How do you detect "design"?

[SkepticThinker]

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

So your claim is bogus.

Everyone on this thread has asked you several times to show the math.
You still haven't. Instead, you told us to go read a book.

My claim stands.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Nah. Just tell us what you think his assertions are. and why they matter. Or, show the math you claim he's done. Y
This is a debate forum, not a book club.

By the way, I already know who Roger Penrose is and I know that a lot of people misrepresent his works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

"Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances."

Law of nature | Logic, Philosophy & Science

Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances. (The notion is distinct from that of a natural law—i.e., a law of right

www.britannica.com

 

[firedragon]

Nah. Just tell us what you think his assertions are. and why they matter.

Because he says the odds of randomness is one part of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because he says the odds of randomness is one part of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123.

Yes and from there doesn't follow as valid that the universe is designed even as a possiblity.
You have to learn to check your reasoning.

 

[firedragon]

Everyone on this thread has asked you several times to show the math.
You still haven't. I

I did. You didn't see it. And your fellow missionaries pretended it was not given. So you made that up saying "you still haven't". I gave the math, gave sources. No one is interested. All you and your so called "everyone" is interested is ignoring them, not willing to read anything, engage, but only strawman attempts, and handwaving.

And one of your so called tribe makes an argument of 100% probability for genesis while ignoring it should be for abiogenesis and randomness instead of design probabilities. That's all that has happened. So you could repeat your made up ad hominem a million times. That repetition does not make it a valid argument.

 

[McBell]

I did. You didn't see it. And your fellow missionaries pretended it was not given. So you made that up saying "you still haven't". I gave the math, gave sources. No one is interested. All you and your so called "everyone" is interested is ignoring them, not willing to read anything, engage, but only strawman attempts, and handwaving.

Except we can not ignore something that was never presented...

And one of your so called tribe makes an argument of 100% probability for genesis while ignoring it should be for abiogenesis and randomness instead of design probabilities. That's all that has happened. So you could repeat your made up ad hominem a million times. That repetition does not make it a valid argument.

Strawman.

You are suffering from:

“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”​

― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did. You didn't see it. And your fellow missionaries pretended it was not given. So you made that up saying "you still haven't". I gave the math, gave sources. No one is interested. All you and your so called "everyone" is interested is ignoring them, not willing to read anything, engage, but only strawman attempts, and handwaving.

And one of your so called tribe makes an argument of 100% probability for genesis while ignoring it should be for abiogenesis and randomness instead of design probabilities. That's all that has happened. So you could repeat your made up ad hominem a million times. That repetition does not make it a valid argument.

I look back through your post and I could only find one post I have already qouted. Is there another one?

 

[firedragon]

Except we can not ignore something that was never presented...


Strawman.

You are suffering from:

“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”​

― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy​

Thanks for some cheap insult attempt which has no value whatsoever, and for your fantastic and miraculous effort of an irrelevant cut and paste.

Try to read up and engage with arguments instead. Cheers.

 

[McBell]

Thanks for some cheap insult

I wonder how many others will agree you demonstrating the Bertrand Russell quote...

and for your fantastic effort of a cut and paste.

What can I say, copy/paste is extremely easy.
To bad you are completely unable to perform such an easy feat to support your claims....

Try to read up and engage with arguments instead.

You would do good to follow your own above quoted advice.

 

[firedragon]

Ciao all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did. You didn't see it. And your fellow missionaries pretended it was not given. So you made that up saying "you still haven't". I gave the math, gave sources. No one is interested. All you and your so called "everyone" is interested is ignoring them, not willing to read anything, engage, but only strawman attempts, and handwaving.

I see. So we're all just liars then. And fakers. LOL

And one of your so called tribe makes an argument of 100% probability for genesis while ignoring it should be for abiogenesis and randomness instead of design probabilities. That's all that has happened. So you could repeat your made up ad hominem a million times. That repetition does not make it a valid argument.

Abiogenesis. Yes. It happened. There was no life. Then there was life.

I don't know what "made up ad hominem" you're referring to.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Piddling little factoid;
Organic compound, any of a large class of chemical compounds in which one or more atoms of carbon are covalently linked to atoms of other elements, most commonly hydrogen, oxygen, or nitrogen. The few carbon-containing compounds not classified as organic include carbides, carbonates, and cyanides.

Organic is basically anything with Carbon in it, inorganic is the rest of it, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, hydrogen etc.

Organics are not some magical class with some life essence.

 

[Pogo]

I did. You didn't see it. And your fellow missionaries pretended it was not given. So you made that up saying "you still haven't". I gave the math, gave sources. No one is interested. All you and your so called "everyone" is interested is ignoring them, not willing to read anything, engage, but only strawman attempts, and handwaving.

And one of your so called tribe makes an argument of 100% probability for genesis while ignoring it should be for abiogenesis and randomness instead of design probabilities. That's all that has happened. So you could repeat your made up ad hominem a million times. That repetition does not make it a valid argument.

No, the problem is that you don't actually even know what the words mean let alone having an understanding of the math.
This is why you end up parroting poor recreations of the creationist websites you get your "information" from.

 

[Pogo]

Except we can not ignore something that was never presented...


Strawman.

You are suffering from:

“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”​

― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy​

“Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.”
― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Ok, I will actually have to buy some of his books.

 

[Pogo]

Except we can not ignore something that was never presented...


Strawman.

You are suffering from:

“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”​

― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy​

“Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science.”
― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

Ok, I will actually have to buy some of his books.

 

[Pogo]

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

We are still waiting for you to present any evidence beyond your feelings of this source.
We are actually looking.

 

[Pogo]

Because he says the odds of randomness is one part of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123.

Which tells him that we are the result of a prior universe. so back to turtles.

 

[PureX]

We are still waiting for you to present any evidence beyond your feelings of this source.
We are actually looking.

No one can open your mind for you. Sorry.

 

[Pogo]

No one can open your mind for you. Sorry.

Or more reasonably stated, you know you have nothing to persuade anyone who doesn't already believe.
Don't worry, you are hardly the first.
You could study the subject and then you might understand why you are at such a loss.