Originally posted by sonshipWhy, sure you may. And I may freely contribute a tenet of the Dragons.
So the cancer, the parasites, the starvation and other unpleasant things in the biosphere don't make random, undirected, purposeless evolution necessarily more likely.
And since this is the Spirititualality Forum, I may freely contribute a biblical tenet of the Fall. Something may have gone wrong with the design for some other reason.[/b]
See, the Dragons were the ones who made a pact with the Evil Lord ZaZau.
Zazau was envious of the Dragon's Fire Breath since he thought obtaining the Dragon's Fire Breath would secure his place as ruler of the universe. The Dragons, meanwhile, with their Golden Hearts and unending Goodness, saw lonely wandering souls scattered across the planet and felt a pain deep inside their Skmooush/Shouk. The Dragons wanted nothing more than to see these lonely souls to find their Body and Life Force and, blinded by faith in their Goodness, agreed with Zazau to disclose the Everlasting Secret of Fire Breath in return for the wandering souls to obtain their Body and Life Force.
And upon receiving the Dragon's Fire Breath, Zazau roared a thundering laughter of earth shattering Evil and mocked the Dragons.
"You fools, you blind fools, you desperate fools. You will now understand the folly of your Goodness. I shall award the souls their Body and Life Force, yes. But they shall be cursed. Cursed by the Crawlers and the Biters and the Infectious and the Hollow and the Death. They shall know the meaning of suffering brought on by your wish."
And he blasted the Dragons with his Fire Breath and the Dragons' Goodness perished under the betrayal and the Dragons were no more.
And thus he created the Humans, and to this day he watches, watches from beneath the Surface, from within The Darkness. Watches with delight as the wandering souls suffer. Suffer from the Dragon's Pact.
Yeah.
Originally posted by chaney3You mention 'accidental' 8 times in your post. As an atheist I don't recall using that word even once. That's certainly not a word I would use in trying to understanding how everything got here or how things work.
I don't believe that all of this could have been accidental. An atheist may get tired of hearing about a God, but a believer can also get tired of hearing about 'given a billions years, it could happen'.
Gravity, the magnetic field, the distance of the sun and moon, the atmosphere, and the complex nature of the human body. All of this *combined* doesn't ...[text shortened]... for all of it to be accidental. The earth seems to be 'designed' for life, and to sustain life.
This morning it took me several attempts to start my car. When the engine did finally come to life, I didn't view it as accidental. The conditions were just right for it to do so, conditions that weren't right on the previous attempts. It was neither accidental or miraculous.
Originally posted by sonshipIt is your side who frequently attempts to use probability to show that life must have an intelligent designer, however when questioned about this you never actually explain where this probability comes from.
Now on the side, on all the many pages over the years of the [b]Science Forum have you ever known twhitehead to have dedicated a thread or a post to explaining probability analysis in abiogenesis ? Has anyone of you guys who complain about Intelligent Design dedicated a thread to abiogenesis and Probability ?[/b]
In that video you posted some days ago some probabilities were mentioned. You thought it was a good, informative video. Twhitehead asked you to comment on those probabilities. Have you done so?
I asked you about the probability of a Godlike creature creating life. You then started playing word games because you understood that you can't - by definition - do that.
Amiright??
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
A very solid case, yes. Nevertheless, the word random would apply if you were doing probability calculations with regards to the throw of a die.
[b]We can make this simple or very intricate. On the simpler side we could say that biological life is seen as a combination of proteins. Again, not trying to be exhaustive in definition. ( don't claim to be m ...[text shortened]... ithout evidence.
What exactly about anything I have said makes that 'apparent' in my challenge?
Can it? What information would you use to even guess at either the occurrence rate or the possible configurations?
You create a model. Your model may vary. The model may be lenient or more strict.
The model may be forgiving and general just to get some idea.
Or the model may be encreasingly non-lenient demanding more and more accurate representation of the real world.
Depending on complexity you take into account kinds of proteins or phyla, body parts, environmental change, constancy of rate, and other things.
Since accurate representation of the real world is not likely, many models which are helpful are lenient.
Your tactic of refutation probably will be to show how many objections you can raise with how accurately the real world is represented by the model.
Richard Dawkins used a model pertaining to random mutations of the 26 letters in the alphabet, time, and the likelyhood that a sentence from a Shakespeare line could be produced. If Atheist Biologist Richard Dawkins can construct a model to support non-directed Evolution. anyone else can do the same or examine his.
It would not be nonsense if you actually had that information. You do not. Nor does anyone else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true. We have some information to be able to make some models. And for you to say we don't doesn't do Science any favors.
It would also not be restricted to proteins (a specific class of molecule) but would have to include all possible precursors for life. Even better it should include all possible life including life not based on proteins.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This model is restricted to protein combination for simplicity.
"I don't like this model" does not make it nonsense.
"I don't like this model" just says it is somewhat problematic.
I already rational scenario does not mean a model with absolutely no problems.
Its not nonsense.
It is one scenario which could tell us something about the likelihood of random arrangement of proteins and the probability of success for life.
I see your tactic will be - "Give me another model. Give me another model. Give me another model, etc. etc."
This one alone is sufficient to show some validity in analyzing probabilities pertaining to life systems.
And the challenge remains. Your scenario requires information that is not currently available to anyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean we don't have enough information when someone proposes the evidence leans towards a creating God but we do have the information when the evidence favors purposeless, goaless, evolution ?
If that is the biased case then that double standard I reject.
And I am satisfied your challenge has already been met.
Therefore anyone claiming to have used your scenario is either lying or mistaken - and their results are nonsensical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't understand evolution. Or you don't want to understand it.
Go get more education.
(but apparently only when used to show evidence for God or non-randomness in the cell's formation.
Nothing I have said implies this. For you to suggest I have is dishonest of you. I have repeatedly stated that no such claim has been made and you have continued to repeat it without evidence. What exactly about anything I have said makes that 'apparent' in my challenge?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't trust you.
Anyone who says in essence " I have no need to explain because everyone on the Science Forum agrees" I think is sidestepping.
At any rate the basic model I proposed without going through the numbers in detail, is enough to show reasonableness in assessing the problem of life's design.
And expect that this matter will in fact be repeated by other posters on this forum on into the future. For this model I think we only need an approximation of numbers of proteins known, the combinations useful for life, perhaps the time of the universe, some rate of trial and error.
There are limitations to the model which are problematic.
You will not move the goal post to an infallibly representative model of the real world.
Originally posted by Great King RatAfter being pushed to answer and avoiding the question for quite some time, he eventually came up with this:
In that video you posted some days ago some probabilities were mentioned. You thought it was a good, informative video. Twhitehead asked you to comment on those probabilities. Have you done so?
I cannot explain why he could not have said something like "give or take a hundred" or "give or take 10" or how his exponents are as precise as they are.
I don't think this makes a significant difference. That I don't know why he could not say "Give or take 10" or "Give or take 50" or "Give or take 100" in those exponential formulas at the moment, is not a major weakness of the analysis.
Precision wise it could be debated perpetually with enough obfuscating to postpone the general main idea indefinitely.
Given the number of parts and some scheme of trial and error I think estimates on these probabilities is reasonable. The rigorousness of the precise exponents may be arguable.
Page 11 of that thread.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeOkay, if I used the incorrect word, I can accept that.
You mention 'accidental' 8 times in your post. As an atheist I don't recall using that word even once. That's certainly not a word I would use in trying to understanding how everything got here or how things work.
This morning it took me several attempts to start my car. When the engine did finally come to life, I didn't view it as accidental. Th ...[text shortened]... conditions that weren't right on the previous attempts. It was neither accidental or miraculous.
I go back to the food issue though, because to me it's a very relevant topic......we would obviously die without it. However a particular atheist thinks humans evolved, and what they may have evolved from.....it still is amazing that when we finally became 'human', that there was food at all to sustain us. And not just one food item, like berries......but thousands and thousands of choices from the ground and trees. You would not have your buffets today Ghost without all of these options, that thankfully, 'got here' when we were ready to eat. Aren't we fortunate that evolution included food? That we have the ingredients necessary to even make cheese?
The 'appearance' of food, while trivial to some, and 'classic' to others needs as much explaining as does the Big Bang.
My opinion, of course. No Phd after my name. 🙂
Er.....hang on....🙂🙂
Originally posted by chaney3I think this guy is trolling.
Okay, if I used the incorrect word, I can accept that.
I go back to the food issue though, because to me it's a very relevant topic......we would obviously die without it. However a particular atheist thinks humans evolved, and what they may have evolved from.....it still is amazing that when we finally became 'human', that there was food at all to susta ...[text shortened]... does the Big Bang.
My opinion, of course. No Phd after my name. 🙂
Er.....hang on....🙂🙂
Originally posted by Great King RatWhy? I'm just giving an opinion. I have already stated that my opinion is that of someone who believes in a Creator, but I haven't attempted to convince anyone of who that Creator is, there are other threads for that.
I think this guy is trolling.
Originally posted by chaney3Food was around a long time before humans old chap. (And of course for some animals, humans are food).
Okay, if I used the incorrect word, I can accept that.
I go back to the food issue though, because to me it's a very relevant topic......we would obviously die without it. However a particular atheist thinks humans evolved, and what they may have evolved from.....it still is amazing that when we finally became 'human', that there was food at all to susta ...[text shortened]... does the Big Bang.
My opinion, of course. No Phd after my name. 🙂
Er.....hang on....🙂🙂
Originally posted by chaney3Yes, it is totally amazing. The subspecies of humans that could survive only by eating Zorblaxian spaceships sadly became extinct after they did not find any.
Okay, if I used the incorrect word, I can accept that.
I go back to the food issue though, because to me it's a very relevant topic......we would obviously die without it. However a particular atheist thinks humans evolved, and what they may have evolved from.....it still is amazing that when we finally became 'human', that there was food at all to susta ...[text shortened]... does the Big Bang.
My opinion, of course. No Phd after my name. 🙂
Er.....hang on....🙂🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatIt is your side who frequently attempts to use probability to show that life must have an intelligent designer, however when questioned about this you never actually explain where this probability comes from.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut to the issue of what you believe.
About 8.7 million (give or take 1.3 million) is the new, estimated total number of species on Earth -- the most precise calculation ever offered -- with 6.5 million species on land and 2.2 million in oceans. Announced by the Census of Marine Life, the figure is based on a new analytical technique. The number of species on Earth had been estimated previously at 3 million to 100 million.
You think it is reasonable to believe 8.7 million species (give or take 1.3 million) have come about by a process which has NO GOAL, NO PURPOSE, NO INTELLIGENCE ?
You go ahead and believe that if you want to. I don't.
That is all the time I have now.
I'm not finished with you.
In that video you posted some days ago some probabilities were mentioned. You thought it was a good, informative video. Twhitehead asked you to comment on those probabilities. Have you done so?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The essence of his and your complaints is that you can raise objections about the parameters. I don't insist that the parameters are not possibly problematic.
Argumentation over some of the powers is very likely.
I don't think these kinds of complaints are enough to dismiss such models as nonsense.
I asked you about the probability of a Godlike creature creating life. You then started playing word games because you understood that you can't - by definition - do that.
Amiright??
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I addressed this question about two, three or four times. You didn't take any answer.
There is no need for me to revisit it.
The issue is where is the weight of evidence - Accidents? Purposeful planning?
Purposeful planning is where I think the evidence points.
And I am not ashamed to admit I believe God is the Creator.
That doesn't stop anyone from spending their life examining how things work.
Statistical models of probability of phenomenon in the biosphere I will continue to consider though they have some problems with their parameters here and there.
What was the first instance of natural selection in life's development ?
I said ... What was the first instance of natural selection in life's development ?
Originally posted by sonshipSince life interacts with its environment, and this interaction affects the reproduction of said life, natural selection and life arose in tandem. It makes no sense to suppose the existence of "life" without natural selection.
What was the first instance of natural selection in life's development ?
Originally posted by sonshipOr rather not helpful.
Since accurate representation of the real world is not likely, many models which are helpful are lenient.
Your tactic of refutation probably will be to show how many objections you can raise with how accurately the real world is represented by the model.
Exactly. It is my claim that nobody can currently create a model that bears any significant relation to the real world to the point that any probability calculation done with said model has any bearing on reality. ie any such figures are nonsense.
Richard Dawkins used a model pertaining to random mutations of the 26 letters in the alphabet, time, and the likelyhood that a sentence from a Shakespeare line could be produced. If Atheist Biologist Richard Dawkins can construct a model to support non-directed Evolution. anyone else can do the same or examine his.
Huh? At least try to make sense sometimes.
Not true. We have some information to be able to make some models.
Not enough information for such models to be any use for the case in question.
And for you to say we don't doesn't do Science any favors.
I don't understand that sentence.
This model is restricted to protein combination for simplicity.
OK, but it therefore isn't a model that is useful for answering the question in the thread title.
"I don't like this model" does not make it nonsense.
It does if it claims to answer the question in the thread title.
Its not nonsense.
It is if it claims to answer the question in the thread title, or to even have some bearing on that question.
It is one scenario which could tell us something about the likelihood of random arrangement of proteins and the probability of success for life.
I must repeat that even for that restricted scenario, there is insufficient information to make any useful calculation. How many proteins are you starting with? What arrangements would result in life? How often are they being 'randomly arranged'?
I see your tactic will be - "Give me another model. Give me another model. Give me another model, etc. etc."
No. I only need one model that fits the description in my OP.
This one alone is sufficient to show some validity in analyzing probabilities pertaining to life systems.
Huh? 'show some validity in analyzing probabilities pertaining to life systems'? What does that even mean?
Do you mean we don't have enough information when someone proposes the evidence leans towards a creating God but we do have the information when the evidence favors purposeless, goaless, evolution ?
No, I do not mean that. And nothing I said should have lead you to even think I mean that.
If that is the biased case then that double standard I reject.
Yes, keep on rejecting your own imagined threats to your beliefs. But it remains the case that you are not addressing the actual content of my posts.
And I am satisfied your challenge has already been met.
You are mistaken.
You don't understand evolution. Or you don't want to understand it.
Go get more education.
Funny.
I don't trust you.
Nobody has asked you to.
Anyone who says in essence " I have no need to explain because everyone on the Science Forum agrees" I think is sidestepping.
No. I was giving an honest answer to why I hadn't bothered to go and explain something in the Science forum.
This distrust of yours still doesn't explain how you jumped to the conclusion you are trying to explain away.
At any rate the basic model I proposed without going through the numbers in detail, is enough to show reasonableness in assessing the problem of life's design.
No, it isn't. Even in the model you proposed, (which I maintain is insufficient to be useful) you do not know any of the relevant figures whatsoever.
For this model I think we only need an approximation of numbers of proteins known,
Why only known proteins?
the combinations useful for life,
Nobody knows that, nor will they likely ever know.
perhaps the time of the universe,
I guess that could be estimated.
some rate of trial and error.
Totally unknown.
There are limitations to the model which are problematic.
The limitations are so severe that anyone claiming to have used the model to produce a figure is talking absolute utter nonsense.
You will not move the goal post to an infallibly representative model of the real world.
I have no intention of doing so. Only a model that actually has some use. If it is far enough away from the real world that the results have no bearing on the real world then the results are useless for answering a question about the real world.
If you say "In my model the probability of life occurring is one in a million, but my model has no bearing on the real world" then who cares?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2085745-cassini-gears-up-for-final-fiery-plunge-into-saturns-atmosphere
In terms of derring-do, the only comparably hazardous mission was in 2008, when Cassini flew through enormous plumes of warm water 100 kilometres across gushing from the surface of Enceladus, one of Saturn’s moons.
The risk was worth it, because the data collected from that and subsequent fly-bys demonstrated that Enceladus has a salty ocean containing organic material, energy and a hydrothermal system at the base of the ocean –all ingredients necessary for life.
Ironically, that potential for life is part of why Cassini must die. After a decade of orbiting and two mission extensions, Cassini is almost out of fuel.
“We are ending the mission by burning up in Saturn’s atmosphere to protect two worlds, Enceladus and Titan, that might have oceans suitable for life,” Spilker says. “NASA required that we dispose of Cassini… in a way that would protect Enceladus and Titan from a later impact.”