Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 151

Thread: How I understand Creationism in a logical way

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    If I were simply hollering the word "Improbability!," as if the word were an argument in and of itself, then your post would be an excellent rejoinder to me.
    It surely sounded like you were arguing that based on current understanding, life is impossible based upon some kind of probability calculation. Of course, as you pointed out, "one must understand the entire situation". And that's the big problem with probabilistic arguments about the origin of life -- no one knows the entire situation. I can easily (with the help of Excel) calculate the probabilities for my bridge example because there are only a fixed number of possible outcomes for a bridge hand. But no one knows all of the possibilities for the creation of life, so it seems unconvincing to me to try to use some sort of probability calculation to demonstrate that life is "impossible".

    Of course, I may have assumed you were using improbability as evidence of the existence of God. In this I may have been in error, given the last part of your post in which you said, "revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God." But there are two insurmountable problems with revelation: first, the person receiving the revelation can never be sure that the experience is a true revelation from God or merely a delusion. Of course if the revelations continue and are consistent then one could very well be convinced beyond doubt that they aren't delusions, just as we (or most of us) don't think that we're brains in vats.

    Second, revelation is personal and can never constitute demonstrable evidence of the existence of God. It is unrepeatable. Accordingly, it is of little use to convince someone to seek God and obtain rewards.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It surely sounded like you were arguing that based on current understanding, life is impossible based upon some kind of probability calculation.
    Based on our current understanding, we do not know how life arose. That's all! More work on abiogenesis is needed. I actually know a fellow (member of my Church) whose focus was abiogenesis. He was working hard to solve the problem! But the problem is definitely not solved, as of now.

    Of course, I may have assumed you were using improbability as evidence of the existence of God. In this I may have been in error, given the last part of your post in which you said, "revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God."
    Indeed, I was not. What can we know, but what our senses tell us (Hume)? If God never reveals Himself in any observable way, then all discussion regarding God is outside the realm of possible rational discourse.

    But there are two insurmountable problems with revelation: first, the person receiving the revelation can never be sure that the experience is a true revelation from God or merely a delusion.
    But there are two insurmountable problems with scientific (and all) observation: first, the person receiving the observation from his senses can never be sure whether the sense perceptions are at least roughly reflecting objective reality or are merely a delusion.

    Welcome to the past two hundred years of philosophical thought.

    Second, revelation is personal and can never constitute demonstrable evidence of the existence of God. It is unrepeatable.
    Ahh, but what if it were? That is, after all, what the Bible claims. It is what the Book of Mormon claims even more explicitly and brashly. God and the prophets have thrown down the gauntlet. The challenge is there. "I AM." "Come, and See." "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

    I testify that God does live, and sincere knocks are answered.

    But God will force no man to heaven. You have to knock.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Based on our current understanding, we do not know how life arose. That's all!
    If we don't know how life arose we certainly don't know how probable or improbable its arising is, so it would seem that any discussion of probability is pointless.

    But there are two insurmountable problems with scientific (and all) observation: first, the person receiving the observation from his senses can never be sure whether the sense perceptions are at least roughly reflecting objective reality or are merely a delusion.
    I agree -- I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat. But given the regularity of our observations (which admittedly might be delusions), why do we behave as if there's an objective reality that we observe?

    Btw, what's the second problem?

    Ahh, but what if it were? That is, after all, what the Bible claims... sincere knocks are answered.
    The fact that the Bible or the Book of Mormon claims it adds no credence. The only way to test the validity of such a claim would be to try it* repeatedly until something happened. But of course if nothing happened I strongly suspect the answer from the believers would be, "You weren't sincere enough."

    * I'm not sure what "it" would be -- what besides prayer? Which reminds me of a wonderful line in the 1972 film The Ruling Class, in which Peter O'Toole's character thinks he's Jesus:

    "Lady Claire Gurney: How do you know you're God?

    Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney, 14th Earl of Gurney: Simple. When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself."
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    If we don't know how life arose we certainly don't know how probable or improbable its arising is, so it would seem that any discussion of probability is pointless.
    The current proposed models of how DNA, or more promising, RNA, forms are zillions upon zillions of orders of magnitude too improbable to happen. That's how we know the models are wrong and why abiogenesisists are working on it.

    So probability has everything to do with it. It usually does.


    I agree -- I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat. But given the regularity of our observations (which admittedly might be delusions), why do we behave as if there's an objective reality that we observe?
    How do you know they're regular? How do you even know there's a "we" and not just a "you?" At some point, we trust our senses. And at that point we break out of existentialist mumbo-jumbo pointlessness and realize there is an objective reality and it's the purpose of philosophy, and of life, to actually deal with it. As it is.

    Btw, what's the second problem?
    I was just copying your sentence form, of course. But there are a lot more than two problems with scientific observation, as there are with any avenue to truth discovery. Those problems don't make them invalid.



    The fact that the Bible or the Book of Mormon claims it adds no credence. The only way to test the validity of such a claim would be to try it* repeatedly until something happened. But of course if nothing happened I strongly suspect the answer from the believers would be, "You weren't sincere enough."
    Who cares? Are you caring about what the reaction of believers is? If so, get a life! Forget about that! Stand up on your own two feet. It isn't about what other people think or what they say. It never was. It's about you. It's about the truth.

    * I'm not sure what "it" would be -- what besides prayer?
    In the case of the Book of Mormon, it would be to read and study the book sincerely, asking God to know whether it is true. The text of the challenge is thus:

    Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

    And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

    And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 04-26-2017 at 03:42 PM.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Are you caring about what the reaction of believers is? If so, get a life! Forget about that! Stand up on your own two feet. It isn't about what other people think or what they say. It never was. It's about you. It's about the truth.
    My point was that if someone tried your method for seeking the Truth and failed to experience a revelation, there are only two possibilities: your method is wrong or he wasn't sincere enough. The latter is too easy a way to never have to admit there might be something wrong with your assumptions. It's as if I were to claim that you could experience a revelation by saying certain a certain incantation. If it failed, I could always say, "Well, it works for me. You just didn't say it properly."

    We will have to agree to disagree on the probability issue, as I don't see how there's any method for assigning probabilities. In the bridge example the number of all possible outcomes is known. But I see no way for anyone to claim to know all the possible ways in which life could be created.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    My point was that if someone tried your method for seeking the Truth and failed to experience a revelation, there are only two possibilities: your method is wrong or he wasn't sincere enough. The latter is too easy a way to never have to admit there might be something wrong with your assumptions. It's as if I were to claim that you could experience a revelation by saying certain a certain incantation. If it failed, I could always say, "Well, it works for me. You just didn't say it properly."
    Yes, I understand your point, and what's more agree with it! And I feel you understand my point as well. What more could I ask? Thanks for a great little conversation.

    You are essentially objecting (correct me if I'm wrong) that personal revelatory experience -- or, equally, lack thereof -- can never prove anything to anyone else. It lacks the kind of rigor that rolling balls down ramps has, where the experimental results are so convincing and obviously true that at some point no one bothers reproducing it for themselves and they don't need to. They just believe it. Revelation is not like that at all. Your revelation is not going to prove anything to the rest of the world. You can't prove anything to non-believers by saying "God is real; I felt His Holy Spirit," and you can't prove anything to believers by saying, "I tried your stupid test: I read your book and prayed to your so-called God and nothing happened." If your goal is to prove things to other people, receiving (or trying to receive and not receiving) divine revelation is a poor tool indeed for the job.

    It's personal. It's not supposed to force the whole rest of the world to believe. Only you. It's only convincing enough for you, and no one else.

    So, you're right that divine revelation certainly has shortcomings. But, I think that's intentional, how it was designed.

    Anyway, I hope that I have not come off too strong in this thread. God doesn't push Himself on anyone, and I guess maybe on RPFs I have tried to follow His good example . I think this thread may be the first time in my entire tenure I've made a clear positive statement asserting the reality of God. Well, perhaps it was time.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    The current proposed models of how DNA, or more promising, RNA, forms are zillions upon zillions of orders of magnitude too improbable to happen. That's how we know the models are wrong and why abiogenesisists are working on it.

    So probability has everything to do with it. It usually does.


    How do you know they're regular? How do you even know there's a "we" and not just a "you?" At some point, we trust our senses. And at that point we break out of existentialist mumbo-jumbo pointlessness and realize there is an objective reality and it's the purpose of philosophy, and of life, to actually deal with it. As it is.

    I was just copying your sentence form, of course. But there are a lot more than two problems with scientific observation, as there are with any avenue to truth discovery. Those problems don't make them invalid.



    Who cares? Are you caring about what the reaction of believers is? If so, get a life! Forget about that! Stand up on your own two feet. It isn't about what other people think or what they say. It never was. It's about you. It's about the truth.

    In the case of the Book of Mormon, it would be to read and study the book sincerely, asking God to know whether it is true. The text of the challenge is thus:

    Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

    And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

    And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
    That was already addressed in a previous post. If it was part of a random process, you would be correct. The universe operates according to natural laws, thus is not a random process, thus the probabilities you describe are much higher.

    That said (also previously) any non-zero probability WILL happen.
    Reflect the Light!

  10. #68
    "The universe operates according to natural laws, thus the probabilities you describe are much higher."

    The specialists who actually understand those laws (well, are working to) would disagree. <shrug>

    What point are you even trying to make? Do you remember? I've lost track.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    "The universe operates according to natural laws, thus the probabilities you describe are much higher."

    The specialists who actually understand those laws (well, are working to) would disagree. <shrug>

    What point are you even trying to make? Do you remember? I've lost track.
    SImply this: Your assertion that because something is "improbable" rules it out.
    Reflect the Light!

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    SImply this: Your assertion that because something is "improbable" rules it out.
    Not my assertion. Put your mind at ease.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    SImply this: Your assertion that because something is "improbable" rules it out.
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Not my assertion. Put your mind at ease.
    Well, label me confused then. I took clippings from no less than about 5 of your previous posts where you quote a probabilistic argument in order to rule out the possibility of abiogenesis <shrugs>

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Not so.

    The odds of the muffing being there, say, to some criminal forgetting it there last night as he robbed your house are low. You see nothing missing, no evidence of break-in. Well, you just haven't noticed; he was sneaky. Why is it still hot, then? Well, maybe it has some radioactive or chemical process going on inside, which has kept it warm for these hours. It's possible. But a whole lot less likely. Plus, let's say you live on a planet with no one else. In order for the criminal hypothesis to be true, not only a break-in but also an alien invasion must have taken place last night. And the only observable thing the alien did was to leave a muffin on your desk.

    This second possibility you reject. Reject it strongly, as ludicrous. Why? Solely on the odds of it being able to happen.

    Odds are definitely important to us in retroactively constructing stories about how situations or phenomenon (or anything) came to be. That's how we do it. That's how rationality works.
    So wait, odds are or aren't important? I'm losing track.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    In the case of the existence of life, under our current scientific understanding, it is absolutely impossible for life to exist. That's it. It just is. Impossible. It turns out, the odds are far, far beyond astronomical. You could make every single atom in the observed universe -- and the universe is a big place; you have no idea! -- make every atom into primordial soup and it still wouldn't work. Actually, fill up all the empty(ish) space, too. No big empty gaps between planets and stars and galaxies. Just a huge, huge, 10^24th mile-diameter endless, endless sea of primordial soup. Life would never arise, not in the entire lifespan of the universe. You'd have to run the universe 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000...th times before life would have a fair sporting chance of happening. And you can't do that anymore, sorry, because it turns out the universe is going to end in the Big Freeze, not the Big Crunch, and there's no real reason for the Big Bang to happen in the first place, so it can only happen once.

    This is all according to our current scientific understanding, you understand. It says it can't happen. Science has, at the moment, no story for the origin of life which is even remotely plausible. That's just the situation. It could change, but that is where we find ourselves currently.

    So the only thread we're left with to grab onto is the Anthropic Principle, which is highly unsatisfying to everyone, to say the least, and probably does not actually qualify as an explanation; rather, it is (by definition) the lack of an explanation. It's a white flag of surrender.

    It's also not science, not empirical science, because it's not falsifiable.

    In fact, none of this (theories of the origins of life) is empirical science because none of it is falsifiable! Nobody gets to claim the mighty Mantle of Science ("Bow down and believe me, for I am Science") on this one. Sorry. We're all just telling stories.
    So help me understand your point above about running the universe 10^24 times in order for this to happen? You're not using probability to rule out the big bang, our existence, abiogenesis? Hmmm, I guess my reading comprehension is suffering.

    From wikipedia: "The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

    The anthropic principle is a philosophical tautology - meaning it is true by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post

    I personally believe in God, because of personal revelation. I think that revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God. I think that God would want us to know He exists.

    Now, He'd have to strike a balance: it would not be beneficial for us for Him to personally host His own nightly newscast. He has to leave space for doubt and questioning, otherwise there would be no space for faith. There would be a lack of real freedom, of real choice. He has to step back and give us some space, in order for this growth and personal development project we call life to be able to work as designed.

    But, for those who want to know, those who seek Him.... well, He has made them certain promises. He is a rewarder of them.
    Now we're getting somewhere. The religious just assume their conclusion. You posit a God exists and then define it as such. You believe in God. That's fine, no one denies (even physicists) that there are wild, currently unexplained phenomenon in our universe, and no philosopher or spiritualist (or logician) would deny the possibility of other levels of reality. Please be clear, that's not what I'm doing, and am not ruling it out. My goal here is to ensure that religious and scientific discussions proceed fairly and logically.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    No Big Crunch = No infinitely yo-yo-ing Universe = Not Enough Time (not even close).
    Again, more ruling out of an alternative explanation using numbers/probability/time. I'm seeing lots of assertive non-asserting going on here. LOL.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    What makes it happen "more than once"? Oh: the Multiverse theory. The same magical, non-disprovable metaphysical framework that makes everything happen more than once. No profound Revelation there.

    Nay, it is exactly what you were saying earlier: We are here, therefore things are going to be suited for life. The odds of all conditions being perfectly tuned and life having arisen in a Universe being observed is 100%. Because it's being observed. Or, as you pithily put it:

    "Given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?"

    The Anthropic Principle is a true principle. Using it as a proof for one's Creation Story -- whatever that story may be -- is also a gross misapplication of the principle, in my opinion. Used in that manner, it is basically a way of ignoring the question. It is a way of defining away impossibility by stipulation. It is a way of "refuting" glaring holes and huge problems in the story you've concocted via, well, waving your hand.
    Yep, so why'd you bring it up?

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Dismissively skeptical: "Your story is wildly improbable to the point of complete unbelievability! There's no way it happened that way."

    In a Deep, Numinous voice: "And yet: here we are."

    Profound silence for a few moments.

    In awed whisper: "Whoa! Yeah -- you're right!"

    Do you see the logical error they both made? OK, we're here; great. Amazing observation. The whole question in question is how that happening happened. Who Done It? Not whether it happened. "Look, the muffin's here! Therefore my story about how it got here is right. Whee!"
    Ok, cool. Now we're getting to the heart of this - the "how" of it occurring; not whether or not it did occur.

    So to be clear, I'm not sure where the Anthropic principle arose in the course of this discussion, but at my first reading, it seemed that you were using it to defend your position. Now, I think we both understand it on the same level - it is not revelatory for us to be "noticing" a universe that "seems" to be highly tuned to support life...though if it was really that highly tuned, wouldn't we see more of it? I digress.

    The point is that it would be extremely weird if we existed in a universe that was not tuned for life but yet were observing it. I'm afraid to even engage in that mental gymnastics. Bottom line: the Anthropic principle doesn't give us anything and adds nothing to this conversation - I'm not sure why it's part of the discussion. Maybe someone in a previous post used it to defend a position. Or maybe it was thrown up as a straw-man.

    In any case, you ask the question "how did it happen?" and then you immediately follow it with "Who done it?"!!!

    My point is this: your world-view does not admit of the possibility of a "how" without a "who" - that is ok, but it is not scientific - which is why I view your argument as insincere. The scientifically minded are simply asking the "how" question - not immediately skipping ahead to a "who" using the Anthropic principle as a stepping-stone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Some incredibly improbable events don't take much time at all to occur. Suppose four people played ten hands of bridge in the course of an evening. The a priori probability that they would receive the very hands that they were dealt is astronomical -- something like one in 10^288. Yet the event occurred and no one claims that someone stacked the deck.
    Re-read Sonny's post above - he is illustrating how fantastically improbable things happen all the time, which therefore is not a reason to rule them out. He is not addressing me, which seems to be how you took that statement. He is saying the same thing I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Not really. It actually does not conform at all. For it to conform, there would have to be a major advance in our current understanding of abiogenesis. Until then, it just doesn't work. Have as many Big Bangs as you want. It just doesn't work. According to our current understanding, there may not even be any mechanism that *could* work, at all, ever, even giving infinite time to infinite primordial ooze. Going back to Sunny Tuft's bridge game, it would be like getting a hand of 200 King Kandy cards that were alive and self-aware and talked incessantly to you.

    1) You can't get a hand of 200 cards in bridge
    2) There are no King Kandy cards in a bridge deck, they belong to a different game called Candy Land
    3) The artificial intelligence technology that would make the cards self-aware does not exist
    4) Talking incessantly is against the rules of bridge

    <img jesus facepalm>

    Thank goodness. Where would we be without Descartes to tell us we exist? Lost in an infinite void. Though, I think you have not kept up to date: later research showed that actually it is I feel therefore I am. Please make a note and apply the recommended patch (Hume.dll) to your philosobrowser as soon as possible to prevent malware.

    Here's the truth. Here's the actual bottom line. Can you take it? Can you handle it? No one has an advantage. No metaphysics that *I* can comprehend is going to solve the origin question. No one's making any (important) logical errors, not the religious, not the non-religious (religious refers actually to lifestyle, character, and actions, -- to the ligaments that tie your life together -- not to belief, BTW), not even wizardwatson. Not even the muffin, as impaired as it may be.

    <img large muffin>

    It is an unanswerable riddle, by nature. God does not solve it. If God created everything, even if He created it out of nothing, or emptiness or whatever (I do not believe He did), do you think He ever wonders as He sits on His throne: "Where did I come from?" You bet He does! And what's the answer? No matter what the answer is, there's always one more "Why" to be asked. Oh, small quantum fluctuations: why are there small quantum fluctuations? Oh, the Heisenberg Principle: why is there a Heisenberg Principle? Oh, God was created by His own God, created in turn by His own God, in an infinite regression? Why is there an infinite regression? What started it? What started any of it? Even if you come to some kind of an answer, whatever it is you figure out that "started it," well, what created that?

    Goethe had it right, the great question of all: Why is there something, rather than nothing?

    And we will never come to a final answer, due to the unplumbable nature of the concept "Origin."
    There you go, or maybe there I go. We have reached common ground. It is wondrous that we're all here - it does not, however, lead us to the conclusion that "someone must've dun it."

    Here's my opinion on scientific arguments for/against God (i.e. whatever it is we're engaged in here): People like to use logic and reason (or more appropriately a simulation thereof), and an attempt at the scientific method to demonstrate (or to prove) their religious viewpoint - as you did in the preceding discussion. Let me ask this: where will your faith be if/when abiogenesis is conclusively demonstrated someday in a lab?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It surely sounded like you were arguing that based on current understanding, life is impossible based upon some kind of probability calculation. Of course, as you pointed out, "one must understand the entire situation". And that's the big problem with probabilistic arguments about the origin of life -- no one knows the entire situation. I can easily (with the help of Excel) calculate the probabilities for my bridge example because there are only a fixed number of possible outcomes for a bridge hand. But no one knows all of the possibilities for the creation of life, so it seems unconvincing to me to try to use some sort of probability calculation to demonstrate that life is "impossible".

    Of course, I may have assumed you were using improbability as evidence of the existence of God. In this I may have been in error, given the last part of your post in which you said, "revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God." But there are two insurmountable problems with revelation: first, the person receiving the revelation can never be sure that the experience is a true revelation from God or merely a delusion. Of course if the revelations continue and are consistent then one could very well be convinced beyond doubt that they aren't delusions, just as we (or most of us) don't think that we're brains in vats.

    Second, revelation is personal and can never constitute demonstrable evidence of the existence of God. It is unrepeatable. Accordingly, it is of little use to convince someone to seek God and obtain rewards.
    See? I wasn't the only one...

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Based on our current understanding, we do not know how life arose. That's all! More work on abiogenesis is needed. I actually know a fellow (member of my Church) whose focus was abiogenesis. He was working hard to solve the problem! But the problem is definitely not solved, as of now.

    Indeed, I was not. What can we know, but what our senses tell us (Hume)? If God never reveals Himself in any observable way, then all discussion regarding God is outside the realm of possible rational discourse.
    Want my opinion? Coming back to the question of abiogenesis being demonstrated in a lab: I don't think it would matter to you. I don't think such a demonstration would rule out any aspect of your world-view, you'd just keep marching along with whatever it is you believe (which is totally fine, really), it just makes me think your argument that uses fantastical improbability to "prove" the existence of a blind watch-maker is insincere. It doesn't preclude you from believing what you want now, nor would it if it was actually shown.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    But there are two insurmountable problems with scientific (and all) observation: first, the person receiving the observation from his senses can never be sure whether the sense perceptions are at least roughly reflecting objective reality or are merely a delusion.

    Welcome to the past two hundred years of philosophical thought.
    You wield Occam's Razor, but then suggest we might be in an infinitely nested "Matrix" or 50-leves deep in "Inception"? Ooookkkaaaaaay? Science and logic when it suits you - philosophy and religion otherwise. It seems like you're the one mixing science with meta-physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Ahh, but what if it were? That is, after all, what the Bible claims. It is what the Book of Mormon claims even more explicitly and brashly. God and the prophets have thrown down the gauntlet. The challenge is there. "I AM." "Come, and See." "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you."

    I testify that God does live, and sincere knocks are answered.

    But God will force no man to heaven. You have to knock.
    And that is completely fine - trust me, I have nothing against those who choose a religious life - my issue is when they attempt to prove God, their religion, or philosophy using science - which I think I've demonstrated you were doing above - notwithstanding your one-line denial.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    The current proposed models of how DNA, or more promising, RNA, forms are zillions upon zillions of orders of magnitude too improbable to happen. That's how we know the models are wrong and why abiogenesisists are working on it.

    So probability has everything to do with it. It usually does.

    How do you know they're regular? How do you even know there's a "we" and not just a "you?" At some point, we trust our senses. And at that point we break out of existentialist mumbo-jumbo pointlessness and realize there is an objective reality and it's the purpose of philosophy, and of life, to actually deal with it. As it is.

    I was just copying your sentence form, of course. But there are a lot more than two problems with scientific observation, as there are with any avenue to truth discovery. Those problems don't make them invalid.
    So at current count, I think that's about 17 times you haven't used a probabilistic argument to defend your world-view...LOL.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Who cares? Are you caring about what the reaction of believers is? If so, get a life! Forget about that! Stand up on your own two feet. It isn't about what other people think or what they say. It never was. It's about you. It's about the truth.

    In the case of the Book of Mormon, it would be to read and study the book sincerely, asking God to know whether it is true.
    Who cares?!? You do! You presented mulitiple arguments over the course of the preceding pages purporting to rule out a "rationalistic" viewpoint for the induction of the universe. You used the "it's too improbable argument" I don't know how many times, and then denied it. Oh well, what the hell?

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Not my assertion. Put your mind at ease.
    Reflect the Light!

  14. #72
    In debating those that believe in evolution and not in a divine creator their modus operandi is to break up the concept of creation into the scientific fields of cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. It makes their total defense of their world view easier. But those three topics are like a house; the foundation the walls and the roof.

    As for the six days idea, I disagree with that because basic science doesn't support it, why would God be bound to our solar systems definition of time.
    As a day in the bible can and does refer to Epochs or Era's. Just like I would use the modern expression of in this Kings day, which would represent the lifespan of that King.

    Creationists that stubbornly hold to the only in 6 days ideology are just making it harder for themselves to defend creation.
    Just old dinosaur fossils found on earth and light reaching us from stars a billion light years away disprove that.

    Conclusion: The universe and the earth were created billions of years ago, plant and animal life on our planet was crated millions of years ago, and man was created just over 6000 years ago.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Well, label me confused then.
    Yep! No worries.

    You have a happening. To explain it, you yourself, or perhaps other people, have concocted Story A, and Story B. How do you assess the relative quality of the stories?

    (The above is what will push the conversation forward one step. Focus on that. The rest, below, is just for fun.)

    The religious just assume their conclusion.
    Everyone just assumes their conclusion. Believe me. The had-core secular more than most, for they are the least reflective.


    The point is that it would be extremely weird if we existed in a universe that was not tuned for life but yet were observing it.
    Nope, just extremely impossible.


    In any case, you ask the question "how did it happen?" and then you immediately follow it with "Who done it?"!!!

    My point is this: your world-view does not admit of the possibility of a "how" without a "who"
    Thou Shalt Not be Stupidly Dense. Mend thy ways, or lose my interest. "Who done it?" is a figure of speech, used to refer to the fictional genre to which Poirot belongs. Every who done it always allows for the possibility that it was a suicide or an accident, and indeed that is often the first assumption.



    We have reached common ground. It is wondrous that we're all here - it does not, however, lead us to the conclusion that "someone must've dun it."
    It doesn't?

    Oh no. No. Whatever shall I do.

    Here's my opinion on scientific arguments for/against God (i.e. whatever it is we're engaged in here): People like to use logic and reason (or more appropriately a simulation thereof), and an attempt at the scientific method to demonstrate (or to prove) their religious viewpoint - as you did in the preceding discussion.
    I did not do that, so, again, put your mind at ease.

    I look forward to your discovery of 17 times wherein I, in fact, did exactly that. Seriously. If you read and re-read my posts enough, you may start to understand my thoughts. And, that is always nice!

    Let me ask this: where will your faith be if/when abiogenesis is conclusively demonstrated someday in a lab?
    Oh, it will be dead, dead! Dead without an heir! Come on, obviously nothing: Mormons don't fear truth. Everything true is Mormonism.

    By definition.

    Literally!



    See? I wasn't the only one...
    And Sunny -- with extreme and admirable swiftness -- came to understand me exactly. Probably without even reading all my posts! So, we know it can happen (no matter how improbable it may be!).



    Want my opinion? Coming back to the question of abiogenesis being demonstrated in a lab: I don't think it would matter to you.
    Ding, ding ding!

    I don't think such a demonstration would rule out any aspect of your world-view, you'd just keep marching along with whatever it is you believe
    Blindly. And extremely well-synchronized! (sharply dressed, too)

    (which is totally fine, really), it just makes me think your argument that uses fantastical improbability to "prove" the existence of a blind watch-maker is insincere.
    1) Not my argument
    2) Not proven

    Put your mind at ease! Do not fear: you will not be forced via my rhetorical brilliance into believing in God and repenting of your sins! Nor by anything else. Take a deep breath. Relax. You can go on sinning for as long as you like.

    You wield Occam's Razor, but then suggest we might be in an infinitely nested "Matrix" or 50-leves deep in "Inception"? Ooookkkaaaaaay? Science and logic when it suits you - philosophy and religion otherwise. It seems like you're the one mixing science with meta-physics.
    This whole thread mixes science with metaphysics, from the OP on. That's the whole exercise! And an excellent and profitable exercise it is.

    my issue is when they attempt to prove God, their religion, or philosophy using science - which I think I've demonstrated you were doing above - notwithstanding your one-line denial.
    Nope. If I had attempted to prove something, it would be proven. So put your mind at ease.



    So at current count, I think that's about 17 times you haven't used a probabilistic argument to defend your world-view...LOL.
    'Oh, I have a world-view now? Is that better than a plan?' ( -- Mal in Serenity)

    Who cares?!? You do!
    ORLY?!
    <img goofy owl>

    You presented multiple arguments over the course of the preceding pages purporting to rule out a "rationalistic" viewpoint for the induction of the universe.
    I would be ruling out myself, because I'm all about the rationalism.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 05-01-2017 at 08:58 AM.

  17. #74
    Words...my words were there simply to point out you denied using probability in your argument. That response didn't warrant so many words back. Merely put mine there to demonstrate to others you were being disingenuous.
    Reflect the Light!

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    You denied using probability in your argument.
    Oh? Quote? Please show me where I "denied using probability." Oh, and by the way please also let me know: what was my argument?

    That response didn't warrant so many words back.
    Excuse me for overwhelming you, but I did specifically help you out and reduce the main conversation thread reply to thirty (30) words (and helpfully stated you could safely ignore the rest, if pressed for time). Here it is again:

    You have a happening. To explain it, you yourself, or perhaps other people, have concocted Story A, and Story B. How do you assess the relative quality of the stories?

    Merely put mine there to demonstrate to others you were being disingenuous.
    Huh? Disingenuous has to do with somehow being dishonest, yes? I do not see myself as that at all. That is not an accurate label for me. I am very honest and genuine.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Oh? Quote? Please show me where I "denied using probability." Oh, and by the way please also let me know: what was my argument?

    Excuse me for overwhelming you, but I did specifically help you out and reduce the main conversation thread reply to thirty (30) words (and helpfully stated you could safely ignore the rest, if pressed for time). Here it is again:

    You have a happening. To explain it, you yourself, or perhaps other people, have concocted Story A, and Story B. How do you assess the relative quality of the stories?

    Huh? Disingenuous has to do with somehow being dishonest, yes? I do not see myself as that at all. That is not an accurate label for me. I am very honest and genuine.
    Ehhh, my answer stands. You're seeking to elevate your literal "story", with those "stories" told by science in an effort of self-justification. Then you can massage two separate concepts together, use the same word (story) to describe them, and convince yourself that they are the same. You like your story, you don't like science - that's cool.

    If people stumble on our discussion, they can and will come to their own conclusions - that's what I care about. I don't actually care to convince you of my position, or the illogic of yours. I only care that there is a rational response available in the thread for people to read that responds directly to your statements and contradictions, and which stands in contrast from your "logic."

    Re-re-quoting information that already was re-quoted is doing another lap around the circular argument train. People (including you) can go back if they care to see where your argument relied on probabilistic assumptions. I also have no doubt you are willing to go circles all day long. I'll leave you with this:

    Reflect the Light!

  20. #77
    Mr. Tansill, are you currently "Reflecting the light"? What do you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Ehhh, my answer stands.
    Answer? What answer? You are no longer replying to anything I am saying, much less my single question that's on the table. You must have hallucinated that you answered the question. Your hallucination is noted.

    You like your story, you don't like science - that's cool.
    False. Your hallucination is noted.

    I don't actually care to convince you of my position, or the illogic of yours.
    If I am somewhere being illogical, I'd love for you to demonstrate it. That would be exciting! Sincerely!

    I only care that there is a rational response available in the thread for people to read that responds directly to your statements and contradictions, and which stands in contrast from your "logic."
    Your hallucination is noted.

    Of course, I had my own hallucination: that you and I could possibly have a nice, civil conversation. Full of Light and understanding, if you will. Hallucination busted!

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Mr. Tansill, are you currently "Reflecting the light"? What do you think?

    Answer? What answer? You are no longer replying to anything I am saying, much less my single question that's on the table. You must have hallucinated that you answered the question. Your hallucination is noted.

    If I am somewhere being illogical, I'd love for you to demonstrate it. That would be exciting! Sincerely!

    Of course, I had my own hallucination: that you and I could possibly have a nice, civil conversation. Full of Light and understanding, if you will. Hallucination busted!
    Here's my bottom line for you: I feel like my post (#74 above) specifically addressed your usage of low-probability as justification to rule out a scientific theory. You can deny, deny, deny, but the bold words above are yours, not mine. That's what I'm basically hung up on, and am not really going to move on in this conversation until you address "why" or "how" probability affects your argument, because you DID use it - as anyone can read if they see fit. I don't care to side-step what I see as a relevant issue in your argument, as doing so would imply a relevant point has been properly addressed and solved, when that is not true.

    For me, on the internet, and in real life, when conversations stagnate on a point, it has become more about "being right" than actually talking to each other. Your previous responses to me following #74 were not actual responses to my post, hence, the style of response.
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 05-02-2017 at 05:36 PM.
    Reflect the Light!

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Here's my bottom line for you: I feel like my post (#74 above) specifically addressed your usage of low-probability as justification to rule out a scientific theory. You can deny, deny, deny, but the bold words above are yours, not mine. That's what I'm basically hung up on, and am not really going to move on in this conversation until you address "why" or "how" probability affects your argument, because you DID use it - as anyone can read if they see fit. I don't care to side-step what I see as a relevant issue in your argument, as doing so would imply a relevant point has been properly addressed and solved, when that is not true.

    For me, on the internet, and in real life, when conversations stagnate on a point, it has become more about "being right" than actually talking to each other. Your previous responses to me following #74 were not actual responses to my post, hence, the style of response.
    Well said, however, he is out-glibbing you.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Well said, however, he is out-glibbing you.
    That is true - of course, the tone of my posts communicates a sub-text, and have a quality all their own.
    Reflect the Light!



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    I was coming back to edit my post to be even nicer (remove accusations of hallucination), but you've gone and beat me to it!

    Look, the fundamental problem is we're not working on the same level, and if I want to continue this conversation I need to change and adjust. So.... let's try it!

    Here is how the conversation has gone so far, from your perspective (correct me if I get anything wrong!):

    1) Me: The odds of an abiogenesis happening are 1 in *way too many*! Why, just to create a single nucleotide chain 600 base pairs long in the primordial soup would take ten million billion quadrillion nonillion googol googol googol chemical reactions (seriously. 10^360).
    2) You: But improbable things can happen.
    3) Me: A whole bunch of ridiculous goggledegook attempting to distract from the fact that my argument in 1) was based on probability (obviously: just read 1)!) and that you just demolished it completely in a single sentence of truth!
    4) You: Repeat 2) a couple times, painstakingly forensically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did, in fact, say 1) despite my ludicrous denials, repeat 2) yet again, and finally give up in disgust.

    Is that about right? That's what has happened so far, true?
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 05-02-2017 at 07:45 PM.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I was coming back to edit my post to be even nicer (remove accusations of hallucination), but you've gone and beat me to it!

    Look, the fundamental problem is we're not working on the same level, and if I want to continue this conversation I need to change and adjust. So.... let's try it!
    Word. I generally omit certain parts of responses that are less substantive...helps other readers.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Here is how the conversation has gone so far, from your perspective (correct me if I get anything wrong!):

    1) Me: The odds of an abiogenesis happening are 1 in *way too many*! Why, just to create a single nucleotide chain 600 base pairs long in the primordial soup would take ten million billion quadrillion nonillion googol googol googol chemical reactions (seriously. 10^360).
    Yep. And my point (and Sonny's) was that fantastically improbable things happen all the time - in fact, EVERYTHING that happens is fantastically improbable when you compare it with the immense, impossibly immense, number of ways the universe can unfold.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    2) You: But improbable things can happen.
    Almost. Rather, everything that happens is improbable.

    I was once at a museum, and there was a display that went on about DNA and its roll as a "code" for life - in the sense that proteins can be built from its instruction set. One thing that specifically jumped out at me was the number of possible combinations of human DNA that would lead to unique humans (i.e. you). The number was a 1 with 30 BILLION zeros coming after it (10 ^ (30x10^9) ). That number is so impossibly huge as to defy all (to this point) human attempts to wrangle it. No computer devised could deal with such a large number; thus, by definition, there are some things which are beyond our ability to calculate or currently comprehend - this does not provide a stepping stone to any story we desire, however.

    In your post above, you quoted a number (10^360), which is staggeringly enormous (hundreds of orders of magnitude greater than there are atoms in the universe), but which still pales in comparison to the number of unique humans that are "possible" given the current "protocol" of our human DNA. And here, to me, is the central point: all arguments that suggest impossibility due to improbability lay upon a very elementary understanding of just how large numbers can be, and how "much" is occurring in the universe. The number I quoted above can hardly be represented in a computer using base 10 arithmetic, let alone the actual number of "things" that number represents in physical reality (I dare not imagine a complex number of those things...).

    When we play in combinatorics, the shear numbers of interactions or possibilities become almost immediately unwieldy. You and I are talking about problems that are far, far, FAR more complex than even the most difficult which computer scientists, physicists, and mathematicians are actually close to solving. Ruling out the improbable has been the mistake of many, many people throughout history.

    Take a look at that link (Combinatorial Explosion) to get an idea for how unimaginably large numbers can be. The first table of Latin squares shown, illustrates how fast numbers "get big." Now, put 10^80 (~ number of atoms in the universe) in the spot for n...I can't even name the number in the right column after n = 8...how big do you think the number in the right column would be if n was 10^80? All of a sudden, impossible becomes inevitable.

    Which leads me to my next point: ANY non-zero probability WILL happen. That is true definitionally. So going back to #1 above, your 1 out of 10^360 might seem impossible (improbable), but it only seems that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    3) Me: A whole bunch of ridiculous goggledegook attempting to distract from the fact that my argument in 1) was based on probability (obviously: just read 1)!) and that you just demolished it completely in a single sentence of truth!
    And this is where I get lost. To, me (and maybe I'm the only one) you quote probability as a reason to invalidate a theory (I bolded it). Again, it was your position and argument that "improbability" is an acceptable reason for dismissing a theory. Why??? I guess this is the point on which I need more explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    4) You: Repeat 2) a couple times, painstakingly forensically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did, in fact, say 1) despite my ludicrous denials, repeat 2) yet again, and finally give up in disgust.

    Is that about right? That's what has happened so far, true?
    Mostly, I think, less the disgust. Again, I want a reasoned response to a religious argument to exist in this thread. And thank you for helping get this back on track.

    Now, all of that said above was for the following:

    1. To rule out the logic of improbable = impossible.
    1a. To ask the question 'Why does your argument rely on "improbability"'?

    2. If 1a is false, then why did you bring up improbability?
    2a. If 1a doesn't matter, then why did you bring it up?

    3. If neither 1 or 2, what is your argument stated succinctly and directly?
    Reflect the Light!

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    In debating those that believe in evolution and not in a divine creator their modus operandi is to break up the concept of creation into the scientific fields of cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution. It makes their total defense of their world view easier. But those three topics are like a house; the foundation the walls and the roof.

    As for the six days idea, I disagree with that because basic science doesn't support it, why would God be bound to our solar systems definition of time.
    As a day in the bible can and does refer to Epochs or Era's. Just like I would use the modern expression of in this Kings day, which would represent the lifespan of that King.

    Creationists that stubbornly hold to the only in 6 days ideology are just making it harder for themselves to defend creation.
    Just old dinosaur fossils found on earth and light reaching us from stars a billion light years away disprove that.


    Conclusion: The universe and the earth were created billions of years ago, plant and animal life on our planet was crated millions of years ago, and man was created just over 6000 years ago.
    Maybe you need to look beyond "basic science".

    http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

    15 billion years or six days?

    Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between nucleosynthesis, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons and neutrons when matter formed, and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see a pulse every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

    The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the six days. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, that comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!

    The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them. For the duration of each day and the details of how that matches with the measured history of the universe and the earth, see The Science of God.
    The bible is encoded, and multi-layered with symbolism. The original Hebrew of the Old Testament is even more mysterious.

    If you're going to be agnostic, you must consider the possibility that a being more advanced than you wrote the Bible. Because the Bible claims that the words in it are the recorded words of God.

    If you start from the conclusion that simple backwards men made all this up, and it isn't some being who knows more about science than you can comprehend, how will you even begin to see the pattern concealed within it?

    Anyway, the 6 days of Genesis does not conflict with Big Bang theory and General Relativity as per Shroeders interpretation.

    EDIT: There's also a 5 part youtube series titled "Genesis and the Big Bang" if you'd rather listen to him explain it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZfgIFuoIBs
    Last edited by wizardwatson; 05-02-2017 at 10:11 PM.
    When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
    When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Is that about right? That's what has happened so far, true?
    Mostly, I think, less the disgust.
    Exasperation, then. Let us not quibble about minutiae. Basically, you say, I got it right. That is how the conversation has gone so far.

    This makes my job difficult.

    That's the fun of it, though, eh? Happily, it at least gives us a starting point. It also means subtlety is out. And yet, most of my points (it's not as if I have one "point" or one "argument" here) have been subtle. How does one make subtle points non-subtle? A big challenge! Hmm.

    OK, here's what we'll do. Forget probability. Throw that out (for the time being). We'll start at the top instead of the bottom.

    Above, I distilled our conversation down to 4 steps, 4 steps with which you agreed. Now I will distill it even further. This is what you see happening here:

    Me: Anti-Science
    You: Pro-Science

    You are here in this thread for one reason and one reason only: to promote Science in the face of superstition. You have written as much multiple times now, and I take your self-image at face value. You are a Science Crusader fighting the good fight -- for Science!

    There is a problem with this model, though, and it's very important: the first half is not true! I am not anti-science. I come from a family of scientists. I have been actually, literally involved in helping with data-collection for scientific research from the age of, hmm, probably about eight. Unless you, Mr. Tansill, are yourself a professional scientist, I would surmise I have probably spent about one hundred times more time in the laboratory than you have. I love science. I understand, to a great degree, science. I believe in science. And I know, somewhat, how to do science. I have even myself done some science, though in a very limited and applied way (no basic research or published papers) and only once or twice, for specific projects.

    Do you believe me? It's true. And so the real model, the true model is this:

    Me: Pro-science
    You: Pro-science

    Now that breaks the conversation. I understand. Totally breaks it. It blows up your paradigm. That's unfortunate, and it means that you will probably not be able to deal with it and simply will bow out and that's the end of the conversation. And yet, it is the way that it really is, and if we are to continue you must accept that truth.

    So: science. I am for it. You are for it. Let's talk about it.

    What is the glory of science? What is it that makes it so great? So credible? I will tell you, in one word:

    Testability

    That is how science has succeeded in uncovering truths. For science is not an ideology, it is not a camp, it is not even a way of looking at the world; it is not "Science," it is a method. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Empirical science consists of a method: a precisely defined, rigorous method. And that method has what distinguishing feature? That's right:

    Testability

    Are you with me so far? Are we in agreement?

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    everything that happens is improbable.

    I was once at a museum, and there was a display that went on about DNA and its roll as a "code" for life - in the sense that proteins can be built from its instruction set. One thing that specifically jumped out at me was the number of possible combinations of human DNA that would lead to unique humans (i.e. you). The number was a 1 with 30 BILLION zeros coming after it (10 ^ (30x10^9) ). That number is so impossibly huge as to defy all (to this point) human attempts to wrangle it.
    The odds against everything that has ever happened actually happening dwarfs even (10 ^ (30x10^9). Consider all of the hands ever dealt in bridge and in every other card game; all throws of dice ever made; all results of every spin of a roulette wheel that has occurred; the results of every coin flip, lottery drawing, or other random event in history; indeed, consider every single event that has occurred from the creation of the universe to the present time, including my eating a ham sandwich yesterday, Marilyn Monroe marrying Arthur Miller, an arrow piercing Harold's eye at the Battle of Hastings, and the Cubs going 107 years without winning the World Series. I suspect that the odds against all these events occurring is larger by far than any improbability that creationists could ever imagine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    ANY non-zero probability WILL happen
    I think it would be more accurate to say that given a sufficient number of trials the probability that an unlikely event will happen can be made as close to certainty as desired. For example, if twenty fair coins were flipped 5 million times, the probability that they would come up all heads at least once is .9915.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post

    That is how science has succeeded in uncovering truths. For science is not an ideology, it is not a camp, it is not even a way of looking at the world; it is not "Science," it is a method. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Empirical science consists of a method: a precisely defined, rigorous method. And that method has what distinguishing feature? That's right:

    Testability

    Are you with me so far? Are we in agreement?
    No, you lost me. I think I've made my point. If probability is not part of your justification for dismissing a theory, then my point has been made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The odds against everything that has ever happened actually happening dwarfs even (10 ^ (30x10^9). Consider all of the hands ever dealt in bridge and in every other card game; all throws of dice ever made; all results of every spin of a roulette wheel that has occurred; the results of every coin flip, lottery drawing, or other random event in history; indeed, consider every single event that has occurred from the creation of the universe to the present time, including my eating a ham sandwich yesterday, Marilyn Monroe marrying Arthur Miller, an arrow piercing Harold's eye at the Battle of Hastings, and the Cubs going 107 years without winning the World Series. I suspect that the odds against all these events occurring is larger by far than any improbability that creationists could ever imagine.

    I think it would be more accurate to say that given a sufficient number of trials the probability that an unlikely event will happen can be made as close to certainty as desired. For example, if twenty fair coins were flipped 5 million times, the probability that they would come up all heads at least once is .9915.
    Ok, sure. I think another relevant point, is that no matter how finite (small) each and every possible outcome is, when taken in their totality, they add to 1.0. Now, when reality presents to you a "spin of the roulette wheel" as it were, and we express incredulity at the outcome, it is really no different from a qualitative stand point that expressing the same incredulity when the number 14 pops out on the roulette wheel, or a certain bridge hand is dealt, or any other occurrence.
    Reflect the Light!

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    No, you lost me.
    Seriously?

    Science is testable. Where is the impenetrability there? Where in that could you possibly get lost?

    I knew you would not understand Sonny's points, but mine was really simple!

    Come on, tell me you understand the concept of science being testable. Admit that you agree that the core feature of the scientific method is its testability. I know you're smart enough to understand this.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Now, when reality presents to you a "spin of the roulette wheel" as it were, and we express incredulity at the outcome, it is really no different from a qualitative stand point that expressing the same incredulity when the number 14 pops out on the roulette wheel, or a certain bridge hand is dealt, or any other occurrence.
    There's a story about a man who told a friend, "I was at the roulette table and saw the number 10 come up six times in a row*." How unlikely was that?" His friend replied, "That wasn't nearly as unlikely as the fact that you were there to see it."

    * This actually happened at a Puerto Rico casino in 1959. The odds against it are 3 billion to 1. But this pales in comparison to red's coming up 32 times in a row, which happened in 1943 against odds of 24 billion to 1.

    Sean Connery once won three consecutive bets on 17, bucking odds of only 50,653 to 1 (it was a European wheel).
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    There's a story about a man who told a friend, "I was at the roulette table and saw the number 10 come up six times in a row*." How unlikely was that?" His friend replied, "That wasn't nearly as unlikely as the fact that you were there to see it."

    * This actually happened at a Puerto Rico casino in 1959. The odds against it are 3 billion to 1. But this pales in comparison to red's coming up 32 times in a row, which happened in 1943 against odds of 24 billion to 1.

    Sean Connery once won three consecutive bets on 17, bucking odds of only 50,653 to 1 (it was a European wheel).
    Yeah, I could see that.

    Estimating 2000 roulette wheels around the world, each being spun 20 times per hour, 24 hours per day for the last 74 years gives ~26 Billion spins - I would expect that to happen.
    Reflect the Light!

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Seriously?

    Science is testable. Where is the impenetrability there? Where in that could you possibly get lost?

    I knew you would not understand Sonny's points, but mine was really simple!

    Come on, tell me you understand the concept of science being testable. Admit that you agree that the core feature of the scientific method is its testability. I know you're smart enough to understand this.
    Have we abandoned the argument of improbable = impossible?
    Reflect the Light!

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Creationism and Global Warming
    By Madison320 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 10:58 AM
  2. Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children
    By QuickZ06 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 150
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 09:14 PM
  3. Both Creationism and Evolution Are Religious
    By Theocrat in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 10-11-2011, 09:31 PM
  4. Creationism = Holocaust Denial
    By Reason in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 12:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •