Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

More evidence of Fine Tuned Universe

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 1:25:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.
And how exactly, does this land to the (already falsified) "Fine-Tuning" argument??
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 1:40:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:25:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.
And how exactly, does this land to the (already falsified) "Fine-Tuning" argument??

I am aware that in your mind something is falsified, but that is a far cry from reality.

If the uiverse is seeded with the complex amino acids needed to create life ... that does indeed lend credence to the claim that the universe was designed to create life. Its no accident.

It ADDS to that probability and statistical based proof that I have produced many times, and that you have never actually falsified.

It is typical of you though to produce nothing while rejecting something ... and somehow claiming that quantum mechanics makes it the same thing.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 1:56:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:40:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:25:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.
And how exactly, does this land to the (already falsified) "Fine-Tuning" argument??

I am aware that in your mind something is falsified, but that is a far cry from reality.
The "Fine-Tuning Argument" boils down to claiming that because we're alive and we think we're special, this universe was made with intent, especially for us. It's as though we existed before the universe did. That's utter bunk. The universe has existed (in it's present configuration), for approximately 13.7 billion years. Earth has existed for about 4.55 billion years, and evidence of life on Earth goes back about 3.5 billion years. So obviously, the universe is much, MUCH older than we are, and much older than any known form of life. If that's not enough for you, stars and galaxies are younger than the universe. So quite obviously - and with pure scientific support - the universe has existed longer than any form of life in the universe. Therefore, the idea that the universe was constructed for life, is utterly debunked.

If the uiverse is seeded with the complex amino acids needed to create life ... that does indeed lend credence to the claim that the universe was designed to create life. Its no accident.
Then by the same token, we can say that since dust can be found at every level of the atmosphere, the atmosphere was "designed" for dust? Don't be stupid.

It ADDS to that probability and statistical based proof that I have produced many times, and that you have never actually falsified.
And yet I have. But, true to your belief that your belief is the standard of all reality, you simply don't accept it.
By looking to the range of alterations of various properties of the universe, one can conceive (at a rough estimate), of about 10^121st possible different configurations. Some of those configurations can host life as we know it. Some could host life which we are as yet, unfamiliar with (silicone-based life, sulfer-based life, etc.), and many would not be able to host any form of life of which we can conceive.

But why is the ability to host life the measure of a universe? Is the universe "better" than a comparable universe which might not be able to host life? If so, why? A universe has absolutely no need for life. We don't benefit the universe in the least. We don't make it better. It has no need for us at all. And since it existed before we did, we can be seen as similar to the tiny droplet of slimy bacteria occupying the back corner of a wedge of cheese on the back of a shelf in your refrigerator.

It is no more accurate for us to assume the universe as "finely tuned" for us, just because we manage to live here, than it is for the bacteria on that wedge of cheese to assume that because it can survive in your refrigerator, that the refrigerator was "finely tuned" just for it.

It is typical of you though to produce nothing while rejecting something ... and somehow claiming that quantum mechanics makes it the same thing.
See above refutation.

You're just a spot of bacteria on a wedge of cheese. The universe wasn't designed with you in mind, the kitchen wasn't designed with you in mind, the refrigerator wasn't built for you, and no one had you in mind when they made the cheese.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:03:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:56:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:40:55 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:25:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.
And how exactly, does this land to the (already falsified) "Fine-Tuning" argument??

I am aware that in your mind something is falsified, but that is a far cry from reality.
The "Fine-Tuning Argument" boils down to claiming that because we're alive and we think we're special, this universe was made with intent, especially for us. It's as though we existed before the universe did. That's utter bunk. The universe has existed (in it's present configuration), for approximately 13.7 billion years. Earth has existed for about 4.55 billion years, and evidence of life on Earth goes back about 3.5 billion years. So obviously, the universe is much, MUCH older than we are, and much older than any known form of life. If that's not enough for you, stars and galaxies are younger than the universe. So quite obviously - and with pure scientific support - the universe has existed longer than any form of life in the universe. Therefore, the idea that the universe was constructed for life, is utterly debunked.

If the uiverse is seeded with the complex amino acids needed to create life ... that does indeed lend credence to the claim that the universe was designed to create life. Its no accident.
Then by the same token, we can say that since dust can be found at every level of the atmosphere, the atmosphere was "designed" for dust? Don't be stupid.

It ADDS to that probability and statistical based proof that I have produced many times, and that you have never actually falsified.
And yet I have. But, true to your belief that your belief is the standard of all reality, you simply don't accept it.
By looking to the range of alterations of various properties of the universe, one can conceive (at a rough estimate), of about 10^121st possible different configurations. Some of those configurations can host life as we know it. Some could host life which we are as yet, unfamiliar with (silicone-based life, sulfer-based life, etc.), and many would not be able to host any form of life of which we can conceive.

But why is the ability to host life the measure of a universe? Is the universe "better" than a comparable universe which might not be able to host life? If so, why? A universe has absolutely no need for life. We don't benefit the universe in the least. We don't make it better. It has no need for us at all. And since it existed before we did, we can be seen as similar to the tiny droplet of slimy bacteria occupying the back corner of a wedge of cheese on the back of a shelf in your refrigerator.

It is no more accurate for us to assume the universe as "finely tuned" for us, just because we manage to live here, than it is for the bacteria on that wedge of cheese to assume that because it can survive in your refrigerator, that the refrigerator was "finely tuned" just for it.

It is typical of you though to produce nothing while rejecting something ... and somehow claiming that quantum mechanics makes it the same thing.
See above refutation.

You're just a spot of bacteria on a wedge of cheese. The universe wasn't designed with you in mind, the kitchen wasn't designed with you in mind, the refrigerator wasn't built for you, and no one had you in mind when they made the cheese.

Thanks for the strawman. the Fine tuned universe is based on statistics of all the steps that ANY LIFE in the universe has to jump through to exist, and that being ... statistically impossible.

Ergo, if we find steps in the process that make it MORE probable as a COMMON element of the universe ... that clearly indicates that the intended result was LIFE. Because the most statistically probable outcome of the Big Bang, was diffuse energy ... no life. Second by black holes ... no life. But the VERY first hting created in the first few instances of plank time was ... gravity ... in JUST the right amount to set off a chain of events that has produced life from a magic ball of pure energy against all odds.

The bateria on the edge of a cheese is statistically impossible. It is the realization of something from nothing, and not just matter from eneregy - but life from energy.

But you continue to get the basic claim incorrect - as usual. Because like your terroristic friend bullyboy, its not about a discussion - its about scorched earth denial at all costs.

And its rather hard to pretend you are having a discussion with someone who insists on telling you both your opinion and his - that is many things, a discussion is not one of them.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:22:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:03:15 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:56:17 AM, Beastt wrote:

You're just a spot of bacteria on a wedge of cheese. The universe wasn't designed with you in mind, the kitchen wasn't designed with you in mind, the refrigerator wasn't built for you, and no one had you in mind when they made the cheese.

Thanks for the strawman. the Fine tuned universe is based on statistics of all the steps that ANY LIFE in the universe has to jump through to exist, and that being ... statistically impossible.
You've just demonstrated that you don't even understand the "Fine-Tuning Argument". It simply claims that if any of multiple properties of the universe were changed more than a small amount, the life which exists in this universe, could not exist. That is followed with the ridiculous assumption that because we are so suited to the universe, the universe was designed for us. Would you expect to find a form of life which couldn't exist in a given universe, existing there?

Any configuration of a universe which might be able to host any form of life, will only be found to be hosting that form of life. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

Ergo, if we find steps in the process that make it MORE probable as a COMMON element of the universe ... that clearly indicates that the intended result was LIFE.
In other words, because life exists in the universe, the universe was designed specifically for life. And that - as I already pointed out - is no different than a slimy little spot of bacteria assuming the refrigerator was designed with it in mind, simply because it can live in that refrigerator. Or the assumption that because we find dust in the atmosphere, the atmosphere was designed for dust.

Because the most statistically probable outcome of the Big Bang, was diffuse energy ... no life.
How are you managing to calculate statistical probabilities for big-bang?

Second by black holes ... no life.
What do you know? We have black holes in the universe. Shazam! It must be that the universe was "finely tuned" just for black holes.

But the VERY first hting created in the first few instances of plank time was ... gravity ... in JUST the right amount to set off a chain of events that has produced life from a magic ball of pure energy against all odds.
What you seem not to understand is that if a form of life is going to develop, it will only do so where it can. And in a slightly different universe, a different form of life would form. Let me know when you find fish swimming through the sands of the Sahara. Is the fact that we only find fish swimming in bodies of water, an indication that bodies of water were "finely-tuned" for fish? Gee, the water plants growing there are going to be so dejected to learn that the rivers, streams, lakes and oceans weren't made just for them.

The bateria on the edge of a cheese is statistically impossible.
ROFL! Yeah, that's why it exists?

It is the realization of something from nothing, and not just matter from eneregy - but life from energy.
So in your odd twisted vernacular, energy = nothing?


But you continue to get the basic claim incorrect - as usual. Because like your terroristic friend bullyboy, its not about a discussion - its about scorched earth denial at all costs.
There you go with your herd-mentality misuse of words again. Just because GW Bush spit out the word "terrorist" as many times as he could when trying to whip the country into an angry froth, which lead to you signing up to become a murderer, doesn't make it appropriate for you to label someone a "terrorist", simply because he's quite capable of trading insults with you. If a textual insult "terrorizes" you, seek professional psychiatric help.

And its rather hard to pretend you are having a discussion with someone who insists on telling you both your opinion and his - that is many things, a discussion is not one of them.
You now have the opportunity to re-word that sentence so that if fits with any kind of proper English syntax. As is, it's completely meaningless.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:29:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:22:55 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:03:15 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:56:17 AM, Beastt wrote:

You're just a spot of bacteria on a wedge of cheese. The universe wasn't designed with you in mind, the kitchen wasn't designed with you in mind, the refrigerator wasn't built for you, and no one had you in mind when they made the cheese.

Thanks for the strawman. the Fine tuned universe is based on statistics of all the steps that ANY LIFE in the universe has to jump through to exist, and that being ... statistically impossible.
You've just demonstrated that you don't even understand the "Fine-Tuning Argument". It simply claims that if any of multiple properties of the universe were changed more than a small amount, the life which exists in this universe, could not exist. That is followed with the ridiculous assumption that because we are so suited to the universe, the universe was designed for us. Would you expect to find a form of life which couldn't exist in a given universe, existing there?

Any configuration of a universe which might be able to host any form of life, will only be found to be hosting that form of life. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

Ergo, if we find steps in the process that make it MORE probable as a COMMON element of the universe ... that clearly indicates that the intended result was LIFE.
In other words, because life exists in the universe, the universe was designed specifically for life. And that - as I already pointed out - is no different than a slimy little spot of bacteria assuming the refrigerator was designed with it in mind, simply because it can live in that refrigerator. Or the assumption that because we find dust in the atmosphere, the atmosphere was designed for dust.

Because the most statistically probable outcome of the Big Bang, was diffuse energy ... no life.
How are you managing to calculate statistical probabilities for big-bang?

Second by black holes ... no life.
What do you know? We have black holes in the universe. Shazam! It must be that the universe was "finely tuned" just for black holes.

But the VERY first hting created in the first few instances of plank time was ... gravity ... in JUST the right amount to set off a chain of events that has produced life from a magic ball of pure energy against all odds.
What you seem not to understand is that if a form of life is going to develop, it will only do so where it can. And in a slightly different universe, a different form of life would form. Let me know when you find fish swimming through the sands of the Sahara. Is the fact that we only find fish swimming in bodies of water, an indication that bodies of water were "finely-tuned" for fish? Gee, the water plants growing there are going to be so dejected to learn that the rivers, streams, lakes and oceans weren't made just for them.

The bateria on the edge of a cheese is statistically impossible.
ROFL! Yeah, that's why it exists?

It is the realization of something from nothing, and not just matter from eneregy - but life from energy.
So in your odd twisted vernacular, energy = nothing?


But you continue to get the basic claim incorrect - as usual. Because like your terroristic friend bullyboy, its not about a discussion - its about scorched earth denial at all costs.
There you go with your herd-mentality misuse of words again. Just because GW Bush spit out the word "terrorist" as many times as he could when trying to whip the country into an angry froth, which lead to you signing up to become a murderer, doesn't make it appropriate for you to label someone a "terrorist", simply because he's quite capable of trading insults with you. If a textual insult "terrorizes" you, seek professional psychiatric help.

And its rather hard to pretend you are having a discussion with someone who insists on telling you both your opinion and his - that is many things, a discussion is not one of them.
You now have the opportunity to re-word that sentence so that if fits with any kind of proper English syntax. As is, it's completely meaningless.

The argument is based on statistics ... and you are free to address the chain of requirements required for life to exist. That you skip it is precisely why you've never falsified it.

You simply fallaciously appeal to something else. OK. The point stands without rebuttal then.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:37:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:29:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:22:55 AM, Beastt wrote:

The argument is based on statistics ... and you are free to address the chain of requirements required for life to exist. That you skip it is precisely why you've never falsified it.
There's no need to address it. All you've shown is that you don't understand what statistics mean. If something has a 1 in a million chance of happening, does that mean it could never happen?

You simply fallaciously appeal to something else. OK. The point stands without rebuttal then.
Your point died before you posted it and it's becoming increasing clear that you're already beginning to understand that. But true to your nature, you NEVER admit when you're wrong.

- A flea on a cat might assume the cat was "designed" just for it (food, warmth, protection, a place to breed).

- A lichen on a rock - high on a mountain - might assume that the entire mountain was designed specifically for it.

- A blob of bacteria growing in the drain of your sink might note that the shape of the sink directed it into a perfectly dark little moist spot, consistent with its needs for survival, and assume the entire sink and the plumbing were therefore "fine-tuned" simply to meet its needs.

- And each of these examples are no more correct than the life form which - in demonstrating the ultimate in egotistical conceit - assumes that because it can live in this universe, this universe must have been "fine-tuned" just for it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:38:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:37:43 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:29:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:22:55 AM, Beastt wrote:

The argument is based on statistics ... and you are free to address the chain of requirements required for life to exist. That you skip it is precisely why you've never falsified it.
There's no need to address it. All you've shown is that you don't understand what statistics mean. If something has a 1 in a million chance of happening, does that mean it could never happen?

You simply fallaciously appeal to something else. OK. The point stands without rebuttal then.
Your point died before you posted it and it's becoming increasing clear that you're already beginning to understand that. But true to your nature, you NEVER admit when you're wrong.

- A flea on a cat might assume the cat was "designed" just for it (food, warmth, protection, a place to breed).

- A lichen on a rock - high on a mountain - might assume that the entire mountain was designed specifically for it.

- A blob of bacteria growing in the drain of your sink might note that the shape of the sink directed it into a perfectly dark little moist spot, consistent with its needs for survival, and assume the entire sink and the plumbing were therefore "fine-tuned" simply to meet its needs.

- And each of these examples are no more correct than the life form which - in demonstrating the ultimate in egotistical conceit - assumes that because it can live in this universe, this universe must have been "fine-tuned" just for it.

None of those are in the proof.

I have no idea what you are rebutting, but its neither the OP nor the claims in the fine tuned universe.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 2:52:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 2:38:43 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:37:43 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:29:41 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 2:22:55 AM, Beastt wrote:

The argument is based on statistics ... and you are free to address the chain of requirements required for life to exist. That you skip it is precisely why you've never falsified it.
There's no need to address it. All you've shown is that you don't understand what statistics mean. If something has a 1 in a million chance of happening, does that mean it could never happen?

You simply fallaciously appeal to something else. OK. The point stands without rebuttal then.
Your point died before you posted it and it's becoming increasing clear that you're already beginning to understand that. But true to your nature, you NEVER admit when you're wrong.

- A flea on a cat might assume the cat was "designed" just for it (food, warmth, protection, a place to breed).

- A lichen on a rock - high on a mountain - might assume that the entire mountain was designed specifically for it.

- A blob of bacteria growing in the drain of your sink might note that the shape of the sink directed it into a perfectly dark little moist spot, consistent with its needs for survival, and assume the entire sink and the plumbing were therefore "fine-tuned" simply to meet its needs.

- And each of these examples are no more correct than the life form which - in demonstrating the ultimate in egotistical conceit - assumes that because it can live in this universe, this universe must have been "fine-tuned" just for it.

None of those are in the proof.

I have no idea what you are rebutting, but its neither the OP nor the claims in the fine tuned universe.
Then I suggest you find out what the "Fine-Tuning Argument" states, and come back and re-read my posts. We KNOW that life exists in the universe and that this means the universe has to contain elements capable of bonding into organic materials. So why do you think finding organic materials strengthens the Fine-Tuning Argument? We already KNOW life exists. Why would the existence of the building-blocks of life strengthen the argument, more than the existence of life itself?

And once you get past that little flub of yours, we can get down to discussing the fact that the Fine-Tuning argument is based on the assumption that a if a universe can host life, that it somehow indicates intent. The same token would suggest that if mold can grow in the grout in your shower stall, that the grout was designed with the intent of hosting mold.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 3:16:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The key here can be found in a relatively simple axiom; "when all possible outcomes are extremely unlikely, an extremely unlikely outcome becomes a certainty".

When picking a card from a standard deck, no matter which card you pick, the odds were 52:1 against you picking that card.

In one of a potential 10^121st universes - no matter which configuration emerges - the odds were 10^121st to 1, against it. Again, the more possible variations that exist, the more improbable any one of those variations becomes. But one of them will still emerge, no matter how incredibly against the odds it may seem.

In a world-wide lottery, the odds are 7-billion to 1 against anyone winning. And yet, one person WILL win.

The Fine-Tuning Argument relies on forgetting this simple reality, and assuming that because we're alive and therefore see life as important, the fact that so many configurations might have emerged for the universe which couldn't have hosted our form of life, and so many couldn't have hosted any form of life as we know it, that somehow that means there was intent involved in this universe being the configuration which emerged from big-bang.

The odds of picking a specific card from a deck are 52 to 1.

The odds of picking A CARD from the deck is 1 to 1.

The odds of picking this specific universe from all of the potential configurations is about 10^121st to 1.

The odds of A UNIVERSE emerging from big-bang were 1 to 1.


In other words, it was going to happen. And no matter which configuration emerged, there were 10^121st - 1 configurations which did not emerge, making it appear amazingly unlikely that this specific configuration could emerge. But that would be the case no matter which of those 10^121st configurations emerged.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 5:28:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 3:16:05 AM, Beastt wrote:
The key here can be found in a relatively simple axiom; "when all possible outcomes are extremely unlikely, an extremely unlikely outcome becomes a certainty".

When picking a card from a standard deck, no matter which card you pick, the odds were 52:1 against you picking that card.

In one of a potential 10^121st universes - no matter which configuration emerges - the odds were 10^121st to 1, against it. Again, the more possible variations that exist, the more improbable any one of those variations becomes. But one of them will still emerge, no matter how incredibly against the odds it may seem.

In a world-wide lottery, the odds are 7-billion to 1 against anyone winning. And yet, one person WILL win.

The Fine-Tuning Argument relies on forgetting this simple reality, and assuming that because we're alive and therefore see life as important, the fact that so many configurations might have emerged for the universe which couldn't have hosted our form of life, and so many couldn't have hosted any form of life as we know it, that somehow that means there was intent involved in this universe being the configuration which emerged from big-bang.

The odds of picking a specific card from a deck are 52 to 1.

The odds of picking A CARD from the deck is 1 to 1.

The odds of picking this specific universe from all of the potential configurations is about 10^121st to 1.

The odds of A UNIVERSE emerging from big-bang were 1 to 1.


In other words, it was going to happen. And no matter which configuration emerged, there were 10^121st - 1 configurations which did not emerge, making it appear amazingly unlikely that this specific configuration could emerge. But that would be the case no matter which of those 10^121st configurations emerged.

The odd of THIS universe emerging from a SINGLE event is statistically impossible. Again, if read rather than preverted math to reatin your religious beliefs, you would note that the basis of the MATHEMATICAL MODELING (which the same thing used to ensure the wings of airplanes don't fall off ... pretty solid stuff) list the PROBABLE outcome from the Big Bang.

#1 - Diffuse energy - not enough gravity to slow down the energy and allow matter to form. This is BY FAR the most likely outcome.

#2 - Black holes - TOO much gravity, and matter not just slows down, to globs and forms a bunch of black holes. Not Life. This is the SECOND most probable outcome.

#3 - JUST RIGHT. This is what happened. And its EXREMELY unlikely based on MATHEMATICAL modeling.

And that is JUST the first step - the very first thing created was gravity, in the first few instances of plank time.

And as we flow through this series of improbable chances, any of which can go awry and wrck chances of life ... we finds that its statistically impossible. Not only that, but we are finding that in th emidst of this EXREMELY improbable process - the universe is somehow seeded with complex organic molecules needed to create life. That makes LIFE MORE PROBABLE, and indicates an INTENT in the creation process.

You slaughtering statistics and abandoning math does not change that.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 5:49:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 5:28:23 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 3:16:05 AM, Beastt wrote:

The odd of THIS universe emerging from a SINGLE event is statistically impossible.
Bullcrap. There is no statistical model which suggest it to be other than improbable.

Again, if read rather than preverted math to reatin your religious beliefs, you would note that the basis of the MATHEMATICAL MODELING (which the same thing used to ensure the wings of airplanes don't fall off ... pretty solid stuff) list the PROBABLE outcome from the Big Bang.
Once again, Neutral; when all possible outcomes are extremely improbable, then an extremely improbable outcome becomes a certainty. Actually try to engage a few neurons and think about that reality.

#1 - Diffuse energy - not enough gravity to slow down the energy and allow matter to form. This is BY FAR the most likely outcome.
When picking a card from the deck, it is by far more likely to pick a number card than a face card. Does that mean you can't pick a face card?

#2 - Black holes - TOO much gravity, and matter not just slows down, to globs and forms a bunch of black holes. Not Life. This is the SECOND most probable outcome.
When picking a card from the deck, it's more likely that you'll pick a Club, Spade or Diamond than a card from the Hearts suit. Does that mean you can't pick a card from the Hearts suit?

#3 - JUST RIGHT. This is what happened. And its EXREMELY unlikely based on MATHEMATICAL modeling.
See how that works. First you claim this is "impossible", and then suddenly, it's "EXTREMELY unlikey".
It's extremely unlikely that you would pick an Ace of Spades from the deck choosing blindly. Does that mean it can't happen? Does it mean that if it does happen, there was intent behind the Ace of Spades being selected?

And that is JUST the first step - the very first thing created was gravity, in the first few instances of plank time.
Which has nothing to do with anything. You make it sound as though gravity being the first force to form was some kind of crap shoot. And even if it was, sometimes the dice come up craps.

And as we flow through this series of improbable chances, any of which can go awry and wrck chances of life ... we finds that its statistically impossible.
And here you show the flaw. You're suggesting that a universe which supports life was the goal. There was no goal. There were trillions of possible combinations and yet, the universe ended up as it is. And no matter how the universe ended up, it would end up as it is, despite all of trillions of other possibilities. But that's how probabilities and statistics work. If you have a 1 in 1-million chance of surviving a given disease, it means that 1-person out of every million to contract that disease WILL survive. If I hand you a theoretical deck of cards containing as many unique cards as there are possible outcomes for the universe, can you not pick one out of the deck?
And no matter which card you pick, aren't the odds extremely unlikely that you would pick that specific card? And yet, you can pick a card each and every time the deck is presented, and each time the card you pick will be just as extremely unlikely. Your odds of picking A CARD are 1 in 1.

Not only that, but we are finding that in th emidst of this EXREMELY improbable process - the universe is somehow seeded with complex organic molecules needed to create life. That makes LIFE MORE PROBABLE, and indicates an INTENT in the creation process.
And again; you're using the same reasoning one would use to note that since the atmosphere is seeded with a great many dust particles, it indicates the intent to create an atmosphere which could contain dust.

You slaughtering statistics and abandoning math does not change that.
I'm simply explaining the statistics. You're the one trying to claim that no matter who wins the lottery, it was by intent rather than a random drawing, because the odds against any particular individual winning makes it extremely unlikely. Next time someone wins, take the state to court claiming that since the odds were so against any particular person winning, that it demonstrates intent for one person to win, and therefore a bias by the state for that particular person to win. See how long the judge tolerates your insane idiocy.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 6:05:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 5:49:30 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 5:28:23 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 3:16:05 AM, Beastt wrote:

The odd of THIS universe emerging from a SINGLE event is statistically impossible.
Bullcrap. There is no statistical model which suggest it to be other than improbable.

Again, if read rather than preverted math to reatin your religious beliefs, you would note that the basis of the MATHEMATICAL MODELING (which the same thing used to ensure the wings of airplanes don't fall off ... pretty solid stuff) list the PROBABLE outcome from the Big Bang.
Once again, Neutral; when all possible outcomes are extremely improbable, then an extremely improbable outcome becomes a certainty. Actually try to engage a few neurons and think about that reality.

#1 - Diffuse energy - not enough gravity to slow down the energy and allow matter to form. This is BY FAR the most likely outcome.
When picking a card from the deck, it is by far more likely to pick a number card than a face card. Does that mean you can't pick a face card?

#2 - Black holes - TOO much gravity, and matter not just slows down, to globs and forms a bunch of black holes. Not Life. This is the SECOND most probable outcome.
When picking a card from the deck, it's more likely that you'll pick a Club, Spade or Diamond than a card from the Hearts suit. Does that mean you can't pick a card from the Hearts suit?

#3 - JUST RIGHT. This is what happened. And its EXREMELY unlikely based on MATHEMATICAL modeling.
See how that works. First you claim this is "impossible", and then suddenly, it's "EXTREMELY unlikey".
It's extremely unlikely that you would pick an Ace of Spades from the deck choosing blindly. Does that mean it can't happen? Does it mean that if it does happen, there was intent behind the Ace of Spades being selected?

And that is JUST the first step - the very first thing created was gravity, in the first few instances of plank time.
Which has nothing to do with anything. You make it sound as though gravity being the first force to form was some kind of crap shoot. And even if it was, sometimes the dice come up craps.

And as we flow through this series of improbable chances, any of which can go awry and wrck chances of life ... we finds that its statistically impossible.
And here you show the flaw. You're suggesting that a universe which supports life was the goal. There was no goal. There were trillions of possible combinations and yet, the universe ended up as it is. And no matter how the universe ended up, it would end up as it is, despite all of trillions of other possibilities. But that's how probabilities and statistics work. If you have a 1 in 1-million chance of surviving a given disease, it means that 1-person out of every million to contract that disease WILL survive. If I hand you a theoretical deck of cards containing as many unique cards as there are possible outcomes for the universe, can you not pick one out of the deck?
And no matter which card you pick, aren't the odds extremely unlikely that you would pick that specific card? And yet, you can pick a card each and every time the deck is presented, and each time the card you pick will be just as extremely unlikely. Your odds of picking A CARD are 1 in 1.

Not only that, but we are finding that in th emidst of this EXREMELY improbable process - the universe is somehow seeded with complex organic molecules needed to create life. That makes LIFE MORE PROBABLE, and indicates an INTENT in the creation process.
And again; you're using the same reasoning one would use to note that since the atmosphere is seeded with a great many dust particles, it indicates the intent to create an atmosphere which could contain dust.

You slaughtering statistics and abandoning math does not change that.
I'm simply explaining the statistics. You're the one trying to claim that no matter who wins the lottery, it was by intent rather than a random drawing, because the odds against any particular individual winning makes it extremely unlikely. Next time someone wins, take the state to court claiming that since the odds were so against any particular person winning, that it demonstrates intent for one person to win, and therefore a bias by the state for that particular person to win. See how long the judge tolerates your insane idiocy.

I am talking about mathemetical modeling and you are talking about a deck of cards - incorrectly.

In a deck of card, you chances of picking a a specific card is 1 in 52. You chances of picking the same card from each succsessive deck become more and more improbable to the point that after you pick the Ace of spades from one hundred different decks ... something is off.

You are avoiding even the first instance of creation and its improbability, and all the subsequent other steps that MUST be present for there to be life.

Implausibly, the universe has been dusted with complex organic materials ... And you are talking about cards. Science this is not - but it is what happens when science and math conflict with your reigious opinions.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 6:53:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 6:05:51 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 5:49:30 AM, Beastt wrote:

I am talking about mathemetical modeling and you are talking about a deck of cards - incorrectly.
Oh really? Well Neutral; here is your chance to show anything that I've stated about the deck of cards which isn't true.
And by the way, the questions I've applied to the deck of cards, address the very same mathematical models.

In a deck of card, you chances of picking a a specific card is 1 in 52. You chances of picking the same card from each succsessive deck become more and more improbable to the point that after you pick the Ace of spades from one hundred different decks ... something is off.
"Something is off"? Is that as articulate as you can be? C'mon Neutral, tell us what is "off". Explain how at some point, it becomes "impossible" (your word), to choose one of the cards.

You are avoiding even the first instance of creation and its improbability, and all the subsequent other steps that MUST be present for there to be life.
You've presented no improbability for the "first instance of creation", nor have you presented any creation event. I've explained to you dozens of times that big-bang was a transformation event, not a creation event.

Implausibly, the universe has been dusted with complex organic materials ... And you are talking about cards. Science this is not - but it is what happens when science and math conflict with your reigious opinions.

What I'm presenting is neither religious, nor opinion. It's fact. And while we all know you have a great deal of trouble with facts, it remains factual. No matter what the odds of this universe coalescing out of big-bang, it is no more unlikely than any other specific configuration which might have resulted. Whether you set the odds at 100:1, 10,000:1, 100-billion to 1, or 10^121 to 1, it's still a matter of one of many outcomes. And any specific outcome is just as likely, and as unlikely, as any other.

At some point, it comes down to a number of possible configurations for the universe. And any of those configurations, is just as unlikely as any of the others.

You dislike it when the mathematical models are fleshed out by referring to cards, because it clarifies the failure of your claims.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 6:57:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 6:53:43 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 6:05:51 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 5:49:30 AM, Beastt wrote:

I am talking about mathemetical modeling and you are talking about a deck of cards - incorrectly.
Oh really? Well Neutral; here is your chance to show anything that I've stated about the deck of cards which isn't true.
And by the way, the questions I've applied to the deck of cards, address the very same mathematical models.

In a deck of card, you chances of picking a a specific card is 1 in 52. You chances of picking the same card from each succsessive deck become more and more improbable to the point that after you pick the Ace of spades from one hundred different decks ... something is off.
"Something is off"? Is that as articulate as you can be? C'mon Neutral, tell us what is "off". Explain how at some point, it becomes "impossible" (your word), to choose one of the cards.

You are avoiding even the first instance of creation and its improbability, and all the subsequent other steps that MUST be present for there to be life.
You've presented no improbability for the "first instance of creation", nor have you presented any creation event. I've explained to you dozens of times that big-bang was a transformation event, not a creation event.

Implausibly, the universe has been dusted with complex organic materials ... And you are talking about cards. Science this is not - but it is what happens when science and math conflict with your reigious opinions.

What I'm presenting is neither religious, nor opinion. It's fact. And while we all know you have a great deal of trouble with facts, it remains factual. No matter what the odds of this universe coalescing out of big-bang, it is no more unlikely than any other specific configuration which might have resulted. Whether you set the odds at 100:1, 10,000:1, 100-billion to 1, or 10^121 to 1, it's still a matter of one of many outcomes. And any specific outcome is just as likely, and as unlikely, as any other.

At some point, it comes down to a number of possible configurations for the universe. And any of those configurations, is just as unlikely as any of the others.

You dislike it when the mathematical models are fleshed out by referring to cards, because it clarifies the failure of your claims.

I dislike using actual statistics and having them rebutted by a attempted snake oil salesmen.

The first cause here is irrevalnt to the fnal claim. Its transition from pure eneregy (beginning with gravity) through all the steps necessary to create life) - and that is improbable.

How you falsify a thery by fundamentally not addressing it r the mathe its based on, instead attempting to prevert statists and modeling, is beyond comprehension.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:07:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.

Your only argument here is that branched chain molecules are required for life, and they only form in space, which decreases the likelihood of life occurring naturally.

Or something to that effect.

However the second portion (they only form in space) is just false, the reaction of cyanides and ketones or aldehyde yield tertiary and quaternary carbon molecules all the time for example, and that's a tiny slice of the chemistry that occurred in the abiotic earth.

http://books.google.co.uk...

In order for this to support fine tuning you need to:

1. Demonstrate these molecules were required for life to start
2. Demonstrate that these molecules were only available in significant quantities from interstellar sources

And that's before you consider all the problems such as the Anthropic principle, plasticity of life, or the fact that the universe is finely tuned for life at all.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:30:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 7:07:39 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.

Your only argument here is that branched chain molecules are required for life, and they only form in space, which decreases the likelihood of life occurring naturally.

Or something to that effect.

However the second portion (they only form in space) is just false, the reaction of cyanides and ketones or aldehyde yield tertiary and quaternary carbon molecules all the time for example, and that's a tiny slice of the chemistry that occurred in the abiotic earth.

http://books.google.co.uk...

In order for this to support fine tuning you need to:

1. Demonstrate these molecules were required for life to start
2. Demonstrate that these molecules were only available in significant quantities from interstellar sources

And that's before you consider all the problems such as the Anthropic principle, plasticity of life, or the fact that the universe is finely tuned for life at all.

Not quite ... the portrion of the abiogenesis process that gets ... skewed if you will ... is that some of the critical processes that are needed are now created in processes throughout the universe in conditions that are not earth bound.

Whatever this process is, its created a lot of basic building blocks for life. So if teh INTENT is to create life, than an assumption is that the processes needed to do so would be common - in a designed system.

Its a bit like metal. If you want good quality steel, you add carbon in the correct amounts ofr the desired toughness. That doesn't mean you control the fusing process with utter precision, but it doe smean you understand the process enough to know the correct amount to add for the desired endstate.

Again, iof the intent is to create life ... then having a universe that is spewing out organic material would seem a great way to achieve that result.

It certainly doesn't support the view that everything is just accidental. Quite the opposite.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:32:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 6:53:43 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 6:05:51 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 5:49:30 AM, Beastt wrote:

I am talking about mathemetical modeling and you are talking about a deck of cards - incorrectly.
Oh really? Well Neutral; here is your chance to show anything that I've stated about the deck of cards which isn't true.
And by the way, the questions I've applied to the deck of cards, address the very same mathematical models.

In a deck of card, you chances of picking a a specific card is 1 in 52. You chances of picking the same card from each succsessive deck become more and more improbable to the point that after you pick the Ace of spades from one hundred different decks ... something is off.
"Something is off"? Is that as articulate as you can be? C'mon Neutral, tell us what is "off". Explain how at some point, it becomes "impossible" (your word), to choose one of the cards.

You are avoiding even the first instance of creation and its improbability, and all the subsequent other steps that MUST be present for there to be life.
You've presented no improbability for the "first instance of creation", nor have you presented any creation event. I've explained to you dozens of times that big-bang was a transformation event, not a creation event.

Implausibly, the universe has been dusted with complex organic materials ... And you are talking about cards. Science this is not - but it is what happens when science and math conflict with your reigious opinions.

What I'm presenting is neither religious, nor opinion. It's fact. And while we all know you have a great deal of trouble with facts, it remains factual. No matter what the odds of this universe coalescing out of big-bang, it is no more unlikely than any other specific configuration which might have resulted. Whether you set the odds at 100:1, 10,000:1, 100-billion to 1, or 10^121 to 1, it's still a matter of one of many outcomes. And any specific outcome is just as likely, and as unlikely, as any other.

At some point, it comes down to a number of possible configurations for the universe. And any of those configurations, is just as unlikely as any of the others.

You dislike it when the mathematical models are fleshed out by referring to cards, because it clarifies the failure of your claims.

No, you are simply not referring to anything I have written on the subject, and talking about the chances of drawing A card from a deck. Thaat has absolutely nothing to do with all the probabilities that COULD have happened after the Big Bang started. Its not a one in one chance, and presenting it as such is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic statistics.

We should not reject math to retain a creep anti-religious stance.

That simple.

You can argue all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that math simply does not support your claims with regard to the universe. A deck of cards is simply irrelevant.
Brad_Watson.Miami
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:39:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:25:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy. Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone. The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth." On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth. It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

Yes, panspermia is part of GOD-guided Evolution Theory.
GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good(7__4) Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).

GOD=7_4 algorithm/code produces Earth's 7 continents & 4 seasons, 4 lunar phases of 7 days (~7.4 days) each, Venus .7 AU & Mercury .4 AU, etc.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:52:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 7:30:01 AM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 7:07:39 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.

Your only argument here is that branched chain molecules are required for life, and they only form in space, which decreases the likelihood of life occurring naturally.

Or something to that effect.

However the second portion (they only form in space) is just false, the reaction of cyanides and ketones or aldehyde yield tertiary and quaternary carbon molecules all the time for example, and that's a tiny slice of the chemistry that occurred in the abiotic earth.

http://books.google.co.uk...

In order for this to support fine tuning you need to:

1. Demonstrate these molecules were required for life to start
2. Demonstrate that these molecules were only available in significant quantities from interstellar sources

And that's before you consider all the problems such as the Anthropic principle, plasticity of life, or the fact that the universe is finely tuned for life at all.

Not quite ... the portrion of the abiogenesis process that gets ... skewed if you will ... is that some of the critical processes that are needed are now created in processes throughout the universe in conditions that are not earth bound.

Huh? Just because there are interesting molecules in space doesn't mean that they are important to abiogenesis.

Whatever this process is, its created a lot of basic building blocks for life. So if teh INTENT is to create life, than an assumption is that the processes needed to do so would be common - in a designed system.

There is no way one can demonstrate an intent. If there ever was an intent it is the second law of thermodynamics which is ticking the clock, leading to the formation of carbon-backbones with the release of energy.

Its a bit like metal. If you want good quality steel, you add carbon in the correct amounts ofr the desired toughness. That doesn't mean you control the fusing process with utter precision, but it doe smean you understand the process enough to know the correct amount to add for the desired endstate.

Again, iof the intent is to create life ... then having a universe that is spewing out organic material would seem a great way to achieve that result.

That assumes:

1. This is the only way for life to form (dubious claim, even when considering this universe)
2. The intent was for life
3. Organic material is naturally spewed anyway

#3 we know is rather obvious, volcanic eruptions release massive amounts of CO2, CO, Cyanides, etc for example, which polymerise or react under a number of conditions anyway.

It certainly doesn't support the view that everything is just accidental. Quite the opposite.

Sure, the driving force is the second law of thermodynamics, not some sentient being as far as I see.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 8:16:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 7:52:10 AM, Envisage wrote:

Huh? Just because there are interesting molecules in space doesn't mean that they are important to abiogenesis.

Well, if they are common in space, its likely that these critical components came from 'space' rather than a random collection of chemical processes. It both simplifies the abiogenetic process (these things only need the correct chemistry to combine) and complicates it ... because the chemical process we though was earth bound ... clearly is not. Chemistry in space anyone?


There is no way one can demonstrate an intent. If there ever was an intent it is the second law of thermodynamics which is ticking the clock, leading to the formation of carbon-backbones with the release of energy.

Statistics. If you come upon steel, it had to be smelted. Intent of creation is inherent in the components. The idea that carbon and iron just naturally fuse into useable steel is preposerous.

And now we have a universal process to create the basic compunds of life ... for some reason.


That assumes:

1. This is the only way for life to form (dubious claim, even when considering this universe)
A claim that requires an alternate methodology ... which is absent, ergo, the one way we KNOW it can be created is a better assumption than ... an unspecified alternative. We go with what we know as the basis.

2. The intent was for life

See above.

3. Organic material is naturally spewed anyway

That is indeed what they are discovering. 1 &3 lead to 2. But as we discover more tidbits, the idea that th euniverse WAS created specifically to create life is finding more tangible bits to support that conclusion.


#3 we know is rather obvious, volcanic eruptions release massive amounts of CO2, CO, Cyanides, etc for example, which polymerise or react under a number of conditions anyway.

None of which exlpains why the universe is apparently littered with organic material.




Sure, the driving force is the second law of thermodynamics, not some sentient being as far as I see.

The prblem is that the matter/energy is constant, the universal boundaries are not ... they continue to expand. Under such conditions we would expect decreasing not increasing order.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 11:41:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 5:28:23 AM, neutral wrote:
The odd of THIS universe emerging from a SINGLE event is statistically impossible.

And I can say the exact same thing about your birth...

If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the 100th or
1 in 6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

http://members.shaw.ca...

So what can we conclude from this argument?
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 12:02:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 11:41:57 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/27/2014 5:28:23 AM, neutral wrote:
The odd of THIS universe emerging from a SINGLE event is statistically impossible.

And I can say the exact same thing about your birth...

If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the 100th or
1 in 6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

http://members.shaw.ca...

So what can we conclude from this argument?

Nothing, because it does not address the statistics used. You are adding specificity to a proof that does not exist in the proof I claim. If you go back ten generations, what are the chances that A HUMAN will exist? Pretty damned good.

So if take an explosion of pure energy and ask what the odds are that this energy will produce ANY LIFE, the answer is ... its impossible. But try it if you like. Take a blow torch and using just the flame - make life. Go.

Quoting the statistics for something outside the confines of the proof is called a straw man. The chances of a cow having spots is not relevant to the model.

And this is how atheists get around the proof ... by ignoring it entirely in favor of ... what? Misleading statistics?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:51:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.

How does this confirm the ID/fine tuning position? I'll agree that it doesn't necessarily contradict the position (depending on how far out your personal take on ID goes), but it's also in line with a non-ID position.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:58:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We don't tolerate idiots who claim well their own existence was planned by God, cause after all in their own family tree if just one thing had being different they would not exist, the odds are astronomical.

Most of us see the error of reasoning their.

But apply the same flawed thinking to the humans as a whole, well you see if such and such and such had not happened we would not be here, the odds are astronomical !!!! it must be the product of intelligent design.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 7:59:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 1:11:33 AM, neutral wrote:
"The discovery suggests the building blocks of life may be widespread throughout our galaxy.

Various organic molecules have previously been discovered in interstellar space, but i-propyl cyanide is the first with a branched carbon backbone.

The branched structure is important as it shows that interstellar space could be the origin of more complex branched molecules, such as amino acids, that are necessary for life on Earth."

http://www.bbc.com...

On the abiogenesis front, this means that an important aspect of the chemical combination process is happening in space rather than here on Earth.

It also lends credence to the claim that the universe seems to have purposely been designed to create life - somehow seeding the building blocks of life in at least the galactic level.

As you can see, science is indeed confirming our position.

LOL!!!!! God's scientists have Christians believing in their lies. There is no real universe. Everything we observe is nothing but objects in God's dream that we're all experiencing.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 9:39:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 12:02:10 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/27/2014 11:41:57 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/27/2014 5:28:23 AM, neutral wrote:
The odd of THIS universe emerging from a SINGLE event is statistically impossible.

And I can say the exact same thing about your birth...

If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the 100th or
1 in 6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

http://members.shaw.ca...

So what can we conclude from this argument?

Nothing, because it does not address the statistics used. You are adding specificity to a proof that does not exist in the proof I claim. If you go back ten generations, what are the chances that A HUMAN will exist? Pretty damned good.
And the odds that A UNIVERSE would emerge from big-bag are also "pretty damned good".

So if take an explosion of pure energy and ask what the odds are that this energy will produce ANY LIFE, the answer is ... its impossible. But try it if you like. Take a blow torch and using just the flame - make life. Go.
For at least the tenth time" THERE IS NO EXPLOSION IN BIG-BANG!
And... no one is claiming that big-bang = life. Get yourself about 10,000 little wooden blocks. Number them from 1 to 10,000 by writing the number on the block. Now shake them up in a huge bag. Put on a blindfold, reach in, and pick out just one block. Now spend the rest of your life in utter amazement that you picked that specific block against odds of 9.999 to 1!

That's all you're doing, except you have more wooden blocks. And become the block you picked is the only one with that exact wood grain pattern, you deem it to be special. You further imply that there must have been some mystical intent to guide you to that block, because it is so unique and is the only one with exactly the qualities it possesses.


Quoting the statistics for something outside the confines of the proof is called a straw man. The chances of a cow having spots is not relevant to the model.
The fact that you can pick any cow out of a group of a billion cows, and no two will have exactly the same pattern of spots IS RELEVANT.

And this is how atheists get around the proof ... by ignoring it entirely in favor of ... what? Misleading statistics?
We're simply pointing out that - in typical theist fashion - you completely lose the ability to think when you see large numbers. You're befuddled, go into mental lock-up, and begin drooling on yourself. And when an atheist says "it's just a number. The principles don't change for large numbers", you lash out in hatred because they're not as baffled as you appear to be.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 2:08:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 9:39:54 PM, Beastt wrote:

And the odds that A UNIVERSE would emerge from big-bag are also "pretty damned good".


The odds that THIS universe would emerge from the Big Bang are not "pretty damned good"

If the entirety of your rebuttal is to avoid what your opponent says and play games of semantics? Than we can safely write off your opinion as meritless.

How many times does someone have to mention mathematical modeling and spell out:

#1 - the MOST likely is too little gravity resulting in diffuse radiated energy - no life

#2 - the NEXT MOST likely is too much gravity resulting in bunch of black holes - no life

#3 - the LEAST likely outcome is JUST right resulting in energy matter conversion and making life POSSIBLE ... but there are hundreds of additional steps that MUST happen to make this ACTUALLY happen.

Your rebuttal? A universe was going to emerge. Congrats, you fundamentally straw manned the position - again.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 2:13:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 7:51:08 PM, Burzmali wrote:

How does this confirm the ID/fine tuning position? I'll agree that it doesn't necessarily contradict the position (depending on how far out your personal take on ID goes), but it's also in line with a non-ID position.

#1 - Terminology, you use ID, but the correct term is Fine-Tuned Universe - as if the universe was designed to create life ...

#2 - If the universe was created specifically to produce life ... than the discovery that it seeded with e building blocks of life would seem to indicate that there is indeed intent to create life.

Complex organic molecules are not created through fusion. That means there is something else out there driving this process entirely, and the naturalists - to be blunt - should be stumped by this.