ISIS

aairfccha wrote:

DDHv wrote:
snip
anything except intelligent design as a sufficient known cause, please do so.

snip

Selection pressure plus molecular self-organisation plus lots and lots of iterations. Evolution can produce clocks from hands/rods, gears, ratchets and springs.

The calculation of one chance in 10^41,000 is for a self reproducing bacteria of 250 proteins. The smallest known is 482 proteins, many larger than the 150 base units used for the calculations.

Have you considered that iterations are not possible without reproduction?

aairfccha wrote:

DDHv wrote:Have you read about the recent research showing how the DNA is organized?

snip

Where is the evidence that DNA started out this complex? Also...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Evolution wrote:Building blocks of DNA (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may have been formed extraterrestrially in outer space.

snip

have also been formed in the laboratory under conditions mimicking those found in outer space, using starting chemicals, such as pyrimidine, found in meteorites.

Said calculation assumes the building blocks. It is the probability of assembling them in any minimum reproducing organization.

aairfccha wrote:

DDHv wrote:The ID theory does not require God.

snip

You just replaced the question "who created the creator" with a bootstrap paradox. I don't think this is much of an improvement. Besides, with equal authority I could assume that the universe was created last thursday with all memories and artefacts from before being part of the creation. Of course in the absence of actual evidence, this is an equally worthless assumption.

Agreed here.

Have you considered that mind vs. matter as the first cause is the question?

This has been argued about since at least Greek times. Maybe the Babylonians discussed it! Given our current biochemical knowledge, the functional complexity required for minimum reproducing life gives probabilities, not possibilities. The two theories immediately above beg the question. Maybe I was being too sarcastic?

DDHv wrote:
The calculation of one chance in 10^41,000 is for a self reproducing bacteria of 250 proteins. The smallest known is 482 proteins, many larger than the 150 base units used for the calculations.

Have you considered that iterations are not possible without reproduction?

I don´t think you understand what kind of level of activity you´re looking at.

Iterations happens as long as something of what has already been gained is retained, that does NOT require reproduction, only that functional traces remain as long as needed.

And most important of all, biological and chemical activity happens in insanely big numbers every second(because potentially, we´re looking at it happening over vast areas of the whole earth, all the time), there´s ~31 million seconds per year, and billions of years to work through.

3rd? That number of yours is actually completely incorrect. It´s based on chemical reactions having to work completely from random. And chemical reactions have a great tendency to work in certain ways due to, what a surprise, chemistry!

Oh, and it also uses a calculation that is incorrect for this case anyway. Exaggerating the number by a huge but uncertain amount.

Any arguement that life is too complex to have come about without a God ignores the fact rhat presumably God is more complex than us, where did he come from?
Any answer is immediately simplified with "Well surely we could have come about the same way" thus removing the need for a God in our developement.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Any arguement that life is too complex to have come about without a God ignores the fact rhat presumably God is more complex than us, where did he come from?

To the true believer, this argument means nothing. God just is, both completely disconnected from the universe and deeply entrenched in it (he's completely disconnected when you try to measure his influence, but he obviously takes a hand in everything from star formation to saving people from driving over a cliff, all without leaving any form of measurable trace).

DDHV's making the same mistakes that creationists/intelligent design people have been making ever since that whole bullshit got started. He's taken a layman's understanding of terms, looks at a few papers, and then decides that the research must be bullshit because "it doesn't make sense"; disregarding the fact that most research today cannot be understood (much less argued about) from first principles. And just like creationists, his understanding of the scales involved is lacking. We're not talking about life developing over anything resembling a human lifespan. We're talking about processes that took millions of years, filled with dead ends and false starts, until the conditions were just right one day. It's got nothing to do with divine intervention, and all to do with probabilities: If the odds are one in a billion, but you keep throwing millions of dice over geological times, sooner or later you will win.

Annachie wrote:Any arguement that life is too complex to have come about without a God ignores the fact rhat presumably God is more complex than us, where did he come from?
Any answer is immediately simplified with "Well surely we could have come about the same way" thus removing the need for a God in our developement.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Oooh, nice exploit of circular argument there.

The E wrote:We're not talking about life developing over anything resembling a human lifespan. We're talking about processes that took millions of years, filled with dead ends and false starts, until the conditions were just right one day. It's got nothing to do with divine intervention, and all to do with probabilities: If the odds are one in a billion, but you keep throwing millions of dice over geological times, sooner or later you will win.

Exactly!

Or, as Roger Zelazny put it in Creatures Of Light And Darkness:

Postulating infinity, all else follows as a matter of course.

Given enough time, and enough scope, everything that is not absolutely impossible is almost inevitable.

13 billion years, and 400 quintillion star systems, is an awful lot of time and scope.
---------------------
They got a building down in New York City called Whitehall Street where ya go and get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and see-lected.

As I read in a academic article years ago.
In an infinite universe all options are open, and ultimately everything will happen. The example given was of a universe exactly like ours where you and your family are having a picnic on a grassy hill side, that suddenly in one universe collapses into a den full of tigers who eat you all. Not likely but inevitable in infinity.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Or, as Roger Zelazny put it in Creatures Of Light And Darkness:

Postulating infinity, all else follows as a matter of course.

Given enough time, and enough scope, everything that is not absolutely impossible is almost inevitable.

13 billion years, and 400 quintillion star systems, is an awful lot of time and scope.
---------------------
They got a building down in New York City called Whitehall Street where ya go and get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and see-lected.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Or, as Roger Zelazny put it in Creatures Of Light And Darkness:

Postulating infinity, all else follows as a matter of course.

Given enough time, and enough scope, everything that is not absolutely impossible is almost inevitable.

13 billion years, and 400 quintillion star systems, is an awful lot of time and scope.
---------------------
They got a building down in New York City called Whitehall Street where ya go and get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and see-lected.

tenshinai wrote:Iterations happens as long as something of what has already been gained is retained, that does NOT require reproduction, only that functional traces remain as long as needed.

Have you calculated the probable time span of a breakdown instead of retaining?


The largest calculation I've seen for all possible events in a 16 billion year universe; with the estimated mass density thought coorect at present; setting the size at that which is possible to see; using the plank time unit which would be for nuclear events, not the slower chemical events; is 10^139 possible events. Assume the estimate for all parts of a protein being the same handedness 1 in 10^20 instead of 10^45, that for peptide bonds only at 10^20 instead of 10^45, that for stable folds at 1 in 10^30 instead of the lowest figure of 10^63 that I've seen and assume only 100 proteins are needed. This still is massively larger than all possible events.

But what are a few thousand zeros between friends


Yes, I know about the inflation hypothesis, but disregarding the total lack of evidence for any inflation force, such a universe would need to be even more precise at its beginning than the figures for the universe we have to produce the results we know about. IMO, the whole multiuniverse idea is an attempt to introduce infinity without evidence


To be an atheist, you must believe in improbable miracles without an adequate cause: the creation of a energy and information packed universe; and the creation of information packed life. I add that the bottom layer of the Tapeats sandstone is largely coarse, including even boulders, and the Tapeats stretches for at least several hundreds of miles. No one I'm aware of has explained convincingly how this could occur without really massive, fast moving water flows


OTOH, I also can't believe in ISIS's view of an arbitrary and inconsistent God. Their total argument seems to be: believe as we do, submit to us, or die. This is not at all convincing to any thinker

DDHv wrote:The largest calculation I've seen for all possible events in a 16 billion year universe; with the estimated mass density thought coorect at present; setting the size at that which is possible to see; using the plank time unit which would be for nuclear events, not the slower chemical events; is 10^139 possible events. Assume the estimate for all parts of a protein being the same handedness 1 in 10^20 instead of 10^45, that for peptide bonds only at 10^20 instead of 10^45, that for stable folds at 1 in 10^30 instead of the lowest figure of 10^63 that I've seen and assume only 100 proteins are needed. This still is massively larger than all possible events.

But what are a few thousand zeros between friends

You really have no idea how probability works, do you. You also seem to still be stuck on proteins just appearing ex nihilo, with no precursor steps.

To be an atheist, you must believe in improbable miracles without an adequate cause: the creation of a energy and information packed universe; and the creation of information packed life.

The two are unrelated, really. Also, you're once again falling in the "goddidit" trap: We have no complete explanation for something, so that something must have been god. This disregards centuries of progress in the pursuit of knowledge.

I add that the bottom layer of the Tapeats sandstone is largely coarse, including even boulders, and the Tapeats stretches for at least several hundreds of miles. No one I'm aware of has explained convincingly how this could occur without really massive, fast moving water flows

Have you ever actually talked to geologists?

OTOH, I also can't believe in ISIS's view of an arbitrary and inconsistent God. Their total argument seems to be: believe as we do, submit to us, or die. This is not at all convincing to any thinker

The god you christians believe in is pretty arbitrary and inconsistent.

The E wrote:
snip

You really have no idea how probability works, do you. You also seem to still be stuck on proteins just appearing ex nihilo, with no precursor steps.

snip

The god you christians believe in is pretty arbitrary and inconsistent.

Probability is the ratio between (the number of events that can produce the given result) and (the total possible number of events.)

The math assumes the precursors already exist, and only calculates the odds for assembly of them. It does not include the odds for production of or breakdown of the amino acids. I know that in any amino acid linkage, there is a 50% chance of linking another with the same handedness. I've read that the odds of having a peptide bond instead of one of the other possible ones for amino acids also runs about 50%. The lowest odds I've found so far for any stable protein fold, let alone a functional one, were given as one in 10^63 power. The latest estimate of the minimum number of proteins needed for reproduction is in the hundreds. If the math from these things is incorrect, point out exactly where it is incorrect, don't just say it is wrong. Ditto for the odds of all possible events in the visible universe.

Saying a thing is cheap. Providing evidence takes work.

To just say there were precursor steps doesn't provide any evidence for them.


What reached me was, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." Isaiah 53:5.

Absolute purity cannot ignore sin. It can pay for it, and forgive on that basis. From animal skin coats for Adam and Eve, through the various animal sacrifices, into the Word becoming flesh dwelling among us and paying the penalty of death and on to the future sacrifices in the millennial temple, we have a consistent pattern of: required purity, death for sin, and a provided substitution.

He is first of all pure, then kind, gentle, and easy to be entreated. It is at the cross where mercy and truth meet. No matter how much a gift is paid for elsewhere, it must be accepted to become our own. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord," Romans 6:23

He is consistent in providing real choices and requiring accountability, even to the point of taking the penalty


Someone, when asked if he believed in the teaching of total depravity replied that he believed in the teaching of sufficient depravity. No one will be able to say he is in heaven because of merit