Thank you for clarifying terms being used. Question:
Does mathematics establish or discover the necessity of a Deity and how does it do this?
Proof of a Deity
- Thread starter rjr6
- Start date
Thank you for clarifying terms being used. Question:
Does mathematics establish or discover the necessity of a Deity and how does it do this?
It would have been better if I had said necessity of a creator rather than deity since 'deity' is a loaded term around here.
When I say 'mathematics' I have specific reference to probability, and an indirect reference to its cousin, information theory. The Earth exhibits staggering complexity on every level. Even the most simple self replicating molecule that could be considered living (according to NASA) contains at least 400 linked amino acids, and each acid is itself made up of 4 or 5 other major units. Golay demonstrated (Golay, Marcel,Reflections of a Communications Engineer, Analytical Chemistry, Vol 33, June 1961, p23.) that the probability of the chance formation of even the simplest self replicating protein molecule is 1 in 10^450.
In other words--flatly impossible. So, if it could not have happened by chance then what? Where did it come from? To me it is obvious: it was designed, and that brings us to information theory. In a nut shell, information does not and can not create itself. So where did the necessary information for the formation of that little 400 acid chain come from?
It would have been better if I had said necessity of a creator rather than deity since 'deity' is a loaded term around here.
When I say 'mathematics' I have specific reference to probability, and an indirect reference to its cousin, information theory. The Earth exhibits staggering complexity on every level. Even the most simple self replicating molecule that could be considered living (according to NASA) contains at least 400 linked amino acids, and each acid is itself made up of 4 or 5 other major units. Golay demonstrated (Golay, Marcel,Reflections of a Communications Engineer, Analytical Chemistry, Vol 33, June 1961, p23.) that the probability of the chance formation of even the simplest self replicating protein molecule is 1 in 10^450.
In other words--flatly impossible. So, if it could not have happened by chance then what? Where did it come from? To me it is obvious: it was designed, and that brings us to information theory. In a nut shell, information does not and can not create itself. So where did the necessary information for the formation of that little 400 acid chain come from?
If you express the probability of an event, how can you then say it is flatly impossible. If it were, the probability would be zero.
Read up on evolution and give creationism a rest. You might learn something
It has already been pointed out to you that your argument based on probability is invalid. You might learn something if you read as I suggest.
In the first place, none of the assumptions necessary for that calculation hold in reality - the events are not independent, for starters.old man said:
In the second, that calculation only applies to chance formation, not evolutionary development.
So it is an argument for a Creator only in a world in which evolution has been ruled out, and chance is the only other possibility. In this world, evolution has been firmly supported, not ruled out.
It would have been better if I had said necessity of a creator rather than deity since 'deity' is a loaded term around here.
When I say 'mathematics' I have specific reference to probability, and an indirect reference to its cousin, information theory. The Earth exhibits staggering complexity on every level. Even the most simple self replicating molecule that could be considered living (according to NASA) contains at least 400 linked amino acids, and each acid is itself made up of 4 or 5 other major units. Golay demonstrated (Golay, Marcel,Reflections of a Communications Engineer, Analytical Chemistry, Vol 33, June 1961, p23.) that the probability of the chance formation of even the simplest self replicating protein molecule is 1 in 10^450.
In other words--flatly impossible. So, if it could not have happened by chance then what? Where did it come from? To me it is obvious: it was designed, and that brings us to information theory. In a nut shell, information does not and can not create itself. So where did the necessary information for the formation of that little 400 acid chain come from?
Thank you for your posts. They speak to my question to atheist- what would they consider as proof? If you have quoted your figures correctly, and assuming they are correct, any aspect of this universe is impossible without a creator-as discovered by mathematics.
Sadly, atheatic scientists prescribe clever names for things they don't understand and base every bit of their knowledge, and the enviornment they conduct their experiments in, on something they have no explanation for.
Thank you. It amazes me that someone could cling to the hope that a 10^450 chance of even the simplest self replicating molecule forming by chance is what happened. There is evidently no comprehension how large a number that is. Within mathematics any probability >10^50 is defined as impossible. Further, several posters have tried to insist that "evolutionary development" somehow differs from pure chance when pure chance is the foundation, such as it is, of evolution. The same also deny the calculations, not because they can prove them wrong, but on the basis of special pleading.
I'm glad I didn't mention the probability of forming the proteins and DNA in that simple 400 unit entity is on the order of 10^167626.
Old man, you are making the mistake of thinking the simplest presently known self-replicating entity arrived complete in a spontaneous way. This is a misunderstanding. Evolution describes a gradual process of improvement. One can envision other replicating systems that are possible that no longer exist, starting from even simpler systems.
Last edited:
No, I do not assume a complete spontaneous appearance even though the odds are better for that than for a process of gradual evolution.
I quote George Wald, 1967 Nobel Prize winner in Science:
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved long ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What is the probability that you will eventually learn that your argument is invalid ? I put it at zero.
Not to mention a Boeing aircraft with exactly 50 passengers plus crew flying over Davy Crockett's hut near Greenville TE and exactly 2 mins past 12 on the first Tuesday of every month in consecutive leap years !
Last edited:
So why do you choose not to express what you regard as the better odds ?
Do not assume that my statement validates your argument in any way: it is nonsense.
You should know by now that his figures are meaningless. If you disagree, tell us why !
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Really? how so?
A tip - don't tell the evolutionary theorists what their theory really is, or is really founded on, when they tell you different. They know what their theory is, and you don't.old man said:
Your probability calculations depend on assumptions not met in reality. You might as well calculate the probability of a given set of water vapor molecules scattered throughout the earth's atmosphere randomly coalescing in the air and being pulled down exactly where you are standing, and conclude that raindrops could never fall on your head unless God aimed them.
The Nobel Prize winner George Wald was completely serious. I wonder why you aren't?
From the foreword to the 1971 edition of Origin of Species the British biologist L. Harrison Matthews concedes:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory---is it then science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation---both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
And I'll go him one better. Evolution isn't, by definition, even a theory because it can not be observed or tested, or experimentally verified.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory---is it then science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation---both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
And I'll go him one better. Evolution isn't, by definition, even a theory because it can not be observed or tested, or experimentally verified.
Why not quote from something a bit more up to date and based on a consensus view rather than that of one individual.
You are clearly unaware that nothing can be proved. All one can offer is the best explanation available at a particular time. It is even possible that the law of gravity may one day be disproved but I would say it is highly unlikely. Compare this open-minded attitude with the half-truths put about by people such as yourself who regard their views as gospel ( pun intended ). Your sort of stuff will prove convincing to others such as yourself. who do not understand the sheer nonsense of your arguments.
You are constantly being told on here that your propbabilities have no basis in reality but you cannot accept it. You clearly do not know what the hell you are talking about, which is why you persist in believing you have an argument to offer.
Evolution has been observed and tested. No theory can be "verified" - that's not one of the criteria of a theory.old man said:
Meanwhile, a quick check on Matthew's quote turned this up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/author.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.7
And this is of course nonsense:
Why should anyone believe something silly like that, because some Nobel Prize winner (in Science? are you parodying yourself ? ) said it ?
But there's more wrong with that particular version of arguing from authority - namely that no apparent source exists. As far as I can tell George Wald never said that, or anything like it. It appears to be fabricated. Can you provide the original source, in Wald's writings ?
Wald did say these:
Wald said:
Last edited: