Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[FLVOL_79]

You will clearly learn a lot more just going to church. College just drives the liberal agenda, don't you know?

I was a business major..never saw the liberal agenda outside of a hard on for globalization. Then again I did pursue a degree with real world application (the accounting aspect). Those womens studies guys might have a different agenda..

 

[Roustabout]

Nah I gave up on zombie Jesus in high school and moved towards a more logical belief. I do not however belittle others belief in creationism. For all I know Old Man in the Sky snapped his fingers and the first monkey-fish-squirrel was created and this was all his plan. The science is there though to prove evolution does take place in nature, and Humans are not immune to it.:

The only thing that I can think of that does not evolve is a McDonalds hamburger..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/pfdg4ymCiT8[/youtube]

Logical?
Then stop committing logical fallacies. Faulty emotional appeals. Equivocating. Straw men...

Logical, huh? Great job. LOL

 

[Orange_Crush]

I find the appendix..or coccyx to be pretty much irrefutable evidence of human evolution.

From a 1999 article. That's 15 years, and not learned in church...

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.

What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost? : Scientific American

The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position.

Learned that on healthline.com; not at church.

It's interesting to me that the question-begging list of "vestigial" organs has shrank steadily, the more science has studied and found functions. It's a very weak line of supposed evidence.

 

[overseasorange]

Nah I gave up on zombie Jesus in high school and moved towards a more logical belief. I do not however belittle others belief in creationism. For all I know Old Man in the Sky snapped his fingers and the first monkey-fish-squirrel was created and this was all his plan. The science is there though to prove evolution does take place in nature, and Humans are not immune to it.

The only thing that I can think of that does not evolve is a McDonalds hamburger..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfdg4ymCiT8[/youtube]

Not true. It evolved from a decent size burger for less than a dollar to a bite-size burger for twice the price.hmy:

 

[FLVOL_79]

Logical?
Then stop committing logical fallacies. Faulty emotional appeals. Equivocating. Straw men...

Logical, huh? Great job. LOL

Great..another "over-complicator" on the board. So philosophy guru, what about my reasoning is always going to be proven wrong? Is it the fact I believe in evolution but am capable of entertaining the idea that there could be another possibility? Oh no a straw man argument blah blah blah. You might wanna throttle back on the Spock worship a bit there. I bet you take real issue with the weatherman.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Great..another "over-complicator" on the board. So philosophy guru, what about my reasoning is always going to be proven wrong? Is it the fact I believe in evolution but am capable of entertaining the idea that there could be another possibility? Oh no a straw man argument blah blah blah. You might wanna throttle back on the Spock worship a bit there. I bet you take real issue with the weatherman.

So wait a minute, when in a dialog and debate with someone, you want to cry "shenanigans" when they call out fallacious statements and/or untruthful claims? What do you want? Everyone to just nod their head and say, "Mmmm... Yes. Good point."?

That's the point of a discussion when you are making truth claims. Prove your point, see if it holds up to inspection, reformulate or withdraw.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nah I gave up on zombie Jesus in high school and moved towards a more logical belief. I do not however belittle others belief in creationism. For all I know Old Man in the Sky snapped his fingers and the first monkey-fish-squirrel was created and this was all his plan. The science is there though to prove evolution does take place in nature, and Humans are not immune to it.

The only thing that I can think of that does not evolve is a McDonalds hamburger..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfdg4ymCiT8[/youtube]

Great..another "over-complicator" on the board. So philosophy guru, what about my reasoning is always going to be proven wrong? Is it the fact I believe in evolution but am capable of entertaining the idea that there could be another possibility? Oh no a straw man argument blah blah blah. You might wanna throttle back on the Spock worship a bit there. I bet you take real issue with the weatherman.

You just can't make this stuff up.

"I moved to a more logical belief."

"Uh. That's not logical at all. It's riddled with fallacies."

"Shut up with all your philosophy, Spock worshiper."

 

[FLVOL_79]

Muhahahaha! You just can't make this stuff up.

"I moved to a more logical belief."

"Uh. That's not logical at all. It's riddled with fallacies."

"Shut up with all your philosophy, Spock worshiper."

I should have been more clear, a personal belief which so happens to be backed up by science. I tend to forget that the resident do nothing over thinkers chomp at the bit to regurgitate Aristotle 101 whenever they can.

But you guys are probably right. I showed poor reasoning by listening to science with statistics and physical proof. I should have just had faith in Zombie Jesus because the book of Genesis (based off of Sumerian folk tales and legends) does a better job explaining evolution. The bible obviously precedes any man made hypothesis..

 

[rjd970]

I should have been more clear, a personal belief which so happens to be backed up by science. I tend to forget that the resident do nothing over thinkers chomp at the bit to regurgitate Aristotle 101 whenever they can.

But you guys are probably right. I showed poor reasoning by listening to science with statistics and physical proof. I should have just had faith in Zombie Jesus because the book of Genesis (based off of Sumerian folk tales and legends) does a better job explaining evolution. The bible obviously precedes any man made hypothesis..

It boils down to accepting the science scientific premise for what it is in literally everything else, and when it comes to matters of the supernatural one personally wants to believe, the premise no longer holds and is flawed. Why the need to even use science or argue its philosophy for some validation of personal faith beliefs is beyond me.

 

[FLVOL_79]

It boils down to accepting the science scientific premise for what it is in literally everything else, and when it comes to matters of the supernatural one personally wants to believe, the premise no longer holds and is flawed. Why the need to even use science or argue its philosophy for some validation of personal faith beliefs is beyond me.

Could you not also argue that the supernatural is just science that man does not understand or comprehend (yet)?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I should have been more clear, a personal belief which so happens to be backed up by science.

Clarify. "Science", or "materialistic assumptions"?

If science really proves Darwinian evolution, please give me the evidence that is not based on assumptions. Or did you mean "naturalistic scientist's assumptions"? In that case,it's an appeal to authority.

I tend to forget that the resident do nothing over thinkers chomp at the bit to regurgitate Aristotle 101 whenever they can.

Being someone who purports such an adherence to rationality, you don't find it odd that you decry the use of rationality when it doesn't fit your dialog?

But you guys are probably right. I showed poor reasoning by listening to science...

Again, if by "science", you mean the unproven assertions by "really smart people" who happen to agree with your philosophical worldview, then you have made an appeal to authority, and you did, indeed, show poor reasoning.

with statistics...

Give me the statistics that prove evolution. I just read a very good article, quoting Hawking, as to why the unprovable, metaphysical multiverse theory has taken such traction. You want to know why? Because probabilities are very unkind to a naturalistic explanation of the beginning of life, and Darwinian evolution. Multiverse theory does away with those pesky "probabilities."

and physical proof.

Give it up. I've asked for it for three pages, and it always comes back to naturalistic assumptions and question-begging. Even Dawkins prefaces his "Proof" in "Greatest Show on Earth" with building the false assertion that "inference" is better than observation. So go ahead. Give the "physical proof". I imagine you'd get a Nobel Prize.

I should have just had faith in Zombie Jesus because the book of Genesis (based off of Sumerian folk tales and legends)...

Straw man. You shouldn't beat a defenseless creation with such reckless abandon.

And as to the last part, in parenthesis... I'd like to see your evidence to support that statement. I would look forward to the opportunity to debate that point with you.

does a better job explaining evolution. The bible obviously precedes any man made hypothesis..

Precedes? Yes. It did come before.

 

[rjd970]

Give me the statistics that prove evolution. I just read a very good article, quoting Hawking, as to why the unprovable, metaphysical multiverse theory has taken such traction. You want to know why? Because probabilities are very unkind to a naturalistic explanation of the beginning of life, and Darwinian evolution. Multiverse theory does away with those pesky "probabilities."

Bullshiz.

The sheer size of the universe dictates that it is a near certainty life has taken hold elsewhere, more than likely multiple places, even when placing ridiculously low probabilities on it. The magic of large numbers makes the math work.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Bullshiz.

The sheer size of the universe dictates that it is a near certainty life has taken hold elsewhere, more than likely multiple places, even when placing ridiculously low probabilities on it. The magic of large numbers makes the math work.

Whatever you say, man. It seems, as scientists ponder the probabilities, they are needing something else-- not the "magic of large numbers", but the "magic" of infinite numbers.

The following is the abstract background of a paper called: "The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life".

Background

Recent developments in cosmology radically change the conception of the universe as well as the very notions of "probable" and "possible". The model of eternal inflation implies that all macroscopic histories permitted by laws of physics are repeated an infinite number of times in the infinite multiverse. In contrast to the traditional cosmological models of a single, finite universe, this worldview provides for the origin of an infinite number of complex systems by chance, even as the probability of complexity emerging in any given region of the multiverse is extremely low. This change in perspective has profound implications for the history of any phenomenon, and life on earth cannot be an exception.

Translation: The probabilities of origin of life in our universe is so minuscule that we are promoting an unscientific creation myth of our own to do away with probability altogether.

Hypothesis

Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection. The currently favored (partial) solution is an RNA world without proteins in which replication is catalyzed by ribozymes and which serves as the cradle for the translation system. However, the RNA world faces its own hard problems as ribozyme-catalyzed RNA replication remains a hypothesis and the selective pressures behind the origin of translation remain mysterious. Eternal inflation offers a viable alternative that is untenable in a finite universe, i.e., that a coupled system of translation and replication emerged by chance, and became the breakthrough stage from which biological evolution, centered around Darwinian selection, took off. A corollary of this hypothesis is that an RNA world, as a diverse population of replicating RNA molecules, might have never existed. In this model, the stage for Darwinian selection is set by anthropic selection of complex systems that rarely but inevitably emerge by chance in the infinite universe (multiverse).

Translation: There is a terrible catch-22 paradox with origin of life. If we throw infinity in there, we do away with that nasty problem of probability. Yay!

Conclusion

The plausibility of different models for the origin of life on earth directly depends on the adopted cosmological scenario. In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable. Therefore, under this cosmology, an entity as complex as a coupled translation-replication system should be considered a viable breakthrough stage for the onset of biological evolution.

Translation: Origin of life depends on adoption of this infinity (i.e. getting rid of that nasty problem of probability.)

The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

It baffles me that you can claim origin of life as a "near certainty" in our limited universe, while the authorities that you are so prone to appeal to would disagree. They see the need to do away with probabilities in order to circumvent the chicken/egg paradox of origin of life.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Clarify. "Science", or "materialistic assumptions"?

If science really proves Darwinian evolution, please give me the evidence that is not based on assumptions. Or did you mean "naturalistic scientist's assumptions"? In that case,it's an appeal to authority.



Being someone who purports such an adherence to rationality, you don't find it odd that you decry the use of rationality when it doesn't fit your dialog?



Again, if by "science", you mean the unproven assertions by "really smart people" who happen to agree with your philosophical worldview, then you have made an appeal to authority, and you did, indeed, show poor reasoning.



Give me the statistics that prove evolution. I just read a very good article, quoting Hawking, as to why the unprovable, metaphysical multiverse theory has taken such traction. You want to know why? Because probabilities are very unkind to a naturalistic explanation of the beginning of life, and Darwinian evolution. Multiverse theory does away with those pesky "probabilities."



Give it up. I've asked for it for three pages, and it always comes back to naturalistic assumptions and question-begging. Even Dawkins prefaces his "Proof" in "Greatest Show on Earth" with building the false assertion that "inference" is better than observation. So go ahead. Give the "physical proof". I imagine you'd get a Nobel Prize.



Straw man. You shouldn't beat a defenseless creation with such reckless abandon.

And as to the last part, in parenthesis... I'd like to see your evidence to support that statement. I would look forward to the opportunity to debate that point with you.



Precedes? Yes. It did come before.

Christ this is like a TRUT post..breaking down sentences.

Ill answer the Old Testment legend. Sumerian is the oldest known language and one of the first civilizations. Ur and Uruk and are known to be the first cities in the world. This was around 3500 to 4000 BC. There are stone tablets in Sumerian from these areas that tell the same stories that parallel the bible's old testament. The story of Abraham is also there, Abraham of Uruk I think it might be called, not 100% on the exact name. The Old Testament, based off the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh was compiled in 3 to 2 BC. Israel was first mentioned in the Egyptian language (actually saying they had been wiped out) around late 2000 BC. So as languages formed and changed the Sumerian folk lore ghost stories and what not became canon to some folks and it snowballed from there.


Humans were all over the world during these times, for at least thousands of years predating any language that had been put to stone. I find it interesting that the bible would focus mans origins and beginnings in a precise area. It makes sense that it was Southern Iraq, the rivers names havent changed,Ur and Uruk where the first real cities. But of course being simple people they had no idea that there were other humans all over the world. They lived in their own little world (like Bama fans) and concocted ways to deal with and/or explain their existence. They didnt know any better. Uncle Sumer didn't know his scary fictitious story to his squalling nephews on the consequences of jealousy would become the basis of a world wide religion.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Christ this is like a TRUT post..breaking down sentences.

Ill answer the Old Testment legend. Sumerian is the oldest known language and one of the first civilizations. Ur and Uruk and are known to be the first cities in the world. This was around 3500 to 4000 BC. There are stone tablets in Sumerian from these areas that tell the same stories that parallel the bible's old testament. The story of Abraham is also there, Abraham of Uruk I think it might be called, not 100% on the exact name. The Old Testament, based off the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh was compiled in 3 to 2 BC. Israel was first mentioned in the Egyptian language (actually saying they had been wiped out) around late 2000 BC. So as languages formed and changed the Sumerian folk lore ghost stories and what not became canon to some folks and it snowballed from there.


Humans were all over the world during these times, for at least thousands of years predating any language that had been put to stone. I find it interesting that the bible would focus mans origins and beginnings in a precise area. It makes sense that it was Southern Iraq, the rivers names havent changed,Ur and Uruk where the first real cities. But of course being simple people they had no idea that there were other humans all over the world. They lived in their own little world (like Bama fans) and concocted ways to deal with and/or explain their existence. They didnt know any better. Uncle Sumer didn't know his scary fictitious story to his squalling nephews on the consequences of jealousy would become the basis of a world wide religion.

I see conjecture, contradiction, and untruth in the above post. I'll note just a few, for example.

There are stone tablets in Sumerian from these areas that tell the same stories that parallel the bible's old testament. The story of Abraham is also there, Abraham of Uruk I think it might be called, not 100% on the exact name.

So you see archaeological evidence that supports the Bible claims and somehow infer that the Bible stole the stories? You see other cultures telling the same stories of the Bible, and somehow infer that it invalidates the Bible? That's comical.

The Old Testament, based off the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh was compiled in 3 to 2 BC.

That is a lie. The Septuagint (Israel's translation of the existing Hebrew Bible into Greek) was completed before 300BC. That's not even counting how far back the Hebrew OT goes.

Israel was first mentioned in the Egyptian language (actually saying they had been wiped out) around late 2000 BC.

I have actually seen pictures of stone tablets, written in an odd combination of Egyptian/early Hebrew script, that corroborate many of the Exodus claims in the OT-- including the Red Sea claims, as well as other stories immediately following the Exodus. They were found in an area that Exodus claims Israel rested in after crossing the Red Sea. It's interesting that the tablets are in Egyptian/Hebrew, immediately after Israel was in Egyptian culture for 400 years.

I find it interesting that the bible would focus mans origins and beginnings in a precise area. It makes sense that it was Southern Iraq, the rivers names havent changed,Ur and Uruk where the first real cities. But of course being simple people they had no idea that there were other humans all over the world. They lived in their own little world (like Bama fans) and concocted ways to deal with and/or explain their existence. They didnt know any better. Uncle Sumer didn't know his scary fictitious story to his squalling nephews on the consequences of jealousy would become the basis of a world wide religion.

Listen to yourself, man! One long argument from incredulity and unproven assertion.

You basically just said: "The Bible is wrong because it is fictitious." I can see why you don't like it when we break out the whole critical thinking mojo on you.

:hi:

 

[FLVOL_79]

Whatever you say, man. It seems, as scientists ponder the probabilities, they are needing something else-- not the "magic of large numbers", but the "magic" of infinite numbers.

The following is the abstract background of a paper called: "The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life".



Translation: The probabilities of origin of life in our universe is so minuscule that we are promoting an unscientific creation myth of our own to do away with probability altogether.



Translation: There is a terrible catch-22 paradox with origin of life. If we throw infinity in there, we do away with that nasty problem of probability. Yay!



Translation: Origin of life depends on adoption of this infinity (i.e. getting rid of that nasty problem of probability.)

The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

It baffles me that you can claim origin of life as a "near certainty" in our limited universe, while the authorities that you are so prone to appeal to would disagree. They see the need to do away with probabilities in order to circumvent the chicken/egg paradox of origin of life.

The universe is expanding so how does one call it finite? Or is it finite in that no more galaxies are being created and everything is just drifting apart?

Our Solar System has 8 planets and 1 star; 1 planet has life. Our solar system is in the Milky Way. The milky way has anywhere between 100 billion to 300 billion stars most with their own solar systems of planets. Within these planets it is estimated to be 40 billion or so earth sized planets within a habitable range from their stars. Our galaxy neighbor, Andromeda, has 1 trillion stars with their own solar systems. In the observable universe there it is estimated to be more than 100 billion galaxies.

In our solar system 1/8 of the planets had life, a 12% chance...I'm going to go out on a limb here and say somewhere in those 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4 sextillion) earth size planets in habitable ranges from their stars (low ball math numbers estimate) there is probably life. And lets not forget about what exists out there than humans cannot even fathom.

There are more than 80,000,080,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets out there. Thats 80 Octillion..had to look that one up. And thats a low ball estimate as well going off 8 planets per solar system, 100 billion solar systems per galaxy, 100 billion observable galaxies. I read they have observed almost 200 billion galaxies and the milky way may have 300 billion solar systems..

 

[MercyPercy]

I'm sure orange crush is one of those who think the earth is only a few thousand years old and Jesus rode atop a triceratops. Bahaha.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I see conjecture, contradiction, and untruth in the above post. I'll note just a few, for example.



So you see archaeological evidence that supports the Bible claims and somehow infer that the Bible stole the stories? You see other cultures telling the same stories of the Bible, and somehow infer that it invalidates the Bible? That's comical.



That is a lie. The Septuagint (Israel's translation of the existing Hebrew Bible into Greek) was completed before 300BC. That's not even counting how far back the Hebrew OT goes.



I have actually seen pictures of stone tablets, written in an odd combination of Egyptian/early Hebrew script, that corroborate many of the Exodus claims in the OT-- including the Red Sea claims, as well as other stories immediately following the Exodus. They were found in an area that Exodus claims Israel rested in after crossing the Red Sea. It's interesting that the tablets are in Egyptian/Hebrew, immediately after Israel was in Egyptian culture for 400 years.



Listen to yourself, man! One long argument from incredulity and unproven assertion.

You basically just said: "The Bible is wrong because it is fictitious." I can see why you don't like it when we break out the whole critical thinking mojo on you.

:hi:

Critical thinking mojo = assuming everything is from the bible and physical evidence to the contrary is false..yeah. You got me!..

The hebrew bible as it is known today was compiled in 2 to 3 BC, you misunderstood what I typed. Even if it was written in 300 BC they are just regurgitated myths from people worshiping multiple pagan gods from 4000 BC.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I'm sure orange crush is one of those who think the earth is only a few thousand years old and Jesus rode atop a triceratops. Bahaha.

He didnt?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Critical thinking mojo = assuming everything is from the bible and physical evidence to the contrary is false..yeah. You got me!..

You are yet to give any. You actually listed physical evidence that gives credence to its claims. I listed more.

The hebrew bible as it is known today was compiled in 2 to 3 BC, you misunderstood what I typed. Even if it was written in 300 BC they are just regurgitated myths from people worshiping multiple pagan gods from 4000 BC.

I said it was translated before 300 BC, from its original language. Naturally, the original language goes back much further than the translation.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The universe is expanding so how does one call it finite? Or is it finite in that no more galaxies are being created and everything is just drifting apart?

You serious, Clark? You are saying that an infinite universe is expanding? You want to rethink that claim? To explain the expanding universe, they draw dots on a balloon and inflate it. Is that an "infinite" balloon-- as in no boundaries? How can something that is "infinite" expand?

Please do tell. It's the very expansion of the universe that has informed physicists that it is not infinite.

Our Solar System has 8 planets and 1 star; 1 planet has life. Our solar system is in the Milky Way. The milky way has anywhere between 100 billion to 300 billion stars most with their own solar systems of planets. Within these planets it is estimated to be 40 billion or so earth sized planets within a habitable range from their stars. Our galaxy neighbor, Andromeda, has 1 trillion stars with their own solar systems. In the observable universe there it is estimated to be more than 100 billion galaxies.

In our solar system 1/8 of the planets had life, a 12% chance...I'm going to go out on a limb here and say somewhere in those 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4 sextillion) earth size planets in habitable ranges from their stars (low ball math numbers estimate) there is probably life. And lets not forget about what exists out there than humans cannot even fathom.

There are more than 80,000,080,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets out there. Thats 80 Octillion..had to look that one up. And thats a low ball estimate as well going off 8 planets per solar system, 100 billion solar systems per galaxy, 100 billion observable galaxies. I read they have observed almost 200 billion galaxies and the milky way may have 300 billion solar systems..

First: You are begging the question in building your probabilities. You are begging the question that life started on Earth by chance, naturally. You can't do that, and then list the number of other places that it obviously had to happen again. That's begging the question that it defeated probability and then did elsewhere.

Secondly, the probability given has been that it's basically impossible. So, you can't take an impossibility and then multiply (impossible*the size of the universe).

The scientific establishment recognize both of my points above, thus the proposal of a multi-verse and the abolition of probability in the first place.

 

[Roustabout]

I'm sure orange crush is one of those who think the earth is only a few thousand years old and Jesus rode atop a triceratops. Bahaha.

Now there's a statement from someone interested in the truth. Ad hominems. I guess when you can't intelligently discuss the subject, the alternative is to launch baseless attacks that have nothing to do with the argument and hope that you look clever.

 

[rjd970]

Whatever you say, man. It seems, as scientists ponder the probabilities, they are needing something else-- not the "magic of large numbers", but the "magic" of infinite numbers.

The following is the abstract background of a paper called: "The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life".



Translation: The probabilities of origin of life in our universe is so minuscule that we are promoting an unscientific creation myth of our own to do away with probability altogether.



Translation: There is a terrible catch-22 paradox with origin of life. If we throw infinity in there, we do away with that nasty problem of probability. Yay!



Translation: Origin of life depends on adoption of this infinity (i.e. getting rid of that nasty problem of probability.)

The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

It baffles me that you can claim origin of life as a "near certainty" in our limited universe, while the authorities that you are so prone to appeal to would disagree. They see the need to do away with probabilities in order to circumvent the chicken/egg paradox of origin of life.

This is what you do. Put words in my mouth or attribute 2nd order beliefs to what I say and then argue the little details and claim victory. Every debate you have done this. Every. Single. One. I find it both disingenuous and highly comical at the same time.

Let's get the record straight. One paper hardly qualifies as "authorities" I appeal to. I found this to be an interesting critique of the said paper by a peer reviewer:

Maybe because my background in both biology and philosophy is limited (I have a phD in both), I have a general issue with several parts of the manuscript, which should be either more rigorously developed or should be significantly shortened. At the very least, I believe that to be truly understood the author must propose -very early in his manuscript- clear definitions (in a box, or in the main text) of the following terms:

Cosmology, probable, possible, multiverse, anthropic selection, Darwinian selection.

Nevertheless, it is interesting you would quote a paper that essentially disqualifies any need for a creator/designer. I suggest a good reading of the of this link, good discussion on the anthropic principle which all the reviewers seemed to have issue with as it pertains to this paper.

Biology Direct | Full text | The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

There is great discussion from the author and the reviewers. Both sides have valid points, and the discussion is reasonable, as it should be.

 

[FLVOL_79]

You are yet to give any. You actually listed physical evidence that gives credence to its claims. I listed more.

Bobby whispers to Sue, "Tom has a new car, pass it on".

Sue whispers to Fred, "Tom crashed his car, pass it on".

Fred whispers to Velma, "Tom got herpes, pass it on"

Velma whispers to Daphene, "Tim got hit by a car, pass it on".

Daphene tells Shaggy, "Jennifer got a new car and got herpes from the seat, pass it on".

Shaggy takes a loooooooooooooong toke and tells Scooby Doo, "Karl crashed his car and was ejected through the moon roof and ascended to heaven and he was lucky because he contracted herpes simplex C from Luther in Hollywood, pass it on".

Scooby Doo writes Bible.

Now substitute Sumerian legend and folk lore passed down through the ages, sprinkle in a mix of language barrier, being drunk off fermented dates, a teaspoon of truth, forgetfulness, and a dash of confusion and thats how the bible stories came to be. The bible is no different than someone telling you a story they heard from someone else. It will be similar but some aspects will have changed.

I said it was translated before 300 BC, from its original language. Naturally, the original language goes back much further than the translation.

Wha? What is this mysterious number that naturally I should know?

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is what you do. Put words in my mouth or attribute 2nd order beliefs to what I say and then argue the little details and claim victory. Every debate you have done this. Every. Single. One. I find it both disingenuous and highly comical at the same time.

Please explain. If I am mis-presenting your intent and meaning, my hope is that you will clarify. You claimed that an expanding universe is infinite? I am asking you to clarify.

Let's get the record straight. One paper hardly qualifies as "authorities" I appeal to. I found this to be an interesting critique of the said paper by a peer reviewer:

I would obviously disagree with the author's thesis as well. However, the quoted peer review says nothing about the probability of natural abiogenesis in our universe. The fact that Hawking and Dawkins are both jumping on board indicates it's not just some nut-job out there.

Nevertheless, it is interesting you would quote a paper that essentially disqualifies any need for a creator/designer. I suggest a good reading of the of this link, good discussion on the anthropic principle which all the reviewers seemed to have issue with as it pertains to this paper.

Biology Direct | Full text | The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

There is great discussion from the author and the reviewers. Both sides have valid points, and the discussion is reasonable, as it should be.

Anthropic Principle: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.

Yep. That a doozie. Lots of respected scientists are proposing all sorts of explanations. UofW scientists are proposing that we may live in a computer simulated universe, designed and run by hyper-intelligent beings.

Before you dismiss this idea as completely loony, the reality of such a Sim Universe might solve a lot of eerie mysteries about the cosmos. About two-dozen of the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. At first glance it seems as unlikely as balancing a pencil on its tip. Jiggle these parameters and life as we know it would have never appeared. Not even stars and galaxies. This is called the Anthropic principle ... We are also living at a very special time in the universe's history where it switched gears from decelerating to accelerating under the push of dark energy. This begs the question "why me why now?" -

Obviously, I don't buy into all these metaphysical claims. I just point them out to show that, if life were so statistically probable in our universe, as you appeared to claim, then there wouldn't be all this metaphysical theorizing going on to explain that anthropic principle.


Disclaimer: If I have inadvertently mis-represented your views or intent in any way, I ask for clarification, that we may continue discussion.