Mathematics and The Debate

[BobRyan]

Sappy Woody must believe in flying pigs. .

Indeed. having an infinite number of universes -- infinite failures -- to try and come up with "flying pigs"

 

[Sapper Woody]

because we "imagine an infinite number of universes"?
because "we could have infinite chances for a rock to turn into a rabbit" with an infinite number of much-imagined universes.

Recall that the "infinite number of universes" idea for atheists is really 'infinite number of failures" - the idea being that you can always 'imagine" a zillion more failing universes for 'the god of atheism' if that is what is needed to swallow some very very unlike set of "just so stories".

How is that even a game that Christians would be interested in playing?

I didn't realize I had typed that. I meant to say anywhere in an infinite number of particles in the universe.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
The odds against evolution are not "what are the odds that evolution will start right here on my desk" - the odds are against evolution happening at all - in the entire universe.

Exactly. But, not just the known universe, anywhere in an infinite number of universes. And, any number multiplied by infinity is still going to equal infinity.

BobRyan said: ↑

Impossible - as a term in mathematics is accepted in our universe in all of time as 1/10^50 because it is taking into account all the atoms in the entire universe over all of known time - where every interaction is an attempt to achieve the desired outcome.

I have to correct you here. Firstly, the number you are attempting to cite isn't atoms. It's particles. Secondly, it's not the universe, it's the known universe. Meaning, that's all the particles that we know of. Inside an infinite universe, there is an infinite number of particles. And as I said, any number of odds multiplied by infinity has a 100% chance of happening.

1. No one has proven that matter is infinite... that there is an infinite amount of matter in the universe.
2. 10^80 is more like the number for all hydrogen atoms possible in the entire universe.

A typical star weighs about 2x10^33 Grams, which is about 1x10^57 atoms of
hydrogen per star... That is a 1 followed by 57 zeros.
a typical galaxy has about 400 billion stars so that means each galaxy has
1x10^57 X 400,000,000,000 = 5x10^68 hydrogen atoms in a galaxy
There are possibly 80 billion galaxies in the Universe, so that means that
there are about:
5x10^68 X 80,000,000,000 = 4x10^79 hydrogen atoms in the Universe.

But the cosmological constant is tuned to 1 / 10^120

So that constant "alone" could not have happened "by chance" given what we know today.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I'm not sure where you got your numbers (although I found a near duplicate post on www.nakedscience.com forums). First thing I have to discuss is you keep saying phrases like "whole universe" when all these numbers come from the "observable" universe. Even the Wikipedia article that cites similar numbers for hydrogen atoms is careful to distinguish between observable and entire.

Secondly, let's assume that the universe is finite. We still don't have a clue what's past the observable universe. The observable universe is estimated to be ~93 Billion light years across, or roughly 6.8 Trillion light years in volume. How far does a finite universe go beyond that? Another trillion light years of volume? Another 5? 10? We don't have a number. If the universe really is finite, we still don't know how much is out there. Meaning that the point of infinity still stands. With enough chances, even the smallest possibility can happen.

Now, I am going to set aside the argument for a second and clear things up. I am a Creationist, through and through. I believe in a literal, 6 day creation with God resting on the seventh day. But, for some reason, while I am attempting to strengthen our arguments against evolution, I am getting attacked as if I believe in evolution. We're on the same side, here. I'd appreciate some discussion rather than Ad Hominem and accusations that I shouldn't even call myself a creationist.

Bob Ryan, your last post was a good example of what I'm trying to achieve. Dialogue of facts rather than attacks.

 

[Smyth]

And the resort to ad hominem.

I didn't resort to an ad hominem there (at least not there). You ignore probability, so you're in no position to say that there aren't pigs that can fly. Your article is an incompetent echo of nonsense some Evolutionist wrote and you have no directly respond to those who have pointed out the flaws of what you wrote.

ANSWER THIS: Where does your chain of 32 amino acids get the chains to combine (a problem I have detailed previously)?

You can't answer because you have no idea of what you're talking about. And, you won't retract your attack on Creationism because you don't care whether your attack is honest.

 

[Smyth]

because we "imagine an infinite number of universes"?
because "we could have infinite chances for a rock to turn into a rabbit" with an infinite number of much-imagined universes.

There's no evidence of more than just this universe (I have answer for "there's no evidence of God", but that'd not relevant here). Probability is the only way we know if anything is true for false. Maybe Obama isn't president, but we're victims of an elaborate hoax? Maybe I suffer from insanity that makes me think Obama is president. The odds of those things are so low that I dismiss them as untrue. If there's an infinite number of universes, there must be a universe where people wrongly think Obama is president.

It's hard to quantify the odds of Obama not being president. But, it's easy to quantify the odds against randomly forming a specific chain of 32 amino acids (assuming something else that's essentially impossible, that any chain of 32 amino acids would be formed in the first place). Those odds are 1 in 10^40. You also know that this particular chain only assembles two specific chains of 16 amino acids, so for one duplication, we need a specific order of 64 amino acids, and the odds of that are 1 in 10^80. There's no enough atoms in the universe to make that likely, even if every atom in the universe were part of an amino acid that joined into a chain of these 32,16, 16 chain amino acids. If the odds are beat, we have two chains of the specific 32 amino acid chain, then they decay (the atoms reassemble simpler and more natural configurations, such as the hydrogen and oxygen forming water). The end.

The odds of that chain of 32 amino acids playing a role in the origin of life is so remote that only someone dishonest or stupid could believe it. The Atheist has only one hope, that there is a game changer that no one yet knows about. But, that hope isn't science.