Abiogenesis and evolution: James Tour

@kellyjay said
You can NOT tell because intent can be hidden intentionally. Masking signals to send messages that sounds like random noise is an art form companies and military long for, putting information into what looks like something common without intelligence involved can be a desirable feature. On top of things like. “Look that cloud looks like Winnie the Pooh.” Intent must seen ...[text shortened]... as a probability when you run the numbers against hitting each key correctly in the proper sequence.

You can NOT tell because intent can be hidden intentionally.

Science does not deal with missing evidence. Your statement is conspiracy theory lunacy: 'We don't see the evidence because somebody concealed the evidence.'

@moonbus said
You can NOT tell because intent can be hidden intentionally.

Science does not deal with missing evidence. Your statement is conspiracy theory lunacy: 'We don't see the evidence because somebody concealed the evidence.'

Please TELL me how the instructional information got into life via mindless processes! The standard you apply to those things you disagree with are different than those you accept.

@moonbus said
You can NOT tell because intent can be hidden intentionally.

Science does not deal with missing evidence. Your statement is conspiracy theory lunacy: 'We don't see the evidence because somebody concealed the evidence.'

You really don’t read to understand, had you followed the examples in the context that was said in.

@kellyjay said
You can NOT tell because intent can be hidden intentionally.

So there's no sure way of knowing if something is designed or not. For all you know a rainbow could be designed because the creator "intentionally" hid the fact it was created.

I hope you now understand why ID isn't considered scientific.

we can recognize intent by the improbability of specific information being presented in the arrangement.

You're misunderstanding something about probability.

Flipping a coin 100 times to record the results for heads or tails is no problem even though it's improbable to get those same results on a second round of 100 flips.

You had a 1 in 100 million chance of fertilizing an egg as sperm, yet you're here.

Just because the a odds of *specific* result would be improbable to replicate, that in no way is an argument against it happening the first time. This is why using "probability" as an argument for ID fails.

@kellyjay said
Please TELL me how the instructional information got into life via mindless processes! The standard you apply to those things you disagree with are different than those you accept.

There is no instructional information in nature. You are projecting. It's like retrograde motion of the planets; there's no there there.

@kellyjay said
Please TELL me how the instructional information got into life via mindless processes! The standard you apply to those things you disagree with are different than those you accept.

You’ve been fooled by someone’s metaphor into thinking it’s literally true. It just like Matt 7:3, people don’t really have logs in their eyes. Cells don’t really follow informational instructions. It’s just a figure of speech.

@vivify said
So there's no sure way of knowing if something is designed or not. For all you know a rainbow could be designed because the creator "intentionally" hid the fact it was created.

I hope you now understand why ID isn't considered scientific.

we can recognize intent by the improbability of specific information being presented in the arrangement.

You're misun ...[text shortened]... t against it happening the first time. This is why using "probability" as an argument for ID fails.

Ignoring something by definition is simply choosing to define it in such a way it cannot be accepted no matter how true it is. You should look into probabilities a little closer, I don't care how many times you flip a coin each flip is always going to be a 50% chance of coming up heads. Now if you are required to flip a coin a hundred times in a row and always get heads, that is different. Each step in the process brings with it a chance of failure, you have not touched the probabilities of failure over success yet.

@moonbus said
There is no instructional information in nature. You are projecting. It's like retrograde motion of the planets; there's no there there.

Oh well, I guess you think that if you say so that should mean your word is more important than what can be seen taking place in life, you have a high opinion of yourself.

@moonbus said
You’ve been fooled by someone’s metaphor into thinking it’s literally true. It just like Matt 7:3, people don’t really have logs in their eyes. Cells don’t really follow informational instructions. It’s just a figure of speech.

Yes, a metaphor that represents a truth that was conveyed at the telling. Wow, people don't actually have logs in their eyes, I'm glad you studied religion.

@kellyjay said
Yes, a metaphor that represents a truth that was conveyed at the telling. Wow, people don't actually have logs in their eyes, I'm glad you studied religion.

But the talking snake wasn’t a metaphor, that was real right?

@kellyjay said
You should look into probabilities a little closer, I don't care how many times you flip a coin each flip is always going to be a 50% chance of coming up heads.

Before you respond take time to understand my point.

There's a difference between the chances of getting a specific result vs. getting any result.

It's impossible to replicate a specific head/tails result of 100 flips, but the chances of getting *any* result regardless of the outcome is 100 percent.

Your ID arguments are like claiming it's impossible for my coin flips to be random because the odds of replicating that specific result is too low.

@vivify said
Think for a moment about what I'm saying.

There's a difference between the chances of getting a specific result vs. getting any result.

It's impossible to replicate a specific head/tails result of 100 flips, but the chances of getting *any* result regardless of the outcome is 100 percent.

Your ID arguments are like claiming it's impossible for my ...[text shortened]... plicating that specific result is too low.

Before you respond take time to understand my point.

You can shuffle a deck of cards and the possibility of getting a sequence of that 52 cards is 100%, because any sequence will do. Now calling out a specific order that must fall out in is 1 in 8 x 10^67, you again are not looking at what needs to happen against what could happen at every step along the way. You act as if you are just calling out a card out of the deck at some time if you keep asking you will be right.

The scenario of life isn't like that, opportunities for even a chance to move towards a life-friendly requires a very long list of factors, and in that, as time goes by so the factors would change. All of those factors would be moving targets, as chemicals react the ingredients required for life would come and go, as well as their purity, quantities, if they connected properly, and so on. This isn't even taking into account things that could inhibit or completely shut down necessary reactions.

A hundred coin flips all coming up heads 100 times in a row is simple compared to all of the requirements for life coming together through an uncaring, mindless process. An intelligent person could set 100 coins face up without issue.

@vivify said
Before you respond take time to understand my point.

There's a difference between the chances of getting a specific result vs. getting any result.

It's impossible to replicate a specific head/tails result of 100 flips, but the chances of getting *any* result regardless of the outcome is 100 percent.

Your ID arguments are like claiming it's impossible for my coin flips to be random because the odds of replicating that specific result is too low.

Try and tell me how many coins would be required to overcome flipping a coin 100 times in a row and get heads each time.

@kellyjay said
You can shuffle a deck of cards and the possibility of getting a sequence of that 52 cards is 100%, because any sequence will do. Now calling out a specific order that must fall out in is 1 in 8 x 10^67, you again are not looking at what needs to happen against what could happen at every step along the way. You act as if you are just calling out a card out of the deck at some time if you keep asking you will be right.

Except that's a common creationist/IDist tactic to use such logic. Like when they ask "what are chances the human eye could randomly evolve?", they are using that very flawed logic. Evolution could result in an infinite amount of possible outcomes; that doesn't mean just getting to one of those possibilities is "improbable" like creationists claim.

The scenario of life isn't like that, opportunities for even a chance to move towards a life-friendly requires a very long list of factors, and in that, as time goes by so the factors would change. All of those factors would be moving targets, as chemicals react the ingredients required for life would come and go, as well as their purity, quantities, if they connected properly, and so on. This isn't even taking into account things that could inhibit or completely shut down necessary reactions.

Maybe that is the case for life to first start; the initial circumstances to spark the emergence of life may indeed be incredibly specific.

But none of that matters for this thread. There's no reason why an intelligent designer could not have created the mechanism of evolution.

So even if you could prove ID, it would still not be an argument against evolution. Evolution doesn't contradict ID; it's only incompatible with the the Biblical creationist's version of ID, who try to pass it as an "alternative" to evolution.

You have two uphill battles:

1) Proving ID
2) Showing that a designer, for some reason, would not have created life to evolve.

Since ID is no contradiction for evolution, a creationist like yourself is better off trying to some other unscientific gimmick to push your beliefs.

@vivify said
Except that's a common creationist/IDist tactic to use such logic. Like when they ask "what are chances the human eye could randomly evolve?", they are using that very flawed logic. Evolution could result in an infinite amount of possible outcomes; that doesn't mean just getting to one of those possibilities is "improbable" like creationists claim.

[quote]The scenario of ...[text shortened]... ationist like yourself is better off trying to some other unscientific gimmick to push your beliefs.

Yes, imagine that running numbers and logic are common tactics, can they get any more unscientific than that? If your beloved indifferent, mindless, uncaring process cannot start what makes you think it is real? If you have to invoke a miracle and you cannot even come up with a reasonable explanation on how it began to account for everything in life, what possible justification scientifically or otherwise do you have?

You claim that evolution may have an infinite amount of possible outcomes that would work, but is that make-believe or based upon what, blind faith, that evolution of the gaps can do it. Ignoring the numbers we know about in favor of the make-believe is not applying logic to bolster your argument.

Your issues revolve around the beginning of life to even reach biology so that evolution is even possible. If you cannot get there what are you basing all of your arguments on, more make-believe maybe, possibly, could have happened statements of blind faith.