|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What would it take? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: hmmm... fair question, i think... let's see... for me, if a tornado blew through a junkyard clearing everything from it in its path yet leaving behind my car from high school, a midnight black '67 malibu ss, 396 cu in, 6 deuces, hirsch shifter, perfect condition, perfect running order... that would be pretty good evidence that design can come from chaos i think... but what are the odds? think they're even remotely close to the odds of life being on earth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i don't understand... you asked a question, i answered it... i didn't qualify my answer in any way, merely asked a couple questions at the end
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
hi brian, apologies for the delay but my time is far more limited now than it had been...
quote: i'm not sure if you misunderstood my post or not.. i did ask whether or not you had an opinion as to the odds of a car being left, as described, if a tornado blew through a junk yard and how those odds would stack up against the odds of humans existing on earth... iow, which is more likely to occur?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David unfamous:
[B] quote: oic... thanks for your input
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: not sure... if you came upon a structure with, say, three walls leaning inward, no roof, half a porch, would you consider that as evidence it wasn't designed and something went wrong? i'd really like someone to address my two questions in my post above, they seem like fair and reasonable ones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: you say the tornado/junkyard analogy was "pointless and irrelevant" because the car would only exist thru "unnatural processes"... accidently, in other words, or supernatural? as for life on earth, i was speaking of the first instance of such life... do you really mean to say that a tornado is an unnatural process? btw i'd really like to hear your explanation as to the natural vs. supernatural (or accidental) nature of tornados as for deformed babies, i can get into that if you want, but i'm certain you don't... any mention of sin seems to drive some almost rabid... not necessarily you, but some... in any case, robin said a deformed baby was proof to her that design didn't exist... i simply asked a question to clarify in my mind her thinking... i assume you agree with her in this, therefore my question is also directed toward you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: brian, the odds of life appearing on earth has been calculated (sorry, i don't have the sources) to be greater than the combined total of all electrons in the universe to 1... imagine what had to occur for life to first appear here... those gas clouds had to cool to just the right temperature, gravity had to be just right, energy sources, all the crashing and spinning had to be perfect, not only in this tiny solar system but in each... and this had to occur for 15 billion years (give or take).. if you feel comfortable subtracting 3 or 4 billion so evolution can account for life after the first life, go ahead... the point stands do you think the tornado is as unlikely to produce that car as bb is to lead to life here? for the odds to hold, there would have to be cars and jumbo jets all over the place
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
hi p.e.
quote: i guess i wasn't as clear as i thought i was being... abiogenesis is possibly the leading theory of life on earth amongst the no-Creator branch... this is what i was speaking of, the odds of life *at all* being here... take into account not only the accidental nature of this solar system, but of this planet... then the perfect distances from the sun and moon... tilt of the axis, etc etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i can't quite wrap my mind around your example, p.e. ... there are too many invariables for a specific human example, such as number of times fertilization was attempted, health of sperm/egg, etc... and i don't know enough about genetics to know whether or not only one spermatozoa of a zillion can result in pregnancy... however, i do find your last sentence interesting... do you mean by it that the odds of all things being perfect for original life (chemically and also the physical sciences aspect) are lower than for one human?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
hi p.e.
quote: maybe you're right, i certainly don't have the math needed to even attempt such an undertaking... but maybe you're as, if not more, qualified for the endeavor as fred hoyle and chandra wickramasinghe... then again, maybe their work in this area has been superceded by that of other, more qualified, scientists... but here for your amusement are some of the things they have to say (their point is that life could not have originated on earth, full article found here)
They point out that the earth only became inhabitable about 3.8 billion years ago, and they argue that the time available before the appearance of the oldest stromatolites about 3.6 billion years ago leaves too narrow a window for life to have originated on earth. They then examine the probability that an enzyme consisting of 300 residues could be formed by random shuffling of residues, and calculate a value of 10—250, which becomes 10—500000 if one takes account of the need for 2000 different enzymes in a bacterial cell. Comparing this calculation with the total of 1079 atoms in the observable universe, they conclude that life must be a cosmological phenomenon. They argue that once an unlikely event has produced a viable cell somewhere in the universe the enormous multiplicative power of replication will produce enormous quantities of living material very fast (e.g. a doubling time of 2—3 h implies that one cell can generate the mass of a cluster of galaxies in 20 days). from the same site is the following new (so the author says) objection to their theory:
The theory of the origin of life favoured by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe depends heavily on their calculation of the probability that an enzyme could be produced by shuffling amino acids is no better than one in 106900. There are many objections to this sort of calculation, but one that we have not seen mentioned previously is that it takes no account of actual observations of the catalytic properties of random co-polymers of amino acids. For example, random co-polymers of glutamate and phenylalanine imitate the bacteriolytic activity of lysozyme quite well, with about 3% of the activity of the enzyme from hen egg white on a weight for weight basis [5], and there are similar observations on other systems from other groups [6]. i left the footnote numbers in because i was too lazy to take them out ... as i said, i don't have *nearly* enough math to either confirm or refute anything either they or their detractors said... but p.e., if you don't either then it might not be wise to say, as you did above, "The truth is that nobody can produce a probability, or even estimate one for abiogenesis...."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: well if i am missing the point, so are hoyle and wickramasinghe and countless other statiticians, would you agree? but my question was, are the posters on this board more qualified than they in this area? edited to fix quotes [This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-13-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i'm sure there are a few as qualified, there are some smart people posting here... and yes, i even gave an example of one of the criticisms
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i don't know that they *are* flawed, no more than i [b][i]know[/b][/i] that the math of humphreys is in error and that of his detractors sound... they say their calculations aren't flawed, you say they are... so far it's a "he says they say" thing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: john, why do humphrey's critics pretend that they are refuting him? don't they know there isn't enough data? is it possible they don't share your views? maybe they should spend less time in their flawed pursuits and more reading this board, so they won't waste so much time in flawed endeavors
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote:no john they put their own mathmatics forward in an attempt to refute his... not to show that the computations can't be done, but to show that humphrey's are in error... in spite of your use of "flawed," others (some of whom may actually understand the math involved) disagree quote: quote: you seem intent on moving back to your brand of argument, that of attacking a person instead of providing sound arguments... you sound almost petulant
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024