Quote:
Originally Posted by servantofone  Well, you can't prove it HAS happened, so I don't like that assumption being in there... That's like me saying, well the Bible is true, so the earth is 6,000 to 12,000 years old based on the the Biblical chronology. I can't prove to you the Bible is true, so what good is building my argument to you on it?
Where do you get the number 3.8 billion years anyway?
The point I have in wanting the probability behind it is the fact that I really think that if you worked it out, it would be much longer than 3.8 billion years to get to the amount of life and complexity of life we have today. |
The proof I'm using is the fact that life is here and it is measured at 3.8 billion years old. That has happened. I know science changes but for now the most accurate version is the scientific one. The only other version I know of are from the 5 different creationist groups. That includes scientists who are creationists and are attempting to reconcile a literal reading of Genesis with science.
I have seen those groups cook probability data for a non-science purpose. Maybe it was unintentional?
The calculations never take into account that we are talking about the molecular level, that the interactions take place on a nanosecond time scale and there are billions of molecules.
I've seen creationist websites that have a few references and a few equations but I have never seen an actual paper with any good evidence.
It is likely that deism may have the upper hand on theism.
For example:
"On the Use of Probability Calculations in the Critique of Evolution."
It is not easy to test evolution experimentally, mostly due to the near impossibility of controlled experimentation and, consequently, the lack of reproducibility. Thus the evolution theory is not universally accepted even among scientists. The crucial concept of evolution is the spontaneity of evolutionary changes: life as we observe it today emerged and evolved as a result of interactions between environment on one side and biomolecules or, later, cells and organisms, on the other side. No intervention of an intelligent designer is necessary at any point. Scientists opposed to this notion argue that life is so complex, especially at the molecular level, that it is statistically impossible for it to rise and evolve spontaneously by small evolutionary steps. To support their claims they often use probability calculations that invariably lead to the conclusion that the odds against emergence of, e.g., the eye, a biochemical pathway, or life as a whole, are some ridiculously high number. Consequently, organism s and their constituents could not have evolved spontaneously, but must have been designed by a goal-oriented, prescient intelligent designer.
rest of paper at:
On the Use of Probability Calculations in the Critique of Evolution. - Free Online Library