The "Hardware" of Life Argument for a...

The "Hardware" of Life Argument for an Intelligent Designer, part 1

There are 10 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jul 24, 2013, titled The "Hardware" of Life Argument for an Intelligent Designer, part 1. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

The common scientific view of the "hardware of life" is, as Biologist Richard Dawkins puts it, "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Leicester, UK

#1 Jul 24, 2013
I like another way to refute the "odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power" argument.
First state the obvious, this is not how evolution works, their would have been less complex things before the bacterium.
Second convert the 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power to the number 10,000,000,000,000 and then show the probability of a single leaf falling (19,750,348,800,000 to 1) and DarkAntics video "Beating Astronomical Odds"

It doesn't directly relate to the odds of a single... argument but it does show that probability doesn't matter, it is the rate of attempts that matters. Role 30 dice for long enough and you will get them to be all six's at some point just like you would if you got many sets of dice rolling at the same time. Time and mass numbers can make the near impossible a daily occurrence.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#2 Jul 24, 2013
You don't even need to roll all 6s.
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
I like another way to refute the "odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power" argument.
First state the obvious, this is not how evolution works, their would have been less complex things before the bacterium.
Second convert the 10 to the 100,000,000,000th power to the number 10,000,000,000,000 and then show the probability of a single leaf falling (19,750,348,800,000 to 1) and DarkAntics video "Beating Astronomical Odds"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =hKPrBV_PCKsXX
It doesn't directly relate to the odds of a single... argument but it does show that probability doesn't matter, it is the rate of attempts that matters. Role 30 dice for long enough and you will get them to be all six's at some point just like you would if you got many sets of dice rolling at the same time. Time and mass numbers can make the near impossible a daily occurrence.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Leicester, UK

#3 Jul 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
You don't even need to roll all 6s.
<quoted text>
It's just more impressive if say all six's, I know the chances are the same as any other combination but (for better or worse) the human heart doesn't take that into consideration.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#4 Jul 24, 2013
Thinking

Royston, UK

#5 Jul 24, 2013
I recently posted on how unlikely it was that you dealt your last 52 card deck in that order - about 1.2*10^-66 of a percent - but it 100% just happened.
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
It's just more impressive if say all six's, I know the chances are the same as any other combination but (for better or worse) the human heart doesn't take that into consideration.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Leicester, UK

#6 Jul 24, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I recently posted on how unlikely it was that you dealt your last 52 card deck in that order - about 1.2*10^-66 of a percent - but it 100% just happened.
<quoted text>
I assume that's bigger because my brain can't grasp that number.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#7 Jul 24, 2013
Looking at it the other way up, there are 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660 ,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,4 40,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 possible combinations of a 52 card deck.

Yet any dealt previously is 100% probable.

The next time anyone says "life is too unlikely to have happened without [insert deity here]", maybe this will help them see how flawed their argument is.
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume that's bigger because my brain can't grasp that number.
Amused

North Andover, MA

#8 Jul 29, 2013
The puddle fits exactly into the depression in the ground. Therefore, the whole thing has to have been designed, otherwise they would not fit so perfectly together.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#9 Jul 29, 2013
I can see why you link depression with religion.
Amused wrote:
The puddle fits exactly into the depression in the ground. Therefore, the whole thing has to have been designed, otherwise they would not fit so perfectly together.
Amused

North Andover, MA

#10 Jul 30, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I can see why you link depression with religion.
<quoted text>
It is depressing that so many people with the 'hardware' needed to think choose instead to put their brains in neutral and coast with 'goddidit'.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Science 85,726
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 9 min Dogen 5,123
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Mon Eagle 12 - 115
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Jan 17 ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web