Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

Yes I am but I'm quite capable of talking in hypotheticals.

So according to your own reasoning a complex omnimax god is far more unlikely to exist than a simple naturalistic universe.

My reasoning is that with the passage of time, barring the action of an exogenous intelligence, all objects and systems progress from order to disorder. Chance is too unlikely to constitute a countervailing force. God is infinitely complex, and is the ultimate order as Himself. Thus, Christianity and the Bible are consistent with natural law, whereas evolution/atheism/abiogenesis is not.

 

[True_Blue]

Perhaps you need to look really closely at the picture up there that is a snowflake. It forms in hexagonal symmetry with an incredibly high degree of overall symmetry based purely on physical rules. This is not to say random processes are not in play in terms of nucleation, but overall the fact that the snowflake LOOKS AS COMPLEX AS IT DOES is driven, indeed biased by the physical rules.

The "complexity" of a snowflake stems from the fact that removing energy to freeze the water causes the water molecules to form the lowest energy shape. Chemistry is no different. Atoms want to obtain complete valence shells and form the least reactive molecular compounds available.

Any complexity present in snowflakes stems from the complexity inherent in the underlying laws of the universe. In other words, the natural laws of the universe have inherent complexity. The gravity equation is inherently orderly. Whatever equation drives the formation of symmetrical snowflakes is also inherently orderly. A snowman consists of two things: 1) the inherent orderliness of the snowflakes, gravity, etc., and 2) the intelligent design of the child who fashioned the snowman. A snowman is one complexity layered on top of another complexity. A snowman could theoretically form from a snowfall, but the odds would be immense. The odds of a snowfake occurring are obviously 100%, provided, of course, that the natural laws allowing the snowflake have been created.

An evolutionist has to make the a priori assumption that life is somehow part of the natural order of the universe. That's what [some] Hindus believe. A chemist who believes that natural chemistry works in the favor of the evolution of life is essentially a Hindu evolution + an impersonal god. [I acknowledge there are hundreds of types of Hinduism--I'm referring to the George Lucas kind]. Yet an impersonal god is incapable of intelligence, creativity, and inventiveness, and those traits are an inherent attribute of life. That is one reason I believe God is real and God is personal.

 

[True_Blue]

I think I've answered that question. Here it is again, bolded so you don't miss it. Do you need to know about the laws of gravity to fall off a tree?

No, because there is absolute truth that exists independent of a person's state of mind and belief system. For the same reason, certain individual actions are wrong regardless of whether a person or society wants them to be wrong.

 

[mpok1519]

Are you saying that meteors with bacteria have been found, or could be found ?

I thought there were....I may be wrong though. If meteors with bacteria have not been found, I am almost positive that its very possible for such to happen.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-life-00o.html

I might be inclined to believe the above, but I have my doubts.

 

[True_Blue]

I thought there were....I may be wrong though. If meteors with bacteria have not been found, I am almost positive that its very possible for such to happen.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-life-00o.html

I might be inclined to believe the above, but I have my doubts.

I remember when a former president went live on national television to announce the finding of extra-terrestrial life from Mars on the meteorite in Antarctica. He was relying on a spurious claim made by others, and I believe every aspect of that report has been more quietly repudiated. The difficulty with the media-driven world that we live in is that when claims are initially made, they are immediately believed by most listeners rather than critically analyzed. I don't think scientists in general are more likely to be right about things than the average Joe.

 

[mpok1519]

So, you think the average joe is more likely to be right than a scientist?

 

[atomweaver]

For us to have a conversation, you need to be able to recognize a "complex" object when you see it.

I'd like everyone to recognize T_B's clever work, here. In the first four examples, he sets up his preconceived notion that complex things are designed;

A rock is simple.

something natural

A shovel is complex.

something man-made.

A drop of water is simple--

something natural

an egg is complex.

something biological

An ice crystal is simple.

something natural

An ice sculpture is complex.

something man-made

Lightning is simple.

something natural

A computer is complex.

something man made.

We get it already, True Blue. You think that anything man-made, even something like a shovel, is necessarily complex. Sorry you find the shovel so complex... For future reference, the pointy end goes in the dirt.

I'll snip the cosmological pairings, someone better versed than I could address them...

Amino acids are simple. DNA is complex.

and here we get to the insertion of a system that actually has something to do with abiogenesis. But wait, the only thing linking DNA with the previous listed items is T-B's perception that they are all similarly designed, (except for the egg, which for some unknown reason was paired with a drop of water)... Clever, T-B, that iterative repetition you've got going on. I'd imagine you spent a lot of time in school or church, reciting verses by rote.

Refrigerator magnets clumped together are simple. Refrigerator magnets arranged in a line to form a sentence is complex.

...and we're back to you re-confirming your bias insisting design is complexity and complexity is design. Its good to go back to your original pattern for one last iteration, to drive your point home. Honestly, True Blue, design is so hammered into your psyche, I doubt you even realize that all of these examples are merely confirmation of your deeply ingrained bias.

In other words, one needs to be able to know which direction entropy travels given two states separated by time.

Its worse than that, Jim. You also have to know if you're looking at a closed system, or not, and whether the decrease in entropy of the system is accompanied by a proportionate increase in entropy of the surroundings... We need to add another simple/complex pairing to your list;

True Blue's understanding of Entropy is simple.
Entropy is complex.

Over time, shovels degrade to rocks.

Actually, that depends on the environment. Will a shovel buried in the desert degrade into rocks? What about a shovel on the HMS Ontario? Will the handle of a shovel thrown in the ocean degrade to rocks, or will it just rot? Do you really consider rust a rock?

Ice sculptures degrade to simple ice.

No, they don't.

Galaxies compress to black holes.

Heh. No, galaxies don't. Stars, maybe, but not galaxies. Unless you know of a whole galaxy undergoing gravitational collapse..?

DNA eventually degrees into simple compounds. I assert that to go in the opposite direction in the absence of intelligent design, pure chance is required, and the probability of such an event happening in all the examples above is practically infiinitely low.

Wow!!! Film at 11:30, to follow the film at 11.

 

[us38]

My reasoning is that with the passage of time, barring the action of an exogenous intelligence, all objects and systems progress from order to disorder.

And what makes you think that?

Chance is too unlikely to constitute a countervailing force.

You can't use probability to decribe the liklihood of something after the fact.

 

[True_Blue]

Heh. No, galaxies don't. Stars, maybe, but not galaxies. Unless you know of a whole galaxy undergoing gravitational collapse..?

It's widely believed a black hole is at the center of most galaxies, including our own, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole, and that the black holes eventually gobble up the stars and matter within its ambit. A star will either eventually fall into the black hole, or be thrown beyond its ambit.

 

[True_Blue]

And what makes you think that?

You can't use probability to decribe the liklihood of something after the fact.

Why not? You'd have a point if you assumed a priori that God does not exist.

 

[us38]

Why not? You'd have a point if you assumed a priori that God does not exist.

Simple scenario: I flipped a fair, two sided coin. The coin has landed, and is not moving. What is the probability of heads?

 

[True_Blue]

Simple scenario: I flipped a fair, two sided coin. The coin has landed, and is not moving. What is the probability of heads?

50%. However, if you want to use Socratic Method, please conclude with your entire point after two posts. Otherwise, the thread will be too attenuated for the other users of Christian Forums.

I do enjoy Socratic Method, so we can engage in that manner via private messages.

 

[pgp_protector]

Simple scenario: I flipped a fair, two sided coin. The coin has landed, and is not moving. What is the probability of heads?

Didn't work for me

 

[us38]

50%.

Wrong. That's the probability that on your next flip you would get heads, but not this one. The coin's not moving. It's not going to change what side is up. To say the probability is 50% is to say that half the time you look at it, it will be heads, and the other half tails, without flipping. But that is wrong. If it's head, then every time you look at it, it will be heads. If it's tails, then every time you look at it, it will be tails.

After an event has occured, probability cannot be used to determine or guess the outcome. The outcome is already determined.

Not to the larger point: even if you're random combination model of chemistry worked (it doesn't, and your refusal to test it on the simple scenario Temperate posted shows that you know it), if the proper set of chemical reactions occured to allow for abiogenesis, no amount probability analysis could show that it didn't.

 

[True_Blue]

Wrong. That's the probability that on your next flip you would get heads, but not this one. The coin's not moving. It's not going to change what side is up. To say the probability is 50% is to say that half the time you look at it, it will be heads, and the other half tails, without flipping. But that is wrong. If it's head, then every time you look at it, it will be heads. If it's tails, then every time you look at it, it will be tails.

After an event has occured, probability cannot be used to determine or guess the outcome. The outcome is already determined.

Not to the larger point: even if you're random combination model of chemistry worked (it doesn't, and your refusal to test it on the simple scenario Temperate posted shows that you know it), if the proper set of chemical reactions occured to allow for abiogenesis, no amount probability analysis could show that it didn't.

This analogy gets to the root of the difference. If you haven't looked at the coin, then the probability is 50%. If you have looked at the coin, the probability is 100% or 0%. With abiogenesis, you haven't looked at the coin--no one was there to see how we arose, whether by abiogenesis or creation. So probability is perfectly apt for the analysis.

 

[us38]

If you haven't looked at the coin, then the probability is 50%.

No, it's not. The probability is either 100% or 0%. That you don't know what it is does not change the fact that the outcome is determined. To say that the probability is 50% is to imply that the coin is constantly shifting between heads and tails before it is looked at. This is obviously not the case.

 

[True_Blue]

No, it's not. The probability is either 100% or 0%. That you don't know what it is does not change the fact that the outcome is determined. To say that the probability is 50% is to imply that the coin is constantly shifting between heads and tails before it is looked at. This is obviously not the case.

You've made a semantical argument. There's no difference between saying the probability is either 0% or 100% of the outcome being heads, and saying the probable outcome of heads is 50%. Saying 50% is a quicker and more intuitive way of expressing the same concept.

 

[us38]

There's no difference between saying the probability is either 0% or 100% of the outcome being heads, and saying the probable outcome of heads is 50%.

There's a very signifigant difference. Saying the outcome is 0% or 100% is signifying that the event in question already occured. Saying the outcome is 50% implies that the event has yet to occur. Your model (if it actually worked) would predict the liklihood of abiogenesis happening again. Abiogenesis either did happen in the past, or it didn't. There's no probability left to assign.

Saying 50% is a quicker and more intuitive way of expressing the same concept.

It's also patently wrong. You're using a Bayesian paradigm where it doesn't apply. After an event, only a frequentist paradigm makes sense.

 

[True_Blue]

There's a very signifigant difference. Saying the outcome is 0% or 100% is signifying that the event in question already occured. Saying the outcome is 50% implies that the event has yet to occur. Your model (if it actually worked) would predict the liklihood of abiogenesis happening again. Abiogenesis either did happen in the past, or it didn't. There's no probability left to assign.

It's also patently wrong. You're using a Bayesian paradigm where it doesn't apply. After an event, only a frequentist paradigm makes sense.

There's no difference between asking if abiogenesis could happen again given assumed conditions in the past, and asking what the probability of abiogenesis happening in the first place.

 

[us38]

There's no difference between asking if abiogenesis could happen again given assumed conditions in the past, and asking what the probability of abiogenesis happening in the first place.

But there is. It's the same difference between "Did you win the lottery?" and "Will you win the lottery?". The first is a yes or no question. You either did win the lottery, or you didn't. For the other, you can assign a probability to you winning the lottery. The probability from the second question has no meaning in the context of the first.

You also seem very close to pulling the gambler's fallacy. I'd watch that if I were you.