[Kazan]

m - nowhere did anyone say that snowflakes are irreducably complex.  Also abiogensis is not spontaneous generation. 

If you wish to debate, to do honestly and do not mischaracterize the positions of your opponants.  If you want to continue to be manipulative and dishonest, go somewhere else.

[Mathwiz6]

Although I agree, it seems everyone just states their positions, and skips anything that is too long, or too complicated, or just not compatible.

Nope. We listen to the points the creationists put across and then refute them (If they make any sense. m seldom has to be honest). If you look back you'll see that we answered all the objections Charismatic raised and showed why he was wrong on the matter.

But they aren't too complicated, they are refutable, and thus compatible, and they generally aren't too long.

Must... not... mention... was only applying to one side of debate

[Bobboau]

Cannot implies certainty, and nothing is certain. (i'm prepared to argue that point)

are you certain about that?

[NGTM-1R]

Yaay paradox.

[Wobble73]

Cannot implies certainty, and nothing is certain. (i'm prepared to argue that point)

are you certain about that?

I'm certain about two things only, Death and taxes! 

[m]

What in the-!?! 

Why does no-one understand that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SNOWFLAKES!!!
The "trap" I was referring to is that you people laugh at us creationists for believing that it is mathematically practically impossible for life-forms to evolve at all, much less multiple times, but then you go on to say that

The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero.

So, which is more complex: a snowflake or a living organism?

And before you go on screaming "You're missing all the in-between steps!" Take a look at basic probability calculation.

In case you don't want to read that, it essentially means that while the chances of, say, amino acids forming from chemicals is acceptably high, that probability combined with the probability of an amino acid then becoming a protein, etc, etc, means that the living organism will definitely never evolve.  This is because you must multiply all the probabilities of all the steps. (e.g. .25% x .25% = .125% chance)

And BY THE WAY:

Abiogenesis is just spontaneous generation repackaged!!!

 

Later,
-m

[aldo_14]

I've posted an explanation of abiogenesis as a sequential event twice, including the odds of that sequence.

If you're not going to bother even reading the answers to your posts, then please kindly **** off and let someone with a semblance of an open mind respond.

Thankyouverymuchandgoodnight.

[Ace]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.

Evolution deals with reproduction, variation, and selection which are all irrefutable facts.

Once again the case of "in 1860 they believed in spontaneous generation, modern scientists believe it!" as a logical fallacy appears.

Earlier in this thread there was a wonderful diagram showing the modern conception of it.

aldo_14: Don't give into his ignorance and hatred.

[aldo_14]

I'm sorry, I'm just pissed off that we're having the same disproven arguement not only trotted out, but trotted out with such a paucity of actual 'own words' explanation or information that I actually need to go from memory what that arguement is/was supposed to be.  Insofar as it seems as this 'arguement' is cobbled together with the aid of some catchphrases and that the writer lacks to ability or willingness to understand or articulate the arguement, or to understand the disproof of it as was posted twice previously.

I find it very frustrating, because I've been trying to put effort into replying factually with reference and explanation in this thread, and it's becoming self-evident that these responses are not being read and the creationist peeps posting have no interesting in even trying to read them or being open to the actual explanation and scientific theory as opposed to spouting what is in effect dogmatic propaganda.

[Bobboau]

funny you are the one who keeps bringing the snowflake issue back up.

we laugh at your inability to understand how wrong your probability argument is and how you try to equate it with totaly unrelated things, like... snowflakes for instance.
snow flakes are the result of totaly random procesiese, life is the result of an extreemly non-random process known as evolution. the snow flake thing you are trying to find one very specific configuration life you are trying to find any posable configureation, do you see yet why the whole snowflake argument is irrelivent and laughable yet?

[Bobboau]

I'm sorry, I'm just pissed off that we're having the same disproven arguement not only trotted out, but trotted out with such a paucity of actual 'own words' explanation or information that I actually need to go from memory what that arguement is/was supposed to be.  Insofar as it seems as this 'arguement' is cobbled together with the aid of some catchphrases and that the writer lacks to ability or willingness to understand or articulate the arguement, or to understand the disproof of it as was posted twice previously.

I find it very frustrating, because I've been trying to put effort into replying factually with reference and explanation in this thread, and it's becoming self-evident that these responses are not being read and the creationist peeps posting have no interesting in even trying to read them or being open to the actual explanation and scientific theory as opposed to spouting what is in effect dogmatic propaganda.

if it makes you feel better that group of people has a birth rate easily five times that of yours.

[jr2]

funny you are the one who keeps bringing the snowflake issue back up.

we laugh at your inability to understand how wrong your probability argument is and how you try to equate it with totaly unrelated things, like... snowflakes for instance.
snow flakes are the result of totaly random procesiese, life is the result of an extreemly non-random process known as evolution. the snow flake thing you are trying to find one very specific configuration life you are trying to find any posable configureation, do you see yet why the whole snowflake argument is irrelivent and laughable yet?

*emphasis added*

So you're saying that, whereas, evolution is controlled by the laws of nature, snowflakes aren't, right?  Please explain how you're not saying that.  How the heck am I supposed to see that snowflakes are "random" -- doesn't it ever occur to you, that by either yours or my definition of how the universe operates, nothing is "random"?  They (everything) obeys the same laws, thus nothing is truly "random", unless by "random", you mean "without cause" in which case, both life and snowflakes, according to that definition, and given a non-religious worldview, are random.  If you mean random, as in not following any particular set of rules in its operation, then I'm sorry, you're wrong.  If you could control every possible variable of a snowflake's environment, and do it twice, I believe you would have identical snowflakes.  The fact that you can't is just because of the almost infinite variables involved... which, until evolutionists can prove that alternate forms of life can exist, (not being somewhat like life as we know it) then those odds work against evolution, because the chances of everything going wrong are infinitely (almost) more than those of it going right an (almost) infinite number of times.

Oh, and the graphic you referred to: (I think)

The chances of the right-hand column, given a 1/2 chance for each of the six steps, would be 1/64.  But, if a creationist tries to say that the chances of simple chemicals forming into bacteria are 1/64, you guys would say he's not taking into account the other steps... but he is!  What gives??

if it makes you feel better that group of people has a birth rate easily five times that of yours.

Oh, that does kind of feel nice... I'm sure it wouldn't on the other end of the argument, though... but I'm sure this issue will be debated for as long as people aren't willing to take the risk of being proven wrong and actually think the issue through... which I of course haven't thought the issue through all the way, it's much too complex, I imagine in a few years or so I'll be able to say I've studied evolution and found it lacking, but since no one person can ever research everything on either side of this issue, you have to rely on the honesty of others... which is rather dangerous.  Of course, the only one Person I could absolutely trust would be God... but you wouldn't understand that.  (Yet ) 
*can just hear the frantic whispered remarks about radical, fundamentalist jr2*    Whatever.

[achtung]

Wow, this topic has rarely, if ever, left the first page in Hard Light for five months.

[Kamikaze]

They (everything) obeys the same laws, thus nothing is truly "random", unless by "random", you mean "without cause" in which case, both life and snowflakes, according to that definition, and given a non-religious worldview, are random. If you mean random, as in not following any particular set of rules in its operation, then I'm sorry, you're wrong.  If you could control every possible variable of a snowflake's environment, and do it twice, I believe you would have identical snowflakes.

Actually, the universe is not deterministic as you'd like to think. It's not possible to determine exactly how objects in this universe will behave based on measurement. Therefore, at a very fundamental level, you could think of the universe as very random. Given data about a specific object, it's only possible to produce a probabilistic model of how it will behave. This is how our model of the atom works. Electrons have a probability of existing in certain orbitals around the nucleus and we cannot determine the exact position of a given electron at a given time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_interpretation_of_classical_physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics

Since you took a discussion about biology and somehow twisted it into a discussion about your bull**** version of probability theory applied to... err... snowflakes, I thought I'd take a stab at your inanity from a physics point of view.

[Ace]

Oh, that does kind of feel nice... I'm sure it wouldn't on the other end of the argument, though... but I'm sure this issue will be debated for as long as people aren't willing to take the risk of being proven wrong and actually think the issue through... which I of course haven't thought the issue through all the way, it's much too complex, I imagine in a few years or so I'll be able to say I've studied evolution and found it lacking, but since no one person can ever research everything on either side of this issue, you have to rely on the honesty of others... which is rather dangerous.  Of course, the only one Person I could absolutely trust would be God... but you wouldn't understand that.  (Yet ) 
*can just hear the frantic whispered remarks about radical, fundamentalist jr2*    Whatever.

By going into the issue with a predisposed concept (the statement that you'd find evolution lacking) you defeat the purpose of objectivity which is necessary.

Similarly, as pointed out and proven in this thread on multiple occassions the side of the debate where people are taking the risk of being wrong are the scientists. There's been a lot of ideas over the years that have been debunked based on observations, and others that have held up quite well.

But the truth is, let's call this entire debate for what it is. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the fruits of scientific knowledge, but you aren't willing to accept the universe that it shows you. Instead you want a neatly packaged universe where you and your actions feel significant to a greater scheme. God isn't love, god is vanity.

[Kamikaze]

it's much too complex, I imagine in a few years or so I'll be able to say I've studied evolution and found it lacking, but since no one person can ever research everything on either side of this issue, you have to rely on the honesty of others...

Either side? Seems to me that only one side of this debate is being presented anyway. I have yet to see any evidence of Creationism or Intelligent Design (presumably because there is none) from any of the evolution detractors in this thread. Why is this? Trying to poke holes in evolution isn't presenting your side of the issue. Do you have a reasonable alternative to evolution that can be backed up by scientific evidence?

[BS403]

exactly
creationists talk and talk and talk but all they say is your wrong i'm right no explanation

[karajorma]

Why does no-one understand that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SNOWFLAKES!!!

Perhaps cause you were so busy patting yourself on the back at your perceived cleverness that you forgot to actually make your point in a clear and understandable fashion?

The "trap" I was referring to is that you people laugh at us creationists for believing that it is mathematically practically impossible for life-forms to evolve at all, much less multiple times, but then you go on to say that

The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero.

So, which is more complex: a snowflake or a living organism?

That's not a trap. You've made a couple of significant errors in your logic. One of which has been explained several times and repeatedly ignored by you.


Suppose I was to get 6 decks of cards, shuffle them and deal out the cards to 6 players. Now calculate the probablility that they would end up holding the particular hand of cards they hold. It's astronomical. But ask yourself one thing. What is the probability that each player will hold 52 cards at the end? Well that's 1 in 1 (barring any errors on the dealers part).

So as you can see the probability is only high when you take a specific outcome and ask what is the probability of that outcome occuring. And that is exactly the same logical flaw you're making. You're assuming you need amino acids and all the other stuff for life to exist. You completely fail to consider that life could have evolved from other basic building blocks.

The second logical fallacy you've made is assuming that there is only once place in the entire universe that this can have occured. Our own solar system has at least two other good canidates for abiogenesis to have occured, Mars and Europa. How many countless others are there in the universe? Even if your earlier fallacy didn't exist and I believed you that life was a 1 in 1 trillion chance what would that mean if there were 10 trillion planets where it could occur? Well in that case it would mean that it had happened around 10 times. Creationists like to act as if Earth is somehow a special variable that must be added in but it really isn't.

So in other words your entire probabilty argument is a house of cards that relies on the twin assumptions that you are only talking about Earth and only talking about humans evolving as if those two are the only possibilities.

It's an especially stupid argument when you consider that the chance of you existing even if you believe in God is similarly improbable. You only exist because of one out of 200 million sperm made it. But your dad only exists because one of 200 million sperm made it... etc

If inprobability was the only yardstick as to whether something is possible then you are not possible either. Of course the reason that argument fails is the same as with evolution. If your sperm didn't make it one of the other ones probably would have.

[aldo_14]

funny you are the one who keeps bringing the snowflake issue back up.

we laugh at your inability to understand how wrong your probability argument is and how you try to equate it with totaly unrelated things, like... snowflakes for instance.
snow flakes are the result of totaly random procesiese, life is the result of an extreemly non-random process known as evolution. the snow flake thing you are trying to find one very specific configuration life you are trying to find any posable configureation, do you see yet why the whole snowflake argument is irrelivent and laughable yet?

*emphasis added*

So you're saying that, whereas, evolution is controlled by the laws of nature, snowflakes aren't, right?  Please explain how you're not saying that.  How the heck am I supposed to see that snowflakes are "random" -- doesn't it ever occur to you, that by either yours or my definition of how the universe operates, nothing is "random"?  They (everything) obeys the same laws, thus nothing is truly "random", unless by "random", you mean "without cause" in which case, both life and snowflakes, according to that definition, and given a non-religious worldview, are random.  If you mean random, as in not following any particular set of rules in its operation, then I'm sorry, you're wrong.  If you could control every possible variable of a snowflake's environment, and do it twice, I believe you would have identical snowflakes.  The fact that you can't is just because of the almost infinite variables involved... which, until evolutionists can prove that alternate forms of life can exist, (not being somewhat like life as we know it) then those odds work against evolution, because the chances of everything going wrong are infinitely (almost) more than those of it going right an (almost) infinite number of times.

Oh, and the graphic you referred to: (I think)

The chances of the right-hand column, given a 1/2 chance for each of the six steps, would be 1/64.  But, if a creationist tries to say that the chances of simple chemicals forming into bacteria are 1/64, you guys would say he's not taking into account the other steps... but he is!  What gives??

if it makes you feel better that group of people has a birth rate easily five times that of yours.

Oh, that does kind of feel nice... I'm sure it wouldn't on the other end of the argument, though... but I'm sure this issue will be debated for as long as people aren't willing to take the risk of being proven wrong and actually think the issue through... which I of course haven't thought the issue through all the way, it's much too complex, I imagine in a few years or so I'll be able to say I've studied evolution and found it lacking, but since no one person can ever research everything on either side of this issue, you have to rely on the honesty of others... which is rather dangerous.  Of course, the only one Person I could absolutely trust would be God... but you wouldn't understand that.  (Yet ) 
*can just hear the frantic whispered remarks about radical, fundamentalist jr2*    Whatever.

The graphic that page originates from actually explains the odds of each step (incidentally, it's worth doubly emphasising that the probability is increased because it's gradually increasing complexity rather than a 'jump') and answers  - disproves - what you just said.  Can you possibly consider reading the page next time?  Against my better judgement, here's the link to it for the third time;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

(This is why I get annoyed at no-one reading these things; you even take the graphic and fail to read the page!  what is wrong with you people?  Seriously, explain it to me; why do you not read these things?)

[Bobboau]

ok, by random, I mean there is no systematic sort of process going on as to the variables that would lead to the formation of a flake, while the rules that lead to the flake's form are not random, the input of the system is random, and there is no corective system in place that whould serve to de-randomize it, the form of a snow flake is within the limitations of ice crystals totaly random.

life on the other hand has a recersive corecton process in place that insures only the best organisms survive to the next generation. it's a much more complex system, with a lot more posable outcomes, but also much more predictable, because it isn't totaly random.