the self replicating watch argument

[Anguspure]

Huh? What is the minimum values of s (entropy) that can be obtained without an intelligent causal agency? Who discovered this limit to the value of s? Where did he publish his findings?

Are you just making stuff up?

At the point of creation entropy is lowered. For example your paragraph above displays a low entropic value as opposed to the following paragraph which displays higher entropy:
p;ahevhg;ebgvb3qrcnqer; 4ui043rruic1=]903uqcx7j777yrwpyrn0c3yrpnyrwlahci hc 4r 0rudfn wp wq qw3qr1IIPU hea pi;4nr'

 

[Anguspure]

1. To function as it does NOW, perhaps it does need that many. A primitive cell, not so much.

Perhaps? Another "just so" story...perhaps?

His number was arbitrary, as was my response. The point is that creationists assume, as you showed, that cells had to be formed in their present state, when they have had millions of years to evolve from their primitive state.

Billions upon billions of years are needed.

 

[Anguspure]

Not really. The ToE is only a scientific theory, and like all scientific theories it has the potential for being wrong. Right now it is by a long way the most plausible explanation for the diversity of life as we observe it, but that's all it is.

So in your opinion what has been calculated to be the least plausible is the most plausible, and the theory that follows the evidence to the logical conlusion is wrong. Go figure???

And many others, scientistist trained in the field, do not see them at all as saltation events. You may think that it is because they are trying to "deny God" but that is not plausible; there are too many theists, Christians included, who take that view.

Trained professionals are very good at not seeing what they don't want to see.

​

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. Richard Lewontin

​

 

[Speedwell]

So in your opinion what has been calculated to be the least plausible is the most plausible, and the theory that follows the evidence to the logical conlusion is wrong. Go figure???

I think the "calculations" you have presented are worthless. But what do I know? I've only got a bachelor's degree in math.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense...

Common sense is a very poor guide to science. Science that even you accept goes against common sense; I give you quantum mechanics as an example.

...is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

I see no real struggle there. Many people, myself included, have no difficulty accepting the findings of science and believing in the supernatural. What I wonder is why you seem to have trouble with it.

 

[46AND2]

Perhaps? Another "just so" story...perhaps?

Billions upon billions of years are needed.

Perhaps you misunderstood what my perhaps referred to...

 

[pitabread]

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

The problem is that such supernaturalism is inherently unbounded, and consequently can become an answer for anything and everything. And when you have a stock answer for anything and everything, you really don't have much to work with at all.

 

[Anguspure]

I think the "calculations" you have presented are worthless. But what do I know? I've only got a bachelor's degree in math.

What does that have to do with it, I hold a Masters and practice the mathematics regularly, but my 8 year old daughter can still grasp the concept.
John Lennox is an Oxford Professor and considers the math a no brainer.

Common sense is a very poor guide to science. Science that even you accept goes against common sense; I give you quantum mechanics as an example.I see no real struggle there. Many people, myself included, have no difficulty accepting the findings of science and believing in the supernatural. What I wonder is why you seem to have trouble with it.

Consensus about denying the basics is an even worse guide.

 

[Anguspure]

The problem is that such supernaturalism is inherently unbounded, and consequently can become an answer for anything and everything. And when you have a stock answer for anything and everything, you really don't have much to work with at all.

It's called explanatory power, and all good theories have plenty of it. But you are wrong. A designer is not unbounded.
Rather the design reflects the nature of the designer.
It is Darwinism that confounds reason, and ultimately on Darwinism we should wonder why a Unicorn doesn't just pop into existence onto the table in front of us.

 

[Speedwell]

It's called explanatory power, and all good theories have plenty of it. But you are wrong. A designer is not unbounded.
Rather the design reflects the nature of the designer.
It is Darwinism that confounds reason, and ultimately on Darwinism we should wonder why a Unicorn doesn't just pop into existence onto the table in front of us.

LOL! You'd like that--it would completely refute "Darwinism."

 

[Anguspure]

LOL! You'd like that--it would completely refute "Darwinism."

Multiverse theory was invoked to broaden the probalistic resources in order to help explain why this universe with life in it exists inspite of the extraordinarily low probability without a Creator.

 

[pitabread]

It's called explanatory power, and all good theories have plenty of it. But you are wrong. A designer is not unbounded.

If your designer is believed to be an omnipotent being capable of doing anything, then yes, you have invoked an unbounded designer.

Which consequently offers zero explanatory power because said designer could be used to explain anything. You would have no way of testing any ideas which invoke said designer because that same designer could be used to explain away any incongruities.

 

[46AND2]

First of all: Happy new years day to you.

In respect of a self replicating system, I am afraid that one shot is all you've got before you have to start all over again.


There have only been 15 billion years or so and the vast majority of that time has not been conducive to any form of biogenesis. Nevertheless for th sake of good humour we'll give you 15 billion years. The chances don't even come close. The number runs to a factor of more than 120. It is an actual physical impossibility to have drawn from the hat that many times.


Larger target? A larger target increases probability, but even the larger target is irrellevant really because it still does not produce a self replicating organism.
So how long do you expect the parts of the sequence to hang aroud blindly? 3 or 4 billion years?
Don't go doing what Dawkins has done by introducing a direction to your calculations, that would not be representative.

Moving the goal posts, I see. The fact is that you did not include the myriad "draws of the hat" in your "calculation,"

And by larger target...i mean a larger sequence of amino acids...how does that increase probability, exactly?

 

[Anguspure]

If your designer is believed to be an omnipotent being capable of doing anything, then yes, you have invoked an unbounded designer.

Well...for the purposes of identifying the designer, all that needs to "beleived" is that the designer is capable of designing (and presumably creating (although ID proponents would not go that far)) the observed design.

Which consequently offers zero explanatory power because said designer could be used to explain anything. You would have no way of testing any ideas which invoke said designer because that same designer could be used to explain away any incongruities.

Explaining away incongruities is not science irespective of whether things are designed, or not.. If I was to explain away my misunderstanding of internal combustion by invoking the magical Henry Ford, would this mean that I could no longer use design as an explanation for the origin and developement of the motor car?

The argument for design simply recognises the design inherant in the system and makes no claim to explain anything else.

The argument for design carries a whole lot of explanatory power (as is recognised by all molecular bioligists and engineers) and should not be denied becuase of phronemophobia.

 

[46AND2]

Well...for the purposes of identifying the designer, all that needs to "beleived" is that the designer is capable of designing (and presumably creating (although ID proponents would not go that far)) the observed .

You know that this is a HUGE step, right? Considering there is zero precedence for such power...

 

[Anguspure]

Moving the goal posts, I see. The fact is that you did not include the myriad "draws of the hat" in your "calculation,"

There has been a total of 10 to the 121 (give or take a few) possible events since the beginning of the universe. So the maximum number of draws of the hat in the universe is 10 to the 121.
Any probability that is represented by a number greater than 10 to the 121 will be extremely low, perhaps to the point of physically impossible. Yes?

And by larger target...i mean a larger sequence of amino acids...how does that increase probability, exactly?

I thought you were referring to the smaller selection available in the alphabet, sorry, prebiotic soup. Reducing the count of possible aminos present in the string from 500 to 100 or so would increase the probability that any particular amino would appear.

 

[Anguspure]

You know that this is a HUGE step, right? Considering there is zero precedence for such power...

Ummm....I'm gobsmacked. Let me think....shall I start with.....ummm....let me throw the darts...Coco Chanel or Leonardo Da Vinci. How about Neri Oxman (biological designer).
I know a man by the name of Grant Wanter who designed a house, if that helps.

So when we find that there is less than zero precedence for functionally coherent things being invented by accident and compare this with the "zero precedence" for a biological designer we have to go with the most unlikely scenario?...and all because we are scared of some religious nuts who did naughty things?

 

[46AND2]

There has been a total of 10 to the 121 (give or take a few) possible events since the beginning of the universe. So the maximum number of draws of the hat in the universe is 10 to the 121.
Any probability that is represented by a number greater than 10 to the 121 will be extremely low, perhaps to the point of physically impossible. Yes?

.

No...to...pretty much all of it.

 

[xianghua]

Which consequently offers zero explanatory power because said designer could be used to explain anything. You would have no way of testing any ideas which invoke said designer because that same designer could be used to explain away any incongruities.

i think its fit well with evolution. since it can explain anything. a theory that can explain everything actually explain nothing.

 

[46AND2]

Ummm....I'm gobsmacked. Let me think....shall I start with.....ummm....let me throw the darts...Coco Chanel or Leonardo Da Vinci. How about Neri Oxman (biological designer).
I know a man by the name of Grant Wanter who designed a house, if that helps.

So when we find that there is less than zero precedence for functionally coherent things being invented by accident and compare this with the "zero precedence" for a biological designer we have to go with the most unlikely scenario?...and all because we are scared of some religious nuts who did naughty things?

When have those designers ever designed life? You know, the thing you claim has been designed.

Why would I be scared that a Designer created life? I would love to believe there is a higher power. I actually did for most of my life.

 

[46AND2]

i think its fit well with evolution. since it can explain anything. a theory that can explain everything actually explain nothing.

Hey! I taught you that. Evolution can't explain everything but the god-du-jour certainly can.