I dont want to look it up right now, but there was few who defended "nature as chance", claiming that winning lottery is a good example of chance and rolling dice, if Im not mistaken I thought one of those stupid kids is Xelios....
Whatsupyall
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Frencheez. 441’st post.
According to pure science, there is no purpose in life, it is just an accident that happens under certain conditions, conditions which are by no means unique to earth.
The biological matterial that can be created from the muck in early earth assembled in millions of different ways. Some ways were not alive, some ways might have been alive, but not able to reproduce. The holy grail of this random activity was when ONE finally was able to survive and reproduce. One of millions, maybe even billions of "trys" came a living organism.
Raithere…447th post,
In addition, natural laws may quite possibly be random and accidental… there is no reason to suppose that this is the only Universe with the only possible set of laws. Just because something is does not mean that it must have been nor does it mean that it was deliberate.
These posts do not suggest that "nature is all pure chance" but they are equally ridiculous.
Love
Jan Ardena.
"In addition, natural laws may quite possibly be random and accidental… there is no reason to suppose that this is the only Universe with the only possible set of laws. Just because something is does not mean that it must have been nor does it mean that it was deliberate. "
How is this ridiculous Jan?
"The biological matterial that can be created from the muck in early earth assembled in millions of different ways. Some ways were not alive, some ways might have been alive, but not able to reproduce. The holy grail of this random activity was when ONE finally was able to survive and reproduce. One of millions, maybe even billions of "trys" came a living organism. "
How is this ridiculous? Do you agree, Jan, that (assuming your gun is powerful enough) you could fire at a target 1000km away trillions of times and expect to hit it at least once? Lets say you shot 1 trillion times, once a second. This would take just over 3 million years. 3 million. Life was in the making for hundreds of millions of years. Lets say 200 million years. That's 62.5 trillion shots. Out of 62.5 trillion shots, do you agree that you will probably hit the target once? What if the target was 10,000km away? Chances are you'd still hit it. Even at 100,000 km away after 62.5 trillion shots you'll probably hit it.
Likewise, after 62.5 trillion different combinations, I would contest that one of them could lead to a living organism capable of dividing itself, could it not?
How is this ridiculous Jan?
"The biological matterial that can be created from the muck in early earth assembled in millions of different ways. Some ways were not alive, some ways might have been alive, but not able to reproduce. The holy grail of this random activity was when ONE finally was able to survive and reproduce. One of millions, maybe even billions of "trys" came a living organism. "
How is this ridiculous? Do you agree, Jan, that (assuming your gun is powerful enough) you could fire at a target 1000km away trillions of times and expect to hit it at least once? Lets say you shot 1 trillion times, once a second. This would take just over 3 million years. 3 million. Life was in the making for hundreds of millions of years. Lets say 200 million years. That's 62.5 trillion shots. Out of 62.5 trillion shots, do you agree that you will probably hit the target once? What if the target was 10,000km away? Chances are you'd still hit it. Even at 100,000 km away after 62.5 trillion shots you'll probably hit it.
Likewise, after 62.5 trillion different combinations, I would contest that one of them could lead to a living organism capable of dividing itself, could it not?
The spontaneous appearance of a single specific protein is inconceivably improbable, yet ever living organism requires an integrated system of at least 200 different proteins in order to survive.
The odds against the spontaneous appearance of an enzyme system capable of sustaining event the simplest form of life are 1 with 40,000 zeros to 1
(F. Hoyle 1983)
This is said to be as improbable as a blinfolded marksman hitting the tip of a particular hair 1,500 times with successive random shots from 1,00,000km.
Okay, it might happen, you may say, but such inconceivably improbable events should not be part of a scientific explanation, in all seriousness. It can only boil down to faith.
Love
Jan Ardena.
lightning, earthquake, and hurricane gathered atoms accidentally together, and accidentally happen to form itself which appears like mitochondria, and it accidentally formed itself again into a ribosome, and out of the millions of acres planet earth have, lightning, earthquake and hurricane accidentally found the cell's location then attach to it, then it accidentally became ribosome, then it accidentally becamse cytoplasm, then it accidentally become cell membrane, AND THOUSANDS OF CELL PARTS WERE CCIDENTALLY FORMED RANDOMLY.
LIGHTNING, EARTHQUAKE, WIND, AND HURRICANE ACCIDENTALLY FOUND THE LOCATION OF THE CELL, THEN ACCIDENTALLY FORMED EACH CELL PARTS LIKE THE HUMAN HANDS, THEN IT ACCIDENTALLY ATTACH TO THE MITOCHONDRIA, RIBOSOME, WHICH WAS WAITING 1,000,000,000 YEARS UNTIL IT BECAME A FULLY DEVELOP CELL.
Then it accidentally became living, THEN IT DIED....THE END...O WAIT A MINUTE, I FORGOT, IT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO FUNCTION RIGHT, IT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO PROCREATE ITSELF, IT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO BECOME AN EYE, THEN IT ACCIDENTALLY GREW AND BECAME LEGS, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO WALK ACCIDENTALLY.
THEN IT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO BECOME BRAIN BY RANDOM LUCK, SUPER SUPER LUCK. THEN THE BRAIN WAS WAITING LIKE IN THE CARTOON NETWORK, UNTIL THE SKULL ACCIDENTALLY DEVELOPE TO PROTECT IT. IT ACCIDENTALLY GREW SKIN.
THEN THAT SAME CELL ACCIDENTALLY BECOME TREES, AND THE TREES ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO CLEANSE THE AIR, MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR MAN TO SURVIVE, ACCIDENTALLY.
ALL THIS AND MORE, HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT THROUGH EARTHQUAKE, WIND, LIGHTNING, HURRICANE (LAWS OF PHYSICS)... want further explanation? Ill be glad to...
LIGHTNING, EARTHQUAKE, WIND, AND HURRICANE ACCIDENTALLY FOUND THE LOCATION OF THE CELL, THEN ACCIDENTALLY FORMED EACH CELL PARTS LIKE THE HUMAN HANDS, THEN IT ACCIDENTALLY ATTACH TO THE MITOCHONDRIA, RIBOSOME, WHICH WAS WAITING 1,000,000,000 YEARS UNTIL IT BECAME A FULLY DEVELOP CELL.
Then it accidentally became living, THEN IT DIED....THE END...O WAIT A MINUTE, I FORGOT, IT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO FUNCTION RIGHT, IT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO PROCREATE ITSELF, IT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO BECOME AN EYE, THEN IT ACCIDENTALLY GREW AND BECAME LEGS, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO WALK ACCIDENTALLY.
THEN IT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO BECOME BRAIN BY RANDOM LUCK, SUPER SUPER LUCK. THEN THE BRAIN WAS WAITING LIKE IN THE CARTOON NETWORK, UNTIL THE SKULL ACCIDENTALLY DEVELOPE TO PROTECT IT. IT ACCIDENTALLY GREW SKIN.
THEN THAT SAME CELL ACCIDENTALLY BECOME TREES, AND THE TREES ACCIDENTALLY HAPPEN TO CLEANSE THE AIR, MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR MAN TO SURVIVE, ACCIDENTALLY.
ALL THIS AND MORE, HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT THROUGH EARTHQUAKE, WIND, LIGHTNING, HURRICANE (LAWS OF PHYSICS)... want further explanation? Ill be glad to...
NASA SCIENTISTS CREATE AMINO ACIDS IN DEEP-SPACE-LIKE ENVIRONMENT - March 27, 2002
http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2002/02_33AR.html
In a laboratory at NASA Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley, the team of astrobiologists shone ultraviolet light on deep-space-like "ices," simulating conditions that are commonplace in interstellar space. Deep-space ice is common water ice laced with simple molecules. The team subsequently discovered amino acids, molecules present in, and essential for, life on Earth.
"This finding may shed light on the origin of life itself," said Dr. Max Bernstein, the first author and chemist at NASA Ames and the SETI Institute. "We found that amino acids can be made in the dense interstellar clouds where planetary systems and stars are made. Our experiments suggest that amino acids should be everywhere, wherever there are stars and planets."
The amino acids they detected (glycine, alanine and serine) are the basic parts of proteins from which all life is made. Proteins provide the structure for, and do all the work in, living things.
The amino acids produced in the NASA Ames lab are similar to those found previously in carbon-rich meteorites. Meteorites are pieces of asteroids or comets that have fallen to Earth. The chemical similarities may indicate that amino acids in meteorites were made in deep space, before the solar system formed, the scientists say.
"This finding suggests that Earth may have been seeded with amino acids from space in its earliest days," said Jason Dworkin of Ames and the SETI Institute. "And, since new stars and planets are formed within the same clouds in which new amino acids are being created, this increases the odds that life also evolved in places other than Earth."
"Taken in combination, these results suggest that interstellar chemistry may have played a significant part in supplying the Earth with some of the organic materials needed to jump-start life," Dworkin concluded.
.
.
.
.
.
Major Misconceptions about Evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance
According to whatsupyall - "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance
According to whatsupyall - "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Stu,
Looks good to me. The existence of a god and evolution are not necessarily incompatible.
However, there is a probable issue for Christianity if the Adam and Eve story is not true, i.e. if Adam and Eve were not directly created as the original humans. The basis of Christianity rests on the original sins of Adam and Eve, which condemned the rest of mankind to death and hence required Jesus to save them. If Adam and Eve are not literal then the reason for a savior becomes void.
Looks good to me. The existence of a god and evolution are not necessarily incompatible.
However, there is a probable issue for Christianity if the Adam and Eve story is not true, i.e. if Adam and Eve were not directly created as the original humans. The basis of Christianity rests on the original sins of Adam and Eve, which condemned the rest of mankind to death and hence required Jesus to save them. If Adam and Eve are not literal then the reason for a savior becomes void.
As usual, whatsup has done a little spin doctoring on the quotation he's giving. If you read further in the paragraph whatsup quoted from you find the statement "But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. "
Dawkins was pointing out that while it is theoretically possible for the DNA sequence to mutate so massively and in such a way that an eye could arise in a single step the probability is so huge as to be neigh well impossible.
There's nothing wrong with what he said in that paragraph.
~Raithere
How many iterations?
Just a simple calculation as to the number of interactions:
1 trillion interactions per second (an unbelievably low estimate, please note that there are 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in one gram molecular weight of water ).
X
200 million years (31,536,000 seconds in a year)
---------------------
6,307,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 interactions
What were those odds again?
~Raithere
There would have been many, many more combinations than that. Consider that the pimordial oceans and atmosphere of Earth were comprised of the necessary elements. The number of chemical interactions taking place each second would have far exceeded 63.6 trillion. Now immagine this process going on in parallell over the entire planet for several hundred million years. Then take into account that proteins and other chemical precursors to life exist in space... and that the Earth was likely seeded with such proteins via comets. The odds just get better and better.
Just a simple calculation as to the number of interactions:
1 trillion interactions per second (an unbelievably low estimate, please note that there are 602,300,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules in one gram molecular weight of water ).
X
200 million years (31,536,000 seconds in a year)
---------------------
6,307,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 interactions
What were those odds again?
~Raithere
Quick note: My quotation provided by Jan is, of course, without context and was a small portion of my refutation of the anthropic principle. While the hypothesis of multiple Universes is only a hypothesis it has been posited numerous times and demonstrated quite well as being mathematically sound. I never suggested that it was more than a hypothesis; there is no more evidence for multiple Universes than there is for God...
but no less either.
~Raithere
but no less either.
~Raithere
whatsupyall!!!
Didn't you read what I wrote for you about Love??
Stop treating people like that! It profits nothing to judge them and/or insult them. Act in Love, please...
Cris,
I believe that what whatsupyall is trying to say is that scientists believe that it's pure chance that everything is the way it is. I believe he is talking about the anthropic principle and the monkey writting the complete works of Shakespeare...
http://www.nutters.org/monkeys.html
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/probab/probab.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/randomramblings/evo.html
http://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/java/MONKEY/
Didn't you read what I wrote for you about Love??
Stop treating people like that! It profits nothing to judge them and/or insult them. Act in Love, please...
Cris,
I believe that what whatsupyall is trying to say is that scientists believe that it's pure chance that everything is the way it is. I believe he is talking about the anthropic principle and the monkey writting the complete works of Shakespeare...
http://www.nutters.org/monkeys.html
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/probab/probab.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/randomramblings/evo.html
http://math.ucsd.edu/~crypto/java/MONKEY/
I need to rest my brain for a while before I ccan read all their posts, but ddont worry christian folks, I WIILL ANNIHIILATE THEIR THEORIES AND PROVE TO EVREYONE HERE THAT GOD EXIST. Just observe and learn, Ill be back...
whatsupyall... did you read what I wrote at all?
I see where we are going wrong, we are assuming he might consider our posts objectively. Here we see that even before he has read our texts he has already decided they must be wrong.
Isn’t that a definition of bigot?
From Webster - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.