Atheists please can you answer?

Question

The odds of natural selection that scientist say is 10000000000000000000000:1

ISN'T THAT A BIG LIE?

Just so that people wont ask why it does not happen now?

Answer 1

What are you talking about? Are you saying there is no natural selection? You really ought to try to write a coherent question - or maybe cut & paste from something because your grasp of the English language seems to be lacking.

Answer 2

Ah, the old, "It's really unlikely that x was going to happen but it did - that must surely prove there was a guiding hand at work", argument.

Anyone believing this really needs to read up on the weak anthropic principal. It's a tricky one to get your brain around but let me try and give you a taste of it.

If the odds of the human eye (a sensory organ that detects light) evolving are 10000000000000000000000 to 1 then the odds of humans evolving another sensory organ that detects, let's say, magnetism must be in a similar order of probability. An organ that senses magnetism would be incredibly useful. Birds have one and they can fly enormous distances without getting lost. If humans had one we'd never need satellite navigation.

Now if you're going to turn around and say, "the chances of us evolving the human eye are so incredibly small that this must demonstrate a guiding hand", then I can equally vaildly say, "the chances of us developing a human magnetic sensing organ are incredibly small, oh and look - we didn't.". So on a sample of 2 possibles we have 1 hit and 1 miss. How many other organs might we possibly have evolved but didn't?

To pick on one thing that DID happen is to be selective in your argument. You pick something that DID happen and ignore the many billions of possible cases that DIDN'T happen.

Now let's look at the big one, creation itself. What are the chances that all the rules of physics would come together with exactly the right numbers to make gravity work, nucleonic forces work, magnetism work and so on and so forth. The sheer number of scientific constants (like the speed of light) that had to be EXACTLY RIGHT in order for the universe to form atoms and planets and people is staggering. 10000000000000000000000:1 doesn't even begin to represent how unlikely that was. So does that prove that there was a creator?

Well sadly no. In all of infinity we have no way of knowing how many universes there have been. There might have been a billion big-bangs before our one that happened to stumble onto a set of numbers that worked. All that we can say for sure is that, "this time the numbers worked out". And if this time the numbers hadn't worked out we simply wouldn't be around to say, "oh, I guess it is all down to luck after all".

Answer 3

Nobody's ever calculated the odds of an intelligent being existing either. Who knows how long they would be?

Anyway these odds are misleading because they calculate the odds of us taking the exact form that we do take - there are a billion other ways that humans _could_ look - we could have three eyes instead of two or a different number of teeth than we have now. We would still be humans.

This is using statistics wrongly. Find the nearest rock to your house and imagine the odds that _that very rock_ would happen to be sitting so near to _your house_ and not anywhere else on the planet. If you think about it, the odds are pretty low, aren't they? Yet there the rock is, in spite of its low odds.

Statistics can provide meaning or they can hopelessly obscure meaning. Try to be sure which is which.

Answer 4

What????????

the odds of what 10000000000000000000000:1. That natural selection occurs, I don't think so! that a particular trait will be selected, perhaps, but it's not a random event.

Strange that's its such a round number.

Is English your first language?

Answer 5

your question is almost unreadable, i think you are saying that evolution is such a remote chance as to not be possible, the first thing to do is question your sources, creationist (or intelligent design or whatever label they mask themselves behind) say look we have scientist who say evolution is wrong.
The truth is the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution, some find a method of fitting evolution into their religion and some take their religion over evolution.

Quote:
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

End Quote

Answer 6

So -- you are admitting it is possible.

That is a good first step.

The next step is to learn about conditional probability. While the odds of natural selection leading to our existence may be as you say -- GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE ARE HERE -- the odds are 1:1

As a scientist what the probability is that the earth was made in six days six thousand years ago. That probability is zero.

Answer 7

Natural selection is still alive and well in the animal kingdom. It still is very relevant in human society also. Humans have circumvented it to a degree, but it still exists. Look at really rich people with money, cars, hot women (or men). That is an example of the most successful humans having what others want, which is natural selection, it is also why we find outselves more attracted to attractive people. Who gave you the idea that natural selection isnt valid? Look around, its everywhere.

Answer 8

Hello,

I am a Christian, and a solid beliver in a EX NIHILO, literal six day, divine creation of things that are.

However,

you are misrepresenting when you say that "natural selection" is a lie. Natural Selection (micro-evolution) DOES in fact occur (I'll let the Darwinists and uniformitarianists tell you why). You may mean to say that MACRO-EVOLTION does not occur---that is the "theory" that the mathematical probabilities closely approach zero on.

Answer 9

Trillions of star systems with trillions of stars each, with untold trillions of planets circling them, I would say the odds are in favor of natural evolution occurring often.

Natural selection on the other hand must be flawed, otherwise Believers would have degenerated into non-existence by now

Answer 10

Well, I don't know your source but a lot can happen over millions of years. I don't think scientists have a motive to lie. They just work with facts and do the best they can.