Sir Frederick Hoyle (1983), "The Intelligent Universe"
 

anyone quoting things of 1983 and calling them new should be the first in line to test the effects of a new version of sarin gas :2 cents:

.... where did I call this quote new? It isn't new, but it IS truth.

It's only a matter of time before Joe Citizen replies to this thread. The fish ain't biting tonight, Joey!

as sience discovers more and more ...

ok, that is the original quote but that makes me think this is something new :)

I should have stated "if you really believe that quote you should be the first in line to test a new version of sarin gas"

it would be the same if you would state "no way he won the lottery by chance because the odds where 1:100000000000000 he must of known the numbers in advance"

Actually, the lottery analogy is a bad one. With the lottery, there is a guaranteed outcome (someone WILL win, eventually). There is no guaranteed outcome wrt the origins of life.

there is NO guaranteed outcome with the lottery !


if there is a guaranteed outcome how come those powerball jackpot things keep stacking up sometimes becasue none has won yet ?

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ..._abio_prob.htm

:glugglug

This is probably the WEAKEST argument againt the probability problem that I have ever read.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

There most certainly is a guaranteed outcome, guaranteed in the sense that one of the number combinations WILL come up. There is a finite number of possibile outcomes. Such is not the case for the probability of spontaneous generation.

What's the story behind that ?

And with the chance of something happening with matter, there is also a guaranteed outcome: something will happen, even if that "something" is nothing. If reality is finite, the number of possible outcomes will even be limited. Thus, current reality was simply a possibility, one that became reality.

On the other hand, if reality is infinite, all possible outcomes are valid and true, and although there is an infinite number of possible outcomes, every single one is necessarily the case.



Ofcourse, all of this is probably moot. Pure materialism is the strongest scientific view there is at the moment. In a purely materialistic reality, if all is governed by laws of nature (which is quite likely), all is determined - future, present and past.
In that case, there's not only a finite number of possible outcomes, there is exactly one.

Not necessarry ... it's just luck . Odds are that some1 will win eventually ... but it's not a sure thing

Probability is only a problem to creationists.

Since you don't fully understand the science behind any of this, your statement doesn't really surprise me.

Putting aside the probability issue for the moment, which is no trivial matter, there are significant additional problems to consider.

First, in order for life to have spontaneously generated itself, the environment would have to have been uniquely conducive to it. (Biologists will concede that such an event would be impossible today.) THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT EVER EXISTED. Biologists, however, say that it must have because we are here, which is circular reasoning at its worst.

Second, it is not enough for any type of life form to have evolved from non-life. A very sophisticated form of life would be necessary, one with the ability to reproduce itself. If life came into existence by chance, there is no reason to expect that it should be able to self-replicate. Self-replication is a property which argues for design. In fact, the simplest known living organism in the world today shows a complexity that would make its spontaneous generation HIGHLY unlikely. The complexity of life argues for a designer.

Given the probability of such an event happening, if it ever did happen, it would be reasonable to assume it could have only happened one time, which means that single living organism would have one chance to get it right. It would have to replicate itself before being cooked by the sun and all of its self-replicating offspring would have to find a way to survive in the 'biotic soup'. One tiny shift in their environmental conditions, and it's 'sayonara'. Note that such environmental shifts are necessary in order for Natural Selection to operate. The ODDS that the environment would only change in a way to facilitate evolution, and not to destroy all living organisms, is about as astronomical as the aforementioned probability problem wrt abiogenesis.

There are a number of scientists, such as Stephen Gould, who at least concede the possibility that God created the first living organism and then allowed natural Selection to do the rest. The ONLY people who are intent on proving that chance was the 'creator' of the first living organism are atheists and secular humanists like Richard Dawkins and Joe Citizen.

boobmaster, you should be killed, your stupidity is astounding.

Please point out where I have erred? Seriously, dude. Are you calling me an idiot because there are flaws in my argument, or because you simply don't like the implications? Back up your claim or STFU.

I didn't think you'd have any 'intelligent' counter arguments to offer. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I love raggin on religeous people, it's so easy. However, since no one really knows just how the hell we ended up here, I'm keeping an open mind.

Actually, it's a problem for everybody (creationists, evolutionists, AND atheists). Atheists simply argue, unconvincingly, that it's less of a problem than creationists think it is.