The missing ingredient is ... probability
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2014, 11:57 AM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2014 12:11 PM by rampant.a.i..)
The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 11:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 06:03 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  It occurred to me that the key difference between someone who believes in woo and an atheist is that the former does not take into account probability. This is why scientists and critical thinkers are seen as close minded when they try to point out such things as reality. They are accused of only explaining everything in terms of what they know and therefore of not being open to new ideas.

The wooist will try to come up with a belief system that is logically consistent and they may even manage it if they rely on assumptions that cannot be falsified. But at no point do they ever ask what the likelihood is of those assumptions being true.
Problem is that creationists have made the same argument against atheists regarding abiogenesis, and in that case the atheists say it's a poor argument. Go figure.

False dilemma, but a good illustration of someone having zero understanding of probability.

Not having all the answers doesn't automatically make one specific, wildly more complex and unbelievable alternative explanation correct.

You know, it's really annoying that theists think "therefore God" is the answer to everything. They let science do all the heavy lifting, reap the benefits, and attribute every positive advancement to God, completely ignoring how much their blind superstitions have held humanity back.

It's the best of both worlds: They get to claim every positive innovation as God's Gift, and claim they have all the answers.

Baptize your computers.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
25-02-2014, 12:19 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 11:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Problem is that creationists have made the same argument against atheists regarding abiogenesis, and in that case the atheists say it's a poor argument. Go figure.

The creationist argument is considered poor because it is deliberately arguing from a position of ignorance which allows them to lie about the probability. For example, creationists talk about the irreducible complexity of the eye and we have plenty of evidence for how eyes evolved.

Creationists use the concept of irreducible complexity to claim that the chances of a fully functioning cell coming together by pure chance is negligible. Even if the first cell did spontaneously form by chance, you would still have to consider the probability of a single such event happening in the history of the universe given how large it is before saying whether it was negligible or not.

We still don't know exactly how the first cells did form but the evidence points strongly to cells forming as part of a gradual process rather than any single irreducibly complex chance event.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
25-02-2014, 12:46 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 12:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 11:39 AM)alpha male Wrote:  Problem is that creationists have made the same argument against atheists regarding abiogenesis, and in that case the atheists say it's a poor argument. Go figure.

The creationist argument is considered poor because it is deliberately arguing from a position of ignorance which allows them to lie about the probability. For example, creationists talk about the irreducible complexity of the eye and we have plenty of evidence for how eyes evolved.

Creationists use the concept of irreducible complexity to claim that the chances of a fully functioning cell coming together by pure chance is negligible. Even if the first cell did spontaneously form by chance, you would still have to consider the probability of a single such event happening in the history of the universe given how large it is before saying whether it was negligible or not.

We still don't know exactly how the first cells did form but the evidence points strongly to cells forming as part of a gradual process rather than any single irreducibly complex chance event.

This is basically what I came here to say. Thanks.

The idea that a fully functioning cell with all it's current components simply spontaneously formed by random chance is ridiculous. That's why scientifically literate people don't think that it happened that way. No one who understands abiogenesis thinks that the first replicator had lysosomes, centrosomes, ribosomes, mitochondria, golgi bodies, etc that just all happened to form in the exact same place at the exact same time. That would fall under the category of "too implausible to be taken seriously", much like the tea pot. Hell, even the first nucleus of a cell probably didn't much resemble the nuclei of cells we see today. These things took billions of years to look exactly like they do today.

Only creationists are stupid enough to assert that everything we see today came into existence exactly as it is. The rest of us have the mental capacity to comprehend changes over an extreme length of time.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 12:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  We still don't know exactly how the first cells did form but the evidence points strongly to cells forming as part of a gradual process rather than any single irreducibly complex chance event.
Cool, let's see the peer-reviewed evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 01:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 12:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  We still don't know exactly how the first cells did form but the evidence points strongly to cells forming as part of a gradual process rather than any single irreducibly complex chance event.
Cool, let's see the peer-reviewed evidence.

Here you go, dumbass

Not that I expect you'd comprehend any of it.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 02:07 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 01:54 PM)alpha male Wrote:  Cool, let's see the peer-reviewed evidence.

Here you go, dumbass
A Google search? Seriously??Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 02:14 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 02:07 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Here you go, dumbass
A Google search? Seriously??Laughat

You may have noticed the "scholar" part of that search... Google Scholar is a fantastic way to find things of a technical nature. You know, the types of articles that appear in peer reviewed publications. i.e. exactly what you were asking for.

Now go away kid, ya bother me.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like itsnotmeitsyou's post
25-02-2014, 02:39 PM
The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 02:14 PM)alpha male Wrote:  
(25-02-2014 02:07 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Here you go, dumbass
A Google search? Seriously??Laughat

You asked for peer-reviewed evidence, it was provided to you, and you now refuse to review it.

Huh. It's almost as if you aren't interested in supporting your position with facts, or answering objections.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
25-02-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 02:22 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  You may have noticed the "scholar" part of that search... Google Scholar is a fantastic way to find things of a technical nature. You know, the types of articles that appear in peer reviewed publications. i.e. exactly what you were asking for.
Er, if it's so fantastic, why doesn't the first hit have anything to do with the topic at hand? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: The missing ingredient is ... probability
(25-02-2014 02:39 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  You asked for peer-reviewed evidence, it was provided to you,
Uh, no it wasn't. The first three hits on that fantastic google search have to do with abiogenic formation of methane and other hydrocarbons, and nothing to do with origin of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: