Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

[Prince of Dhump]

Sometimes it is random sometimes it is directed. For example the protons and electrons around an atom are not random but can be explained by atomic theory.

The stars around the blackhole in the center of the galaxy are random but they follow a set path which we can calculate with mathematic formulas.

Evolution is a process that creates extremely complicated tools such as eyes, wings, brains etc and it is guided by natural and sexual selection.

There are certain aspects of nature that are chaotic and certain aspects that are structured, ordered and act according to a pattern.

okay..
the first cell or first form of life which the nature brought into being through placing molecules in a certain order..was nature in choatic mode or was it directing

 

[Vitamin_C]

So you are talking about Abiogenesis, the process from which life arose from non-living matter like simple organic compounds. It was a process which created increasing complexity. Although there is no debate whether or not abiogenesis happened or not, the actual detailed method of how it happened is not something that we fully understand yet. Most of what we know about abiogenesis comes from the earliest fossils on Earth some of which are over 4.5 billion years old.

So to answer your question it seems that a random process created conditions that would make self replicating molecules possible which later transformed into primitive forms of life which become more and more complex after every iteration. And since there are 100s of billions of galaxies and 100s billions stars in each galaxy, even if the probability of such conditions arising from a random process is less than one in a trillion, there should still be thousands, if not millions other planets where such a process has taken place, is taking place or will take place.

okay..
the first cell or first form of life which the nature brought into being through placing molecules in a certain order..was nature in choatic mode or was it directing

 

[Prince of Dhump]

So to answer your question it seems that a random process created conditions that would make self replicating molecules possible which later transformed into primitive forms of life which become more and more complex after every iteration. And since there are 100s of billions of galaxies and 100s billions stars in each galaxy, even if the probability of such conditions arising from a random process is less than one in a trillion, there should still be thousands, if not millions other planets where such a process has taken place, is taken place or will take place.

lets just stick to earth
given the life of earth..what is the probability that nature will be able to randomly put molecules/atoms in a certain order that will give birth to the first cell

last time i checked..given the life of earth its not possible for nature to randomly produce even a single protein

 

[Prince of Dhump]

So you are talking about Abiogenesis, the process from which life arose from non-living matter like simple organic compounds. It was a process which created increasing complexity. Although there is no debate whether or not abiogenesis happened or not, the actual detailed method of how it happened is not something that we fully understand yet. Most of what we know about abiogenesis comes from the earliest fossils on Earth some of which are over 4.5 billion years old.

So to answer your question it seems that a random process created conditions that would make self replicating molecules possible which later transformed into primitive forms of life which become more and more complex after every iteration. And since there are 100s of billions of galaxies and 100s billions stars in each galaxy, even if the probability of such conditions arising from a random process is less than one in a trillion, there should still be thousands, if not millions other planets where such a process has taken place, is taking place or will take place.

lets just stick to earth
given the life of earth..what is the probability that nature will be able to randomly put molecules/atoms in a certain order that will give birth to the first cell

last time i checked..given the life of earth its not possible for nature to randomly produce even a single protein

 

[Vitamin_C]

Yeah but low probability does not mean its impossible, it means there is still a possibility and it happened.

lets just stick to earth
given the life of earth..what is the probability that nature will be able to randomly put molecules/atoms in a certain order that will give birth to the first cell

last time i checked..given the life of earth its not possible for nature to randomly produce even a single protein

 

[Prince of Dhump]

Yeah but low probability does not mean its impossible, it means there is still a possibility and it happened.

few questions..

1. lets say whole pakistanis start thinking in their mind that they are gonna get 1billion dollar in the next second that they finish this thinking..what is the probability/possibility that they all will get 1billion

2. u say the probability of the existence of Creator is less..but the impossibility is zero right then why would u point fingers at people who believe

3. probability is science..when the probability of something goes lower than some figure( i dont remember it) it becomes impossible

 

[Vitamin_C]

Yeah but the video you linked shows a bogus probability. The actual probability of abiogenesis is not nearly as low for the following reasons:

1. The random part of Abiogenesis is only for suitable conditions to form. The probability of these conditions are sufficient enough to create millions such conditions in the Universe. The rest of the process such as formation of polymers and monomers is non random and guided by laws of chemistry and bio-chemistry

2. The 10 to the 164th power number shown in the video is misleading because:
a) It assumed that the protein was the first object to be formed, which isn't the case as according to abiogenesis, more primitive forms of matter such as organic compounds and self replicating molecules precede any proteins

b) The number is based on the probability of modern protein which is a product of billions of iterations over billions of years and is 300 amino acids long and the probability is then dropped down by adding probability of generating 400 similar enzyme, the end probability of which would be so astoundingly low that this would be virtually impossible. But this is incorrect and according to abiogenesis the first simple molecules would be only 30-40 sub units long.

c) The probability calculation is based on sequential trials rather than simultaneous trials

The truth is that no one has an idea of how probable life is because we only have one example of it yet. So its impossible to assign probabilities to it. The feasibility of formation of life depends on the study of chemistry and biochemistry which is still on going and not on false statistics and coin flipping.

Also I am pretty sure you did not get this idea from a peer reviewed scientific article but rather from a dishonest creationist source because no one else would lie so blatantly and shamelessly.

Are you that desperate to hold on to your faith that you are searching up dishonest christian creationist videos on youtube?

Here is the bio of the guy from the video and shame on you

Paul Nelson (creationist) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

few questions..

1. lets say whole pakistanis start thinking in their mind that they are gonna get 1billion dollar in the next second that they finish this thinking..what is the probability/possibility that they all will get 1billion

2. u say the probability of the existence of Creator is less..but the impossibility is zero right then why would u point fingers at people who believe

3. probability is science..when the probability of something goes lower than some figure( i dont remember it) it becomes impossible

 

[Prince of Dhump]

The truth is that no one has an idea of how probable life is because we only have one example of it yet. So its impossible to assign probabilities to it.

ur saying no one has idea of how probable life is..
so shouldnt ur default position be disbelief

 

[Vitamin_C]

Disbelief that life exists?

ur saying no one has idea of how probable life is..
so shouldnt ur default position be disbelief

 

[Prince of Dhump]

Disbelief that life exists?

no i dont mean that but let me point out something before telling u what i meant
here ur assuming that life exist thats y even if the probability is low it must have happend..
arent u doing the same thing that believers do..that is assume that there is a Creator then direct everything to prove his existence

now about what i meant
u said no one know the probability of nature to put molecules in order to form life
so shouldnt ur default position in this case be disbelief that life cannot occur naturally

 

[Vitamin_C]

I said no one knows the probability of life happening. I didn't say we have no evidence of abiogenesis. As I have said, there is no debate or controversy in scientific community over whether abiogenesis happened or not. You seem very convinced/influenced by christian creationists and pseudo scientists who are fooling you.

no i dont mean that but let me point out something before telling u what i meant
here ur assuming that life exist thats y even if the probability is low it must have happend..
arent u doing the same thing that believers do..that is assume that there is a Creator then direct everything to prove his existence

now about what i meant
u said no one know the probability of nature to put molecules in order to form life
so shouldnt ur default position in this case be disbelief that life cannot occur naturally

 

[Prince of Dhump]

I said no one knows the probability of life happening. I didn't say we have no evidence of abiogenesis. As I have said, there is no debate or controversy in scientific community over whether abiogenesis happened or not. You seem very convinced/influenced by christian creationists and pseudo scientists who are fooling you.

ive learnt many things here..
but the highlight of it is that athiests are as good as believers..at one point or the other they will assume something and then direct everything towards proving it

 

[Vitamin_C]

What do atheists assume?

ive learnt many things here..
but the highlight of it is that athiests are as good as believers..at one point or the other they will assume something and then direct everything towards proving it

 

[Prince of Dhump]

What do atheists assume?

for example
atheist assume that there is no Creator..so even if the probability of naturally occurring life is low it must still have occured naturally bcz low probability does not mean impossiblity

believers would use this same fact of low probability of life occuring naturally and say that low probability necessitate Creator

a general example can be

lets say the probability of for a Creator is 2 out of 9
atheist would say probability is low so no Creator
believer would say less probability doesnt mean impossibility bla bla

 

[Vitamin_C]

1. I never said there is no creator

2. We cannot assign probabilities to life yet. So whether it is low or high we do not know.

3. We are not saying that naturally occuring life occured because there is a probability that it will occur, we are saying that because we have evidence that it occured.

4. I didnt say that I do not believe the claim that God exists because there a low probability for God's existance. I said I do not believe this claim because there is no evidence to support that claim.

Either you have not being paying attention to what I have been saying or you have a major brain block that is preventing you from comprehending it.

for example
atheist assume that there is no Creator..so even if the probability of naturally occurring life is low it must still have occured naturally bcz low probability does not mean impossiblity

 

[Prince of Dhump]

Either you have not being paying attention to what I have been saying or you have a major brain block that is preventing you from comprehending it.

i have felt the same about u countless time during this discussion

 

[Vitamin_C]

You are wrong about every thing you said.

1. I never said there is no creator

2. We cannot assign probabilities to life yet. So whether it is low or high we do not know.

3. We are not saying that naturally occuring life occured because there is a probability that it will occur, we are saying that because we have evidence that it occured.

4. I didnt say that I do not believe the claim that God exists because there a low probability for God's existance. I said I do not believe this claim because there is no evidence to support that claim.

5. Even if we cannot prove that life formed naturally. It does not automatically mean that God did it. Whenever there is a hole in human knowledge and we fill that hole, the explanation always turns out to be a natural one, whether it is formation of mountains, cause of earthquakes, droughts and harvests. How can you go against everything we know about the reality we live in and say that the cause of this phenomena is super natural?

i have felt the same about u countless time during this discussion

 

[Prince of Dhump]

4. I didnt say that I do not believe the claim that God exists because there a low probability for God's existance. I said I do not believe this claim because there is no evidence to support that claim.

first of all u keep on changing ur stance
second u play with words..u do not want to understand the gist of an argument, its context but bring up definitions whenever u see fit

here ur saying that there is no evidence to support the claim that Creator exist..read ur posts u said there is no sufficient evidence to support the existence of Creator

since ur hell bent on using the term evidence im gonna use it to convey my point instead of probability

a person commits murder
police does not find sufficient evidence and declare him innocent..does that make him less of a murderer ?

a person has not commited murder..police find sufficient evidence and declare him muderer. Does that actually make him a murderer ?

 

[Prince of Dhump]

3. We are not saying that naturally occuring life occured because there is a probability that it will occur, we are saying that because we have evidence that it occured.

what is that evidence ?

 

[Prince of Dhump]

5. Even if we cannot prove that life formed naturally. It does not automatically mean that God did it. Whenever there is a hole in human knowledge and we fill that hole, the explanation always turns out to be a natural one, whether it is formation of mountains, cause of earthquakes, droughts and harvests. How can you go against everything we know about the reality we live in and say that the cause of this phenomena is super natural?

if u can see 999 out of 1000 arrows that are pointing in one direction
will u be certain that the one ur not seeing will also point in that same direction ?