Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2509 by iamtaka]

This "uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated than an RNA molecule" is not the god of Christianity. Christian theism adheres to a doctrine of divine simplicity.

I am sorry, but "divine simplicity" is just a fancy way of declaring that God is logically impossible.

If you wish to assert that an entity capable of creating the universe in all its trillions of stars is not complex, then you have a lot of explaining and justifying to do.

Seriously.

The God of the Bible, if it existed, would be capable at any instant to monitor and alter at will the random movement of any of the trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions (continue writing "of trillions" about a trillion trillion times) of atoms in the universe. The computational power necessary to accomplish such a feat is so beyond the complexity of anything we could possibly imagine to exist in the universe, that to call such an entity "simple" is so beyond preposterous, so beyond ridiculous, so beyond absurd, that only the desensitization to basic common sense that comes with dogmatic faith could make it possible for it to gain any traction whatsoever.

Yet the odds of life just randomly occurring by blind chance is one in trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions...

Please demonstrate what you based your calculations on. Show your work.
BTW, neither evolution, nor abiogenesis rely on 'random blind chance.'
There are definite principles involved that have been shown to act, greatly increasing the likelihood of life forming under early Earthlike conditions.*

Plus, there are billions of separate places where abiogenesis could have occurred.
...[T]here could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_planet
And there may be 500 additional galaxies in the universe.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... y-way.html

_________________________
*Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.
Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise ... iller.html

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

You've failed to show your earlier calculations as requested. You've failed to give any citations for anything you've written on this post; failed to show any of what you claim was was peer reviewed.
Fred Hoyle was an atheist, and an astronomer, not a biochemist. He was a science fiction writer who had a number of oddball or controversial opinions, including that AIDS came from outer space and that there was no such thing as the 'Big Bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

This is at least the second time you have directly plagiarized from a "creationist" cite, passing off someone else's work as your own.

[Exact quotes of what you posted, complete with the same spelling variants are found at http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/cre ... hances.htm ]

[Star]

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

It's mind-blowing, I get that, but those are some highly pessimistic calculations.

What odds, do you think, are there of your god being formed? Introducing a more complex first-cause just creates a more profound paradox if we're to apply your logic consistently. If life is so complex it needs a creator, then the same must also be true for your god, in fact, even more so, since he's presumably more complex, indicating that he was even more intelligently-designed.

To say that your god is eternal or self-generating, but nature cannot be, is the fallacy of special pleading.

Edit: You plagiarized this post! You copy and pasted this from Post #7 at this message board. We can Google your posts to see where you copy it from. This is terrible!

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourse ... 4493441/1/

[Peter]

[Replying to post 2509 by iamtaka]

This "uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated than an RNA molecule" is not the god of Christianity. Christian theism adheres to a doctrine of divine simplicity.

I am sorry, but "divine simplicity" is just a fancy way of declaring that God is logically impossible.

If you wish to assert that an entity capable of creating the universe in all its trillions of stars is not complex, then you have a lot of explaining and justifying to do.

Seriously.

The God of the Bible, if it existed, would be capable at any instant to monitor and alter at will the random movement of any of the trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions (continue writing "of trillions" about a trillion trillion times) of atoms in the universe. The computational power necessary to accomplish such a feat is so beyond the complexity of anything we could possibly imagine to exist in the universe, that to call such an entity "simple" is so beyond preposterous, so beyond ridiculous, so beyond absurd, that only the desensitization to basic common sense that comes with dogmatic faith could make it possible for it to gain any traction whatsoever.

Yet the odds of life just randomly occurring by blind chance is one in trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions...

Please demonstrate what you based your calculations on. Show your work.
BTW, neither evolution, nor abiogenesis rely on 'random blind chance.'
There are definite principles involved that have been shown to act, greatly increasing the likelihood of life forming under early Earthlike conditions.*

Plus, there are billions of separate places where abiogenesis could have occurred.
...[T]here could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_planet
And there may be 500 additional galaxies in the universe.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... y-way.html

_________________________
*Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.
Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise ... iller.html

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

The jig is up boys! Mr. Hoyle did in the entire scientific community and billions of man hours of work in every scientific field with his amazing probability calculations that were no doubt divinely inspired and therefore must be correct and directly applicable to the real world.

Sir Hamilton please tell us the difference between life and non-life. Is a virus alive? You might tip the scales one way or another because I think that argument is still unresolved. Is a complex organic molecule that does nothing but replicate if the appropriate compounds are available, alive? You see, I don't think it's actually that difficult to go from life to non-life since it's just a matter of smoothly increasing complexity.

[Danmark]

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

Since you appear to be passing this work and these calculations off as your own, it should be easy for you to show your calculations and the basis for them.

If you simply copy someone else's work, you should give a citation for it, so other posters know you are simply copying and can look up the citation.
It appears the only 'work of your own' was to copy and paste: " " to the end of your plagiarized cut and paste.

[cf http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourse ... 4493441/1/ ]

[Goat]

You've failed to show your earlier calculations as requested. You've failed to give any citations for anything you've written on this post; failed to show any of what you claim was was peer reviewed.
Fred Hoyle was an atheist, and an astronomer, not a biochemist. He was a science fiction writer who had a number of oddball or controversial opinions, including that AIDS came from outer space and that there was no such thing as the 'Big Bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

This is at least the second time you have directly plagiarized from a "creationist" cite, passing off someone else's work as your own.

[Exact quotes of what you posted, complete with the same spelling variants are found at http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/cre ... hances.htm ]

Fred Hoyle made some very elementary mistakes when it came to his enzyme calucaitons. These mistakes are documented here

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

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences

The essay I point to goes into those 5 points much more deeply.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 2928 by Sir Hamilton]

Moderator Comment

If you copy something from a site, you will need to provide the reference to it, otherwise it is considered plagiarism.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Sir Hamilton]

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

It's mind-blowing, I get that, but those are some highly pessimistic calculations.

What odds, do you think, are there of your god being formed? Introducing a more complex first-cause just creates a more profound paradox if we're to apply your logic consistently. If life is so complex it needs a creator, then the same must also be true for your god, in fact, even more so, since he's presumably more complex, indicating that he was even more intelligently-designed.

To say that your god is eternal or self-generating, but nature cannot be, is the fallacy of special pleading.

Edit: You plagiarized this post! You copy and pasted this from Post #7 at this message board. We can Google your posts to see where you copy it from. This is terrible!

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourse ... 4493441/1/

We believe that God has always been. So it is better to assume that the first cause was what? Nothingness? Eternal matter? You just don't seem to want to accept that you don't know. I ask again...what is the origin of the universe? of life? of man? Declare to me if you know.

[Sir Hamilton]

[Replying to post 2509 by iamtaka]

This "uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated than an RNA molecule" is not the god of Christianity. Christian theism adheres to a doctrine of divine simplicity.

I am sorry, but "divine simplicity" is just a fancy way of declaring that God is logically impossible.

If you wish to assert that an entity capable of creating the universe in all its trillions of stars is not complex, then you have a lot of explaining and justifying to do.

Seriously.

The God of the Bible, if it existed, would be capable at any instant to monitor and alter at will the random movement of any of the trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions (continue writing "of trillions" about a trillion trillion times) of atoms in the universe. The computational power necessary to accomplish such a feat is so beyond the complexity of anything we could possibly imagine to exist in the universe, that to call such an entity "simple" is so beyond preposterous, so beyond ridiculous, so beyond absurd, that only the desensitization to basic common sense that comes with dogmatic faith could make it possible for it to gain any traction whatsoever.

Yet the odds of life just randomly occurring by blind chance is one in trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions...

Please demonstrate what you based your calculations on. Show your work.
BTW, neither evolution, nor abiogenesis rely on 'random blind chance.'
There are definite principles involved that have been shown to act, greatly increasing the likelihood of life forming under early Earthlike conditions.*

Plus, there are billions of separate places where abiogenesis could have occurred.
...[T]here could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_planet
And there may be 500 additional galaxies in the universe.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... y-way.html

_________________________
*Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.
Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise ... iller.html

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

You've failed to show your earlier calculations as requested. You've failed to give any citations for anything you've written on this post; failed to show any of what you claim was was peer reviewed.
Fred Hoyle was an atheist, and an astronomer, not a biochemist. He was a science fiction writer who had a number of oddball or controversial opinions, including that AIDS came from outer space and that there was no such thing as the 'Big Bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

This is at least the second time you have directly plagiarized from a "creationist" cite, passing off someone else's work as your own.

[Exact quotes of what you posted, complete with the same spelling variants are found at http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/cre ... hances.htm ]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh- ... -universe/ here is an excellent site for you to study and learn more about scientific support for ID. Enjoy....can't wait to hear you "expert" trashing of this science.

[Sir Hamilton]

[Replying to post 2509 by iamtaka]

This "uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated than an RNA molecule" is not the god of Christianity. Christian theism adheres to a doctrine of divine simplicity.

I am sorry, but "divine simplicity" is just a fancy way of declaring that God is logically impossible.

If you wish to assert that an entity capable of creating the universe in all its trillions of stars is not complex, then you have a lot of explaining and justifying to do.

Seriously.

The God of the Bible, if it existed, would be capable at any instant to monitor and alter at will the random movement of any of the trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions (continue writing "of trillions" about a trillion trillion times) of atoms in the universe. The computational power necessary to accomplish such a feat is so beyond the complexity of anything we could possibly imagine to exist in the universe, that to call such an entity "simple" is so beyond preposterous, so beyond ridiculous, so beyond absurd, that only the desensitization to basic common sense that comes with dogmatic faith could make it possible for it to gain any traction whatsoever.

Yet the odds of life just randomly occurring by blind chance is one in trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions...

Please demonstrate what you based your calculations on. Show your work.
BTW, neither evolution, nor abiogenesis rely on 'random blind chance.'
There are definite principles involved that have been shown to act, greatly increasing the likelihood of life forming under early Earthlike conditions.*

Plus, there are billions of separate places where abiogenesis could have occurred.
...[T]here could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_planet
And there may be 500 additional galaxies in the universe.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... y-way.html

_________________________
*Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.
Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.
http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise ... iller.html

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

The jig is up boys! Mr. Hoyle did in the entire scientific community and billions of man hours of work in every scientific field with his amazing probability calculations that were no doubt divinely inspired and therefore must be correct and directly applicable to the real world.

Sir Hamilton please tell us the difference between life and non-life. Is a virus alive? You might tip the scales one way or another because I think that argument is still unresolved. Is a complex organic molecule that does nothing but replicate if the appropriate compounds are available, alive? You see, I don't think it's actually that difficult to go from life to non-life since it's just a matter of smoothly increasing complexity.

I will be glad to attempt to answer you questions. But first could you explain to me the origin of the universe? of life? of man? It seems all you and others can do is criticize the idea of ID but you offer nothing of your own beliefs to these rather difficult questions. Thank you.

[Star]

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

It's mind-blowing, I get that, but those are some highly pessimistic calculations.

What odds, do you think, are there of your god being formed? Introducing a more complex first-cause just creates a more profound paradox if we're to apply your logic consistently. If life is so complex it needs a creator, then the same must also be true for your god, in fact, even more so, since he's presumably more complex, indicating that he was even more intelligently-designed.

To say that your god is eternal or self-generating, but nature cannot be, is the fallacy of special pleading.

Edit: You plagiarized this post! You copy and pasted this from Post #7 at this message board. We can Google your posts to see where you copy it from. This is terrible!

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourse ... 4493441/1/

We believe that God has always been. So it is better to assume that the first cause was what? Nothingness? Eternal matter? You just don't seem to want to accept that you don't know. I ask again...what is the origin of the universe? of life? of man? Declare to me if you know.

Humans evolved from apes, and are in fact, still apes. I don't know what created the universe and life, if anything, but I don't need to, because I don't make any claims about it.

It's a special pleading fallacy to insist everything needs a creator except for your particular god, a logical deduction you can't possibly make.

It's also a rather typical argument from ignorance fallacy to insist that because we don't know, and I can't tell you, that your god must have done it.