Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Origin of life status

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Exploring mysteries is fine, I think we know enough about life to be able to estimate a bound on the probability of it forming naturally, and that probability bound is very low.
    So? The anthropic principle and a posteriori probabilities render this moot.
    But which probabilities do you mean?
    The ones you were talking about, which you seem to have forgotten.
    And the anthropic principle doesn't prove anything, unless you assume that the supernatural is impossible.
    That's gibberish.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      So we return yet again to the God of the gaps approach
      No, it's when natural explanations fail, when we know enough to be able to estimate the probability of natural explanations, and a natural explanation turns out to be improbable. It's like forensics, where if a natural explanation fails, we then suspect human intervention.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        The arguments of Hubert Yockey's unethical use of probability and statistics, by the way the same as ID advocates, have been addressed before several times with references.
        So Cambridge Press was duped? I think not. Substantial biomolecules must have first formed randomly, and such probabilities have been published, and you have not addressed Hubert Yockey here, for instance. And I have responded to your papers, and you have not responded to my points.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          The ones you were talking about, which you seem to have forgotten.
          How are the probabilities I was talking about a posteriori? Or I must be misunderstanding you.

          That's gibberish.
          No, the anthropic principle depends on a naturalistic worldview, ISTM.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            So Cambridge Press was duped? I think not. Substantial biomolecules must have first formed randomly, and such probabilities have been published, and you have not addressed Hubert Yockey here, for instance. And I have responded to your papers, and you have not responded to my points.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            Failure to respond. Still waiting . . .

            There is no objective verifiable evidence that it is improbable. IT is only speculation based on unethical use of statistics as previously cited in a number of previous threads. Do I need to post it again?!?!?!

            The arguments of Hubert Yockey's unethical use of probability and statistics, by the way the same as ID advocates, have been addressed before several times with references.

            Abiogenesis nor evolution are based on 'objective verifiable evidence' and progressive research and discoveries, and not estimates of probabilities. No objective verifiable evidence based on a 'positive' falsifiable hypothesis supported by science has been presented to support the Yockey's assertions and those of the ID assertions.

            Still waiting . . .
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              No, it's when natural explanations fail, when we know enough to be able to estimate the probability of natural explanations, and a natural explanation turns out to be improbable.
              There are always two probabilities that are impossible to calculate:
              The probability that something supernatural is involved.
              The probability of a natural explanation that we're not aware of or haven't considered.

              Without those probabilities, there's no reason to consider anything other than "we don't know yet."
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                How are the probabilities I was talking about a posteriori? Or I must be misunderstanding you.


                No, the anthropic principle depends on a naturalistic worldview, ISTM.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                The anthropic principle is not a necessary conclusion for a naturalistic worldview.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill
                  I think we know enough about life to be able to estimate a bound on the probability of it forming naturally
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  How are the probabilities I was talking about a posteriori?
                  Because you're talking about events that have already happened; about knowledge gained from experience. Either you don't know what a posteriori means, or you think life doesn't exist yet.
                  No, the anthropic principle depends on a naturalistic worldview, ISTM.
                  It doesn't, and that it might seem to to you is of no import.

                  Your posts are so obviously nonsense that they don't need refuting and aren't worth practicing on. Aadios.
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                  seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    There are always two probabilities that are impossible to calculate:
                    The probability that something supernatural is involved.
                    That's just 1-probability(nature did it).

                    The probability of a natural explanation that we're not aware of or haven't considered.

                    Without those probabilities, there's no reason to consider anything other than "we don't know yet."
                    That won't hold up in court, "Your honor, we don't know yet, because there might be a natural explanation for my car hitting that other car."

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      Because you're talking about events that have already happened; about knowledge gained from experience. Either you don't know what a posteriori means, or you think life doesn't exist yet.
                      "A posteriori definition, from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data."

                      That would not be the same as estimating the probability of a biomolecule forming.

                      It doesn't, and that it might seem to to you is of no import.
                      If a supernatural entity is involved in creating life, then the anthropic principal is blown to bits.

                      Your posts are so obviously nonsense that they don't need refuting and aren't worth practicing on. Aadios.
                      A Dios!

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Source: Hubert Yockey

                        A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory.

                        Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.

                        Source

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          That's just 1-probability(nature did it).
                          A probability that we don't know either, so i'm not sure how it helps you.

                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          That won't hold up in court, "Your honor, we don't know yet, because there might be a natural explanation for my car hitting that other car."
                          Gee, it's a good thing science doesn't hold to the standards of evidence used in court then. Or that a car crash is not in any way analogous to the issues that science addresses.

                          You're avoiding the issues, not addressing them.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Source: Hubert Yockey

                            A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory.

                            Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.

                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            Did you actually read the full abstract you're quoting? It's random strings of unrelated gibberish.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              Did you actually read the full abstract you're quoting? It's random strings of unrelated gibberish.
                              So, just like Dory's posts, than?
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                A probability that we don't know either, so i'm not sure how it helps you.
                                We can estimate the probability of certain events in nature, such as the formation of a biomolecule randomly.

                                Gee, it's a good thing science doesn't hold to the standards of evidence used in court then. Or that a car crash is not in any way analogous to the issues that science addresses.
                                My point was that forensic analysis is acceptable and widely acknowledged.

                                Did you actually read the full abstract you're quoting? It's random strings of unrelated gibberish.
                                Yes, I have read it, and it seems reasonable to me.

                                Source: Hubert Yockey

                                Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 109 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                Last edited by lee_merrill; 01-21-2020, 03:42 PM.
                                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X