18-12-2002 09:23									#31
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick I wouldn't be surprised if there are lifeforms in our solar system.

Erm, I should hope you wouldn't...

	18-12-2002 14:55									#32
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Simple, really. Est. # of galaxies in the universe: 125 billion Now it is reasonable to assume in every galaxy there is at least one planet with conditions like earth. That is being very stingy, considering there are 100 billion potential solar systems in our galaxy alone. So even with that conservative estimate, we know life developed on our planet out of those 125 billion earth-like ones. So the odds are at the most 1 in 125 billion, I'd say.

You can't say anything about the odds of life with such a small sample size. i.e 1. If you roll two dice and one comes up 6, the odds of a 6 are not at least 1/2 as you would suggest.

If you are going to use the Drake equation you have to use other estimation techniques.

	18-12-2002 14:57									#33
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by monkspider UR, I'm afraid this is a strawman. I doubt there are many theists who subscribe to the belief that "low probability equates impossibility". Nothing personal of course, comrade.

I am afraid you are out of touch with the mainstream creationist arguments. Just in this thread CyberShy made exactly this argument, that life is too complex to arise from non-life. He is not alone, Lincoln did the same thing before. It is a favourite argument among Creationists - ICR, etc. Just search the Web and you will be surprised how many of them are sprouting this silliness.

	18-12-2002 14:59									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by monkspider UR, I'm afraid this is a strawman. I doubt there are many theists who subscribe to the belief that "low probability equates impossibility". Nothing personal of course, comrade.

William Dembski uses a similar argument. It goes something like this:

1. We can set an upper limit on the number of Earthlike planets in the Universe: the number of galaxies, multiplied by the number of stars in a typical galaxy. The actual number of Earthlike planets will be much less than this, but it certainly won't be higher.

2. We know roughly how old the Universe is: how many years there have been in which random abiogenesis might have occurred.

3. If the probability of abiogenesis is so low that it's very unlikely to have occurred on any Earthlike planet in any year since the beginning of the Universe, then a divine miracle is the most reasonable explanation.

4. (Waves hands, pulls numbers out of butt...) That's how unlikely abiogenesis is.

5. Therefore God did it.

Step 4 is a "leap of faith", and the weakest step in the argument. We don't know how unlikely abiogenesis is: currently, most of the steps seem plausible.

Creationists and ID advocates like to use the myth of the "life sequence": a specific and rather long polynucleotide molecule that must be formed in one step from free-floating nucleotides. It is possible to calculate that this really is as improbable as Dembski claims, IF you accept his premise that the first replicator really must be that big, and that only one possible configuration will do the job.

There is no reason to accept either assumption.

And step 3 ignores the possibility of an infinite number of alternate Universes.

	18-12-2002 14:59									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Asher As an agnostic, I think it's safe to say that the assertion this thread makes is as ridiculous as the assertion it tries to refute of creationists. Ah...how fun it is to sit on the fence.

I am an agnostic and firmly believe in evolution. I don't see how they are incomaptible.

The catholic church(Which last time i checked believed in God) agrees with evolution

	18-12-2002 15:14									#36
	Suffering from ads?

Being agnostic doesn't necessarily mean you're sitting on the fence, it isn't the state "between" theism and atheism. It only means that you believe there is no proof of God (soft agnostic) or that there can't be any proof of God (hard agnostic). An agnostic can well be a devout believer or a hardcore atheist.

	18-12-2002 15:21									#37
	Put an end to popups!

I don't get this improbable equals improbable therefore its God's doing gig.

Are they saying that the chance of life being created was originally made extremely probable by God and then made impossible after the event?

I could understand saying that it is so unlikely that divine intervention is a statistically acceptable option - which happens when the notional chance of a creationist god is as likely as 'natural' abiogenesis.

Neither of those options seems particularly convincing though.

	18-12-2002 15:23									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia He admits there's a chance! Come to Jesus Ramo!

I thought you believe in Urata (however it is spelled) or some similar wacky beliefs?

	18-12-2002 15:24									#39
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

To show that life can arise from non-life is pretty simple. There are many borderline cases (self-replicating molecules, complex proteins, amino acid macrostructures) that can go either way. The fact that the line itself is blurry is a sort of proof in itself that non-life can give way to life with minor chemical alterations.

Creationism is another in a long line of efforts to defend the "ultimate reality" of faith by psuedo-scientific means. It's incredibly silly. Faith is what's left in the residual category after all the rational, predictable processes are done explaining as much of the world as they can. That will always be a very large category.

It shrinks with time. Planets were once literally drawn through the heavens by the gods. The insane were once touched by either an angel or a devil. Little by little, the scientific method creates theories invade some of these formerly unexplainable things, and every time it happens there's a rear-guard action to try to censor or discredit the new ideas.

An understandable impulse, but completely unnecessary, as it doesn't defend religion, but merely ridicules it. If nothing else, all of the "for what purpose?" questions will ALWAYS be safely in the Faith category, and theists can live there never worrying that the game will be broken up.

	18-12-2002 15:26									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Does this mean God only does things that are statiscaly unlikely. Surley God should reserve himself to the impossible. If it is merely unlikley why doesn't he just wait.

Or is it just that God is the answer when people don't understand something, Oh look the sun comes up every morning that must be God

	18-12-2002 15:27									#41
	Remove this text

I have always maintained that there is a great deal of evidence in the world that seems to point toward the direction of God's existence. But it is irrelevant. All people will one day realize God, even UR and Carl Sagan. He will be quite a bit different than what the outspoken fundamentalists had led them to believe, however.

	18-12-2002 15:32									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger Does this mean God only does things that are statiscaly unlikely. Surley God should reserve himself to the impossible. If it is merely unlikley why doesn't he just wait. Or is it just that God is the answer when people don't understand something, Oh look the sun comes up every morning that must be God

Maybe God does certain things so often that they become statistically likely - everything from the miracle of birth to making holes in socks.

	18-12-2002 15:50									#43
	Increase Your PM Length

> Or is it just that God is the answer when people don't understand something, Oh look the sun comes up every morning that must be God

Yes.

Or, something they don't like. "I didn't take my daughter to the doctor when she had that bad cold and now she's dead. Oh well, must be the Lord wanted to call her home."

Or something they DO like, but have no other reason to believe. "Ordinarily I'd say it's not nice to kidnap people and work them to death, but luckily the Lord made white people superior to black people."

In the words of Doug Adams, that about wraps it up for God.

	18-12-2002 20:24									#44
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by monkspider I have always maintained that there is a great deal of evidence in the world that seems to point toward the direction of God's existence.

Really, that would be just your interpretation of it. I too am awed by a night sky filled with stars, but the idea of a supernatural creator does not cross my mind when I stare at it.

	18-12-2002 20:26									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin Maybe God does certain things so often that they become statistically likely - everything from the miracle of birth to making holes in socks.

Here in lies a problem which I deem to be the conflict between science and Christianity. If God intervenes so much, how can one tell what is natural and what is not?

	18-12-2002 20:30									#46
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by monkspider But it is irrelevant. All people will one day realize God, even UR and Carl Sagan.

You'd think that if there was a God, Carl Sagan would know by now

	18-12-2002 21:02									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by monkspider I have always maintained that there is a great deal of evidence in the world that seems to point toward the direction of God's existence. But it is irrelevant. All people will one day realize God, even UR and Carl Sagan. He will be quite a bit different than what the outspoken fundamentalists had led them to believe, however.

You know, I don't have the slightest idea of what you actually mean by this, but I like your way of thinking...

	18-12-2002 21:47									#48
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala You know, I don't have the slightest idea of what you actually mean by this, but I like your way of thinking...

Monkie is more of a mystic than a Christian, you can tell by the way he writes.

	18-12-2002 23:32									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Here in lies a problem which I deem to be the conflict between science and Christianity. If God intervenes so much, how can one tell what is natural and what is not?

I have a hard time accepting a God's interaction with the world after a creation event- it defies scientific reasoning and logic. But then, I also have a hard time accepting the concept of free will (to me I think it scientifically and logically impossible). Given that the latter appears to be a false conclusion as it is at odds with experience I conclude that the former is potentially a false conclusion.


As I am not convinced, I am not too sure of the argument for such a case. The best I can come up with is that if God is so pervasive as to be (in) everything from the subatomic to the laws of nature, then why not be willing to consider the notion that science is always measuring God or His actions, which can in turn be considered natural. Its could be like looking at a human body - some actions are voluntary, others are involuntary. Both are natural - but on empirical evidence would you be able to discern the difference?

	18-12-2002 23:41									#50
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by monkspider I have always maintained that there is a great deal of evidence in the world that seems to point toward the direction of God's existence.

Such as? I can't think of anything that has been produced as evidence of God that hasn't been shown to be either unsubstantiated (Biblical miracles, personal testimony) or scientifically ludicrous.

There is no evidence for God's existence, there is no evidence for his lack of existence.

	19-12-2002 01:03									#51
	Suffering from ads?

I think the real question is: given infinite time, would this thread spontaneously morph into-

A. A Mountain Troll
B. A Cave Troll
C. A lost and scared Hobbit

	19-12-2002 08:06									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Here in lies a problem which I deem to be the conflict between science and Christianity. If God intervenes so much, how can one tell what is natural and what is not? I have a hard time accepting a God's interaction with the world after a creation event- it defies scientific reasoning and logic.

My message was a response to your "What if God does certain things often..." which seems to imply an interventionist God. If that is the case, there is no telling when and where God will do that.

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin As I am not convinced, I am not too sure of the argument for such a case. The best I can come up with is that if God is so pervasive as to be (in) everything from the subatomic to the laws of nature, then why not be willing to consider the notion that science is always measuring God or His actions, which can in turn be considered natural.

What if God only changes things around when we are looking? Say, c is actually 700,000,000 m/s but when we measure it God changes it to 300,000,000 m/s? Wouldn't that be a bugger?

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin Both are natural - but on empirical evidence would you be able to discern the difference?

No, we can't tell. My point isn't whether we can tell the difference, but this: With an interventionist God in the picture, science goes out the window, for we can never be sure what we are observing is what actually is happening.

	19-12-2002 19:13									#53
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: My message was a response to your "What if God does certain things often..." which seems to imply an interventionist God. If that is the case, there is no telling when and where God will do that.

What if it is governed by the uncertainty principle?

quote: What if God only changes things around when we are looking? Say, c is actually 700,000,000 m/s but when we measure it God changes it to 300,000,000 m/s? Wouldn't that be a bugger?

Although science suggests such analagous notions elsewhere, you think the concept bizarre?

quote: With an interventionist God in the picture, science goes out the window, for we can never be sure what we are observing is what actually is happening

I don't believe that is necessarily true.

What you are observing is what is actually happening - the laws of nature have not changed. Things happen in a scientifically explicable way but due to a conscious divine effort, rather than random chance.

quote: I think the real question is: given infinite time, would this thread spontaneously morph into- A. A Mountain Troll B. A Cave Troll C. A lost and scared Hobbit

Given enough time, a brick can jump up a flight of stairs, so I think the answer is all of the above.

	19-12-2002 20:08									#54
	Inflate your Upload Space

Couldn't read through the thread, but I will say this:

The universe churns out so much **** that it's an inevitability for life to develop.

	19-12-2002 20:57									#55
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by monkspider I have always maintained that there is a great deal of evidence in the world that seems to point toward the direction of God's existence. But it is irrelevant. All people will one day realize God, even UR and Carl Sagan. He will be quite a bit different than what the outspoken fundamentalists had led them to believe, however.

That kind of thinking is downright wrong. You are not going to enforce your beliefs on other people. I am atheist for a reason. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to the existence of god? Since when? I would like to see this evidence. I am atheist and I believe based upon what my heart says, that there is no god.