The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Describe a hypothetical situation in which new functional information were created and what techniques would be used to detect it.

...a new computer programme would be an example of new functional information...

....and it would be detected by it's functionality and it's complex specificity ... which are the 'hallmarks' of all functional information and Intelligent Design.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, Dawkins has only stated that we should be able to detect some kinds of design, but very clearly feels that we don't detect it. That was clearly his position in the interview and clearly his position since then. I mean, he wrote a book in support of evolution since that interview, so if you had gained him you have since lost him. That means he's in opposition to any truly scientific ID position, and certainly in opposition to the variant touted by Berlinski, which is re-dressed creationism.

So far, your "growing movement" has Berlinski. Evidence of growth please.

...anything I might say is a waste of time if you are going to continue in denial ... and keep arguing that 'black is white'!!!!

...just to recap, Prof Dawkins said that Life of Earth could have been created by an Extraterrestrial ... and if this had happened then the 'signature' of such an appliance of intelligence could be detectable within the EVIDENCE provided by the biochemistry of life...
...one of the best endorsements of the validity of the study of Intelligent Design I have recently seen!!!!:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Just curious JC how do reconcile the story of Elijah.
He ascended into heaven via a whirlwind.
Originally Posted by 2Kings 2:11
As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind

Yet in John 3:13. .
Originally Posted by Jesus
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man

Reliable?

...lets look at the context and full meaning of John 3:13:-

Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
..the clear meaning is that no man except Jesus has come down from Heaven ... and no man has ascended up to Heaven and returned to tell what it is like...so the only man who can talk with first-hand competence about Heavenly things is Jesus.

...and Elijah, as well as all of the Saints, have gone up to Heaven ... but they haven't returned (yet)!!!!

...so there is no conflict between the verses.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But the scientific community was not always predominantly atheistic. It probably is now, but it certainly wasn't in Newton's time, nor Darwin's time. Mendel was a Christian monk and Christianity was still very much the dominant faith amongst western scientists even up to Einstein's time.

....so HOW has it come about that science, in still predominantly Monotheistic Western Nations, has come to be DOMINATED by Atheists????

wrote:

AtomicHorror
.... making a convincing case for a naturalistic intelligent designer or designers would be a rather neat alternative way to falsify the Christian God. In fact, it would do so far more effectively than evolution plus abiogenesis, which would still allow theists to insert God into the gap prior to abiogenesis. So there really is no motive to disingenuously (or delusionally) reject the design hypothesis in itself....

...IF Materialists could make a convincing case for a 'naturalistic intelligent designer' or designers it would indeed be a rather neat alternative way to falsify the Christian God... but therein lies the rub....they CANNOT do so ... and therefore the only option open to them is to (bizzarely) deny that there is any Intelligent Design within living systems... when the CSI in living organisms is on such a scale and with such sophistication that it literally takes a supercomputer just to map it!!!!

I haven't the least doubt that Materialists would latch on to ID in a flash IF they could make a convincing case for a 'naturalistic intelligent designer' but because they can't ... they have to be content to sit on the sidelines and scoff at Intelligent Design scientists ... in order to continue to maintain a semblance of intellectual respectability for their Materialistic Worldview!!!!:eek:

...and your observation that Evolution and Abiogenesis allows Theistic Evolutionists to 'insert God into the gap prior to abiogenesis' is indeed quite true and insightful ... but, could I point out, that such a Theological Position barely amounts to Deism...
...and it one of the main reasons WHY many Evolution-accepting Churches are in serious decline ... with almost total apostacy amongst their younger generations!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...a new computer programme would be an example of new functional information...

....and it would be detected by it's functionality and it's complex specificity ... which are the 'hallmarks' of all functional information.

Actually I meant for you to explain how we would detect new functional information in a life form? What exactly would we be looking for and how would we go about testing it?

The computer programme analogy works no better than the irreducible watch. We don't know these things are designed because they are complex and functional, we know it because we can witness people making them, because we can observe the intent, planning and construction. If we wanted to be detectives and pretend we didn't know this, we could do some research and find plans that detail how to make these things. We have a template to compare against that we can match perfectly to the finished product. If we insist, we can watch the items being designed and made. It's testable, reproducible. And we know the nature of the agent- we know the tools and capabilities of the designer(s).

J C wrote: »

...anything I might say is a waste of time if you are going to continue in denial ... and keep arguing that 'black is white'!!!!

...just to recap, Prof Dawkins said that Life of Earth could have been created by an Extraterrestrial ... and if this had happened then the 'signature' of such an appliance of intelligence could be detectable within the EVIDENCE provided by the biochemistry of life...
...one of the best endorsements of the validity of the study of Intelligent Design I have recently seen!!!!:)

As I say, if that interview constituted the conversion to secular ID that you claim it is, then surely his comments since then and his book The Greatest Show on Earth represent an abandonment of that position. I think we can agree that a few minutes of vague speculation on film is rather trumped by copious internet writings, interviews and a 400 page defence of evolution by natural selection.

I happen to think that interview called for Dawkins to speculate, which he did, and that's about all it represents. You can see it whatever way you like, but that doesn't change Dawkins position on the veracity of ID, which is a negative.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....so HOW has it come about that science, in still predominantly Monotheistic Western Nations, has come to be DOMINATED by Atheists????

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

J C wrote: »

...IF Materialists could make a convincing case for a naturalistic intelligent designer or designers it would indeed be a rather neat alternative way to falsify the Christian God... but therein lies the rub....they CANNOT do so ... and therefore the only option open to them is to (bizzarely) deny that there is no Intelligent Design within living systems... when the CSI is on such a scale and with such sophistication that it literally takes a supercomputer just to map it!!!!

I haven't the least doubt that Materialists would latch on to ID in a flash IF they could make a convincing case for a naturalistic intelligent designer but because they can't ... they have to be content to sit on the sidelines and scoff at Intelligent Design scientists ... in order to continue to maintain a semblance of intellectual respectability for their Materialistic Worldview!!!!:eek:

But again, if the Designer were merely unknown there'd be little motive to suppress that. We haven't figured out abiogenesis either, but we're not shy about stating what we do know about life and stating what we don't know. Why should we be any different when it comes to a designer? For fear it might be the all-loving and-all forgiving God? Wow. Terrifying. What possible motive have we to worry about that one? If we scientifically figured out He existed we'd have nothing to lose by accepting that.

There are much scarier Gods. I'd get it if we were talking about denying Thor. That guy has a hammer and is not big on forgiveness.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Actually I meant for you to explain how we would detect new functional information in a life form? What exactly would we be looking for and how would we go about testing it?

The computer programme analogy works no better than the irreducible watch. We don't know these things are designed because they are complex and functional, we know it because we can witness people making them, because we can observe the intent, planning and construction. If we wanted to be detectives and pretend we didn't know this, we could do some research and find plans that detail how to make these things. We have a template to compare against that we can match perfectly to the finished product. If we insist, we can watch the items being designed and made. It's testable, reproducible. And we know the nature of the agent- we know the tools and capabilities of the designer(s).

...we often come across artefacts in Archaeology and we don't know who designed them or how they were designed (the Easter Island Statues and the Inca Walls in Peru, for example)...but we DO know that they were Intelligently Designed ... because they exhibit Specified Complexity ... which is the 'Hallmark' of Intelligent Design!!!

....ditto with living systems!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As I say, if that interview constituted the conversion to secular ID that you claim it is, then surely his comments since then and his book The Greatest Show on Earth represent an abandonment of that position. I think we can agree that a few minutes of vague speculation on film is rather trumped by copious internet writings, interviews and a 400 page defence of evolution by natural selection.

I happen to think that interview called for Dawkins to speculate, which he did, and that's about all it represents. You can see it whatever way you like, but that doesn't change Dawkins position on the veracity of ID, which is a negative.

...in fairness to Prof Dawkins, I don't claim that he has become an ID Proponent ... and I think it was both brave and very honurable of him to give the interview and speculate on the ID question ... BUT the fact remains that he admitted that the search for ID in living systems could be an evidence-based possibility!!!!

...and in the scheme of things, this is a very important admission ... from a very important person!!

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But again, if the Designer were merely unknown there'd be little motive to suppress that. We haven't figured out abiogenesis either, but we're not shy about stating what we do know about life and stating what we don't know. Why should we be any different when it comes to a designer? For fear it might be the all-loving and-all forgiving God? Wow. Terrifying. What possible motive have we to worry about that one? If we scientifically figured out He existed we'd have nothing to lose by accepting that.

...two possible reasons ... it would destroy your Materialistic Faith Position ... and it would create a demand on your soul and your life by it's Creator.

...and I agree with your point that even though Abiogenesis hasn't been figured out yet ... it is still legitimate to try and do so...

....now please give ID Proponents the same 'space' to conduct their equally legitimate research.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There are much scarier Gods. I'd get it if we were talking about denying Thor. That guy has a hammer and is not big on forgiveness.

....aren't we lucky to have an all-powerful and LOVING God to defend and protect us against all malevolent spiritual entities!!!:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....so HOW has it come about that science, in still predominantly Monotheistic Western Nations, has come to be DOMINATED by Atheists????


AtomicHorror
Not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

....but it is a very interesting question ... isn't it?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...anything I might say is a waste of time if you are going to continue in denial ... and keep arguing that 'black is white'!!!!

...just to recap, Prof Dawkins said that Life of Earth could have been created by an Extraterrestrial ... and if this had happened then the 'signature' of such an appliance of intelligence could be detectable within the EVIDENCE provided by the biochemistry of life...
...one of the best endorsements of the validity of the study of Intelligent Design I have recently seen!!!!:)

I think you might be right about something, that's the best endorsement of ID I've ever seen too. It's a deliberately misinterpreted mined quote that doesn't actually support the validity of ID at all......but it's still the best endorsement I've ever seen

2Scoops

Well, let's see all the evidence of design then...

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...we often come across artefacts in Archaeology and we don't know who designed them or how they were designed (the Easter Island Statues and the Inca Walls in Peru, for example)...but we DO know that they were Intelligently Designed ... because they exhibit Specified Complexity ... which is the 'Hallmark' of Intelligent Design!!!

No... we know the Easter Island statues are designed because they resemble a stylized human form, because we do not know of a natural process that can make rocks look that way, because we know that humans can carve stone and therefore we can look for evidence of carving. Which we find. Specified complexity never came into any archaeologists consideration when they judged these things to have been designed.

J C wrote: »

....ditto with living systems!!!

Only if you can suggest a mechanism (like the carving) and a means to test for it. In this case we're also not stuck for an alternative. Whilst stones cannot reproduce and vary, life forms can. So immediately we can see another mechanism by which they can accumulate changes over time.

So again, it is on you to suggest mechanisms to test for. And more than that, behaviours in the designer that might allow for a predictive theory.

J C wrote: »

...in fairness to Prof Dawkins, I don't claim that he has become an ID Proponent ... and I think it was both brave and very honurable of him to give the interview and speculate on the ID question ... BUT the fact remains that he admitted that the search for ID in living systems could be an evidence-based possibility!!!!

And I'm sure that he would say we would need to understand the designer to make predictions about the design. This is certainly true of human designs.

J C wrote: »

...two possible reasons ... it would destroy your Materialistic Faith Position ... and it would create a demand on your soul and your life by it's Creator.

Neither of which would be relevant in the face of guaranteed everlasting life in paradise. There are plenty of scientists who would rather there were such a promise, they're not rejecting the idea because of soul demands or mundane faith positions. Sorry, those reasons would only fly for a very few people, not a majority.

J C wrote: »

...and I agree with your point that even though Abiogenesis hasn't been figured out yet ... it is still legitimate to try and do so...

....now please give ID Proponents the same 'space' to conduct their equally legitimate research.

Nobody is stopping them, but you can't call it science. Detecting design in life is not possible unless you have something to compare against or some understanding of the designer(s) and the mechanisms they employ. The reason for that is that a designer with undefined characteristics could conceivably make life (or indeed the universe) look like pretty much anything. We would not know what to look for. Comparing to human design does not work, unless we're talking about a human designer. Without information about the designer(s) aesthetic sense, intentions, goals, limitations as well as his tools, capabilities and other traits, we cannot say what we would expect to see if the designer had made something. And so we can make no testable predictions. There's also no explanatory power, beyond a very vague "the designer did it". How? "Not important".

In essence, by failing to include the nature of the designer in the hypothesis, we remove falsifiability/testability and render the endeavour non-scientific. If we accepted such a pseudo hypothesis as theory, we would no longer be able to say anything about the origin of life or indeed the origin of anything- a designer with no specified characteristics might be responsible for everything or nothing. Our new version of science loses it's power to predict and explain the universe, and we go back to accepting knowledge based on who is making the most noise. Which I suspect is the point.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C wrote: »

....so HOW has it come about that science, in still predominantly Monotheistic Western Nations, has come to be DOMINATED by Atheists????

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

....but it is a very interesting question ... isn't it?

Yes. And the answer is one which also explains why the numbers of atheists in the world is growing daily. I'd imagine your side are growing too, particularly amongst those with limited or no scientific knowledge.

Turtwig

Science is become atheistic?

Does any have figures to back that up?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No... we know the Easter Island statues are designed because they resemble a stylized human form, because we do not know of a natural process that can make rocks look that way, because we know that humans can carve stone and therefore we can look for evidence of carving. Which we find.

...all of which are deductions based on the presence of complex specified information imposed on the stones by intelligences unknown!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Only if you can suggest a mechanism (like the carving) and a means to test for it. In this case we're also not stuck for an alternative. Whilst stones cannot reproduce and vary, life forms can. So immediately we can see another mechanism by which they can accumulate changes over time.

...and without an ultimate input of intelligence...any changes accumulated will be information degrading.
....it always fascinates me as to why, otherwise rational people, suspend their cognitive faculties when it comes to living systems ... and start claiming that you can eventually produce blood from a stone, via accumulated MISTAKES!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So again, it is on you to suggest mechanisms to test for. And more than that, behaviours in the designer that might allow for a predictive theory.

... both 'origins' research and Archaeology are forensic sciences ... and they therefore focus on recognising evidential patterns ... such as CSI.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And I'm sure that he would say we would need to understand the designer to make predictions about the design. This is certainly true of human designs.

...it is not necessary to understand the designer to recognise the existence of Intelligent Design ... Prof Dawkins has confirmed this fact, when he said that it should be possible to recognise the ID 'signature' of the designer if an (unknown) Alien Intelligence has created life on Earth!!
Equally SETI claims to be able to recognise ID within any possible radio transmission from unknown Alien Civilisations on the far side of the Universe!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Nobody is stopping them, but you can't call it science. Detecting design in life is not possible unless you have something to compare against or some understanding of the designer(s) and the mechanisms they employ. The reason for that is that a designer with undefined characteristics could conceivably make life (or indeed the universe) look like pretty much anything. We would not know what to look for. Comparing to human design does not work, unless we're talking about a human designer. Without information about the designer(s) aesthetic sense, intentions, goals, limitations as well as his tools, capabilities and other traits, we cannot say what we would expect to see if the designer had made something. And so we can make no testable predictions. There's also no explanatory power, beyond a very vague "the designer did it". How? "Not important".

...all of the above reservations also apply to SETI ... yet it hasn't stopped the research nor has it prevented the research being termed scientific!!!
...indeed in the case of Creation Science (as distinct from pure ID) we do have a working 'picture' of the 'designer' ... and He is similar to Humans in His intellectual faculties (because we are made in His image and likeness).

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In essence, by failing to include the nature of the designer in the hypothesis, we remove falsifiability/testability and render the endeavour non-scientific. If we accepted such a pseudo hypothesis as theory, we would no longer be able to say anything about the origin of life or indeed the origin of anything- a designer with no specified characteristics might be responsible for everything or nothing. Our new version of science loses it's power to predict and explain the universe, and we go back to accepting knowledge based on who is making the most noise. Which I suspect is the point.

...ditto for SETI

...but I think that you are being excessive pessimimistic about our abilities to detect of ID where it exists via either SETI or the study of living systems.

Sam Vimes

J C, you say that the chances of a protein "spontaneously forming" is 1 in 10^130 which according to you makes it impossible but if you toss a coin 1000 times the chances of any particular sequence occurring is 1 in 10^300, far smaller than the probability you mentioned. According to you that means that it's impossible for any particular sequence to come out which also means it must be impossible to toss a coin 1000 times.

But of course it's not impossible to toss a coin 1000 times and this is simply your misunderstanding of probability. It would be almost impossible to predict in advance what particular sequence will come out but that does not mean that it is impossible for any particular sequence to come out. If you toss a coin 1000 times one particular sequence will come out despite the fact that the chances of it happening were 1 in 10^300

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...lets look at the context and full meaning of John 3:13:-

Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
..the clear meaning is that no man except Jesus has come down from Heaven ... and no man has ascended up to Heaven and returned to tell what it is like...so the only man who can talk with first-hand competence about Heavenly things is Jesus.

...and Elijah, as well as all of the Saints, have gone up to Heaven ... but they haven't returned (yet)!!!!

...so there is no conflict between the verses.

Wow, creationists fail basic English as well as science.

"No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven" means no man has gone up to heaven except the man who came down from there. Any other meaning is a butchery of the words that are there.

There are a couple of interpretations to that, I'll grant you, but neither of them are the twisted one you give.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Wow, creationists fail basic English as well as science.

"No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven" means no man has gone up to heaven except the man who came down from there. Any other meaning is a butchery of the words that are there.

There are a couple of interpretations to that, I'll grant you, but neither of them are the twisted one you give.

...once again you are wrong!!!

....it is a turn of phrase ...
... the full meaning of the verse within the context of the previous verse is "And no man (currently alive) hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even (i.e.) the Son of man which is in heaven."

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Turtwig

Wow that's a quite a leap, care to explain clearly how you came to that conclusion?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

J C, you say that the chances of a protein "spontaneously forming" is 1 in 10^130 which according to you makes it impossible but if you toss a coin 1000 times the chances of any particular sequence occurring is 1 in 10^300, far smaller than the probability you mentioned. According to you that means that it's impossible for any particular sequence to come out which also means it must be impossible to toss a coin 1000 times.

....you are confusing complexity and specified complexity!!!

...yes, when we toss a coin 1000 times we get a very complex (and unique) pattern every time we do so ... and the odds of getting any one specific pattern or repeating the previous pattern are 10^300. However, we don't need any specific pattern ... when tossing a coin ... and therefore any and all patterns will do...
....but, we DO NEED a specific pattern of Amino Acids for a specific functional protein ... and we need hundreds of SPECIFIC biochemicals EVERY TIME a new organic structure is developed ... and the chance of getting even one of them correct and functional is a statistical impossibility!!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

....you are confusing complexity and specified complexity!!!

...yes, when we toss a coin 1000 times we get a very complex (and unique) pattern every time we do so ... and the odds of getting any one specific pattern or repeating the previous pattern are 10^300. However, we don't need any specific pattern ... when tossing a coin ... and therefore any and all patterns will do...
....but, we DO NEED a specific pattern of Amino Acids for a specific functional protein ... and we need hundreds of SPECIFIC biochemicals EVERY TIME a new organic structure is developed ... and the chance of getting even one of them correct and functional is a statistical impossibility!!!:D

Good God!

JC,

Quick Question for you.
It's a court case.
Blood with a rare genetic trait has being found on the murder weapon
This particular trait occurs in 1 out of every 10,000 people per the general population. The suspect's blood test also showed this genetic trait, this test is 99% accurate.

Is it likely that the suspect is guilty?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....you are confusing complexity and specified complexity!!!

...yes, when we toss a coin 1000 times we get a very complex (and unique) pattern every time we do so ... and the odds of getting any one specific pattern or repeating the previous pattern are 10^300. However, we don't need any specific pattern ... when tossing a coin ... and therefore any and all patterns will do...
....but, we DO NEED a specific pattern of Amino Acids for a specific functional protein ... and we need hundreds of SPECIFIC biochemicals EVERY TIME a new organic structure is developed ... and the chance of getting even one of them correct and functional is a statistical impossibility!!!:D

I'm not confusing anything J C, specified complexity is a made up meaningless term. The a priori probability of a specific protein forming is 1 in 10^130 just as the a priori probability of a specific sequence of coin tosses is 1 in 10^300 but the post hoc probability of that specific sequence is exactly 1, because it happened. If you start back thousands of years ago and try to work out the probability of any event occurring, say that you will write a post at exactly 00:41, the chances will be astronomical but they all happen even though it would be "statistically impossible" to predict them because that's not how probability works. Impossible to predict does not mean impossible.

And of course this is all ignoring the fact that proteins did not spontaneously form, they gradually became more complex from simpler proteins and amino acids so the chances are far greater than 1 in 10^130. The supposed argument against this is the argument from irreducible complexity but that has been debunked time and time again. It's nothing more than an argument from lack of imagination.

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's nothing more than an argument from lack of imagination.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:
The ....materialistic evolutions have finally admittted the wishy washy imaginations that their beloved "theory" of spontaneous evolution from pondslime to complex specified organism requires...

...Wild imagination!:eek::D

Galvasean

Malty_T wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek:
The ....materialistic evolutions have finally admittted the wishy washy imaginations that their beloved "theory" of spontaneous evolution from pondslime to complex specified organism requires...

...Wild imagination!:eek::D

You had me there. I honestly thought for a moment you were someone else.
Kudos

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...once again you are wrong!!!

....it is a turn of phrase ...
... the full meaning of the verse within the context of the previous verse is "And no man (currently alive) hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even (i.e.) the Son of man which is in heaven."

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

There is absolutely nowhere in that phrase where you can interpolate "(currently alive)". Try reading your book, rather than just making it up.

Turtwig

Does the Creation Science Accounts of Genesis really describe the universe's beginning that accurately?

Turtwig

Wolfy and JC,

I'd like if you could comment on this set of videos prepared by a Christian Evolutionist.

#1

#2

#3

#4 (This one has a brilliant analogy explaining transitional forms.

#5

If you're time constrained, try and watch #4's and #5.
And maybe visit the guy's website.:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Good God!

JC,

Quick Question for you.
It's a court case.
Blood with a rare genetic trait has being found on the murder weapon
This particular trait occurs in 1 out of every 10,000 people per the general population. The suspect's blood test also showed this genetic trait, this test is 99% accurate.

Is it likely that the suspect is guilty?

...no ... unless there is more evidence LINKING him/her to the crime...

....BUT if DNA evidence, with odds in excess of a hundred million to one, were found at the scene...then the suspect would become a defendant!!!!!:D
....and if it was 10^130 to one the suspect would become a convict!!!!:)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...no ... unless there is more evidence LINKING him/her to the crime...

....BUT if DNA evidence, with odds in excess of a hundred million to one, were found at the scene...then the suspect would become a defendant!!!!!:D
....and if it was 10^130 to one the suspect would become a convict!!!!:)

So your saying that if the suspect had a genetic trait which only affect 1 in 100,000,000 the person is guilty with a test of 99% accuracy??

Suspect has applied for an appeal (it's his last chance),
Do you want to change your verdict?
Innocent or Guilty?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not confusing anything J C, specified complexity is a made up meaningless term. The a priori probability of a specific protein forming is 1 in 10^130 just as the a priori probability of a specific sequence of coin tosses is 1 in 10^300 but the post hoc probability of that specific sequence is exactly 1, because it happened. If you start back thousands of years ago and try to work out the probability of any event occurring, say that you will write a post at exactly 00:41, the chances will be astronomical but they all happen even though it would be "statistically impossible" to predict them because that's not how probability works. Impossible to predict does not mean impossible.

And of course this is all ignoring the fact that proteins did not spontaneously form, they gradually became more complex from simpler proteins and amino acids so the chances are far greater than 1 in 10^130. The supposed argument against this is the argument from irreducible complexity but that has been debunked time and time again. It's nothing more than an argument from lack of imagination.

...the problem in explaining life using materialistic processes is INFOMATION ... which is Specified Complexity.

Let us say that I need to urgently tell someone to "Please join me at the concert tomorrow at fifteen hundred hours"...which is akin to a specific message being required to be transmitted in order for a specific function to be performed in a living cell ... only the cell requires thousands of such highly specific messages being transmitted in a specific sequence every second!!!!
The odds against producing the above functional specific sentence is 10^88 (assuming 26 letters plus a space character as a possibility at each character point in the sentence). This is a number greater than all of the electrons in the known Universe ... and therefore producing such a simple sentence would take an effective infinity of time using non-intelligently directed processes...and you ALSO need a human brain and an agreed language system to translate it into a menaingful message at the receiving end!!!
Of course, if any old combination will do (like your coin tossing example) then you can claim that "uujsakaadn vsijdfwffb bdiowcocfn vvknsfksannafnknf abfav zvlsawne" is UNIQUE with a post hoc probability of 1 ... but there is no functional information in the sentence ... we are therefore NOT going to go to the concert together ... due to a breakdown in communication between us!!!

...ditto with living processes and their vast need for functional information!!!