Originally posted by sonshipI tend to stay out of these type discussions because I don't have the necessary science background to debate, but I 'think' that even if everyone agreed with the big bang theory, that it has NOT been proven, nor even a genuine hypothesis on where the initial material came from to even 'go bang'.
Twhitehead's contention is that it is [b] NONSENSE , not to attempt to PROVE God did it, but to even use probability analysis to demonstrate evidence that non-random direction had to be involved. And by that some people could conceivably speak of God.
His contention is that we have no right to even apply statistical probability to the proble ...[text shortened]... reasonable weighting of the evidence to affirm DIRECTION of an intelligence in life's formation.[/b]
Something existed....something went bang....and that something did NOT come from nothing.
Originally posted by sonshipI don't think either of those people are saying what you think they are. Prigogine's argument seems to be that a fully fledged cell cannot have come into existence by random chance, I don't think this is controversial. According the Wikipedia page he worked on self-organising systems, he seems to have been arguing against a crude version of abiogenesis where a cell complete with genome and protoplasm is created by random collision.Assertion: Anyone who claims to have worked out an explicit probability for life occurring 'at random' or what they really mean 'without the aid of God', is talking nonsense.
IIya Prigogine was a recipient of the Nobel prize in [b] Chemistry.. He wrote in the magazine Physics Today the following:"The pro ...[text shortened]... common sense.[/b] [2]
[my bolding]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos[/b]
Nagel is a rationalist, he is an atheist and does not believe in intelligent design. His argument is with reductionism in biology, he sees it as teleological rather than mechanistic, he is not saying that abiogenesis is impossible.
Originally posted by chaney3When would you consider a theory "proven"?
I tend to stay out of these type discussions because I don't have the necessary science background to debate, but I 'think' that even if everyone agreed with the big bang theory, that it has NOT been proven, nor even a genuine hypothesis on where the initial material came from to even 'go bang'.
Something existed....something went bang....and that something did NOT come from nothing.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo, basically, whatever the scientific outcome, you will always be able to twist it into a "See, intelligent design!" conclusion? Very nice.
... if smart intelligent scientists cannot use their intelligence to create life in the lab, what makes you think life can create itself without intelligent intervention?
......................
Lets pretend for a moment they were able to do it [scientists have created life in labs].... Wouldn't that support the idea that life came from a form of intelligent intervention?
Originally posted by sonshipAnd yet this is the first time in the thread that you have explicitly stated that you disagree with it. I also note that you have failed to provide the suggested counter argument, a reasonable scenario in which a probability calculation would make any kind of sense.
I don't think that is right.
I think that is overkill to the point of arrogance and bigotry.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAlso of note is the fact that no probability calculation of any kind was done.
According the Wikipedia page he worked on self-organising systems, he seems to have been arguing against a crude version of abiogenesis where a cell complete with genome and protoplasm is created by random collision.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow did you work that out?
The probability is about the same as going to a junk yard and finding a fully functional Boeing 747 which had managed to construct itself from the components lying around.
And is this the probability for the next junkyard you go to, or every junkyard that has ever existed?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI did not work it out I imagined it. You are asking us to believe that a hugely complex system like a cell could somehow manage to fabricate itself from random components that just happened to be lying around in some pre organic 'soup'. Come sir, that takes a greater leap of faith than it does to believe in an intelligent designer.
How did you work that out?
And is this the probability for the next junkyard you go to, or every junkyard that has ever existed?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, not a probability calculation at all. Just a wild guess.
I did not work it out I imagined it.
You are asking us to believe that a hugely complex system like a cell could somehow manage to fabricate itself from random components that just happened to be lying around in some pre organic 'soup'.
No, I have asked you to believe no such thing.