Faith in Randomness

[ted_BSR]

I said we can observe and TRY to understand about 4% of our universe.
Meaning currently we can observe 4% of the universe and have a hard time trying to understand even that amount.

We don't even understand our own solar system. Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. How big does science tell you our universe is?

 

[bullethead]

We don't even understand our own solar system. Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. How big does science tell you our universe is?

11ft .065in smaller than what science tells you it is. Mine doesn't account for egos.

I guess Pluto is no longer considered a planet because we were able to understand that a little better recently.

 

[ted_BSR]

11ft .065in smaller than what science tells you it is. Mine doesn't account for egos.

I guess Pluto is no longer considered a planet because we were able to understand that a little better recently.

I am sticking up for Pluto! In my book it is totally planetary!!!

I think I will write a song about Pluto and try to make $$ for a charity to have it re-instated!!!

 

[bullethead]

I am sticking up for Pluto! In my book it is totally planetary!!!

I think I will write a song about Pluto and try to make $$ for a charity to have it re-instated!!!

LOL!!!
"We Were A World....."

 

[Artfuldodger]

LOL!!!
"We Were A World....."

Gimmicky enough to actually work. "Pluto for Pyrea", "Pluto for Piles", or "Pluto for Palsy". I apologize as I know these are real diseases.

 

[ted_BSR]

Gimmicky enough to actually work. "Pluto for Pyrea", "Pluto for Piles", or "Pluto for Palsy". I apologize as I know these are real diseases.

Pluto for Planetation!

 

[TripleXBullies]

I am sticking up for Pluto! In my book it is totally planetary!!!

I think I will write a song about Pluto and try to make $$ for a charity to have it re-instated!!!

Your book? Why? Because it was what you were taught when you were a kid in school? Taught from a book that was written years ago. You may not agree with it, but the book writers changed their minds due to research and evidence. You call it a planet if you'd like to hang on to what you were taught as a kid by an old book. Our kids will believe with the same conviction that it is not... Your mind is molded and stuck in old ways just like theirs are becoming.

 

[Four]

This thread reminded me of an episode from an old podcast i used to listen to. The podcast is evolution 101.

It basically spoke about randomness in relation to evolution. It's only about 12 minutes.

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Science/Biology/Evolution-101-Podcast/18776#

Also, here is another responce i've heard to the old creationist argument on chance etc.

Even the simplest of life forms are too complex to have come together by random chance. Take a simple organism consisting of merely 100 parts. Mathematically there are 10 to the power of 158 possible ways for the parts to link up. There are not enough molecules in the universe or time since the beginning to account for these possible ways to come together in even this simple life form, let alone human beings. The human eye alone defies explanation by the randomness of evolution. It is the equivalent of the monkey typing Hamlet, or even "to be or not to be." It will not happen by random chance.

Natural selection is not "random" nor does it operate by "chance." Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. The eye evolved from a single, light-sensitive cell into the complex eye of today through hundreds if not thousands of intermediate steps, many of which still exist in nature. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet's soliloquy by chance, it would take 26 to the power of 13 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the process operates much faster. How much faster? Richard Hardison constructed a computer program in which letters were "selected" for or against, and it took an average of only 335.2 trials to produce the sequence of letters TOBEORNOTTOBE. This takes the computer less than 90 seconds. The entire play can be done in about 4.5 days!

 

[ted_BSR]

Your book? Why? Because it was what you were taught when you were a kid in school? Taught from a book that was written years ago. You may not agree with it, but the book writers changed their minds due to research and evidence. You call it a planet if you'd like to hang on to what you were taught as a kid by an old book. Our kids will believe with the same conviction that it is not... Your mind is molded and stuck in old ways just like theirs are becoming.

Uh, no, I was totally kidding. My post was only intended to be humerous. I am trying not to be so "preachy".

 

[TripleXBullies]

Nah, that one wasn't preachy.

 

[mtnwoman]

I am sticking up for Pluto! In my book it is totally planetary!!!

I think I will write a song about Pluto and try to make $$ for a charity to have it re-instated!!!

I 'believe' you can do it....lol.

 

[mtnwoman]

Your book? Why? Because it was what you were taught when you were a kid in school? Taught from a book that was written years ago. You may not agree with it, but the book writers changed their minds due to research and evidence. You call it a planet if you'd like to hang on to what you were taught as a kid by an old book. Our kids will believe with the same conviction that it is not... Your mind is molded and stuck in old ways just like theirs are becoming.

You don't think my history book of 1963 has changed??? What's the difference? Was I wrong to believe it then, and am I wrong because I know differently now? I'm not stuck there, I do have an open mind. The older I get the more I learn. What's the problem with that?
You've never changed your mind about what happened way back when?

ETA I know more about the Bible than I did in 1963, too. See any difference?

 

[bullethead]

At the very beginning of what we call time there was a spark, an ignition, an explosion to begin this universe. What we argue for, and against is how that happened. In the following words I will submit to you that it takes more faith to believe that this initial event happened randomly over someone having faith in a first mover, or a creator.

The idea that we are here randomly requires Atheist to believe that we came about through a LARGE amount of random actions/occurrences over billions of years. Fast forward to when life began on earth...In living cells, most catalysts are protein enzymes, composed of amino acids, but in the 1980s another kind of catalyst was discovered. These are RNA molecules composed of nucleotides that are now called ribozymes. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe. On top of knowing that improbability here is the reason why it does not make sense. If the universe was created by randomness and it's random chance that human's evolved THEN WHERE IS THE RANDOMNESS AT NOW???

Every where you look in our universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system and on our planet there is order. Let's look at two simple examples. Full disclosure: through my research I've saved some of this data off the internet. Most of it is my thoughts and words but SOME of it is copied from other sources.

First let's look at the Basics of Life.

Quark: Simply energy. Can’t be seen under any microscope. They exist in nature as pairs or triplets

Atom: Made from quarks. Has protons, neutrons. These make molecules. three quarks make a proton, and three are needed to make a neutron. An atom will have one or more protons and zero or more neutrons. But it will also have an electron for each proton, and this is not made from quarks. So, an atom is made from quarks, but not just quarks

Molecule: These are made from Atoms. Examples of molecules are: Hydrogen, Oxygen.

Organelle: Made of molecules and are the small organs in each cell. Examples in aminal cells are: Neucleus, Ribosome, Lysosome.

Cell: Made up of organelles. Cells are the building blocks of life. Cells are composed of organelles, but more: the are also made of cytoplasm containing those organelles and wrapped in a cell membrane

Tissue: Made from similar cells. Each organ has specific types of cells that make that particular organ and its parts.

Organ: A structure that contains at least two different types of tissue functioning together for a common purpose.(example muscle tissue, heart tissue) makeup an organ.

Organ System: Organ systems are composed of two or more different organs that work together to provide a common function. There are 10 major organ systems in the human body: Skeletal System, Muscular System, Circulatory System, Nervous System, Respiratory System, Digestive System, Excretory System, Endocrine System, Reproductive System and the Lymphatic/Immune System.

Organism: An organism is the person/thing. It is an individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus. It has a body made up of organ systems in the case of larger organisms.

Do you see the order here? From the smallest particles of life to the biggest organisms on that plant? The order of these particles and systems are a constant. You can not have the latter systems without the former. They build on each other. There is ZERO percent randomness happening here. Randomness CANNOT happen here and randomness has NEVER been observed here.

Let's talk about Phases of matter

There are four states of matter: Solids, Liquids, Gas, and Plasma. Every thing in the universe is made up of these four states. If we get into quantum mechanics you could talk about even more states of matter but we will keep it simple for this topic.

A phase change is the transformation of a thermodynamic system from one state of matter to another. Some examples would be when a solid turns into a gas it is called sublimation. When a solid is turned into a liquid we call it melting or fusion. From a gas into a solid it is called deposition. From a gas to plasma is called deionization. Every single time one of these thermodynamic systems are changed the results are ALWAYS constant. Randomness in these states of matter have never been observed and when scientist perform an experiment to change a liquid into a gas or a solid into a liquid it ALWAYS results in the same phase change. ALWAYS. NO RANDOMNESS. EVER.

Looking at some of the simplest but most important scientific processes we see order there with randomness being completely absent. Yet, when Atheist need an explanation of how we started they want to take a LEAP OF FAITH and tell us that it happened randomly even though science tells us this is almost impossible and very improbable.

Next, is the Coup de Grace. This was not written by me, but it speaks loudly to you who have faith in being here by chance.

"No scientist has ever observed anything in the universe that is self-creating and self-existing. If you know of anything you may well win the Nobel Prize. Everything ever observed on this planet and beyond is dependent on something proceeding. There is not a single thing in the universe that is self-existing, and not dependent in nature, including the universe itself, which is running down towards heat death and maximum entropy ( loss of usable energy, information and order): And ultimately won't have any energy to do anything, let alone wind itself up to its initial state. If it has no capability to wind itself up it too is dependent on something else, and therefore fully dependent (unless there is a external self-existing cosmic gas station that reverses the cosmic entropy process ).

To escape the necessity of a non-dependent transcendent cause outside the universe to the atrophic cosmic fine tuning, scientists normally head for the unverifiable faith based (theoretical) multiple universe option. The problem here is that as the multiple universes are all parallel equivalents to this universe, they too must be likewise dependent in nature, and also heading towards heat death. And if any of these has been around for an infinite amount of time they would have already reached heat death

There is no escape! As acknowledged by Nobel Prize winner, David Gross, one of the founders of string theory. We dont know what we are talking about. . .Strings and M-Theory are based on little more than fancy math and a grab-bag of ideas. (BBC Focus, May 2006.) Michio Kuku agrees: Once we try to mathematically calculate the quantum fluctuations that give rise to new universes, the answer blows up, in other words the theory becomes meaningless. (Astronomy. May 1996). Such beliefs are purely hypothetical, and therefore based on blind faith that prove nothing. Such God replacingconcepts are more imagined than real.

We are ultimately left with a dependentdying universe, that is unable to explain itself.

This ultimately leaves us with only two logical options. Either an infinite regress of "dependent" causes where nothing ever has the capacity to bring itself into existence, not ever. Or a non-dependent self-existing first cause, which is ultimately the only philosophical and scientific option to explain why anything exists: An infinite dependent regress is forever dependent on something other than itself, and thus there is never ever any basis for existence. Therefore, to ask the question as to who made God, is to automatically put God in the infinite dependent regress category which can never provide a basis for existence, and so the question is self defeating. [ Incidentally, both in philosophic and scientific terms, anything that is dependent is by nature limited, and anything limited cannot be self-existing.]

Also the belief that the universe was caused by a natural process alone is difficult to sustain, for many reasons, but primarily because methodological naturalism has absolutely no way to explain the origin of natural law naturalistically, nor the cosmological constants, nor the mathematical regularity of the universe. Which means the purely naturalistic is itself based on unverifiable blind faith. The bottom line is that an intelligent dependent effect, always ultimately demands a non-dependent self-existing first cause."

Last, please forgive me for the Asath style posting. My apologies.

..the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10^40,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth. --Victor J. Stenger

... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design

 

[TripleXBullies]

So you're telling me there's a chance.... ???? - Lloyd Christmas

a chance of 1 in 6 billion doesn't mean you have to try 6 billion times to get it to happen. Each "try" has that chance. If there is any chance, then try it once and it could happen.

 

[bullethead]

So you're telling me there's a chance.... ???? - Lloyd Christmas

a chance of 1 in 6 billion doesn't mean you have to try 6 billion times to get it to happen. Each "try" has that chance. If there is any chance, then try it once and it could happen.

Precisely.
It could happen on the first try, the last try, or at anytime in between.

 

[ambush80]

Precisely.
It could happen on the first try, the last try, or at anytime in between.

Furthermore the randomness may be happening innumerable times in a singe primordial drop of water, or in a puddle of water, or in innumerable puddles of water, or on innumerable planets---all at the the same time.

Could be happening right now somewhere.

 

[stringmusic]

Precisely.
It could happen on the first try, the last try, or at anytime in between.

Furthermore the randomness may be happening innumerable times in a singe primordial drop of water, or in a puddle of water, or in innumerable puddles of water, or on innumerable planets---all at the the same time.

Could be happening right now somewhere.

hmmmmm, either one of you want to show some evidence of this galactic science project taking place where we have seen results anywhere but here on earth?

If it's going on that much, seems like there would be "earths" all over.

It's a moot point, because you still have the problem of where the space goo came from to start the project, without a "scientist".

 

[bullethead]

hmmmmm, either one of you want to show some evidence of this galactic science project taking place where we have seen results anywhere but here on earth?

If it's going on that much, seems like there would be "earths" all over.

It's a moot point, because you still have the problem of where the space goo came from to start the project, without a "scientist".

Plenty of "earths" around.

Point is valid. Space goo was always around just like your "scientist" that is much harder to prove.

 

[bullethead]

hmmmmm, either one of you want to show some evidence of this galactic science project taking place where we have seen results anywhere but here on earth?

If it's going on that much, seems like there would be "earths" all over.

It's a moot point, because you still have the problem of where the space goo came from to start the project, without a "scientist".

Be serious, you had to be snickering when you wrote this right?
I mean because your asking others to provide what you yourself cannot. Whereas every star up in the sky provides the probability of an earth like we know it and planets that may be habitable by life unlike ours.

 

[stringmusic]

Plenty of "earths" around.

Where? I'm only aware of one.

Point is valid. Space goo was always around just like your "scientist" that is much harder to prove.

No, space goo hasn't always been around, do you want to go over the fact that matter can't be eternal agian?