Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
we have looked. we've looked as far as we are capable of looking. we've looked on the moon. we've looked on Mars.
given that life's only been found on earth, you have no reason to expect that life exists elsewhere, let alone a "50%" chance of extra-terretrial life.
creationists believe that a diety created the universe as it currently, and that the universe has always been as it is now since the universe was formed. that includes all natural laws and systems.
the "evidence" that life both the universe arose naturally is not testable. so why should anyone believe what YOU say?
question all you want. I don't side with the creationism movement. or any movement for that matter. my motive is the truth.
.
do you see a contradiction between always existing, and being created? I do.
Then your being used like a tool.
as is mine.
I fear you have misunderstood. The random Hamiltonian that is being talked about here is a Hamiltonian that describes the fundamental laws of physics. The laws that we experience around us are one manifestation of the fundamental laws. What that paper showed is that at least some of the orderly things about the laws we experience can be replicated by purely random fundamental laws. This cuts directly against your claim that "pure luck" cannot explain ordered laws, as it's an example of ordered laws coming from "pure luck".
That's not what I said. What I said is that if you have a flat floor, then throwing the marbles on the floor will result in a relatively disordered mess. If, by contrast, you throw them on a floor with all sorts of imperfections, then the result will be more ordered. The greater the deviations from flatness are in magnitude, the greater the order of the result.
And we have yet to rule out the possibility of life on Mars. While I would add that we've also ruled out the possibility of life on some other planets (Mercury, Venus being two), we're still talking about things within our own solar system. Now, as we look out among the stars, we're finding that planets are the norm, not the exception. To date we've found hundreds of planets, and our planet detection systems are just now getting to the point where they can start to detect Earth-like planets (in terms of mass and orbital distance). So your protestations are more than a little premature.
That's not what I said. What I said was that I expect there to be about a 50% chance among Population I stars of there being a planet with orbital/mass properties somewhere between Venus and Mars. Of those planets, I expect somewhere around 5%-10% to have microbial life. If you do the math, that comes to a 2.5%-5% chance of there being microbial life around any Population I star. This is very, very rough, of course, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm off by as much as a factor of ten in either direction. But I would be surprised if I was off by a factor of a hundred.
the paper shows that laws "might" come from randomness. there's NO evidence in that link that shows that it actually does.
the result would still be the same. the marbles will never randomly align to for a shape with smooth edges, no matter how many times it's thrown against the wall.
okay, let's get to the heart of the issue. what evidence do you have to back up that systems always existed?
only if you explain what from the video shows that the notion that the universe arose by chance is actually testable. don't just post a video, explain in your own words what actually backs your point up. just posting a video and not actually explaining how it backs your point is a cop out.
by whom?
give it time. it took a long time to overcome the religious influence that kept geocentrism around for so long. I believe the same will happen with ID, and the stink of the the creation movement will be removed from ID, and pure philosophy that ID actually contains will be respected.
I didn't say that it did. I was merely using it to demonstrate that your unevidenced assertion that blind luck cannot lead to order is false.
Sure they will. If, say, the floor has a bowl-shaped depression in it, then the marbles will collect to produce a nearly circular shape.
"Never" is a really long time. Kepler, a satellite which should be capable of detecting a relatively small fraction of Earth-like planets (those that cross between the host star and ourselves), has just launched. Within a year or two of observing, there should be enough data to detect some of these planets, which will be enough to place some estimates on the relative abundances of them.
how on earth can you use a link which offers no evidence of what to see "demonstrate" that blind luck cannot lead to order?
not all. the marbles will just bunch up. throw a bunch of marbles into a bowl and see for yourself. the marbles might come close to make a nearly circular shape, provided that it's the right number of marbles and not too much; but that would no longer be a random outcome, since the circumstances are being designed.
Because it's an example of blind luck leading to order? It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this argument, whether or not this is correct. It just demonstrates that your blind assertion that blind luck can't lead to order is faulty.
Sure, but even if we're talking about an uneven dirt floor, one whose unevenness is not designed, the marbles will preferentially bunch up in certain places. They will form patterns based upon the patterns of the floor. In fact, as long as the floor is reasonably smooth, the only way some pattern won't form is if it's very flat. And a flat floor is not what you expect from surfaces that aren't designed.
I've heard about that, too. Thoughts:
How?
Except dams and plumbing work when and where they are needed to provide a regular and reliable water supply. Natural water is very different. Sometimes it's scarce, sometimes there's too much of it, sometimes it comes completely unpredictably, sometimes it kills things that get in its way, sometimes it's too hot for all but the hardiest life forms (which then cannot function anywhere other than hot water) sometimes it's plain frozen and inaccessible. It really doesn't look like something designed to support life, more like something that an opportunistic phenomenon like life could grab onto.
From life's point of view, ice is hardly useful. We can't do anything with it, and many life forms (certainly most animals, even in polar environments) die if they freeze (and all animals die if the insides of their cells freeze). It could be argued that terrestrial life needs some vapour to avoid too much water loss (see the perfect chemical causing trouble again?), but IIRC you need over 99% relative humidity to stop evaporation from your body, and that's a very rare thing to find on this planet. Really, life would be much happier if water just stayed liquid all the time.
Wouldn't it be far more convenient if water just stayed liquid over most or all earth temperatures?
It's iceberg.)All I can see is a lucky coincidence making life as we know it possible. Water is good enough, but for a substance designed to support life, it's quite a lousy job.
