Watchmaker Theory

[shmogie]

I have apologized for that action, I was under a lot of stress but that does not excuse the issue.

No that stamenent is correct.

So then, a universe near absolute zero, with all stars burnt out, all planetary volcanic action ended, expanding forever, would be a cold, dark, dead system, with no mechanism to convert the existing matter to energy, as the galaxies grow further and further apart from one another

 

[shmogie]

And this further proves my point.

Thinking that watches have the mechanisms or the ability to reproduce in this hypothetical scenario.

Well how about this tried and true illustration about the process of probability............. If you had a million monkeys, able to reproduce perpetually, and able to repair typewriters, and a million typewriters, how long would it take them to reproduce the library of congress ?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

So then, a universe near absolute zero, with all stars burnt out, all planetary volcanic action ended, expanding forever, would be a cold, dark, dead system, with no mechanism to convert the existing matter to energy, as the galaxies grow further and further apart from one another

There would be no galaxies at that point and no matter would exist.

 

[shmogie]

Neither example given are scientific articles. Please learn what a scientific article is and try again.

Uh,are you seriously proposing that a book by Hawking is not a scientific article ?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Well how about this tried and true illustration about the process of probability............. If you had a million monkeys, able to reproduce perpetually, and able to repair typewriters, and a million typewriters, how long would it take them to reproduce the library of congress ?

As they are unable to type on the type writers and coupled with the fact that I do not have the appropriate data to forecast this, I would not say that I could give a reasonable estimate.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Uh,are you seriously proposing that a book by Hawking is not a scientific article ?

It is not.

You obviously do not know what the term Scientific Article means.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And this further proves my point.
Thinking that watches have the mechanisms or the ability to reproduce in this hypothetical scenario.

Well, what did this world evolve from, and where did it come from?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Well, what did this world evolve from, and where did it come from?

The world did not evolve.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, what did this world evolve from, and where did it come from?

Earth didn't "evolve". Biological evolution is a process that can only occur in populations of self-replicating biological organisms. The earth was formed by the interaction of matter and gasses over billions of years. Here's a pretty informative and straightforward site the BBC put together on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed

 

[shmogie]

There would be no galaxies at that point and no matter would exist.

Uh, dead rocks are subject to gravity, gravity, and thus galaxies would exist, they simply would be just about as cold as possible, and dark, and lifeless

 

[shmogie]

As they are unable to type on the type writers and coupled with the fact that I do not have the appropriate data to forecast this, I would not say that I could give a reasonable estimate.

the point is, they randomly hit the typewriter keys by playing around with the typewriter keys. So, lets look at it differently, how long does it take for a universe to create itself by random processes. Hint, it is roughly equivalent to a million dice being rolled at the same time with all coming up as 4, only the odds of the universe creating itself are much, much higher

 

[muhammad_isa]

The world did not evolve.

Umm .. evolve means that something develops gradually, not necessarily biologically..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

the point is, they randomly hit the typewriter keys by playing around with the typewriter keys. So, lets look at it differently, how long does it take for a universe to create itself by random processes. Hint, it is roughly equivalent to a million dice being rolled at the same time with all coming up as 4, only the odds of the universe creating itself are much, much higher

Have you ever bounced a rubber ball on the ground? The surface area of the earth is approximately 12,478,143,744,000 square inches. So, it is trivial to deduce that the odds of a rubber ball landing in one particular square inch of the earth's surface is 1 in 12,478,143,744,000. Therefore, the odds of bouncing a rubber ball and it landing in any particular square inch of the earth's surface make the act one of nigh-incomprehensible improbability. For some perspective, the odds of winning the European lottery is 1 in 116,531,800, so every time you bounce a ball and it lands in a particular square inch of the earth's surface, you are witnessing an event that is more than 1,000 times more improbable than winning the European lottery.

So, why is it that this incredibly statistically unlikely even can occur?

Simple: it isn't pure chance that determines where the ball falls. It is physical forces such as gravity acting on that ball, as well as the initial positioning of the ball when it is dropped.

Point is, it's trivial to render almost any single event as being statistically improbable if the only thing your calculation takes account of is things occurring randomly. But we live in a Universe where things exist in certain states which make them susceptible to physical laws, and these laws alter the interactions of things in ways that these simple probability-based calculations simply fail to take account of. Nothing exists in a total vacuum such that the only factor that can influence its outcome is "random chance".

This is part of a field of physics known as statistical mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics). It's something I barely understand myself, but I'm sure some people more well-versed in physics will be happy to explain it in more detail if needs be. The thing to take away from this is that so-called "probability calculations" for phenomenon like the Universe or the Earth forming are completely meaningless, since you can apply the exact same logic to almost any formation of matter and deduce that anything is statistically improbable if the only factor your equation takes account of is pure, blind chance. It's a simple, false dichotomy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Umm .. evolve means that something develops gradually, not necessarily biologically..

Since this is a section of the forum that deals with the science of evolution, scientific definitions of certain terms have to be adopted and used as accurately as possible. It's merely a correction intended to prevent any equivocation, since it is quite common to see biological evolution theory conflated with big bang cosmology, abiogenesis or even geology on these forums by people who don't quite understand the definitions involved.

 

[Neo Deist]

Would you care to provide it?

No, because no matter what is said, you have already made up your mind. You are only looking to argue. I have better things to do.

 

[shmogie]

Have you ever bounced a rubber ball on the ground? The surface area of the earth is approximately 12,478,143,744,000 square inches. So, it is trivial to deduce that the odds of a rubber ball landing in one particular square inch of the earth's surface is 1 in 12,478,143,744,000. Therefore, the odds of bouncing a rubber ball and it landing in any particular square inch of the earth's surface make the act one of nigh-incomprehensible improbability. For some perspective, the odds of winning the European lottery is 1 in 116,531,800, so every time you bounce a ball and it lands in a particular square inch of the earth's surface, you are witnessing an event that is more than 1,000 times more improbable than winning the European lottery.

So, why is it that this incredibly statistically unlikely even can occur?

Simple: it isn't pure chance that determines where the ball falls. It is physical forces such as gravity acting on that ball, as well as the initial positioning of the ball when it is dropped.

Point is, it's trivial to render almost any single event as being statistically improbable if the only thing your calculation takes account of is things occurring randomly. But we live in a Universe where things exist in certain states which make them susceptible to physical laws, and these laws alter the interactions of things in ways that these simple probability-based calculations simply fail to take account of. Nothing exists in a total vacuum such that the only factor that can influence its outcome is "random chance".

This is part of a field of physics known as statistical mechanics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics). It's something I barely understand myself, but I'm sure some people more well-versed in physics will be happy to explain it in more detail if needs be. The thing to take away from this is that so-called "probability calculations" for phenomenon like the Universe or the Earth forming are completely meaningless, since you can apply the exact same logic to almost any formation of matter and deduce that anything is statistically improbable if the only factor your equation takes account of is pure, blind chance. It's a simple, false dichotomy.

According to the big bang theory, the singularity that existed before the bang did indeed "exist in a vacuum", not even that, a vacuum is the absence of something, and before the big bang, there was nothing, only the infinitesimally small and condensed singularity, there were no physical laws that we know of because the universe and everything else within the universe did not exist, so, it would appear that pure blind chance can be the only explanation of this singularity existing. If there was nothing, no spacetime, no physical laws, absolutely nothing to have any influence on anything, what is left but a random, extremely improbable case of a universe creating itself ?

 

[shmogie]

Since this is a section of the forum that deals with the science of evolution, scientific definitions of certain terms have to be adopted and used as accurately as possible. It's merely a correction intended to prevent any equivocation, since it is quite common to see biological evolution theory conflated with big bang cosmology, abiogenesis or even geology on these forums by people who don't quite understand the definitions involved.

Cosmologists use the term "evolution of the universe " quite freely. I am sure they are using the term accurately

 

[ImmortalFlame]

According to the big bang theory, the singularity that existed before the bang did indeed "exist in a vacuum", not even that, a vacuum is the absence of something, and before the big bang, there was nothing, only the infinitesimally small and condensed singularity, there were no physical laws that we know of because the universe and everything else within the universe did not exist, so, it would appear that pure blind chance can be the only explanation of this singularity existing. If there was nothing, no spacetime, no physical laws, absolutely nothing to have any influence on anything, what is left but a random, extremely improbable case of a universe creating itself ?

Again, I feel you're making a lot of assumptions that are unfounded. Firstly, a vacuum is not "nothing". In fact, there is currently no reason to assume that such a thing as "nothing" even exists. Secondly, the big bang didn't exist "in" anything, as far as we know. The big bang was comprised of all the matter and space that we know currently exists, so it didn't exist "in" any space - it WAS space. If it helps, don't picture the big bang as small dot in the middle of an empty room that suddenly expands. Instead, imagine being on the inside of an inflated balloon, and that balloon expands outwards in all directions. It literally is comprised of all the space that there is. Thirdly, your conflation that "there was nothing, so the only thing that could influence anything was blind chance" is bunk. As said before, we don't know that there ever was or ever could be "nothing", and the singularity at the time of planck epoch was effected by the quantum effects of gravity. Before the epoch (if such a thing as "before" the epoch is even viable) is where all known laws break down, but that does not mean that "nothing" or "no laws" existed prior to this time. I am unsure of the current scientific consensus, but I feel your assumptions still go far beyond what can reasonably be concluded from the evidence we have at this time.

Again, I am not a physicist, nor any kind of scientist, so I eagerly expect and await a lot of correction and clarification from better-versed members of the forum than myself, so really the best thing you can do is go and read up on the facts yourself and come to your own conclusions based on the best available evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Cosmologists use the term "evolution of the universe " quite freely. I am sure they are using the term accurately

Because they are cosmologists, and few, if any, scientists would assume that a cosmologist is talking abut the biological theory of evolution. It's not an inaccurate term to use exactly, but the fact remains that biological evolution is commonly conflated with cosmology and other unrelated subjects on these forums, so when somebody mentions the earth "evolving" it naturally produces a desire amongst members here to clarify that any "evolving" the earth does has absolutely no connection with the biological theory of evolution.

 

[shmogie]

Because they are cosmologists, and few, if any, scientists would assume that a cosmologist is talking abut the biological theory of evolution. It's not an inaccurate term to use exactly, but the fact remains that biological evolution is commonly conflated with cosmology and other unrelated subjects on these forums, so when somebody mentions the earth "evolving" it naturally produces a desire amongst members here to clarify that any "evolving" the earth does has absolutely no connection with the biological theory of evolution.

Absolutely correct. I don't think the original poster was confusing issues, I think he was using the term to express the idea of geologic progression. Nevertheless, we all should be careful to use terms that are appropriate and least confusing