The issue of chance... (Evolution)

by Matt S. , Monday, June 01, 2009, 17:06 (5652 days ago) @ dhw

dhw, - Let me try this in another way... - You are correct that biological reactions are complex, but before life began, things weren't quite so complex. Chaos theory is devoted to the study of complex interactions that result from very simple starting events. - I think in this area we have vastly different perspectives, but more to do with mathematical maturity... I'm trained in both computer science and chemistry which has left me with a great deal of mathematical training in the area of statistics. You need to define very clearly--what it is that you think is the atheist position on 'chance.' - Because life only needs 4 elements to come into being, and we can say with certainty that not just our own planet--but other planets and suns also have these elements in massive abundance. If I may be so bold, your perspective is such that, on this earth, the chances that a string of one-time events that leads to humans is preposterous. From the perspective of a chain of single events--absolutely. But it wasn't a string of one-time events. It was a string of billions upon billions of events that failed before hitting upon the one successful thing that allowed it to move to the next part of the chain. - This is why from a chemical perspective, life was inevitable. - The four elements needed for life are Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen. We can demonstrate that all of these elements were in abundance on earth just by looking at our crust. - Think about that... out of all the elements we know of, only 4 are needed for life. That's incredibly simple, in the grand scheme of things. - - Unravelling the code of DNA required so much intelligence and scientific skill that Crick and Watson were awarded the Nobel Prize for doing it. And yet I am expected to believe that no intelligence or scientific skill was required to put that combination together in the first place. - 
Have you ever heard of "The game of life?" - http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/standalone/ - This algorithm was devised in the early 70's as a game, and is used often as a representation that incredibly complex reproducible and beautiful structures can--and do--happen completely by chance, with a very simple set of starting conditions. It is an entrypoint into the mathematical study of chaos and dynamic systems. It won't answer the designer question, but it can show you that when simple conditions are met, amazing things can happen purely by chance. Does it preclude a creator? Absolutely not. But it should inform you a bit more as to why people like Dawkins feel the way they do. I will guess you haven't trained as a scientist... so that's kinda what I'm trying to do for you. If you understand the perspective, it won't seem so alien to you. - 
As for my objection to your use of chance and atheism, you have pretty directly equated chance as the atheist equivalent of God. I have another post briefly showing why your argument against chance needs to be more firmly defined--because you have not done so.