Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[Audie]

Translation: "I don't know how consciousness can come about, therefor I'm going to assert that it can't. Additionally I'm going to assert without evidence that this god that I already believe in without evidence is responsible for it"


Textbook argument from ignorance.

It's exactly as smart and informed as
"I've no knowledge of lightning, I'm frightened by thunder.
Therefore god".

 

[Audie]

You need something more than handwaving and unjustified assumptions. For example you claim that a mind cannot arise from small changes When one looks at nature that does not appear to be the case. Our minds simply work a bit better than those of chimps and other great apes. The minds of great apes work a bit better than those of other primates. There is a whole range of consciousness out there. And that can be tested by several means. How would you test and confirm or, and this is even more important, refute your beliefs?

You are so completely wrong.

Handwaving and assuming are exactly
all that is needed.

 

[Audie]

You are so completely wrong.

Handwaving and assuming are exactly
all that is needed.

Wrong on another point too.

There are mental tasks at which
other apes greatly exceed human ability.

 

[setarcos]

Determined by whom with what evidence? Sorry, you can't do probabilities without information.

Sorry, I was assuming you would be familiar with the arguments of fine tuning, and what presents the appearance of design in the universe etc. since I've had this discussion before with "SkepticThinker", " It Aint Necessarily So", "TagliattelliMonster" and others in various threads.
Apparently your not familiar with the old discussions.
I guess my main question was …Why choose one theory over another when neither has a proven cause? What pushes one towards a purposeless creation verses one purposefully created If the latter is a simpler explanation given certain observations?
As for the information you rightly asked for...some of what I considered would be, and I'll just quote some of the things I've said elsewhere in answer to others...

"Even assuming extremely favorable prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not) and theoretically maximal reaction rates, such calculations have invariably underscored the implausibility of chance-based theories. These calculations have shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced, information-rich biomacromolecules at random is, in the words of physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
From: Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babloyantz, "Thermodynamics of Evolution,"23.

The probability of even a single functioning protein or corresponding functional gene by chance alone...stands at no better than 1 chance in 10^164.
From: Stephen Myer Calculations "The God Hypothesis"

"Chance" is an inadequate explanation for the origin of biological information
From: De Duve, "The Constraints of Chance"; Crick, Life Itself, 89-93

"Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, a leading origin-of-life biochemist until his death in 2013, categorically rejected the chance hypothesis precisely because he judged the necessary fortuitous convergence of events implausible in the extreme."
From: De Duve, "The Beginnings of Life on Earth," 437.

"...synthesizing (or maintaining) many essential building blocks or RNA molecules under realistic conditions has proven either difficult or impossible."
From: Shapiro, "Prebiotic Cytosine Synthesis."

"Hitching the components together in the right manner raises additional problems of such magnitude that no one has yet attempted to do so in a prebiotic context."
From: De Duve, Vital Dust, 23.

"...for every one DNA sequence that generates a short functional protein fold of just 150 amino acids in length, there 10^77 nonfunctional combinations-combinations that will not form a stable three-dimensional protein fold capable of performing a specific biological function."
From. Molecular biologist Douglas Axe. Established while working at the University of Cambridge Medical Research Council Lab from 1990 to 2003 using site-directed mutagenesis.

"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense." Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size." Ibid.

…"he showed (Roger Penrose) that there were 10^10^101 configurations of mass-energy that correspond to highly ordered universe like ours. But he had also shown that there were vastly more configurations 10^10^123 -- that would generate black-hole dominated universes. And since 10^10^101 is a minuscule fraction of 10^10^123, he concluded that the conditions that could generate a life-friendly universe are extremely rare …"
From: Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity." aslo Penrose, The Road to Reality, 757-65; Gordon, "Divine Action and the World of Science," 259-61,267.

This by no means is an exhaustive representation of the arguments. Nor are the arguments conclusive of anything. I'm just interested in the discussion of such things.
I'm consistently getting the impression here that such impertinence, such arrogance, to even remotely bring into the conversation the possibility of purpose to creation is to be automatically met with derision instead of consideration. I don't understand that but would like to understand how that arises...or seems to.

 

[setarcos]

It has?
Please link us to where it has been determined.
I am particularly interested in where they got their numbers.

As I've told Pogo I figured those on here would be familiar with the arguments of apparent design and fine tuning in the universe and was primarily asking the question of why choose the theory of a purposeless universe over a purposeful one if the former is less probable.
I'm interested in discussing some of the evidences given in my post to Pogo is all. Check post 244. Maybe we can narrow the discussion down to something in particular.
What do you think about what I've said in a previous thread for instance, here is some of it...

"
I'm presuming you’re aware of the fact that human DNA isn't just a random combination of amino acids reacting to its environment in a fortuitously beneficial way for creating a human being. It is actually a remarkable system of information storage used by other entities in order for them to do their proper jobs in creating that human being. It is a code if you will for storing the blueprints of human existence.
"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like" Richard Dawkins.
"DNA is like a computer program." Bill Gates
Biotechnology specialist Leroy Hood describes DNA similarly..."digital code."
DNA's coding isn't standalone though...it requires a complex information-transmission and processing system and all geared towards functionally specified information use. Even experts in the field of biotechnology admit these systems give a remarkable "appearance" of design. And as we all know, nature doesn't design. But appearance isn't enough, one must analyze the actual information content in these systems, how they work, what information they contain and how it is used.
Why does science find it so difficult to "naturally" explain the origin of the information in DNA and other bio macromolecules in living cells?

Long story...very abbreviated,
Enter MIT scientist Claude Shannon developer of modern information theory...
States: The amount of information is equated with the amount of uncertainty that was reduced by a series of symbols or characters. The amount of information conveyed by an event or sequence of characters is inversely proportional to the probability of its occurrence.
In Shannon's theory, the more improbable an event or sequence, the more uncertainty it eliminates and thus the more information it conveys.
This kind of mathematical formulism - Shannon information - cannot detect whether a sequence of symbols conveyed meaning or performed a communication function - functional or specified information. Important to note.
But it turns out DNA contains both Shannon information - improbability information - AND specificity information or specified complexity.
"Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid [i.e., in the DNA] or of amino-acid residues in the protein." Francis Crick
hence the quotes above about DNA being like a computer code.
Now I know we all like probability...it’s what makes the world go round har, har. For instance all our scientific "laws" are based on probabilities. Take gravity, its conceivable (allowed by possibility) that gravity could change the force it applies to matter tomorrow. However given our experiences, experiments etc. it is not a probably actionable possibility. No one in their right mind is going to jump off a building tomorrow thinking that at that precise time the force of gravity will become 1/100 of what it was and they will safely float down to the ground.
So, what is the probability that DNA would naturally accumulate not only the Shannon information but also specified complexity information?
Physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues calculated, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD University of Cambridge calculated that for even a single functional protein or corresponding functional gene to happen by chance alone..."of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance alone in a prebiotic environment stands at no better than a "vanishing small" 1 chance in 10^164, an inconceivably small probability."
Like jumping off that building and expecting gravity to change at that precise moment.
Keep in mind a single cell has not one but hundreds of specialized proteins.
There's more to the argument but that's the gist of it. "

And that's just one little improbable part of one very big universe of convenient coincidences that had to all work together.

 

[setarcos]

You're saying that a god causing a universe is more probable than say an unconscious multiverse causing our universe,

That depends on what you mean by "god". I'm saying the universe shows more apparent purpose in its existence than it does purposelessness.
The multiverse is a theoretical construct that just kicks the can down the road in order to avoid the apparently uncomfortable proposition that this creation was made with purpose.
There is currently in physics, a serious consideration that this universe is a very complex simulation. This is not "fringe" science either.
What might that tell you?
There is also, in quantum mechanics, the consideration that consciousness is a necessary ingredient in emergent phenomenon in this universe.

Make the argument. The claim isn't insufficient.

I don't have to make the argument. Its been made by the scientists within the pertinent fields of study. Some of which I've quoted to you before in other threads. Check this thread posts 244 and 245 to Pogo and McBell for instance. Just things to consider for discussion.

You have a different standard for your god than you do for nature and justify it with verbal smoke and mirrors trying to justify a double standard. Writing the phrase, "the mathematically established probabilities of sufficient causes" has no persuasive power. Make a specific argument. Show the mathematics that you say justifies your double standard.

Again...its not my argument. Its the arguments and mathematical calculations of others that I've considered. Penrose and Hawking for instance.

That's an irreducible complexity argument:

What I said is not an argument for the proof of something the least of which would be irreducible complexity.
Its an example of probabilistic sufficient cause for consideration. And that is exactly how science establishes its so called "laws" of nature.
If one is to make any attempt at progress in consideration of uncertainty then probabilistic sufficient cause is more likely to advance one closer to the truth than random consideration until further evidence presents itself if ever.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm saying the universe shows more apparent purpose in its existence than it does purposelessness.

And I'm saying that it doesn't. Now what?

There is currently in physics, a serious consideration that this universe is a very complex simulation. This is not "fringe" science either. What might that tell you?

That there might be an intelligent designer. What does it tell you? That there is one?

There is also, in quantum mechanics, the consideration that consciousness is a necessary ingredient in emergent phenomenon in this universe.

OK. Is this evidence to you for a god?

I just feel no need to call the mystery of existence by any other name than that. The word god adds nothing except baggage involving conscious entities. Maybe. Maybe not. I remain agnostic and an atheist until I have a reason to be otherwise. I don't see any benefit in guessing in these matters.

I don't have to make the argument.

Of course you don't, not if you don't care if you're believed.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry, I was assuming you would be familiar with the arguments of fine tuning, and what presents the appearance of design in the universe etc. since I've had this discussion before with "SkepticThinker", " It Aint Necessarily So", "TagliattelliMonster" and others in various threads.
Apparently your not familiar with the old discussions.
I guess my main question was …Why choose one theory over another when neither has a proven cause? What pushes one towards a purposeless creation verses one purposefully created If the latter is a simpler explanation given certain observations?
As for the information you rightly asked for...some of what I considered would be, and I'll just quote some of the things I've said elsewhere in answer to others...

"Even assuming extremely favorable prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not) and theoretically maximal reaction rates, such calculations have invariably underscored the implausibility of chance-based theories. These calculations have shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced, information-rich biomacromolecules at random is, in the words of physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
From: Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babloyantz, "Thermodynamics of Evolution,"23.

The probability of even a single functioning protein or corresponding functional gene by chance alone...stands at no better than 1 chance in 10^164.
From: Stephen Myer Calculations "The God Hypothesis"

"Chance" is an inadequate explanation for the origin of biological information
From: De Duve, "The Constraints of Chance"; Crick, Life Itself, 89-93

"Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, a leading origin-of-life biochemist until his death in 2013, categorically rejected the chance hypothesis precisely because he judged the necessary fortuitous convergence of events implausible in the extreme."
From: De Duve, "The Beginnings of Life on Earth," 437.

"...synthesizing (or maintaining) many essential building blocks or RNA molecules under realistic conditions has proven either difficult or impossible."
From: Shapiro, "Prebiotic Cytosine Synthesis."

"Hitching the components together in the right manner raises additional problems of such magnitude that no one has yet attempted to do so in a prebiotic context."
From: De Duve, Vital Dust, 23.

"...for every one DNA sequence that generates a short functional protein fold of just 150 amino acids in length, there 10^77 nonfunctional combinations-combinations that will not form a stable three-dimensional protein fold capable of performing a specific biological function."
From. Molecular biologist Douglas Axe. Established while working at the University of Cambridge Medical Research Council Lab from 1990 to 2003 using site-directed mutagenesis.

"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense." Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size." Ibid.

…"he showed (Roger Penrose) that there were 10^10^101 configurations of mass-energy that correspond to highly ordered universe like ours. But he had also shown that there were vastly more configurations 10^10^123 -- that would generate black-hole dominated universes. And since 10^10^101 is a minuscule fraction of 10^10^123, he concluded that the conditions that could generate a life-friendly universe are extremely rare …"
From: Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity." aslo Penrose, The Road to Reality, 757-65; Gordon, "Divine Action and the World of Science," 259-61,267.

This by no means is an exhaustive representation of the arguments. Nor are the arguments conclusive of anything. I'm just interested in the discussion of such things.
I'm consistently getting the impression here that such impertinence, such arrogance, to even remotely bring into the conversation the possibility of purpose to creation is to be automatically met with derision instead of consideration. I don't understand that but would like to understand how that arises...or seems to.

Oh, I'm familiar with them, none of them are even worth the repeated debunking that can be found by just entering them into the search bar in Google. You have a litany of discoveroid assertions and ancient god of the gaps arguments and misunderstandings of statements of educated people taken out of context that you have read on the usual creationist websites.

Absolutely none of them offer support for the claim that there is some sort of being out there doing these things you imagine.

 

[setarcos]

Why is it that you refuse to subject this sentient creator to the same rules you do our universe?

What do you mean subject to? IF the universe is subject to having purpose then whatever gave the universe its purpose is also subject to being purposeful.
I have no way of knowing what rules the universe IS ultimately subject to nor which if any of those rules would necessarily apply to its creator.
Is a massless particle subject to the same "rules" as a particle with mass in this universe?
The two most certainly exist in the same reality. But do they in the same way?

You keep talking about how unlikely the universe is but won't address how unlikely gods are? There is no known reason for such a thing to exist, exactly like a universe.

I don't address how unlikely "gods" are because I do not know and have not heard of an argument, mathematical or otherwise which has attempted to calculate such things. However, as I've shown elsewhere, I have heard of arguments for the improbabilities we find within our universe in consideration of its functioning and existence.

And there you go again asserting mathematics that you've never provided or supported.

I have in previous threads with you, which I thought you might have considered. Since you and others here didn't I have provided some of the arguments again here.

You have a god and a universe in your metaphysics and keep asserting probabilities that favor a god and the universe over just a universe or a multiverse and our universe without evidence or argument - just by fiat. You'll never try to justify that, will you?

I didn't mention god here...or intend to since "god" would have to be defined according to its principle attributes -a different discussion- which is irrelevant to this discussion. What I've considered is a creation of purpose or a creation that is purposeless. I've attempted to justify why I question the purposeless hypothesis by presenting the arguments of others in the pertinent fields of study. I apologize that I didn't present those arguments from the start here since I was under the presumption that you would be familiar with the arguments of others that I was talking about.

More of your made-up math.

Again...its not my calculations. Its calculations made by people such as Penrose and Hawking.
Your phrase seems to indicate that rather than even considering the possibility of supplying what's missing you've already made up your mind that its made-up. Why is that?
I do not make up things. I may be mistaken at times or proven wrong but that wouldn't be because I made stuff up. Making stuff up is an emotional response to an uncomfortable position in a discussion. Its not rational in a debate, though it may be reasonable for self preservation in some cases.

I do accept that possibility, but possible isn't enough to call it a preferred hypothesis.

It obviously isn't a preferred hypothesis to some people for some reason. I wonder that it isn't the more probable even if not preferred given some of those ideas of others I've presented for consideration though.
All else being equal -hypothetically- which hypothesis would you prefer? A purposeful creation or a purposeless one?

How many more things are possible than actual? It's only the latter we care about, and we address the former in search of possible things that are actual.

What I am trying to address here IS the actual "appearance" of a purposeful creation according to the findings of those in the scientific fields.
And after all, what IS actual may be considered in the light of what potentials could possibly cause that actuality to come to be. IF the universe has the "appearance" of being purposeful then why should we prefer to see that universe as purposeless?

You're form Nebraska? OK. You have a 9-digit Social Security Number, meaning that there are a trillion possibilities for it assuming that all 9-digit numbers can be a SSN. But only one is actual. Your might be 345-12-6789 if that's not an excluded number. Or maybe 987-65-4321.Maybe its 163-83-8814. Is this interesting to you? Not to me. That's how much less interesting possible is than actual.

So, yes. Gods are possible. And it's possible that your SSN is 572-72-5272.

As you say, so if I were to ask you to randomly pick a SS # and bet your entire life's savings on one of two outcomes -quadrupling your savings if you pick right, losing your savings if you pick wrong- either that your picked # is right or that it is wrong, which would you pick and why?
The question here isn't about what is possible. I see no reason, nor have seen reasons from others, as to why God cannot exist or if not "God" specifically defined, why purpose in creation is not a feasible proposition.
The question is what is more probable...depending on whether we CAN use probability to determine such things, as to what is more likely - a purposeful creation or a purposeless one?

So does an eternal universe and an eternal multiverse

The eternal universe has pretty much been eliminated by Hawking and others who have determined that their was indeed a beginning to the universe and time itself.
The multiverse far from being more parsimonious actually increases the complexity of the proposition multifold since the constituents of such a multiverse are isolated from each others effective existence.
The multiverse can't even be considered a proper theoretical construct since it cannot be tested. The multiverse is not a constituent part of our universe nor can our universe be considered a constituent part of such a construct since no two constituent universes in such an idea can effect each other in any way.
Its my understanding that since certain calculations in modern physics give uncomfortable and not readily understandable results the proposition of a multiverse is an attempt at avoiding such things as impossible to comprehend purpose in the universe.

 

[Pogo]

What do you mean subject to? IF the universe is subject to having purpose then whatever gave the universe its purpose is also subject to being purposeful.
I have no way of knowing what rules the universe IS ultimately subject to nor which if any of those rules would necessarily apply to its creator.
Is a massless particle subject to the same "rules" as a particle with mass in this universe?
The two most certainly exist in the same reality. But do they in the same way?

I don't address how unlikely "gods" are because I do not know and have not heard of an argument, mathematical or otherwise which has attempted to calculate such things. However, as I've shown elsewhere, I have heard of arguments for the improbabilities we find within our universe in consideration of its functioning and existence.

I have in previous threads with you, which I thought you might have considered. Since you and others here didn't I have provided some of the arguments again here.

I didn't mention god here...or intend to since "god" would have to be defined according to its principle attributes -a different discussion- which is irrelevant to this discussion. What I've considered is a creation of purpose or a creation that is purposeless. I've attempted to justify why I question the purposeless hypothesis by presenting the arguments of others in the pertinent fields of study. I apologize that I didn't present those arguments from the start here since I was under the presumption that you would be familiar with the arguments of others that I was talking about.



Again...its not my calculations. Its calculations made by people such as Penrose and Hawking.
Your phrase seems to indicate that rather than even considering the possibility of supplying what's missing you've already made up your mind that its made-up. Why is that?
I do not make up things. I may be mistaken at times or proven wrong but that wouldn't be because I made stuff up. Making stuff up is an emotional response to an uncomfortable position in a discussion. Its not rational in a debate, though it may be reasonable for self preservation in some cases.

It obviously isn't a preferred hypothesis to some people for some reason. I wonder that it isn't the more probable even if not preferred given some of those ideas of others I've presented for consideration though.
All else being equal -hypothetically- which hypothesis would you prefer? A purposeful creation or a purposeless one?

What I am trying to address here IS the actual "appearance" of a purposeful creation according to the findings of those in the scientific fields.
And after all, what IS actual may be considered in the light of what potentials could possibly cause that actuality to come to be. IF the universe has the "appearance" of being purposeful then why should we prefer to see that universe as purposeless?






As you say, so if I were to ask you to randomly pick a SS # and bet your entire life's savings on one of two outcomes -quadrupling your savings if you pick right, losing your savings if you pick wrong- either that your picked # is right or that it is wrong, which would you pick and why?
The question here isn't about what is possible. I see no reason, nor have seen reasons from others, as to why God cannot exist or if not "God" specifically defined, why purpose in creation is not a feasible proposition.
The question is what is more probable...depending on whether we CAN use probability to determine such things, as to what is more likely - a purposeful creation or a purposeless one?

The eternal universe has pretty much been eliminated by Hawking and others who have determined that their was indeed a beginning to the universe and time itself.
The multiverse far from being more parsimonious actually increases the complexity of the proposition multifold since the constituents of such a multiverse are isolated from each others effective existence.
The multiverse can't even be considered a proper theoretical construct since it cannot be tested. The multiverse is not a constituent part of our universe nor can our universe be considered a constituent part of such a construct since no two constituent universes in such an idea can effect each other in any way.
Its my understanding that since certain calculations in modern physics give uncomfortable and not readily understandable results the proposition of a multiverse is an attempt at avoiding such things as impossible to comprehend purpose in the universe.

your whole argument boils down to we don't know how some things happened yet but we can assign some numbers to some possibilities that may or may not be relevant to the subject (ID and evolution) and make some arguments in cosmology more likely to be fruitful than others so because you have big numbers then there must be this entity that you already culturally believe in. The main problem is you have only added another improbable layer to the problem with something more complex with even less evidence.

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress. The saying alludes to the mythological idea of a World Turtle that supports a flat Earth on its back. It suggests that this turtle rests on the back of an even larger turtle, which itself is part of a column of increasingly larger turtles that continues indefinitely.

 

[McBell]

As I've told Pogo I figured those on here would be familiar with the arguments of apparent design and fine tuning in the universe and was primarily asking the question of why choose the theory of a purposeless universe over a purposeful one if the former is less probable.
I'm interested in discussing some of the evidences given in my post to Pogo is all. Check post 244. Maybe we can narrow the discussion down to something in particular.
What do you think about what I've said in a previous thread for instance, here is some of it...

"
I'm presuming you’re aware of the fact that human DNA isn't just a random combination of amino acids reacting to its environment in a fortuitously beneficial way for creating a human being. It is actually a remarkable system of information storage used by other entities in order for them to do their proper jobs in creating that human being. It is a code if you will for storing the blueprints of human existence.
"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like" Richard Dawkins.
"DNA is like a computer program." Bill Gates
Biotechnology specialist Leroy Hood describes DNA similarly..."digital code."
DNA's coding isn't standalone though...it requires a complex information-transmission and processing system and all geared towards functionally specified information use. Even experts in the field of biotechnology admit these systems give a remarkable "appearance" of design. And as we all know, nature doesn't design. But appearance isn't enough, one must analyze the actual information content in these systems, how they work, what information they contain and how it is used.
Why does science find it so difficult to "naturally" explain the origin of the information in DNA and other bio macromolecules in living cells?

Long story...very abbreviated,
Enter MIT scientist Claude Shannon developer of modern information theory...
States: The amount of information is equated with the amount of uncertainty that was reduced by a series of symbols or characters. The amount of information conveyed by an event or sequence of characters is inversely proportional to the probability of its occurrence.
In Shannon's theory, the more improbable an event or sequence, the more uncertainty it eliminates and thus the more information it conveys.
This kind of mathematical formulism - Shannon information - cannot detect whether a sequence of symbols conveyed meaning or performed a communication function - functional or specified information. Important to note.
But it turns out DNA contains both Shannon information - improbability information - AND specificity information or specified complexity.
"Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid [i.e., in the DNA] or of amino-acid residues in the protein." Francis Crick
hence the quotes above about DNA being like a computer code.
Now I know we all like probability...it’s what makes the world go round har, har. For instance all our scientific "laws" are based on probabilities. Take gravity, its conceivable (allowed by possibility) that gravity could change the force it applies to matter tomorrow. However given our experiences, experiments etc. it is not a probably actionable possibility. No one in their right mind is going to jump off a building tomorrow thinking that at that precise time the force of gravity will become 1/100 of what it was and they will safely float down to the ground.
So, what is the probability that DNA would naturally accumulate not only the Shannon information but also specified complexity information?
Physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues calculated, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD University of Cambridge calculated that for even a single functional protein or corresponding functional gene to happen by chance alone..."of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance alone in a prebiotic environment stands at no better than a "vanishing small" 1 chance in 10^164, an inconceivably small probability."
Like jumping off that building and expecting gravity to change at that precise moment.
Keep in mind a single cell has not one but hundreds of specialized proteins.
There's more to the argument but that's the gist of it. "

And that's just one little improbable part of one very big universe of convenient coincidences that had to all work together.

My point is that people throw "probability" around like candy on Halloween, yet no one is willing to show exactly how they got the numbers they toss around.

The other problem I constantly see with "probability" is the complete opposite of the first problem.
They offer up no specifics.
instead they are fond of words like 'infinitely' 'vastly' 'greatly' etc, without ever offering up a specific number.

 

[YoursTrue]

In the context of this thread, having doctrine from religion to supercede any information, truth, facts, or knowledge pertaining to science, in place of it - typically by taking religious texts too literally.


Evolution of organisms, as in the context of biology and geology (or paleontology).


Science can (not only can, but actually has achieved this) by applying it for useful & beneficial purposes (e.g. to develop medicine or treatments for illnesses).


No; the rejection of evolution by religion only seems to happen in cases where people take their religious texts too literally.

A recent study I have read about is saying that m-a-y-b-e the first cell arose from raindrops. I mean like someone here said, it's almost like a fairy tale and virtually anything goes...

 

[YoursTrue]

your whole argument boils down to we don't know how some things happened yet but we can assign some numbers to some possibilities that may or may not be relevant to the subject (ID and evolution) and make some arguments in cosmology more likely to be fruitful than others so because you have big numbers then there must be this entity that you already culturally believe in. The main problem is you have only added another improbable layer to the problem with something more complex with even less evidence.

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Turtles all the way down" is an expression of the problem of infinite regress. The saying alludes to the mythological idea of a World Turtle that supports a flat Earth on its back. It suggests that this turtle rests on the back of an even larger turtle, which itself is part of a column of increasingly larger turtles that continues indefinitely.

Turtles ain't the thing any more, but now we're up to possibility of raindrops. The possibility might be that some star dust also happened somehow, that's if a "scientific" mind wanted to go that route. It's like the song with caveats -- "Anything Goes..." as long as maybe...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point is that people throw "probability" around like candy on Halloween, yet no one is willing to show exactly how they got the numbers they toss around.

The other problem I constantly see with "probability" is the complete opposite of the first problem.
They offer up no specifics.
instead they are fond of words like 'infinitely' 'vastly' 'greatly' etc, without ever offering up a specific number.

I haven't been following the discussion, but the one problem that invades most of the exercise in probability by those rejecting evolution is that the probabilities they use are from going from scratch to a fully functional system. Like going 0 to 100 mph without hitting the speeds in between. Fully functional systems do not evolve in a single step from some unobvious starting point with no selection.

It would be entirely improbable that notothenioid fish would evolve an ice nucleating protein fully functional from scratch in a single go. But say a gene duplication of a digestive enzyme gene sometime in the past followed over time by a series of further mutations that altered the function to enable the increasing ability to sustain life in frigid waters by successive generations. That is entirely feasible and not outside of probability.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A recent study I have read about is saying that m-a-y-b-e the first cell arose from raindrops. I mean like someone here said, it's almost like a fairy tale and virtually anything goes...

If you want to see fairytales, that is all you will see. No matter what facts are brought to bear.

 

[McBell]

Turtles ain't the thing any more, but now we're up to possibility of raindrops. The possibility might be that some star dust also happened somehow, that's if a "scientific" mind wanted to go that route. It's like the song with caveats -- "Anything Goes..." as long as maybe...

You're just grumpy because there is more evidence for the raindrops idea than for God.
Yours or any one else's...

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want to see fairytales, that is all you will see. No matter what facts are brought to bear.

So far from what I've seen, I have two questions: do you think the information about Jesus Christ is a fairytale? And more than that, since the idea of fairytale has been brought up, scientists are thinking well maybe life came from raindrops. Maybe it did; maybe it didn't. No proof. Just maybe --

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far from what I've seen, I have two questions: do you think the information about Jesus Christ is a fairytale? And more than that, since the idea of fairytale has been brought up, scientists are thinking well maybe life came from raindrops. Maybe it did; maybe it didn't. No proof. Just maybe --

I wasn't talking about Christianity. I was referring to scientific facts. If a person doesn't want to see them for personal reasons, no amount of logic, reason or evidence will convince them that these aren't fairytales. It isn't rational, but it is often the case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far from what I've seen, I have two questions: do you think the information about Jesus Christ is a fairytale? And more than that, since the idea of fairytale has been brought up, scientists are thinking well maybe life came from raindrops. Maybe it did; maybe it didn't. No proof. Just maybe --

My point was that any person that closes their mind to an idea or the evidence is going to see what they want to see.

 

[YoursTrue]

My point was that any person that closes their mind to an idea or the evidence is going to see what they want to see.

I'm not going to disagree. People will make up all kinds of excuses for beliefs. I can't explain everything. (Wish I could, but I can't.)