1. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    20 Apr '16 13:142 edits
    A conscience is arguably mankind's greatest achievement, that we have evolved into beings with the mental ability to analyse and reflect, empathize and regret. Why anybody would want to handover this great achievement to a fictional deity is beyond me.


    Probability of a Cell Evolving - Programming of Life

    YouTube [/youtube]

    OR

    YouTube
  2. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    15242
    20 Apr '16 13:17
    Originally posted by sonship
    A conscience is arguably mankind's greatest achievement, that we have evolved into beings with the mental ability to analyse and reflect, empathize and regret. Why anybody would want to handover this great achievement to a fictional deity is beyond me.


    [b] Probability of a Cell Evolving - Programming of Life


    [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuMvRExazAw [/youtube][/b]
    And what is the probability of a god-like creature creating the universe and all life, Sonship?
  3. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    20 Apr '16 13:202 edits
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    And what is the probability of a god-like creature creating the universe and all life, Sonship?
    Watch the video first. You couldn't have seen it that fast.
    Only seven minutes and some seconds.

    YouTube

    And then I will try to answer your question with a post.
  4. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    15242
    20 Apr '16 13:241 edit
    Originally posted by sonship
    Watch the video first. You couldn't have seen it that fast.
    Only seven minutes and some seconds.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuMvRExazAw

    And then I will try to answer your question with a post.
    I'm at work.

    I can't watch Youtube videos.

    Is the conclusion that the chance a cell coming into existence and evolving the way it did is astronomically small?
  5. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    20 Apr '16 13:313 edits
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    And what is the probability of a god-like creature creating the universe and all life, Sonship?
    1.) A "god-like creature" did not create the universe.
    God did.

    2.) The probability of God with "eternal power" (Rom. 1:20) calling into being a creation from nothing, is high IMO.

    3.) Acknowledging that God with "eternal power" brought the universe and life into being does not preclude that we cannot study how it all works.

    We can say we believe God with eternal power is responsible for the universe and life and have many happy years discovering more and more about how the mechanics of the whole thing work.

    If a woman or a man has a propensity and aptitude for scientific study, there is no reason why that person cannot have a fruitful career in science and an privately a spiritual admiration for God the Creator too. That is assuming that scientist has not been blackballed or shut out of a career by anti-theistic gatekeepers of the science industry.
  6. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    20 Apr '16 13:34
    Originally posted by sonship
    1.) A "god-like creature" did not create the universe.
    God did.

    2.) The probability of God with [b]"eternal power" (Rom. 1:20)
    calling into being a creation from nothing, is high IMO.

    3.) Acknowledging that God with "eternal power" brought the universe and life into being does not preclude that we cannot study how it all works.

    ...[text shortened]... t been blackballed or shut out of a career by anti-theistic gatekeepers of the science industry.[/b]
    You've not really answered the question have you?
  7. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    20 Apr '16 13:435 edits
    You've not really answered the question have you?

    Knob,

    And what is the probability of a god-like creature creating the universe and all life, Sonship?


    My answer in short was two part.

    1.) A "god-like creature" creating the universe I know nothing about.

    2.) God with eternal power creating the universe and life, I wrote "IMO" has a high probability.

    I expect you to be honest.
    I wrote an answer. Maybe you didn't like the answer that I wrote.
    But I wrote one. So be honest.

    A question for you:
    A poster spoke of fictional god/s.

    Does counterfeit money prove that real money does not exist ?
  8. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    15242
    20 Apr '16 13:47
    Originally posted by sonship
    1.) A "god-like creature" did not create the universe.
    God did.

    2.) The probability of God with [b]"eternal power" (Rom. 1:20)
    calling into being a creation from nothing, is high IMO.

    3.) Acknowledging that God with "eternal power" brought the universe and life into being does not preclude that we cannot study how it all works.

    ...[text shortened]... t been blackballed or shut out of a career by anti-theistic gatekeepers of the science industry.[/b]
    Goodness gracious, sonsip. You seriously use way too many words.

    The correct response was: "I don't know, Great King Rat."

    You really shouldn't use statistics and probabilities to somehow attempt to disprove abiogenesis and evolution if the alternative you cling to is by its very definition entirely untestable and unprovable.
    .
  9. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    20 Apr '16 13:53
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    Goodness gracious, sonsip. You seriously use way too many words.

    The correct response was: "I don't know, Great King Rat."

    You really shouldn't use statistics and probabilities to somehow attempt to disprove abiogenesis and evolution if the alternative you cling to is by its very definition entirely untestable and unprovable.
    .
    You mean to say the words you wish to put into my mouth, I used too many words.
    But I don't intend to say what you would say.

    But you're at work. And there is not much difference between watching a YouTube when you should be working and being in an Internet debate when you should be working.

    So, since the conscience is such a great achievement of evolution, I better let you listen to yours and put in a good days worth of work for your employer.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Apr '16 14:02
    Originally posted by sonship
    Watch the video first.
    OK.

    It starts out by asking the probability of a cell evolving. Clearly the speaker is confused. I think he meant a cell naturally occurring by random assembly of molecules. So, strike one, speaker doesn't know what he is talking about.

    Next he claims that the probability of a protein being formed by undirected natural processes is 1 in 10 ^ 164.
    But he gives no justification for this figure. And what constitutes an 'undirected natural process' anyway?
    Clearly he is just pulling figures out of the air and doesn't really have a clue what he is talking about.

    Next he claims the probability of a cell evolving by undirected natural processes is 1 in 10 ^ 340,000,000
    Again, no explanation for where he got that figure.

    Should I really sit through the rest of the 7 minutes of nonsense?

    Did you seriously think the video makes sense? Where do you think those figures came from?
  11. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    20 Apr '16 14:192 edits
    The very first thing that the video states is a question.

    "What is the probability of a simple cell evolving by undirected natural processess?"

    It is not the second thing stated. It is the first thing.
    Regardless of the title of the video, which titles are sometime short, advertizement, or even sometimes misleading, the question asked is the first thing spoken by the speaker.

    The Ad of course does not count.
    And though one poster says it is a waste of his time to sit through 7 minutes of it, that does not mean it is waste of everyone's time to watch.

    I found it not a waste of time and would re-recommend it immediately.

    YouTube
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    15242
    20 Apr '16 14:22
    Originally posted by sonship
    I found it not a waste of time and would re-recommend it immediately.
    Because it appears to confirm what you want to believe?
  13. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    20 Apr '16 14:271 edit
    Because it appears to confirm what you want to believe?



    Genetic fallacy, I think.

    So I WANT to believe that a randomly arranged living cell is stupid?
    So I see something that confirms what I want to believe about that?
    That in and of itself does not make the rational incorrect.

    Yea, I want to believe what makes SENSE - a designed cell manifesting virtually infinite intelligent skill.

    Now watch for your supervisor ! No, not your boss, your splendid human conscience.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    20 Apr '16 14:29
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    I'm at work.

    I can't watch Youtube videos.

    Is the conclusion that the chance a cell coming into existence and evolving the way it did is astronomically small?
    That is the usual religious set MO. So small a probability it could never have happened without the help of a deity.

    Which I say Bullocks myself. They seem to forget when the prebiotic stuff is around and there are energy sources and water and maybe clays to imitate membranes, one molecule becoming another more complex molecule has a low probability of happening but what they fail to understand, or try to suppress, is the fact that these low probability experiments take place by the trillions of trillions and like the lottery, eventually SOMEBODY will win.

    That part of it is sloshed over or actively suppressed.
  15. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    20 Apr '16 14:341 edit
    Concerning false gods, fake gods, fictional gods, idols -

    Does counterfeit money prove that real money does not exist ?

    Knobs is still thinking on it. or busy.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree