Chance...why not?

Sektor31 · Post by **Sektor31** » 2003-01-31 02:11am

Why is it that when something is said to happen only 1 in <insert big number here> times, it is never believed that it could happen? (ala life, the universe, etc.)

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-31 02:14am

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't show it to be impossible, merely very, very improbable. Anyone who says a one in a thousand chance is impossible is either lying or stupid. It's that simple.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-31 09:01am

It's never believed it could happen because odds exist to tell us whether we're wasting our time or not.

Famous line: "The race may not always go to the fastest, nor the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet." In other words, people tend to try to swing their affairs the way of what will be correct the most frequently.

Enricko · Post by **Enricko** » 2003-01-31 09:37am

About the odds of life in the Universe (or stuff like it), most of the time we don't know all the variables in the equation and we pull numbers out of our ass...

It's not like the lotto were the odds can be calculated with accuracy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-31 09:48am

Most of those "odds of life" calcs are done by creationists who GROSSLY distort the probabilities anyway, and assume that every other possible outcome is unviable (no small assumption).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-31 09:59am

You'd have to be a severe fullofshitist to think you know exactly, or even remotely, the chances of life forming on any given planet.

Enricko · Post by **Enricko** » 2003-01-31 10:04am

Maybe most of creationists still assume that the stars we see at night are only little pin holes in the Celestial cloth... It's ridiculous for them to think their Mighty God would create a whole Universe if He needed only the Earth and the Sun.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-31 10:07am

Enricko wrote:Maybe most of creationists still assume that the stars we see at night are only little pin holes in the Celestial cloth...

Or perhaps it's turtles all the way down

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-31 10:11am

Enricko wrote:Maybe most of creationists still assume that the stars we see at night are only little pin holes in the Celestial cloth... It's ridiculous for them to think their Mighty God would create a whole Universe if He needed only the Earth and the Sun.

There's no accounting for WHAT they believe. There are still people who believe in a Flat Earth, and that Elvis is still alive, too.

Enricko · Post by **Enricko** » 2003-01-31 10:27am

Lagmonster wrote:
There's no accounting for WHAT they believe.

"You can say that again, Mister Garrison."

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-31 11:45am

I always wondered how they calculated it, especially the really big numbers. I mean, do they seriously sit there and count every single possible reason against a certain scenario happening, or do they just arbitrarily pull the number out of their arse?

Chance of death is easy, 1:1 since we all die. Chance of MKShep praising anti-gun laws, 1:1,000,000. Chance of DarkStar supplying oxygen to his single brain cell, 1: dammit, how do you do that infinity sign again?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-31 11:59am

Actually I totally agree with Sektor31. Just because something is unlikely, doesn't mean it can't happen.
The argument goes like this (grossly oversimplified, obviously)

Evolutionist: "The fossil record shows evolution has happened"
Darwin and Wallace: "here's a mechanism for how evolution occured"
Creationist: "OK, we can't deny the mechanism, but the chances of it producing modern day diversity are billions to one"
Evolutionist: "But the fossil record shows it did."

OR:

Ground up: "The fossil record shows that birds evolved from fast running theropod dinosaurs"
Trees down: "But the chances of a fast running theropod dinosaur learning to fly are billions to one"
Ground up: "The fossil record shows that birds evolved from fast running theropod dinosaurs"

And I'm sure there's other examples.Obviously I'm not equating differing view of evolution with creationism, but sometimes the arguments do neglect fossil evidence.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-01-31 12:18pm

The easiest case is the lottery. The chances of one person in one lottery winning is 1 in millions. However, someone does win, even if they buy more than one ticket the odds don't change that much.

So it happens, and the odds are really really high. And that is just with luck.

If you think that unlikely outcomes don't happen, you're an idiot.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-31 09:26pm

Consider the following two arguments:

Creationist argument: there are X billion possible combinations of amino acids, proteins, blah blah blah. How can you say that we would have one out of billions of possible combinations by chance? Isn't it obviously intelligent design?

Analogy: there are billions of possible fingerprints. How can you say that you would have your fingerprint just by chance? Isn't it obviously intelligent design?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-31 09:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:Consider the following two arguments:

Creationist argument: there are X billion possible combinations of amino acids, proteins, blah blah blah. How can you say that we would have one out of billions of possible combinations by chance? Isn't it obviously intelligent design?

Analogy: there are billions of possible fingerprints. How can you say that you would have your fingerprint just by chance? Isn't it obviously intelligent design?

They also forget to take into account cumulative evolutionary theory as well since the standard way that they see would take longer than the current age of the universe to fold a single protein.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-31 09:58pm

I just thought of a better one:

There are millions of colours. Can you say that your shit is that particular shade of brown just through chance, random dietary factors, etc? Or do you accept that your shit's colour must have been the result of an intelligent designer?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-31 10:02pm

Darth Wong wrote:I just thought of a better one:

There are millions of colours. Can you say that your shit is that particular shade of brown just through chance, random dietary factors, etc? Or do you accept that your shit's colour must have been the result of an intelligent designer?

Well, shit is what their arguments are.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-31 10:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:I just thought of a better one:

There are millions of colours. Can you say that your shit is that particular shade of brown just through chance, random dietary factors, etc? Or do you accept that your shit's colour must have been the result of an intelligent designer?

Vivid... imaginative and latrine humour, but vivid. It's funny when we talk shit to counter the Fundies talking shit.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-31 10:41pm

The chances of life occuring on its own without divine intervention is probably better than the chance of an omnipotent being suddenly springing into existence by itself.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-01-31 11:01pm

innerbrat wrote:Ground up: "The fossil record shows that birds evolved from fast running theropod dinosaurs"
Trees down: "But the chances of a fast running theropod dinosaur learning to fly are billions to one"
Ground up: "The fossil record shows that birds evolved from fast running theropod dinosaurs"

With the new fossils of tress down birds there is a greater possibility that even if the tress down happened in parallel with the ground up it wasn't success full. Though Ground Up is less likely than tress down there may be specific reasons why GUs did better, perhaps TDs taste better.
So let's just say that the fossil record shows that both happened, but GU worked better.
At least I'm not saying that they popped out of some white-bearded twit made them pop out of his pinky.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-01-31 11:10pm

The Creationist probability argument is based on the notion that chemical reactions are random, when they aren't. Another part of the argument is the "perfection" of life and how they think it wasn't by chance, and the argument that we had to have been intellegently designed because the physical costants are right for us. All of them can be easily refuted.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-31 11:12pm

Exonerate wrote:The chances of life occuring on its own without divine intervention is probably better than the chance of an omnipotent being suddenly springing into existence by itself.

Nah, the Bible says otherwise.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-31 11:14pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:The Creationist probability argument is based on the notion that chemical reactions are random, when they aren't. Another part of the argument is the "perfection" of life and how they think it wasn't by chance, and the argument that we had to have been intellegently designed because the physical costants are right for us. All of them can be easily refuted.

The "physical constants" argument is irretrievably stupid. Eyeglasses fit perfectly over your nose; does this mean your nose was designed to hold eyeglasses? Polar bears are well-suited to the arctic regions; does this mean the arctic regions were made cold in order to suit polar bears, and not because of some silly naturalistic explanation like, oh, say, the incident angle of sunlight on the polar regions?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-01-31 11:27pm

The argument from Personal Incredulity is an extremely weak argument, as Darwin himself noted. In some cases it is based upon simple ignorance. For instance, one of the facts that the Bishop [Montefiore] finds it difficult to understand is the white colour of polar bears.

As for camouflage, this is not always easily explicable on neo-Darwinian premises. If polar bears are dominant in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage.

This should be translated:

I personally, off the top of my head sitting in my study, never having visited the Arctic, never having seen a polar bear in the wild, and having been educated in classical literature and theology, have not so far managed to think of a reason why polar bears benefit from being white.

-Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker Pg. 38

The simple ability for people to not grasp the premise of the situation leads to false and quite humour filled arguments.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-02-01 12:12am

To paraphrase Terry Prachett... "But wizards have calculated that million-to-one odds will occur nine times out of ten."