0:00 German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer thought that there was no evolutionary process without human perceivers, but he was also not a creationist. Do atheists get that?
People make far too many comments assuming and superimposing so many things, people need to better understand that ZJ's perspectives or if not personal perspectives as i am not this person and cannot speak for ver, is that which is logically common or at least more so common in philo, Arguments and point are Logical things they are to be done in a Logical manner and logical inconstancy is not a viable means to an end in an argument,
as for those who seek to find a Theist Ideal for Creation you could work on improving the Teleological argument, or the Cosmological, even the Intelligent Design Argument, but for that you would need to read up on David Hume, Paley, even knowing Edwards views, or better understanding the arguments for or against cultural relativism would help to strength as well as better your stand points,
The probability of setting my eyes upon my Sweetheart,, Rosie Jones might be 0.0000000000000000001 but is not zero. So there is a chance after all even if very very slim indeed that I might meet her one day.
Please consider probabilty of this: Jesus in Revelatins "I am A and Z" number the alphebet A=1 to Z=26. S=19,O=15,N=14 (48) + G=7,O=15,D=4 (26) = J=10,E=5,S=19,U=21,S=19(74)....Futhermore God(26) + Jesus(74)=100 So prof that God is One.......Futhermore "If Liberty exits in a land then the spirit of God resides within" By no accident our indepence day is on the seventh month and fourth day! 74 the numerollogy of the name JESUS. All of this is Highly IMprobable! Beieve in Angels!
I wonder how many people who've presented you with the hypothesis discussed in this video and believe in God as a result of it play Powerball faithfully.
what this wacko does not grasp (and what no fanatical Atheist ever grasps) is that there's nothing "natural" about "abiogenesis". It's NOT "natural origin of life". "Abiogenesis" is NON-SCIENTIFIC SUPERSTITIOUS FAITH. They offer NO empirical proof for the myth, yet blindly BELIEVE it happened anyway. Also, she doesn't get that I never say that it's "improbable", but flat-out IMPOSSIBLE. Also, her example of sperm and egg is SILLY, as that is empirical and biological. UNLIKE lol "abiogenesis."
@robjohngt well I see. So you know that "God is not real". Well, then, you must BE God to "know" for sure that "God is not real." You must have existed in all of universal history in all of time and space in and out of the universe to know dogmatically that "there is no God." Thanks for letting me know...that you're omniscient and omnipresent and omnipotent...to be aware of all of universal space and time. lol.......arrogant loser drone-tard. lol...
its not blindly believed, thats why its a THEORY, every scientist in the world would be GLAD to prove it wrong (or right), for now its the most acceptable answer, thats all, but knowing WHAT IS NOT the origin (a diety creation) is already a big step all atheist accomplish towards the truth, thats the difference between creationist and atheists, we have no faith, we have evidence and theories, we belive ALL THEORIES, until its proven wrong, and creationism is already out.
@Kuranoniisama you sound stupid. How do you know dogmatically that it was "NOT" a "deity creation"? You have FAITH that it was not. You have no observable "proof" that it wasn't. You just ASSERT it. Despite the implications for intelligent direction. That I won't even go into with you, as I know it's a waste of time. I've already been on the merry-go-round with you drones many times. I'm busy. (And "abiogenesis" theory is NOT "the most acceptable", just the most convenient for atheist losers.)
@sweetmikser Atheist's are far more interesting people then theists, even i cannot acclaim to be an atheist, for those of us which i am sure are many who do not have any understanding of the terms being flung around, Atheist, broken down is Anti-Theist or One who does not believe in ANY Higher Power being, of any kind. then there are Agnostic, who believe there May be a higher power but they don't know which. As for creation, i suggest you read up on Quantum Mechanics, string theory, M-theory
The odds of GOD by chance? First make sure that God is infinitely complex. Then Godo always existed, so some random object always existed and randomly it was THE MOST COMPLEX AND "HAPPENED" INTELLIGENCE? Look life isn't infinitely commplex and therefore more likely then God so HA.
look, you can't compare the die analogy to cell 1. the die's 60 roll number is just as probable as every other number you get when you roll a die 60 times.
the only way for it to be comparable would be for you to take a graphic calculator. put in a random number producer that has weighted probability. then make any number from 1 to 10 a trillion trillion times less likely to be produced. then push the button and try to get that number the first time...
The argument doesn't fallow that god creating the first cell is more probable . Rather it's that this is exactly the way things would be if god did exist and that this fact along with many other outstandingly improbable things that occurred are reasons to believe that god exist because they are, again, the way thing would be if he did. while if things worked out naturally things would not seem to appear this way due to low probability. Alone this argument isn't enough to believe in God though.
Evolution as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet. probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000. Those are pretty shitty odds.
It really is ironic that creationists use the "fine-tuning of Earth" argument in an attempt to support their religion, yet this comes with the implication that God was such a capriciously callous asshole that he decided to only make one of billions (and that's an understatement) of planets hospitable for life, consequently causing so many people to doubt the idea that we are the greatest life-forms in the universe, which religion promotes.
@PandaArmyXX Hey Panda, stop "doxing" me you retard! It's bad enough you raped my sister! Stop creating fake accounts and uploading dirty pictures of naked children to photo sharing sites. Everyone knows you're a troll who creates fake accounts and then tries to implicate innocent bystanders. Typical troll behavior - nobodies fallin' for it... :O
@PandaArmyXX Why are you stalking little Asian girls? Do you have yellow fever? Did you run out of girls to rape in your neighborhood creepy, stalker, rapist dude? Hai, shitamsu anata ha doxing ga yoku jouzu ja arimasen ne! Ganbatte yo! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! XD
@Zjemptv Maybe what you are saying is that consciousness is a result of improbability too. But if that is the case, then we shouldn’t have been able to make sense of anything. And what is the point of science, if science cannot explain things, then what is it good for? If the universe happened completely by chance, then it is completely nonsensical, and if that is the case, then we should never have discovered that to be the case. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
@PandaArmyXX Nice job deleting your comment. Too bad it shows up in my regular email as well so I have a nice screenshot and backup of your original message. Why so timid now rapist? BTW don't you think ZJ is cute? = D
@PandaArmyXX What's that rapist? I can't hear you through all your bullshit lies... Something about "9 different accounts"??? Do you have any proof? If you do I'd love to see it! = D
You have my email - send me the proof! You show me yours and I'll show you miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine! = D
@AriloeuLaleelae AriloeuLaleelae Crazycatlady667 ATALEOFTWOTROLLS TALEOFTWOTROLLS TAILOFTWOTROLLS TROLLBEATSTROLL PANDAPH1LE PANDASUCKSADICK PANDARAPESABABY Look familiar? I'm not going to email you, giving you access to the IP address to last proxy I connect to, sorry. It's in India right now, if you would like to know, but it refreshes every time I load a website. Still loading up 1200 of the same pictures to photo bucket accounts titled "THE PERVERT"? Last time I checked you had five.
@PandaArmyXX Stop emailing me links to nude pictures of children you sick fuck! It's obvious you're a rapist! You already admitted to it. If anyone wants screenshots of Panda admitting he's a rapist let me know. :O
@ZJemptv I'll be the last person to deny that improbable things happen all the time. That is why we have lotteries. But everyone knows that lotteries are for “suckers” (unless you’re the house, or unless you win). But to say that a random roll of the dice resulting in a random number sequence is the same as explaining why intelligent life appeared in the universe (no matter how improbable) requires additional explanation. To be sure, improbability doesn't prevent things from happening. (cont.)
What is the probability of water molecules evaporating from anywhere on the Earth and subsequently coming together above my head to produce a raindrop that hits me on the head ?
It is - 1 in 10 to the one septillion power. That many zeros is about one million times greater than all of the characters in all of the books and copies of books ever created by man…
Centuries ago it would've been highly improbable to believe that intelligence would become scarce or limited in our future but lo and behold, it has happened as many facets continue to show us over and over again. Much respect to ZJ and these videos.
True , the "classic" myth of creation is prolli not true ... and so that account of a deity creating life is also prolli not true . However, I believe God/Nature (one in the same) does work through nature (what we call the holy spirit, my ancestors called the spirit of life ) . But once again , I think the things like the Bible can metaphorically explain science and vice versa .. but then again , maybe Im just another liberal hippie who wants everyone to get along . Peace ZJ
If you throw 52 cards randomly into a 10 foot square area the probabiity of heads-tails, position and card angle is 1 in 10^884.
The probability of the particular mix of water molecules in a single drop of rain that happens to fall on you is (conservatively) 1 in 10 to the quadrillionth power.
Listen, no matter how many dicks you cram in your ass your not a scientist. The eye, yes the things I'm using to view the hideous creature in the video could never be formed by natural selection. Thats 0.0% probability. Sorry but, you lose fag.
An person on the internet using personal attacks without addressing the real argument, what a surprise. This is how we know that have no legitimate arguments. Please, go back to watching the 700 club and Glenn Beck whilst complaining that "fags" and George Soros are taking over America.
@ObamaSucks12345 In addition to this, this is apparant in modern life. Those animals that possess those kinds of eyes are alive today, examples of the evolution of the eye. From microscopic organisms, to shellfish to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds and mammals. The only exception in this process is the octopi and squid. So that probability you mentioned isn't 0% it's about 90%.
ZJ, you are quite right about the nature of probability. Moreover, many biologists have suggested that life is not just probable but inevitable given certain conditions namely: liquid water, an energy source and a carbon source. If this is true then the universe will be teaming with life. Stay tuned for further developments.
@FibonaziProductions no but your going to end up fooling people into thinking your a girl so be ready for that, dont know why you would do it unless you like consider yourself a girl like a transsexual
The question here is not which is the higher probability, but rather, which is more plausible? Scientists have discovered that any one of about 50 values and constants at work at the big bang were off by 1 point, life would not be possible in this universe. Which is more plausible, keeping in mind that matter, energy, space, and time did not exist before the big bang?
I don't think describing life as simply improbable is the right way to say this. The probability of a chemical reaction forming the first life on Earth is very, very small, but the number of organic chemical reactions during early Earth is very, very large.
The chance of winning the lottery is small, but the chance of *someone* winning the lottery is quite high, because of the large number of people playing.
Given a line segment with two endpoints; label one endpoint Myth, the other Science. The distance between these endpoints is labeled Probability and Statistics. Which end of this Science/Myth spectrum do you think this argument belongs? There are those who are wise, and there are those who are otherwise.
When I was about 4 I asked my mother that if god created us who created gos and she said something along the lines of god created himself. Even then I failed to see how that made any sense.
So what are the numbers or are you just another loud mouth you won't run the numbers. By the way you're B.S. supports creation as much as it supports evolution, so what is your point.
@daddyg321 Repetition of an action multiplies the probability (p) of one performance of an action. The result of rolling a die is statistically random, so the probability for any result from 1 roll of the die is 1 in 6, ie 1 number out of 6 possible results. If you roll it N=3 times you multiply the probability of one roll by itself 3 times. Total probability, P=(1:6)*(1:6)*(1:6) = 1^3:6^3 = 1:216 = p^N. So for a dice with a p=1:6 rolled 60 times, P=(1:6)^60 =1:48.9*10^45. Hope this helps.
@eyeammi I should have assumed you thinking would be twisted you complaint was people won't run the numbers on creation, so do your part and run them on evolution. I saw the beginning of the math years ago, an austrailian math prof. had to stop, his 486(the best at the time) could not hold the numbers in the odds against evo.
@daddyg321 My complaint? Even If it was possible to calculate a probability for creation, which by creationist's definition it's not, I couldn't care one way or another if someone runs the probability numbers on the observed facts of the state we exist in. Did you even read my 2nd post? Probabilities are useless in determining the causal links of how something happened. The concept of probabilities simply do not apply as an explanatory tool for observation.
@eyeammi Did you read my comment, yes it was impossible because the computer at the time(486s) couldn't hold the numbers, the odds against "evolution" from amino acids to higher forms(modern animals)was so great, and you think religious people need faith.
@daddyg321 Your point is irrelevant because your understanding of probability as was the person's doing the original calculation is misguided and misapplied. Probabilities are meaningless in terms of something that has happened. But if you demand on going that route, so be it. Evolution is still more probable. If god is infinite in power, knowledge and scope he is infinitely complex. Thus, the probability that he/it exists is 1:infinity or ZERO. Evolution is infinitely more probable than god.
@eyeammi It must be nice to be greater in all fields than scientist and college professors. Few men have put themselves there, Hitler, Stalin,and the like.
@daddyg321 Oh my. I never said i was greater in all fields than scientist and college professors. I CAN comfortably say I'm smarter than you and wherever your probabilistic proof against evolution comes from. But regardless, here is a tip. If the only thing you can come up with is to compare someone to Hitler and Stalin instead of actually addressing their point, then you've already lost. BTW you forgot Pol Pot. He's another evil atheist you can falsely compare someone to when all else fails.
@eyeammi I'v dealt with the points, now I'm dealing with the attitude, claiming scientists and professors know less than you is saying you are greater to people that understand English.
@daddyg321 You're right! This video DOES support creation as much as it does evolution, but only because it provides absolutely NO support for either just as equally.
The probability of an observed state happening is 1:1 because it DID happen. Assigning probabilities to observed fact is entirely a misapplication of the principles & thus has no explanatory power for any causal hypothesis in question one way or another. Probability is only useful for the act of predicting likely FUTURE outcomes.
If you roll a die 60 times without a prerequisite sequence in mind your probability of getting the sequence of numbers that you happen to roll is 1. Now if you right down a sequence of 60 numbers that you wish to roll I could agree that the odds of that exact sequence being rolled are astronomical.
Perhaps I am missing something? I certainly to claim to be all knowing.
@JocularINC Before you start rolling the dice your probability of getting a resulting sequence of 60 numbers is 1 (barring the unlikely event that the dice manages to land balancing on one of its corners). Any specific outcome of numbers however, is equally likely to occur, yielding the ridiculously low probability that ZJ gives in this video.
Theists look at probability AFTER the fact. Everything AFTER the fact can look improbable, yet the probablility of the event after the fact is actually 100% because it did in fact happen. If you are predicting the possiblity of life occuring on Earth (before the fact), the answer is we do not know because we have no idea how common life is in the universe.
I'd sooner believe that Aliens had a hand in creating Man the way they are then a God. lol
Still, it IS entirely possible and more probable than people like to think that DNA can form naturally by itself through natural processes. Where there is Water, Substantial energy, and right organic compounds to make amino acids, there CAN be life eventually. If it happened here, it is happening somewhere else, too. Aliens or blind chance are both more probable than Almighty God.
But if you get further and further away from probability (like 1/1 followed by 40,000 zeros) it does become mathematically impossible... That is the probability of the simplest proitein enzyme to have evolved. Hurrah!
But anyway, if you conclude that the probability of both are equally unknown and equally unlikely, yet you say 'so why should we believe in creation?', accept that it is also a viable position to reject a belief in atheistic world 'creation', origin of life and evolution.
suggest that it exists. In fact, someone could spend a trillion trillion trillion lifetimes and never roll the correct sequence. The point of the improbability argument does not attempt to prove God, it simply shows how extremely unlikely it is that life arose from purely natural means.
In addition, assuming that God must arise from natural means is blatantly fallacious. You're saying that something supernatural must come from something natural. The other way around makes much better sense.
You're missing the point. The emergence of life by purely natural causes is so extremely unlikely that it suggests other explanations may be possible, maybe even more likely. If you're only willing to consider natural means, and that those means must have occurred since they have a probability and "here we are," they you're merely begging the question. You're assuming what you're trying to prove, making your argument erroneous due to the commitment of this fallacy. [continued]
@oldbonez86 "The emergence of life by purely natural causes is so extremely unlikely that it suggests other explanations may be possible, maybe even more likely."
Abiogenetic hypotheses do not require denying outright that there could have been other causes. If other hypotheses and theories are more well-supported, then they could certainly render current abiogenetic theories obsolete. That's basically how science works. However, none of these other proposals have been able to do that.
Also, to expect there to be physical evidence for anything metaphysical is self-refuting. That's like me asking you to prove to me that you had a thought about green flower. There's no physical evidence it. You can try to convince me, but I only have your word to go on.
@oldbonez86 "Also, to expect there to be physical evidence for anything metaphysical is self-refuting."
Then you shouldn't be surprised when there is *always* more evidence to support natural explanations than there is for any of your claims of supernatural intervention. You've basically just acknowledged that your proposals are always going to fail in this regard. So what makes you think claims of supernaturalism can compete with natural explanations, or deserve any serious consideration?
I'm going to ignore the fact that you picked pieces to respond to, and ignored the fact that your original argument was fallacious. In a debate, I wouldn't even be expected to respond, but I'll continue to entertain it for the sake of learning. You're completely missing the point, again. We use empirical evidence in the sciences. This evidence can show that natural processes are sufficient, or insufficient.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. I did substantiate my claim and clearly explained how your argument committed the fallacy.
"Then why did you say there can't be physical evidence of anything "metaphysical" at work, if you think there can be?"
I actually didn't say that there CAN'T be evidence of something metaphysical at work. My point was you can't assume the necessity of physical evidence to prove something metaphysical.
"and clearly explained how your argument committed the fallacy."
...you didn't. Restating the same "too unlikely" argument addressed in the video does not mean you found a "fallacy". Making up metaphysical nonsense in an attempt to excuse your claims from any requirement of proof is also not identifying a "fallacy". In fact, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything I actually said in the video.
"If you're only willing to consider natural means, and that those means must have occurred since they have a probability and "here we are," then you're merely begging the question. You're assuming what you're trying to prove, making your argument erroneous due to the commitment of this fallacy. " This is a refutation of a claim made in the video.
@oldbonez86 "If you're only willing to consider natural means, and that those means must have occurred since they have a probability and "here we are,"
Straw man. I said nothing of the sort. That's a fallacy, by the way.
You said: "it would be very unlikely for a deity with the ability to create life on earth to arise naturally, so i must have also been created"
You're assuming naturalism on the possibility of a supernatural being. You're assuming that God needs a creator if we need a creator. But, there is nothing to suggest that a deity would require a creator and that argument would simply regress into an infinity of Gods: invoke Occum's Razor.
You're assuming that if something has a probability of occurring, and it occurs, then the source of the presumed probability must have been the cause. However, logic demonstrates that is not true. Take a simple example: If N then U. We also know if C then U, and if P then U, and if T then U. The point is that multiple different causes could all lead to the same effect. You cannot assume that just because you have the effect, that you know the cause.
@oldbonez86 "You're assuming that if something has a probability of occurring, and it occurs, then the source of the presumed probability must have been the cause."
Actually, you did. From about 30 seconds before the dice example throughout your demonstration. I was summarizing what you were saying obviously. And, since you said my claims were unsubstantiated, I had to demonstrate the assumptions you were making. Obviously, you didn't state them blatantly clear, because anyone would tell that you're committing a fallacy. As a whole, your argument is functioning under these assumptions. I'm responding to your probability argument.
@oldbonez86 I don't know how you managed to read *that* out of what I was saying. I was explaining that the "it's really unlikely" argument does nothing to invalidate the possibility or natural origins of life. This is not a claim that "the source of the presumed probability must have been the cause" - it was not a positive proof of the natural origins of life. It is a refutation of the idea that unlikely things can't happen, which some people use to propose a supernatural origin of life.
You said in the video: "Things are not impossible just because they have a low probability, and this argument from improbability fails to prove creation from a God"
Of course it doesn't PROVE it, but it does suggest that it is possible and could be a better explanation. Also, just because it is not impossible for natural means to occurred, this doesn't prove that it must have happened that way either. The improbability of it occurring is so astronomical that even Dawkins won't claim in
@ZJemptv There's nothing improbable about the natural genesis of life. Earth has water, organic compounds, and energy in the form of heat and electrical energy to form complex chemical bonds without artificial assistance. Yes, it is an uncomfortably long process, but it IS possible and more probable than people like to think. We've discovered another planet out there that is thought to have the right conditions and ingredients for life, too.
Only if you have the cause can you know with any certainty what the effect will be. You're assuming the cause, begging the question, committing a pseudo-argumentative fallacy.
@oldbonez86 Taking the simplest explanation as the one likely to be correct - observing that the natural causes of something are sufficient to account for it, without having to tack on a totally unnecessary and totally unproven supernatural claim - is not a fallacy. Again, you've identified no fallacies here. What you are looking for is free license to simply make things up and posit magical causative agents with no evidence or proof whatsoever. Whether that's a fallacy or not, it's very dumb.
I don't see how natural causes are sufficient to account for it when they cannot account for it at all. Science cannot account for the beginning of the universe, nor the leap from life to non-life. Wouldn't it be simpler to consider an explanation that does provide answers, rather than one that goes on the faith that it will someday eventually be able to explain these things meeting its own criteria?
@oldbonez86 "I don't see how natural causes are sufficient to account for it when they cannot account for it at all. Science cannot account for the beginning of the universe, nor the leap from life to non-life."
Do you mean this in the sense of "there is no scientific explanation for certain phenomena at the present time", or "there will never be a scientific explanation for this, ever, so let's just make things up"? If the latter, be advised that historically, that hasn't gone very well.
Being that they may be insufficient, another explanation, that is metaphysical in nature, can be established by, but not limited to, metaphysical evidence. I said, "expect there to be physical evidence" and what I should have said was, "to expect that there MUST be physical evidence."
@oldbonez86 "I said, "expect there to be physical evidence" and what I should have said was, "to expect that there MUST be physical evidence."
Proposing an explanation for which there may not actually be any evidence - and indeed, there may *never* be any evidence - is kind of useless, don't you think?
That's why I specifically said "physical" evidence. There can be philosophical and metaphysical evidence that support metaphysical claims. To say that everything, natural or supernatural, must have natural, empirical evidence is to dismiss any other possibilities before they are even considered. This comes from a worldview of Scientism and Naturalism. Again, you cannot assume what you're trying to prove, and Science cannot prove that its method is the only way to knowledge and truth.
@oldbonez86 "Science cannot prove that its method is the only way to knowledge and truth."
The utility of science, its explanatory power, and its ability to help us acquire and refine knowledge about our world to develop progressively more accurate models of its workings, has been demonstrated time and time again throughout history. Even if it is not "the only way to knowledge and truth", nothing else comes close to science. Including your claimed "philosophical and metaphysical evidence".
I agree that Science has explanatory power within its own field and established parameters. However, there are verses in the Bible that talk about hygiene behavior, nutritional practices, and medical practices that Science has since shown to be accurate. This suggests that, if God revealed these things to them, there is another direct source for truth. I wanted to link you an article about this but haven't been able to remember the source I downloaded it from in college. I'll look tho
@oldbonez86 "This suggests that, if God revealed these things to them, there is another direct source for truth."
Actually it suggests that people living in that era were capable of making rudimentary associations between certain activities that seem more or less likely to precede illness, and write this down in a book. It is exactly what you would expect if the Bible is written by humans. There's no concept of underlying causes, like the germ theory of disease - couldn't a god reveal that?
@ZJemptv Dear ZJ....... YOUR VIDEOS ARE AMAZING!!! =) I love your arguments and how you completely destroy the arguments of silly creationists. It is so astounding to me that so many people believe in the bible and all those other fairy tale books. Keep on making videos, I sincerely adore them.
Congratulations, you successfully proved that improbability and impossibility are different. Your argument is circular and inconsequential.
Here is the possibility of life emerging from non-life applied to your dice example: First, roll a die 10 billion times. Each roll must be a come out a 6. The probability is 1/6^10000000000. Now, in order for life to occur, you must roll those 10 billion dice all at the same time and they all must land on six. The simple probability doesn't
i like your dice example =) .... never thought of it i preferred the "the number of possible chess games is larger than the number of seconds this universe has". but the point still prevails that you're absolutely right, and with each new video i watch from you, i convince myself you're a very smart smart person... kudos XD
would you stop applying logic & reason to the universe you are supposed to take the word of some 2,000 years dead weirdos that today would be medicated & institutionalized (to protect society) & a book that has been translated edited then translated some 600 times not logic & reason that's redonkulous!
Now I am going to have to put on my George Michael album & listen to the song "Faith" to cleanse my angry soul.
You know what's more improbable than life occurring naturally on the Earth? An all powerful and all knowing being poofing into exist and setting it all in motion.
No one fucking knows and probably will never know. We have more pressing issues like war, poverty, education, taxes, famine, disasters, crime, immigration to worry about if some entity created us or not. We are all in hell now. What difference does it make what anyone believes living or dying? The god theory is one of man's biggest lies to control and enslave mind and body for the few placed in power. No one should ever, ever, have the power of life and death over anyone. Humans are evil.
if your going to smoke crack,dont have kids while smoking it..smoking crack is VERY bad for your testicles,and your children may turn out to be much like this,but to all you non-crack smokers,dont sniff sharpies,glue,hotwax,semen,or cow turds,unless if you want your kids calling themselfs ZJ and have a 2inch erect penis,and if your kids do act like this,but you have not done anything above,then your kid must have had a high dosage of horse semen pumped into there assoles at a young age.sieg heil
The probability is 0 because abiogenesis is impossible and so is macroevolution. There has been no observation of either ever and it hasn't been proven possible either. How could nothing create energy which exploded and created everything there is today including space, time, & matter? (goes against the first laws of thermodynamics).
Oh, I think I finally understand what are you trying to say. You are targeting people that think that improbable events doesn't happen, then it's clear.
It's trivial to disprove this argument (like you did), so I thought they are not using this argument, but some other, so previous discussion was about something else which this video is not about. OK and sorry for my misinterpretation.
To not be only criticizing, I'm happy that you read your comments. There are so many hate and dumb comments under your videos that I would not be surprised If you didn't read them.
In short, I'm trying to explain that the answer to origin of life should be "We don't know exactly, but there are theories about it which hopefully explain it in future" instead of "Improbable things happen".
ps. To make this clear, I know there are some theories about origin of life, but they are far from complete. Also I want to correct grammatical error, it should be "shook" not "shaked" in some my post.
[continuation from previous post] I'm saying that we just don't know and there is research to be done. And there is good argument for believing this, take evolution theory. Before Darwin, it was great mystery for science how such amazingly incredibly complex things like humans emerged. Now it's clear, by evolution from one-cell organisms. They are comparably less complex than humans, as these cells are complex to non-living matter.
[continuation from previous post] and the outcome would be self-replicating organisms. You actually can make an analogy of this in dice rolls, but not like you said. The analogy would be that dice rolls outcome would consist only of long strings of same numbers like 23 ones, 29 twos, 17 fives and 31 ones. The probability of this happening is rather small, don't you think?
I'm not saying that this implies, that god created it. [continuation in next post]
@pointless113FA886 "The probability of this happening is rather small, don't you think?"
The probability of *any* single specific sequence is extraordinarily small. That includes sequences with long repeating strings, and sequences without them. A sequence without long repeating strings is just as improbable. Also, in the space of all possibilities, there will actually be very many which contain long repeating strings. I don't see how this is relevant to anything.
0:00 German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer thought that there was no evolutionary process without human perceivers, but he was also not a creationist. Do atheists get that?
Phavonic 2 weeks ago
What? No pennies?
ABC132Acd 3 weeks ago
As a geologist, the video responce sweetmikser left on this video amuses me.
Chayraz2 3 weeks ago
You look like kinda like girl in every vid
NEWEDITIONPACO 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a woman with lust you have committed adultery with her in your heart. have u done that?
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Heaven or Hell? Does this concern you?
Do u need a Savior from your sins?
Jesus (The Son of God)came, lived a sinless life, died on the cross (for our sins) and rose again on the third day.
needgod.com
if you are interested in abortion or thinking of having one watch 180 movie
standingontruth1 2 months ago in playlist Reason and Science
People make far too many comments assuming and superimposing so many things, people need to better understand that ZJ's perspectives or if not personal perspectives as i am not this person and cannot speak for ver, is that which is logically common or at least more so common in philo, Arguments and point are Logical things they are to be done in a Logical manner and logical inconstancy is not a viable means to an end in an argument,
Kellyrosetta 4 months ago
as for those who seek to find a Theist Ideal for Creation you could work on improving the Teleological argument, or the Cosmological, even the Intelligent Design Argument, but for that you would need to read up on David Hume, Paley, even knowing Edwards views, or better understanding the arguments for or against cultural relativism would help to strength as well as better your stand points,
Kellyrosetta 4 months ago
The probability of setting my eyes upon my Sweetheart,, Rosie Jones might be 0.0000000000000000001 but is not zero. So there is a chance after all even if very very slim indeed that I might meet her one day.
azzy314159 6 months ago
Please consider probabilty of this: Jesus in Revelatins "I am A and Z" number the alphebet A=1 to Z=26. S=19,O=15,N=14 (48) + G=7,O=15,D=4 (26) = J=10,E=5,S=19,U=21,S=19(74)....Futhermore God(26) + Jesus(74)=100 So prof that God is One.......Futhermore "If Liberty exits in a land then the spirit of God resides within" By no accident our indepence day is on the seventh month and fourth day! 74 the numerollogy of the name JESUS. All of this is Highly IMprobable! Beieve in Angels!
GATEANGEL744 6 months ago
@GATEANGEL744
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
robjohngt 6 months ago
@GATEANGEL744 You're adorable.
Tamugetsu 6 months ago
I wonder how many people who've presented you with the hypothesis discussed in this video and believe in God as a result of it play Powerball faithfully.
PaulineTriage 6 months ago
what this wacko does not grasp (and what no fanatical Atheist ever grasps) is that there's nothing "natural" about "abiogenesis". It's NOT "natural origin of life". "Abiogenesis" is NON-SCIENTIFIC SUPERSTITIOUS FAITH. They offer NO empirical proof for the myth, yet blindly BELIEVE it happened anyway. Also, she doesn't get that I never say that it's "improbable", but flat-out IMPOSSIBLE. Also, her example of sperm and egg is SILLY, as that is empirical and biological. UNLIKE lol "abiogenesis."
sweetmikser 8 months ago
@sweetmikser
Hey, God isn't real.
Thanks.
robjohngt 6 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robjohngt well I see. So you know that "God is not real". Well, then, you must BE God to "know" for sure that "God is not real." You must have existed in all of universal history in all of time and space in and out of the universe to know dogmatically that "there is no God." Thanks for letting me know...that you're omniscient and omnipresent and omnipotent...to be aware of all of universal space and time. lol.......arrogant loser drone-tard. lol...
sweetmikser 6 months ago
@robjohngt you lame ass moron.prove it
EstacadoConstantine 6 months ago
@EstacadoConstantine Prove he is real. Seriously. Give me solid, undeniable, irrefutable, proof.
ZakuAbumiFanGirl1 6 months ago
@ZakuAbumiFanGirl1 EAT A DICK!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
EstacadoConstantine 6 months ago
@EstacadoConstantine That doesnt prove anything....
ZakuAbumiFanGirl1 6 months ago
@ZakuAbumiFanGirl1 exactly
EstacadoConstantine 6 months ago
@sweetmikser
its not blindly believed, thats why its a THEORY, every scientist in the world would be GLAD to prove it wrong (or right), for now its the most acceptable answer, thats all, but knowing WHAT IS NOT the origin (a diety creation) is already a big step all atheist accomplish towards the truth, thats the difference between creationist and atheists, we have no faith, we have evidence and theories, we belive ALL THEORIES, until its proven wrong, and creationism is already out.
Kuranoniisama 4 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 4 months ago
@Kuranoniisama you sound stupid. How do you know dogmatically that it was "NOT" a "deity creation"? You have FAITH that it was not. You have no observable "proof" that it wasn't. You just ASSERT it. Despite the implications for intelligent direction. That I won't even go into with you, as I know it's a waste of time. I've already been on the merry-go-round with you drones many times. I'm busy. (And "abiogenesis" theory is NOT "the most acceptable", just the most convenient for atheist losers.)
sweetmikser 4 months ago
@sweetmikser Atheist's are far more interesting people then theists, even i cannot acclaim to be an atheist, for those of us which i am sure are many who do not have any understanding of the terms being flung around, Atheist, broken down is Anti-Theist or One who does not believe in ANY Higher Power being, of any kind. then there are Agnostic, who believe there May be a higher power but they don't know which. As for creation, i suggest you read up on Quantum Mechanics, string theory, M-theory
Kellyrosetta 4 months ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 8 months ago
The odds of GOD by chance? First make sure that God is infinitely complex. Then Godo always existed, so some random object always existed and randomly it was THE MOST COMPLEX AND "HAPPENED" INTELLIGENCE? Look life isn't infinitely commplex and therefore more likely then God so HA.
anticorncob6 8 months ago
Your dice comparison made me lol so hard.
look, you can't compare the die analogy to cell 1. the die's 60 roll number is just as probable as every other number you get when you roll a die 60 times.
the only way for it to be comparable would be for you to take a graphic calculator. put in a random number producer that has weighted probability. then make any number from 1 to 10 a trillion trillion times less likely to be produced. then push the button and try to get that number the first time...
babertron 8 months ago
The argument doesn't fallow that god creating the first cell is more probable . Rather it's that this is exactly the way things would be if god did exist and that this fact along with many other outstandingly improbable things that occurred are reasons to believe that god exist because they are, again, the way thing would be if he did. while if things worked out naturally things would not seem to appear this way due to low probability. Alone this argument isn't enough to believe in God though.
babertron 8 months ago
Its A She He
WingWeeMovies 8 months ago
This lady is so ugly. It's hard to look at her and hear her message. She needs to pluck her eyebrows. Also she has a Pat voice.
CircleOvDeadChildren 9 months ago
@CircleOvDeadChildren
It's a man.
ROBLOXingHabbo 8 months ago
Evolution as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet. probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000. Those are pretty shitty odds.
alexlvsport 9 months ago
@alexlvsport Evolution is not abiogenesis,learn the difference
VaiRoth 8 months ago
If only the world were full of people like yourself; it would be such a better place.
BlueZephyrTG 9 months ago
Wow.
really?
Why dont you get a degree in microbiology and write a paper or two in quantum mechanics first before you make a video like this.
Go to a symposium on abiogeneis at least!
roofdonkey 9 months ago
Cool. I like your lipstick too.
smartestmanonnet 10 months ago
you are an extraordinary person. please keep up the good work! (liked today, and tomorrow)
marklethanarkle 10 months ago
Is your jaw broken or wired shut?
Very odd.
davidm1952 10 months ago
It really is ironic that creationists use the "fine-tuning of Earth" argument in an attempt to support their religion, yet this comes with the implication that God was such a capriciously callous asshole that he decided to only make one of billions (and that's an understatement) of planets hospitable for life, consequently causing so many people to doubt the idea that we are the greatest life-forms in the universe, which religion promotes.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 10 months ago
Invalid example with the example of life, but the rest is correct.
ANIMOSITYISNOAMITY 10 months ago
rrriiiigggghhhhtt
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX Hey Panda, stop "doxing" me you retard! It's bad enough you raped my sister! Stop creating fake accounts and uploading dirty pictures of naked children to photo sharing sites. Everyone knows you're a troll who creates fake accounts and then tries to implicate innocent bystanders. Typical troll behavior - nobodies fallin' for it... :O
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
@AriloeuLaleelae
Looks like you cleaned your photobucket up eh?
s134(dot)photobucket(dot)com/home/ariloeulaleelae
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX Why are you stalking little Asian girls? Do you have yellow fever? Did you run out of girls to rape in your neighborhood creepy, stalker, rapist dude? Hai, shitamsu anata ha doxing ga yoku jouzu ja arimasen ne! Ganbatte yo! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! XD
... !?!? :O
.......... = D
.......... =^.^=
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
@AriloeuLaleelae
囲碁性交自分自身を、あなたばか女。
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@Zjemptv Maybe what you are saying is that consciousness is a result of improbability too. But if that is the case, then we shouldn’t have been able to make sense of anything. And what is the point of science, if science cannot explain things, then what is it good for? If the universe happened completely by chance, then it is completely nonsensical, and if that is the case, then we should never have discovered that to be the case. Please, correct me if I am wrong.
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
Comment removed
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX Nice job deleting your comment. Too bad it shows up in my regular email as well so I have a nice screenshot and backup of your original message. Why so timid now rapist? BTW don't you think ZJ is cute? = D
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
@AriloeuLaleelae
Sweet thanks for that information. I should be doxxing you within the week :D
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX Zoinks! *screenshot! =O
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
@AriloeuLaleelae
must be kewl to have screenshots with nothing to do with them :(
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX I still have a year to press charges. I'm not worried about it. :O
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
@AriloeuLaleelae
Hmm press charges for you constantly harassing me over the past month and creating 9 different accounts after I've blocked you on every one of them?
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX What's that rapist? I can't hear you through all your bullshit lies... Something about "9 different accounts"??? Do you have any proof? If you do I'd love to see it! = D
You have my email - send me the proof! You show me yours and I'll show you miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine! = D
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX I have no idea what you're talking about troll :O
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX Nope. Not really. Should it look familiar? If you're really behind a proxy then you have nothing to fear.
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
@PandaArmyXX Stop emailing me links to nude pictures of children you sick fuck! It's obvious you're a rapist! You already admitted to it. If anyone wants screenshots of Panda admitting he's a rapist let me know. :O
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
@AriloeuLaleelae
lol
omg comment stalking is fun!!!
raperists1!!!!!@1!!!1111
PandaArmyXX 11 months ago
@ZJemptv I'll be the last person to deny that improbable things happen all the time. That is why we have lotteries. But everyone knows that lotteries are for “suckers” (unless you’re the house, or unless you win). But to say that a random roll of the dice resulting in a random number sequence is the same as explaining why intelligent life appeared in the universe (no matter how improbable) requires additional explanation. To be sure, improbability doesn't prevent things from happening. (cont.)
AriloeuLaleelae 11 months ago
What is the probability of water molecules evaporating from anywhere on the Earth and subsequently coming together above my head to produce a raindrop that hits me on the head ?
It is - 1 in 10 to the one septillion power. That many zeros is about one million times greater than all of the characters in all of the books and copies of books ever created by man…
I think this proves that rain is impossible...
yynnmmbb 1 year ago
Centuries ago it would've been highly improbable to believe that intelligence would become scarce or limited in our future but lo and behold, it has happened as many facets continue to show us over and over again. Much respect to ZJ and these videos.
Lunarchants 1 year ago
I had an orgasm while watching this video.
I love you.
Zoosexuality 1 year ago
why r u wearing lipstick and earrings if ur a guy?
vitangelorotondi 1 year ago
Dude your problem is psychological. Stop trying so hard to justify it to yourself.
cozyfoxstudio 1 year ago
True , the "classic" myth of creation is prolli not true ... and so that account of a deity creating life is also prolli not true . However, I believe God/Nature (one in the same) does work through nature (what we call the holy spirit, my ancestors called the spirit of life ) . But once again , I think the things like the Bible can metaphorically explain science and vice versa .. but then again , maybe Im just another liberal hippie who wants everyone to get along . Peace ZJ
brycejacksoncvt 1 year ago
If you throw 52 cards randomly into a 10 foot square area the probabiity of heads-tails, position and card angle is 1 in 10^884.
The probability of the particular mix of water molecules in a single drop of rain that happens to fall on you is (conservatively) 1 in 10 to the quadrillionth power.
apeek7 1 year ago
To end this tedious discussion: Life has been created by me and I can prove it. Thumbs up if you believe in me, thumbs down if you dont.
If you like to have proof, please contact me.
If you suffer from cognitive dissonance, flag this comment as spam.
VannevarBush 1 year ago
Listen, no matter how many dicks you cram in your ass your not a scientist. The eye, yes the things I'm using to view the hideous creature in the video could never be formed by natural selection. Thats 0.0% probability. Sorry but, you lose fag.
ObamaSucks12345 1 year ago
@ObamaSucks12345
An person on the internet using personal attacks without addressing the real argument, what a surprise. This is how we know that have no legitimate arguments. Please, go back to watching the 700 club and Glenn Beck whilst complaining that "fags" and George Soros are taking over America.
EliteKiller07 1 year ago
@ObamaSucks12345 It's actually been proven that the human eye came from natural selection. The process goes like this:
1.) A light sensitive cell: You can now tell whether it's day or night. Simple protists
2.) A patch of light sensitive cells: You have more sensitivity to the light. Complex protists
3.) The patch becomes concave: You can tell which direction the light is coming from. Planarian
4.) It becomes more concave: More directionality. Lilke a pinhole camera. Nautilus
con't
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@ObamaSucks12345 5.) The addition of a protective covering over those cells: Focused vision of the light. Certain fish
6.) A lens: More focus in order to see objects clearer and have at least some depth perception
7.) An advanced lens: Even more focus. Mammals, reptiles, and birds.
8.) It doesn't end with humans. One more step is the elimination of the "blind spot" apparant in squid and octopi.
These steps coincide with complexity or organisms. Protists have the least developed, etc.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
@ObamaSucks12345 In addition to this, this is apparant in modern life. Those animals that possess those kinds of eyes are alive today, examples of the evolution of the eye. From microscopic organisms, to shellfish to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds and mammals. The only exception in this process is the octopi and squid. So that probability you mentioned isn't 0% it's about 90%.
LucasI3434 1 year ago
Why do I suddenly think about "It's Pat" from SNL?
Tuddley3 1 year ago
ZJ, you are quite right about the nature of probability. Moreover, many biologists have suggested that life is not just probable but inevitable given certain conditions namely: liquid water, an energy source and a carbon source. If this is true then the universe will be teaming with life. Stay tuned for further developments.
2357Brian 1 year ago 2
this must be the girl that they recorded to make windows narrator
achammer 1 year ago
@achammer - He's a guy actually.
FibonaziProductions 1 year ago
@FibonaziProductions really is he a tranny then , hes wearing lipstick and earings lol
achammer 1 year ago
@achammer - What of it? Is there anything wrong with a guy wearing lipstick and earrings?
FibonaziProductions 1 year ago
@FibonaziProductions no but your going to end up fooling people into thinking your a girl so be ready for that, dont know why you would do it unless you like consider yourself a girl like a transsexual
achammer 1 year ago
ya but.............do any of us really exist?!
blueyourmom123 1 year ago
"No, it's not impossible, it's just highly improbable!" It was very improbable for "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" to be written!
txvoltaire 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FalconFreek 1 year ago
is this a guy or a girl
xXjb113Xx 1 year ago
The question here is not which is the higher probability, but rather, which is more plausible? Scientists have discovered that any one of about 50 values and constants at work at the big bang were off by 1 point, life would not be possible in this universe. Which is more plausible, keeping in mind that matter, energy, space, and time did not exist before the big bang?
MrGospelTruth 1 year ago
I don't think describing life as simply improbable is the right way to say this. The probability of a chemical reaction forming the first life on Earth is very, very small, but the number of organic chemical reactions during early Earth is very, very large.
The chance of winning the lottery is small, but the chance of *someone* winning the lottery is quite high, because of the large number of people playing.
Myriachan 1 year ago
....................whata fag
pumphouse00 1 year ago
why are you wearing lipstick and dressed in a feminine way? I must've missed that video.
suddenuprising 1 year ago
Given a line segment with two endpoints; label one endpoint Myth, the other Science. The distance between these endpoints is labeled Probability and Statistics. Which end of this Science/Myth spectrum do you think this argument belongs? There are those who are wise, and there are those who are otherwise.
Mike10four 1 year ago
So are you also accepting the possibility that God exists... or are you just going to selectively apply this argument?
bananamankiller777 1 year ago
When I was about 4 I asked my mother that if god created us who created gos and she said something along the lines of god created himself. Even then I failed to see how that made any sense.
pierepresentative8 1 year ago
God don't need numbers. He is god he can do anything and that is why he is called god.
skinnylugnuts 1 year ago
So what are the numbers or are you just another loud mouth you won't run the numbers. By the way you're B.S. supports creation as much as it supports evolution, so what is your point.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Repetition of an action multiplies the probability (p) of one performance of an action. The result of rolling a die is statistically random, so the probability for any result from 1 roll of the die is 1 in 6, ie 1 number out of 6 possible results. If you roll it N=3 times you multiply the probability of one roll by itself 3 times. Total probability, P=(1:6)*(1:6)*(1:6) = 1^3:6^3 = 1:216 = p^N. So for a dice with a p=1:6 rolled 60 times, P=(1:6)^60 =1:48.9*10^45. Hope this helps.
eyeammi 1 year ago
@eyeammi I should have assumed you thinking would be twisted you complaint was people won't run the numbers on creation, so do your part and run them on evolution. I saw the beginning of the math years ago, an austrailian math prof. had to stop, his 486(the best at the time) could not hold the numbers in the odds against evo.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 My complaint? Even If it was possible to calculate a probability for creation, which by creationist's definition it's not, I couldn't care one way or another if someone runs the probability numbers on the observed facts of the state we exist in. Did you even read my 2nd post? Probabilities are useless in determining the causal links of how something happened. The concept of probabilities simply do not apply as an explanatory tool for observation.
eyeammi 1 year ago
@eyeammi Did you read my comment, yes it was impossible because the computer at the time(486s) couldn't hold the numbers, the odds against "evolution" from amino acids to higher forms(modern animals)was so great, and you think religious people need faith.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Your point is irrelevant because your understanding of probability as was the person's doing the original calculation is misguided and misapplied. Probabilities are meaningless in terms of something that has happened. But if you demand on going that route, so be it. Evolution is still more probable. If god is infinite in power, knowledge and scope he is infinitely complex. Thus, the probability that he/it exists is 1:infinity or ZERO. Evolution is infinitely more probable than god.
eyeammi 1 year ago
@eyeammi It must be nice to be greater in all fields than scientist and college professors. Few men have put themselves there, Hitler, Stalin,and the like.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Oh my. I never said i was greater in all fields than scientist and college professors. I CAN comfortably say I'm smarter than you and wherever your probabilistic proof against evolution comes from. But regardless, here is a tip. If the only thing you can come up with is to compare someone to Hitler and Stalin instead of actually addressing their point, then you've already lost. BTW you forgot Pol Pot. He's another evil atheist you can falsely compare someone to when all else fails.
eyeammi 1 year ago
@eyeammi I'v dealt with the points, now I'm dealing with the attitude, claiming scientists and professors know less than you is saying you are greater to people that understand English.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 You're right! This video DOES support creation as much as it does evolution, but only because it provides absolutely NO support for either just as equally.
The probability of an observed state happening is 1:1 because it DID happen. Assigning probabilities to observed fact is entirely a misapplication of the principles & thus has no explanatory power for any causal hypothesis in question one way or another. Probability is only useful for the act of predicting likely FUTURE outcomes.
eyeammi 1 year ago
"The universe is big and old and rare things happen all the time" Lawrence Krause, "A Universe from Nothing'
Nuff, said. Well done ZJemtv...
johnycannuk 1 year ago
Damn you'r ugly.
bagugabu 1 year ago
If you round up it's actually one in forty nine billion, trillion, trillion, trillion.
planeshaperman 1 year ago
y do trannies always wear cheap makeup..........sorry, i mean no offense, just stating my point
xLonelyTeddyBearx 1 year ago
wait this is a chick? i called her a him in another vid. or is her a him? sorry anyway.
SENATORPAIN1 1 year ago
i agree with this video :D
atomicmage6 1 year ago
u a girl or guy?
Thumbs up if you think both! :D
lets0wn 1 year ago
That's a cool jacket.
MrCorpseGrinder88 1 year ago
If you roll a die 60 times without a prerequisite sequence in mind your probability of getting the sequence of numbers that you happen to roll is 1. Now if you right down a sequence of 60 numbers that you wish to roll I could agree that the odds of that exact sequence being rolled are astronomical.
Perhaps I am missing something? I certainly to claim to be all knowing.
JocularINC 1 year ago
@JocularINC I certainly DON'T claim to be all knowing......
JocularINC 1 year ago
@JocularINC Before you start rolling the dice your probability of getting a resulting sequence of 60 numbers is 1 (barring the unlikely event that the dice manages to land balancing on one of its corners). Any specific outcome of numbers however, is equally likely to occur, yielding the ridiculously low probability that ZJ gives in this video.
Griexxt 1 year ago
Theists look at probability AFTER the fact. Everything AFTER the fact can look improbable, yet the probablility of the event after the fact is actually 100% because it did in fact happen. If you are predicting the possiblity of life occuring on Earth (before the fact), the answer is we do not know because we have no idea how common life is in the universe.
dkw12002 1 year ago
although I like the arguments you present against religion, I have to say that you do not have very much credibility while dressing as a woman
sylviancb 1 year ago
didn't you already explain this in a previous video?
LordPagus 1 year ago
I'd sooner believe that Aliens had a hand in creating Man the way they are then a God. lol
Still, it IS entirely possible and more probable than people like to think that DNA can form naturally by itself through natural processes. Where there is Water, Substantial energy, and right organic compounds to make amino acids, there CAN be life eventually. If it happened here, it is happening somewhere else, too. Aliens or blind chance are both more probable than Almighty God.
MajorLogica 1 year ago
But if you get further and further away from probability (like 1/1 followed by 40,000 zeros) it does become mathematically impossible... That is the probability of the simplest proitein enzyme to have evolved. Hurrah!
But anyway, if you conclude that the probability of both are equally unknown and equally unlikely, yet you say 'so why should we believe in creation?', accept that it is also a viable position to reject a belief in atheistic world 'creation', origin of life and evolution.
GoldenbanjoDJ 1 year ago
suggest that it exists. In fact, someone could spend a trillion trillion trillion lifetimes and never roll the correct sequence. The point of the improbability argument does not attempt to prove God, it simply shows how extremely unlikely it is that life arose from purely natural means.
In addition, assuming that God must arise from natural means is blatantly fallacious. You're saying that something supernatural must come from something natural. The other way around makes much better sense.
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "The simple probability doesn't suggest that it exists."
But any other resulting sequence would be equally unlikely. So what were you expecting? What's your point?
"You're saying that something supernatural must come from something natural. The other way around makes much better sense."
No, it doesn't, because there is no evidence of anything "supernatural" ever having existed.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
You're missing the point. The emergence of life by purely natural causes is so extremely unlikely that it suggests other explanations may be possible, maybe even more likely. If you're only willing to consider natural means, and that those means must have occurred since they have a probability and "here we are," they you're merely begging the question. You're assuming what you're trying to prove, making your argument erroneous due to the commitment of this fallacy. [continued]
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "The emergence of life by purely natural causes is so extremely unlikely that it suggests other explanations may be possible, maybe even more likely."
Abiogenetic hypotheses do not require denying outright that there could have been other causes. If other hypotheses and theories are more well-supported, then they could certainly render current abiogenetic theories obsolete. That's basically how science works. However, none of these other proposals have been able to do that.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
Also, to expect there to be physical evidence for anything metaphysical is self-refuting. That's like me asking you to prove to me that you had a thought about green flower. There's no physical evidence it. You can try to convince me, but I only have your word to go on.
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "Also, to expect there to be physical evidence for anything metaphysical is self-refuting."
Then you shouldn't be surprised when there is *always* more evidence to support natural explanations than there is for any of your claims of supernatural intervention. You've basically just acknowledged that your proposals are always going to fail in this regard. So what makes you think claims of supernaturalism can compete with natural explanations, or deserve any serious consideration?
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
I'm going to ignore the fact that you picked pieces to respond to, and ignored the fact that your original argument was fallacious. In a debate, I wouldn't even be expected to respond, but I'll continue to entertain it for the sake of learning. You're completely missing the point, again. We use empirical evidence in the sciences. This evidence can show that natural processes are sufficient, or insufficient.
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "I'm going to ignore the fact that you picked pieces to respond to"
None of the other pieces had any point to them.
"and ignored the fact that your original argument was fallacious."
You've failed to substantiate this.
"This evidence can show that natural processes are sufficient, or insufficient."
Then why did you say there can't be physical evidence of anything "metaphysical" at work, if you think there can be?
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
"You've failed to substantiate this."
I don't understand what you're trying to say. I did substantiate my claim and clearly explained how your argument committed the fallacy.
"Then why did you say there can't be physical evidence of anything "metaphysical" at work, if you think there can be?"
I actually didn't say that there CAN'T be evidence of something metaphysical at work. My point was you can't assume the necessity of physical evidence to prove something metaphysical.
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "I did substantiate my claim"
No...
"and clearly explained how your argument committed the fallacy."
...you didn't. Restating the same "too unlikely" argument addressed in the video does not mean you found a "fallacy". Making up metaphysical nonsense in an attempt to excuse your claims from any requirement of proof is also not identifying a "fallacy". In fact, I'm still waiting for you to refute anything I actually said in the video.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
Let me repost what I've already said.
"If you're only willing to consider natural means, and that those means must have occurred since they have a probability and "here we are," then you're merely begging the question. You're assuming what you're trying to prove, making your argument erroneous due to the commitment of this fallacy. " This is a refutation of a claim made in the video.
(continued...)
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "If you're only willing to consider natural means, and that those means must have occurred since they have a probability and "here we are,"
Straw man. I said nothing of the sort. That's a fallacy, by the way.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "You're assuming what you're trying to prove"
Nothing like that is being assumed here.
ZJemptv 1 year ago 3
@ZJemptv
Let me spell it out for you.
You said: "it would be very unlikely for a deity with the ability to create life on earth to arise naturally, so i must have also been created"
You're assuming naturalism on the possibility of a supernatural being. You're assuming that God needs a creator if we need a creator. But, there is nothing to suggest that a deity would require a creator and that argument would simply regress into an infinity of Gods: invoke Occum's Razor.
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@ZJemptv Improbability is not impossibility, you said it yourself. So even though it may be improbable that God exists, it is possible.
redmonggo 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
You're assuming that if something has a probability of occurring, and it occurs, then the source of the presumed probability must have been the cause. However, logic demonstrates that is not true. Take a simple example: If N then U. We also know if C then U, and if P then U, and if T then U. The point is that multiple different causes could all lead to the same effect. You cannot assume that just because you have the effect, that you know the cause.
(Continued...)
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "You're assuming that if something has a probability of occurring, and it occurs, then the source of the presumed probability must have been the cause."
I said nothing of the sort. Straw man, again.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
Actually, you did. From about 30 seconds before the dice example throughout your demonstration. I was summarizing what you were saying obviously. And, since you said my claims were unsubstantiated, I had to demonstrate the assumptions you were making. Obviously, you didn't state them blatantly clear, because anyone would tell that you're committing a fallacy. As a whole, your argument is functioning under these assumptions. I'm responding to your probability argument.
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 I don't know how you managed to read *that* out of what I was saying. I was explaining that the "it's really unlikely" argument does nothing to invalidate the possibility or natural origins of life. This is not a claim that "the source of the presumed probability must have been the cause" - it was not a positive proof of the natural origins of life. It is a refutation of the idea that unlikely things can't happen, which some people use to propose a supernatural origin of life.
ZJemptv 1 year ago 9
@ZJemptv
You said in the video: "Things are not impossible just because they have a low probability, and this argument from improbability fails to prove creation from a God"
Of course it doesn't PROVE it, but it does suggest that it is possible and could be a better explanation. Also, just because it is not impossible for natural means to occurred, this doesn't prove that it must have happened that way either. The improbability of it occurring is so astronomical that even Dawkins won't claim in
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@ZJemptv There's nothing improbable about the natural genesis of life. Earth has water, organic compounds, and energy in the form of heat and electrical energy to form complex chemical bonds without artificial assistance. Yes, it is an uncomfortably long process, but it IS possible and more probable than people like to think. We've discovered another planet out there that is thought to have the right conditions and ingredients for life, too.
MajorLogica 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
Only if you have the cause can you know with any certainty what the effect will be. You're assuming the cause, begging the question, committing a pseudo-argumentative fallacy.
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 Taking the simplest explanation as the one likely to be correct - observing that the natural causes of something are sufficient to account for it, without having to tack on a totally unnecessary and totally unproven supernatural claim - is not a fallacy. Again, you've identified no fallacies here. What you are looking for is free license to simply make things up and posit magical causative agents with no evidence or proof whatsoever. Whether that's a fallacy or not, it's very dumb.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
I don't see how natural causes are sufficient to account for it when they cannot account for it at all. Science cannot account for the beginning of the universe, nor the leap from life to non-life. Wouldn't it be simpler to consider an explanation that does provide answers, rather than one that goes on the faith that it will someday eventually be able to explain these things meeting its own criteria?
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "I don't see how natural causes are sufficient to account for it when they cannot account for it at all. Science cannot account for the beginning of the universe, nor the leap from life to non-life."
Do you mean this in the sense of "there is no scientific explanation for certain phenomena at the present time", or "there will never be a scientific explanation for this, ever, so let's just make things up"? If the latter, be advised that historically, that hasn't gone very well.
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv you are such a fag
ObamaSucks12345 1 year ago
Continued...
Being that they may be insufficient, another explanation, that is metaphysical in nature, can be established by, but not limited to, metaphysical evidence. I said, "expect there to be physical evidence" and what I should have said was, "to expect that there MUST be physical evidence."
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "I said, "expect there to be physical evidence" and what I should have said was, "to expect that there MUST be physical evidence."
Proposing an explanation for which there may not actually be any evidence - and indeed, there may *never* be any evidence - is kind of useless, don't you think?
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
That's why I specifically said "physical" evidence. There can be philosophical and metaphysical evidence that support metaphysical claims. To say that everything, natural or supernatural, must have natural, empirical evidence is to dismiss any other possibilities before they are even considered. This comes from a worldview of Scientism and Naturalism. Again, you cannot assume what you're trying to prove, and Science cannot prove that its method is the only way to knowledge and truth.
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "Science cannot prove that its method is the only way to knowledge and truth."
The utility of science, its explanatory power, and its ability to help us acquire and refine knowledge about our world to develop progressively more accurate models of its workings, has been demonstrated time and time again throughout history. Even if it is not "the only way to knowledge and truth", nothing else comes close to science. Including your claimed "philosophical and metaphysical evidence".
ZJemptv 1 year ago
@ZJemptv
I agree that Science has explanatory power within its own field and established parameters. However, there are verses in the Bible that talk about hygiene behavior, nutritional practices, and medical practices that Science has since shown to be accurate. This suggests that, if God revealed these things to them, there is another direct source for truth. I wanted to link you an article about this but haven't been able to remember the source I downloaded it from in college. I'll look tho
oldbonez86 1 year ago
@oldbonez86 "This suggests that, if God revealed these things to them, there is another direct source for truth."
Actually it suggests that people living in that era were capable of making rudimentary associations between certain activities that seem more or less likely to precede illness, and write this down in a book. It is exactly what you would expect if the Bible is written by humans. There's no concept of underlying causes, like the germ theory of disease - couldn't a god reveal that?
ZJemptv 1 year ago 10
@ZJemptv Dear ZJ....... YOUR VIDEOS ARE AMAZING!!! =) I love your arguments and how you completely destroy the arguments of silly creationists. It is so astounding to me that so many people believe in the bible and all those other fairy tale books. Keep on making videos, I sincerely adore them.
Randomidable 10 months ago
Congratulations, you successfully proved that improbability and impossibility are different. Your argument is circular and inconsequential.
Here is the possibility of life emerging from non-life applied to your dice example: First, roll a die 10 billion times. Each roll must be a come out a 6. The probability is 1/6^10000000000. Now, in order for life to occur, you must roll those 10 billion dice all at the same time and they all must land on six. The simple probability doesn't
oldbonez86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do you dress up like a woman?
OrginalKork 1 year ago
i like your dice example =) .... never thought of it i preferred the "the number of possible chess games is larger than the number of seconds this universe has". but the point still prevails that you're absolutely right, and with each new video i watch from you, i convince myself you're a very smart smart person... kudos XD
onulrad 1 year ago
''there is always a little Improbability but there is also always a possibility'' - Me
xD
IamLegendTV22 1 year ago
would you stop applying logic & reason to the universe you are supposed to take the word of some 2,000 years dead weirdos that today would be medicated & institutionalized (to protect society) & a book that has been translated edited then translated some 600 times not logic & reason that's redonkulous!
Now I am going to have to put on my George Michael album & listen to the song "Faith" to cleanse my angry soul.
ubetcha13 1 year ago
wow who gives a shit about this
EstacadoConstantine 1 year ago
i know your reading a script bill nye
samschreiber 1 year ago
You know what's more improbable than life occurring naturally on the Earth? An all powerful and all knowing being poofing into exist and setting it all in motion.
TheLowArtGloominati 1 year ago
No one fucking knows and probably will never know. We have more pressing issues like war, poverty, education, taxes, famine, disasters, crime, immigration to worry about if some entity created us or not. We are all in hell now. What difference does it make what anyone believes living or dying? The god theory is one of man's biggest lies to control and enslave mind and body for the few placed in power. No one should ever, ever, have the power of life and death over anyone. Humans are evil.
magicmojoman 1 year ago
not trying to be insulting
i dont really see how it would be insulting
but go get a sex change if ur that in to it?
dontrlycare 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if your going to smoke crack,dont have kids while smoking it..smoking crack is VERY bad for your testicles,and your children may turn out to be much like this,but to all you non-crack smokers,dont sniff sharpies,glue,hotwax,semen,or cow turds,unless if you want your kids calling themselfs ZJ and have a 2inch erect penis,and if your kids do act like this,but you have not done anything above,then your kid must have had a high dosage of horse semen pumped into there assoles at a young age.sieg heil
1for2for3 1 year ago
The probability is 0 because abiogenesis is impossible and so is macroevolution. There has been no observation of either ever and it hasn't been proven possible either. How could nothing create energy which exploded and created everything there is today including space, time, & matter? (goes against the first laws of thermodynamics).
purpleleach1 1 year ago
Oh, I think I finally understand what are you trying to say. You are targeting people that think that improbable events doesn't happen, then it's clear.
It's trivial to disprove this argument (like you did), so I thought they are not using this argument, but some other, so previous discussion was about something else which this video is not about. OK and sorry for my misinterpretation.
pointless113FA886 1 year ago
To not be only criticizing, I'm happy that you read your comments. There are so many hate and dumb comments under your videos that I would not be surprised If you didn't read them.
pointless113FA886 1 year ago
In short, I'm trying to explain that the answer to origin of life should be "We don't know exactly, but there are theories about it which hopefully explain it in future" instead of "Improbable things happen".
pointless113FA886 1 year ago
ps. To make this clear, I know there are some theories about origin of life, but they are far from complete. Also I want to correct grammatical error, it should be "shook" not "shaked" in some my post.
pointless113FA886 1 year ago
[continuation from previous post] I'm saying that we just don't know and there is research to be done. And there is good argument for believing this, take evolution theory. Before Darwin, it was great mystery for science how such amazingly incredibly complex things like humans emerged. Now it's clear, by evolution from one-cell organisms. They are comparably less complex than humans, as these cells are complex to non-living matter.
pointless113FA886 1 year ago
[continuation from previous post] and the outcome would be self-replicating organisms. You actually can make an analogy of this in dice rolls, but not like you said. The analogy would be that dice rolls outcome would consist only of long strings of same numbers like 23 ones, 29 twos, 17 fives and 31 ones. The probability of this happening is rather small, don't you think?
I'm not saying that this implies, that god created it. [continuation in next post]
pointless113FA886 1 year ago
@pointless113FA886 "The probability of this happening is rather small, don't you think?"
The probability of *any* single specific sequence is extraordinarily small. That includes sequences with long repeating strings, and sequences without them. A sequence without long repeating strings is just as improbable. Also, in the space of all possibilities, there will actually be very many which contain long repeating strings. I don't see how this is relevant to anything.
ZJemptv 1 year ago