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

Darwin's theory

1…4748505253…78

Comments

  • #1472
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    J C wrote: »
    The fact that an intelligence has been scientifically proven to have created life causes equal faith-based problems for an Atheist ... as it proves that an intelligence of Divine proportions Created life ... and therefore the Atheist belief that God doesn't exit may be invalid.

    So both of us have faith-based beliefs 'riding on' the question of how life originated.

    So rather than making fallacious arguments that Atheists have no beliefs and Evolution isn't intimately connected to their worldview ... we should accept that we both have faith-based beliefs that impinge on the 'origins question' ... and get on with examining the evidence for M2M Evolution and its competitor theory of ID.

    Please produce the evidence.

    Hard, objective, tested and verifiable peer reviewed evidence that an intelligence created life.

    Not an opinion, hypothesis, belief etc.

    Cold, hard, objective proof.


  • #1473
    Dar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Dar


    floggg wrote: »
    I think we found the problem - somebody clearly doesn't know what spontaneously means.

    Yes, clearly.

    spontaneous
    spɒnˈteɪnɪəs
    adjective
    • performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
    • having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
    • (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.


  • #1474
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    floggg wrote: »
    Please produce the evidence.

    Hard, objective, tested and verifiable peer reviewed evidence that an intelligence created life.

    Not an opinion, hypothesis, belief etc.

    Cold, hard, objective proof.

    Oh the evidence wouldn't be believer by us non-believers or some such nonsense. JC is on a windup plain and simple. 9 years takes dedication I'll give him that.


  • #1475
    rozeboosje
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭rozeboosje


    There really is no argument to be had. Given the way life works, how it reproduces with great but not perfect accuracy, how it tends to reproduce exponentially and how it has to live within a limited set of resources, evolution is a mathematical certainty. Arguing against this is not just unnecessary. It's plain stupid.


  • #1476
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,168 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    What the fcuk is M2M Evolution? It seems to be some kind of network engineering conference and expo, that is literally the only result on Google.


  • Advertisement
  • #1477
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Thargor wrote: »
    What the fcuk is M2M Evolution? It seems to be some kind of network engineering conference and expo, that is literally the only result on Google.

    It stand for "muck to man". Funnily a term more suited to the creation of Adam.

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



  • #1478
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    J C wrote: »
    ... have you anything else nasty you can think up to lie about me?

    Yes in your sad little fantasy world, reality becomes a lie. I feel sorry for the few people are forced to endure you in real life.
    one man's meat is indeed another man's poison ... and you have proven the rule by claiming that Creation Science evidence is 'poisonous' for Evolution.

    No JC creatardism isn't poisionous to evolution. A sad little fantasy dreamed up by sad little men can do nothing to one of the best evidenced scientific theories there is. I said that you are poison, you lie, you cheat, you quote mine, you misrepresent and you libel others in order that you can get your sad little fantasy about yhwh creating the world four thousand years ago, and all the other fantasy stories written in your "holy" book, which isn't frankly good enough to wipe my arse with. If there were any justice in the world people like you would have been locked up in psychiatric wards long ago and refused contact with the outside world, rather than those they did lock up (because they were ill {like my uncle}, or they were inconvenient for those inheriting land).


  • #1479
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Dar wrote: »
    Yes, clearly.

    spontaneous
    spɒnˈteɪnɪəs
    adjective
    • performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus.
    • having an open, natural, and uninhibited manner.
    • (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.
    That would be it allright.


  • #1480
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    floggg wrote: »
    Nobody says pond kind spontaneously converted into intelligent life or mankind.

    You have correctly say that would he impossible.
    ... so how did Pondkind supposedly evolve into Mankind then?

    ... or are you saying that this never happened?
    floggg wrote: »
    But yet in the same breath you try to convince us that dust spontaneously converted into Adam.

    Please tell me how that's possible?
    Dust didn't spontaneously convert into Adam ... God did it.


  • #1481
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I don't see how 'god did it' is in any way a more convincing argument than Biological processes did it'.
    He has the capacity to do so ... whereas non-intelligently directed processes don't.

    ... so how did Pondkind supposedly evolve into Mankind then?

    ... or are you guys saying that this never happened?


  • Advertisement
  • #1482
    FutureGuy
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    I've read the Bible and I have read a lot of books on the evolution of Homo sapiens.

    In 2014, I cannot understand how people still believe in anything but evolution. The hard evidence pertaining the evolution and eventual dominance of Homo sapiens is everywhere in the world. Everywhere. Chronologically accurate evidence.

    We are intelligent beings capable of analysing the world around us. My belief is that religion has turned men into muck, not the other way around. If you question your faith, it's seen as a sign of weakness. No it's a sign of ultimate strength.

    There was no Adam and Eve, there is no such thing as intelligent design, there are no Gods. There is, and always will be, evolution.

    Fact. Nothing more.


  • #1483
    FutureGuy
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    J C wrote: »
    ... so how did Pondkind supposedly evolve into Mankind then?

    ... or are you saying that this never happened?

    Dust didn't spontaneously convert into Adam ... God did it.

    Proof. Please. Oh I guess that's "faith" right?


  • #1484
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    rozeboosje wrote: »
    goddidit!!!! LOL
    It did itself LOL!!!:pac:


  • #1485
    FutureGuy
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    J C wrote: »
    It did itself LOL!!!:pac:

    Please give me one shred of proof that God made Adam from dust. And Eve from a rib.

    I could write a book on how all the signs are there of a middle-of-the road species evolving, adapting and wiping out other life as it spread around the planet.

    You can't give a sentence.

    For the record, I'm an atheist for about 5 years. I was a Christian before that. Even then, I believed in evolution and dismissed the idea of Adam and Even when I was about 8.


  • #1486
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FutureGuy wrote: »
    I've read the Bible and I have read a lot of books on the evolution of Homo sapiens.

    In 2014, I cannot understand how people still believe in anything but evolution. The hard evidence pertaining the evolution and eventual dominance of Homo sapiens is everywhere in the world. Everywhere. Chronologically accurate evidence.

    We are intelligent being capable of analysing the world around you. My belief is that religion has turned men into muck, not the other way around. If you question your faith, it's seen as a sign of weakness. No it's a sign of ultimate strength.

    There was no Adam and Eve, there is no such thing as intelligent design, there are no Gods. There is, and always will be, evolution.

    Fact. Nothing more.
    OK please tell me where this is wrong?
    Quote:-
    (Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.


    These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
    This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
    The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
    ... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.


  • #1487
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Even if any of that math is correct (and that's a big if); 'god did it' is still not a logical conclusion to come to.
    The maths are correct ... you are also correct that we cannot scientifically conclude that it was the God of the Bible who did it ... but He is a strong contender.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    It would be far more likely that something in our understanding of the universe is wrong.
    ... that's a reasonable and logical conclusion.


  • #1488
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,445 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    J C wrote: »
    OK please tell me where this is wrong?
    Quote:-
    (Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.


    These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
    This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
    The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
    ... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

    Isn't the fact that it is complete and utter nonsense enough to prove it's wrong?


  • #1489
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    OK please tell me where this is wrong?
    Quote:-
    (Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.


    These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
    This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
    The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
    ... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.
    Dishonest Dembski: the Universal Probability Bound
    Here’s the fundamental dishonesty: None of those numbers have *anything* to do with what he’s supposedly trying to prove. He’s trying to create a formal-sounding version of the big-number problem by throwing together a bunch of fancy-sounding numbers, multiplying them together, and claiming that they somehow suddenly have meaning.


    But they don’t.


    It’s actually remarkably easy to show what utter nonsense this is. I’ll do a fancy one first, and a trivial one second.


    Let’s create an incredibly simplified model of a region of space. Let’s say we have a cube of space, 1 kilometer on a side. Further, let’s suppose that this space contains 1000 particles, and they are all electrons. And further, let’s suppose that each 1mm cube in this cubic kilometer can only have one electron in it.


    This is a model which is so much simpler than reality that it’s downright silly. But everything about the real world would make it more complex, and it’s sufficient for our purposes.


    Now: consider the probability of any *configuration* of the electrons in the region of space. A configuration is a selection of the set of 1mm cubes that contain electrons.



    The number of different configurations of this region of space is (10^9!)/((1000!)\*(10^9-1000)!). That works out to (10^9\*(10^9-1)\*(10^9-2)\*…\*(10^9-1000))/(1000!).
    1000! is roughly 4×10^2568 according to my scheme interpreter. We’ll be generous, and use 1×10^2569, to make things easier. To estimate the numerator, we can treat it as (10^9)\*((10^8)999), which will be much smaller. That’s 10^7801. So the probability of any particular configuration within that cube is 1 in 10^5232.


    So any state of particles within that cube is an event with probability considerably smaller than 1 in 10^5232. So what Dembski is saying is that *every* possible configuration of matter in space in the entire universe is impossible without intelligent intervention.


    And the trivial one? Grab two decks of distinguishable cards. Shuffle them together, and lay them out for a game of spider solitaire. What’s the probability of that particular lay of cards? 104! , or, very roughly, something larger than 1×10^166. Is god personally arranging ,my cards every time I play spider?


    Anyone who’s ever taken any class on probability *knows* this stuff. One college level intro, and you know that routine daily events can have incredibly small probabilities – far smaller than his alleged UPB. But Dembski calls himself a mathematician, and he writes about probability quite frequently. As much as I’ve come to believe that he’s an idiot, things like this just don’t fit: he *must* know that this is wrong, but he continues to publish it anyway.

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



  • #1490
    FutureGuy
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    J C wrote: »
    OK please tell me where this is wrong?
    Quote:-
    (Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.


    These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
    This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
    The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
    ... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

    J C, if you are seriously trying to argue against evolution by referencing Dembski, then I realise there is no point arguing with you on anything :-)


  • #1491
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    FutureGuy wrote: »
    J C, if you are seriously trying to argue against evolution by referencing Dembski, then I realise there is no point arguing with you on anything :-)

    Goddammit, now he's going to claim he's beaten you. *sigh*


  • Advertisement
  • #1492
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Isn't the fact that it is complete and utter nonsense enough to prove it's wrong?
    Can you please stop 'hand-waving' and answer my question.
    This is the kernel of the matter ... and you will be feted from here to Timbuktu, if you disprove ID ... by identifying a mathematical or logical error in my posting.:)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92679796&postcount=1660


  • #1493
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Goddammit, now he's going to claim he's beaten you. *sigh*
    ... the best way of heading off this eventuality is for all of you to stop 'hand-waving' ... and address my posting on ID.


  • #1494
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Even so, as I said previously even if the calculations were correct,
    So are the calculations correct?

    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    God isn't the automatic conclusion. Which you actually agreed with, much to my surprise!
    I share our conclusion above.
    From a scientific point of view what you say is all that can be concluded.


  • #1495
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    OK please tell me where this is wrong?
    Quote:-
    (Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.


    These numbers place an upper limit of about 10^150 possible total reactions involving the entire matter and using all of the time in the Big Bang universe (which is termed the universal probability bound).
    This is then compared with the combinatorial space of simple proteins and other biochemical molecules ... each of which are often in excess of the universal probability bound.
    The implications of this is that if you had all of the matter in the Universe generating random sequences for the billions of years that the Big Ban Universe supposedly exists, you couldn't reasonably expect even one specific functional protein to be produced.
    ... and we need many hundreds of specific proteins and other biomolecules working in highly integrate systems in even 'simple' uni-cellular life, to say nothing about the multi-celled stuff.

    His universal probability bound depends on the matter in the Universe generating random sequences until the sequence 'required' is achieved.
    First of all there is no guarantee that the sequence which has produced the life we see is the only one which could produce life. We may well be a product of one of a great number of sequences which could produce some kind of life. "It's life Jim but not as we know it!" Do we know these sequences exist? No, but it makes more sense to look for them than to run like children to your God theory.
    Secondly his calculations depend on the premise that all possible sequences or sub-sequences are equally probable or even possible. There are chemical constraints on which molecules can associate with other molecules, these constraints could reduce the range of possible outcomes enormously. Do we know the details of these constraints? Not yet, but taking such factors into account makes much more sense than childishly using a very simplistic formula to conclude that an unexplained external force did everything.


  • #1496
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    FutureGuy wrote: »
    J C, if you are seriously trying to argue against evolution by referencing Dembski, then I realise there is no point arguing with you on anything :-)
    ... and if you are seriously arguing in favour of Evolution you will find any logical or mathematical flaws in my posting.


  • #1497
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Tordelback wrote: »
    How does even ID prove the existence of the Christian God in particular? Even if there was a single piece of evidence in support of ID (and I've never seen one), why would it point to NuJehovah, and not Uranus, Baal or Ymir and his cow emerging from the bloody Ginnungagap? Try to answer the question without using the word 'bible', beacuse you can find all those other fellas in books too nowadays.

    What are your thoughts on this JC? In case you've "forgotton".


  • #1498
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    His universal probability bound depends on the matter in the Universe generating random sequences until the sequence 'required' is achieved.
    First of all there is no guarantee that the sequence which has produced the life we see is the only one which could produce life. We may well be a product of one of a great number of sequences which could produce some kind of life. "It's life Jim but not as we know it!" Do we know these sequences exist? No, but it makes more sense to look for them than to run like children to your God theory.
    We 'Earthlings' know one kind of life ... and this kind of life has combinatorial spaces for many of its biomolecule components that are greater than the Universal Probability Bound ... thereby making the spontaneous production of these molecules and their precise integration into living systems, an impossibility.
    obplayer wrote: »
    Secondly his calculations depend on the premise that all possible sequences or sub-sequences are equally probable or even possible. There are chemical constraints on which molecules can associate with other molecules, these constraints could reduce the range of possible outcomes enormously. Do we know the details of these constraints? Not yet, but taking such factors into account makes much more sense than childishly using a very simplistic formula to conclude that an unexplained external force did everything.
    There are no chemical inhibitions with regard to amino acid sequences ... they can be arranged in every possible sequence ... and this implies a combinatorial space in excess of the Universal Probability Bound for each of these biomolecules.


  • #1499
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Skylinehead wrote: »
    What are your thoughts on this JC? In case you've "forgotton".
    I have given my thoughts ... that it doesn't scientifically prove that it was the God of the Bible who did it ... but it does prove that an 'intelligence' or 'intelligence(s)' did it.
    All kinds of possibilities exist ... from 'Aliens' to other gods .... and the God of the Bible.


  • #1500
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    And what about SW's post refuting dembski's claims? You've been asking us to refute that for a while in fairness.

    here's an excellent dissection of many things JC has been posting for years

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



  • Advertisement
  • #1501
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Before I clicked the link, I had a sneaking suspicion it would be oldrnwisr. :D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement