Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

[Einsteinium]

I thought talkorigins gave a better indepth look at the probability of abiogenesis, not just throwing random numbers out.

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

Thank you for posting this! I love this stuff.

[runekazter]

And where do these numbers come from? How do we know what the probability of life evolving on a given planet are? The equations that lead to these numbers are probably good equations, but the numbers you plug into these equations ultimately are just guesses. Garbage in-> garbage out.

they aren't my numbers they are from carl sagan -garbage, really? everything from that post was not mine but from an article on this subject. Edited May 6, 2013 by runekazter

[Copasetic]

law of chance - if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 10⁴⁵ (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 10^{2,000,000,000} (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses.

CETI by Carl Sagan

Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

Until we know how the first replicators arose (we don't currently) any "calculation" about the probability of them arising is meaningless.

[Copasetic]

they aren't my numbers they are from carl sagan -garbage, really?

Its blunt, but true. You simply can't calculate a conditional probability when you don't know the conditions.

[Doug1029]

really?? lol?

Really.

What's a "runekazter?"

Doug

[Einsteinium]

Its blunt, but true. You simply can't calculate a conditional probability when you don't know the conditions.

Exactly. That is what I meant by saying that the equations are probably good (I trust Carl Sagan's math) but the numbers you plug into those equations, at least some of them, ultimately are guesses. Now if you are talking about precision and margin of error for these calculations. How do you determine margin of error when even one number put into that equation is a blind guess? The margin of error goes up exponentially. We are talking margins of error in the range of +/- 80% or more. That is what I mean by garbage in-> garbage out. And BTW Sagan would agree with me on this.

Not only that but one has to make assumptions just to create the equations in the first place. What if even one of those assumptions was wrong? Then the equation falls apart. Carl Sagan was brilliant, he understood all of this, but his intention was at times to get people interested in science, to make people think, to make science mysterious and cool. These equations of his are just for that purpose- to get people thinking and talking about it, and he succeeded, look at us talking about it right now

[runekazter]

Really.

What's a "runekazter?"

Doug

sry but i think your opinion on education was quite, well..... your opinion and wayyyyyy off topic. no one cares if you think those with religion in their education are lacking in it. so now you resort to making fun of my screen name. you could plug any screen name into your question to me. but i guess a runekazter would be me. cause the name is never taken. but I got it from runecaster -celtic fortune teller in short

[Quaentum]

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.

1. All designs have a designer
   
2. The universe is intricately designed
   
3. Therefore the universe has a designer
   

Please elaborate on how the Platypus can be considered intricately designed?

[Doug1029]

sry but i think your opinion on education was quite, well..... your opinion and wayyyyyy off topic. no one cares if you think those with religion in their education are lacking in it.

OK. So it's off topic. My bad.

I have nothing against including religion in education. In fact, one could not call oneself educated if one hadn't studied it. How do you study history or art or music or war without including religion? It is a dominant theme in all of them.

But I do think that religion belongs in a religion class and should stay out of science. Mixing science and religion is like mixing hot and cold water. You get something that is neither hot, nor cold, just luke warm. And that includes these discussions of evolution. There are religious people around who know what they're talking about when it comes to evolution. I just wonder why they don't seem to make any posts on UM.

so now you resort to making fun of my screen name. you could plug any screen name into your question to me. but i guess a runekazter would be me. cause the name is never taken. but I got it from runecaster -celtic fortune teller in short

No offense to your screen name was intended. I come from a Celtic background, myself: I am a bagpiper - you know, the Great Highland Bagpipe. A member of Clan MacDuff, 1270 years old this year. But that's off-topic.

Doug

[bmk1245]

[...]

probabilty of life- life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 10^{2,000,000,000} (1973, p. 46)! [...]

CETI by Carl Sagan

Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

If it implies that bolded number comes from Sagan's book "The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective", then its a big fat lie. Period.

[runekazter]

If it implies that bolded number comes from Sagan's book "The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective", then its a big fat lie. Period.

Communication with extraterrestrial intelligence

and it was a quote dope, not my quote but this guy with a phd wrote this article i read and quoted for subject matter's sake

Edited May 6, 2013 by runekazter

[bmk1245]

Communication with extraterrestrial intelligence

and it was a quote dope, not my quote but this guy with a phd wrote this article i read and quoted for subject matter's sake

Can't find this quote in your link. Didn't god taught you put references (links) properly?

And PhD amongst creationists usually means Phony Doctor.

[runekazter]

wasnt intended to be a link just making sure i got the title right. its the book on ceti by carl sagan

http://www.apologeti...12&article=3726

here is the link for the mentioned article though since i was posting on this subject i did read several before posting something. Some of us consider what we read with an open mind. Others just skip ahead to the part where they tell you that you are wrong because it's not their opinion. This place is unexplained mysteries right? should we rename it to explained mysteries ...wait...then it wouldn't be a mystery. i believe in God and in Science yet both evolve as our perceptions change. I don't use science to support my faith cause it doesn't need the support but what it does change is my perception of God to expand to the limits of what we define daily as existence. I feel this post began with a word game on the word precision. it is not the word i would chose as who are we to decide what in existence is precise or not.

Edited May 6, 2013 by runekazter

[williamaus]

Evolution does not tell us how life originated.That had to happen even before natural selection came to exist.

Abiogenesis theory tells us that a molecule that was capable of self-replication arose and then more specialised molecules arose and joined together and then life went from simple to complex.This is only speculation that such a molecule ever existed.

Millions of molecules exist and never has a self-replicating molecule ever been found or created in a lab.There is not even one single hypothesis on what such a molecule was even composed of.

So Evolution does not necessarily rule out a Creator.

[Rlyeh]

Millions of molecules exist and never has a self-replicating molecule ever been found or created in a lab.There is not even one single hypothesis on what such a molecule was even composed of.

Yep. These research projects didn't occur either...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12733.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC432262/

[Einsteinium]

Evolution does not tell us how life originated.That had to happen even before natural selection came to exist.

Abiogenesis theory tells us that a molecule that was capable of self-replication arose and then more specialised molecules arose and joined together and then life went from simple to complex.This is only speculation that such a molecule ever existed.

Millions of molecules exist and never has a self-replicating molecule ever been found or created in a lab.There is not even one single hypothesis on what such a molecule was even composed of.

So Evolution does not necessarily rule out a Creator.

Evolution does not rule out a creator nor could it. I do not understand why anyone would think it would. Science cannot answer the question of if there is a God at the present time and it likely will never be able to answer that question. Science and religion do not have to be mutually exclusive. Believe whatever you want, just let me believe whatever I want in peace.

I guess it makes sense that the people who try in vain to refute science do not understand much about science. If they did, they would not see science as a threat to their religion in any way.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Einsteinium

[Doug1029]

So Evolution does not necessarily rule out a Creator.

The problem here is the system of logic, which starts with no assumptions. That means you can't just assume a creator. Before you can use the idea to explain something, you must show that a creator has existed. That's not to say one does or does not exist, only that you must SHOW that one has existed.

If you cannot show that one has existed, you cannot use the idea as support for anything. All of your reasoning must proceed without resorting to a creator. If you can show that life can come about and/or evolve without resorting to a creator, then that is what you do. If you HAVE to have a creator to make your reasoning work, but you can't show that one has existed, you are at an impasse; your reasoning has failed.

A creator is irrelevant to evolution. It works whether there is/was a creator, or not. By the same token, the universe exists whether there is a god in it or not.

Doug

[bmk1245]

wasnt intended to be a link just making sure i got the title right. its the book on ceti by carl sagan

http://www.apologeti...12&article=3726

[...]

Just small reminder: ed. means edited by, and doesn't mean actual chapter (and numbers therein) was written by C.Sagan.

[...] Some of us consider what we read with an open mind. [...]

Try critical thinking (and reading lots of scientific papers) instead. More helpful and productive.

[...] i believe in God and in Science yet both evolve as our perceptions change. [...].

I believe in science give me a shivers... I prefer not to believe in science, rather I want to know science (theories, experimental results).

[williamaus]

Yep. These research projects didn't occur either...

http://www.newscient...in-the-lab.html

http://www.pnas.org/...9/20/12733.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC432262/

And not one laboratory experiment has sucessfully created a self-replicating molecule.Let alone replicate the process that produced RNA/DNA.

The problem here is the system of logic, which starts with no assumptions. That means you can't just assume a creator. Before you can use the idea to explain something, you must show that a creator has existed. That's not to say one does or does not exist, only that you must SHOW that one has existed.

If you cannot show that one has existed, you cannot use the idea as support for anything. All of your reasoning must proceed without resorting to a creator. If you can show that life can come about and/or evolve without resorting to a creator, then that is what you do. If you HAVE to have a creator to make your reasoning work, but you can't show that one has existed, you are at an impasse; your reasoning has failed.

A creator is irrelevant to evolution. It works whether there is/was a creator, or not. By the same token, the universe exists whether there is a god in it or not.

Doug

If Abiogenesis cannot be proven to have happened then that idea can't support the origin of life either.It is an assumption.No differrent to the assumption that a creator was involved in the process.

[redhen]

Precision in nature? Let's take a look at just one species, homo sapiens. With our adaptation to bipedalism we are susceptible to scoliosis and other back ailments. With our adaptation for a descended larynx which allows us to speak, we run the risk of a blocked larynx, the 4th leading cause of death in the U.S.

There are numerous other defects in mankind, not to mention vestigial organs such as the appendix, tailbone and tonsils. All useless organs left over from our distant past.

Perfection?

[Rlyeh]

And not one laboratory experiment has sucessfully created a self-replicating molecule.Let alone replicate the process that produced RNA/DNA.

Clearly you didn't read the articles. Good job.

[Einsteinium]

And not one laboratory experiment has sucessfully created a self-replicating molecule.Let alone replicate the process that produced RNA/DNA.

If Abiogenesis cannot be proven to have happened then that idea can't support the origin of life either.It is an assumption.No differrent to the assumption that a creator was involved in the process.

Read the articles that Rlyeh posted and you will see that multiple lab experiments have successfully created self-replicating molecules. So your argument here kinda falls apart.