ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 14th May 2012, 05:57 AM   #681
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
One of the problems with DNA as code is that in real codes, if you scramble it up (as DNA is mixed from parents to offspring), you don't get sensible code. And this isn't simply "error correction," it's actually new stuff -- evolution depends on this. Codes do not evolve. In fact, if they did, they wouldn't be useful as codes because the fidelity of the information would be lost.

This is why the monkeys can't type Shakespeare, but Shakespeare himself was actually born. Information is not created by the monkeys, but it is in evolution.

You, yourself are the product of this process. You did not exist as some subset of your great grandparents DNA. Although there may be some overlap and duplication, you are unique. And the many millions of possible people that were not born (because there wasn't a chance meeting between sperm and egg) between you and them would all have been unique -- new information. No code here. Perry has it wrong.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 06:00 AM   #682
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 93,742
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
That is odd behaviour, a god creating a whole universe and then fine tuning a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of it for us. What is the rest of it for?
Storage.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 06:42 AM   #683
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Storage.
God needed someplace to put his ego.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:04 AM   #684
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Storage.
A man can't have everything. Where would he put it all? God seems to have solved this problem.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:08 AM   #685
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
its the result of evolution, in the same way as a book, or a computer code cold be result of evolution ? gimme a break.... you believe in santa claus as well ?
Are those books and computer codes reproducing?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:11 AM   #686
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Romans 2:14-15 and 3:20 and 23:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them . . . . For no human being will be justified in [Godís] sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin . . . . All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Revised Standard Version)


http://hope.edu/academic/english/sch...es/MCstudy.htm






its remarable how science has no clue, why the oxygen level is at exact
21%, which makes life actually possible , and not more, or less . Lets see what scientific american magazine writes about the issue :



fact is, that the oxygen level is finely tuned to life :

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/anth...rinciples.html



that is one of the amazing evidence , that our universe, and earth system, is finely tuned to life.
The atmosphere is transparent enough for us to see thru it. OMGG.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:18 AM   #687
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
naturalism is the foundation of strong atheism, which declares, that God most probably does not exist. Please present good reasons, why you believe this world view to be the best explanation for our existence.
Because there is no evidence for alternative deistic proposal ?

As somebody said, parsimony principle ?

Why would i need unicorn or dragon to explain our existence when (in order of appearance) big bang, star formation, planet formation , abiogenesis, evolution, and finally history is enough to explain my existence ?
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:24 AM   #688
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,899
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
A book needs a brain to write it ?

A computer code needs a brain to write it ?

but a DNA code doesnt need one ? how come ? please explain.....
False dilemma.

I sit in a house.
Next to me is another house.
Must there be another house next?

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:26 AM   #689
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,859
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
One of the problems with DNA as code is that in real codes, if you scramble it up (as DNA is mixed from parents to offspring), you don't get sensible code. And this isn't simply "error correction," it's actually new stuff -- evolution depends on this. Codes do not evolve. In fact, if they did, they wouldn't be useful as codes because the fidelity of the information would be lost.

This is why the monkeys can't type Shakespeare, but Shakespeare himself was actually born. Information is not created by the monkeys, but it is in evolution.

You, yourself are the product of this process. You did not exist as some subset of your great grandparents DNA. Although there may be some overlap and duplication, you are unique. And the many millions of possible people that were not born (because there wasn't a chance meeting between sperm and egg) between you and them would all have been unique -- new information. No code here. Perry has it wrong.
Yes; Whether DNA fits one or other definition of 'code' is a bit of a red-herring; the point is that it is an undirected accumulation of information. The monkey Shakespeare analogy is neither appropriate nor relevant; the accretion of information in DNA is a cumulative process of repeated cycles of variation and selection through the generations.

I sometimes think that it may be the extraordinary simplicity of the basic idea that causes evolution deniers to miss the point - as if they're expecting something more complicated. But then I think about the breeding programs that have given us wonderful fruit & veg, beautiful flowers, and dog breeds of many shapes & sizes, and realise that if those aren't clues enough, it must be ignorance, willful stupidity, or some fundamental problem with the workings of their reason or the wiring of their brains.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:28 AM   #690
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
these are all GUIDED processes......nothing new here....
I'll say that next time a souffle fails; 'sorry guys, I did not guide the process enough'.

The fact is that it is a bunch of chemicals doing their chemical thing, nothing more.

They happen to be together because someone (and it might have been by pure chance if you wait long enough) happened to throw them together.

They were not DESIGNED to react this way.

By the way... saying something is a 'guided' process is of course silly; the process will go it's way with or without supervision.
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi
"But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin
---
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:30 AM   #691
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,167
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
these are all GUIDED processes......nothing new here....
So's evolution. It's guided by the environment.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:35 AM   #692
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
No. A book doesn't need a brain to write it. If you set a computer to typesetting all the possible books of a particular length, starting with, say, all blanks eventually you would get to the book that is all zs, and would have every book of that length that it is possible to write. A lot of those books wouldn't be very interesting, but they would be books. If you picked one at random, it probably would seem like a random jumbling. But if it's long enough, somewhere in that set is Shakespeare's Complete Works.
Along with all the possible typos and combinations of typos it's possible to make.
And Romeo and Juliet with a happy ending. And all the translations into other languages. And a parody that is really funny, too.

So it doesn't take a mind to write a book. It takes a mind to recognize a book.
http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/20-typing.htm

Quote:
It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143).
Shouldn't that be NO chance in whatever number you attempted to reproduce? After all, your position is not "There's a small chance this could happen." As I understand it, your position is: "This couldn't happen at all."

I think you'll find the numbers should be 27100 and 10143.

But if you'd been reading carefully, you would have noticed that my example didn't use random numbers. The process I described absolutely will produce the works of Shakespeare every single time the program is run to completion. It doesn't rely on monkeys or brains. The chance that it will produce Shakespeare is one in one.

Last edited by TjW; 14th May 2012 at 07:37 AM.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:37 AM   #693
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
because natural explanations are not satisfying to explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, chemical evolution, arise of life, and biodiversity.
Origin of the Universe: How can you claim that naturalism cannot explain something that we are not even sure happened? Cosmologists are working very hard to see what they can learn about the nature of this universe. But, so far, we don't even know enough to know if there even was an origin of the universe. We just can't "see" far enough back in time to know what the true nature of the Big Bang is. You are only taking advantage of the darkness to claim that your god lives there.

Fine Tuning: What fine tuning? We don't know to what degrees the forces of nature could have been varied, or even if they could have been varied at all. The Earth is but one of trillions of trillions of stars. Even if we only estimate an average of one septillion stars and about 10 planets per star, we get something like 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. And this still assumes that the life we have on Earth is the only possible configuration. But even on this planet, we have an impressive variety of life forms that utilize different biochemistries and live in an extraordinary range of habitats. So again, I ask you, what fine tuning?

Chemical Evolution: What about the evolution of chemicals cannot be explained by natural forces? We know how hydrogen atoms are forged into the entire periodic table of elements. We understand chemical interactions as the exchange of electrons and thermodynamic interactions. We're even learning how the components of hydrogen atoms became hydrogen thanks to the efforts of physicists working on supercollider projects. What do you think can only be explained by your god?

Rise of Life: We don't yet know exactly how the first self-replicating organic polymers formed or what their exact configuration was, but there is nothing to suggest that it could not have occurred according to known chemical laws. Name one aspect of abiogenesis that could not have occurred naturally.

Biodiversity: The great variety of life forms on this planet are easily understood as resulting from the process of evolution by natural selection. There is no mystery here.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:38 AM   #694
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So's evolution. It's guided by the environment.

Dave
And rivers are 'guided' to the sea by gravity and geology.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:48 AM   #695
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,167
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
And rivers are 'guided' to the sea by gravity and geology.
Good point. Without divine intervention, simple statistics dictate that 50% of rivers should flow uphill.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:50 AM   #696
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,947
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
fact is, that the oxygen level is finely tuned to life :

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/anth...rinciples.html
LOL. You guys need to get your stories straight. Your link claims the speed of light can't vary but other creationists insist it must have in order to deny radioactive decay rates.

You do know the oxygen has changed a lot on planet Earth? Apparently not.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:52 AM   #697
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
I think I should point out that naturalism is a movable feast. It shadows the movements in science.

GIBHOR, it is pointless to argue against the conclusions of naturalism. It is not clearly defined and will just fire scientific facts back at you.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:54 AM   #698
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
And rivers are 'guided' to the sea by gravity and geology.
Oh Come on.
It is amazing that the river is so perfectly fine tuned to support the flow of water that it carriers. There are simply too many different geometries and flow patterns to have existed. There is no principle in nature that would permit such fine tuning.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:56 AM   #699
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 16,998
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Storage.
God is a hoarder. He hoards . . . space.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 07:58 AM   #700
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I think I should point out that naturalism is a movable feast. It shadows the movements in science.

GIBHOR, it is pointless to argue against the conclusions of naturalism. It is not clearly defined and will just fire scientific facts back at you.
I think this goes here.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 08:44 AM   #701
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Quote:
Information is not created by the monkeys, but it is in evolution.
Outside of very limited areas the concept of "information" is essentially meaningless. It's not a useful concept when discussing evolution. Again, DNA acts as a substrait, upon which certain enzymes act during specific chemical processes. While there are strict definitions of "information", from a biological standpoint it's irrelevant because it's the chemical processes that matter, not whether they add, deleat, or alter information.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
See, one of the joys of being an actual professional in a field relevant to this topic is that I get to make up my own mind about these sorts of things. I've done enough research to conclude, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the idea of DNA as a code isn't accurate. Dawkins IS WRONG here. DNA isn't very precise; in fact, computer programmers would consider DNA incredibly poorly coded (speghetti code, I've heard it called).
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 08:45 AM   #702
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
these are all GUIDED processes......nothing new here....
That is asserting the conclusion, where is your evidence that DNA is a guded process?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 08:53 AM   #703
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I think I should point out that naturalism is a movable feast. It shadows the movements in science.

GIBHOR, it is pointless to argue against the conclusions of naturalism. It is not clearly defined and will just fire scientific facts back at you.
Science doesn't make the pretense to absolute knowledge that so many religions do. It is openly acknowledged as a learning process. Everything in science is open to refinement or rejection based on further discovery. You try to portray this as a weakness of science, but it is actually its greatest strength. Do you think that modern cosmology is to be rejected because we no longer think that the Earth is the center of the universe, or that the Milky Way is the entire universe? Is modern medicine invalidated by the fact that we no longer attempt to balance the humours? Religions make assertions about the universe that are claimed to be divine revelation and are then humiliated by their inflexibility as knowledge grows. Science fully admits that there is much more to be learned and that our understanding of the universe will improve as new generations build upon the discoveries of those who came before. When our scientific understanding of the universe changes, it is a triumph of science. It is progress in an ongoing process.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 08:58 AM   #704
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,270
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
I think this goes here.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know. Important things."

Ned Flanders
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 08:59 AM   #705
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I think I should point out that naturalism is a movable feast. It shadows the movements in science.

GIBHOR, it is pointless to argue against the conclusions of naturalism. It is not clearly defined and will just fire scientific facts back at you.
Correct. Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:28 AM   #706
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
It's the other way around, GIBHOR.
oh, sure it is....keep on going with your amazing faith in naturalism......
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:30 AM   #707
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Because it is a fictional book written by primitive tribesmen.
It seems you have no clue who were the authors of the bible.


and why is naturalism not fictional ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:32 AM   #708
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Why not?
because the odds are too big
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:34 AM   #709
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,750
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Correct. Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view.
Is that all your own work?
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

They for example thought that slavery was perfectly fine, absolutely OK, and then they didn't and what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says "Oh we couldn't know better because no one else did" THEN WHAT ARE YOU FOR? - Stephen Fry
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:37 AM   #710
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
That is odd behaviour, a god creating a whole universe and then fine tuning a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny fraction of it for us. What is the rest of it for?
http://www.firstscience.com/home/art...-2-1_1230.html

Quote:
The tremendous timespans involved in biological evolution offer a new perspective on the question 'why is our Universe so big?' The emergence of human life here on Earth has taken 4.5 billion years. Even before our Sun and its planets could form, earlier stars must have transmuted pristine hydrogen into carbon, oxygen and the other atoms of the periodic table. This has taken about ten billion years. The size of the observable Universe is, roughly, the distance travelled by light since the Big Bang, and so the present visible Universe must be around ten billion light-years across.
The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the light from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
This is a startling conclusion. The very hugeness of our Universe, which seems at first to signify how unimportant we are in the cosmic scheme, is actually entailed by our existence! This is not to say that there couldn't have been a smaller universe, only that we could not have existed in it. The expanse of cosmic space is not an extravagant superiority; it's a consequence of the prolonged chain of events, extending back before our Solar System formed, that preceded our arrival on the scene.
This may seem a regression to an ancient 'anthropocentric' perspective - something that was shattered by Copernicus's revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. But we shouldn't take Copernican modesty (some-times called the 'principle of mediocrity') too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved, so our perspective is bound to be in some sense atypical. The vastness of our universe shouldn't surprise us, even though we may still seek a deeper explanation for its distinctive features.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:39 AM   #711
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,587
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Do you have joobz on ignore? Or do you not understand the puddle analogy?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:41 AM   #712
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by marplots View Post

But when I look around me, I see DNA everywhere and more being made all the time.
how do you mean, more being made all the time ? more being copyed ? or new dna being formed ? if this is the case, please show me....


Quote:
I don't see any agency doing it. Now, I suppose you could say that the whole process was designed, but I don't see why you would think each bit of DNA was.
so how did it come to be then ?

Quote:
Where is it that the design of DNA entered the equation? Is it ongoing, some time in the distant past, or maybe something even before DNA that led to DNA? If there is a design, I'd like to find out more about how it was done, because a hallmark of design is a recipe you can transmit to others. Without that, I'll have to go with "seems natural."
as already said, codified information as contained in DNA is known ONLY of being the result of a mind. If you know a natural origin, please show me.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:42 AM   #713
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Is that all your own work?
I did just make it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if it exists already.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:44 AM   #714
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
One of the problems with DNA as code is that in real codes, if you scramble it up (as DNA is mixed from parents to offspring), you don't get sensible code. And this isn't simply "error correction," it's actually new stuff -- evolution depends on this. Codes do not evolve. In fact, if they did, they wouldn't be useful as codes because the fidelity of the information would be lost.

This is why the monkeys can't type Shakespeare, but Shakespeare himself was actually born. Information is not created by the monkeys, but it is in evolution.

You, yourself are the product of this process. You did not exist as some subset of your great grandparents DNA. Although there may be some overlap and duplication, you are unique. And the many millions of possible people that were not born (because there wasn't a chance meeting between sperm and egg) between you and them would all have been unique -- new information. No code here. Perry has it wrong.
so the first dna to make the first living being came to be how exactly ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:45 AM   #715
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
and why is naturalism not fictional ?
because it is based on facts.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:45 AM   #716
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Are those books and computer codes reproducing?
no. if they could, it would prove we humans being at the intelligence level of the creator.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:46 AM   #717
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
so the first dna to make the first living being came to be how exactly ?
So the first river came to be how exactly?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:47 AM   #718
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
The atmosphere is transparent enough for us to see thru it. OMGG.
which is possible because of fine tuning as well :

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/anth...rinciples.html

Quote:
Anthropic Constant 2: Atmospheric Transparency
If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth’s surface. If it were more transparent we would be bombarded with far roo much solar radiation down here. (In addition to atmospheric transparency, the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and ozone are in themselves Anthropic constants).
wherever you look around you, you'll find evidence of Gods existence. Only spiritually blind people are unable to see the evidence.

GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:48 AM   #719
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
So the first river came to be how exactly?
through Gods creative act
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th May 2012, 09:49 AM   #720
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post

Why would i need unicorn or dragon to explain our existence when (in order of appearance) big bang, star formation, planet formation , abiogenesis, evolution, and finally history is enough to explain my existence ?
What was the cause of the big bang, planets, life, bio diversity ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.