is calculating the running probability after the conditions are right and assuming abiogenesis did not take place, then noting that the probability of abiogenesis taking place at any given time may go down as the conditions change and cease to be ideal. However, the total probability of life occurring is higher than the probabilities at any given time. So the more time you have the more probable it becomes, not what he claimed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You nailed it.
Kelly

When you think RJHinds has "nailed" something you are in deep trouble!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
funny how all your materials come from the institute for creation research and the answersingenesis (two cringe inducing sites, notable for the utter nonsense they spew).



no other source? rjhinds at least posts youtubes as well. 😀


btw, where is the pm response to the response you owe ME?

No, I didn't even bother reading your PM honestly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is absolutely no doubt that you got your probability calculations completely wrong. There is also no doubt that you are now aware that you got them wrong (your deliberate avoidance tactics demonstrates this).
So I am still curious as to whether this has resulted in the weight you mention in your OP tipping back to some degree.

No, I do not think you've convinced me of anything other than one can't have an academic conversation with you. For some reason the discussion of probability I hear discussed in higher academics is wrong according to this thread. I find that interesting. I'm not avoiding you as you assert but rather refusing to be pulled in any further than I already have.

I noticed one of the posters on here instead if critically engaging info from ICR and Answer in Genesis just asserts the spew nonsense. Very academically honest. Tell me why it's nonsense other than saying its been disproved. How you can call a Phillip Johnson, a Polkinghorn (spelling), Lenox, etc nonsense is beyond me. I'm not suggesting they are who I cited but they largely hold my views.

One thing is certain-if you can't win the message you attack the messenger which is why some atheist scholars prefer to attack the person in the opposition rather than the material (read Dawkins the God Delusion for a healthy dose).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I was talking about the probability of events in general although it applies to abiogenesis too.
The probability of abiogenesis taking place somewhere in the universe is the probability of the right conditions occurring times the number of locations where those conditions may occur times the amount of time available for them to occur.
Similarly for the ...[text shortened]... at any given time. So the more time you have the more probable it becomes, not what he claimed.

Whose calculations of the probability of abiogenesis do you consider correct? And what factors were considered as part of the calculations?

The Instructor