How I understand Creationism in a logical way

[helmuth_hubener]

I was coming back to edit my post to be even nicer (remove accusations of hallucination), but you've gone and beat me to it!

Look, the fundamental problem is we're not working on the same level, and if I want to continue this conversation I need to change and adjust. So.... let's try it!

Here is how the conversation has gone so far, from your perspective (correct me if I get anything wrong!):

1) Me: The odds of an abiogenesis happening are 1 in *way too many*! Why, just to create a single nucleotide chain 600 base pairs long in the primordial soup would take ten million billion quadrillion nonillion googol googol googol chemical reactions (seriously. 10^360).
2) You: But improbable things can happen.
3) Me: A whole bunch of ridiculous goggledegook attempting to distract from the fact that my argument in 1) was based on probability (obviously: just read 1)!) and that you just demolished it completely in a single sentence of truth!
4) You: Repeat 2) a couple times, painstakingly forensically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did, in fact, say 1) despite my ludicrous denials, repeat 2) yet again, and finally give up in disgust.

Is that about right? That's what has happened so far, true?

 

[Mr Tansill]

I was coming back to edit my post to be even nicer (remove accusations of hallucination), but you've gone and beat me to it!

Look, the fundamental problem is we're not working on the same level, and if I want to continue this conversation I need to change and adjust. So.... let's try it!

Word. I generally omit certain parts of responses that are less substantive...helps other readers.

Here is how the conversation has gone so far, from your perspective (correct me if I get anything wrong!):

1) Me: The odds of an abiogenesis happening are 1 in *way too many*! Why, just to create a single nucleotide chain 600 base pairs long in the primordial soup would take ten million billion quadrillion nonillion googol googol googol chemical reactions (seriously. 10^360).

Yep. And my point (and Sonny's) was that fantastically improbable things happen all the time - in fact, EVERYTHING that happens is fantastically improbable when you compare it with the immense, impossibly immense, number of ways the universe can unfold.

2) You: But improbable things can happen.

Almost. Rather, everything that happens is improbable.

I was once at a museum, and there was a display that went on about DNA and its roll as a "code" for life - in the sense that proteins can be built from its instruction set. One thing that specifically jumped out at me was the number of possible combinations of human DNA that would lead to unique humans (i.e. you). The number was a 1 with 30 BILLION zeros coming after it (10 ^ (30x10^9) ). That number is so impossibly huge as to defy all (to this point) human attempts to wrangle it. No computer devised could deal with such a large number; thus, by definition, there are some things which are beyond our ability to calculate or currently comprehend - this does not provide a stepping stone to any story we desire, however.

In your post above, you quoted a number (10^360), which is staggeringly enormous (hundreds of orders of magnitude greater than there are atoms in the universe), but which still pales in comparison to the number of unique humans that are "possible" given the current "protocol" of our human DNA. And here, to me, is the central point: all arguments that suggest impossibility due to improbability lay upon a very elementary understanding of just how large numbers can be, and how "much" is occurring in the universe. The number I quoted above can hardly be represented in a computer using base 10 arithmetic, let alone the actual number of "things" that number represents in physical reality (I dare not imagine a complex number of those things...).

When we play in combinatorics, the shear numbers of interactions or possibilities become almost immediately unwieldy. You and I are talking about problems that are far, far, FAR more complex than even the most difficult which computer scientists, physicists, and mathematicians are actually close to solving. Ruling out the improbable has been the mistake of many, many people throughout history.

Take a look at that link (Combinatorial Explosion) to get an idea for how unimaginably large numbers can be. The first table of Latin squares shown, illustrates how fast numbers "get big." Now, put 10^80 (~ number of atoms in the universe) in the spot for n...I can't even name the number in the right column after n = 8...how big do you think the number in the right column would be if n was 10^80? All of a sudden, impossible becomes inevitable.

Which leads me to my next point: ANY non-zero probability WILL happen. That is true definitionally. So going back to #1 above, your 1 out of 10^360 might seem impossible (improbable), but it only seems that way.

3) Me: A whole bunch of ridiculous goggledegook attempting to distract from the fact that my argument in 1) was based on probability (obviously: just read 1)!) and that you just demolished it completely in a single sentence of truth!

And this is where I get lost. To, me (and maybe I'm the only one) you quote probability as a reason to invalidate a theory (I bolded it). Again, it was your position and argument that "improbability" is an acceptable reason for dismissing a theory. Why??? I guess this is the point on which I need more explanation.

4) You: Repeat 2) a couple times, painstakingly forensically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did, in fact, say 1) despite my ludicrous denials, repeat 2) yet again, and finally give up in disgust.

Is that about right? That's what has happened so far, true?

Mostly, I think, less the disgust. Again, I want a reasoned response to a religious argument to exist in this thread. And thank you for helping get this back on track.

Now, all of that said above was for the following:

1. To rule out the logic of improbable = impossible.
1a. To ask the question 'Why does your argument rely on "improbability"'?

2. If 1a is false, then why did you bring up improbability?
2a. If 1a doesn't matter, then why did you bring it up?

3. If neither 1 or 2, what is your argument stated succinctly and directly?

 

[wizardwatson]

In debating those that believe in evolution and not in a divine creator their modus operandi is to break up the concept of creation into the scientific fields of cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. It makes their total defense of their world view easier. But those three topics are like a house; the foundation the walls and the roof.

As for the six days idea, I disagree with that because basic science doesn't support it, why would God be bound to our solar systems definition of time.
As a day in the bible can and does refer to Epochs or Era's. Just like I would use the modern expression of in this Kings day, which would represent the lifespan of that King.

Creationists that stubbornly hold to the only in 6 days ideology are just making it harder for themselves to defend creation.
Just old dinosaur fossils found on earth and light reaching us from stars a billion light years away disprove that.

Conclusion: The universe and the earth were created billions of years ago, plant and animal life on our planet was crated millions of years ago, and man was created just over 6000 years ago.

Maybe you need to look beyond "basic science".

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

15 billion years or six days?

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between nucleosynthesis, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons and neutrons when matter formed, and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see a pulse every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the six days. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, that comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!

The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them. For the duration of each day and the details of how that matches with the measured history of the universe and the earth, see The Science of God.

The bible is encoded, and multi-layered with symbolism. The original Hebrew of the Old Testament is even more mysterious.

If you're going to be agnostic, you must consider the possibility that a being more advanced than you wrote the Bible. Because the Bible claims that the words in it are the recorded words of God.

If you start from the conclusion that simple backwards men made all this up, and it isn't some being who knows more about science than you can comprehend, how will you even begin to see the pattern concealed within it?

Anyway, the 6 days of Genesis does not conflict with Big Bang theory and General Relativity as per Shroeders interpretation.

EDIT: There's also a 5 part youtube series titled "Genesis and the Big Bang" if you'd rather listen to him explain it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZfgIFuoIBs

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Is that about right? That's what has happened so far, true?

Mostly, I think, less the disgust.

Exasperation, then. Let us not quibble about minutiae. Basically, you say, I got it right. That is how the conversation has gone so far.

This makes my job difficult.

That's the fun of it, though, eh? Happily, it at least gives us a starting point. It also means subtlety is out. And yet, most of my points (it's not as if I have one "point" or one "argument" here) have been subtle. How does one make subtle points non-subtle? A big challenge! Hmm.

OK, here's what we'll do. Forget probability. Throw that out (for the time being). We'll start at the top instead of the bottom.

Above, I distilled our conversation down to 4 steps, 4 steps with which you agreed. Now I will distill it even further. This is what you see happening here:

Me: Anti-Science
You: Pro-Science

You are here in this thread for one reason and one reason only: to promote Science in the face of superstition. You have written as much multiple times now, and I take your self-image at face value. You are a Science Crusader fighting the good fight -- for Science!

There is a problem with this model, though, and it's very important: the first half is not true! I am not anti-science. I come from a family of scientists. I have been actually, literally involved in helping with data-collection for scientific research from the age of, hmm, probably about eight. Unless you, Mr. Tansill, are yourself a professional scientist, I would surmise I have probably spent about one hundred times more time in the laboratory than you have. I love science. I understand, to a great degree, science. I believe in science. And I know, somewhat, how to do science. I have even myself done some science, though in a very limited and applied way (no basic research or published papers) and only once or twice, for specific projects.

Do you believe me? It's true. And so the real model, the true model is this:

Me: Pro-science
You: Pro-science

Now that breaks the conversation. I understand. Totally breaks it. It blows up your paradigm. That's unfortunate, and it means that you will probably not be able to deal with it and simply will bow out and that's the end of the conversation. And yet, it is the way that it really is, and if we are to continue you must accept that truth.

So: science. I am for it. You are for it. Let's talk about it.

What is the glory of science? What is it that makes it so great? So credible? I will tell you, in one word:

Testability

That is how science has succeeded in uncovering truths. For science is not an ideology, it is not a camp, it is not even a way of looking at the world; it is not "Science," it is a method. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Empirical science consists of a method: a precisely defined, rigorous method. And that method has what distinguishing feature? That's right:

Testability

Are you with me so far? Are we in agreement?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

everything that happens is improbable.

I was once at a museum, and there was a display that went on about DNA and its roll as a "code" for life - in the sense that proteins can be built from its instruction set. One thing that specifically jumped out at me was the number of possible combinations of human DNA that would lead to unique humans (i.e. you). The number was a 1 with 30 BILLION zeros coming after it (10 ^ (30x10^9) ). That number is so impossibly huge as to defy all (to this point) human attempts to wrangle it.

The odds against everything that has ever happened actually happening dwarfs even (10 ^ (30x10^9). Consider all of the hands ever dealt in bridge and in every other card game; all throws of dice ever made; all results of every spin of a roulette wheel that has occurred; the results of every coin flip, lottery drawing, or other random event in history; indeed, consider every single event that has occurred from the creation of the universe to the present time, including my eating a ham sandwich yesterday, Marilyn Monroe marrying Arthur Miller, an arrow piercing Harold's eye at the Battle of Hastings, and the Cubs going 107 years without winning the World Series. I suspect that the odds against all these events occurring is larger by far than any improbability that creationists could ever imagine.

ANY non-zero probability WILL happen

I think it would be more accurate to say that given a sufficient number of trials the probability that an unlikely event will happen can be made as close to certainty as desired. For example, if twenty fair coins were flipped 5 million times, the probability that they would come up all heads at least once is .9915.

 

[Mr Tansill]

That is how science has succeeded in uncovering truths. For science is not an ideology, it is not a camp, it is not even a way of looking at the world; it is not "Science," it is a method. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Empirical science consists of a method: a precisely defined, rigorous method. And that method has what distinguishing feature? That's right:

Testability

Are you with me so far? Are we in agreement?

No, you lost me. I think I've made my point. If probability is not part of your justification for dismissing a theory, then my point has been made.

The odds against everything that has ever happened actually happening dwarfs even (10 ^ (30x10^9). Consider all of the hands ever dealt in bridge and in every other card game; all throws of dice ever made; all results of every spin of a roulette wheel that has occurred; the results of every coin flip, lottery drawing, or other random event in history; indeed, consider every single event that has occurred from the creation of the universe to the present time, including my eating a ham sandwich yesterday, Marilyn Monroe marrying Arthur Miller, an arrow piercing Harold's eye at the Battle of Hastings, and the Cubs going 107 years without winning the World Series. I suspect that the odds against all these events occurring is larger by far than any improbability that creationists could ever imagine.

I think it would be more accurate to say that given a sufficient number of trials the probability that an unlikely event will happen can be made as close to certainty as desired. For example, if twenty fair coins were flipped 5 million times, the probability that they would come up all heads at least once is .9915.

Ok, sure. I think another relevant point, is that no matter how finite (small) each and every possible outcome is, when taken in their totality, they add to 1.0. Now, when reality presents to you a "spin of the roulette wheel" as it were, and we express incredulity at the outcome, it is really no different from a qualitative stand point that expressing the same incredulity when the number 14 pops out on the roulette wheel, or a certain bridge hand is dealt, or any other occurrence.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No, you lost me.

Seriously?

Science is testable. Where is the impenetrability there? Where in that could you possibly get lost?

I knew you would not understand Sonny's points, but mine was really simple!

Come on, tell me you understand the concept of science being testable. Admit that you agree that the core feature of the scientific method is its testability. I know you're smart enough to understand this.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Now, when reality presents to you a "spin of the roulette wheel" as it were, and we express incredulity at the outcome, it is really no different from a qualitative stand point that expressing the same incredulity when the number 14 pops out on the roulette wheel, or a certain bridge hand is dealt, or any other occurrence.

There's a story about a man who told a friend, "I was at the roulette table and saw the number 10 come up six times in a row*." How unlikely was that?" His friend replied, "That wasn't nearly as unlikely as the fact that you were there to see it."

* This actually happened at a Puerto Rico casino in 1959. The odds against it are 3 billion to 1. But this pales in comparison to red's coming up 32 times in a row, which happened in 1943 against odds of 24 billion to 1.

Sean Connery once won three consecutive bets on 17, bucking odds of only 50,653 to 1 (it was a European wheel).

 

[Mr Tansill]

There's a story about a man who told a friend, "I was at the roulette table and saw the number 10 come up six times in a row*." How unlikely was that?" His friend replied, "That wasn't nearly as unlikely as the fact that you were there to see it."

* This actually happened at a Puerto Rico casino in 1959. The odds against it are 3 billion to 1. But this pales in comparison to red's coming up 32 times in a row, which happened in 1943 against odds of 24 billion to 1.

Sean Connery once won three consecutive bets on 17, bucking odds of only 50,653 to 1 (it was a European wheel).

Yeah, I could see that.

Estimating 2000 roulette wheels around the world, each being spun 20 times per hour, 24 hours per day for the last 74 years gives ~26 Billion spins - I would expect that to happen.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Seriously?

Science is testable. Where is the impenetrability there? Where in that could you possibly get lost?

I knew you would not understand Sonny's points, but mine was really simple!

Come on, tell me you understand the concept of science being testable. Admit that you agree that the core feature of the scientific method is its testability. I know you're smart enough to understand this.

Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?

 

[Superfluous Man]

There's a story about a man who told a friend, "I was at the roulette table and saw the number 10 come up six times in a row*." How unlikely was that?" His friend replied, "That wasn't nearly as unlikely as the fact that you were there to see it."

* This actually happened at a Puerto Rico casino in 1959. The odds against it are 3 billion to 1. But this pales in comparison to red's coming up 32 times in a row, which happened in 1943 against odds of 24 billion to 1.

Sean Connery once won three consecutive bets on 17, bucking odds of only 50,653 to 1 (it was a European wheel).

But the odds against our universe meeting the preconditions for human existence are more in the order of 10^1,000 to 1.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?

If the improbability of something is sufficiently extreme, then it is effectively impossible.

The only other option is to reserve the word "impossible" for purely abstract mathematical and logical claims.

 

[otherone]

Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?

Not the chubby Belgian that HH adores, but this works:


When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
-Sherlock Holmes.

 

[otherone]

But the odds against our universe meeting the preconditions for human existence are more in the order of 10^1,000 to 1.

Weird. And yet here we are. Maybe.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Weird. And yet here we are. Maybe.

Yes. Our existence is definitely not a random occurrence.

 

[otherone]

Yes. Our existence is definitely not a random occurrence.

My Determinism agrees with you.

 

[Mr Tansill]

If the improbability of something is sufficiently extreme, then it is effectively impossible.

The only other option is to reserve the word "impossible" for purely abstract mathematical and logical claims.

Absolutely not. The central lesson from Calculus, is that you can add up an infinite number of things, but still get a finite result.

Do you care to assign a numeric value to your claim that because a number is too small it's not possible?

A game with two outcomes = 50/50.
A game with three outcomes = 33.3/33.3/33.3
A game with four outcomes = 25/25/25/25
...
A game with a googolplex outcomes = 1 out of a googolplex.

You can continue that process indefinitely.

I am merely pointing out the qualitative equivalence of ruling out certain outcomes in all of the above games. Ruling out any outcome from any of the games above is the exact same act. From an "improbability" standpoint you may as well declare arriving at "heads" in a coin-flipping game to be impossible - it's no different. Where in the sequence above are you comfortable drawing the line?

 

[Mr Tansill]

Not the chubby Belgian that HH adores, but this works:


When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
-Sherlock Holmes.

Chubby Belgian?

 

[otherone]

Chubby Belgian?

Christie's Hercules Poirot. From earlier in the thread. I was too stoopit to understand his point. Something about using probability to predict the past.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Absolutely not. The central lesson from Calculus, is that you can add up an infinite number of things, but still get a finite result.

Do you care to assign a numeric value to your claim that because a number is too small it's not possible?

A game with two outcomes = 50/50.
A game with three outcomes = 33.3/33.3/33.3
A game with four outcomes = 25/25/25/25
...
A game with a googolplex outcomes = 1 out of a googolplex.

You can continue that process indefinitely.

I am merely pointing out the qualitative equivalence of ruling out certain outcomes in all of the above games. Ruling out any outcome from any of the games above is the exact same act. From an "improbability" standpoint you may as well declare arriving at "heads" in a coin-flipping game to be impossible - it's no different. Where in the sequence above are you comfortable drawing the line?

The numerical value would depend on the context. It would not be the same in a game with two possible outcomes as it would in one with a googolplex possible outcomes.

But, practically speaking, in any given context, no matter what the size of the set involved is, there comes a point where the probability of something is so low that it is effectively negligible.

Practically speaking, it is perfectly rational to say that a monkey sitting down at a computer and typing out the works of Shakespeare by randomly hitting keys is impossible.

I'm not sure if that would still be fair to say if there were a googolplex monkeys with a googolplex computers over a span of a googolplex years. At some point the size of the set would be large enough that my claim would not hold. But given the number of monkeys, computers, and years that actually exist, it does.