the self replicating watch argument

[Astrophile]

Yes. Biology 101 has references and calculations.

I'm sorry; I don't understand this. I googled 'Biology 101', and found the website Biology 101 (2013) - Plot Summary - IMDb ; this has a synopsis that starts, 'Bill Pollard is the very image of a mild-mannered suburbanite. He is a calm and stable husband and father, and teaches biology at Thatherton Community College. He is also hopelessly addicted to internet pornography. The object of Bill's lustful obsession is webcam vixen Dani Darling.'

Can you explain where in this website I can find out about the nested hierarchy and convergent evolution, and where the references and calculations are, so that I don't have to go through the whole thing?

 

[Anguspure]

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

LOL, why then does a pixie not suddenly appear on my knee?

The whole principle of the lottery, gambling, share market the street etc...out the window.

Perhaps you would buy the idea that coincidence is not a kosher word, except that the reference is about a designer and not about a complete breakdown of mathematical principle.

 

[Anguspure]

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

Except that Darwinian evolution only explains everything when we abandon all pretense of reason.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Sure, but that doesn't get you anywhere close to invoking supernaturalism, which seemed to be what you were complaining about it in the first place.

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

Except the way theists attempt to wield said argument, we know that that's not actually true.

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.

Only by way of explaining how (and by extension the where and when) would the 'design argument' yield any explanatory power. Designerdidit by itself offers little.

 

[46AND2]

LOL, why then does a pixie not suddenly appear on my knee?

The whole principle of the lottery, gambling, share market the street etc...out the window.

Perhaps you would buy the idea that coincidence is not a kosher word, except that the reference is about a designer and not about a complete breakdown of mathematical principle.

First question...how do you even define event that there have been that many of them?

Secondly, where have you shown that the odds are longer than that number?

Third, I thought we had already established that 0 is the only impossibly low probability?

 

[pitabread]

Except that Darwinian evolution only explains everything when we abandon all pretense of reason.

Too bad scientific theories couldn't be falsified on the basis of attempted snide witticisms, amirite?

 

[xianghua]

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

are you sure? as i showed: even a 300my old fossil of a mammal will not falsify evolution.

 

[pitabread]

even a 300my old fossil of a mammal will not falsify evolution.

What 300 million year old fossil of a mammal?

 

[46AND2]

are you sure? as i showed: even a 300my old fossil of a mammal will not falsify evolution.

Yes, I'm sure.

 

[Anguspure]

Sure, but that doesn't get you anywhere close to invoking supernaturalism, which seemed to be what you were complaining about it in the first place.

What has "supernaturalism" got to do with it? If I think that the designer was supernatural and you think the designer was a person from within the universe, how does this negate the central argument?

Except the way theists attempt to wield said argument, we know that that's not actually true.

So we deny a good explanation because we don't like theists way of using it? I don't live in the Bible belt of the US, China or in the Middle East, so I may not truly appreciate the horrors of mindless ideological control, but science should not be predicated on the fear of what some abusers may do with it.
When the scientific endeavour becomes ideaologically motivated it becomes Scientism and is no longer about gaining knowledge of the World.

Only by way of explaining how (and by extension the where and when) would the 'design argument' yield any explanatory power. Designerdidit by itself offers little.

Every molecular biologist involved in development of things based upon biology whether that invloves manipulating biological things or copying biological function and design for other purposes, recognises design in the system. If we were to truly deny design then we could not expect to find anything comprehensible at all. As it is we are theiving from the designer without recognising his handy work.

 

[Anguspure]

Too bad scientific theories couldn't be falsified on the basis of attempted snide witticisms, amirite?

 

[Anguspure]

Too bad scientific theories couldn't be falsified on the basis of attempted snide witticisms, amirite?

One of the definitions of a good scientific theory is falsification.

Darwin provided a falsification of Natural Selection as a TOE. He wrote: "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps...If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin

So it has been demonstrated, or at least there is no evidence for quite a number of complex organs having been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications but Scientistic types still insist on hanging on to a theory that Darwin himself would have discarded many years ago.

 

[Anguspure]

First question...how do you even define event that there have been that many of them?

The number of possible events is defined by the number of time intervals (Planck time/space) that have occured since the beginning of the universe.
We observe that space time is digital, so the number of possible events is taken to be the number of units of space multiplied by the amount of time that has passed since the units of space began to exist.

Secondly, where have you shown that the odds are longer than that number?

Douglas Axe goes into great detail in his book with regards a simple string of words:
For comparison, a single 80-character line of text would suffice to write out the number of atoms in the universe, with the total number of physical events over the universe’s history requiring only half a line more.
Axe, Douglas. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed

Third, I thought we had already established that 0 is the only impossibly low probability?

Recognises that mathematics regularly operates beyond the realms of physical reality.
There is a difference between a theoretical impossibility and an actual physical impossibility. If it is physically impossible to represent all of the possibilities of a given search within the universe, then the theoretical probablility of finding the target may well be above zero but the target may well lie beyond the bounds of physical possibility.

 

[Anguspure]

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

Not yet, but have faith in science...one day they will learn how to do it....

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.

I don't know why they are scared. I am not scared either, and I am happy to follow the evidence where it leads. Very little room for blind belief in that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't know why they are scared. I am not scared either, and I am happy to follow the evidence where it leads. Very little room for blind belief in that.

it is not fear that keeps me from your faith.

It is the lack of evidence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

One of the definitions of a good scientific theory is falsification.

Darwin provided a falsification of Natural Selection as a TOE. He wrote: "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps...If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin

So it has been demonstrated, or at least there is no evidence for quite a number of complex organs having been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications but Scientistic types still insist on hanging on to a theory that Darwin himself would have discarded many years ago.

Darwin did not say that a lack of clear evidence for the path taken to form an organ would falsify his theory. He said that demonstrating it could not possibly be done would falsify it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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'

Ah, so you have no evidence for the claim that there is a limit to how low entropy can go without an intelligent agency.

 

[Anguspure]

it is not fear that keeps me from your faith.

It is the lack of evidence.

It is the evidence that further strengthens my faith in a Creator.

 

[Anguspure]

Ah, so you have no evidence for the claim that there is a limit to how low entropy can go without an intelligent agency.

How low do you think it could go? How long is the coherent sentence that you could make simply by stirring a pot of alphabet soup?

 

[Anguspure]

Darwin did not say that a lack of clear evidence for the path taken to form an organ would falsify his theory. He said that demonstrating it could not possibly be done would falsify it.

The demostrations are in front of us in the biological traits and organs that suddenly appear in the biological record with no anticedant and no path to incremental development possible. The first self replicating organism is a prime example.