Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…185186188190191…232

Comments

  • #5612
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well no... we don't know the absolute limits, do we?

    Firstly, sticking to the 'known' universe is rather disingenuous; we don't know how big the universe is, and reactions don't just happen in the bit we're aware of. Your 10^130 could be so meaninglessly tiny compared to the actual potential of the entire universe that it becomes an effective certainty; so it's more than a bit cheeky to claim 'beyond all doubt' or 'impossible' when you just don't know.

    Even so, you're saying that 10^130 of permutations are required to ensure the production of just one a specific 100 chain protein, and that's not true, is it? The mind bogglingly overwhelmingly large proportion of those permutations are simply not going to get used. Each permutation (say we're just using the usual amino acids) is a protein; we know there are 20^100 (1.2677E+130) possible proteins with 100 amino acids, but so far we're only aware of about 1.5 million amino acid sequences of proteins altogether, so every single amino chain we are currently aware exists (of every possible length) amounts to less than a billionth of a billionth of one percent (1.18329135783152E-124%) of the possible permutations of just a 100 amino acid protein. The number of proteins required for life as we know it is infinestimably smaller than the potential number of proteins available, and there's no real reason to think that life couldn't exist based on completely different proteins.
    ... the problem no matter how you 'cut and dice' it is that the combiatorial spaces are effectively infinite for even simple biomolecules ... as you have confirmed above ... and the only way to overcome this combinatorial space to produce the specific biomolecules required to be assembled in the highly specific arrangements required for functionality is by an intelligence choosing and creating the specific biomolecules required. A non-intelligently directed process would be totally confounded by the vastness of the useless combinatorial space (10^130) relative to the useful combinatorial space for a specific biomolecule to perform a specific function within a living process (often only one combination).


  • #5613
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    hinault wrote: »
    We can take a reasonable guess at the mass of the Universe. And these guesses have been something which Science has attempted a number of times.
    I don't think we can? By and large the guesses scientists put forward are as to the mass of the observed universe, which is a quite different thing.
    hinault wrote: »
    But we don't even need to quantify and examine every other single object in the Universe to establish if even one of those objects contain any trace of life.
    That's true; we only need to examine such objects as we are declaring do or do not contain traces of life. So far we've only managed such an examination of a handful of objects in our own solar system, so we've a long way to go before we start issuing extensive pronouncements on where there are or are not traces of life.
    hinault wrote: »
    There are certain basic requirements needed for an object in the Universe to contain even the most rudimentary form of life. These basic requirements will not be fulfilled by every single object in the Universe (you can see this using the solar system that Earth occupies). So immediately the number of objects in the Universe containing life is far smaller than the total number of objects in the entire Universe.
    There are certainly basic requirements needed for objects to contain life as we know it, rudimentary or not. And we're aware from our own observations of just our own planet that at certain stages it could support life which could not be supported now, and the life it supports now could not be supported then. So realistically the best we can truly say is that the total number of objects in the Universe supporting life is likely to be far smaller than the total number of objects in the Universe, but it would be erroneous to assume that the number will be a small one from our point of view; there could be more planets supporting life in the universe than there are people on our planet, and that would still be a tiny fraction of the planets in the Universe.


  • #5614
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Morbert wrote: »
    Many models work, insofar as they are plausible accounts of the emergence of life. The problem is, since it happened a long time ago, determining which model is the most relevant account is hard.
    None of them work i.e. produce life spontaneously ... and they are just wishful thinking in order to avoid what is staring us all in the face ... that an intelligence of Divine proportions is required to generate life.


  • #5615
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    ... the problem no matter how you 'cut and dice' it is that the combiatorial spaces are effectively infinite for even simple biomolecules ... as you have confirmed above ... and the only way to overcome this combinatorial space to produce the specific biomolecules required to be assembled in the highly specific arrangements required for functionality is by an intelligence choosing and creating the specific biomolecules required. A non-intelligently directed process would be totally confounded by the vastness of the useless combinatorial space (10^130) relative to the useful combinatorial space for a specific biomolecule to perform a specific function within a living process (often only one combination).
    Effectively infinite isn't really a problem when we have an effectively infinite Universe to work in though. Nor is there a requirement to work through all of that combiatorial space, since such a tiny proportion of potential results are necessary; even if the last combination is the one that works in the circumstances and it takes practically forever for it turn up, it doesn't matter when you have effectively forever to do it. And of course if the first combination works every time it takes practically no time at all. Totally confounded, in the circumstances, is an extreme overstatement; obviously a non directed process can't be confounded in the first place since it has no purpose, but the fact that it has a very small chance of expressing the next step that will lead to advancing towards cell/organism organisation is an entire Universe away from no chance at all.


  • #5616
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    J C wrote: »
    None of them work i.e. produce life spontaneously...

    Wait, are you saying none of them are plausible? That's a very peculiar claim.


  • Advertisement
  • #5617
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Absolam wrote: »
    Effectively infinite isn't really a problem when we have an effectively infinite Universe to work in though. Nor is there a requirement to work through all of that combiatorial space, since such a tiny proportion of potential results are necessary; even if the last combination is the one that works in the circumstances and it takes practically forever for it turn up, it doesn't matter when you have effectively forever to do it.
    ... but we don't have forever to do it ... we are limited to the 15 billion years (max) that conventional science says the Universe has existed for ... and to produce every possible sequence for 100 chain biomolecule even if every electron in the Universe was capable of producing a permutation every nano-second would take 10^28 (or 10 billion billion billion) years.
    Absolam wrote: »
    And of course if the first combination works every time it takes practically no time at all.
    The law of averages and big numbers means that it will on average take in excess of 10 billion billion billion years (and the entire matter of the Universe) to produce a specific 100 chain biomolecule using non-intelligently directed processes.
    ... and we require thousands of specific biomolecules to be produced at one location and instantaneously to produce even a simple cell.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Totally confounded, in the circumstances, is an extreme overstatement; obviously a non directed process can't be confounded in the first place since it has no purpose,
    ... which is another logical reason reason for the impossibility of spontaneous processes producing life ... deeply purposeful living systems could never arise from a purpose-less process.


    Absolam wrote: »
    ... but the fact that it has a very small chance of expressing the next step that will lead to advancing towards cell/organism organisation is an entire Universe away from no chance at all.
    It certainly has no chance at all in a 15 billion year old universe of the supposed size of the 'Big Bang' Universe.


  • #5618
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    ... but we don't have forever to do it ... we are limited to the 15 billion years (max) that conventional science says the Universe has existed for ... and to produce every possible sequence for 100 chain biomolecule even if every electron in the Universe was capable of producing a permutation every nano-second would take 10^28 (or 10 billion billion billion) years.
    Again, that 15 billion years is limited by what we have observed so far; we're pretty confident that there's more to observe so there's no reason to think that (max) won't go up. Still 15 billion years of a practically infinite number of instances does kind of give us practically forever anyways; we know already every possible sequence of your chain doesn't need to appear, in fact, as I said, less than a billionth of a billionth of one percent of them are needed. Just one tiny little pool on one little planet could randomly turn out the right ones at the right time, and we have so very many pools to work from, don't we?
    J C wrote: »
    The law of averages and big numbers means that it will on average take in excess of 10 billion billion billion years (and the entire matter of the Universe) to produce a specific 100 chain biomolecule using non-intelligently directed processes.... and we require thousands of specific biomolecules to be produced at one location and instantaneously to produce even a simple cell.
    I think that's just another way of saying what you said already, but still, what it could take on average is an indication that it can happen in a longer or shorter timeframe. The salient feature being it can happen.
    J C wrote: »
    ... which is another logical reason reason for the impossibility of spontaneous processes producing life ... deeply purposeful living systems could never arise from a purpose-less process.
    It's definitely an indication of the improbability of life arising, whether or not it ever becomes even shallowly purposeful.
    J C wrote: »
    It certainly has no chance at all in a 15 billion year old universe of the supposed size of the 'Big Bang' Universe.
    Well, no. Your own numbers show it's possible for life to be expressed (if not every potential variation of every protein), even in a Universe limited to what we have observed so far. Just unlikely.

    To reiterate though, none of this obviates any claim that God made the universe exactly so, in order for life to arise in those improbable circumstances in accordance with His plan. I find the idea that an omniscient omnipotent entity would create a Universe which by it's nature brings forth the rare and spectacular of it's own accord far more plausible than the idea that He would need to interfere with what he made after the fact in order to produce what He wanted. Though I'll admit to my own limited perspective on the matter.


  • #5619
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    None of them work i.e. produce life spontaneously ... and they are just wishful thinking in order to avoid what is staring us all in the face ... that an intelligence of Divine proportions is required to generate life.
    That's quite an insult to scientific research into the beginnings of life to suggest they are engaged in mere 'wishful thinking'.

    How did you establish that all models being tested do not work? How did you carry out your testing?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5620
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    ... but we don't have forever to do it ... we are limited to the 15 billion years (max) that conventional science says the Universe has existed for ... and to produce every possible sequence for 100 chain biomolecule even if every electron in the Universe was capable of producing a permutation every nano-second would take 10^28 (or 10 billion billion billion) years.

    The law of averages and big numbers means that it will on average take in excess of 10 billion billion billion years (and the entire matter of the Universe) to produce a specific 100 chain biomolecule using non-intelligently directed processes.
    ... and we require thousands of specific biomolecules to be produced at one location and instantaneously to produce even a simple cell.

    ... which is another logical reason reason for the impossibility of spontaneous processes producing life ... deeply purposeful living systems could never arise from a purpose-less process.
    It certainly has no chance at all in a 15 billion year old universe of the supposed size of the 'Big Bang' Universe.

    Are you now accepting that the Universe is actually, possibly 15 billion years old?


  • #5621
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Are you now accepting that the Universe is actually, possibly 15 billion years old?
    No ... just using it to prove that even with the time of the supposed conventional age of the universe at your disposal, it is still impossible to produce just one specific biomolecule using non-intelligently directed processes.


  • Advertisement
  • #5622
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    That's quite an insult to scientific research into the beginnings of life to suggest they are engaged in mere 'wishful thinking'.

    How did you establish that all models being tested do not work? How did you carry out your testing?
    None of them even claim to work ... they are ideas that 'might lead to life'.

    The reason these ideas are wishful thinking is because it is proven beyond all doubt that the spontaneous generation of life is impossible.


  • #5623
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    None of them even claim to work ... they are ideas that 'might lead to life'.

    The reason these ideas are wishful thinking is because it is proven beyond all doubt that the spontaneous generation of life is impossible.

    If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that life requires a deity to explain the origin of life, why are scientists (religious and non-religious alike) collectively ignoring the evidence?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5624
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    If it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that life requires a deity to explain the origin of life, why are scientists (religious and non-religious alike) collectively ignoring the evidence?
    Hope springs eternal ... and there is nothing wrong with trying.

    I guess its something like cryogenic freezing ... where the hope is that the body can be revived at some time in the future even though it is impossible to raise somebody from the dead ... unless you're God.


  • #5625
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Hope springs eternal ... and there is nothing wrong with trying.

    I guess its something like cryogenic freezing ... where the hope is that the body can be revived at some time in the future even though it is impossible to raise somebody from the dead ... unless you're God.
    Do you sincerely think so little of scientists that you believe they are all part of a global conspiracy to suppress evidence that creationism is true?

    Because right now that is ultimately what you're suggesting with claims of scientists engaged in 'wishful thinking'.

    Why would the scientific community engage in such deception considering it would do nothing bit hamper scientific progress?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5626
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    There is not enough matter or time in the Universe to spontaneously produce the correct amino acid sequence...

    The odds of producing a specific amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is...

    Perhaps I'm missing some thing obvious here but would ask the following.

    It seems that you are calculating the odds of something specific occurring. Take the lotto numbers as an example: the odds of getting the winning numbers are stacked against you because you're aiming to achieve something specific, namely: your pick of numbers matching another pick of numbers.

    Similarly, the odds of achieving a particular long string of molecules is highly improbable only if you're aiming to achieve something specific, like the long string of molecules which we notice are involved in life.

    Wouldn't it be the case though, that long strings of molecules could have been produced willy nilly back in the day. That is, without much ado, without being at all improbable.

    In which case, landing on a life-producing combination is mere accident, no more notable than landing on any other combination. It could happen on the very first long string of molecules ever assembled by chance, or the 2nd, 3rd, 4th.

    This 10 to the 130th or whatever, only seems relevant if you add in the target of "having to" (as one does in trying to match lotto numbers) achieve a particular result.


  • #5627
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Do you sincerely think so little of scientists that you believe they are all part of a global conspiracy to suppress evidence that creationism is true?

    Because right now that is ultimately what you're suggesting with claims of scientists engaged in 'wishful thinking'.

    Why would the scientific community engage in such deception considering it would do nothing bit hamper scientific progress?
    Good questions.

    I guess we need to ask these scientists why they are doing this?

    My own guess is that it is a combination of 'going with the crowd' and worry that if they admit defeat on spontaneous Generation and spontaneous Evolution that churches will gloat and revert to some of the negative things that they previously got up to when they were previously in the ascendent.

    There is also the (well founded) fear that conventional science would suffer terrible reputational damage if it now backed down on these issues ... and this could have all kinds of known and unknown negative consequences for science and scientists ... ranging across all science disciplines.

    I have considerable sympathy and appreciation for the reality of these fears and issues.

    I would hope that science would come out the far side of such an admission all the better from the experience ... but I can see that this would certainly not be guaranteed.

    There are also the egos on all sides ... its not nice to have to admit that you're wrong ... and this is doubly so if your opponents are likely to laugh at you ... especially when you believe yourself to be intellectually superior to them ... and in many case, actually are.


  • #5628
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    No ... just using it to prove that even with the time of the supposed conventional age of the universe at your disposal, it is still impossible to produce just one specific biomolecule using non-intelligently directed processes.

    Just let me get this straight, you believe that the Earth and Universe are about 10,000 years old, not millions of years, yet you are arguing from a perspective where the universe is 15 billion years old?
    How does all this stuff work if everything is just a few thousand years old? Where do Adam and Eve / Noah fit into your equation?
    How is it possible, from a scientific perspective, for a man not only to live for 900 years but to keep producing kids at that age?


  • #5629
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Perhaps I'm missing some thing obvious here but would ask the following.

    It seems that you are calculating the odds of something specific occurring. Take the lotto numbers. The odds of getting the winning numbers are low because your aiming to achieve something specific namely: your pick of numbers matching another pick of numbers.

    It strikes me that the odds of achieving a particular long string of molecules is highly improbably only if you're aiming to achieve something specific, like the long string of molecules which we notice are involved in life.

    Would it be the case the long strings of molecules are produced left, right and centre. IE without much ado. In which case, landing on a life-producing combination is mere accident.

    It could happen on the very first long string of molecules ever assembled by chance, or the 2nd, 3rd, 4th.

    This 10 to the 130th or whatever, only seems relevant if you add in the target of "having to" (as one does in trying to match lotto numbers) achieve a particular result.
    Producing these biomolecules is a very sophisticated and tightly specified business (again impossible for a non-intelligently directed process) ... but I'm not even going there ... all I'm doing is looking at how specific biomolecules required in a specific place and time can be produced reliably, repeatedly and consistently by spontaneous systems ... and I find that it is impossible to produce even one specific biomolecule ... even with the entire matter and time supposedly available in the Universe since the supposed Big Bang.


  • #5630
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    Producing these biomolecules is a very sophisticated and tightly specified business (again impossible for a non-intelligently directed process) ... but I'm not even going there ... all I'm doing is looking at how specific biomolecules required in a specific place and time can be produced reliably, repeatedly and consistently by spontaneous systems ... and I find that it is impossible to produce even one specific biomolecule ... even with the entire matter and time supposedly available in the Universe since the supposed Big Bang.
    Actually, the numbers you're giving us are those required to produce every specific biomolecule... despite knowing that only an infinestimable fraction of those will occur as life moves from the most basic to the most complex variations we're aware of. An inception and progression that is eminently possible without an intelligently directed process.


  • #5631
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Just let me get this straight, you believe that the Earth and Universe are about 10,000 years old, not millions of years, yet you are arguing from a perspective where the universe is 15 billion years old?
    How does all this stuff work if everything is just a few thousand years old? Where do Adam and Eve / Noah fit into your equation?
    How is it possible, from a scientific perspective, for a man not only to live for 900 years but to keep producing kids at that age?
    It works fine once an intelligence enters the equation. Modern scientists can synthesise specific 100 chain biomolecules quickly, consistently and accurately by applying their intelligence (and very sophisticated manufacturing processes) ... and an intelligent being of Divine capacity could do it much more quickly and accurately.

    Something that is impossible to do by non-intelligently directed systems even with billions of years and all of the matter in the Universe at their disposal, can be done by mere Human Intelligence and ingenuity quickly and releatedly with a minimal amount of matter.


  • Advertisement
  • #5632
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Absolam wrote: »
    Actually, the numbers you're giving us are those required to produce every specific biomolecule... despite knowing that only an infinestimable fraction of those will occur as life moves from the most basic to the most complex variations we're aware of. An inception and progression that is eminently possible without an intelligently directed process.
    ... but when a spontaneous system is trying to produce a specific new biomolecule required within a specific process only the correct specific biomolecule will do ... and it's then that the infinitecimal fraction of the total combinatorial space that produces this specific biomolecule starts to work against it ever being produced by spontaneous systems.


  • #5633
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    It works fine once an intelligence enters the equation. Modern scientists can synthesise specific 100 chain biomolecules quickly, consistently and accurately by applying their intelligence (and very sophisticated manufacturing processes) ... and an intelligent being of Divine capacity could do a lot more quickly and accurately.

    Something that is impossible even with billions of years and all of the matter in the Universe at you disposal can be done by mere Human Intelligence and ingenuity quickly and releatedly with a minimal amount of matter.

    So dispite all your "scientific" background and all your so called expertise, you still believe the universe is 10,000 years old and therefore no star or galaxy is actually more than 10,000 light years away.
    Our Galaxy, the Milky Way is 100,000 light years in Diameter. It takes the light from IC 1101, the largest known galaxy in the universe, 350 million years to get here, or so the scientists tell us. But they are wrong, eh? God is fooling them all? The prehistoric writers of the Bible know better?


  • #5634
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    J C wrote: »
    ... but when a spontaneous system is trying to produce a specific new biomolecule required within a specific process only the correct specific biomolecule will do ... and it's then that the infinitecimal fraction of the total combinatorial space that produces this specific biomolecule starts to work against it ever being produced by spontaneous systems.
    It's not trying to produce a specific new biomolecule though is it? It's a non intelligent, non directed process. If a biomolecule is produced which advances life in one direction, that's what happens, if it isn't then perhaps it advances another direction, perhaps not at all. Either way, every biomolecule per your numbers, does not need to be produced, just one. Plenty of time to do that billions of billions of billions of times over, even on one planet. Never mind a practically infinite number of them.

    Even the fact that you're saying the odds work against it ever happening show that you already realise it can happen, it's just improbable.


  • #5635
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Good questions.

    I guess we need to ask these scientists why they are doing this?

    My own guess is that it is a combination of 'going with the crowd' and worry that if they admit defeat on spontaneous Generation and spontaneous Evolution that churches will gloat and revert to some of the negative things that they previously got up to when they were previously in the ascendent.


    There is also the (well founded) fear that conventional science would suffer terrible reputational damage if it now backed down on these issues ... and this could have all kinds of known and unknown negative consequences for science and scientists ... ranging across all science disciplines.
    So the scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy to suppress the 'truth' of creationism is an effort to keep the church in check?

    In addition to that, scientists are worried that relaying facts in an objective manner will diminish how science is regarded? (only someone who doesn't understand science could suggest such a thing!)
    I have considerable sympathy and appreciation for the reality of these fears and issues.

    I would hope that science would come out the far side of such an admission all the better from the experience ... but I can see that this would certainly not be guaranteed.

    There are also the egos on all sides ... its not nice to have to admit that you're wrong ... and this is doubly so if your opponents are likely to laugh at you ... especially when you believe yourself to be intellectually superior to them ... and in many case, actually are.
    If you're engaged in scientific research, part-and-parcel of that is admitting that you get something wrong so as research can progress in line with evidence.

    And is creationism not guilty of exactly what you state science is guilty of above? A concept drawn up to reassure Christians of their faith because their literal interpretation of the bible means that evolution is a problem for their own egos?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5636
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    But science has had to face serious abuse from the church since the 1500's (probably before). Many people were ostracised and worse by the church due to them putting forward scientific theory's that went against the church's teachings.

    Why would people put themselves through that? Many claim that the fact that Peter et all continued to claim Jesus as the truth despite the threats somehow proves that it must be true, then the same agruement can be used for scientists.

    You make it sound like science controls the church when history tells a completely different story. It was the church who surpressed science and it was only due to the undeniable facts that the church had to give way and now you are claiming that science as it in for the church.


  • #5637
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    and I find that it is impossible to produce even one specific biomolecule ... even with the entire matter and time supposedly available in the Universe since the supposed Big Bang.

    That is the crux of the thing I wanted clarification on:

    I'm not asking whether it is impossible to produce one specific biomolecule with all that matter and time.

    The question is this: in your view is it impossible to produce any biomolecule of any type with all that matter and time.

    You stand (in my view erroneously) on this "specific" plank in your discussion with Absolam also. He replies essentially in the same way my first question was framed to you.
    Absolam wrote:
    It's not trying to produce a specific new biomolecule though is it? It's a non intelligent, non directed process. If a biomolecule is produced which advances life in one direction, that's what happens, if it isn't then perhaps it advances another direction, perhaps not at all.


    If biomolecules are being spat out willy nilly then they'll combine whichever way they do. In our case (the argument goes) they just happened to combine to produce us. Perhaps they could have combined to form more order than we see. Perhaps less. The point is that nothing specific was being aimed for - such that you can stand astonished at the low probability of achieving something so specified.

    That, it seems to me, is it in a nutshell: probabilities only apply when you're looking for something specific to happen.

    -

    Now, I do firmly believe the heavens declare the glory of God and do wonder that anyone could suppose (in their heart of hearts) that all this is the product of undirected forces. But if choosing to reject I.D. on a purely "probability" front, that is their justifiable perogative.


  • #5638
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That is the crux of the thing I wanted clarification on:

    I'm not asking whether it is impossible to produce one specific biomolecule with all that matter and time.

    The question is this: in your view is it impossible to produce any biomolecule of any type with all that matter and time.
    It may well be impossible to produce any biomolecule via non-intelligently directed processes, such is the sophistication of the processes involve in doing so ... but I'm not arguing that.

    I'm accepting, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to produce biomolecules spontaneously and quickly ... and then I'm looking at how the specific combination of biomolecules required to produce any functional biological system can all be produced closely in time and space. All functional systems are observed to require specific combinations of specific biomolecules.
    For example, if a functional system requires three specific biomolecules A, B and C ... and we start off with A, from a spontaneous system, for the sake of argument, then the chance of also getting B is 1: 10^130 and the chance of getting C is a further 1:10^130.
    ... which means that it is impossible to get any functional biological system produced using non-intelligently directed processes.
    ... the importance of intelligence, being able to chose and design functional systems is illustrated by the fact that using just Human levels of intelligence could produce a specific combination of A, B and C molecules with certainty, very quickly and with minimal use of matter.

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Now, I do firmly believe the heavens declare the glory of God and do wonder that anyone could suppose (in their heart of hearts) that all this is the product of undirected forces.
    ... we not only 'feel' intuitively (in our heart of hearts) that all we observe is the product of directed forces ... we can now logically and mathematically establish this as well.


  • #5639
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    And is creationism not guilty of exactly what you state science is guilty of above? A concept drawn up to reassure Christians of their faith because their literal interpretation of the bible means that evolution is a problem for their own egos?
    It is certainly possible that Creationism could be guilty as you charge.
    Creationists are Humans ... and they are as likely as anybody else of being biased and engaging in wishful and selective thinking that supports their worldview ... but so too is everybody else.

    ... the only way to find out if Creationists and/or anybody else is engaging in wishful selective thinking on any issue is to critically evaluate whatever evidence and arguments they present for their position.


  • #5640
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It is certainly possible that Creationism could be guilty as you charge.
    Creationists are Humans ... and they are as likely as anybody else of being biased and engaging in wishful and selective thinking that supports their worldview ... but so too is everybody else.

    ... the only way to find out if Creationists and/or anybody else is engaging in wishful selective thinking on any issue is to critically evaluate whatever evidence and arguments they present for their position.

    Okay, so working for the premise of critically evaluating of an issue (evolution in this instance), how do you propose we do that seeing that you don't accept current scientific understanding and the evidence for evolution?

    If we don't use science to investigate the origins of life, what tools do you suggest mankind use?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #5641
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,915 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    J C wrote: »
    It may well be impossible to produce any biomolecule via non-intelligently directed processes, such is the sophistication of the processes involve in doing so ... but I'm not arguing that.

    I'm accepting, for the sake of argument, that it is possible to produce biomolecules spontaneously and quickly ... and then I'm looking at how the specific combination of biomolecules required to produce any functional biological system can all be produced closely in time and space. All functional systems are observed to require specific combinations of specific biomolecules.

    I am a bit out of my depth here with biomolecules, but it seems to me that creation would not have started with a requirement for specific biomolecules, rather that biomolecules came into existence (that is another argument) and combined to create a functional system. Maybe lots of systems started but few were functional, and the one we have developed because, well, evolution.

    Your maths is, I think, irrelevant. It might well have been a 1: 10^130 chance that it happened, but only the one was needed. Someone who has never ever bought a lottery ticket could buy one today and win.


Advertisement