124d
@wildgrass saidYou did not answer the question, I asked about a template you said to replicate that isn't an answer for a template that is something entirely different, you understand that right?
You asked a simple question, I provided a clear answer, now you complicate.
123d
@KellyJay saidLooking at the discussion I would try to restart by asking you for a clean hypothesis.
Can we tell if life’s genetic code can be mathematically understood to not be randomly put together?
"genetic" probably should read "genetics". This field deals mainly with objects and processes that can be described by primary school math.
I assume your hypothesis is:
Is it probably that the genetic code as we find it has been created by chance?
This is of course a non-starter, since it leads to the meta discussion: Does God exist. If yes, then probably he did create, but this can't be proven, especially not by probablity. If there is no Go, then of course chance was it, how improbably ever.
If I did misunderstand please formulate a clean hypothesis. Thank you
123d
@Ponderable saidThe starting place can be God is real or God is not real, both are absolutes that alters reality rendering the other choice the wrong answer, it then becomes a faulty foundation for all matters of inquiry.
Looking at the discussion I would try to restart by asking you for a clean hypothesis.
"genetic" probably should read "genetics". This field deals mainly with objects and processes that can be described by primary school math.
I assume your hypothesis is:
Is it probably that the genetic code as we find it has been created by chance?
This is of course a non-star ...[text shortened]... as it, how improbably ever.
If I did misunderstand please formulate a clean hypothesis. Thank you
Whichever one fits reality will always be the better answer, rejecting anything out of hand limits our ability to understand and reasoning.
The genetic code in part is what is instructing biological systems to produce forms and functions for life. The probability of chance doing something means through the chaos of hits and misses it occurred, while designed information limitations gives precision from start to finish.
Given the biological systems complex nature which is the most reasonable to you?
123d
@KellyJay saidThe question if God is real or not is not in the scope of science.
The starting place can be God is real or God is not real, both are absolutes that alters reality rendering the other choice the wrong answer, it then becomes a faulty foundation for all matters of inquiry.
There can't be a scientific proof either way.
123d
@Ponderable saidIt is a matter of whether or not truth matters, scientists want to know the truth from fiction, and even with scientific inquiry sometimes only inductive reasoning is all we have. Singular events are not repeating themselves for us to study and understand, but we seek to know what happened in a murder or some other event. We look at the circumstances and seek to understand what happened by what the circumstances eliminate (circumstantial evidence) God being a possible cause is no more taboo than finding one person out of billions who may have murdered someone.
The question if God is real or not is not in the scope of science.
There can't be a scientific proof either way.
123d
Don't confuse "science" and criminla investigation" .
Truth matters and miracles are not in the scope of science. (Sometimes however we find that what was perceived as miracle is "just" the way nature works.)
But "truth" is not the core of scientific investigation: reality is. I do know that I simplify the world in designing my experiments, I do so to concentrate of (ideally) a single parameter which I want to understand. I am aware that this is "just" an aspect of truth.
122d
1 edit
@Ponderable saidThey both apply inductive reasoning you think that seeking the truth by looking at them with the same methodology only works for one and not the other, why?
Don't confuse "science" and criminla investigation" .
Truth matters and miracles are not in the scope of science. (Sometimes however we find that what was perceived as miracle is "just" the way nature works.)
But "truth" is not the core of scientific investigation: reality is. I do know that I simplify the world in designing my experiments, I do so to concentrate of ...[text shortened]... y) a single parameter which I want to understand. I am aware that this is "just" an aspect of truth.
You can not avoid miracles without God they simply are called for as well because a natural explanation doesn’t exist the numbers don’t allow for it.
122d
@KellyJay saidIn fact criminology applies scientific methods to obtain knowledeg about facts. It also applies less soundmethods to obtain infromation. There is no scientific sound "lie detector" (even thogh people thouught so once) for example.
They both apply inductive reasoning you think that seeking the truth by looking at them with the same methodology only works for one and not the other, why?
You can not avoid miracles without God they simply are called for as well because a natural explanation doesn’t exist the numbers don’t allow for it.
There are lost of observations to which "miracle" would be a good label, since they are not completely understood by science (at least yet). Spontaneous remission comes to mind.
But we can't know if they are miracles as long as we have no complete understanding. And we will never have.
Numbers often don't add up, that is normally the starting point of the next scientific enquiry. All sceintist know (or at least should know) that human knowledge is limited per se.
122d
@Ponderable saidScientific methods to obtain knowledge about facts, yes, which is why what we do to seek out facts remains a good method to look at everything else. Lie detectors would only come into play if what we were looking at in the universe depending on what people said about them. Suggesting must know everything before we know anything is ludicrous, we could never claim we know anything at all if we have to know everything about without exception. Reasonable is the only thing we have, is it remotely possible is always true, but it is reasonable?
In fact criminology applies scientific methods to obtain knowledeg about facts. It also applies less soundmethods to obtain infromation. There is no scientific sound "lie detector" (even thogh people thouught so once) for example.
There are lost of observations to which "miracle" would be a good label, since they are not completely understood by science (at least yet). ...[text shortened]... ntific enquiry. All sceintist know (or at least should know) that human knowledge is limited per se.
Suggesting we have to remove all doubt is only done with information because information removes uncertainty. The more something is unlikely the greater the value of information we are looking at, rolling a dice and picking a number is less likely than flipping a coin and calling heads or tails.
When something is improbable (10 to the XXXX), couple it with a series of other pieces also improbable (10 to XXXX) we move from unlikely to near impossible. We still have to say near impossible because zero isn't achieved. If you don't have all of the necessary parts from time to material in the same place there is zero possibility.
To move to improbable comes into play means getting all the ducks in a row, then in one place, at the same time, in the right quantities, having them react without hindrances or show stoppers, and so on only puts you in the place where improbable comes into play for only as long as everything remains true that it could happen.
Eliminating what cannot cause something to what we know can isn't that difficult unless you reject something before you start out of hand.
121d
@KellyJay
For you it matters not at all what science comes up with as far as origin of life goes, you will ONLY believe Goddidit.
What would be your take if in a future Europa probe there was actual life there found from the ocean buried 20 miles deep, heated by tidal friction with Jupiter and some of that ocean squirts out a thousand miles into space and it can be a great source of information about organic molecules in that stream and maybe even capturing formerly living cells.
That would widen the life found in the universe quite a bit but of course would not change your stance, right?
121d
@sonhouse saidDoes not matter what science comes up with you will always reject God did it.
@KellyJay
For you it matters not at all what science comes up with as far as origin of life goes, you will ONLY believe Goddidit.
What would be your take if in a future Europa probe there was actual life there found from the ocean buried 20 miles deep, heated by tidal friction with Jupiter and some of that ocean squirts out a thousand miles into space and it can be a grea ...[text shortened]... widen the life found in the universe quite a bit but of course would not change your stance, right?
121d
1 edit
@KellyJay
Not if science says goddidit. I just don't believe people who have nothing but the bible to go by.
But you didn't answer my question about what you would think if life was discovered on Europa, a moon, where a probe will be going there or maybe already on the way to probe the ocean water squirting out of the surface going a thousand miles into space before dissipating, and maybe life there. What if they do find some kind of life there? Does it collide with your religion?
120d
@sonhouse saidTalking to you about this topic or anything else that you drag Trump’s name into is a waste of time.
@KellyJay
Not if science says goddidit. I just don't believe people who have nothing but the bible to go by.
But you didn't answer my question about what you would think if life was discovered on Europa, a moon, where a probe will be going there or maybe already on the way to probe the ocean water squirting out of the surface going a thousand miles into space before dissip ...[text shortened]... maybe life there. What if they do find some kind of life there? Does it collide with your religion?