Irreducible complication

DDHv wrote:IMO, information is organized data to 1)communicate, 2)cause the execution of an action, or 3)establish a structure.

Your definition of what information is and does is quite different from what is generally used, or how the term is defined in philosophy.

Irreducible complications exist that cannot be reached by any known series of small steps. An amateur can observe the lack of observations and refuse to accept what is currently a purely speculative theory.

Thereby showing that said Amateur is an amateur, with an insufficient understanding of the concepts he is finding to be lacking.

Which observations, and which reports? If researchers ignore things that anyone can see, why should we assume they are not choosing to ignore something else?

Name a thing "that anyone can see" that researchers have ignored. Come on, you can do it.

From: http://constitution.com/creationist-win ... alifornia/

Can you source that story? Can you find proof that the author of that paper interpreted his observations correctly? Do you have the training and expertise required to accurately say whether or not it is correct?

And, can you for the love of kittens please stop linking articles written for a site as biased as this constitution.com site seems to be?

His boss didn't examine the evidence, but fired him instead.

Did he? Do you have the transcripts from the lawsuit in hand? Or are you just blindly trusting this one site you apparently seem to read religiously?

Have you even investigated this? Or are you assuming you already know the answer?

I have some issues with the methodology, to say the least. As I said, it's a personal, subjective account of Mueller's experiences. Mueller, like all of us, is prone to cognitive biases; as far as I'm concerned, his prayer journal is, in parts, a giant testament to confirmation bias. While it can be used as a starting point for scientific inquiry, it cannot offer a final answer.

In the historical sense, can you point to any contemporary report of any falsity in his reports?

Can you point to corroborating accounts?

Based on, or using the language of? Like Mark Armitrage, ref above? Copernicus was smart enough to arrange publication after his death. I will be looking at Andrew Snelling, Phd's mineralogicao publications.

So you're saying the research he produced that falls in line with the standard theories are all lies, then?

Oh, and while you're looking at Snelling's publication record, do keep in mind that he is or was Editor in Chief of a "scientific journal" published by the Answers in Genesis crowd, which not only professes to have a viewpoint (which should be an obvious no-go for a proper scientific journal), but that 'We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth.'

Just keep that in mind for when you want to quote him again, given your professed "observations are paramount" stance.

Are major investments needed to see logic errors, assumptions, or lack of observations in the published reports?

Major investments of time on your part in terms of following the research at the very least.

An amateur may not be able to understand some things, but why can't he report truly on those thing he does understand and see?

Because the things said Amateur doesn't see and doesn't understand (which an expert would be able to) are also important.

Error can come from bad assumptions, bad logic, or false observations.

Which laypeople are bound to make.

Why bound? Have we become blind to the physical world?

This entire thread is based on you and a few other people making bad assumptions, bad observations, and following it up with bad logic.

For a partial list of some professionals re the ID theory, read: https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011 ... id-theory/

If the first entry on your list of "Scientists who embrace ID" is Dan Brown, you're already off on the wrong path.
If you then continue on to list Neil deGrasse Tyson as an ID supporter because he once said in a lecture that ID should be taught as an example of logically fallacious thinking, you've lost all credibility.

There is a more comprehensive list to be found here, which also does a nice job of categorizing the people on it in terms of whether or not they actually are working in evolutionary biology (i.e. are at least in theory competent to evaluate evolutionary findings on their merits, as opposed to being like you and arguing from a position of sometimes profound ignorance). One important thing to point out in this regard is that the article linked above shows that support for ID amongst people who actually work in the relevant fields is minuscule; One would think that if it had scientific merit, this theory would have a few more supporters (And before you even start with the conspiracy theory nonsense: Just look at how the physics community is divided into groups arguing for and against string theory and its descendants).

True, total entropy can only increase in a closed system, BUT:

1. Our biosphere is not a closed system

Energy is constantly pouring into it, mostly from the sun.

2. Entropy can decrease in localized parts of even a closed system

It would appear that most creationists do not understand the term 'entropy'.
-------------------
If you are wrong, finding a bunch of people who agree with you does not make you right; it just means they are wrong too.

The E,

Methinks that DDHv answered your question on the first page,
perhaps even in his next post.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.

HTM

The E wrote:
Question, DDHv, are you a creationist or making fun of them? Because it's kinda hard to tell.
{snip - htm}

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:The E,

Methinks that DDHv answered your question on the first page,
perhaps even in his next post.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.

HTM

Oh, sure, he has answered that question quite thoroughly by now. I'm just trying to figure out whether or not he is capable of recognising the fundamental incompatibility of his "observations above theory" stance and the works he is citing.

So far, despite occasional glimpses of enlightenment, he has not demonstrated that ability.

The E wrote: snip
Name a thing "that anyone can see" that researchers have ignored. Come on, you can do it.

Sometimes they ignore the implications.

The evidences of erosion and depositing formation from small flows of water, largely not observed in subsurface strata. Almost all below ground strata show large scale sheet erosion and depositing. Strata, which according to the standard dating methods are millions of years apart, are conformed to each other with small or no signs of small scale water movements.

Large gravel and boulders at the bottom of a number of sandstone formations (such as the Tapeats) exist in manners that could only occur with fast moving water.

In the theory area, local decreases in entropy are only possible with a compensating greater increase of entropy in the surroundings. Adding energy from outside the system (thus not closed) can only reduce the entropy if the added energy is itself lower entropy. In a closed system, overall entropy must increase. If the universe created itself it is a closed system.

Poor observational evidence for theories propping up the "nature created itself" point of view. Examples: the density of Saturn's rings, or the existence of short term comets. The Oort cloud, Hills cloud, and Kuiper ring ideas were devised to explain the latter, but at present we do not have the technical ability to properly test these. The existence of many ratios of known physics constants needed for life to exist is another. FWIR, there are dozens of such ratios. The multi-universe and anthropo-centric ideas purport to explain this. Neither is subject to observation.
The "older fossils had more time to be destroyed" idea addresses the lack of "missing link" orders and families between phyla. Why then do we have good fossils from the different phyla? Soft tissues will be quickly eaten unless rapidly buried, yet such fossils exist. Soft tissues in fossils stated to be millions of years old exist. Land and sea fossils are sometimes mingled in the same fossil volume. Several isotopes exist having their half lives changed by their environment.

snip

Have you even investigated this? Or are you assuming you already know the answer?

I have some issues with the methodology, to say the least. As I said, it's a personal, subjective account of Mueller's experiences. Mueller, like all of us, is prone to cognitive biases; as far as I'm concerned, his prayer journal is, in parts, a giant testament to confirmation bias. While it can be used as a starting point for scientific inquiry, it cannot offer a final answer.

In the historical sense, can you point to any contemporary report of any falsity in his reports?

Can you point to corroborating accounts?

I'm checking the web to see if his diary and/or reports have been entered so I'll have a solid starting point. If you have found such, please give a link, as I strongly prefer primary evidence whenever possible. I just hope he didn't write in German! I have found reports by groups using his methods today.

As an appendix to his reports, Mueller provided to donors details on what donations were received. He passed on millions of pounds, and only after his death, (by correlating entries from his personal records with anonymous contribution records) was it found that over 10% were his own donations. All of his own income was received in the same way, without requesting funds or making needs known to men. The man was a strong Christian extremist

snip
So you're saying the research he produced that falls in line with the standard theories are all lies, then?

No, I'm suggesting that he used language his readers would understand. If you look close, most of said research was reporting observations, not agreeing with theory.

Oh, and while you're looking at Snelling's publication record, do keep in mind that he is or was Editor in Chief of a "scientific journal" published by the Answers in Genesis crowd, which not only professes to have a viewpoint (which should be an obvious no-go for a proper scientific journal), but that 'We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth.'

Just keep that in mind for when you want to quote him again, given your professed "observations are paramount" stance. snip

One important thing to point out in this regard is that the article linked above shows that support for ID amongst people who actually work in the relevant fields is minuscule; One would think that if it had scientific merit, this theory would have a few more supporters (And before you even start with the conspiracy theory nonsense: Just look at how the physics community is divided into groups arguing for and against string theory and its descendants).

If the "nature created itself" POV is assumed, arguments supporting it will be accepted. If "overall entropy must increase in a closed system" is assumed, arguments supporting it will be accepted. This is scholasticism, not the scientific method, historical method, or judicial method of working. Both sides do this .

String theory agrees with the first POV. ID theory agrees with the second POV. Why reject any theory without solid invalidating observations because of its POV? Too many assumptions on all sides exist, and too much ignoring of observations which don't fit that POV.

Supporters of the Ptolemaic and Copernican (original) systems used epicycles to match the theory and the observations. Kepler's three laws simplified our understanding of orbits. IMO the orbits of comets, since they are very elliptical invalidate circular orbit astronomy in the solar system. Newton's development of Calculus mathematics (called fluxions IIRC) allowed a solid theory background, to be slightly modified later by Einstein's work

What is needed is better and more observation, primarily any and all which allow us to solidly invalidate any basic theory. Better theory work can help also.

Adequate observation of Oort, Hills, and/or Kuiper cloud comets is a possibility. Also the discovery of a number of orders and/or families of "missing link" fossils between the phyla. With tens of phyla, there is room to find them.

On the theory side, a method for replenishing the contents of Saturn's rings; an explanation of how small water erosion and depositing dominate the surface, while sheet erosion and depositing with evidence of large and fast flows dominate the subsurface are needed. The "tuned for life" ratios cannot be explained by any current theory providing observational testing. The properties of the 18 presently accepted fundamental particles cannot be explained by them having evolved.


"I ain't what you know that causes problems, it is what you know that ain't so" Unknown source. So we need more and better tests, not inadequately supported theories

You commented on the problem of getting more resources for retesting published papers. Yes, yes, yes We could also use a cultural paradigm that supports developing, using, and accepting better test methods and their results.

To be blunt, many useful theories came from the Greek philosophers, but also errors. It is foolish to think none of our currently accepted theories will be invalidated.

For some reason, I suspect we will disagree on which ones! I hope we can agree on the need for the primacy of using more and better testing methods

DDHv wrote:Sometimes they ignore the implications.

No. Stop it. You started by saying that scientists ignore things "anyone can see". You now talking about implications is you moving the goalposts.

Again: Name a single thing anyone can observe that is ignored by the scientific mainstream. One. Thing.

The evidences of erosion and depositing formation from small flows of water, largely not observed in subsurface strata. Almost all below ground strata show large scale sheet erosion and depositing. Strata, which according to the standard dating methods are millions of years apart, are conformed to each other with small or no signs of small scale water movements.

Yeah, see, that is you seeing something and interpreting it (Or is it something a creationist interpreted for you?). It is not "observation", it is interpretation of a result, and that means that you need a large body of previous work and study in order to get to the correct result. It is no longer "layman" work by any stretch of the imagination.

In the theory area, local decreases in entropy are only possible with a compensating greater increase of entropy in the surroundings. Adding energy from outside the system (thus not closed) can only reduce the entropy if the added energy is itself lower entropy. In a closed system, overall entropy must increase. If the universe created itself it is a closed system.

Guess how I know you have no idea what Entropy is or means.

Poor observational evidence for theories propping up the "nature created itself" point of view. Examples: the density of Saturn's rings, or the existence of short term comets. The Oort cloud, Hills cloud, and Kuiper ring ideas were devised to explain the latter, but at present we do not have the technical ability to properly test these.

Well, we do know the orbital elements of every observable comet, and we have found several objects in the Kuiper belt. So, observational evidence for at least part of those theories does exist.

The "older fossils had more time to be destroyed" idea addresses the lack of "missing link" orders and families between phyla. Why then do we have good fossils from the different phyla? Soft tissues will be quickly eaten unless rapidly buried, yet such fossils exist. Soft tissues in fossils stated to be millions of years old exist. Land and sea fossils are sometimes mingled in the same fossil volume. Several isotopes exist having their half lives changed by their environment.

Are you aware of what you're doing here? Assuming that you are not a trained geologist or paleontologist, you're complaining about the popular science version of those sciences not being able to answer all questions you may have. Until you prove otherwise, I am going to continue in this thread under the assumption that you are basically not qualified to have an accurate opinion on these subjects.

No, I'm suggesting that he used language his readers would understand. If you look close, most of said research was reporting observations, not agreeing with theory.

Observations which, incidentally, fall in line with the standard theories. All that is telling me is that his research (at least, the parts where it doesn't go totally mental) does nothing to disprove the normal theories.

And, I can't repeat this enough: You are defending someone who, without citing evidence, came to the conclusion that radioisotopes underwent a rapid aging process during the biblical flood, because otherwise he would have to question his underlying assumptions.

Tell me more about how observations, not theory, should be the guiding light of scientific inquiry. Maybe I'll even believe that you actually believe this someday.

String theory agrees with the first POV. ID theory agrees with the second POV. Why reject any theory without solid invalidating observations because of its POV? Too many assumptions on all sides exist, and too much ignoring of observations which don't fit that POV.

And guess how I know you do not follow the string theory discussion at all.

Also, name the observations that are being ignored.
And just to be clear: I want observations, not your interpretations.

What is needed is better and more observation, primarily any and all which allow us to solidly invalidate any basic theory. Better theory work can help also.

Again, glad we agree that creationism is bullshit and its proponents con artists at best.

"I ain't what you know that causes problems, it is what you know that ain't so" Unknown source. So we need more and better tests, not inadequately supported theories

Why are you listening to creationists, then? Their entire theoretical framework is based on the axiomatic assumption that the Bible was right, without any evidence whatsoever.

snip

String theory agrees with the first POV. ID theory agrees with the second POV. Why reject any theory without solid invalidating observations because of its POV? Too many assumptions on all sides exist, and too much ignoring of observations which don't fit that POV.

The E wrote:And guess how I know you do not follow the string theory discussion at all.

Also, name the observations that are being ignored.
And just to be clear: I want observations, not your interpretations.

From: http://blog.godreports.com/2016/06/note ... ds-matrix/

Theoretical physicist, futurist, and bestselling author Michio Kaku has developed a theory that points to the existence of God using string theory.
snip
When he observed the behavior of these tachyons in several experiments, he concluded that humans live in a “matrix,” a world governed by laws and principles conceived by an intelligent architect.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence, not unlike a favorite computer game, but of course, more complex and unthinkable,” he said.

“By analyzing the behavior of matter at the subatomic scale affected by the semi tachyon pitch radius, what we call chance no longer makes sense, because we are in a universe governed by established rules and not determined by universal chances plane.

The E wrote:Why are you listening to creationists, then? Their entire theoretical framework is based on the axiomatic assumption that the Bible was right, without any evidence whatsoever.

The multiuniverse anthropic theory is based on the axiomatic assumption that any perceived organization is a product of chance and time, without any evidence whatever. Axioms can only be tested by finding out whether their predictions fit observed reality.

Your entire theoretical framework seems to be based on the assumption that the Bible cannot be right. You state the the Bible has no fulfilled prophecies, while fulfilling: I Peter 3:3>4

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation

Also, George Mueller's annual reports are part of "A Narrative of Some of the Lord's Dealings" which is larger that DW's books! I'm working through it now. It is on line in the free books portions of: http://www.dustandashes.com/

You have ignored the observation that it only takes a little water flow to produce visible erosion, and only a little depositing to produce a visible line between strata. You also ignore the many strata with neither of these, with standard dating methods placing them millions of years apart. This is one reason why I cannot accept "The present explains the past" as it is currently applied in geology.

I listen to creationists because they have a different worldview, so will produce unusual theories. These then can be tested using scientific methods. An example of this is with the Milankovitch ice age theory, which used a dating from Shakleton & Opdyke's 1973 paper. In 1990, Shakleton wrote a paper modifying the dating to about 10% longer. The creationist, J. Hebert, notes

nearly all of the calculated times occur before the times predicted by the Milankovitch theory.

Seven of the last twelve calculations are now early by at least 27,000 years.

Is understanding without using interpretation scientific or possible? Science is to test produced understandings, not be only a batch of unconnected observations.

The beauty of the of the simple observation that water expands, thus ice is on top where summer heat can melt it, is explained by the strong polarity of H2O. This is explained as due to the properties of hydrogen and oxygen. These are interpreted from the properties of the subatomic particles. The only such particle we can directly experience are photons, and we see with them, rather than seeing them. True science tests interpretations using observations, it does not ignore them.

If ice was more dense than liquid water, the lakes and seas would act like the aqua-ammonia mixture in Hal Clement's novel, "Starlight," which resulted in two of his characters being trapped under their vehicle. Almost everyone swimming in a summer lakes experiences the thermocline, which shows that when the coldest is highest density, it stays on the bottom, and summer heat cannot reach it.

Clement had the freezing take place on the opposite hemisphere, and the highly elliptical orbit of Mesklin (61 Signi C) boil and melt it off when near its star. He did not address questions of how far methane solid glaciers would flow under the ocean or how closely they would approach the surface on the hemisphere where the story took place. He was a good writer of hard SF stories.

This very rare property of H2O liquid/solid is only one of the many organized hierarchies built into the universe's basic laws (as we currently understand them) allowing the earth to be inhabitable by life

IMO, science is defined totally by its test methods, and not at all by any theory proposed nor any theory accepted. When the test methods are ignored, you get pseudoscience.

DDHv wrote:

Theoretical physicist, futurist, and bestselling author Michio Kaku has developed a theory that points to the existence of God using string theory.
snip
When he observed the behavior of these tachyons in several experiments, he concluded that humans live in a “matrix,” a world governed by laws and principles conceived by an intelligent architect.

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence, not unlike a favorite computer game, but of course, more complex and unthinkable,” he said.

“By analyzing the behavior of matter at the subatomic scale affected by the semi tachyon pitch radius, what we call chance no longer makes sense, because we are in a universe governed by established rules and not determined by universal chances plane.

He is, of course, entitled to his opinion. However, his conclusion that the universe must be designed is not the only possible conclusion that can be drawn.

The multiuniverse anthropic theory is based on the axiomatic assumption that any perceived organization is a product of chance and time, without any evidence whatever. Axioms can only be tested by finding out whether their predictions fit observed reality.

And what observable predictions does the bible make?

Your entire theoretical framework seems to be based on the assumption that the Bible cannot be right. You state the the Bible has no fulfilled prophecies, while fulfilling: I Peter 3:3>4

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation

I'm sorry, that's a "prophecy"? The age-old complaint of the old against the young that the young care not for what the old deem important?

That's not prophecy. Try again.

Also, George Mueller's annual reports are part of "A Narrative of Some of the Lord's Dealings" which is larger that DW's books! I'm working through it now. It is on line in the free books portions of: http://www.dustandashes.com/

I am not going to give these people my email address in order to read it.

You have ignored the observation that it only takes a little water flow to produce visible erosion, and only a little depositing to produce a visible line between strata. You also ignore the many strata with neither of these, with standard dating methods placing them millions of years apart. This is one reason why I cannot accept "The present explains the past" as it is currently applied in geology.

I have not ignored them. I am not a geologist; I do not have enough information, let alone experience in the field, to have an opinion on this matter.

I listen to creationists because they have a different worldview, so will produce unusual theories. These then can be tested using scientific methods.

No, they can't. Divine intervention, which is what all intelligent design theories require, is by definition not measurable.

Is understanding without using interpretation scientific or possible? Science is to test produced understandings, not be only a batch of unconnected observations.

I am so glad we agree that creationism is bullshit.

:!:
IMO, science is defined totally by its test methods, and not at all by any theory proposed nor any theory accepted. When the test methods are ignored, you get pseudoscience.

And what does the lack of a testing methodology for Creationism tell you?

DDHv wrote:The multiuniverse anthropic theory is based on the axiomatic assumption that any perceived organization is a product of chance and time, without any evidence whatever. Axioms can only be tested by finding out whether their predictions fit observed reality.

Your entire theoretical framework seems to be based on the assumption that the Bible cannot be right. You state the the Bible has no fulfilled prophecies, while fulfilling: I Peter 3:3>4

BULLSHIT!!

WE are speaking about science. There are no 'axiomatic assumptions'. There are observations, and there are hypotheses, theories, principles and laws based on those observations. The creationists are the ones guilty of the axiomatic assumption that their specific god created the universe in their specific way.

Scientists have determined that it is possible for the universe as we see it, including life, to have arisen from the observed mechanisms of 'chance and time'. Therefore, there is no need to construct some elaborate fantasy to explain it.

If there were one piece of verifiable physical evidence, one unambiguous observation to support the existence of a god, any god, then scientists could do something with it. Until such evidence is presented, we can only consider the evidence that does exist.

And the writings of a bunch of superstitious primitives are not evidence. It proves only that the writings exist, not that they mean anything.
-----------------
If you want to learn, the worst schools and teachers in the world can't stop you. If you don't want to learn, the best can't help you.

The E wrote: snip
And what observable predictions does the bible make?

" snip
I Peter 3:3>4 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation ""

I'm sorry, that's a "prophecy"? The age-old complaint of the old against the young that the young care not for what the old deem important?

That's not prophecy. Try again.

Which part is not correct? That people insist the universe is like it was from the beginning, or that they make that a basis for scoffing at the Bible?

"Also, George Mueller's annual reports are part of "A Narrative of Some of the Lord's Dealings" which is larger that DW's books! I'm working through it now. It is on line in the free books portions of: http://www.dustandashes.com/"

I am not going to give these people my email address in order to read it.

The Muller organization still exists:
https://www.mullers.org/annual-report
They don't require an email address. I prefer the original because he gives dates, starting with 1830, thus more detail.

You have ignored the observation that it only takes a little water flow to produce visible erosion, and only a little depositing to produce a visible line between strata. You also ignore the many strata with neither of these, with standard dating methods placing them millions of years apart. This is one reason why I cannot accept "The present explains the past" as it is currently applied in geology.

I have not ignored them. I am not a geologist; I do not have enough information, let alone experience in the field, to have an opinion on this matter.

Dr. Henry M. Morris of "The Genesis Flood" was a Phd hydrodynamics specialist, professor, and engineer who co-authored a textbook on that subject. Erosion to a depth of at least a few inches is commonly seen on ground slopes of even a few percent, and can be observed by anyone with his eyes open.

"I listen to creationists because they have a different worldview, so will produce unusual theories. These then can be tested using scientific methods."

No, they can't. Divine intervention, which is what all intelligent design theories require, is by definition not measurable.

There are two points which can be tested. 1) Do the naturalist theories provide an adequate answer? 2) Is there enough information content in the universe that ID is a possibility. A search using (simulated universe atheist) shows that neither assuming the reality of the universe nor theism is needed for the second.

":!:
IMO, science is defined totally by its test methods, and not at all by any theory proposed nor any theory accepted. When the test methods are ignored, you get pseudoscience.
"

And what does the lack of a testing methodology for Creationism tell you?

One method is looking for testable alternatives to a hypothesis. Example:
Gentry, Ref.2. R.V. Gentry, "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective," Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting, Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, no. 3 (1984): 38-65.
A test of Robert V. Gentry's Polonium radiohalo hypothesis used migration of the Radon isotopes to concentration points. The Wikipedia article that mentions this also gave other half lives and noted the U234 and Th230 radiohaloes coincide with the Ra 226 one, so Ra226 would provide a false U234 RH. U 234 half life is 2.4x10^5 years. Ra222 is 3.8 days, which would require very fast separation and migration. WiPe also points out that the Ra migration hypothesis has not been experimentally proven. Gentry's work describes a very tiny mystery. Pseudoscientists, of course, ignore problems. Real scientists are still researching several ideas to produce a hypothesis.

Scientists have determined that it is possible for the universe as we see it, including life, to have arisen from the observed mechanisms of 'chance and time'. Therefore, there is no need to construct some elaborate fantasy to explain it.

Please give a reference proving that "time & chance"'s necessary information content is smaller than the calculated total information content of the universe over a time of 20 giga years, using the plank constant to determine the minimum time unit, and the amount of matter estimated to be in the current observed universe.

Failure to find this requires me to classify, using currently accepted science, the time and chance hypothesis as unlikely. Some think the simulated universe idea is at least reasonable - even if theism is excluded, or not:
http://hplusmagazine.com/2012/11/09/sim ... -nonsense/

Jack Chalker's Well World SF books use this idea. He included a source of low entropy energy and an intelligence for low entropy information. Do you prefer to exclude cause and effect, or to include infinite regress? Otherwise the question is still; chance and time, or intelligent design