How do you detect "design"?

[Valjean]

There are no observable laws of nature. They are baseon on the axiomaitc assumption that the universe is orderly, but that is without evidence.
Point being that that is not just religious claims, we should be skeptical about.

Weren't the universality and immutability of the laws of nature, in all observed cases, what gave them their designation as "laws of nature?"

 

[firedragon]

What in my evidence do you disagree with or do you just not know what abiogenesis is?

Projection.

Anyway, what you did was make conjecture based on your bias that "there cannot be design". That's your predetermined bias so obviously you have to make it your fundamental assumption. So you come up with genesis taking place randomly as your only explanation. That's not evidence mate. That's your assertion.

Provide evidence. Either through a philosophical argument or probabilistic argument based on what we know and have established through science.

So you did not provide evidence. If you don't know the difference between evidence and what you believe, that's kind of absurd really. Your faith is extreme but stating your faith and believe faith is evidence is completely out of the question.

Mate. Even biologists see design in nature. It's the field of science that takes methodological naturalism as a philosophical axiom that will keep it aside for the purpose of studying nature. That does not make it the fundamental pillar of faith in your paradigm. That's only when you do scientific study.

You lack fundamental understanding.

 

[McBell]

Cute. Very.

I was talking about probabilities mate. Give me the probability for abiogenesis. At least. Try, If you wish to read on the absurd probabilities of abiogenesis, you could start here. "Kasting, James F., and C. G. Walker. “Limits on Oxygen Concentration in the Prebiological Atmosphere and the Rate of Abiotic Fixation of Nitrogen.” Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (1981): 1147–56."

Of course you are not interested. You believe in magic that life simply came into being randomly. Like a rabbit out of a hat. Not by design. So that's a wish, not at least an explanation based on probability which shows the case for design.

I am still awaiting your presentation of the not math calculations you promised.

 

[firedragon]

"If you want to see "how they calculated" I can give you the material. No problem."

Exactly. Now I gave you some material. So read, and come back. Very good.

 

[firedragon]

I am still awaiting your presentation of the not math calculations you promised.

Please keep waiting. I will give you only the source. You have to read it.

But of course you're not interested. You just wish to make up a different argument, try ad hominem, strawman attempts, etc etc.

Well. Ciao.

 

[McBell]

Exactly. Now I gave you some material. So read, and come back. Very good.

Your "material" seems to be rather lacking in the showing the math part.

Unless of course you are willing to reveal your not math calculation theory.

 

[McBell]

Please keep waiting. I will give you only the source. You have to read it.

But of course you're not interested. You just wish to make up a different argument, try ad hominem, strawman attempts, etc etc.

Well. Ciao.

You really need to work on your back peddling.

 

[firedragon]

You really need to work on your back peddling.

Thanks.

 

[Valjean]

Well I suppose we can deal with abiogenesis when someone does actually make living things from chemicals.

Why? It's an interesting and educational subject.
If w didn't discuss subjects till someone actually did something with them there would be very little motive to develop or investigate anything.

 

[Pogo]

What in my evidence do you disagree with or do you just not know what abiogenesis is?

No, I didn't mention design once and it had nothing to do with the subject of our conversation. At this point you can go back and reread my posts and answer them instead of whatever strawman you have concocted or not. I think you just don't know what abiogenesis is.

 

[firedragon]

Your "material" seems to be rather lacking in the showing the math part.

It does. You never read them. Of course you will not. Because you are not interested.

How about this? Why don't you find very easy to read material and understand how Roger Penrose calculated the probability of the existence of the world we live in today? The book is called "Emperor's New Mind".

Ciao.

 

[firedragon]

No, I didn't mention design once and it had nothing to do with the subject of our conversation. At this point you can go back and reread my posts and answer them instead of whatever strawman you have concocted or not. I think you just don't know what abiogenesis is.

Ciao.

 

[Pogo]

Projection.

Anyway, what you did was make conjecture based on your bias that "there cannot be design". That's your predetermined bias so obviously you have to make it your fundamental assumption. So you come up with genesis taking place randomly as your only explanation. That's not evidence mate. That's your assertion.

Provide evidence. Either through a philosophical argument or probabilistic argument based on what we know and have established through science.

So you did not provide evidence. If you don't know the difference between evidence and what you believe, that's kind of absurd really. Your faith is extreme but stating your faith and believe faith is evidence is completely out of the question.

Mate. Even biologists see design in nature. It's the field of science that takes methodological naturalism as a philosophical axiom that will keep it aside for the purpose of studying nature. That does not make it the fundamental pillar of faith in your paradigm. That's only when you do scientific study.

You lack fundamental understanding.

No, I didn't mention design once and it had nothing to do with the subject of our conversation. At this point you can go back and reread my posts and answer them instead of whatever strawman you have concocted or not. I think you just don't know what abiogenesis is.

 

[McBell]

It does. You never read them. Of course you will not. Because you are not interested.

How about this? Why don't you find very easy to read material and understand how Roger Penrose calculated the probability of the existence of the world we live in today? The book is called "Emperor's New Mind".

Ciao.

I am not about to pay $200 to access your source.

 

[firedragon]

I am not about to pay $200 to access your source.

Your prerogative.

But I think Roger Penrose's book should be free. I will ask around. You could too. It's a great read and gives precise scientific information. And Roger Penrose is like a God in the field.

 

[firedragon]

No, I didn't mention design once

Mate. The topic is on design.

and it had nothing to do with the subject of our conversation.

So something irrelevant?

 

[Pogo]

I am not about to pay $200 to access your source.

Related to Understanding Penrose's large number 1. What is Penrose's large number? Penrose's large number, also known as the Penrose number or the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) number, is a theoretical number proposed by physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff as a measure of the amount of quantum entanglement in the human brain. 2. How is Penrose's large number calculated? The calculation of Penrose's large number involves taking the number of particles in the universe (estimated to be 10^80) and multiplying it by the number of possible states or configurations that each particle can be in (estimated to be 10^123). This results in a number that is significantly larger than the total number of particles in the observable universe. 3. Why is Penrose's large number important? Penrose's large number is important because it supports the theory of Orch OR, which suggests that consciousness is a result of quantum processes in the brain. The large number of possible states of particles in the brain is thought to allow for the emergence of conscious experience. 4. Is Penrose's large number proven? No, Penrose's large number is a theoretical concept and has not been proven through empirical evidence. While there is some evidence to support the Orch OR theory, it is still a highly debated and controversial idea in the scientific community. 5. How does Penrose's large number relate to the human brain's processing power? The large number of possible states or configurations of particles in the human brain, as represented by Penrose's large number, is thought to give the brain a processing power that is far beyond what can be achieved by classical computers. This is because quantum processes allow for a greater range of possible outcomes and faster processing speeds compared to classical computing.

Reference: Understanding Penrose's large number

If this is what he is talking about it ain't worth $200
Bases on something called

Orchestrated objective reduction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a highly controversial theory postulating that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons (rather than being a product of neural connections). The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules. It is proposed that the theory may answer the hard problem of consciousness and provide a mechanism for free will.[1] The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by Nobel laureate for physics, Roger Penrose, and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. The hypothesis combines approaches from molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, philosophy, quantum information theory, and quantum gravity.[2][3]"
Which also contains the line:
"Orch OR has also been criticized for lacking explanatory power; the philosopher Patricia Churchland wrote, "Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."[55]"

Even intelligent people are not incapable of Quantum Woo.

 

[Pogo]

Your post 1606
Another handwave. Rather than preaching brother like a street preacher, why not engage with the data?

At least, answer this simple question. At least. If not of course the engagement could end. No worries. For the third time;

So now, could you tell me if there are any observable evidences for any kind of abiogenesis? Why not directly answer the question?

Like

Physics, etc. tells us the universe was too hot for life as we know it and even for atoms as we know them. later the earth was too hot and thus there was no life, there is now biological life where there formerly was not.
Thus at least one event of abiogenesis has occurred.

The current studies are just to figure out how it happened, not whether it happened.

Sorry mate but it was even your derail.

 

[McBell]

Your prerogative.

But I think Roger Penrose's book should be free. I will ask around. You could too. It's a great read and gives precise scientific information. And Roger Penrose is like a God in the field.

What does Roger Penrose's book have to do with Carr and Rees, “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World.” ?

 

[firedragon]

What does Roger Penrose's book have to do with Carr and Rees,

Different. I just told you to read the book. Because it has "math" in it. Specific to the topic.