|
on_sight_man
Dec 13, 2004, 8:25 PM
Post #51 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: That you're a fan of silly red herrings?
No. I guess I have to spell out my point. It is meaningless to assign odds to an event that has already occurred and then use those astronomical odds as evidence of design. It's like saying all the beauty in the world is evidence of God, when it's only "beautiful" because we think it is. Likewise, our lives, our planet, life itself, is only special because we think it is. Sure, it's rare, but so are planets with methane based atmospheres where particular chemical reactions happen. So what?
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Dec 13, 2004, 8:39 PM
Post #52 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: It is meaningless to assign odds to an event that has already occurred and then use those astronomical odds as evidence of design. |
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Dec 13, 2004, 8:48 PM
Post #53 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: That you're a fan of silly red herrings?
isn't that the point of this entire thread? to expose everyone who is?
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Dec 13, 2004, 8:50 PM
Post #54 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: In reply to: It is meaningless to assign odds to an event that has already occurred and then use those astronomical odds as evidence of design. Were you always so insipid, or is this trait something that you spent countless hours cultivating :?:
[Deleted because I thought better of my reaction]
How bout you crawl back into your hole or respond to the point heman?
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Dec 13, 2004, 8:55 PM
Post #55 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: It is meaningless to assign odds to an event that has already occurred and then use those astronomical odds as evidence of design.
The unanswered question is how evolution occured. Intelligent design or pure chance?
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Dec 13, 2004, 9:02 PM
Post #56 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: In reply to: It is meaningless to assign odds to an event that has already occurred and then use those astronomical odds as evidence of design. The unanswered question is how evolution occured. Intelligent design or pure chance?
That would be the unanswered question yes. But analyzing the odds against it happening is meaningless given that it has actually happened. Again, odds don't work that way. They don't differentiate the "twenty tails in a row" pattern of coin flipping from the "TTTHHTTHHTTHTHTHHHT" pattern. Those patterns are equally as rare. It is US who puts meaning on the "all tails" pattern. And it is US who puts meaning on the "life" or "intelligent life" pattern versus some random "less interesting" formation of atoms.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Dec 13, 2004, 9:08 PM
Post #57 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
You're assuming a theory as fact. That we are here isn't proof of how we got here.
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Dec 13, 2004, 9:13 PM
Post #58 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: You're assuming a theory as fact. That we are here isn't proof of how we got here.
I don't think so (maybe I'm missing something...) Really, I'm not trying to prove anything at all. I'm not saying there ISN'T intelligent design, I'm just saying that using the odds to prove (or even bolster the theory of) intelligent design doesn't make combinatorial sense.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Dec 13, 2004, 9:18 PM
Post #59 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
It's not about proving ID, but about showing the statistical improbability of evolution by pure chance.
|
|
|
|
|
on_sight_man
Dec 13, 2004, 9:26 PM
Post #60 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 628
|
In reply to: It's not about proving ID, but about showing the statistical improbability of evolution by pure chance.
I know. And that's what I'm refuting. You can't analyze the statistical improbability of something happening like that. If you analyze the statistical improbability of ANYTHING in particular happening, the odds will be astronomical against. The analysis doesn't make sense. The problem is the assumption that "life", or even US, is somehow a special state that statistically deserves special standing when it doesn't. It's a mistake to assume it is and then analyse the odds about it. It's like saying
What are the odds that the lottery numbers will be "1 2 3 4 5 6". Well, astronomical (1 in 6 million) so I better pick a more random set, like "4 13 18 27 32 37", THEN I'll have a better chance.
Both picks are equally likely. In our case, looking at our current existence and asking what the odds of that are, is akin to looking back at last weeks lottery picks and asking "what are the odds that the numbers would be 5 37 23 14 28 35 2 ?"
|
|
|
|
|
qqclimber
Dec 13, 2004, 9:34 PM
Post #61 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 352
|
In reply to: In reply to: It only takes one event to occur. And condsidering that the earth has been in existance 4.5 billion years with the origin of life theorized around 3.5 billion years. So 1 billion years. The critical event only taking a second and requireing only MAX one cubic centimetre of space... that means there was 220752000000000000 seconds FOR EVERY CUBIC CENTIMETRE on this planet (there are 500000000000000 cs) means that your probability is distributed over 1.10376e+32 independant events of life is created or life is not created. All of a sudden the odds don't seem quite so far fetched. Ok, i just joined this site and for the first time i feel compelled to post. Ok, so you say there was roungly 1e+32 events that could have happened in the 1billion years. Just for sake i mentioning i've seen that number computed to come out alot higher. Anyway, ok, lets look at that Morowitz guy's number, 10^10^11 or something like that. ok, so i divide by 10^32 and what do i get, 10^99,999,999,968 or something like that....your right the odds are much better. Even if we use Hoyle's number we're still lookin at 10^39,968. You see, the lifetime of the earth doesn't even put a dent into these numbers.
Something that hasn't been mentioned is that there are billions of planets in the universe. Any one of them could possibly have created life (although the vast majority could not support life like the kind on earth) This SIGNIFICANTLY increases the odds life happened by chance.
Just a thought. Can't wait to hear the flames on his one.
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Dec 13, 2004, 9:35 PM
Post #62 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
In reply to: In reply to: It only takes one event to occur. And condsidering that the earth has been in existance 4.5 billion years with the origin of life theorized around 3.5 billion years. So 1 billion years. The critical event only taking a second and requireing only MAX one cubic centimetre of space... that means there was 220752000000000000 seconds FOR EVERY CUBIC CENTIMETRE on this planet (there are 500000000000000 cs) means that your probability is distributed over 1.10376e+32 independant events of life is created or life is not created. All of a sudden the odds don't seem quite so far fetched. Ok, i just joined this site and for the first time i feel compelled to post. Ok, so you say there was roungly 1e+32 events that could have happened in the 1billion years. Just for sake i mentioning i've seen that number computed to come out alot higher. Anyway, ok, lets look at that Morowitz guy's number, 10^10^11 or something like that. ok, so i divide by 10^32 and what do i get, 10^99,999,999,968 or something like that....your right the odds are much better. Even if we use Hoyle's number we're still lookin at 10^39,968. You see, the lifetime of the earth doesn't even put a dent into these numbers. Lastly, as a qualifier i have come to realize that even though the "odds" come out as basically zero. It is still less reasonable from a scientific standpoint to choose an extra-univers creator, mainly because science rules this out by axiom (or metaphysical principle or philosophically or whatever you want to call it). Thus this arguments real value is demonstrating that the naturalist axioms do require beliefs such as these and there is the possiblitly of other axioms out there that may be more correct. Anyway, this was fun! cheers Mike
Oh wait. I forgot something. I forgot that there are zillion stars with planets around them and each planet has the exact same odds of the earth. Therefore not only is the time span of the potential for the creation of life expanded exponentially, the area in which this life can be created in is also expanded exponentially. This basically means that the odds of life being created on any of the zillion planets out there is 1.
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Dec 13, 2004, 9:38 PM
Post #63 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
Heh I think it's funny that qqclimber and I came to the same conclusion at exactly the same time..... The odds of that are astronomical... must have been a miracle. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
qqclimber
Dec 13, 2004, 9:39 PM
Post #64 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 352
|
In reply to: Heh I think it's funny that qqclimber and I came to the same conclusion at exactly the same time..... The odds of that are astronomical... must have been a miracle. :roll:
:lol: :lol: :lol:
It's a Festivus Miracle!!
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 13, 2004, 10:29 PM
Post #65 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: must have been a miracle.
intelligent design i say. there must be a creator of this site.
hi trevor....
oh, i meant TREVOR
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Dec 13, 2004, 11:12 PM
Post #66 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
The odds of anything are either 100% or 0%.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Dec 13, 2004, 11:17 PM
Post #67 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: You're assuming a theory as fact. That we are here isn't proof of how we got here.
You're assuming a hypothesis is a theory, and further a theory is fact.
I hate repeating myself, but for tradman's sake (and further Bumblie's sake) some important points:
Truth and science are seperate entities. Truth here is the underlying truth that we cannot see nor measure. In science we assume for convenience that the universe follows laws. We have no proof of this, but it makes the math easier and allows us to predict things.
Science is in the field of prediction. A hypothesis without predictive power (eg intelligent design) is useless to us. That's why we so adamantly avoid the issue of god. An omnipotent and capricious entity is non-deterministic. As such, we can't predict what a god is going to do next.
Science likes logic. If something doesn't make sense in a theory, the theory doesn't fully explain what is occurring.
Science likes counterfactuals. A counterfactual is a hypothetical instance in which the theory could be shown to be wrong. In physics, we can calculate the force of gravity given the mass of two objects and the distance between them (also their relative velocities in a relatvistic approach). If we find an instance where the force of gravity is not the same as what we calculate (outside of errors induced by faulty measurement), we have a counterfactual of the theory. There is no piece of evidence we could ever produce to show that the "theory" of intelligent design is false. If everything is the way God intended it, then there is literally nothing outside of that set. It is impossible to show that intelligent design is false. As such, its not very useful. Rather like saying all bachelors are unmarried, its vaccuous. And not very useful.
That's not to say that science lacks vauccuous truths, its just that vaccuous truths tend to be initial conditions in science, things whose cause we don't need to worry about for the theory we base on them to work.
You can't base any useful theories off of intelligent design, so while it may be correct, its not what falls under the purview of science.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Dec 13, 2004, 11:53 PM
Post #68 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: (maybe I'm missing something...) |
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 14, 2004, 11:35 AM
Post #69 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
So petsfed, let's straighten out and condense what you just wrote:
"It is impossible to show that intelligent design is false. As such, its not very useful."
"vaccuous truths tend to be initial conditions in science, things whose cause we don't need to worry about for the theory we base on them to work."
In other words, both ID and science contain core beliefs that are assumed to be true without needing to be proved - but while you're happy to base theories on science's immutables, you say that ID is worthless because of them?
You appear to be contradicting yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 14, 2004, 11:57 AM
Post #71 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: Something that hasn't been mentioned is that there are billions of planets in the universe. Any one of them could possibly have created life (although the vast majority could not support life like the kind on earth) This SIGNIFICANTLY increases the odds life happened by chance.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Don't you get tired of being wrong?
Let's take a sample to examine your assertion:
Fact: over 99% of earth does not support life.
Fact: of the planets in our solar system, less than 1% of the surface of 1 out of 9 planets supports life.
Fact: of all those known, less than 10% of main sequence stars are within the spectral range which could support life on 1 out of 9 planets which could then support life on less than 1% of its surface.
Of course that's just for fun, the odds are actually far far smaller than that. Still, we could all adopt your idea that life "not like the kind on earth" could exist - it broadens the goal to the point where you can't really miss. Of course, we could all then use warp drives and phaser guns and speak klingon too, just like you.
:roll:
|
|
|
|
|
tisar
Dec 14, 2004, 12:25 PM
Post #72 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2577
|
In reply to: In reply to: Something that hasn't been mentioned is that there are billions of planets in the universe. Any one of them could possibly have created life (although the vast majority could not support life like the kind on earth) This SIGNIFICANTLY increases the odds life happened by chance. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Don't you get tired of being wrong? Let's take a sample to examine your assertion: Fact: over 99% of earth does not support life. Fact: of the planets in our solar system, less than 1% of the surface of 1 out of 9 planets supports life. Fact: of all those known, less than 10% of main sequence stars are within the spectral range which could support life on 1 out of 9 planets which could then support life on less than 1% of its surface. Of course that's just for fun, the odds are actually far far smaller than that. Still, we could all adopt your idea that life "not like the kind on earth" could exist - it broadens the goal to the point where you can't really miss. Of course, we could all then use warp drives and phaser guns and speak klingon too, just like you. :roll:
Given your percentages are halfways plausible the sheer number of stars still would raise the odds quite high. Not to mention the possibility that this might just be one of an infinite number of universes.
You know from previous discussions that I wouldn't deny the possibility that the universe is created by an intelligence, nor that I would support such an opinion. I just don't know. But even the odds where almost infinite (which they aren't) to one there would still be the chance of coincidence so playing around with plausibility won't prove anything.
- Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Dec 14, 2004, 1:26 PM
Post #73 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
I'm just trying to get a handle on some of what's being debated here, probability and all....
In reply to: Fact: over 99% of earth does not support life.
In reply to: Fact: of the planets in our solar system, less than 1% of the surface of 1 out of 9 planets supports life.
In reply to: Fact: of all those known, less than 10% of main sequence stars are within the spectral range which could support life on 1 out of 9 planets which could then support life on less than 1% of its surface. |
|
|
|
|
tradman
Dec 14, 2004, 1:40 PM
Post #74 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
In reply to: only 1% of Earth supports life? where does this come from?
Actually it's a massive over-estimation, I rounded it to 1 for convenience.
Simply, the idea was presented that in the biosphere's total volume, any one out of a very large number of cubic centimetres could have given rise to life. I was pointing out that in actual point of fact, only a very very small number of those cubic centimetres actually do have life in them (take a look under a microscope sometime).
The question of how much surface could support life 3.5 billion years ago is a much more intelligent and meaningful one, and I'm sure one which you're aware is rather tricky to answer.
As for the other imponderables like prior life on venus, and the total number of planets, well yes I'd endorse that view absolutely, in so far as I'd accept that those possibilities have an unknown probability greater than zero. What I don't understand is why anyone would accept those possibilities but a the same time dismiss the possibility that the universe was created by God, a possibility which also has an unknown probability greater than zero.
|
|
|
|
|
qqclimber
Dec 14, 2004, 1:47 PM
Post #75 of 180
(2054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2003
Posts: 352
|
In addition to what everyone has just said to refute you Tradman:
You are under an assumption that life HAS to be carbon-based such as on Earth. Who says?
You are right that only a small fraction of the trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe can support OUR lives. That does NOT mean the others cannot support life of any kind. Just not ours.
Try keeping an open mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
