Hasn't the science of quantum probability proven that life randomly forming, then evolving into every creature that we know today is an insane theory to believe in? Basically, quantum probability has shown that it is more likely that a person can win the powerball lotto everyday for 450 years than for life to spontaneously form and evolve into all the different creatures we see today. So, knowing this, why do people still believe in this junk? Why do evolutionists cower in fear when their beliefs are confronted with reason, facts, and science? Why do they have to resort to threats and insults when they can no longer find intelligent points to support their positions? Why are they so closed-minded to alternative views?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_probability#Mathematical_definition
2007-02-26 13:35:10 · 13 answers · asked by Matt 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
brendan, i was asked to post it in the science section since it has to do with science/math as well as religion.
2007-02-26 13:38:23 · update #1
http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=24674
just one article of many regardin quantum probability and evolution. google it for other interesting articles.
2007-02-26 13:40:09 · update #2
Scott, do you have a graduate degree in mathematics? No, I didn't think so. Unlike you, I actually backed up my opinions with research and facts. You just made insults, as I predicted you would in the face of superior intellect. Thank you for making my point. Your life is a joke.
2007-02-26 13:48:29 · update #3
secretsauce, you can make up statistics to support any bizarre claim you want. 73% of people already know this. The lotto thing was just an analogy I saw and really is just one small part of the whole question. You can forget about it if you want, but it really doesn't detract from the point of the question in my opinion.
2007-02-26 14:25:00 · update #4
Contrary to what you might think, you did not establish any evidence whatsoever for the following statement:
"Basically, quantum probability has shown that it is more likely that a person can win the powerball lotto everyday for 450 years than for life to spontaneously form and evolve into all the different creatures we see today."
It has?? When? Just saying so doesn't make it true. You did not back this up with any computation, or any web site that made this computation. Nothing. The wiki page gives a nice introduction to quantum probability (I actually understood it ... do you?), but the wiki page says NOTHING close to your statement. The other page you added in Additional Details was interesting ... but not very accurate ... but even that page does not back up your statement (about the odds being like winning the Powerball lotto everyday for 450 years). Nothing. Not a word.
You just made it up.
Did you know that 32% of all statistics are just completely made up out of thin air?
(P.S. ... some of us actually DO have degrees in mathematics.)
--- followup ---
You wrote: "you can make up statistics to support any bizarre claim you want."
YES! That is precisely my point! The problem is that your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based on a bizarre claim of the low probability of evolution! So just pulling some tiny probability out of a hat, and saying that "quantum probability has shown this", is a TERRIBLE argument. It evaporates if you can't actually *show* how quantum probability arrives at that value. It shows that when you speak of "reason, facts, and science" you don't really have anything concrete. Just something you read somewhere and barely understand.
How can you say that the lotto thing is "one small part of the whole question "?? Remove that sentence from your question, and read it again! That sentence is the backbone of your argument. If that sentence isn't there, or you don't have evidence to back it up, then the entire point of your question evaporates.
Look, I know I'm coming down really hard on you. But when you say that "evolutionists cower in fear when their beliefs are confronted with reason, facts, and science" and then in the very next sentence accuse *US* of resorting to insults ... well you have to admit you are begging to be taken down a notch. My anger is not so much directed at you, but at all those terrible creationist pseudo-scientific web sites and writers who send well-meaning Christians out into the world with embarassingly BAD science.
2007-02-26 14:18:19 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
why do you keep asking the same question over and over? that's no way to evolve to the next level in YA!
To answer again:
This has nothing to do with Quantum Theory.
As Richard Dawkins has so elegantly pointed out, humans can only understand probability within the span of a single lifetime. So, the probability of winning the lotto jackpot if you bought a ticket every day for 80 years (assuming you started at birth) is negligible. On the contrary, buying a ticket every day for 4.5 billion years gives you a high probability of winning not just once, but thousands of times. AND, this is for a single planet. The anthropic principle states that the conditions for our existence had to occur because we are here. On how many other millions or billions of "habitable" planets in the universe were the dice thrown unsuccessfully?
Besides, abiogensis has been a known viable concept for 50 years now. Are you familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment (see link below).
2007-02-26 21:37:31 · answer #2 · answered by Brendan G 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Alternative views like an invisible man in the sky who loves me so much he will make me burn in hell for all eternity because I don't believe in him? THAT makes more sense to you? Don't hide behind big words like quantum probability if you don't know what they mean..... quantum probability is the very thing that tells me it is not only possible, but probable that life spontaneously arose out of a rich soup of organic building blocks like protein and polypeptide chains, combined with a spark of electricity a billion times over its no wonder.... life had no choice but to come about from the raw materials which existed in the primordial oceans.... with this many hydrocarbons and complex molecules to hang out with, RNA was inevitable (given enough time) and from there DNA is just a jump away.... once you have self replicating cells the sky is the limit, evolution knows no boundaries, it has no hidden agenda, its just live or die out, adapt to new circumstances or become extinct, hunt or be hunted, eat or be eaten, right up to modern day man.... I submit that YOU are the one with the closed mind, with your inane Lotto reference which has no ring of truth to it at all. Go back and read your science book some more before you make up your mind.
2007-02-26 21:50:23 · answer #3 · answered by eggman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You're misusing the statistics. While the probabiltiy is low, the number of opportunities over 13 billion years and trillions of planets is absurdly high. Note that it took 4+ billion years for us to evolve on Earth. How many earths have actually existed over the last 13 billion years?
And why do you believe that God is so inept that he can't design a universe that can evolve us? God has complete control and design over all the elements and all the laws of physics. God has infinite power and infinite wisdom AND knowledge. By what possible rationale can you claim that God didn't create the universe at the Big Bang and allowed it to run its course over 13 billion years to result in us. And what makes you think that God would expend that much energy to concentrate only on this planet and only this group of beings?
2007-02-27 02:42:27 · answer #4 · answered by arbiter007 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Quantum probability is an effort to formalize non-classical probability theory based on unmeasurable states. Interesting developments in quantum theory and quantum computing suggests that it's quite possible for NP-hard problems to be "solved" in far less time than can be done with conventional Turing machines. For example, even supercomputers today have a hard time predicting how a protein folds up, because apparently it seems to be a NP-hard minimization problem. Yet, it might be done far faster with quantum computers, so it suggests that protein-folding process may involve quantum processes which effectively "speeds computational time" far beyond what ordinary mechanical or digital processes can do. The lesson for us is that it's quite possible that we are limiting ourselves to thinking in terms of "shuffling the deck" sequentially to achieve some kind of a ordered result, which WE compute to take nearly an eternity to do, when quantum processes can accomplish the same in a very short time. Now, are you following this, and do you understand the significance of this against your own argument?
2007-02-26 21:51:00 · answer #5 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
EXCUSE ME! Which part of evolutionary theory do you find that is not supported by scientific facts and reasoning? Morphological evidences or molecular evidences? I have been studing evolution for 3 years now and so far I have not found one part of it that is not based on scientific reasoning. And where did you get the idea that us, evolutionists, are intolerant of you, intelligent design-ists? It is much easier for us to believe both in science and God than it is for you to do the same thing. And I find it very insulting to be called closed minded!
2007-02-27 00:31:58 · answer #6 · answered by smarties 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Life requires much more than amino acids. Learn about DNA. It is an incredibly complex molecule. Let's say you did win this lottery every day for 450 years, and the first DNA molecule formed by chance. How is this single molecule, surrounded by some other organic matter, going to develop into an even more complex living organism that can assimilate food, convert it into body mass and energy, and then reproduce itself into another of its exact kind?
The primary driving factor behind the promotion of current evolutionary theories is the refusal to even admit to the possibility that there is a creator God to whom we are accountable.
To clarify: scientists who believe in God have no quarrel with most of what Darwin proposed. Survival of the fittest. A species changing over generations in ways that better equip it to thrive and survive in its environment, which is also changing.
2007-02-26 22:55:47 · answer #7 · answered by Frank N 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It seems many are saying that probability for evolution in a long time is very high. If it is true then why didn't this happen in other planets. If someone says earth had suitable environment for life, then I would ask why not other planets in the entire universe? Think not just of our solar system. Why not at least some different form of life.
2007-02-27 06:34:25 · answer #8 · answered by Hate lies 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Did not see the definition for the INFINITE quantum probability space. Your second site did not support your argument. I suggest that you have a profound misunderstanding of quantum theory.
PS Figure this probability. It only had to happen once.
2007-02-26 22:52:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I can't say much about qunatum probability. But I think you are right about one point. These superstitous followers of evolution either don't want to answer questions when they don't have one or make rude remarks rather than answering the question in an intelligent way. They just totally lose it on some points.
I have posted a question on evolution using the religious point of view. None of these fellas weren't even there to answer. Honestly, when I was posting the question, I was expecting that evolution had answers to my question. I beleive in evolution, but denying our soul using evolution is totally stupid which evolutionists do. We could probably explain our physical body using evolution. It really seems to me evolutionists don't have a proper answer for my question.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asf7tHsRq4FGB7bvzQAQBXsgBgx.?qid=20070226122756AAwl2xB
2007-02-27 06:30:14 · answer #10 · answered by Pratap 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋