Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

[bob b]

ZroKewl,

Yes, I think that the universe and life were created in six days, but it didn't happen naturally.

The light speed question is interesting but cannot be pursued on this thread because it has not been raised by either participant in the debate. In my opinion Barry Setterfield has the most plausible solution I have seen so far. http://www.setterfield.org/index.html

 

[Flipper]

Aussie:

Sorry about your research. I should probably also apologize to Zakath, who has long been able to hold his own in these matters without help from the likes of me.

As you may remember, he spotted the first of a series of these blunders so I'm a bit concerned that I may have stolen some of his thunder.

Mind you, Bob may yet be preparing some great answers to justify his position but my guess is that he'll just blow these awkward missteps off like he did when he was caught out making apparently unsupported assertions regarding atheist opposition to spontaneous generation.

His attention to accuracy in detail and the way he conducts his research appears to be sloppy at best. I'm not sure why he's pantsing himself so publicly, but it's certainly interesting and instructive watching how someone who claims dedication to truth conducts himself. Perhaps his next post will confound us all but I'm losing confidence.

The Enyart Cheerleading Squad on the other side of the peanut gallery seems to have fallen remarkably silent too, as of late.

 

[jeremiah]

To Flipper:
I did find one point of your post unequivical. Apparently in 2000? according to that one website, someone found galaxies in their primordal or infant states. This contradicts what Bob said they did not discover in 1995. So if Zakath uses this in his next post, he can finally win a debating point.

 

[Michael12]

Originally posted by bob b
Michael12,

Several comments:

The probability argument already took into account multiple simultaneous trials.

I'd like a reference to the creationist's version of the math that claims to take this into account, if you don't mind. I've never seen it, but I would like like to take a peek.

Ian's coin flipping experiment was obviously not "random".

What's not "random" about heads or tails?

"When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong."

This is what one would expect "on the average" for sometimes it would be less and sometimes more.

The point is, sometimes it would be 1. Further, when you only have one shot at this, the odds are actually 50-50 because there is only "it happened" or "it did not happen" it's only in retrospect that statistics appear to have a relative value.

Who does Ian think he is kidding with his "hypothetical" cells that bear no resemblance whatsoever to any real life we are familiar with? One can only marvel at the faith demonstrated by those who believe life developed "naturally".

The point he is making is that creationists determine "odds" by citing probabilities of a complex structure arising all by itself out of a primordial soup. Which is odd, because this is actually what creationists assert happened. You you are showing how unlikely your own claims are. Creationists neglect to mention that abiogenesis doesn't actually claim this happened. It says things happened in steps. To use an astrophysical analogy, the creationist would say that the first galaxy formed all at once, in that all the particles necessary for the formation just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and cite odds that make the thought seem ludicrous, which it is. But as you know, science does not claim this method of galactic formation.

 

[Flipper]

Zrokrewl: Nope, fair enough - you are quite right. Bob did say instructions and not MIPS.

Nevertheless, the effect on the number of processors required by our hypothetical MIPs-shoving megacluster is still dramatic. That's 4750 dual processing workstations vs. 95,000 DP workstations.

Jeremiah: Maybe, but Bob's contention was based on information that was 8 years old and is now out-of-date. Bob's uniform universe isn't what we see in reality. And it shakes his credibility. He's the one who chooses to swim upstream against mainstream science, so he'd better be up to date with what's going on.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

The Cretinist argument of odds is always funny to read.

They love to tote out large figures of odds as though they are paying attention to some science when in actual fact they totally miss the point about odds at all.

They think if the chance of something happening is Billions to one it is unlikely to happen.

That is true..

They then forget if you have trillions of iterations the thing is not only likely to happen it is a damn near certainty.

And in regard to life.. it is 100 %.. after all it happened !

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Michael12
I'd like a reference to the creationist's version of the math that claims to take this into account, if you don't mind. I've never seen it, but I would like like to take a peek.What's not "random" about heads or tails?The point is, sometimes it would be 1. Further, when you only have one shot at this, the odds are actually 50-50 because there is only "it happened" or "it did not happen" it's only in retrospect that statistics appear to have a relative value. The point he is making is that creationists determine "odds" by citing probabilities of a complex structure arising all by itself out of a primordial soup. Which is odd, because this is actually what creationists assert happened. You you are showing how unlikely your own claims are. Creationists neglect to mention that abiogenesis doesn't actually claim this happened. It says things happened in steps. To use an astrophysical analogy, the creationist would say that the first galaxy formed all at once, in that all the particles necessary for the formation just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and cite odds that make the thought seem ludicrous, which it is. But as you know, science does not claim this method of galactic formation.

Here is another way of looking at this probability thing.


How many 'particles' are there in the universe?
How many arrangements are there, in which all these 'particles' could be arranged and located?

Would you be surprised that this would need to urge us to believe that the world does not exist, since it's probability of existing in exactly the way as it does exist now (every particle exactly located in the way it is located and arranged now) is exactly 0%

However the universe exists exactly in the way it exists now, for 100% certainty!

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by heusdens
Here is another way of looking at this probability thing.


How many 'particles' are there in the universe?
How many arrangements are there, in which all these 'particles' could be arranged and located?

Would you be surprised that this would need to urge us to believe that the world does not exist, since it's probability of existing in exactly the way as it does exist now (every particle exactly located in the way it is located and arranged now) is exactly 0%

However the universe exists exactly in the way it exists now, for 100% certainty!

I have to smile at the various attempts to criticize the creation probability arguments.

One of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of recent times was a person who was responsible for working out the conditions for the generation of elements within stars. He was knighted by the Queen for this as well as many other accomplishments in the field of astronomy and physics.

This same person was one of the first to present the argument concerning the probability of generating workable proteins.

His analysis did not take into account several factors that make the actual situation far worse. First, the majority of proteins do not act as independent units, but instead are arranged in sets that are highly tuned to interact with one another in order to carry out a particular function. A further complication is that these same proteins not only participate in a single set but also are part of other sets that accomplish entirely different functions.

Even ignoring these complicating factors, his analysis came up with huge chances against workable proteins being discovered by a random trial process. This is probably where Enyart got his numbers from. The author of the analysis was Sir Fred Hoyle, who was not a creationist.

I realize that Hoyle is now disparaged because of his politically incorrect mathematical gaff in implying that random mutation might not be a feasible mechanism for evolution.

It is typical for evolutionists to "eat their own" when someone steps out of line, for I have heard people on forums call Sir Francis Crick "an idiot" for suggesting that life came from space (as Hoyle also suggested).

 

[August]

Bob B wrote:
<I have to smile at the various attempts to criticize the creation probability arguments.

One of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of recent times was a person who was
responsible for working out the conditions for the generation of elements within stars. He was
knighted by the Queen for this as well as many other accomplishments in the field of
astronomy and physics.

This same person was one of the first to present the argument concerning the probability of
generating workable proteins.

His analysis did not take into account several factors that make the actual situation far worse.>

This is the also same guy who assured us that the surface of Venus was covered with a sea of oil - until a probe proved him totally wrong. Despite his being knighted, I can't help but wonder if he was ever right about anything. Anybody who would have faith in the theoretical speculations of astrophysicists (including Carl Sagan and S. Hawkings)is naive. These theories buy a lot of publicity for their authors, who have the advantage that most of the theories will never be subject to experimental verification. The astronomy texts of the 50's were ful of assertions about the formation and structure og our solar system that have now been proved wrong.

It is not like that with applied science, where the theories must actually "work" in terms of application.
Or in mathematics, where the hypotheses are always stated, and the conclusions must hold for all conditions that satisfy the hypotheses.

 

[August]

Aussie Thinker wrote:
<They think if the chance of something happening is Billions to one it is unlikely to happen.

That is true..

They then forget if you have trillions of iterations the thing is not only likely to happen it is a
damn near certainty.>

This is the same kind of reasoning that assures us that if you put a million monkeys in a cage with a million keyboards they will eventually type a Shakespeare play. And I'll have to admit that I've talked to scientists who believe it. But someone who really understands the nature of statistics knows that it won't happen. Similarly you could monitor a closed box of gas for as many years as you would care to specify, but Boyle's law would never be violated, even though by your reasoning the box would eventually fly off in some direction (assuming dimensions beyond the range of Brownian motion.)

<And in regard to life.. it is 100 %.. after all it happened !>

What kind of reasoning is that? Sure, it happened, but that doesn't prove a 100% probability of any one mechanism, unless you assumed from the beginning that there is only one possible mechanism, in which case the reasoning is circular.
(IMHO, the use of profanity in this forum is inappropriate.)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by bob b
I have to smile at the various attempts to criticize the creation probability arguments.

One of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of recent times was a person who was responsible for working out the conditions for the generation of elements within stars. He was knighted by the Queen for this as well as many other accomplishments in the field of astronomy and physics.

This same person was one of the first to present the argument concerning the probability of generating workable proteins.

His analysis did not take into account several factors that make the actual situation far worse. First, the majority of proteins do not act as independent units, but instead are arranged in sets that are highly tuned to interact with one another in order to carry out a particular function. A further complication is that these same proteins not only participate in a single set but also are part of other sets that accomplish entirely different functions.

Even ignoring these complicating factors, his analysis came up with huge chances against workable proteins being discovered by a random trial process. This is probably where Enyart got his numbers from. The author of the analysis was Sir Fred Hoyle, who was not a creationist.

I realize that Hoyle is now disparaged because of his politically incorrect mathematical gaff in implying that random mutation might not be a feasible mechanism for evolution.

It is typical for evolutionists to "eat their own" when someone steps out of line, for I have heard people on forums call Sir Francis Crick "an idiot" for suggesting that life came from space (as Hoyle also suggested).

Life developed without any doubt, no matter how it was developed. In physical law we only deal with causality, not probability as such. Physical things that happen occur due to the circumstances, and all outcomes which happen, happen with 100% probability. However, we as humans don't have a 100% understanding of everything that happens, so we use statistics to describe certain processes.

There has been found rock from outher space that contained some higher chemical compounds (organix based), and even in the galactic space, chemical substances were found that were in fact quite complex.

Nevertheless there are many difficulities in finding the mechanism at work that formed the first life. We don't know what chemicals were there at the time. Maybe we never find it. Does that mean we have to assume the 'supernatural' at work?

Let us try to use some logic also. Which other explenation would be feasable? A conscious creator at work?
The mechanism through which that would have to occur, is even less open to research or investigation.
It is not the lack op open mindedness to exclude such ideas, but the lack of investigatability and researchability that makes it impossible to even consider the idea.

If a creationist would offer a way of describing how the supernatural had worked, we could go an investigate and explore that. Maybe they then would just arrive at new perspectives how nature works. The 'supernatural' would then become normal natural law. But they happen not to deliver something that is open to investigation.

We have therefore no other options then to base our theories on known natural laws and known facts, and revise those visions when new evidence is delivered that alters our perspective on those laws and those facts.

 

[named edited]

Zak is winning hands down.

Bob's grossly over wordy posts suggesting that, because life the universe and everything is extreamly complicated, this is "evidence" of a creator. It is not. Bob as shown nothing more than the fact that mans knowledge is, as yet, incomplete. We already know that.

Zak, on the other hand, has demonstrated his views clearly, effectively and to the point.

I doubt, however, from what I've read on these board he will get proper merit for doing so.

Niether side will be able to prove or disprove the existance of God but Zak is way ahead in the debate...

 

[heusdens]

Probability

Probability

Probability

What is the probability that a conscious entity can exist apart and independ from and outside of the existence of an objective material world?

What is the probability that matter as such can be created from nothing?

We can be rather precise in these cases.
These probabilities are all exactly ZERO procent.

It could have never happened that way.

 

[Michael12]

Originally posted by bob b
I have to smile at the various attempts to criticize the creation probability arguments.
<snipped>
It is typical for evolutionists to "eat their own" when someone steps out of line, for I have heard people on forums call Sir Francis Crick "an idiot" for suggesting that life came from space (as Hoyle also suggested).

I have two problems with Hoyle, aside from the ones already stated here by others. As the basis for his math he uses the same "quantum leap" of logic that creationists do, which is why his numbers match yours. His probablility is based on a 300 amino acid long enzyme. As I pointed out in an earlier post, abiogenesis doesn't claim that a chain that long "happened by chance".

Second, Fred has no problem defying his own probablitly in his later works. He said life was brought to earth, via a comet, meteorite, etc. But that still means that life had to form, just in a different place. All he did by changing the place of origin is give his theory an extra 10 billion years to work on the problem. But according to his maths, 10 billion years hardly makes any difference at all in the probability.

 

[bob b]

Michael12,

This may not be the place to discuss this (at least until the combatants bring it up), but there are proteins with that many elements today, so they would have had to get there somehow.

Hoyle believed in the "steady state" concept so the universe in his mind was essentially infinitely old.

 

[Michael12]

Originally posted by bob b
Hoyle believed in the "steady state" concept so the universe in his mind was essentially infinitely old.

How stupid of me, yes, you are right, he did accept steady-state. However, that is a seperate issue I have against him and you are right, they haven't brought it up yet, so it's probably off topic to discuss it at this point.

 

[bob b]

Re: Probability

Re: Probability

Originally posted by heusdens
Probability

What is the probability that a conscious entity can exist apart and independ from and outside of the existence of an objective material world?

What is the probability that matter as such can be created from nothing?

We can be rather precise in these cases.
These probabilities are all exactly ZERO procent.

It could have never happened that way.

I would agree that it would be impossible for matter/energy to initially come into existence by natural means.

Thus, the probability of an agent external to the universe doing the job is precisely unity.

 

[Michael12]

Re: Re: Probability

Re: Re: Probability

Originally posted by bob b
I would agree that it would be impossible for matter/energy to initially come into existence by natural means.

Thus, the probability of an agent external to the universe doing the job is precisely unity.

Another way to show the true meaning of probabilty. Take a look at your life right now. At the time you were born (creation) what were the odds that at this very moment in time you would be sitting right here, at your computer, reading this particular post? Those odds even make the creationist probablilty calculations seem insignificant. Yet here you are, along with 6 billion other statistical impossibilites that walk on the same planet as you do. Point being, statistics only carry meaning when they are viewed in retrospect. In other words, you could be out playing catch right now, but the odds of that happening at this very moment, when calculated at the time of your birth would be no different then the odds of you sitting here at your computer.

 

[heusdens]

Re: Re: Probability

Re: Re: Probability

Originally posted by bob b
I would agree that it would be impossible for matter/energy to initially come into existence by natural means.

Thus, the probability of an agent external to the universe doing the job is precisely unity.

Where did that "agent" all of a sudden come from?

You forget about the most trivial part. All of matter, space and time, in whatever existence form it might exist, is indestructable and uncreatable, it is just eternally changing, transforming, etc.

If it could have been the case that there was no material world, then there would have no grounds for assuming or stating that it exists now, because from nothing comes something, nothing can not form ground for anything that exists.

So, the probability of there being a material world existing in a spatiotemporal way, is always one, since there can not be, never has been or ever will be nothing.

This brings down the necessity and possibility of your "agent" down to zero.

So, your "agent" coming from nowhere acting outside of space, time and matter, and not doing anything, cause all of matter, space and time have always been there, and will always be there, is therefore not something is not at any place and any time and is not doing something, has no reason to do something, and can thus not be something other then a concept of the mind itself.

The question is however, why does the mind "invent" such a concept about reality? What is the urge or the need for the mind to state it.

The issue is quite understandable, since consciousness itself can only state it's own existence, and never can acknowledge it's inexistence. As far as our consciousness is concerned, it does not have knowledge from within itself, that consciousness happened to not exist. Within our consciousness, we can never form the idea of what caused our consciousness to be, to form, shape and develop.

However our understanding of the world is, and which we come to know through outside knowledge, is that our consciousness is not the primary thing in or of the world, and that there happened to be a time in which we and our consciousness did not exist.

We know that much, but deep down and inside, our consciousness happens to not understand that. It can not understand it, and only by taking into consideration our knowledge about the world from outside of our selfs, we can deal with that issue, and omit to the fact that even when we are not able to understand that fact, we have to acknowledge the truth of that fact.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Michael12
How stupid of me, yes, you are right, he did accept steady-state. However, that is a seperate issue I have against him and you are right, they haven't brought it up yet, so it's probably off topic to discuss it at this point.

Even if the steady-state can be regarded now as a wrong theory, the postulation of the theory was scientific progress. The theory succesfully predicted the amount and quantities of the primary elements (Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium).