How do you detect "design"?

[SkepticThinker]

The probabilities are given already. And they were not mine. They were done by qualified physicists. If you go finding the information you will find it. It's there. These are not assumptions or conjecture and general comments like you are making without anything specific.

"You can't determine a probability without information and then deciding on the nature of this already assumed designer is even less rational."

 

[firedragon]

You can't determine a probability without information

Oh they had a lot of information. Just that you don't wanna read them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That answers your question. You could not answer because there is none. And that shows that the probability of randomness for genesis is next nothing. That shows design. Unless you believe life existed eternally which would make that life form a necessary being which would have existed prior to to earth and the universe, and so on and so on. What's the probability of that? This shows design.

I'll give you another one.

Generally speaking, stars wouldn't become hot enough for nuclei to fuse and generate carbon if the gravitational pull were less strong. Furthermore, the production of thermal layers within stars, which are critical for producing the different elements, such as carbon and oxygen, required for life, would be hampered by a somewhat reduced gravitational constant (G). Additionally, if there was less gravitational pull on stars, they wouldn't explode as supernovae and release elements necessary for life into the cosmos. These components would stay imprisoned in the star cores in the absence of supernovae.

On the other hand, if the gravitational pull was too great, star temperatures would increase to the point where nucleosynthesis could only produce elements heavier than carbon and oxygen. In addition to preventing the production of long-lived stars, this fast nucleosynthesis would cause them to burn up too soon, leaving no appropriate homes for life.

Scientists have shown that within a "natural" range of possible values in parallel universes, the value of G is precisely tuned to 1 part in 10^35. The theoretical range for G is zero to the strength of the strong nuclear force (SNF), assuming that the strongest of the four fundamental forces sets a sensible upper limit. Theoretically, G might be anywhere from 0 to 10^40 times its current value because gravity is roughly 10^40 times weaker than the SNF. Stellar stability might be maintained with a gravitational constant up to 100,000 times bigger than it is now, but any higher value would lead to instability. As a result, the range of G that supports stable stars is only a small portion of the entire range, roughly 1 part in 10^35. So randomness being a probability of 1 part in one hundred billion trillion trillion is statically showing impossibility without design.

Cheers.

That is not evidence of design as such.
Your deduction is as it stands invalid.
P1: There is roughly 1 part in 10^35 chance of the universe giving rise to life.
C: Therefore life is not possible without design.

The conclussion doesn't follow from the premise.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh they had a lot of information. Just that you don't wanna read them.

I've asked for them because I want to see them.

You could easily post them, and yet you haven't. You'd rather tell me that I'm lying when I ask you a question. Yawn.

 

[Pogo]

I was talking about probabilities mate. Give me the probability for abiogenesis.

Yes this was your question.

Inasmuch as there was no life, then there was life, the probability is 100%, if I interpret your point correctly

And this is the answer and it actually is a correct mathematical statement evaluating the probability given the information.

An absurd assertion. You don't seem to understand what was said whatsoever.

The probability of randomness vs design was the question. Not if life came to exist. Honestly, that was the most nonsensical argument I have ever seen in my entire life.

Oh, now we are back to randomness vs design showing that you didn't understand your own first question.

Then you add a reference as to the early atmosphere on earth which affects the probability that the first life required free oxygen but nothing about randomness vs design of abiogenesis other than either one has to work in that environment.

 

[firedragon]

You could easily post them

Cannot. Too long. And I gave a summary of one argument which was ignored and a red herring came up.

So this is the tactic I have been seeing throughout. No effort. Just repeat the same red herring and avoidance as if they are great arguments. So no point wasting time with such interlocutors. Now make an effort.

 

[Pogo]

Oh they had a lot of information. Just that you don't wanna read them.

Those books contain nothing on detecting design, you can tell that from reading about them.
Doubt me, quote them with context to prove me wrong.

 

[firedragon]

And this is the answer and it actually is a correct mathematical statement evaluating the probability given the information.

It's cute that you are tribalistically assistance your fellow missionary even though the argument is mindbogglingly absurd.

I have answered this bad argument you made extensively. Go back and read. Too lazy to read up? That's your prerogative.

 

[Pogo]

It's cute that you are tribalistically assistance your fellow missionary even though the argument is mindbogglingly absurd.

I have answered this bad argument you made extensively. Go back and read. Too lazy to read up? That's your prerogative.

No you gave us the odds of winning the lottery and concluded that it was rigged without evidence because someone won.
This literally is your argument, at best it would give you cause to investigate.
Science however unlike the US house knows better than to assume a conclusion based only on an assertion,

Again.

 

[firedragon]

No you gave us the odds of winning the lottery and concluded that it was rigged without evidence because someone won.
This literally is your argument, at best it would give you cause to investigate.
Science however unlike the US house knows better than to assume a conclusion based only on an assertion,

Again.

Nope. To your absurd assertion that "no life to life" means 100% probability which is a strawman and a red herring and a truly simplistic bad argument which you helped your missionary friend with was replied to in summary "that's 100% probability of genesis, not abiogenesis".

Do you even understand that sentence? If you don't understand, or if you ignore this sentence due to intellectual dishonesty, there is no point in any further discussion. So I will definitely not engage anymore.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Cannot. Too long. And I gave a summary of one argument which was ignored and a red herring came up.

Sorry buddy but nobody is going to pay $200 to see the mathematical equations you claim exist.
This is a debate forum. Just post them.

So this is the tactic I have been seeing throughout. No effort. Just repeat the same red herring and avoidance as if they are great arguments. So no point wasting time with such interlocutors. Now make an effort.

Yes, please do.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry buddy but nobody is going to pay $200

You can repeat this a million times ignoring the fact that I gave you another book, written by one of the most known names in the field of physics, Roger Penrose.

So if you repeat this 200$ matter once more, it is only obvious you are doing it on purpose. I will not reply to such people. This seems like a pattern to me.

So read up.

 

[Pogo]

No you gave us the odds of winning the lottery and concluded that it was rigged without evidence because someone won.
This literally is your argument, at best it would give you cause to investigate.
Science however unlike the US house knows better than to assume a conclusion based only on an assertion,

Again.

"a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago""
Oxford languages dictionary

You don't know English,genesis is origin, abiogenesis is origin of biological life from non-life, for one example.
You don't understand probability. The probability of a past event that has already occurred is 1 or 100%.

In general you don't understand science, desires are not conclusions.
Am I supporting my tribe, I suppose you could see it that way if my tribe is rational people.

 

[Pogo]

You can repeat this a million times ignoring the fact that I gave you another book, written by one of the most known names in the field of physics, Roger Penrose.

So if you repeat this 200$ matter once more, it is only obvious you are doing it on purpose. I will not reply to such people. This seems like a pattern to me.

So read up.

A book about a completely different subject and again, nothing to do with design detection.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can repeat this a million times ignoring the fact that I gave you another book, written by one of the most known names in the field of physics, Roger Penrose.

Oh, now I just have to read an entire book to dig around for the numbers you refuse to provide.
Nah, that isn't how this works.

What do you propose are Roger Penrose's assertions, exactly? I've seen a lot of people misrepresent his views on these boards.

So if you repeat this 200$ matter once more, it is only obvious you are doing it on purpose. I will not reply to such people. This seems like a pattern to me.

So read up.

I see a pattern of you making claims, then refusing to back them up. Then admonishing others for not reading an entire book to maybe find the claims you're making here.

 

[firedragon]

I see a pattern of you making claims, then refusing to back them up.

Ive backed them up plenty. Just that no one wishes to read typed text or referred books.

So your claim is bogus.

 

[firedragon]

What do you propose are Roger Penrose's assertions, exactly?

Read the book. You will find it free of charge on the internet. You will see. You will not believe what I say anyway. It's not about a "claim". It's about the math in his book. I have given the title, the author. Go read. Don't worry. He is an atheist so you won't have that bigotry problem. Just go read. At least. This is a big topic and as a decent individual you should at least a bit of effort.

 

[F1fan]

Your DNA sequencing designed your physical structure.

That’s right, material behaving according to the laws of nature. No spirits or designers needed.

 

[F1fan]

So now, could you tell me if there are any observable evidences for any kind of abiogenesis?

The way the chemicals work has been observed. The mechanisms that convert inorganic chemicals to organic chemicals has been observed. The process of abiogenesis works. There is no alternative to abiogenesis given the facts we have.

Your question and position is like if you wake up in the morning and theres a foot of snow on the ground that wasn’t there when you went to sleep, but you reject that snow fell because you didn’t see it. What else can account for all that snow? Nothing.

 

[PureX]

That’s right, material behaving according to the laws of nature. No spirits or designers needed.

Except as the source and purpose of those "laws of nature".