Darwin's theory

floggg

J C wrote: »

That's one way that it is proposed for how life overcame the Universal Probability Bound ... by starting simple and becoming more complex ... but even just one simple specific biomolecule (and many hundreds are required for even the simplest cell) have combinatorial spaces in excess of the UPB.

I don't think anybody has proposed life ever over came the UPB. Its not a thing - just a name given by one particular person to his dodgy maths equation.

Hoop66

J C wrote: »

... and if any lottery had odds against winning of 10^150 it would never ever be won ... irrespective of the number of tickets sold or draws made.

Or, in simpler form; "I really don't understand probability".

floggg

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

While it is easy to understant the ignorant and uneducated still following the myths of religion, is there a Darwinist explanation for the otherwise seemingly well informed and educated minority, still holding the religeous delusions ? Surely they arent all trolls ?

the desire to feel special, the fear of death, the yearn for hope and meaning in life, the fact conservative mindsets tend to be resistant to new ideas or ideals and prefer tradition and continuity over change.

floggg

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I think so. Their adherence to these old ideas stands out particularly from their ability to reason or be correct about most other matters in modern life. Is their any other aspect of thought where otherwise sensible people can be so blind to the facts in front of them ? I feel it has a deeper cause.

Slavery, women's equality, lgbt rights, immigration, global warming, etc etc.

Vivisectus

J C wrote: »

To produce a novel functionality would require a specific sequence ... and the combinatorial non-functional combinations is so massive (in excess of the UPB) ... and the specific functional combination is so small for a specific functional biomolecule that it will be statistically 'swamped' by the non-functional permutations.

Again this is only true if you expect any new structure to just randomly spring into existence from random recombination of molecules and expect any structure to have a single, immutable and defined function. But that is not what evolutionists say at all: moving the goalposts to functions does not do you any good either.

J C wrote: »

There is no requirement to produce Humans ... but any system producing and developing life (of whatever type, including Humans) needs to produce specific functional biomolecules at specific times and places and in precise co-ordinated sequences for the viability of the organisms concerned ... and the combinatorial spaces of these specific sequences are so great that they are impossibilities for non-intelligently directed processes.

An excellent example of tying the horse before the cart: it assumes no other forms are possible. Rather, the particular forms we see came into existence because of the environment that was present.

floggg

J C wrote: »

... and yet nobody is able to refute the basis for his ideas in my post 1660.

SW wrote: »

So by your own rules we can conclude that Dembski is wrong because you have not addressed the link I posted.

Akrasia wrote: »

Evolution is not a lottery. It's not a random process.
The chemicals that bond best under certain conditions, bond the most under those conditions.
It's a complex interaction of competing chemical interactions. Each interaction alters the conditions making future chemical reactions more or less probable which in turn affect future chemistry.

Life is simply chemistry that actively alters it's surrounding environment in order to maximise it's own ability to replicate. The simplest rule in nature, the survival of the fittest, is enormously powerful.

Simple lifeforms are simple chemical interactions, complex life are multi-layered eco-systems of interdependent organisms that are all synthesising their own environment.

The difference between pond slime and the human organism, is that the human requires more complex internal eco-systems, while the pond slime requires a biosphere equally as complex (relatively) but these are mostly external to the slime. (ie, if the atmosphere didn't have the right mixture of gases, it would not survive, and the atmosphic gases are regulated by all the other lifeforms on earth and the earth's non-biological geological activity

Vivisectus wrote: »

This would apply if you expect a fully functional single-celled organism to pop into existence. Multiply by every cell in every creature that ever existed, and you get a good idea about just how silly ID really is: that is how much the laws of nature need to be broken for fully developed life to be magicked into existence by a God!

Science does not simply allow "God did it by magic" as an explanation. It does not have to: the math proposed here is deeply flawed. It assumes:

a) That is only one viable instance of proto-life possible
b) That a fully functional single-celled organism is supposed to appear, in stead of much simpler self replicating molecules such as RNA, or even a simpler predecessor to it.
c) that life started as a result of completely random floating molecules interacting in an equally random way

As usual ID goes to great lengths to set up a strawman, which it then attacks in the hopes that everyone will just go home and stop trying to figure out how life appeared and accept a magical explanation.

Stil, it is interesting in that it shows just how different a ID argument is from a scientific one: ID never really explains anything. If you look for an answer, it is always "God did it by magic". If ID actually went on and stated " And this is how God did it!" then there would be something there to take interest in. But there never is: once they find any sort of confirmation of what they already believe, they lose interest.

Care to address the above?

I think the most glaring issues for you is the assumption in your maths that the universe was comprised of randomly floating particles and the failure of the equation to take into account (a) the chemical and physical laws and processes (ii) the fact that we do not have an equal distribution of elements and materials throughout the universe (or even on any particular planet) - both of which mean that some combinations/reactions/processes will be more or less common than others to occur.

Brian Shanahan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I think so. Their adherence to these old ideas stands out particularly from their ability to reason or be correct about most other matters in modern life.

No it doesn't. Creatards are among the least well able to live in the modern world with modern concepts of right and wrong, an inability to interact properly or accept modern standards of medicine, technology, human rights (especially those of women). Creatardism exists solely amongst the fundamentalist fringes of religions, especially the three abrahamic ones. It is the pet "science" of the charedim in judaism, the likes of al-qaeda and isis in islam and the likes of Westboro baptist church in christianity. Other things all three strands share is a commitment to founding intolerant religious theocracies within their own countries and waging aggressive and genocidal wars against all non-believers (i.e. those who disagree with them to even the smallest degree), a rampant and opressive misogyny which is sanctioned by their "religious laws" (of them all the charedim are actually the worst, they literally treat their women like pack animals), and a fundamental disregard for any aspect of science or technology which shows their religious worldview to be misguided and wrong.

The people who support creatardism are the most blinkered, obnoxious and offensive people around. The most definitely are not able to reason nor are they correct about any other aspect of the modern world (with the exception of their leaders, who are cynically manipulating the backwardness and ignorance of their followers for personal gain and definitely don't follow the strictures they preach).

Is their any other aspect of thought where otherwise sensible people can be so blind to the facts in front of them ? I feel it has a deeper cause.

That's the thing, the people who believe in something so fundamentally wrong have had their minds so warped by religious indoctrination and bigotry that I honestly don't think they can possibly think sensibly in any area. They are so far removed from reality with their fantastical fundamentalist fervour that they are incapable of living in any sort of modern society (if you look at all the fundamentalist churches, one of their main aims is to return the world to a "golden age" buried in the far past, where people were almost universally ignorant and it is supposed that the lower orders knew their place and always kowtowed to their rulers {such a time never having really existed, the poor having almost universally to be kept down by brute force and fear}).

Brian Shanahan

Chunners wrote: »

Angles are alien lifeforms.

That'll come as a suprise to most of the English, a fair proportion of Scots, Germans and Danes too, seeing that their ancestors were from another planet.

Sorry couldn't resist a chuckle when I saw that typo.

SaveOurLyric

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No it doesn't. Creatards...............by brute force and fear}).

Was not my point. It was not on creationism as you answer it, rather on the general myths of religions.

Plenty of people who are otherwise normal, functional, educated, intelligent, fully integrated members of modern society, holding office and high level jobs, still distinguish themselves on this one topic of following one of the organised myth religions. (They see themselves, and are indeed, miles from the lunatic fringe of Westboro church, ISIS or religious states.) Yet still believe much of the core of their religion against their reason and knowledge, even if parking issues like creationism.

JC01

Chunners wrote: »

And yet again Godwins law is proven

Granted it was a lazy response but my point stands. It's that kind of logic from religious quarters that does my head in.
"Ah sure loads of people beleive and some of them are smart so of course there right" you could use the same logic with Santa.

nozzferrahhtoo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Plenty of people who are otherwise normal, functional, educated, intelligent, fully integrated members of modern society, holding office and high level jobs, still distinguish themselves on this one topic of following one of the organised myth religions.

I already gave you a post above answering what such people might still believe in a god or gods or religions. I hope it was useful to you.

However we could add another question to yours. How many of the people, in such positions as you describe, who purport to follow a religion.... actually do believe it at all?

Take the US for example. Those running for office there have to claim to be religious or they simply will not have an electoral chance. Even those who appear to have no religious belief at all really, will gravitate towards SOME religion for political reasons. John Hickenlooper for example aligns himself with the Quakers, but anyone who discusses religion with him, as I have, will find he appears to have little to no actual belief in deities.

Daniel Dennet speaks at length to this too. He has something called the "clergy project" which is a totally anonymous support group supporting people in roles like Pastors who simply do not believe any more, or never did. He also writes at length about the concept of "belief in belief" which is that a large number of people might not have religious or supernatural beliefs, but for some reason think it is a good thing to act like you do, or to maintain it in others.

So in short: The answer to your question is NOT short. The reasons why otherwise educated and intelligent people think there is a god, or purport to even when they do not, are too numerous to mention in anything shorter than a book.

Tordelback

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That's the thing, the people who believe in something so fundamentally wrong have had their minds so warped by religious indoctrination and bigotry that I honestly don't think they can possibly think sensibly in any area.

To be fair, people in general trundle through life believing things for which there is no evidence, or which rational analysis completely contradicts: it's only when they get organised and try to impose these beliefs on others that we notice that this is going on (see also: anti-vaccination, anti-flouride, truthers, birthers, climate-change deniers).

Meanwhile people who pass for completely normal routinely act as if that incredibly-safe flight is more dangerous than the comparatively-lethal drive to the airport, or that ISIS' beheadings represent a savage end to our way of life while Saudi Arabia's beheadings are no reason not to go over to work there for a year or two, make a bit of cash like.

Us people just amn't the brighterest.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

... and you have an unfounded faith that He doesn't exist.:)

It's about as unfounded as unicorns. Zero evidence in a mythical being.

Thargor

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

It's about as unfounded as unicorns. Zero evidence in a mythical being.

Yeah that shows what a warped view J C has of how these things work, strange for someone who's always boasting about his scientific credentials (without revealing what they are). Every scientist on the planet will instantly "believe" in unicorns the day a single piece of incontrovertible evidence is recorded for them, same for flying pigs, same for gods.

Squeedily Spooch

Thargor wrote: »

Yeah that shows what a warped view J C has of how these things work, strange for someone who's always boasting about his scientific credentials (without revealing what they are). Every scientist on the planet will instantly "believe" in unicorns the day a single piece of incontrovertible evidence is recorded for them, same for flying pigs, same for gods.

The whole "ho ho! you atheists with your faith in no God!" level of debate is clutching at straws so much he could make a scarecrow and pray to God to magic it a brain out of thin air. It'd probably know more about science than him.

Scientific views have changed a lot over time, from the earth being flat to what causes certain things to happen. Yet there's religion still grounded in myth and magic. If God did indeed create the universe, it still makes little to no sense that he would break all these natural and physical rules for a small group of people in a specific time in a specific part of the world where there were no eyewitnesses accounts until decades after the fact. If he truly was THE God then why don't Native Americans or South American tribes or Aboriginals or any other race of people have any accounts of Jesus or Yahweh? How utterly convenient that the Big Book Of Myth and Magic can explain all the origins of life on earth for it's intended audience only.

Tordelback

Thargor wrote: »

Every scientist on the planet will instantly "believe" in unicorns the day a single piece of incontrovertible evidence is recorded for them, same for flying pigs, same for gods.

I don't think hardcore creationists get this part at all.

If someone popped up tomorrow with incontrovertible evidence of intelligent mammalian life in the Cretaceous, palaeontologists would be electrified - certainly there'd be career chaos and some pretty violent conferences, but once the dust had settled palaeontology would excitedly devote itself to documenting it and working out how it happened - not denying it because their old books said so.

This goes for all science: new evidence, new theories = excitement and purpose.

Vivisectus

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Was not my point. It was not on creationism as you answer it, rather on the general myths of religions.

Plenty of people who are otherwise normal, functional, educated, intelligent, fully integrated members of modern society, holding office and high level jobs, still distinguish themselves on this one topic of following one of the organised myth religions. (They see themselves, and are indeed, miles from the lunatic fringe of Westboro church, ISIS or religious states.) Yet still believe much of the core of their religion against their reason and knowledge, even if parking issues like creationism.

But then again you have to realize that religious beliefs tend to be carefully insulated from the rest of reality: religious truth and everyday truth tend to get treated very differently, and very few religious people extend their religious beliefs to everyday expectations.

Hence very few adult Christians pray for severed limbs to magically re-grow, for instance. Divine magic is always indistinguishable from things that sometimes happen by chance, or far in the past. One of the functions of religious instruction seems to be to facilitate this compartmentalization and to allow the believer to hold magical beliefs without too much cognitive dissonance.

floggg

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

The whole "ho ho! you atheists with your faith in no God!" level of debate is clutching at straws so much he could make a scarecrow and pray to God to magic it a brain out of thin air. It'd probably know more about science than him.

Scientific views have changed a lot over time, from the earth being flat to what causes certain things to happen. Yet there's religion still grounded in myth and magic. If God did indeed create the universe, it still makes little to no sense that he would break all these natural and physical rules for a small group of people in a specific time in a specific part of the world where there were no eyewitnesses accounts until decades after the fact. If he truly was THE God then why don't Native Americans or South American tribes or Aboriginals or any other race of people have any accounts of Jesus or Yahweh? How utterly convenient that the Big Book Of Myth and Magic can explain all the origins of life on earth for it's intended audience only.

It's also pretty ****ty of him not to announce his existence to them, and then condemn for worshiping false idols when they thank the sun for its life giving energy.

Squeedily Spooch

floggg wrote: »

It's also pretty ****ty of him not to announce his existence to them, and then condemn for worshiping false idols when they thank the sun for its life giving energy.

Ah the old do people who are unaware of Jesus get into heaven, why of course they do they just get asked at the gates if they like the cut of his jib. Never mind your sun worship and sacred buffalo and eagles it's all about the Jewish zombie with the magic act. He's your man for eternal happiness.

floggg

Vivisectus wrote: »

But then again you have to realize that religious beliefs tend to be carefully insulated from the rest of reality: religious truth and everyday truth tend to get treated very differently, and very few religious people extend their religious beliefs to everyday expectations.

Hence very few adult Christians pray for severed limbs to magically re-grow, for instance. Divine magic is always indistinguishable from things that sometimes happen by chance, or far in the past. One of the functions of religious instruction seems to be to facilitate this compartmentalization and to allow the believer to hold magical beliefs without too much cognitive dissonance.

I think a lot of the time, beliefs and the benefits become so important to people that they choose to suspend their disbelief.

As even JC acknowledges, if they allow themselves to doubt some aspects they open all of them up to scrutiny.

But if you rely on beliefs to provide yourself with comfort in better times, as a coping mechanism to deal with grief or loss or to give you a purpose you feel you otherwise lack, then a part of you knows that you can't even give voice to any doubts or countenance any criticism in case you end up losing all that.

And there are undoubtedly benefits to believes. I know myself as an atheist I wish I could console others at times of bereavement that their loved one is in a better place, or that they'll be together again on heaven.

While I know it's not true, I know believing that could provide comfort to them.

So the question isn't always how they can believe, its why might they want.

MrPudding

floggg wrote: »

It's also pretty ****ty of him not to announce his existence to them, and then condemn for worshiping false idols when they thank the sun for its life giving energy.

It gets worse. I was having this discussion on the christianity forum. One of the old moderators of the christianity was suggesting that miracles were evidence of the existence of god. I asked 'what about people that don't follow you god that say they have had miracles.' His answer was that his god, the christian one, would occasionally grant miracles to followers of other religions or gods. My view on this is, what an utter cnut. Here we have a guy praying to his god, not the christian god, for a miracle. The christian god grants that miracle, thereby going someway to confirming in this poor chaps mind that he is praying to the correct god, and then when he dies the christian god gives him the big fcuk you for following the wrong god. He is an awful prick this god fellow.

MrP

Squeedily Spooch

MrPudding wrote: »

It gets worse. I was having this discussion on the christianity forum. One of the old moderators of the christianity was suggesting that miracles were evidence of the existence of god. I asked 'what about people that don't follow you god that say they have had miracles.' His answer was that his god, the christian one, would occasionally grant miracles to followers of other religions or gods. My view on this is, what an utter cnut. Here we have a guy praying to his god, not the christian god, for a miracle. The christian god grants that miracle, thereby going someway to confirming in this poor chaps mind that he is praying to the correct god, and then when he dies the christian god gives him the big fcuk you for following the wrong god. He is an awful prick this god fellow.

MrP

What absolute waffle, it's right in the 10 Commandments to not worship other gods, so why would he grant people who break a rule he holds more serious than rape (not a Commandment), miracles?

He works in mysterious ways or some other such nonsense I bet.

It's pretty self evident that Christianity as a whole is just a self contradicting belief. If we didn't come from a guy magicked out of thin air and a woman magicked out of his rib (we didn't) then there was no original sin. No original sin means no reason for Jesus to "sacrifice" himself (for like..a weekend) so no need for Christianity. That's why Creation loons cling desperately to beliefs they know deep down can't possible be true. Because the notion we didn't come from two people in a garden means their entire belief system is build on a falsehood.

God creates man and woman, gives them free will to do what he knows they'll do anyway, negating their own choices. God condemns all of mankind forever more because they used their choice he granted them to disobey him, sends his son Kal-el..I mean Jesus, to Earth to perform magic tricks and curse at fig trees. Dies for a whole long weekend, comes back to life not a bother, returns back to God/himself as some great sacrifice. People told to believe in all this or spend eternity in a lake of fire, but only because God "loves" you. No wonder childhood indoctrination is the preferred method of religions for latching onto people's spiritual wellbeings. If anyone went through life and heard all this as a grown adult for the first time they'd think it was lunacy.

looksee

I don't recall the 'cursing a fig tree' bit?

Delirium

looksee wrote: »

I don't recall the 'cursing a fig tree' bit?

Link

12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

Doctor Jimbob

SW wrote: »

Link

Would it not have been easier to just miracle some fruit on the tree

Brian Shanahan

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Plenty of people who are otherwise normal, functional, educated, intelligent, fully integrated members of modern society, holding office and high level jobs, still distinguish themselves on this one topic of following one of the organised myth religions. (They see themselves, and are indeed, miles from the lunatic fringe of Westboro church, ISIS or religious states.) Yet still believe much of the core of their religion against their reason and knowledge, even if parking issues like creationism.

But you see, they don't. How many Irish catholics follow church teaching on divorce, contraception or homsexuality, to name just three current examples? Even in more general terms what the churches teach and what the well adjusted members of society (even if they profess belief in a specific religion) are poles apart.

irish coldplayer

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Would it not have been easier to just miracle some fruit on the tree

He is one third of the being that created the universe, all knowing and omnipotent.
Yet somehow he doesn't know the time of year when fig trees bare fruit?
And then he curses the fig tree? It wasn't the fig trees fault that it was the wrong time of year...

Squeedily Spooch

irish coldplayer wrote: »

He is one third of the being that created the universe, all knowing and omnipotent.
Yet somehow he doesn't know the time of year when fig trees bare fruit?
And then he curses the fig tree? It wasn't the fig trees fault that it was the wrong time of year...

And then because he got the hump over it being the wrong season, the tree was cursed to lose it's purpose in life, to bear fruit and multiply. Jesus was an asshole is the moral of the tale.

Doctor Jimbob

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

And then because he got the hump over it being the wrong season, the tree was cursed to lose it's purpose in life, to bear fruit and multiply. Jesus was an asshole is the moral of the tale.

Its God-given purpose at that. So basically he designed the tree to act in a certain way, then threw a huff because it obeyed the rules he placed on it (as its creator).

Bible logic :pac:

Tordelback

irish coldplayer wrote: »

He is one third of the being that created the universe, all knowing and omnipotent.
Yet somehow he doesn't know the time of year when fig trees bare fruit?
And then he curses the fig tree? It wasn't the fig trees fault that it was the wrong time of year...

It's probably a waddayacallit metaphor. For something or other. Bible's full of 'em, just a mess of allegories, parables and koans. Except for the bits about the Flood. And homosexuals. Those bits are absolutely literal.

Funny way for an omnipotent being to write a world history/rulebook/guide to life all the same.