Author Topic: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution  (Read 3082 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BornAgainAtheist

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Spell Check
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2012, 01:10:51 PM »
Wow!  It's hard for me to believe that anyone who comes to WWGHA a theist actually leaves a theist.  It feels like I've been mauled in the face by the truth.  Thank you.
My hair is a bird.  Your argument is invalid.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2012, 01:16:31 PM »
welcome BAA.  Religion has a strong hold.  Keeping one's religion is just a matter of being willfully ignorant and lazy. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BornAgainAtheist

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Spell Check
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2012, 03:00:06 PM »
Thanks Velkyn.  You know I've been a fly on the wall of these forums for just over a few months now.  I've read a lot of posts.  You're one of my favorite contributors.  I'm glad to have had you respond to my first post.

It was fear that made me hold on for so long.    >:(
My hair is a bird.  Your argument is invalid.

Offline BornAgainAtheist

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Spell Check
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2012, 03:01:31 PM »
...and WWGHA that helped me let go.   :)
My hair is a bird.  Your argument is invalid.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2012, 03:15:05 PM »
...and WWGHA that helped me let go.   :)

good for you.  I was a Christain too and that fear is a "helluva" thing  :)  As you probably have noted in my posts, I find that fear and greed are about the only sticks and carrots religion has anymore.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline RNS

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Darwins +12/-1
  • Diplomat
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2012, 03:44:30 PM »
fear is the cornerstone of any powerful organisation
love and truth and love of truth

Offline Samothec

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Darwins +49/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2012, 04:30:13 PM »
No offence, but i'm going to post no more here, but certainly in other threads. Feel free to start a new one ;D
Is that what you're prone to do ? Bail on thread that gets too hot to handle ?  &)

Hot? Heck, this was barely luke-warm. If he's going to bail like this when it's only luke-warm, imagine how little he'll contribute in an actually heated thread.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2012, 07:08:38 PM »
Wow!  It's hard for me to believe that anyone who comes to WWGHA a theist actually leaves a theist.  It feels like I've been mauled in the face by the truth.  Thank you.
Wow!  Best post ever.

You're Welcome.   That's what we're here to do!


Cue up "Imperial March", ah, my day is complete.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2061
  • Darwins +221/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2012, 07:34:16 PM »
To summarise my whole perspective...no matter how many scientists tell me its reasonable to believe that our world is random, I look at the world, I see design, I see a designer, and I believe Him to be God.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"    - Douglas Adams

Was the hole 'designed' for the puddle, magicmiles?  Or was does the puddle of water just happen to fit the hole?   

Yours is a position of ignorance and severe closed-mindedness.  The vast majority of atheists would convert to a religion immediately if they were shown verifiable proof that there was a god.  And by verifiable proof, I mean the same type of proof that has led us to accept all sorts of other things such as germ theory, molecular theory, evolution, etc... So if you think we are unable to be swayed by evidence, you're 100% wrong.  It is you who seems to be unwilling to consider that you might be nothing more than the puddle that thinks the hole was made for you.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think this universe was designed for us.  There is just way too much evidence against it.   
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Rustybeatz

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2012, 12:21:19 AM »
I can tell you that when I think of science I have in mind observations and experiments, i have a vague understanding that these observations need to be repeated and have things like a hypothesis and controls.

I'm kind of over discussing science for now.

awwww, poor thing. As soon as you are shown to be wrong, you want to run away.  Grow a pair, MM, if you have such great faith, surely a little education isn't so scary.  You benefit from science and the scientific method everyday.  YOU just whine when it shows your best invisible friend to be imaginary.  You claim that your god is real, but haven't one shred of evidence to support that, and you ignore anything that shows your religion to be just as beleivable as the next one.  Golly, Christians have major changes in their lives?  So do Muslims! So do Wicca!

I've heard a saying that goes something like "truth doesn't run away from questions".  And yet, he is running away.  Hmmm....

Offline BornAgainAtheist

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Spell Check
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2012, 03:42:28 PM »
Wow!  It's hard for me to believe that anyone who comes to WWGHA a theist actually leaves a theist.  It feels like I've been mauled in the face by the truth.  Thank you.
Wow!  Best post ever.

You're Welcome.   That's what we're here to do!


Cue up "Imperial March", ah, my day is complete.

 ;D

Thanks Cyberia.
My hair is a bird.  Your argument is invalid.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2012, 05:56:32 AM »
To summarise my whole perspective...no matter how many scientists tell me its reasonable to believe that our world is random, I look at the world, I see design, I see a designer, and I believe Him to be God.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"    - Douglas Adams

Was the hole 'designed' for the puddle, magicmiles?  Or was does the puddle of water just happen to fit the hole?   

Yours is a position of ignorance and severe closed-mindedness.  The vast majority of atheists would convert to a religion immediately if they were shown verifiable proof that there was a god.  And by verifiable proof, I mean the same type of proof that has led us to accept all sorts of other things such as germ theory, molecular theory, evolution, etc... So if you think we are unable to be swayed by evidence, you're 100% wrong.  It is you who seems to be unwilling to consider that you might be nothing more than the puddle that thinks the hole was made for you.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think this universe was designed for us.  There is just way too much evidence against it.   

rather the oposit is the case. There was never more evidence that the universe was designed to create life, than today.

Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2012, 02:49:34 PM »
But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done.

I call bullshit.  You are puking out a lot of tripe without backing anything up.  Where does this number come from?  Show your work.  State your assumptions.  Explain why your assumptions are valid.

Xians love to state odds.  In my experience, the odds of any of them knowing enough about statistics to throw those numbers around approaches zero.

It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ?

How many planets have been actually searched for life?  Mars for sure.  What other planets?  How thorough has the search been?  How sure are we they are lifeless?

We're not even sure Mars is lifeless.


Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy.

How far is too far?  What are the consequences of being too far or too close?  Show your work.

The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth.

you know, both of those change over time.  So when the moon was closer 3 million years ago, was it the wrong distance?

The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one.

right for what?  What if either were larger or smaller?  Show your work.

Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle.

How sure are you other planets don't?  What is the basis of your certitude?  Show your work.

Jupiter attracts all asteroids

No.  It attracts many asteroids

The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun.

No, that would be the ozone layer.

The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right.

just right for what?  what if it were different?  Show your work.

And so is the axial tilt of the earth.

just right for what?  what if it were different?  Show your work.

Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth,

wtf are you talking about?  You know there was more volcanic activity millions of years ago and there was life, right?

To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith.

To think all this was designed just for us, a species of hairless, talking chimps, is absurdly narcissistic and vain.

This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

then theism is on thin ice.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11040
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2012, 02:53:02 PM »
then theism is on thin ice.

I thought it was already in the water... My mistake.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6459
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2012, 03:07:12 PM »
rather the oposit is the case. There was never more evidence that the universe was designed to create life, than today.

Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

Sorry to see that your return key broke while you were typing that second paragraph. You have my condolences.

Most of the parameters you are so impressed by could differ and still allow for life. It just might not be human, an issue near and dear to most of our hearts. If the world were wetter for instance, you might still exist, but you would have had to write your post using tentacles.

By the way, if our universe exists alongside an infinite number of other universes, then 10500 is nothing. Nothing at all. We end up being inevitable.

And of course I have to ask, if the odds of our being here, puny beings that we are, are so small, what are the odds that an omnipotent dude would spontaneously appear in the first place?
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2012, 03:10:23 PM »
Didn't Godexists declare that he was done posting here back in November because of the "unfairness" of him getting moderated?  It's good he reconsidered and decided that it wasn't unfair after all, since he's posting again.

So, let's see.  He cites chance, physical need, and design as possibilities for these "fine-tune constants".  He rules chance out because of a purely arbitrary calculation that there are at least 10^500 variations on the "fine-tune constants" that would not support life as we know it.  Gonna need evidence as to why that huge number of possibilities is valid, and why, if you have a multiverse in the first place, there couldn't have been that many variations or more, otherwise it's an argument from incredulity.

He rules out physical need because there are many more planets that probably can't support life than that can.  This is another argument from incredulity, not to mention that his definition of physical need is that organic life needs planets that can support life, and really has nothing to do with the "fine-tune constants" he mentioned earlier.  In fact, it's evident that his "fine-tune constants" argument presumes the universe exists only to support life - which given the high proportion of planets that can't bear life to those that can, is counter-intuitive, to say the least.

So, having ruled the only other alternatives he's willing to consider out due to questionable reasoning, he declares it must have been design.  As the rest of his argument proceeds from there, it's pointless to even consider it until after other people have verified that his reasoning for excluding randomness and physical need are solid, and that he didn't neglect to consider any other alternatives.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2012, 03:25:53 PM »
nice little bit of plagiarism from GE, but maybe he's teh same idiot named "jireh" and "javan" etc.  No suprise there.  But that sure doesn't make it any more right.  The ignorance is astounding, and the same shit being thrown at wall to see if it sticks. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #46 on: February 16, 2012, 06:14:03 PM »
Strange.

Using math and science (silly math and science) to show why math and science are wrong about the universe, and that everything is here because of magic. Why not just use magic to show that math and science are wrong?

Don't everyone answer at once. &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2012, 06:18:20 PM »


I call bullshit.  You are puking out a lot of tripe without backing anything up.  Where does this number come from?  Show your work.  State your assumptions.  Explain why your assumptions are valid.

Xians love to state odds.  In my experience, the odds of any of them knowing enough about statistics to throw those numbers around approaches zero.

 :laugh:

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2006/06/string-theory.html

Quote
The problem is, as I understand it, that string theory (or, more generally, the theory that physicist call "M-theory") seems to allow a very large number of possible solutions, or as the physicists call them, vacuua (as in the plural of "vacuum"). In fact, there are roughly 10-to-the-500th-power vacuua. That's an immense number that I don't even know how to describe except by using scientific notation. It's much more than a googol, or even a googol of googols. But it's less than a googolplex.



How many planets have been actually searched for life?  Mars for sure.  What other planets?  How thorough has the search been?  How sure are we they are lifeless?

We're not even sure Mars is lifeless.

http://www.reasons.org/philosophyreligion/worldviews/anthropic-principle-precise-plan-humanity

In the 1960s the odds that any given planet in the universe would possess the necessary conditions to support intelligent physical life were shown to be less than one in ten thousand.5 In 2001 those odds shrank to less than one in a number so large it might as well be infinity (10^173)

Quote
How far is too far?  What are the consequences of being too far or too close?  Show your work.

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=52042

Unique location in our galaxy

Quote

We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.


The Sun and our Solar System have been located in a stable orbit within our galaxy. most stars located between spiral arms do not remain there for long, but would eventually be swept inside a spiral arm. Only at a certain precise distance from the galaxy’s center can a star remain in its place between two spiral arms. Why is it important that we are not in one of the spiral arms? First, our location gives us a view of the universe that is unobstructed by the debris and gases found in the spiral arms. This fact allows us to visualize what the Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of God." If we were within the spiral arms, our view would be significantly impaired. Second, being outside the spiral arms puts us in a location that is safer than anywhere else in the universe. We are removed from the more densely occupied areas, where stellar interactions can lead to disruption of planetary orbits. In addition, we are farther from the deadly affects of supernovae explosions.



Quote
you know, both of those change over time.  So when the moon was closer 3 million years ago, was it the wrong distance?


http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=52042

Quote
Most people don’t think of the moon as necessary for life. We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.


Quote
right for what?  What if either were larger or smaller?  Show your work.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

Quote
Our planet is just the right size - 8,000 miles in diameter. If it were a little smaller, gravity would be too weak, the lighter gases would escape, and, the atmosphere would be poisonous. If it were a little larger - because of dense gravity, nothing could live here. The Earth is just the right distance from the sun, 93 million miles.



Quote
The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun.

No, that would be the ozone layer.

http://www.reasons.org/design/earthmoon-design/magnetic-field-earth

Quote
The earth’s magnetic field is critically important for at least two reasons: (1) it provides protection for life from high-energy particles originating from both cosmic rays and from our sun, and (2) it provides a shield preventing the depletion of our atmosphere from bombardment by the stream of charged particles ejected from the sun.

Quote
just right for what?  what if it were different?  Show your work.

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/probability-life-earth-apr-2004

Quote
Slowing rotation makes advanced life possible

The moon has had other beneficial affects on the earth. Scientists now know that the earth originally had a rotational period of eight hours. Such a rapid rotational period would have resulted in surface wind velocities in excess of 500 miles per hour. The gravitational tug of the moon over the last 4+ billion years has reduced the rotation period of the earth to 24 hours (likewise, the gravitation attraction of the earth on the moon has reduced its rotational period to 29 days). Needless to say, winds of 500 miles per hour would not be conducive to the existence of higher life forms (coincidence or design?).


http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/probability-life-earth-apr-2004

Quote
And so is the axial tilt of the earth.

just right for what?  what if it were different?  Show your work.

Quote
Axial tilt and eccentricity of orbit

The earth is titled on its axis at an angle of 23.5°. This is important, because it accounts for the seasons. Two factors impact the progression of seasons. The most important is the location of land masses on the earth. Nearly all of the continental land mass is located in the Northern Hemisphere. Since land has a lower capacity to absorb the Sun's energy, the earth is much warmer when the Northern Hemisphere is pointing towards the Sun. This happens to be the point at which the earth is farthest from the Sun (the aphelion of its orbit). If the opposite were true, the seasons on the earth would be much more severe (hotter summers and colder winters).


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6680
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2012, 04:22:10 PM »

Quote

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

Quote
Our planet is just the right size - 8,000 miles in diameter. If it were a little smaller, gravity would be too weak, the lighter gases would escape, and, the atmosphere would be poisonous. If it were a little larger - because of dense gravity, nothing could live here. The Earth is just the right distance from the sun, 93 million miles.


So, the fact that the earth's orbit takes us farther and closer to the sun, giving only an average distance of 93 million miles during the year, means what about the need for the exact distance to be perfect?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2012, 04:37:31 PM »
ah, the good old stupdity that GE shows.  Sorry, GE but all of this nonsense is easy to shoot down.  We evolved to fit the conditions, the conditions were not "meant" for us. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #50 on: February 17, 2012, 05:45:44 PM »
The last time Godexists cited various weblinks to prove his case, they ended up being based on speculation.  I'm not really expecting anything better this time.

For example, the fact that he cited someone who used the 10^500 value really doesn't mean anything, because that person didn't cite his own source for that figure.  And even if that number were accurate in all particulars, it still wouldn't prove anything.  There being a very large number of possibilities doesn't mean anything except that there's a lot of possibilities.  Arguing that 10^500 possibilities means that it couldn't have happened on its own is an argument from incredulity.

His quote from reasons.org is even worse.  It cites the anthropic principle as if it were somehow evidence of a plan for humanity, which is patently ridiculous.  The sources for his "so large it might as well be infinity" was Hugh Ross, a creationist Christian apologist, so his numbers are suspect.  I personally find the Drake Equation to be a better method for at least getting a ballpark idea of how common or uncommon aliens might be.

His next quote, about the supposedly unique location of Sol, is...I really can't figure out just where they got their information from.  They claim that Sol is between two galactic arms and stays there?  Uh, not according to what we actually know; Sol is located on the outer edge of the Orion Arm, as evidenced by the fact that there are close to 15,000 stars within 100 light-years of Sol, many of which are fairly hard to see because of distance and interstellar dust.

I see no point in going on.  This is just more of the same from Godexists, quotes which he claims say one thing which are easy to disprove, with him arguing that his incredulity means something.

When Godexists can post his own arguments, do his own research, and make sure he isn't referring to stuff that's easily disproven or simply wrong, then he might actually have a chance of convincing people to pay attention to him.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2012, 01:33:41 AM »
you know the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows us that there is a GoD. The universe cannot be totally deterministic.

If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is involved, then I think the god in charge is Eris, and that chaos is the battery that turns over the engine of the universe whenever it sputters and dies.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6459
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #52 on: February 18, 2012, 02:19:32 AM »
No, you don't get to be ignorant of the math, the science and of reality and then lay claim to knowing the truth. We're here. Because we got a little lucky. Except for the fact that those constants also allow for the existence of ignorance, which ruins it for the rest of us. And how nice this world would be if the constant of religion could just go away. 

If the various constants that allow us to exist are the proof of a god, then all this faith crap christians are always harping on is obviously a bunch of bull. But I assume they still want it both ways: Ya gotta believe, or free will would be violated, but we exist, so that proves he exists, it can't be anything else.

Of course, there's that miracle. You know, the one where some christians have been heard talking out of their ass? I have to admit. Between that and Mary being such a hot babe, I'm tempted...
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #53 on: February 18, 2012, 09:01:09 PM »
I was going to do a line by line rebuttal.  I decided I had better things to do that to address this guy.  Where his links showed their work it turned out as jaime said - dipshits writing in their own estimates based on...guesses.

The worst part is GE doesn't even understand what they are saying. 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #54 on: February 18, 2012, 09:51:10 PM »
Pretty much.  It's pretty clearly a combination of arguing from incredulity and special pleading.  The sad thing is just how easy it is to see both if you don't go in already convinced.  You don't even have to be that much of a skeptic.

Offline Noman Peopled

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1904
  • Darwins +24/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • [insert wittycism]
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2012, 08:02:21 AM »
I was going to do a line by line rebuttal.  I decided I had better things to do that to address this guy.
I wrote mine before reading the follow-up posts. I feel it's are somewhat repetitive of what has already been said, but will post it regardless, in the hope that someone will find the slightly more in-depth approach helpful.

This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation.
Why? "We just don't know" doesn't translate to "we can eliminate X as a possibility".

Quote
Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done.
By the same token, "we just don't know" kind of hurts the credibility of any odds being estimated.
Also, if the multiverse hypothesis is correct, 10^500 attempts is a ridiculously low number.
Also, you're defining "life" as "life as we know it", disregarding the possibility of other forms arising in different environments whether or not governed by other natural laws. Emergent complexity and all that.

Quote
Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God.
It has yet to be shown that there is anything to explain away, but considering the multiverse hypothesis resulted from some problems with more traditional interpretations of quantum mechanics and never was intended to have anything whatsoever to do with (a) god(s), your assessment - while true - is somewhat out-of-place.
If the multiverse hypothesis has been presented to you as a way to explain away god I strongly urge you to read up on the thought processes behind its inception.

Quote
A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses.
Why?
Also, what can we say about this mechanism you posit, and on what grounds?

Quote
It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ?
You lost me. Sorry, I'm already somewhat beyond sober, which may quite easily be deduced from my doomed attempt at quasi-victorian eloquence. Care to clear that up for me?

Quote
Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy.
See the puddle analogy.
It's no more surprising that life should arise in a system more likely to give rise to life than it would be to find a block of ice in the arctic. If the laws of nature didn't allow for or even favor such an arrangement, we would not find it; and even so we only find it locally. It does not mean that the arctic regions were deliberately created for ice to exist there.
No ice inside a neutron star, no life outside the habitable zones. This is the reason why the various searches for exoplanetery life don't just sweep random areas of sky but concentrate on environments similar to what is known to support life.

Quote
Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds.
First, what you mean is our galaxy, not the universe. Which by itself disqualifies you from making such a statement.
Second, stellar clouds are a damn fine place to start exploring.
Third, there is - judging from actual data - a substantial number of planets sharing the same advantages you highlight. In this galaxy alone, I mean. (Just as a random reminder of how humongous our run-of-the-mill galaxy is: click here. It's just so awe-inspiring that I get to call something so spectacular completely ordinary.)
Fourth, what are you using as a comparison? How can you tell there is no better place to take a look? We could easily jump a few hundred light-years and still have very much the same seat, so to speak. You're also completely disregarding the time factor.
Fifth, why is this even a consideration? You have jumped from "perfectly suited for life" to "perfectly suited for scientific exploration" without showing they have anything to do with each other. Am I to assume that you have proven the existence of a machinator to your own satisfaction with the former statement and are now using it as a premise for the second? Or are you using it as a second supporting argument?
Sixth, if a designer put us in the perfect place for exploration one might think providing a little more computational power and a more sensitive as well as diverse sensory apparatus to the hapless explorers might also fit its general motivation. Unlike your statement that we are in the perfect place, my statement that our sensory apparatus and thinking powers are severely limited can be substantiated by simple comparisons.
Seventh, (again with the puddle analogy) the core of galaxies is way more regularly bathed in deadly radiation because novae and other high-energy events are more likely to occur there.
There's probably an "eight" etc, but I have a new game system to shop for and being hardware noob I really have to put more thought into it than into this reply.

Quote
The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth.
Define "right". If you mean the habitable zone, it's quite broad and several exoplanets within habitable zones have already been discovered. It's no surprise that should billions of planets exist on stellar orbits that some of them would by random chance be within the habitable zone - and we already have evidence that this is indeed the case.
As for the moon, well ... am I to assume that it did not have the "right" orbit back when it was much closer to the Earth? Did it have the "right" orbit when it did not orbit Earth at all, presumably intelligently timed just so that it would crash into the Earth before life formed? Also, you do know that orbits are by definition unstable, right? A change in direction (including rotation) is accompanied by a loss of energy in the form of gravitational waves; in the case of our moon, this effect is overpowered by a combination of the moon's tidal influence on Earth's oceans and the planet's rotational energy - the moon will eventually be ejected into space.
Not that that will matter one bit when Earth's core "decides" to suspend the production of a magnetic field for a few millenia or - eventually - when the sun will become a bloated red giant.
Am I to assume the creator perfectly fine-tuned the universe so we could exist on the tiniest speck of rock for a limited time frame? For, if we were to escape the boundaries of our small stellar system, eventually the universe will become an inhospitable place in its entirety.

Quote
The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle.
Puddle again.
Also, if our planet were 10% more or less massive, life would still be easily possible. Even complex contemporary animals could survive with only minor changes under a constant 0.9 or 1.1G. Life can and already has existed with a different atmosphere on this very planet. There's also life using chemosynthesis, independently from the atmosphere or sunlight. Minerals are abundant thanks to our sunny neighborhood fusion reactors, H2O and O2 even more so; both being among the top ten most abundant molecules in the entire universe. Ozone is generated everywhere O2 is hit by radiation. Or electricity. Or a magnetic field. In fact, you're producing it everytime you switch on your computer or microwave.
You're presenting the necessary environmental factors as much more restrictive than they are. (I will also note that you have not yet mentioned one natural constant yet. Just hoping to clear up some possible confusion regarding the term "constant".)
Also worthy of note is that the area around a star called the habitable zone is only one possible locale where we expect liquid water. Other influences, such as natural fission processes or tidal forces can keep water liquid just as well.

Quote
Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible.
And current research suggests that this is quite within the typical topography of stellar systems. In other words, there are droves of other systems with a very similar arrangement of smaller rocky planets in closer orbits, and gas giants beyond - in this galaxy alone.
The solar gas giants are good for us, no question, but the moons' cratered surface is witness enough that they aren't doing their jobs perfectly - as are the many craters on Earth and ample evidence for quite a handful of extinction-level events in the strata to boot.
That is again somewhat less than what I would expect from a capable designer of the universe intent on giving us a special seat.
I see you have inadvertedly neglected to mention our basically non-existent defense against radiation from supernovae.

Quote
The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun.
It does nothing to protect us from radiation. That's what the atmosphere does - and it could do so if it was pure methane with no ozone layer whatsoever. I think you're referring to the charged particles that are part of solar wind.
The long-term danger to life in its entirety in losing a planetary magnetic field is not so much the alpha and beta radiation but the eventual loss of atmosphere and water due to atmospheric particles being accelerated beyond escape velocity by collision with incoming high-velocity particles. Still, chemosynthesis-based ecosystems would remain.

Quote
Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right.
No. Life doesn't need eartquake or volcanic activities. It could easily exist on a planet with thinner or thicker crusts. What you're presenting is some factors influencing the really constitutive factors in our limited locality. For instance, I have already mentioned that the energy to maintain liquid water need not be radiation; it could be tidal forces. Which, incidentally, also can cause earthquakes and volcanic activity.

Quote
To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.
Seems somewhat lackluster.
Before I continue, just let me say that however convincing that argument might be against conventional theories, it does in no way therefore strengthen the theistic position. "You're wrong" doesn't mean "I'm right" unless the positions argued are a valid dichotomy. "It wasn't chance" doesn't justify the conclusion that a sentient entity did it, much less a specific one.
Your position implicitly denies the possibility of other forms of life, casually ignores that it itself suffers from the exact same problem it's attributing to the opposing side (that being a lack of data), completely ignores the current data sets suggesting that our system is in no way unique, completely ignores that - give or take an insignificant speck of nigh-nothingness - the entire universe is almost instantly lethal to life as we know it, and - for some reason I have been never able to fathom - treats humans as a sort of anchor point to which the rest of the universe must refer.
It seems to me the universe is better-suited, by positively mind-boggling orders of magnitude, for the existence of stars, planets, nebulae, black holes, etc than it is for life, let alone human beings. Hell, even ants, cockroaches, sardines, plankton, etc.



In closing, I will note that basically the exact same arguments can be applied with only minimal flexibility to the content of the sites linked to.
"Deferinate" itself appears to be a new word... though I'm perfectly carmotic with it.
-xphobe

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2012, 11:52:12 AM »
One thing I do want to post in response to GodExists' craptacular post is a little bit on one of his sources.  Dr Hugh Ross.  He seems to have some actual credentials.  However, is "About Dr Ross" page says this:

Quote
Hugh's unshakable confidence that God's revelations in Scripture and nature do not, will not, and cannot contradict became his unique message.

Unshakable confidence.  Inotherwords, you cannot change his mind, no matter what.  Forget data.  Forget evidence. Forget science.  His mind is made up.  And that destroys any credibility he might have had as a scientist or a source.  That is the problem with religion and with faith.  It demands you not change you mind about things you should change your mind about.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2201
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: abiogenesis, the origin of the universe and evolution
« Reply #57 on: February 20, 2012, 12:08:26 PM »

Quote
Hugh's unshakable confidence that God's revelations in Scripture and nature do not, will not, and cannot contradict became his unique message.

Unshakable confidence.  Inotherwords, you cannot change his mind, no matter what.  Forget data.  Forget evidence. Forget science.  His mind is made up.  And that destroys any credibility he might have had as a scientist or a source.  That is the problem with religion and with faith.  It demands you not change you mind about things you should change your mind about.

Yet, this is one of the first things with which theists try to deride non-believers; the lack of an open mind.

Oh well, it's not like theists arent known for their blatant hypocrisy.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.