[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
individual training with TALONE
Forum Index » General Discussion
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
On the contrary, the universe is finite. That's what the big bang shows us, that the universe began at a specific point in time and that it is only a certain size (though we haven't pinpointed the size yet). All the vast possibilities in the universe cannot compare to the immense improbability we are dealing with. Even once you come up with a habitable planet, and even if you create a "primordial soup" full of amino acids and nucleic acids (Those two alone easily swallow up a lot of probability), you still need to somehow arrange them in such a way that they produce a cell, which is much less probable than monkeys randomly typing out Shakespeare! If Sid is indeed a cell biologist, he can verify that the simplest possible living cell still contains innumerable characters of DNA code necessary for life, and nothing leads the DNA to self-assemble in a meaningful way. Even if you did come up with a complete genome, which is doubtful, you'd have to also spontaneously generate the proteins necessary to translate it and seal them all (proteins and genome) within a perfect lipid bilayer. It's not only improbable, it's virtually impossible to do it by chance. Chance does not produce the sort of complexity necessary for life.

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
Wrath Of Sid

Messages: 34,
Joined: Feb 15, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
Wrath Of Sid

Messages: 34,
Joined: Feb 15, 2012,
Offline
Okay, this is bent. I don't come on this forum to defend science from an assault by creationism. But I will say this.

The numbers do add up. According to the probability of life arising by chance, as calculated by people far more qualified by me to do so, there is a ten per cent probability of simple cells evolving on an Earth-similar planet. Of all these life-geneses approximately ten per cent will become complex unicellular organisms with a definite cell ultrastructure. Ten per cent of all complex cell cultures will gain sufficient cohesive ability to form multicellular organisms. Ten per cent of all planets with multicellular organisms will eventually develop intelligent life, therefore the probability of intelligent life forms evolving on an Earth-similar planet is roughly 0.01%.

Considering that, by the Drake equation, the Milky Way galaxy alone is estimated to contain 10,000,000,000 Earth-similar planets this leads us to approximately 1,000,000 planets in the galaxy that could potentially contain intelligent civilisations. Just to clarify, by intelligent I essentially mean animal. The probability of one of these civilisations evolving to have intelligence equal to or greater than humanity knocks a fairly large chunk off the estimate, and again the probability of the development of technology is fairly low.

Here is the Drake equation if you want to try it yourself:
N=SxPxHxLxCxMxIxT
N=Number of civilisations in the galaxy capable of space flight
S=Number of stars in the galaxy
P=Probability of a star having a stable planetary system
H=Probability of a stable planetary system containing a habitable planet
L=Probability of life evolving on a habitable planet
C=Probability of complex cells evolving on a life-supporting planet
M=Probability of complex cells forming primitive multicellular organisms
I=Probability of multicellular organisms evolving into intelligent life
T=Probability of an intelligent life form developing the technology necessary to travel to a different planet

Sanity is for the weak!!!
[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline

[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
I think I'm getting lost a bit – which variable here corresponds with the Enyalios (sp?), which part Khraleans, and what time period in the back story are we talking about?
cogger

Messages: 46,
Joined: Dec 20, 2011,
Offline

cogger

Messages: 46,
Joined: Dec 20, 2011,
Offline
Wrath of sid- Im not going into this arguement, as i believe both sides hae merit, but drakes equation was criticized by many different scientific sources.
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
The probability of a cell "evolving" is 10%!? First of all, things can't evolve if they can't reproduce, so the first cell didn't "evolve", it simply appeared fully formed. Second of all, the probability is way lower than ten percent. Try 10^-100. As I mentioned, this is in the same league as monkeys typing Shakespeare. A random arrangement of DNA must somehow come up with all the genes necessary for life, some billion characters that must be arranged in just the right arrangement, and then all the equipment necessary to translate the DNA must also spontaneously appear.

Back in Darwin's day, they thought the cell was just a blob of protoplasm, rather like a water balloon filled with "life goop". Now we know that the cell is a complicated factory, capable of decoding its instructions (DNA) and creating all the machines needed to survive in a hostile microscopic environment. Humans haven't even developed technology as advanced as that found in the cell at a large scale, let alone at the molecular scale they find it in. Most nanotechnology experiments today involve copying machines from the cell, many of which had to be present at the origin of life. How can you explain the completely random origin of technology we cannot even reproduce?

As to Drake's equation, it is really pointless. Yes, it theoretically represents the probability of spacefaring civilizations arising, but we don't know most of the terms to put in! For instance, the probability of a planet being habitable is vastly overestimated. Reasons to Believe (an organization of Christian astronomers) has researched extensively into the topic and has found that the probability of a habitable planet arising anywhere in the known universe is extremely low. So SxPxH alone ends up far below 1. Add L, and you end up with an impossibly improbable number. You say a billion planets with animal life in our galaxy? I say 1 in the entire universe, and that only because of the Anthropic Principal. So far SETI has borne out my assertion.

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
Fool

Messages: 10,
Joined: Mar 10, 2012,
Location: England
Offline

[Avatar]
Fool

Messages: 10,
Joined: Mar 10, 2012,
Location: England
Offline
How this is pretty awesome and entirely not what i was expecting to get to when i looked at this thread.

Belief (and particularly religious belief) is innately personal and one of the most subjective aspects of all our experiences of life. Of course everyone will have examples that support their viewpoints, that's how having a viewpoint works. You can't rationally debate a point of faith and things like the origin of life ARE a point of faith since we are unlikely to ever know for sure.

Evolution is a theory, Creationism is a theory.

I think I'm suggesting "live and let live" on an internet forum which (in my experience) is tantamount to madness but you all seem like very nice people in danger of getting cross with each other over a subject where you have a vanishingly small chance of persuading the other people of anything....?

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."
[Avatar]
Wrath Of Sid

Messages: 34,
Joined: Feb 15, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
Wrath Of Sid

Messages: 34,
Joined: Feb 15, 2012,
Offline
Hmm ... Okay, this is my last post in the topic. Everybody listen to the fool. (irony)

The fact that you feel the need to justify your belief with empirical data shows that you are perhaps not as convinced by Creationism as you lead us to believe. A true belief does not require evidence or probability crunching to support it, only faith.

Just out of interest do you think climate change is a myth?

Sanity is for the weak!!!
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
@Wrath of Sid: On the contrary, I am more sure in my faith than most Christians because I know that my faith is supported by the evidence. I have no need to go into denial about the facts (as evolutionists do when rejecting ID), because I have researched the facts and I have found ample proof for my point of view. What you refer to is not being convinced by creationism, it is being too stubborn to admit you don't know if it's true. Faith alone is useless, because many things are not worthy to have your faith placed in them. You need to have faith in the truth, and to find the truth you need to search for the truth.

It seems that you subscribe at some level to postmodernism, the worldview that claims there is no absolute truth (no one true faith). Postmodernism is really just a cop-out to avoid philosophical discussions, and it makes no sense when you examine it. How can a worldview that claims the non-existence of absolute truth be absolutely true? It can't be!

I truly believe that Christianity is the one true faith, and I think that anyone who looks at the facts I've seen without bias will conclude the same. For instance, there is significant proof that the Bible is accurate and that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. If any of you don't know whether your worldview is true, you should seriously think about looking up the facts, because only the worldview that matches the world is true.

No, I don' t think climate change is a myth. The climate does change, and humans are making it worse in some ways. I don't even see how this tends to end up in a philosophical discussion, because it is a scientific question with little in the way of philosophical implications. Now Darwinian Evolution, that has some serious philosophical implications, I'm surprised no one has brought that up.

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
Skar

Messages: 29,
Joined: Feb 21, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
Skar

Messages: 29,
Joined: Feb 21, 2012,
Offline
Congratulations! You passed the Texas Test! (You fail by claiming that anthropogenic climate change is not a proven fact. If you do fail, all other points of view you may hold, correct or otherwise, are immediately discounted in an intelligent debate.)

Back to the topic at hand, it is true that time and again Creationists attempt to justify their point of view by producing scientific 'evidence' and time and again they are shot down in flames. To a scientist (me) it is deeply troubling that some people deliberately falsify evidence to support a fundamentally flawed point of view.

However, I will say this. I am incapable of understanding why some people still cling to the concept that God literally made the Earth in seven days, also why some continue to claim scientific proof that the Earth is only six thousand years old. Human civilisation has passed the point where religious organisations can directly contradict proven theories and get away with it. Whether you believe that God is behind Darwinian evolution or not is a point of personal faith, and I have no argument than those who do. Only those who attempt to force their belief on others.

Nothing says 'Carpe Diem' like beer made of beer.
Fact.
[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline

[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
Not necessarily a compelling scientific or religious argument, but I like the Game of Life as a conceptual challenge to "this level of complexity couldn't possibly have evolved on its own". The rules are very simple, yet in practice you see these 'creatures' spontaneously appear and walk across the game board – surely they were designed in? Yet no, fascinating complexity can rise from simple rules (and the laws of physics and chemistry aren't *that* simple anyway.) This complexity-from-simplicity effect is commonly found in software generally. For those unfamiliar with GoL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcuBvj0pw-E

An example of the difficulties assigning 'probability' *after* an event: take a deck of cards, shuffle, randomly lay the cards out in some order. The odds that you would lay the cards out in that exact order are mind-bogglingly improbable. You should therefore conclude that it couldn't have happened by chance.

To argue the opposite side, the very argument used against the perceived improbability of chemical evolution – that the universe is vast and anything that can happen will happen – when extended sufficiently in terms of time, evolution, intelligence, technology, even potentially against an infinite time horizon across universes, means that there could be rather open-ended possibilities in terms of what the nature of reality and the universe actually is. So intelligent design certainly seems on the table from that perspective. That said, science proceeds from conservative, falsifiable premises; whether there was 'another hand' involved somewhere or not is not typically a falsifiable theory, and religious folks must come to grips with how overwhelmingly established evolution is, regardless of how compelling any particular book saying otherwise may seem on the face of it (there's a reason why it's not the established science.)
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
Now people are getting more into Darwinian evolution, so I will make clear my views on the subject. Darwinian evolution is not, as most evolutionists assert, as single coherent theory, it is in fact compose of many elements.

The first, which Darwin himself discovered proof for, is Natural Selection. Natural Selection results in minor changes to a species over time when beneficial variations are selected from among the variations that naturally occur within a species. The creatures with the most beneficial mutations are more likely to survive and reproduce, and thus the next generation of the species is slightly more like them than like their less fit cousins. Natural selection is a well-supported scientific theory, and I have no issue with it.

The second, Common Descent, is the assertion that all creatures on earth evolved from a common ancestor. This is, too a point, also supported by the evidence. Many Christians would argue with this point in favor of a 6 day creation in which all life was created, but that theory is contradicted by the evidence. I believe that the 6 day creation account in Genesis 1 is allegorical, so I have no problem with Common Descent either.

The third point is that Common Descent was caused by Natural Selection. This may seem like a minor point, but it makes a world of difference. If this point is true, God was not involved at all in the process of evolution, because the entire process was guided by an impersonal process. However, I do not believe that this is remotely true. All my arguments are against this point, and there is precious little evidence for this point to be found. Natural Selection is incapable of producing the kind of major changes needed by Common Descent, and the fossil record indicates that the changes occurred way too fast for Natural Selection to play a significant role. Some intelligent agent (such as God) must have been involved to make the changes, adding new features that Natural Selection is incapable of producing (irreducibly complex features).

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
Now for a more direct reply:


@Skar: I am not falsifying evidence, I am merely presenting evidence that the scientific community has purposefully ignored. Nor am I asserting that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, that is manifest nonsense in light of scientific discoveries. As I mentioned before, I am not forcing my belief on anyone or even trying to. I am merely trying to get you to examine the proof behind your own viewpoint and determine if it is true.


@waxoid: Yes, fascinating complexity can arise from relatively simple rules, but I would like to point out a few things:
1: Life is much, much more complicated than two dimensional patterns of cells that only have 2 possible states.
2: The simple rules as well as the starting positions were designed by an intelligent person.

As to your second point, I have an explanation, although it is a bit complicated:

The kind of improbability you refer to is Shannon's information. You included a great example of Shannon's information, but just to be clear here's another: Say you type a random sequence of letters and spaces such as this: "jfnbei cid kje dkejk idjjekd " The probability of you typing that exact sequence is very low, but since that sequence is meaningless the probability is likewise meaningless, any sequence of letters would serve the purpose just as well.

The kind of improbability I argue with, however, is specified complexity. An example of specified complexity would be this: "this sentence is an example of specified complexity". Specified complexity is not random, it is a specific end goal that is very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Say someone shuffled the deck thoroughly, but when you laid out the cards they were arranged split into the 4 suits and the cards in each suit were in order from ace to king. In that case, the mind-boggling improbability is no longer meaningless, it came up with a specific outcome. Note that there are multiple ways to achieve this outcome (based on the order of the 4 suits), but they represent an extremely small subset of the total possible outcomes.

The origin of life is an extreme example of specified complexity. The end goal is not just a random string of DNA, it is a genome coding for all the proteins necessary for life. There may be many possible ways to achieve this functional genome, but they are vastly outnumbered by the roughly 4^1000000000 combinations.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Apr 18, 2012 13:32


DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline

[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
The whole point of evolution is it describes the mechanisms by which a 'spark' of randomness (say at chemical level originally) could set in motion patterns that *result* in the specified complexity that amazes us (over gigantic periods of time), but only patterns that turn out to be self-perpetuating ("survival'). It turns out such patterns exist (us). But there are zillions of other random sparks that go nowhere. The universe manifestly supports evolution, you've already ceded natural selection. The specified complexity is a result of those mechanisms, including of course DNA mutation (which I believe is where ID supporters typically try to find a flaw in common descent. Note this 'part' of evolution is not any more in question than any other part. This is a very old debate, very well traveled, I'm sure you know.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
You say the "whole point of evolution", which basically admits to the fact that Darwinian Evolution itself is designed to put forth a false conclusion. Natural Selection and Common Descent have little to do with each other, yet even today evolutionists continually connect the two. The modern theory of evolution was formulated to say that randomness can result in specified complexity, but despite the proof for Natural Selection and Common Descent separately there is no proof that the synthesis of the two is viable.

I see that you directed me to a site about evidence for Common Descent, but as I mentioned before I have already seen the evidence and I have no issue with Common Descent itself. My issue is when people claim that Common Descent was caused by an undirected process (Natural Selection), which is extremely unlikely. Natural Selection only acts on fully functional features, such as working legs or wings, not on partially functional ones. In fact, partially functional features are selected out by Natural Selection because they usually hinder the creature's survival. Natural Selection certainly played a role in keeping life stable between the times of change, but Natural Selection is incapable of producing any new feature. Even supposedly new features evolved in our day such as antibiotic-resistant bacteria are merely a result of certain genes being broken, not of new genes being created. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are actually more primitive than their vulnerable cousins. They are more likely to survive in an antibiotic-rich environment, but they are not more complex or more highly evolved.
Any new feature, down to most molecular machines, must have been created by either some ridiculously improbable coincidence or by some intelligent designer.

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
Wrath Of Sid

Messages: 34,
Joined: Feb 15, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
Wrath Of Sid

Messages: 34,
Joined: Feb 15, 2012,
Offline
My biology lecture group had a good laugh when I showed them this thread.

Sanity is for the weak!!!
Forum Index » General Discussion
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website