SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Excellent discussion. Basically it's a mathematical impossibility.
To get to the brass tacks scroll to 7.40 mark, but again the entire video is very informative.
Last edited:
Welcome Guest!
The debunking of the theory of the spontaneous, unguided origin of life.
- Thread starter SemperFiDawg
- Start date
Excellent discussion. Basically it's a mathematical impossibility.
To get to the brass tacks scroll to 7.40 mark, but again the entire video is very informative.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Another from excellent video from Stephen Meyer discussing the limitations of experimental chemistry in simulating a pre-biotic earth. The 25 minute mark begins to address the stake through the heart.
Last edited:
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Best thing about external accounting critiques is that thanks to internet platforms, these critiques being heard is now NOT completely dependent on the the closed scientific community publishing them......which is EXACTLY what they should have been doing. The scientific community as a whole has long since abandoned the virtuosity of the scientific model in rejecting theories that are disproven and sold its soul to protect the cash cow that they have worshiped since at least the 1950s and 60s.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Only what can happen,will happen.
Let's establish this first: Meyer is not a biologist, he is a historian and philospher of science.
Has he solved the mathematical probability of "who" is the intelligent designer?
This is a reasonable critique of Meyer dating back to 2009,which Meyer still continues to not be able to address since.
www.discovermagazine.com
Let's establish this first: Meyer is not a biologist, he is a historian and philospher of science.
Has he solved the mathematical probability of "who" is the intelligent designer?
This is a reasonable critique of Meyer dating back to 2009,which Meyer still continues to not be able to address since.
More of Stephen Meyer's Bad History of Science
More of Stephen Meyer's Bad History of Science
www.discovermagazine.com
oldfella1962
Senior Member
I don't know much about Stephen Meyer - but Dr. James Tour?
Check out what Dr. Tour's colleagues think about him. There's a you tube video (from Professor Dave again) exposing his standing among some of his scientific peers. Regardless, it's good to see believers in the AA & A bringing some science into their claims & opinions - even if I disagree with them - rather just "for the Bible tells me so" as their evidence.
oldfella1962
Senior Member
'Who" is the intelligent designer?Only what can happen,will happen.
Let's establish this first: Meyer is not a biologist, he is a historian and philospher of science.
Has he solved the mathematical probability of "who" is the intelligent designer?
This is a reasonable critique of Meyer dating back to 2009,which Meyer still continues to not be able to address since.
More of Stephen Meyer's Bad History of Science
More of Stephen Meyer's Bad History of Science
Since there are thousands of different religions on the planet, this might take a while to narrow it down to a "short list" of likely contenders. I'm going with "none of the above" but I am not a professional biologist, historian nor philosopher of science.That is similar to what has always been my belief on the subject. It is an obvious near infinitesimal mathematical possibility to have started spontaneously like that. No experiments needed to make that statement due to the EXTREMELY complex chemical interactions that would be needed for even a single cell to emerge as a life form.
So I actually hope one day someone will prove the spontaneous event did actually happen. They never will of course, because that is beyond human capability or understanding. But whoever does prove it then also has the honor of having proved the existence of a higher power, due to the statistical impossibility of it being entirely spontaneous.
And probably only ONE higher power, despite all the different religions on earth (although that will still get debated even then).
So my opinion is still that God created everything but how and how long it took to do it I have no clue. That was all up to Him.
So I actually hope one day someone will prove the spontaneous event did actually happen. They never will of course, because that is beyond human capability or understanding. But whoever does prove it then also has the honor of having proved the existence of a higher power, due to the statistical impossibility of it being entirely spontaneous.
And probably only ONE higher power, despite all the different religions on earth (although that will still get debated even then).
So my opinion is still that God created everything but how and how long it took to do it I have no clue. That was all up to Him.
Last edited:
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Only what can happen,will happen.
Let's establish this first: Meyer is not a biologist, he is a historian and philospher of science.
Has he solved the mathematical probability of "who" is the intelligent designer?
This is a reasonable critique of Meyer dating back to 2009,which Meyer still continues to not be able to address since.
More of Stephen Meyer's Bad History of Science
More of Stephen Meyer's Bad History of Science
That's the great thing about mathematics:it's true regardless of whether one is honest or dishonest, a carpenter or an astrophysicist.
That's a question science can't answer, it's enough to show there is one.
The author of that post is Chris Mooney. He has a Bachelors Degree.....in Arts. Discovery Institute is not a serious scientific journal by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not trying to launch as ad hominem attack, but DI is basically Pop Science with a heavy Liberal agenda. Mooney writes for the Washington Post covering Climate Change and previously wrote for Mother Jones. If that doesn't indicate his ideological bent, I don't know what would....Mother Jones. Some of Mooneys articles for DI include:
Institute of Medicine Slams Anti-Vaxxers, Again
Institute of Medicine Slams Anti-Vaxxers, Again
www.discovermagazine.com
and
The Republican War on Science Returns
The Republican War on Science Returns
www.discovermagazine.com
For Mother Jones he's penned
The science of why cops shoot young Black men
And how to reform our bigoted brains.
www.motherjones.com
The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men
Tonight’s PBS Special Makes The Most Powerful Argument For Vaccines Yet
A new NOVA special, "Vaccines: Calling the Shots," stands up for science.
www.motherjones.com
Tonight’s PBS Special Makes The Most Powerful Argument For Vaccines Yet
All this to say I wouldn't hang my hat on Mooney's opinion as it's neither informed not objective.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Professor Dave per RationalWikiI don't know much about Stephen Meyer - but Dr. James Tour?
Bleach??? That's a first for me. I've never heard that charge leveled against Trump.
Again, I personally could not put a lot of stock into any opinion coming from someone with this bent,....but there is a hint of a pattern emerging from both authors cited.
Regardless, and again, mathematics don't lie.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
While I am no fan of Mooney, his critique of Meyer is solid.That's the great thing about mathematics:it's true regardless of whether one is honest or dishonest, a carpenter or an astrophysicist.
That's a question science can't answer, it's enough to show there is one.
The author of that post is Chris Mooney. He has a Bachelors Degree.....in Arts. Discovery Institute is not a serious scientific journal by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not trying to launch as ad hominem attack, but DI is basically Pop Science with a heavy Liberal agenda. Mooney writes for the Washington Post covering Climate Change and previously wrote for Mother Jones. If that doesn't indicate his ideological bent, I don't know what would....Mother Jones. Some of Mooneys articles for DI include:
Institute of Medicine Slams Anti-Vaxxers, Again
Institute of Medicine Slams Anti-Vaxxers, Again
and
The Republican War on Science Returns
The Republican War on Science Returns
For Mother Jones he's penned
The science of why cops shoot young Black men
And how to reform our bigoted brains.The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men
Tonight’s PBS Special Makes The Most Powerful Argument For Vaccines Yet
A new NOVA special, "Vaccines: Calling the Shots," stands up for science.Tonight’s PBS Special Makes The Most Powerful Argument For Vaccines Yet
All this to say I wouldn't hang my hat on Mooney's opinion as it's neither informed not objective.
Math, like the scientific principals, doesn't lie. And neither are able to point to a source, the source, or anything specific about who or what designed anything. Math tells the odds, science sets the parameters, and yet here we are. Only the minds of man leap to conclusions about what math or science cannot.
WaltL1
Senior Member
Mathematics cannot and does not point to a God.
Mathematics can point to odds, probabilities, 1 + 1 = 2 etc.
It takes man to decide if the math doesnt add up to them well then it MUST mean "this".
Mathematics doesnt have a brain to say "hey this doesnt add up so it means this".
As if a God is the ONLY possible answer to why the math doesnt work.
Mathematics can point to odds, probabilities, 1 + 1 = 2 etc.
It takes man to decide if the math doesnt add up to them well then it MUST mean "this".
Mathematics doesnt have a brain to say "hey this doesnt add up so it means this".
As if a God is the ONLY possible answer to why the math doesnt work.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Maybe, maybe not, but it's still a character critique. If he want's to be seen as a serious thinker he needs to engage the evidence and not the author.
SemperFiDawg
Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
It points to a guided process which rationally points to an agent. That is without question and there's no getting around it. Not throwing rocks at you personally or anyone else for that matter, but what I find astounding is all the atheist who extoll the virtues of science and the scientific process abandon it like a burning house when facts may threaten their world-view. It's mighty close if not synonomous with what the church did to Galileo. Be careful because that ditch of hypocrisy is broad, deep and has treacherous slopes. Integrity means we follow the truth science reveals regardless of the consequences or where it takes us. I think we can all agree on that, the pinch comes in actually doing it. Again, this is not a personal attack on anyone. I'm preaching to myself as much as anyone else.
oldfella1962
Senior Member
"But whoever does prove it then also has the honor of having proved the existence of a higher power, due to the statistical impossibility of it being entirely spontaneous". - Old stick
I respectfully disagree (partially) with your statement because AFAIK there is no direct correlation between solving any problem so complex it is deemed "beyond human understanding" (until it isn't unsolvable anymore) and proving the existence of a higher power. If anything, solving problems has the opposite effect. People used to think lightning was amazing & mysterious and had supernatural origins. Now nearly everyone understands that lightning is a very common, natural process.
I do agree that IF there is a "higher power" that created the universe there can only be one, since the universe we currently inhabit - if it was created versus eternal - could have only been created once. That said there is no smoking gun evidence for any of the creator gods currently worshipped.
But with our current knowledge of the infinite nature of the universe, you have to step back and think about the big picture and the sources and origins of everything.
Start local with life on Earth. Suppose it was all the result of eons of time and evolution. Then you have to answer how did the evolutionary process start? Our current understanding of nature, physics, chemistry and statistics yield overwhelming odds of a life form developing at random chance. So the missing piece is how did it start?
Then flash forward in evolutionary time to the rise of the first human's thoughts. What is that hot yellow ball in the air that rises and sinks into darkness every day?. Then what are those twinkling things and the yellow ball at night. Where did they come from and who put them there? Obviously we didn't do it. What are those fluffy things that drop water and shoot sparks? And where did all this ground we walk on water, plants and animals, come from? Where did we come from?? They certainly had no clues other than there must be some power out there bigger than themselves.
Flash forward to today and science supposedly has theories as to origins of life on Earth. I don't blindly reject any of it if they can prove it. But the proof has to also include proof of the sources and origins.
Then back on up from the Earth. What created all that stuff we know in the universe and how big is the actual universe? Theory, something went bang and created it all. Then you have explain what that "thing that went bang" was and when and where did it come from? Then you have explain where the origin thing came from and on an on back into infinity of time.
So primitive man had primitive means of explaining what they observed. Today, thousands of years later, we have a lot more knowledge of nature through scientific research but the further we advance in knowledge the more conclusive it becomes that some power beyond our comprehension was involved in the creation of the universe.
Start local with life on Earth. Suppose it was all the result of eons of time and evolution. Then you have to answer how did the evolutionary process start? Our current understanding of nature, physics, chemistry and statistics yield overwhelming odds of a life form developing at random chance. So the missing piece is how did it start?
Then flash forward in evolutionary time to the rise of the first human's thoughts. What is that hot yellow ball in the air that rises and sinks into darkness every day?. Then what are those twinkling things and the yellow ball at night. Where did they come from and who put them there? Obviously we didn't do it. What are those fluffy things that drop water and shoot sparks? And where did all this ground we walk on water, plants and animals, come from? Where did we come from?? They certainly had no clues other than there must be some power out there bigger than themselves.
Flash forward to today and science supposedly has theories as to origins of life on Earth. I don't blindly reject any of it if they can prove it. But the proof has to also include proof of the sources and origins.
Then back on up from the Earth. What created all that stuff we know in the universe and how big is the actual universe? Theory, something went bang and created it all. Then you have explain what that "thing that went bang" was and when and where did it come from? Then you have explain where the origin thing came from and on an on back into infinity of time.
So primitive man had primitive means of explaining what they observed. Today, thousands of years later, we have a lot more knowledge of nature through scientific research but the further we advance in knowledge the more conclusive it becomes that some power beyond our comprehension was involved in the creation of the universe.
oldfella1962
Senior Member
Atheists don't have a monolithic "worldview". Some atheists don't give two hoots about scientific facts, while some atheists are obsessed with scientific facts/the scientific process. Atheism just means not believing in a god or gods. That said, so far ZERO "scientific" facts definitively & legitimately pass the accepted peer-reviewed criteria for "pointing to an agent" concerning the existence of the universe. Bottom line science/math cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural, because the supernatural cannot be tested nor measured nor defined nor examined. It's like trying to hear an AM radio broadcast with an FM radio receiver. The two things may as well be nonexistent to each other because they cannot interact with each other.
oldfella1962
Senior Member
"Then you have to answer how did the evolutionary process start? Our current understanding of nature, physics, chemistry and statistics yield overwhelming odds of a life form developing at random chance. So the missing piece is how did it start?" - why does it have to be a binary choice between "random chance" and "god did it"? You admit that the universe could be of an infinite nature. Wouldn't an infinite universe have infinite possibilities? My point is there could be a natural (versus supernatural) process involved in how/why the universe - and specifically our planet - operates the way it does. There are probably countless options between random chance and "outside/supernatural agency" that humans are unaware of.
oldfella1962
Senior Member
Sorry but nothing is "conclusive" just because we don't have a definite answer. Not having a definite answer means the answer to our question remains "inconclusive". Yes we can make up a default answer "it MUST be god!" but every single time in the history of mankind "it MUST be god" eventually turned out to be the wrong answer. So why would any questions we have in the year 2024 CE be unique or special compared to questions humans had in 2024 BCE? "Mathematically" the odds point to "it MUST be god!" being wrong yet again IMHO. Also past performance is often an indicator of future performance, taking math pretty much off the table.
Not giving any disrespect to you, Oldfellow. I am just stating what my beliefs are. My own Mom would probably disown me if she read what I posted above.
I am a guy that was born and raised with Christian beliefs but I don't see any real conflicts between the accounts in Genesis and the current theories proposed by the scientific communities.
The Genesis version a metaphoric account of creation written by someone who couldn't have possibly been around to witness it. But that still leaves the scientific community an enormous task to disprove a higher power involved. The more they learn, and the longer in time involved for the processes, the harder that proof becomes for them.
I am a guy that was born and raised with Christian beliefs but I don't see any real conflicts between the accounts in Genesis and the current theories proposed by the scientific communities.
The Genesis version a metaphoric account of creation written by someone who couldn't have possibly been around to witness it. But that still leaves the scientific community an enormous task to disprove a higher power involved. The more they learn, and the longer in time involved for the processes, the harder that proof becomes for them.
WaltL1
Senior Member
First -
Not taking it as you are. Glad you posted something to discuss/debate.
Nobody is abandoning science. Nor are we threatened by "facts" that arent facts. You are jumping from the math doesnt work to that means theres an agent.. theres no facts to back that up and it fails to consider any other possibilities. It just means the math doesnt work. And the math doesnt show 0 chance, literally impossible.
Integrity also means understanding that todays scientific truth also means that truth may get proven wrong or revised as we learn more. Because thats how science works.
As for world view, there's plenty of AAs (such as myself) whose world views are flexible. Dont have a problem with "we dont know yet".
Prove a God and my world view will include a God. But you arent going get there using mathematics.
Similar threads
