@J0EH3AD sometimes we humans can be so set on what we want to believe, that we will find any means to try and back it up, even if our theories are full of holes, even if the very thing that we are trying to prove has failed before it even started, at its origin. You truly do not know what I know, but I can tell you that I have looked at both sides, more so the last year. I am a calm reasonable person, that see things very clearly, I wish you the best, in your future.
Great point in video!!!!!!!!!!!! I myself discovered this point because I am amateur statistician. Thanks very much for showing this video to ignorants....
Only Jesus could have made those dice form that pattern. You are a vessel for the Lord's truth. I'm going to go to the hospital now and attribute every medical success to God and every fail to Satan!
Holy shit this is hilarious, I don't think I've ever met somebody as retarded as you in my life. Do you know what sarcasm is? Do you understand that it makes a mockery of something ridiculous by imitating it. BLATANT SARCASM YOU FUCKING RETARDED AMERICAN PIECE OF SHIT. Why do they let you guys breed. hahahhaa
If you mean your original post was sarcasm then sorry. It's hard to see sometimes because fundies really do post stuff like that. You don't have to be so mean.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The probability of ending with a random sequence of 8 numbers from 1 6 was 100% because all 8 dice had a number on a face. What is the probability of getting an 8 number (or one number) sequence in any order from no dice at all? (can you do a video of this please) The dice had to be there in the first place for you to throw and achieve your number sequence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(sigh) OK my intellectually challenged friend, if you dont get the point then move on.
Maybe if you watch the video again and read my comment slowly, if you cant read ask a friend to help you. If you still dont understand then move on, I dont want to waste anymore time on you. Maybe things would be different if you werent home schooled.
Now if we look at odds with your money on it, at what point would you not bet on a horse. What about a 100/1, how about a mear 1000/1?
Ok now think on this, the chances of a horse coming from chance is about A thousand to the millionth power [1,0001,000,000], when written out, becomes the figure 1 with three million noughts after it; and that would take three large volumes of about five hundred pages each, just to print. One with three million noughts after it ! would you bet on that?
Horse was used as a exsample of what one would ,or would not take the odds on if it where a bet. Also a horse is a living animal is it not. What this has to do with this is, nobody in their right mind would bet on a horse given the odds of a 1000/1, yet some are happy to conclude that we, or life i.e even a horse, got here by chance with odds of million noughts after it. Even just a single cell produces a outstanding unlikly hood of shear chance.
@tecy Everything what is happening right now has almost 0 probability and yet it is happening. If you shot an arrow it will just land somewhere - the concrete place has little probability (and you DIDNT predict it) but since you shot it then the chance it will land is 1.
Most creationist numbers and concpets rise from not understanding very simple probability concepts.
@tecy That is typicall speach of uneducated illiterates, my poor friend. IT is wrong, worng, completely wrong thinking. Hey... what is the chance, that the stone on a path in from of my house would be there -- it has a whole universe to be some place else, yet it is on a path, ubelievable odds... Praise gods, praise gods (whichever you like) Do you now get it?
What your experiment shows is it takes a inteligent person to produce somthing random. The chances where generated by you. Even if the outcome has no use or purpose, it still needed you, a living person to generate such a experiment.
This was not meant as a insult. What was meant was if you deside to throw a experiment it was a choice from a inteligent scorce, you. You had to make a desision to plan it. Chance dont have this thought to even try to produce somthink random like you did. Take
"you" away, then what or who can even start this chance process in the first place.
@tecy so what? look at crystal of ruby - it takes no person to be produced and yet it is so symmetrical, beautiful. Look at atmospheric noise - it takes no person to be produced and yet it is so symmetrical and in a way beautiful... Hope you get it.
What if nobody created the dice, and nobody made you, then what are the chances then? Give you all the parts of a car, would you not agree that somone had to plan the car, make the parts, then put it together for a purpos, dont this say there is a starting point? Since everything around us that we see has a beginning ,what cause the big bang, energy cause big bangs, what is the scorce of that energy?
I agree with the point that neither of us know, or any human alive today.
So isnt it worth concidering that if no human could know, yet the only one that has come forward is God via his word to say he made it all. Then he provides countless evidence of prophecy, some scientific writen long before the writer could have know such things.
@tecy You actually do believe that nonsense you just wrote? "So isnt it worth concidering that if no human could know, yet the only one that has come forward is God via his word to say he made it all" But which god? Shiva, Lakshmi, Quetzacoatl, Yeti, Money, Spaghetti monster, Aliens, IPU, FBI, CIA... Dont you get that this god thing is just imaginary nonsense?
@tecy OMG, car cannot create itself, it has to be created because IT HAS NO REPLICATION SYSTEM. Life began as a self replicating molecules and this sustained it until now, exact origin are of course unknown. Self replicating molecules can be made in lab.. What is that you dont understand? What is so difficult about science? Simply some things are known, some are not. If you dont know then you dont say "gods did it" but you say "I dont know, but I will find out".
Funny thing is, insane clown is right.. 42 orders of magnitude, thereabouts. But, for those not following along, the question is, how many atoms in your body? To the nearest power of 10... any takers?
Then multiply that by billions.. more mass than the entire human population of earth. That's the amount of material to start figuring your probabilities with.
Oh, and hotbike0077, the idea they promote is "too improbable to happen by chance.. God did it."
The funny thing is if all of you think about it the possibility of any and all of these things happening is 100%, because they happened! Yes this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but not wrong.
Millions of quadrillions of molecules doing the dance all day long for even a few million years, let alone billions, and the chance of life happening becomes greater than unity.
You are merely human and cannot grasp both the micro and the mega at the same time and comprehend them.
Quick test, how many atoms in your body? How many stars in the universe? (Orders of magnitude is close enough).
L5player, that's a red herring. RNA sequences form all the time from the precursors.. and damn quick, too. One thing to note, THEY REPRODUCE ON THEIR OWN just fine. They don't need special proteins or molecular machinery. They don't even need to do anything all that useful. They are their own template and substrate. When we are talking primitive first cell, we MEAN primitive.
Where are the calculations? What, you want publications, dates, authors? C'mon. The math is plain: figure the probability of the specific chemicals of an amino acid--and only those--coming together in the RIGHT ORDER. Never mind forming a human being, just an amino acid, a protein chain, a DNA string? The right order, the right chemicals, the right proportions, the right conditions. Only one mix will result in life--so far as we know. Take out your calculator.
even if we assume the chances are slim, it doesnt mean abiogenesis is impossible. after all, life is very rare in the universe, and in such a vast universe life would eventually emerge.
arms and legs dont form from bones and nerves, etc. they form from mutations, and the mutations that are beneficial enable the host to procreate more, those with harmful mutations die out. after time, only those with working arms and legs survive, giving the appearance of spontaneous formation.
Unfortunately, a mutation is typically a slight change from the original on a small scale, not enough to be "beneficial" in any way. There's no reason to believe such small changes could be "naturally selected" so as to be perpetuated. An organism must have had an uninterrupted line of positive mutations for countless prior generations in order to progress from simple to complex, sort of like drawing straight flushes for ten million hands in a row. I'm not holding my breath.
Mutations, the theory argues, aren't sudden appearances of complete organs or features, like wings. They develop VERY slowly over long generations, and they disappear as slowly. Therefore, "beneficial" isn't realized until this organ-in-progress becomes useful where it can become naturally selected. A partial wing can't be beneficial; it has to work. A partial eye doesn't work yet, so it can't make an animal with it any better suited to its world. Natural selection picks out the better suited.
Neutral mutations aren't selected for, but neither are they selected against. This allows them to accumulate. As far as an incomplete wing or eye not being selected for, a light sensitive spot would be selected for when the rest of the population is completely blind. The same goes for a flap of skin under the arm that allows a creature to glide. Those are precursors for the very organs you claim can't have evolved.
check out cdk007's 26 video series titled "Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism".
He is supposedly majored and minored from several fields of science, unlike me (economics). don't know about you. maybe he can explain it more "fluently" than I.
Oh, please. ANY result is equally acceptable because the dice don't NEED to be in any particular order; in other words, FUNCTION is missing. Instead, decide beforehand what the results have to be and try it again...and again...and again. THAT'S the relevant mathematical probability experiment. After-the-fact calculations, with all outcomes equally acceptable, is irrelevant. If only ONE outcome is acceptable, then your numbers matter.
how can you decide beforehand what the chances of life on earth emerging? you cant automatically assume that the chances are so bad that a god must exist. we are the result, maybe the chances were pretty good, who knows. what are the chances of a god of a particular character existing out of infinite possible personalities? maybe he was created too.
"Life" means certain specific chemical chains arranged in a particular way that can give rise to replicating organisms. As far as anyone knows, this arrangement--and only this one-- works; the probabilities of it happening by chance can be--and have been--calculated. For just a "simple" amino acid to randomly assemble itself thru natural means (of the type that life needs) is all but impossible. Order can come via unguided means (sand dunes, snowflakes), but FUNCTIONAL order? No.
where are the calculations? what exactly is your definition of "functional order"? order that has a function? what function is there, after all everything a human does is just a reaction to its environment, controlled by electrochemical processes in the brain.
Functional order is an arrangement whereby several independent parts are formed that work together to perform a task. An arm isn't an arm until numerous independent things are assembled in the right relationship. Bone doesn't make an arm, nor does blood, nor do nerves, nor tendons. They must be arranged exactly right--at the same time--to make a functioning arm. The likelihood of any one forming alone is remote enough, but all together--and working? You tell me.
I feel like with some simple video editting software, you could've sped up the dice rolls, or maybe put some music behind you rolling the dice. As it is, it's kind of boring.
Perhaps it would lose its illustrious appeal if you editted it... it's too real right now.
The odds of me seeing that 1 person, out of the roughly 6,500,000,000 human beings on this planet, were quite unlikely.
Therefore God forced that stranger to walk in front of my house, at precisly 2:13 pm on the 4th Saturday of May 2008.....IT'S FAR TOO IMPROBABLE TO HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT DIVINE GUIDANCE!
If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there just fine. The odds of getting a meaningless result are 1:1. If a madman tells you that your life depends on seeing 20 friends in alphabetical order, you may indeed pray for divine intervention. Forget the 6.5 billion people, you need to get to Aaron's place before Zach crosses your path.
Amazing! Now, do it and get, in alphabetical order, all the phone #s in the Olds, IA (pop. 249) phonebook. The probability of getting a random result is always 1:1. Snarky, but unconvincing. I think you can do better.
That RabidApe is far too intelligent to try to convince me with this argument (although I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was done tongue-in-cheek). The order of nature and life is far more complex than a string of random numbers. Say you would need 1 million sets of 8 dice in a sensical order (12345612,23456123,34561234,etc), which is still below the complexity of life, and RabidApe plays the part of (not-random) natural selection...
at 10s per set of 8 dice it would take him 57 days to roll all 1 million sets. Then he could go back and roll the dice that didn't fit into the needed order (in the shown example, positions 1,2,4,5,7), keeping only the ones that fit, and go through the process until all sets are in line, we would be without new videos from our friend RabidApe for several years, and he would die from exhaustion. So, besides being snarky and unconvincing, it could be hazardous to his health.
The point is that it's not very informative to look at an unlikely event AFTER it has happened and say "the odds are so small as to consider the thing impossible without supernatural forces being involved"
Regarding life, the universe, and everything - as unlikely as everything around us is, it could just be the way the 'dice' 'fell', and no matter where they 'landed', some people would be saying "what are the odds?"
This is totally different from "rolling universes".
If you are equating "getting the unlikely series" with "life spontaneously arising", what is the equivalent of the "thousands of dice throws"?
I'm not sure if that makes sense. Perhaps I'm slow.
Are you saying that because the earth has had several billions of years, the odds are greater that the unlikely could have happened? That's probably not the correct way to state it.
But if someone walked into your room and saw the 8 dice laying haphazardly on the table (i.e., you had not picked them up and lined them up) I would not questions the odds, I would assume they were randomly rolled or place there without care. No one would ever question the odds of a random mess.
However, if I walked into your room, and saw 600 dice laid neatly around the table in repeating numerical sequence, I would not assume random anything, but of course would assume they were gradually placed there over millions of years by a not-random process of natural selection, which carefully selects the best position of the dice for the survival of the sequence. Because at all costs, I must not believe in the existence of RabidApe.
We have experience with dice. We've thrown them plenty of times. Different kinds of dice. Different games or contexts. Different times and locations. Different kinds of dice - d6 sided, d8, d20, etc. You can make your own dice, try them out, and compare that experience to your experience with other dice.
There is only ONE universe that we have direct experience of, and that is only from the inside.
How many other universes or sets of physical laws have you compared ours to?
Must I then assume that other universes would (or even could) have different physical laws? If, in my entire life, I had only seen one set of 8 6-sided dice, I might be able to imagine and create 8-sided, 20-sided and even 207-sided dice, and some lively games involving such dice.
But wouldn't all universes (consisting of matter)be governed by physical laws? Or if I imagine a universe where objects don't gravitate toward each other, or even a universe not constituted of matter as we know it, does that mean such a universe could exist?
I'm really not trying to be snotty. I just don't know what other hypothetical universes would have to do with the discussion. I apologize if I'm still missing your point.
Great! You've finally come around to my way of thinking.
But seriously, you knew where I was coming from right away. But you used the word "universes" several times, and I'm not sure what multiple universes have to do with our discussion. As far as I can understand from what I looked up, mult. universes must exist b/c our universe supports life, and it necessarily looks designed b/c since we exist, we can observe it...
It all makes my kidneys ache. Please have pity and explain it to me.
You haven't answered me anything about the multiple universes thing. I would sure appreciate your response. I'm going to assume you've been very busy as of late with your drywall business or something, and not that you don't want to discuss this idea with me.
I'm rereading our conversation, and I'm not sure what to say. (it's 5am, I woke up needing to use the bathroom, and came over here to enqueue another lecture before passing out and thought, oh lets check some comments. Don't want to leave you hanging for three weeks again...)
***
If the universe weren't able to give rise to/support life, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
That's like saying, "If Usain Bolt couldn't run so fast, he wouldn't have set the world record in the 100m (9.72s)." It offers no explanation how he got that fast. Based on what we have observed in other athletes, you can assume he started with ability, worked his tail off, and expect that he tested clean for drugs.
We reach conclusions based on what we observe, and these conclusions are often colored by our assumptions. Life begets life after its own kind, complicated machines are designed. After that, your assumption is that things were different 4 billion years ago, and given enough time, we would observe something different. (And possibly, that if we could observe other universes, we would see a different forces at work?)
Isn't the anthropic principle what causes many people to look at the world we live in, and say, "There's got to be a God. This is so amazing."? I hope you understand my point.
The fact that we are so precariously placed in the universe, with water, the perfect tilt, the moon maintaining our tides leads some to an unseen, transcendent creator (of which many testify to have subjective experiences with), and some to multiple unseen, unobservable, transcendent universes.
Our worldview is very different. You have said that natural selection is not random, and I agree. From a materialistic view, NS would seem to have a mind and a will of its own. But I see it as a mechanism built into the code of life to protect life and maintain the integrity of the creation. I hope I'm not being too wordy.
A couple of postscripts:
"enqueue" Great word
Up at 5:00am to pee? Have you had your prostate checked?
OK, so you're no stranger to the anthropic principle.
No, it doesn't explain much in and of itself. It can, however provide some 'perspective'.
In a universe with billions of planets, is it any surprise that there is at least one with the right conditions for life?
and IF there are multiple universe 'out there' (it's speculation, yes - but well-grounded speculation!), it's even 'easier' to imagine that SOMEWHERE, the conditions would be 'just right'.
"The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics, and a rich Landscape together with the law of large numbers are all that's needed to explain the friendliness of our patch of the universe."
Leonard Susskind, 'The Cosmic Landscape'
"Landscape" = alternate worlds/universes implied by string theory, and/or the many-worlds interpretation of QM if that floats yer boat.
Complexity of life is not proof of God, but neither is an incomprehensibly vast universe and "well-grounded speculation" of multiple universes proof of this planet's arriving by chance. You may consider "The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics, ..." as an explanation for the "friendliness of our patch of the universe" but your worldview encourages you to accept this explanation.
It seems to me that philosophical differences are more of the issue than the scientific. (In my mind, I can almost see you react to that, but bear with me.) This is also true in politics, literature, etc. We see what we want to see, we remember facts that back up our point, disregarding others. It's one of the complaints against Christians. I have a hard time saying "I don't know" and "I have questions/doubts" because it's important to me to be right at all costs.
I remember your quote about science trying to extend the shore of knowledge into the vast ocean of ignorance, or something. We try to find the truth, and hope it doesn't let us down. It's hard to be objective as a follower of Jesus, because I want so much for it to be true, like my life depends on it. But I think the atheist has the same issue. It seems that atheists want so much for God not to be, that it colors your interpretation of facts and arguments.
In a way, it does, yes? Don't you expect to 'survive your own death', so to speak?
I came to terms with the fact(?) that this life is the only one I'll get LONG before I started calling myself 'atheist'.
"It seems that atheists want so much for God not to be"
perhaps, but couldn't it also be we spent long enough looking with NO good answers found that we had no choice but to assume "he" wasn't there? (at least in the form described by most theists)
I think a lot of theists/Christians have created a god (note lowercase) that validates them, and proves them right. Not that they don't believe in God, but rather form a god they can fit in their pocket and pull out to make their point, or shut someone else down. I don't believe in a god that I can comprehend in bullet points or philosophical arguments. That's why He is transcendent. I don't need to defend him, and couldn't anyway.
Rock is definitely not interested in Lucy. Desi prefers Latin percussion. Little Ricky is into rock, too, and it landed him in rehab.
The word "god" does not have variable meanings like "rock". Concept, action, drug, name, etc. The type of god you believe in may be different, but a god is always a transcendent, spriritual being (or some would say, a force, like Star Wars). If god is an impersonal force, it is completely irrelevant to believe or disbelieve, to serve or despise.
By "three distinct versions" do you mean the force, many gods, and one true god? I'm not proving your point, really. I am partially agreeing that Dennett's example would invalidate lesser gods who are subject to change, interpretation, or competition for supremacy. But if (of course I say "if" for the sake of the discussion only) the one true God exists, it, by its very nature, could not be invalidated. Misunderstood or misrepresented, sure, but not affected by man in any way.
If there are many gods with different requirements for their respective believers, would they compete for supremacy? Would some be good and others evil, and who decides?
If there is one supreme God, such a God's nature would not be variable dependent on our understanding or interpretation. If there is one true God, then He created us, not the other way around.
In Dennett's example, god would simply be an idea subject to change, and therefore, no god at all.
who decides whether the most high is good or evil? god kill humans in the bible, so he can also be a homosexual, with his "do as i say, not as i do" mentality. maybe him and jesus and muhammad like to have a bang it out together up in heaven.
"If there is one supreme God, such a God's nature would not be variable dependent on our understanding or interpretation."
Sure, but that still doesn't mean that any particular human actually knows anything about it. How do we compare the different 'versions' and decide which is the 'true' one?
(ESPECIALLY when what you're talking about in incomprehensible by definition...)
wouldn't that mean you would have absolutely and positively no recollection or account of previous things when you die?"
Even if you managed to convince me that there is a "creator", you still haven't even BEGUN to convince me of the validity of the Jesus story or the existence of an "immortal soul".
I'm smiling from ear to ear, because I just discovered who Greydon Square is. Atheist astrophysicist? Nihilist Oxford philosophy professor? No. Straight outta Compton, baby! Try to convince me of no life after death by the words of a rapper arrested for threatening someone with a gun?
I'll quote a man who was beaten, stoned starved, shipwrecked, flogged, arrested (perhaps killed?) for Jesus:
"It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this, judgement."
"For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain."
Or how about Peter, crucified (upside down?) for his unwavering faith in Christ?
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
I don't mean to come across as combative, but I can't support Biblical creation simply by quoting the Bible, and you couldn't prove any Dawkins theory by quoting Dawkins.
If what "you" "are" is your brain reacting to your environment, then what reason have you to think that there is "life after death" - at least in the sense that you'd still be able to speak english, recognize grandparents, etc?
If you think there is a magic ingredient to us besides matter and energy (as in OTHER THAN your body and brain), what is it, and how would we discern it's properties?
If we are matter reacting to the environment, then explain love, sorrow, joy, worry, etc. Explain our desire to know and understand our universe and the meaning of our existence.
Point a loaded shotgun at your dog and he'll sniff the barrell. Point it at me and I'll beg for my life. Explain that to me without a "magic ingredient", please.
Greydon Square said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
those are only emotions produced by electiochemical reactions in the brain. any desires we have are stem from our curiosity and will to survive. are you comparing yourself to a dog in this post? wow...maybe the "magic ingredient" is the understand of what a gun is, how would a dog know? btw, none of your questions automatically mean that god exists.
want an extraordinary claim? how about god? his existence requires evidence thats so extraordinary, it doesnt even exist.
Greydon "Punctuated-Equilibrium-is-the-Shizzle" Square was breaking it down to creationists. Backing up your evolutionary, materialistic view of emotions (or abiogenesis, or the eye, or so on), would require "extraordinary evidence". "Curiousity and will to survive" are in and of themselves enigmas, aren't they?
That's why I was talking about how our philospophy/worldview colors our science. (See above)
And I wasn't comparing myself to a dog, I was contrasting myself with a dog.
"Point a loaded shotgun at your dog and he'll sniff the barrell. Point it at me and I'll beg for my life."
I'd say that the primary difference there is your bigger/more developed cerebral cortex which gives you the ability to perform abstract reasoning, plan for the future, etc.
"Point it at me and I'll beg for my life. Explain that to me without a "magic ingredient", please."
Your brain and body react to the environment according to laws of physics and chemistry. No magic ingredient needed.
His point still stands. He was just using it as an example for the: "Life is too complex to come about by chance" thing. Also who are YOU to judge what the complexity of life is?
Are you suggesting that life may not be complex, but only appears that way? I don't believe I have made myself the final arbiter of complexity. I just look at what is known, and it is complex.
Look up "coagulation" on wikipedia. It has a chart that shows the chem. processes involved in blood clots. One factor out of place, and you bleed to death, or your blood hardens throughout your entire body. Not a whole lot of margin for error. Add that to eyesight, thought, reproduction, instinct, etc, and life is complex. I would like you to convince me otherwise.
alright now im not saying that i know everything about biology so im not sure these numbers are correct, but ill say my point anyway. So, your saying that even though there was such a small chance of getting that sequence, now i want you to get the perfect sequence that will replicate itself, support life, and eventually become the building blocks of humans using the 220 million base pairs... randomly of course. if you can efectivly and plainly prove this, then i might convert.
Ouch, why do you say "random". Randomness plays a role in the mutation, but the selection is not.
Okay, there are about 26+26+10=62 characters to make your nick here (A-Za-z0-9). Still Hounddog is pronouncable. How would you do the math to check how improbable that was?
well i figured that there is a 1 in 62 chance that the CapitalH will appear, then another 1 in 62 got the o, now if we further this math, you are left with around 2.4807 EE to the 48th power. but that is when you dont have to worry about the sequence only the characters. i dont even want to think about what it would take to get them in this sequence nor do i know the equation nessecary. sorry
Good math, and the sequence is included in your system.
What I meant to show is that a probability calc. of something like your nick is a nice excercise but does not include decisions by you to make a meaningful and/or pronouncable word, cAmElBaCk, numbers at the end.
In a similar way the increase of our basepairs was stimulated by their beneficial nature. It went step by step through many, many little random mutations out of which the best ones gave survival benefit.
Getting to the first replicating bit was the biggest hurdle. From then on some even say development was inevitable.
How this first hurdle was taken, by aliens, a creator or chemistry cannot be shown, only reconstructed with what we know from the circumstances. A big world with the building stones, energy (first maybe from methane, photosynthesis came way later), and millions of years.
alright fine ill give you the sequence. (needed a lil extra thought on my part. lol) but my main question is why preach this theory as fact in schools if you yourself admit that it is still far from being proven as such. If anything it should be let on as a possible solution for the reason of our origin. not the undeniable fact. or at least the evidence that can disprove evolution should be taught alongside it in our classrooms)
Sequence comes in when you draw from a limited supply.
What prove do you require? I am rather skeptic and I'm overwhelmed by all the facts for which the theory fits. Actually the theory is dead simple: replicating organisms with variation in inheritable properties, combined with competition for resources leads to selection of the individuals with the most competitive properties. That it applies to us is visible in fossils and DNA and the gradual development seen in the tree of life.
alright so we dissagree on the tree of life( i believe that there are many different "trees", but i cannot believe that all these small mutations(no doubt they exist) can sum up to a dog getting wings.(exxageration i know, but you get my point) also i really dont like brining fossils into these debates because all it is evolutionists interepreting it to fit their idea, but it also fits in perfectly with creationists also. too much gray area for me.
Isn't it funny that you see the same bones in a wing as in a dogs paw, only in different shapes? Have you ever been to a nat.hist. museum were you could compare skulls?
On fossils: do you consider it a coincidence that they are found layered in the order fitting to evolution, in stead of being garbled through each other as you would expect after Noah's flood made an end to dinosaurs and trilobites?
oh but isnt it also funny when evolutionists say that birds most likely evolved from reptiles?(most fittingly theropod dinosaurs) when the short stubby arms just magicaly transformed into long slim, aerodynamic, practically hollow and perfectly "designed" for their particular funtion? i find it very hilarious that scales transformed into feathers, even when they clearly need different intellegence to originate and to succeed. even in the earliest of "stages"
@hounddog Glad you're having fun with yourself ("funny.. hilarous"). But I'm sure you'll agree once you've seen the intermediates are gradual and functional. Imagine being coldblooded and getting insulation by small featherlike thingies. Imagine soaring down from a tree to catch prey or to get away from a predator. Observe the skeleton similarity.
but heat insulation feathers are quite different than flight feathers. non-flight feathers get their fluffiness from the lachk of barbs on them. or hooks i cant remember. however. the point is unless there was a reason for the sudden adoption of hooks(thus flight feathers) natural selection would naturally resist anything that would let these birds get cold and freeze to death(weeding them out). and no most intermediaries arent funtional, ever tried to compair the lungs of a reptile to (cont.)
to those of a bird? the poor intermediary would be unable to breat even once. a reptiles lungs work alot like ours(bellows if you will) but birds use use some sort of one way breathing that runs the new air through tubes that pass the blood past some capilary like uptake. so an intermediary between those would in essence destroy the mutation, thus ending that cycle, and ending the bird branch as we know it. p.s. this is Houndog72, im just using me bros comp and he was already signed in)
To my surprise the scale ->feather approach seems to be abandoned for skin cells. Technical mumbo on "evowiki Evolution_of_feathers" (use google, YouTube hates links). Illustrated: search for "precursor of a feather may have been a conical papilla".
The first time I saw the bird's lung I was stunned by the efficient but complex looking system! Indeed impressing and different from our bellows. I found a scientific approach on "evolutionpages bird_lung" (rather technical).
but on the young earth verses old earth.. i dont know yet. just trying to take in all the accounts befor i take up a side. besided whats it matter how old it is, if i believe in evolution i will believe that the earth has been around a long time, and if creationism wins out, then i will say that the earth is only a couple thousand... creationists have a rebuttle on everything even to "how did they get all the animals on the boat" so itas all in the wind now for me. sorry
Hounddog "just trying to take in all the accounts befor i take up a side."
Please be adviced that some anti-evolution sources have been shown to disregard facts: Kent Hovind ("Dr"Dino), Michael Behe, Ben Stein (Expelled), and here on YouTube VenomFangX. (I could also say they are big fat liars but that may not sound convincing)
Well, I agree with most of your videos, but I don't like that one. That's just another version of the anthropic principle. This doesn't prove anything. Sorry.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ok i get your point..but how about we get past the bull shit and you compare those chances to the universe being created by random selection..you fuckin idiot.
Wow you're dense. Fact is even though the odds may be against something to an astronomical extent, it can still happen. No matter how large you make the probability, it's still there. Don't act like the odds of us being here don't exist.
Great vid. This illustrates the point that you can't take some final state and calculate backwards to find it's probability even when you're dealing with something random. Creationists usually go a step worse and calculate the probability of something like a cell forming by chance when it is the product of evolution, a non-random process.
This is such retarded logic. If you don't make a claim of what the result will be before it happens, then when the event happens you claim that event, in fact your probability is 100% Think man, think.
That's the point exactly - keep this in mind the next time someone tries to tell you it's 'impossible' for life to get started on its own, or for us to evolve once life started.
@J0EH3AD sometimes we humans can be so set on what we want to believe, that we will find any means to try and back it up, even if our theories are full of holes, even if the very thing that we are trying to prove has failed before it even started, at its origin. You truly do not know what I know, but I can tell you that I have looked at both sides, more so the last year. I am a calm reasonable person, that see things very clearly, I wish you the best, in your future.
tecy 9 months ago
No sound anymore? Wanted to send this to a buddy.. Went out looking for it.. finally found it but there doesnt seem to be any sound? :(
gpokriff2 1 year ago
This sequence is so unprobable. It IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT IT REALLY HAPPEND!!
THIS UNPROBABLE SEQUENCE IS UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF GODS EXISTENCE!
PRAISE GOD! PRAISE GOD!
J0EH3AD 1 year ago
@J0EH3AD
DumbAss only belive in one GOD! ("Ain't no Grave!")
EMINEM6890 9 months ago
Great point in video!!!!!!!!!!!! I myself discovered this point because I am amateur statistician. Thanks very much for showing this video to ignorants....
J0EH3AD 1 year ago
That's way to complex for a creationist to get !
gregrutz 1 year ago
Only Jesus could have made those dice form that pattern. You are a vessel for the Lord's truth. I'm going to go to the hospital now and attribute every medical success to God and every fail to Satan!
klmblog 2 years ago
/faceplam
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
Face plam indeed.
klmblog 2 years ago
lol you are clueless aren't you?
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
Holy shit this is hilarious, I don't think I've ever met somebody as retarded as you in my life. Do you know what sarcasm is? Do you understand that it makes a mockery of something ridiculous by imitating it. BLATANT SARCASM YOU FUCKING RETARDED AMERICAN PIECE OF SHIT. Why do they let you guys breed. hahahhaa
klmblog 2 years ago
If you mean your original post was sarcasm then sorry. It's hard to see sometimes because fundies really do post stuff like that. You don't have to be so mean.
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The probability of ending with a random sequence of 8 numbers from 1 6 was 100% because all 8 dice had a number on a face. What is the probability of getting an 8 number (or one number) sequence in any order from no dice at all? (can you do a video of this please) The dice had to be there in the first place for you to throw and achieve your number sequence.
Hope you get my point.
sh3rv 2 years ago
lol obviously you did not get the point
ASHIUSX 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol obviously you didnt get my point .. oh the irony.
sh3rv 2 years ago
Obviously you didnt get the point of the original point...oh the stupidity
ASHIUSX 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(sigh) OK my intellectually challenged friend, if you dont get the point then move on.
Maybe if you watch the video again and read my comment slowly, if you cant read ask a friend to help you. If you still dont understand then move on, I dont want to waste anymore time on you. Maybe things would be different if you werent home schooled.
sh3rv 2 years ago
lol you are such a nice religious person. .
ASHIUSX 2 years ago 4
f**** off, sh3rv.
ihatereligiouspeople 2 years ago 2
Now if we look at odds with your money on it, at what point would you not bet on a horse. What about a 100/1, how about a mear 1000/1?
Ok now think on this, the chances of a horse coming from chance is about A thousand to the millionth power [1,0001,000,000], when written out, becomes the figure 1 with three million noughts after it; and that would take three large volumes of about five hundred pages each, just to print. One with three million noughts after it ! would you bet on that?
tecy 2 years ago
"the chances of a horse coming from chance is about A thousand to the millionth power"
Who said anything about a horse appearing from chance?
And where did you get your numbers from?
RabidApe 2 years ago
Horse was used as a exsample of what one would ,or would not take the odds on if it where a bet. Also a horse is a living animal is it not. What this has to do with this is, nobody in their right mind would bet on a horse given the odds of a 1000/1, yet some are happy to conclude that we, or life i.e even a horse, got here by chance with odds of million noughts after it. Even just a single cell produces a outstanding unlikly hood of shear chance.
tecy 2 years ago
"yet some are happy to conclude that we, or life i.e even a horse, got here by chance with odds of million noughts after it."
Who said we got here by "chance"?
And where are you getting your numbers from?
RabidApe 2 years ago
@tecy Everything what is happening right now has almost 0 probability and yet it is happening. If you shot an arrow it will just land somewhere - the concrete place has little probability (and you DIDNT predict it) but since you shot it then the chance it will land is 1.
Most creationist numbers and concpets rise from not understanding very simple probability concepts.
J0EH3AD 1 year ago
@tecy That is typicall speach of uneducated illiterates, my poor friend. IT is wrong, worng, completely wrong thinking. Hey... what is the chance, that the stone on a path in from of my house would be there -- it has a whole universe to be some place else, yet it is on a path, ubelievable odds... Praise gods, praise gods (whichever you like) Do you now get it?
J0EH3AD 9 months ago
What your experiment shows is it takes a inteligent person to produce somthing random. The chances where generated by you. Even if the outcome has no use or purpose, it still needed you, a living person to generate such a experiment.
tecy 2 years ago
"it takes a inteligent person to produce somthing random"
That is the silliest thing I've heard all day. And I hear a lot of silly things...
RabidApe 2 years ago
This was not meant as a insult. What was meant was if you deside to throw a experiment it was a choice from a inteligent scorce, you. You had to make a desision to plan it. Chance dont have this thought to even try to produce somthink random like you did. Take
"you" away, then what or who can even start this chance process in the first place.
Hope you understand my point now, thankyou.
tecy 2 years ago
"Hope you understand my point now"
Not at all.
What do you mean by "random"?
RabidApe 2 years ago
You understand what im saying. Good luck with your search, and keep your heart open not just your mind for knowledge.
When you get time read Rom 1:20-21
All the best.
tecy 2 years ago
No, I don't understand. You may think I do, but I don't.
(my heart pumps blood, so I don't know what it's supposed to do with knowledge...)
RabidApe 2 years ago
@RabidApe I think that guy tecy is talking about emotions not the pump. :-)) But I got your point, get rid of vague words....
J0EH3AD 1 year ago
@tecy Take "me" away and Brownian motion will still happen with pollen in water. I do not exist at all to randomness pop up everywhere.
J0EH3AD 1 year ago
Maybe he's talking about Lewis Carroll or something. I love that guy's work.
theboombody 2 years ago
@tecy so what? look at crystal of ruby - it takes no person to be produced and yet it is so symmetrical, beautiful. Look at atmospheric noise - it takes no person to be produced and yet it is so symmetrical and in a way beautiful... Hope you get it.
J0EH3AD 9 months ago
What if nobody created the dice, and nobody made you, then what are the chances then? Give you all the parts of a car, would you not agree that somone had to plan the car, make the parts, then put it together for a purpos, dont this say there is a starting point? Since everything around us that we see has a beginning ,what cause the big bang, energy cause big bangs, what is the scorce of that energy?
tecy 2 years ago
"what cause the big bang, energy cause big bangs, what is the scorce of that energy?"
I don't know, and neither do you. Anyone who says they do is lying.
RabidApe 2 years ago
I agree with the point that neither of us know, or any human alive today.
So isnt it worth concidering that if no human could know, yet the only one that has come forward is God via his word to say he made it all. Then he provides countless evidence of prophecy, some scientific writen long before the writer could have know such things.
tecy 2 years ago
I can't parse that comment, sorry. Try again.
RabidApe 2 years ago
@tecy You actually do believe that nonsense you just wrote? "So isnt it worth concidering that if no human could know, yet the only one that has come forward is God via his word to say he made it all" But which god? Shiva, Lakshmi, Quetzacoatl, Yeti, Money, Spaghetti monster, Aliens, IPU, FBI, CIA... Dont you get that this god thing is just imaginary nonsense?
J0EH3AD 9 months ago
@tecy OMG, car cannot create itself, it has to be created because IT HAS NO REPLICATION SYSTEM. Life began as a self replicating molecules and this sustained it until now, exact origin are of course unknown. Self replicating molecules can be made in lab.. What is that you dont understand? What is so difficult about science? Simply some things are known, some are not. If you dont know then you dont say "gods did it" but you say "I dont know, but I will find out".
J0EH3AD 9 months ago
How unlikely? The answer is 1:1. How do I know? Because I've seen you do it right now.
malestrithe 2 years ago
@malestrithe Nonsensical thinking.
J0EH3AD 9 months ago
Funny thing is, insane clown is right.. 42 orders of magnitude, thereabouts. But, for those not following along, the question is, how many atoms in your body? To the nearest power of 10... any takers?
Then multiply that by billions.. more mass than the entire human population of earth. That's the amount of material to start figuring your probabilities with.
Oh, and hotbike0077, the idea they promote is "too improbable to happen by chance.. God did it."
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
The funny thing is if all of you think about it the possibility of any and all of these things happening is 100%, because they happened! Yes this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but not wrong.
hotbike0077 2 years ago
it happened u didnot make it happen ,even if u try to do it onc again it wont b possible so what the point
kamikim1 2 years ago
Millions of quadrillions of molecules doing the dance all day long for even a few million years, let alone billions, and the chance of life happening becomes greater than unity.
You are merely human and cannot grasp both the micro and the mega at the same time and comprehend them.
Quick test, how many atoms in your body? How many stars in the universe? (Orders of magnitude is close enough).
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
42 D:<
insaneclown2103 2 years ago 3
L5player, that's a red herring. RNA sequences form all the time from the precursors.. and damn quick, too. One thing to note, THEY REPRODUCE ON THEIR OWN just fine. They don't need special proteins or molecular machinery. They don't even need to do anything all that useful. They are their own template and substrate. When we are talking primitive first cell, we MEAN primitive.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
Where are the calculations? What, you want publications, dates, authors? C'mon. The math is plain: figure the probability of the specific chemicals of an amino acid--and only those--coming together in the RIGHT ORDER. Never mind forming a human being, just an amino acid, a protein chain, a DNA string? The right order, the right chemicals, the right proportions, the right conditions. Only one mix will result in life--so far as we know. Take out your calculator.
L5player 3 years ago
even if we assume the chances are slim, it doesnt mean abiogenesis is impossible. after all, life is very rare in the universe, and in such a vast universe life would eventually emerge.
arms and legs dont form from bones and nerves, etc. they form from mutations, and the mutations that are beneficial enable the host to procreate more, those with harmful mutations die out. after time, only those with working arms and legs survive, giving the appearance of spontaneous formation.
loturos 3 years ago
Unfortunately, a mutation is typically a slight change from the original on a small scale, not enough to be "beneficial" in any way. There's no reason to believe such small changes could be "naturally selected" so as to be perpetuated. An organism must have had an uninterrupted line of positive mutations for countless prior generations in order to progress from simple to complex, sort of like drawing straight flushes for ten million hands in a row. I'm not holding my breath.
L5player 3 years ago
"small scale, not enough to be "beneficial" in any way"
where do you get this from? not all mutations are beneficial btw, some are harmful and the host dies off.
"must have had an uninterrupted line of positive mutations for countless prior generations in order to progress from simple to complex"
says who?
loturos 3 years ago 2
Mutations, the theory argues, aren't sudden appearances of complete organs or features, like wings. They develop VERY slowly over long generations, and they disappear as slowly. Therefore, "beneficial" isn't realized until this organ-in-progress becomes useful where it can become naturally selected. A partial wing can't be beneficial; it has to work. A partial eye doesn't work yet, so it can't make an animal with it any better suited to its world. Natural selection picks out the better suited.
L5player 3 years ago
Neutral mutations aren't selected for, but neither are they selected against. This allows them to accumulate. As far as an incomplete wing or eye not being selected for, a light sensitive spot would be selected for when the rest of the population is completely blind. The same goes for a flap of skin under the arm that allows a creature to glide. Those are precursors for the very organs you claim can't have evolved.
PoopShoot1102 2 years ago
check out cdk007's 26 video series titled "Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism".
He is supposedly majored and minored from several fields of science, unlike me (economics). don't know about you. maybe he can explain it more "fluently" than I.
loturos 3 years ago 2
Oh, please. ANY result is equally acceptable because the dice don't NEED to be in any particular order; in other words, FUNCTION is missing. Instead, decide beforehand what the results have to be and try it again...and again...and again. THAT'S the relevant mathematical probability experiment. After-the-fact calculations, with all outcomes equally acceptable, is irrelevant. If only ONE outcome is acceptable, then your numbers matter.
L5player 3 years ago
how can you decide beforehand what the chances of life on earth emerging? you cant automatically assume that the chances are so bad that a god must exist. we are the result, maybe the chances were pretty good, who knows. what are the chances of a god of a particular character existing out of infinite possible personalities? maybe he was created too.
loturos 3 years ago
"Life" means certain specific chemical chains arranged in a particular way that can give rise to replicating organisms. As far as anyone knows, this arrangement--and only this one-- works; the probabilities of it happening by chance can be--and have been--calculated. For just a "simple" amino acid to randomly assemble itself thru natural means (of the type that life needs) is all but impossible. Order can come via unguided means (sand dunes, snowflakes), but FUNCTIONAL order? No.
L5player 3 years ago
where are the calculations? what exactly is your definition of "functional order"? order that has a function? what function is there, after all everything a human does is just a reaction to its environment, controlled by electrochemical processes in the brain.
loturos 3 years ago
Functional order is an arrangement whereby several independent parts are formed that work together to perform a task. An arm isn't an arm until numerous independent things are assembled in the right relationship. Bone doesn't make an arm, nor does blood, nor do nerves, nor tendons. They must be arranged exactly right--at the same time--to make a functioning arm. The likelihood of any one forming alone is remote enough, but all together--and working? You tell me.
L5player 3 years ago
Lack of adequate controls.
You failed to check your dice for bias.
WetlandsRemediation 3 years ago
I learn it from my math class and i didn't know that probability was important in caculation.
zenniz1992 3 years ago
YAHTZEE BITCHES!!
srch4trth 3 years ago
I would say you missed the whole point of the video, but I can't hear it at all, so I guess your comment is as valid as any.
theboombody 2 years ago
Dice with numbers on them are not cool.
sysexit 3 years ago
Good way of representing a good point.
Venaloid 3 years ago
It's all about the punchline in this video. Awesome as usual!
TheWindClaw 3 years ago
Hahaha the punchline. Excellent
piecharthosen 3 years ago
I like the "punchline".
I feel like with some simple video editting software, you could've sped up the dice rolls, or maybe put some music behind you rolling the dice. As it is, it's kind of boring.
Perhaps it would lose its illustrious appeal if you editted it... it's too real right now.
I love this video
Squash890 3 years ago
Aha, a roleplayer.. I recognize the marbleized dice.
You should have confused people by rolling d12s. ;)
sy1234 3 years ago
wow that was cool
swordslash117 3 years ago
Today I went outside and I seen a person.
The odds of me seeing that 1 person, out of the roughly 6,500,000,000 human beings on this planet, were quite unlikely.
Therefore God forced that stranger to walk in front of my house, at precisly 2:13 pm on the 4th Saturday of May 2008.....IT'S FAR TOO IMPROBABLE TO HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT DIVINE GUIDANCE!
DeadRedZebra 3 years ago
If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there just fine. The odds of getting a meaningless result are 1:1. If a madman tells you that your life depends on seeing 20 friends in alphabetical order, you may indeed pray for divine intervention. Forget the 6.5 billion people, you need to get to Aaron's place before Zach crosses your path.
even204 3 years ago
Amazing! Now, do it and get, in alphabetical order, all the phone #s in the Olds, IA (pop. 249) phonebook. The probability of getting a random result is always 1:1. Snarky, but unconvincing. I think you can do better.
even204 3 years ago
By the way, I do realize that there are only 6 digits on a die, but my point still stands.
even204 3 years ago
and what point is that
ImmortalNaraku 3 years ago
That RabidApe is far too intelligent to try to convince me with this argument (although I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was done tongue-in-cheek). The order of nature and life is far more complex than a string of random numbers. Say you would need 1 million sets of 8 dice in a sensical order (12345612,23456123,34561234,etc), which is still below the complexity of life, and RabidApe plays the part of (not-random) natural selection...
even204 3 years ago
at 10s per set of 8 dice it would take him 57 days to roll all 1 million sets. Then he could go back and roll the dice that didn't fit into the needed order (in the shown example, positions 1,2,4,5,7), keeping only the ones that fit, and go through the process until all sets are in line, we would be without new videos from our friend RabidApe for several years, and he would die from exhaustion. So, besides being snarky and unconvincing, it could be hazardous to his health.
even204 3 years ago
The point is that it's not very informative to look at an unlikely event AFTER it has happened and say "the odds are so small as to consider the thing impossible without supernatural forces being involved"
Regarding life, the universe, and everything - as unlikely as everything around us is, it could just be the way the 'dice' 'fell', and no matter where they 'landed', some people would be saying "what are the odds?"
RabidApe 3 years ago
I can:
1)name a series of 42 numbers
2)try to "roll for them" with a set of dice
3)keep trying until I get it
4)give up after a few thousand tries
This is totally different from "rolling universes".
If you are equating "getting the unlikely series" with "life spontaneously arising", what is the equivalent of the "thousands of dice throws"?
We don't have the luxury of "throwing the dice" a few thousand times to see what's likely and what's not regarding universes.
does that make sense?
RabidApe 3 years ago
This is totally different from "rolling universes".
If you are equating "getting the unlikely series" with "life spontaneously arising", what is the equivalent of the "thousands of dice throws"?
I'm not sure if that makes sense. Perhaps I'm slow.
Are you saying that because the earth has had several billions of years, the odds are greater that the unlikely could have happened? That's probably not the correct way to state it.
even204 3 years ago
But if someone walked into your room and saw the 8 dice laying haphazardly on the table (i.e., you had not picked them up and lined them up) I would not questions the odds, I would assume they were randomly rolled or place there without care. No one would ever question the odds of a random mess.
even204 3 years ago
However, if I walked into your room, and saw 600 dice laid neatly around the table in repeating numerical sequence, I would not assume random anything, but of course would assume they were gradually placed there over millions of years by a not-random process of natural selection, which carefully selects the best position of the dice for the survival of the sequence. Because at all costs, I must not believe in the existence of RabidApe.
even204 3 years ago
We have experience with dice. We've thrown them plenty of times. Different kinds of dice. Different games or contexts. Different times and locations. Different kinds of dice - d6 sided, d8, d20, etc. You can make your own dice, try them out, and compare that experience to your experience with other dice.
There is only ONE universe that we have direct experience of, and that is only from the inside.
How many other universes or sets of physical laws have you compared ours to?
RabidApe 3 years ago
@RabidApe:
Must I then assume that other universes would (or even could) have different physical laws? If, in my entire life, I had only seen one set of 8 6-sided dice, I might be able to imagine and create 8-sided, 20-sided and even 207-sided dice, and some lively games involving such dice.
even204 3 years ago
But wouldn't all universes (consisting of matter)be governed by physical laws? Or if I imagine a universe where objects don't gravitate toward each other, or even a universe not constituted of matter as we know it, does that mean such a universe could exist?
even204 3 years ago
I'm really not trying to be snotty. I just don't know what other hypothetical universes would have to do with the discussion. I apologize if I'm still missing your point.
even204 3 years ago
"complex/unlikely" != "god did it"
RabidApe 3 years ago
Great! You've finally come around to my way of thinking.
But seriously, you knew where I was coming from right away. But you used the word "universes" several times, and I'm not sure what multiple universes have to do with our discussion. As far as I can understand from what I looked up, mult. universes must exist b/c our universe supports life, and it necessarily looks designed b/c since we exist, we can observe it...
It all makes my kidneys ache. Please have pity and explain it to me.
even204 3 years ago
Hey, Ape-
You haven't answered me anything about the multiple universes thing. I would sure appreciate your response. I'm going to assume you've been very busy as of late with your drywall business or something, and not that you don't want to discuss this idea with me.
Look forward to hearing from you.
even204 3 years ago
ummmm...
Forget the multiple universes for a moment.
***
I'm rereading our conversation, and I'm not sure what to say. (it's 5am, I woke up needing to use the bathroom, and came over here to enqueue another lecture before passing out and thought, oh lets check some comments. Don't want to leave you hanging for three weeks again...)
***
If the universe weren't able to give rise to/support life, we wouldn't be here to observe it.
RabidApe 3 years ago
That's like saying, "If Usain Bolt couldn't run so fast, he wouldn't have set the world record in the 100m (9.72s)." It offers no explanation how he got that fast. Based on what we have observed in other athletes, you can assume he started with ability, worked his tail off, and expect that he tested clean for drugs.
even204 3 years ago
We reach conclusions based on what we observe, and these conclusions are often colored by our assumptions. Life begets life after its own kind, complicated machines are designed. After that, your assumption is that things were different 4 billion years ago, and given enough time, we would observe something different. (And possibly, that if we could observe other universes, we would see a different forces at work?)
even204 3 years ago
Isn't the anthropic principle what causes many people to look at the world we live in, and say, "There's got to be a God. This is so amazing."? I hope you understand my point.
The fact that we are so precariously placed in the universe, with water, the perfect tilt, the moon maintaining our tides leads some to an unseen, transcendent creator (of which many testify to have subjective experiences with), and some to multiple unseen, unobservable, transcendent universes.
even204 3 years ago
Our worldview is very different. You have said that natural selection is not random, and I agree. From a materialistic view, NS would seem to have a mind and a will of its own. But I see it as a mechanism built into the code of life to protect life and maintain the integrity of the creation. I hope I'm not being too wordy.
A couple of postscripts:
"enqueue" Great word
Up at 5:00am to pee? Have you had your prostate checked?
Thanks for getting back to me.
even204 3 years ago
OK, so you're no stranger to the anthropic principle.
No, it doesn't explain much in and of itself. It can, however provide some 'perspective'.
In a universe with billions of planets, is it any surprise that there is at least one with the right conditions for life?
and IF there are multiple universe 'out there' (it's speculation, yes - but well-grounded speculation!), it's even 'easier' to imagine that SOMEWHERE, the conditions would be 'just right'.
RabidApe 3 years ago
"The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics, and a rich Landscape together with the law of large numbers are all that's needed to explain the friendliness of our patch of the universe."
Leonard Susskind, 'The Cosmic Landscape'
"Landscape" = alternate worlds/universes implied by string theory, and/or the many-worlds interpretation of QM if that floats yer boat.
RabidApe 3 years ago
Complexity of life is not proof of God, but neither is an incomprehensibly vast universe and "well-grounded speculation" of multiple universes proof of this planet's arriving by chance. You may consider "The laws of gravity, quantum mechanics, ..." as an explanation for the "friendliness of our patch of the universe" but your worldview encourages you to accept this explanation.
even204 3 years ago
It seems to me that philosophical differences are more of the issue than the scientific. (In my mind, I can almost see you react to that, but bear with me.) This is also true in politics, literature, etc. We see what we want to see, we remember facts that back up our point, disregarding others. It's one of the complaints against Christians. I have a hard time saying "I don't know" and "I have questions/doubts" because it's important to me to be right at all costs.
even204 3 years ago
I remember your quote about science trying to extend the shore of knowledge into the vast ocean of ignorance, or something. We try to find the truth, and hope it doesn't let us down. It's hard to be objective as a follower of Jesus, because I want so much for it to be true, like my life depends on it. But I think the atheist has the same issue. It seems that atheists want so much for God not to be, that it colors your interpretation of facts and arguments.
I would appreciate your thoughts.
even204 3 years ago
"...like my life depends on it."
In a way, it does, yes? Don't you expect to 'survive your own death', so to speak?
I came to terms with the fact(?) that this life is the only one I'll get LONG before I started calling myself 'atheist'.
"It seems that atheists want so much for God not to be"
perhaps, but couldn't it also be we spent long enough looking with NO good answers found that we had no choice but to assume "he" wasn't there? (at least in the form described by most theists)
RabidApe 3 years ago
"at least in the form described by most theists"
I think a lot of theists/Christians have created a god (note lowercase) that validates them, and proves them right. Not that they don't believe in God, but rather form a god they can fit in their pocket and pull out to make their point, or shut someone else down. I don't believe in a god that I can comprehend in bullet points or philosophical arguments. That's why He is transcendent. I don't need to defend him, and couldn't anyway.
even204 3 years ago
Lucy thinks Rock is to die for.
Desi thinks Rock is to die for.
Lucy is talking about Rock Hudson, and Desi is talking about Rock Music.
Do they actually agree with each other?
No, but they both believe in Rock 'in their own way'.
(paraphrased from Daniel Dennett)
RabidApe 3 years ago
Rock is definitely not interested in Lucy. Desi prefers Latin percussion. Little Ricky is into rock, too, and it landed him in rehab.
The word "god" does not have variable meanings like "rock". Concept, action, drug, name, etc. The type of god you believe in may be different, but a god is always a transcendent, spriritual being (or some would say, a force, like Star Wars). If god is an impersonal force, it is completely irrelevant to believe or disbelieve, to serve or despise.
even204 3 years ago
...you're proving my point!!! :P
you just gave three distinct 'versions'!!
RabidApe 3 years ago
By "three distinct versions" do you mean the force, many gods, and one true god? I'm not proving your point, really. I am partially agreeing that Dennett's example would invalidate lesser gods who are subject to change, interpretation, or competition for supremacy. But if (of course I say "if" for the sake of the discussion only) the one true God exists, it, by its very nature, could not be invalidated. Misunderstood or misrepresented, sure, but not affected by man in any way.
even204 3 years ago
I also think that Dennett's god would not be worth believing in.
And for the record,I don't believe in Dennett's god.
even204 3 years ago
If there are many gods with different requirements for their respective believers, would they compete for supremacy? Would some be good and others evil, and who decides?
If there is one supreme God, such a God's nature would not be variable dependent on our understanding or interpretation. If there is one true God, then He created us, not the other way around.
In Dennett's example, god would simply be an idea subject to change, and therefore, no god at all.
even204 3 years ago
who decides whether the decider is good or evil?
loturos 3 years ago
the most supremest god would, naturally
even204 3 years ago
who decides whether the most high is good or evil? god kill humans in the bible, so he can also be a homosexual, with his "do as i say, not as i do" mentality. maybe him and jesus and muhammad like to have a bang it out together up in heaven.
loturos 3 years ago 2
"If there is one supreme God, such a God's nature would not be variable dependent on our understanding or interpretation."
Sure, but that still doesn't mean that any particular human actually knows anything about it. How do we compare the different 'versions' and decide which is the 'true' one?
(ESPECIALLY when what you're talking about in incomprehensible by definition...)
RabidApe 3 years ago
Yes there is, his name is Bob, Bob Dobbs.
TrebenWhahaha 3 years ago
hahah bob dobbs
hootieismydog 3 years ago
"if the memories of our lives
are contained in the brain
then the brain dies inside and nothing remains
wouldn't that mean you would have absolutely and positively no recollection or account of previous things when you die?"
Even if you managed to convince me that there is a "creator", you still haven't even BEGUN to convince me of the validity of the Jesus story or the existence of an "immortal soul".
RabidApe 3 years ago
(quote is from Greydon Square, btw)
RabidApe 3 years ago
I'm smiling from ear to ear, because I just discovered who Greydon Square is. Atheist astrophysicist? Nihilist Oxford philosophy professor? No. Straight outta Compton, baby! Try to convince me of no life after death by the words of a rapper arrested for threatening someone with a gun?
even204 3 years ago
I'll quote a man who was beaten, stoned starved, shipwrecked, flogged, arrested (perhaps killed?) for Jesus:
"It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this, judgement."
"For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain."
Or how about Peter, crucified (upside down?) for his unwavering faith in Christ?
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
even204 3 years ago
I did check out Greydon Square on the youtube. Intelligent and creative, but I have a sneaking suspicion we might disagree on an issue or two.
even204 3 years ago
I don't mean to come across as combative, but I can't support Biblical creation simply by quoting the Bible, and you couldn't prove any Dawkins theory by quoting Dawkins.
even204 3 years ago
::FACEPALM::
I'm not saying the statement is true BECAUSE Greydon said it.... come on now!
I quoted it because I agree with it, and really like the way he put it.
RabidApe 3 years ago
Here's my version:
If what "you" "are" is your brain reacting to your environment, then what reason have you to think that there is "life after death" - at least in the sense that you'd still be able to speak english, recognize grandparents, etc?
If you think there is a magic ingredient to us besides matter and energy (as in OTHER THAN your body and brain), what is it, and how would we discern it's properties?
RabidApe 3 years ago
If we are matter reacting to the environment, then explain love, sorrow, joy, worry, etc. Explain our desire to know and understand our universe and the meaning of our existence.
Point a loaded shotgun at your dog and he'll sniff the barrell. Point it at me and I'll beg for my life. Explain that to me without a "magic ingredient", please.
Greydon Square said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
even204 3 years ago
those are only emotions produced by electiochemical reactions in the brain. any desires we have are stem from our curiosity and will to survive. are you comparing yourself to a dog in this post? wow...maybe the "magic ingredient" is the understand of what a gun is, how would a dog know? btw, none of your questions automatically mean that god exists.
want an extraordinary claim? how about god? his existence requires evidence thats so extraordinary, it doesnt even exist.
loturos 3 years ago
Greydon "Punctuated-Equilibrium-is-the-Shizzle" Square was breaking it down to creationists. Backing up your evolutionary, materialistic view of emotions (or abiogenesis, or the eye, or so on), would require "extraordinary evidence". "Curiousity and will to survive" are in and of themselves enigmas, aren't they?
That's why I was talking about how our philospophy/worldview colors our science. (See above)
And I wasn't comparing myself to a dog, I was contrasting myself with a dog.
even204 3 years ago
"Point a loaded shotgun at your dog and he'll sniff the barrell. Point it at me and I'll beg for my life."
I'd say that the primary difference there is your bigger/more developed cerebral cortex which gives you the ability to perform abstract reasoning, plan for the future, etc.
"Point it at me and I'll beg for my life. Explain that to me without a "magic ingredient", please."
Your brain and body react to the environment according to laws of physics and chemistry. No magic ingredient needed.
RabidApe 3 years ago
His point still stands. He was just using it as an example for the: "Life is too complex to come about by chance" thing. Also who are YOU to judge what the complexity of life is?
ImmortalNaraku 3 years ago
@ImmortalNaraku:
Are you suggesting that life may not be complex, but only appears that way? I don't believe I have made myself the final arbiter of complexity. I just look at what is known, and it is complex.
even204 3 years ago
Look up "coagulation" on wikipedia. It has a chart that shows the chem. processes involved in blood clots. One factor out of place, and you bleed to death, or your blood hardens throughout your entire body. Not a whole lot of margin for error. Add that to eyesight, thought, reproduction, instinct, etc, and life is complex. I would like you to convince me otherwise.
even204 3 years ago
alright now im not saying that i know everything about biology so im not sure these numbers are correct, but ill say my point anyway. So, your saying that even though there was such a small chance of getting that sequence, now i want you to get the perfect sequence that will replicate itself, support life, and eventually become the building blocks of humans using the 220 million base pairs... randomly of course. if you can efectivly and plainly prove this, then i might convert.
HoUnDoG72 3 years ago
Ouch, why do you say "random". Randomness plays a role in the mutation, but the selection is not.
Okay, there are about 26+26+10=62 characters to make your nick here (A-Za-z0-9). Still Hounddog is pronouncable. How would you do the math to check how improbable that was?
MrFacet 3 years ago
well i figured that there is a 1 in 62 chance that the CapitalH will appear, then another 1 in 62 got the o, now if we further this math, you are left with around 2.4807 EE to the 48th power. but that is when you dont have to worry about the sequence only the characters. i dont even want to think about what it would take to get them in this sequence nor do i know the equation nessecary. sorry
HoUnDoG72 3 years ago
Good math, and the sequence is included in your system.
What I meant to show is that a probability calc. of something like your nick is a nice excercise but does not include decisions by you to make a meaningful and/or pronouncable word, cAmElBaCk, numbers at the end.
In a similar way the increase of our basepairs was stimulated by their beneficial nature. It went step by step through many, many little random mutations out of which the best ones gave survival benefit.
MrFacet 3 years ago
Getting to the first replicating bit was the biggest hurdle. From then on some even say development was inevitable.
How this first hurdle was taken, by aliens, a creator or chemistry cannot be shown, only reconstructed with what we know from the circumstances. A big world with the building stones, energy (first maybe from methane, photosynthesis came way later), and millions of years.
MrFacet 3 years ago
alright fine ill give you the sequence. (needed a lil extra thought on my part. lol) but my main question is why preach this theory as fact in schools if you yourself admit that it is still far from being proven as such. If anything it should be let on as a possible solution for the reason of our origin. not the undeniable fact. or at least the evidence that can disprove evolution should be taught alongside it in our classrooms)
HoUnDoG72 3 years ago
Sequence comes in when you draw from a limited supply.
What prove do you require? I am rather skeptic and I'm overwhelmed by all the facts for which the theory fits. Actually the theory is dead simple: replicating organisms with variation in inheritable properties, combined with competition for resources leads to selection of the individuals with the most competitive properties. That it applies to us is visible in fossils and DNA and the gradual development seen in the tree of life.
MrFacet 3 years ago
alright so we dissagree on the tree of life( i believe that there are many different "trees", but i cannot believe that all these small mutations(no doubt they exist) can sum up to a dog getting wings.(exxageration i know, but you get my point) also i really dont like brining fossils into these debates because all it is evolutionists interepreting it to fit their idea, but it also fits in perfectly with creationists also. too much gray area for me.
HoUnDoG72 3 years ago
Isn't it funny that you see the same bones in a wing as in a dogs paw, only in different shapes? Have you ever been to a nat.hist. museum were you could compare skulls?
On fossils: do you consider it a coincidence that they are found layered in the order fitting to evolution, in stead of being garbled through each other as you would expect after Noah's flood made an end to dinosaurs and trilobites?
But where do you stand with evo/crea/young earth?
MrFacet 3 years ago
oh but isnt it also funny when evolutionists say that birds most likely evolved from reptiles?(most fittingly theropod dinosaurs) when the short stubby arms just magicaly transformed into long slim, aerodynamic, practically hollow and perfectly "designed" for their particular funtion? i find it very hilarious that scales transformed into feathers, even when they clearly need different intellegence to originate and to succeed. even in the earliest of "stages"
HoUnDoG72 3 years ago
@hounddog Glad you're having fun with yourself ("funny.. hilarous"). But I'm sure you'll agree once you've seen the intermediates are gradual and functional. Imagine being coldblooded and getting insulation by small featherlike thingies. Imagine soaring down from a tree to catch prey or to get away from a predator. Observe the skeleton similarity.
See Wikipedia article "Feathered dinosaurs"
MrFacet 3 years ago
but heat insulation feathers are quite different than flight feathers. non-flight feathers get their fluffiness from the lachk of barbs on them. or hooks i cant remember. however. the point is unless there was a reason for the sudden adoption of hooks(thus flight feathers) natural selection would naturally resist anything that would let these birds get cold and freeze to death(weeding them out). and no most intermediaries arent funtional, ever tried to compair the lungs of a reptile to (cont.)
sledge7676 3 years ago
to those of a bird? the poor intermediary would be unable to breat even once. a reptiles lungs work alot like ours(bellows if you will) but birds use use some sort of one way breathing that runs the new air through tubes that pass the blood past some capilary like uptake. so an intermediary between those would in essence destroy the mutation, thus ending that cycle, and ending the bird branch as we know it. p.s. this is Houndog72, im just using me bros comp and he was already signed in)
sledge7676 3 years ago
To my surprise the scale ->feather approach seems to be abandoned for skin cells. Technical mumbo on "evowiki Evolution_of_feathers" (use google, YouTube hates links). Illustrated: search for "precursor of a feather may have been a conical papilla".
The first time I saw the bird's lung I was stunned by the efficient but complex looking system! Indeed impressing and different from our bellows. I found a scientific approach on "evolutionpages bird_lung" (rather technical).
MrFacet 3 years ago
but on the young earth verses old earth.. i dont know yet. just trying to take in all the accounts befor i take up a side. besided whats it matter how old it is, if i believe in evolution i will believe that the earth has been around a long time, and if creationism wins out, then i will say that the earth is only a couple thousand... creationists have a rebuttle on everything even to "how did they get all the animals on the boat" so itas all in the wind now for me. sorry
HoUnDoG72 3 years ago
Hounddog "just trying to take in all the accounts befor i take up a side."
Please be adviced that some anti-evolution sources have been shown to disregard facts: Kent Hovind ("Dr"Dino), Michael Behe, Ben Stein (Expelled), and here on YouTube VenomFangX. (I could also say they are big fat liars but that may not sound convincing)
MrFacet 3 years ago
Hounddog, you might like the videos by DonExodus2
MrFacet 3 years ago
ill look them up. thanks
sledge7676 3 years ago
So I'm gonna have to carry around dice with me to explain the anthropic principle? I've always had trouble explaining this to theists...
etanderson 3 years ago
Well, I agree with most of your videos, but I don't like that one. That's just another version of the anthropic principle. This doesn't prove anything. Sorry.
fisimazille 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hahaha this was actually very clever. I still think you're ugly though.
EyesoreII 3 years ago
"spontanious generation" is also holds the likleyhood of about 1 in a trillion.
braino2000 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ok i get your point..but how about we get past the bull shit and you compare those chances to the universe being created by random selection..you fuckin idiot.
slux773 3 years ago
(are you sure you got the point?)
RabidApe 3 years ago
yes, now how about an answer to my question rather than dancing around it because you dont have an answer?
slux773 3 years ago
Wow you're dense. Fact is even though the odds may be against something to an astronomical extent, it can still happen. No matter how large you make the probability, it's still there. Don't act like the odds of us being here don't exist.
PhantomShitter 3 years ago
"the universe being created by random selection..you fuckin idiot."
No point for you. You really didnt get it. And why do you think you need to be offensive?
PatrickAlbers 3 years ago 2
What the hell is "random selection" supposed to mean?
drdirs 3 years ago
look it up
bonny420 3 years ago
That's pretty likely to happen compared to some other stuff.
teenspirit1 4 years ago
A perfect example of how something that is unlikely to occur; can and does, if given time. Like, say 14 billion years. ;O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 4 years ago 3
1 : 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
osten222312 4 years ago
Great vid. This illustrates the point that you can't take some final state and calculate backwards to find it's probability even when you're dealing with something random. Creationists usually go a step worse and calculate the probability of something like a cell forming by chance when it is the product of evolution, a non-random process.
majorvoltage 4 years ago
my english is in best shape today -.-
sorry
MrMudd1988 4 years ago
sorry I didn't want to mean i this way ^^
thanks for allowing my respond
MrMudd1988 4 years ago
RabidApe if you are openminded as you said, allow my video respond...
MrMudd1988 4 years ago
relax, guy!
you can send me a pm!
my video responses are all buggy. I don't know if it's everyone, or just me (all of my response links disappeared when my account was suspended.).
My 'my account' screen used to tell me when I had a response, but it hasn't been for the past few weeks, at least.
RabidApe 4 years ago
This is such retarded logic. If you don't make a claim of what the result will be before it happens, then when the event happens you claim that event, in fact your probability is 100% Think man, think.
Telekenesis123 4 years ago
That's the point exactly - keep this in mind the next time someone tries to tell you it's 'impossible' for life to get started on its own, or for us to evolve once life started.
:D
RabidApe 4 years ago
@Telekenesis123
because it happend it dosent change the probability of it, it was still 1 in 1679616 that it could happen.
if your logic is true, then if i buy a lottery ticket where there is 1% chance that you win and if i win its 100% that i will win.
dosent make any sens to me.
Alek900 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is proof of evolution. he looks like an ape and sounds like one.
FeelOfFriction 4 years ago
lol, awesome!
Erech01 4 years ago