Dan Lietha #fundie

Dan Lietha #fundie answersingenesis.org

74 comments

old comment by David B.

Actually, that's more likely the odds of you doing your sums right.

But just for a laugh let's apply "creation math" to the problem of God's existence.

Now "creation math" doesn't allow for any gradual accumulation of traits, no-siree. It's got to be one tornado, blowing through one junkyard and building at least one 747. So let's say there is a god, how powerful will that god be? Well he could be very powerful like apollo, very-very powerful like Zeus, semi-powerful like Heracles, etc. In fact he could have any amount of power at all. But you say he happens to have infinite power. But the chances of a god having infinite power out of all the amounts of power he could have is 1/oo!

Now how much knowledge does he have? Well I suppose he could be anything from an insensible, mad, idiot god to - i don't know - omniscient? What you're god is omniscient too? Well the odds of that are 1/oo!

Finally, how nice a god is he? I mean some gods are pretty mean, some are downright evil, most are pretty capricious, but I guess a few are okay for the most part. Wait, you say your god is omnibenevolent? So he's not the god of the bible then! (Haha, just joking (not).) Wow so of all the nicenesses he could have had he chose infinity again? That's another 1/oo!

So now we are in a position to work out just how likely it is that there is a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god...

1/oo x 1/oo x 1/oo = ...
(Just let me double check...)
...0!

Yes! There's still no fucking chance!

Of course, having now proved this with math, you will immediately abandon all faith and join us on the dark side, right? I mean, who can argue with math?!

old comment by Imroy

1. Abiogenesis =/= Evolution. They're related, but not the same thing.

2. Probabilities only deal with future events. Since we know Evolution happened, these bullshit probabilities do not apply.

3. Your probabilities are hugely over-inflated. You take something like the number of genes in a modern species (doesn't really matter which) and raise some other number to it. Then you say the chance is only one in this huge number.
3a. If we're dealing with the chance of any life appearing, the number on top of the fraction would be a lot larger than '1'.
3b. You're ignoring process. Only certain combinations of chemicals react, or react to form anything useful.
3c. No body said a modern species appeared out of nowhere. The first life would have been very simple. So the number on the bottom of the fraction would be a lot smaller.

So your fraction should be something like a*b/c (where c is smaller than the usual example given by creotards), greatly reducing the apparent improbability of abiogenesis. But like I said in #2, probabilities only deal with future events, not the past. This last section was just to critique your bullshit number.

old comment by Patches

So, by using the same logic...

To be fair, I'll begin with the same faulty premise that all possible outcomes are equally probable, so that the probability of any one happening is 1/(# of possible outcomes).

Therefore, this means that the probability of your father and mother meeting is 1 in 6 x 10^9.

Your mother had about 5 x 10^5 eggs in her ovaries. Over the course of his lifetime, your father produced about 10^13 sperm cells.

Therefore, the probability that you even exist is approximately one in thirty octillion. Surely with odds that far, there's no possible way you, or ANYONE, could have EVER been born.

(and that's assuming every generation leading up to your parents was guaranteed to happen)

Dan Lietha #fundie answersingenesis.org

74 comments

Confused?