We Got Yer Holiday Spirit Right Here
Sweeten Your Online Shopping: Compartes 'Brown Friday' Sale
Local High Schooler Launches 'Hug a Ginger Day' Campaign
Eat My Blog: Blogger Bake Sale Will Benefit LA Foodbank
Midnight Movie: Patton Oswalt's 'Christmas Shoes'
LAist never expected the Intelligent Design to make its way here but last week while we (ed. note: well, me, mostly) were on the East coast, the Association of Christian Schools International filed a civil rights suit against the UC system for refusing to certify high school science courses that use text challenging the theory of evolution and Darwinism.
The Daily Bruin editorializes that the UC policy is effectively saying that students who are not taught what the vast majority of the scientific community accepts as true and uses in its research will simply not be able to compete with those who are.
But they also don't want to "[dispute] whether or not creationism should be taught in schools" which seems a little toothless.
We haven't really been following this intelligent design controversy as closely as we probably should have been because so little of it seems legitimate but now with lawsuits reaching our college campuses we can thank the ACSI for giving us an opportunity to learn about the flying spaghetti monster.
Image by Brian Sawyer.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Do the math.
Does the math support evolution? Ans: No
Does the math support inyelligebt design Ans: yes
The lastest math I am fimiliar with says that if the probability of any event occuring is greater than 1X10^140 (Not a chance). If the same probability is greater than 1X10^250 (Impossible).
Check out the probability of unassisted combination of the the simplest protein molecule that could be considered to be alive. Do the math that is required to apply the scientific method of analysis and you will discover that you are writing baloney. evolution created life is pure speculation with scientifically no chance for success.
Tom
Tom, please apply yourself a bit before posting. You are trying to use the concept of 'universial probibility bound', a number that is so small the universe shouod not be able to generate it. fair enough. but can you show your workings? Of course not.
=========================================
this claim has been refuted many times, here it is in its entirity.
=======================================
from: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
=====================================
The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)
==========================================
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.
Response:
=============================================
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
=============================================
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
===============================================
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
===============================================
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
===========================================
Links:
Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
===============================================
Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
References:
Spotts, Peter N. 2001. Raw materials for life may predate Earth's formation. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 30, 2001. http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/01/30/fp2s2-csm.shtml
==================================
Now - what are the odds you're a regular church going Christian, I wonder?
===================================
PS - You were attacking abiogenisis, NOT evolution. I find this greatly amusing. Throw some 'big bang' in there next time as well, eh?
======================================
PPS - I Like it that 1x10^140 is "not a chance" and 1x10^250 is impossible. You've made me smile.
A suggested book: Origins of life by Dr. Ross and Dr. Rana.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1576833445/103-9652403-8399830?v=glance
Yea, but what does that have to do with the REAL Deity, THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!
Observable evidence is at the DISCRETION of our hallowed spaghetti god. Praise him!