Statistical evidence of god

[lightgigantic]

Ever heard of irreducible complexity? Take this excerpt from "God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists" by Ray Comfort:

"Perhaps the greatest proof of the Creator’s existence is seen when you gaze into the mirror. Your eyes have focusing muscles that move an estimated 100,000 times each day. Each eye has within a retina that covers less than a square inch and contains137 million light-sensitive cells. Even....Charles Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
......The famous statician George Gallup said," I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone: the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." "

If one can infer the existence of macro-evolution by inference (ie the absence of direct perception), why not god?

 

[Ophiolite]

Even....Charles Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

LightGigantic I accuse you of deceit; I accuse you of lying; I accuse you of gross dishonesty; I accuse you of unChristian behaviour; I accuse you of despicable conduct. Your post, opening this thread, is a vile deceit. Your behaviour in posting it is reprehensible. For such a gross distortion of the truth you should be banned permanently from this forum, and, if I had the power to do so, stripped of any and all educational qualifications you possess.

The quotation above seems, yes seems, to say that even Darwin felt that the eye could not develop by chance alone. Putting that quote out of context, and using it to justify that position is the disgusting behaviour I refer to. Fie upon you.

Place the sentence in its proper context:
TO suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
Source: Origin of Species. Charles Robert Darwin

And that completely transforms the meaning of the quotation.

May your God forgive you for your gross, underhand dishonesty. I certainly shall not.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well I guess you will have to fie Ray Comfort since it was his quote - I don't knowif he is a christian or not

but all this aside,it still says nothing about the statistical evidence of god - namely that given the complexity of the human body, thechances of it existing without a creator are lesser than the chances of it existing with one - if a person can accept macro evolution in the absence of direct perception why not god?

 

[KennyJC]

This is a flawed argument.

You say that the complexity of the universe arising from natural phenomena is somehow LESS likely than complexity of the universe arising from a god-like sentient being?

 

[lightgigantic]

Thats correct - the statistics seem to support god rather than disprove him - macro-evolution is accepted on the same grounds

 

[Prince_James]

A question ought to be raised: What makes something "irreducibly" complex? For by presuming irreducibility of complexity you presume that there is a complexity which can be explained in natural phenomena, and therefore, that any complexity might well be from purely naturalistic processes.

 

[KennyJC]

How can statistics (which you don't appear to be able to show) support 'God'?

By saying the universe was created from natural phenomena, there is no need for a far-fetched claim. By saying "God did it", you have added something far-fetched to the theory which therefor makes it LESS likely.

Please explain the connection between this and evolution.

 

[lightgigantic]

How can statistics (which you don't appear to be able to show) support 'God'?

By saying the universe was created from natural phenomena, there is no need for a far-fetched claim. By saying "God did it", you have added something far-fetched to the theory which therefor makes it LESS likely.

Please explain the connection between this and evolution.

You could give the statistics for a chimpanzee typing the encyclopedia britanica giving the chances of them hitting the keys randomly in the right order - you cannot provide the statistics for a naturally self creating universe although Ithink we could say it is even less likely than being highly inlikely - inotherwords god is inferred just as macro evolution (no laborartory evidence of macro-evolution) is inferred - in both cases direct perception is not a pre requisite

 

[KennyJC]

You could give the statistics for a chimpanzee typing the encyclopedia britanica giving the chances of them hitting the keys randomly in the right order - you cannot provide the statistics for a naturally self creating universe although Ithink we could say it is even less likely than being highly inlikely

You can not give statistics for a 'self creating' universe just as you can not give one for a sentient being creating the universe. Never the less using the famous occams razor, the simplest answer must be considered the right one - and that would be the answer without sky fairies.

- inotherwords god is inferred just as macro evolution (no laborartory evidence of macro-evolution) is inferred - in both cases direct perception is not a pre requisite

Macro-evolution is just evolution - macro and micro evolution are unified under evolution. The fossil record - again using occams razor would say that the simplest explanation for the correlation and gradual complexity of species branching off, would be evolution.

To say anything different would be going against evidence and adding some more unlikely theory, such as creation. Is it more likely that the gradual way hominids began walking upright, was each a unique species created from scratch? Or that it was simply evolution at work?

 

[Ophiolite]

Well I guess you will have to fie Ray Comfort since it was his quote - I don't knowif he is a christian or not

You posted the quote. You support its contention. You are the liar. Don't you feel even slightly embarassed at being so dishonest?

 

[Perishiko]

You can not give statistics for a 'self creating' universe just as you can not give one for a sentient being creating the universe. Never the less using the famous occams razor, the simplest answer must be considered the right one - and that would be the answer without sky fairies.



Macro-evolution is just evolution - macro and micro evolution are unified under evolution. The fossil record - again using occams razor would say that the simplest explanation for the correlation and gradual complexity of species branching off, would be evolution.

To say anything different would be going against evidence and adding some more unlikely theory, such as creation. Is it more likely that the gradual way hominids began walking upright, was each a unique species created from scratch? Or that it was simply evolution at work?

Are you kidding me? You're trying to say that the simplest answer is that we all came from a set amount of cells and over all this time evolved to have all these weaknesses? Of course, none of the great predators killed us over all our time of evolving our brain, luckily. But, of course. A simple "God created us." isn't a more simple answer?

Wow, I really think you have things backwords there. The easiest answer will always be "God created us." Simply because it's incredibly simplistic and leaves room for errors. All the horrible natural selections, and species that are alive which i think shouldn't be. At least you'd be able to say "Well, it was in god's plan. It's what he wanted."

And by the way, there's no evidence that that's how the world started up. It's not like we're argueing "against the truth!". Really, I think macro evolution and micro evolution are incredibly different. As do thousands of people.

 

[Ophiolite]

Perishko, get an education, then come back and tell us what you have learned. Your current level of ignorance is criminal.

 

[wsionynw]

Are you kidding me? You're trying to say that the simplest answer is that we all came from a set amount of cells and over all this time evolved to have all these weaknesses? Of course, none of the great predators killed us over all our time of evolving our brain, luckily. But, of course. A simple "God created us." isn't a more simple answer?

Wow, I really think you have things backwords there. The easiest answer will always be "God created us." Simply because it's incredibly simplistic and leaves room for errors. All the horrible natural selections, and species that are alive which i think shouldn't be. At least you'd be able to say "Well, it was in god's plan. It's what he wanted."

And by the way, there's no evidence that that's how the world started up. It's not like we're argueing "against the truth!". Really, I think macro evolution and micro evolution are incredibly different. As do thousands of people.

Not at all, what Kenny was quite rightly pointing out is that since there is no evidence to support creation myth, and there is a lot of evidence to support evolution theory, then evolution theory is the most likely explanation for the origin of species. By your logic the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be just as likely to have created life in all it's variety on Earth.
Regarding the complexity of the human eye, it's already noted that although the human eye is very good at what it does (I have no complaints) it is by no means the most complex or efficient eye in nature. There seems to be some strange arguments about macro evolution, I think people of the religious persuasion are imagining chimpanzees giving birth to human babies

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ever heard of irreducible complexity?

Yes, it's a subjective opinion that people use to avoid truth.

If one can infer the existence of macro-evolution by inference (ie the absence of direct perception), why not god?

'Macro' and 'Micro' evolution are the same thing. Believers like to seperate the two because 'Micro' evolution is reproducible in a lab (hence they cannot deny it's existence) while 'Macro' evolution is not reprodible in a lab because its a process where an individual doesn't live long enough to witness; although, we can see historical results through the planet's fossil record.

To answer the question more simply, evolution is demonstrated through supportive evidence. There is no supportive evidence for 'God'.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Are you kidding me? You're trying to say that the simplest answer is that we all came from a set amount of cells and over all this time evolved to have all these weaknesses?

Alot of evidence seems to suggest that viruses were the beginnings of all life. Should this be true then your oldest ancestor might look something like the common cold.

Of course, none of the great predators killed us over all our time of evolving our brain, luckily. But, of course. A simple "God created us." isn't a more simple answer?

Predators were probably an environmental pressure that resulted in greater intelligence for humans. The stupid ones were more likely to get eaten. Then again, humans are the most successful predators on the planet...

Wow, I really think you have things backwords there. The easiest answer will always be "God created us."

Yep, 'God' did it is the 'easiest' answer. There is no evidence such a life form exists; hence, it is the answer farthest away from the truth.

And by the way, there's no evidence that that's how the world started up. It's not like we're argueing "against the truth!". Really, I think macro evolution and micro evolution are incredibly different. As do thousands of people.

That differentiation is an educational issue. There is plenty of evidence concerning how Earth formed as there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. That this process exists is fact. All thats left is just to grab as many details as we can.

 

[Cris]

Light,

Can you quote any single example of anything complex ever being formed that was not first the result of something simpler, either man made or whatever?

I do not see we have anything to indicate that anything complex has ever been caused outside of an evolutionary process.

 

[Perishiko]

Alot of evidence seems to suggest that viruses were the beginnings of all life. Should this be true then your oldest ancestor might look something like the common cold.



Predators were probably an environmental pressure that resulted in greater intelligence for humans. The stupid ones were more likely to get eaten. Then again, humans are the most successful predators on the planet...



Yep, 'God' did it is the 'easiest' answer. There is no evidence such a life form exists; hence, it is the answer farthest away from the truth.



That differentiation is an educational issue. There is plenty of evidence concerning how Earth formed as there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. That this process exists is fact. All thats left is just to grab as many details as we can.

Edited for reasons;

1. Going to learn more about cosmology. Have to form different opinions.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Edited for reasons;

1. Going to learn more about cosmology. Have to form different opinions.

Keep in mind that Cosmology and Evolution have different focus and should not be equated.

 

[Sarkus]

You could give the statistics for a chimpanzee typing the encyclopedia britanica giving the chances of them hitting the keys randomly in the right order...

True - and I would say it is remote.

...you cannot provide the statistics for a naturally self creating universe...

Until we know what the initial cause of our universe was, if it has one, we can not know. It is absurd to ask.
Without knowing on what basis to make the probability assessment, you can not calculate probability.

But, if it turns out that this is a naturally self creating universe, then the probability is 100% - as we are here.

... although Ithink we could say it is even less likely than being highly inlikely - inotherwords god is inferred just as macro evolution (no laborartory evidence of macro-evolution) is inferred - in both cases direct perception is not a pre requisite

Logical fallacy.
Small probability does not equate to "God did it" - it merely equates to "lucky".

But you are still just mucking around with statistics - which when used improperly can lead you to any number of conclusions....


Shuffle and deal a deck 100 different cards - all of them.
What was the chance you would get that EXACT order?
The way you're looking at it, it would be 1 in 9*10^157.

Do you know how remote that is?

It is the same as picking a specific atom from our Universe - TWICE!!

And yet you did deal those 100 cards in that order!
How bizarre is that!!

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

Can you quote any single example of anything complex ever being formed that was not first the result of something simpler, either man made or whatever?

I do not see we have anything to indicate that anything complex has ever been caused outside of an evolutionary process.

I guess I am not understanding the nature of your question because there are heaps of examples - like for instance a child can draw a crayon picture of a computer.

Even to work with the idea of evolution, it doesn't really explain how consciousness came to exist out of matter - All you are saying is that the forms that consciousness inhabits may theoretically change over milleniums - it says nothing about how consciousness came to exist distinct from matter