Rusty,
The probability of rolling a 6 (at least one) with six dice is approximately 66.51%.

Believing that anything is possible given enough time and energy is not sustainable. Some things naturally do not occur. If the same person was winning lotto every week, we’d know someone was intervening with the possible outcomes. Anyone should and would be highly sceptical of that occurrence before long.

JonJ,
Incredulity is a relation of scepticism. When a claim is rather large, grand, and incredible, then scepticism should be our first natural reaction.

The story of hydrogen becoming people is quite a whopping story. This is why I ask that you not be so ready to swallow it so unquestioningly. Can’t you apply a little of this famed scepticism?

How do I know what hydrogen can accomplish in fourteen billion years? I can’t. But imagination should be tempered by reality if imagination isn’t going to get away from us. What do we know about hydrogen now that leads to thinking it is capable of making the leaps and bounds required for it to become a sentient being?

Pericles,
“I didn’t bother to look that one up.” Not the statement of a real sceptic.

This also doesn’t sound like a true sceptic, “I'd put my own level of certainty that the universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth 4.6 billion years old, at 100%. I expect the scientists will continue to discover new methods to refine these numbers, at which point my level of certainty that they are right will continue at 100%”.

Nick Moodie says that we should value scepticism and apply it to ALL things and to ALL claims. Your acceptance of this incredibly large figure on the authority of these particular scientists is not a step in the direction of scepticism.

This is more evident in your willingness to keep faith on their authority after they’ve adjusted figures and shown themselves in need of correction. If their pronouncements are continually subject to change, this should underline the need to be more sceptical in your initially approach.

"How do I know what hydrogen can accomplish in fourteen billion years? I can’t."

Exactly. End of story.

"But imagination should be tempered by reality if imagination isn’t going to get away from us. What do we know about hydrogen now that leads to thinking it is capable of making the leaps and bounds required for it to become a sentient being?"

We know it's the most credible current explanation for the state of the universe that we have. Do you have a better one?

Dan,

I believe I’ve discredited this a number of times now...

<< If the same person was winning lotto every week, we’d know someone was intervening with the possible outcomes.>>

Sorry, but as I’ve said on many occasions, natural selection makes turns the randomness of mutations into the non-random process of evolution.

For example, using your lottery analogy, if we were to continue dropping numbers to get a particular set in a particular order, we would eventually arrive at the intended set of numbers if we were to keep the ones that were right and only re-roll on the incorrect numbers.

Your analogy of simply continuing to try and get the same set of numbers without keeping the ones that are correct shows that you don’t understand evolution in the slightest unfortunately.

<<Incredulity is a relation of scepticism.>>

Yes, but incredulity becomes a logical fallacy when it is your only basis for the rejection of an idea.

<<When a claim is rather large, grand, and incredible, then scepticism should be our first natural reaction.>>

Exactly!

And when the evidence continues to support that theory consistently, that scepticism will dwindle a little. It was scepticism that brought us what we know today.

<<The story of hydrogen becoming people is quite a whopping story.>>

To those who don’t understand science, absolutely it is. And if you could supply any of us with some data that contradicts the current theories, then by all means list them, and we’ll duly increase our scepticism.

<<...imagination should be tempered by reality if imagination isn’t going to get away from us.>>
This is a little strange coming from someone who apparently tempers their imagination by claiming that an invisible magician made it all happen.

Dan,

Do you understand "approaches unity"?

From under 17% to over 66% with just five additional rounds *is* an approach to unity. How few additional rounds give greater than 90% Dan?

If one person buys more tickets in the lotto than all others by an order of magnitude, then it is *not* a surprise if they win consistently.

You have not addressed my objection. The question is not hydrogen to humans.

A well-understood process has generated all the other elements from hydrogen. Look it up.
We have considerable evidence of the existence of organic molecules in otherwise abiotic conditions.

So: the odds just shortened a lot and I believe you display a self-serving dishonesty by not having acknowledged this yourself and *correcting* pastor's little quip *yourself*.

Thank you for showing that yet more examples of "christians" are self-serving liars.

Rusty

Rusty,
One of the main reasons I and others come to this forum is to listen to and engage with people of different opinions and mindsets other than our own.

Generally, I find numerous atheists come to this forum in proportion to the number of Christians. Some are a pleasure to talk to and know how to be civil.

That we might disagree is not a reason to descend into name calling.

I will answer one of your questions, and maybe see where we can go from there.

How many dice are needed before one reaches a probability of 90% that one of them will show a 6?

Answer: you need to roll 13 dice to achieve a probability of 90.65% that at least one of them will be a six. And 26 dice to achieve a probability of 99.13%.

However, I don’t think this demonstrates what you wish it will.

After rolling 42 dice, the desired outcome is still not a certainty (99.95%). And all this is to arrive at a fairly mundane and meaningless occurrence of seeing a six on a die.

Now to achieve something truly meaningful along the long road for hydrogen to become a person requires unlikely probabilities of much higher magnitude.

Living things require prodigious amounts of information, most of which is coded in DNA. To arrive at the simplest living cell, with its hundreds of starches, proteins, and genetic material all correctly arranged conveniently in that ‘primeval soup’, goes beyond winning the big one in lotto.

We can imagine that this remarkable sequence of events occurred for hydrogen to become a person, and without intelligent intervention. I was simply asking that we apply an ounce of scepticism before accepting as an article of faith that it did happen (i.e. be open to the possibility that it didn’t).

Or are you proposing, Rusty, that the evolution of non-living elements into people is quite a straight forward and likely occurrence?

JonJ,
You ask, “We know it's the most credible current explanation for the state of the universe that we have. Do you have a better one?”

Do I have an explanation for the state of the universe? Do I have the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything?

I know Adams said the answer was 42.

While you ask an interesting question, I hesitate to answer, as I think it is rather open. Discussing such a wide ranging question could lead us off into any direction.

I am aiming to focus within the bounds of the article by Moodie and his discussion of the Atheist convention. Moodie confuses ideas of faith, certainty, and scepticism. While the atheist Nick Moodie encourages us to value scepticism and apply it to ALL things and to ALL claims, I am trying to point out how atheists are not so quick to take their own advice regarding their view of life’s origins.

However, to give a brief answer, I might momentarily borrow the thoughts of another. One ex-atheist who might previously be expected to attend these types of atheist conferences is philosopher, Antony Flew. Flew has now abandoned atheism. One major factor in this was the enormous complexity of the simplest self-producing cell. -

“It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, … pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.

“Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” A. Flew www.illustramedia.com/IDArticles/flew-interview.pdf