09 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI've yet to discover a "christian" capable of free will.
That was an incredibly intelligent way of saying something pretty moronic.
Humans have free will, something that throws probability off quite a bit, wouldn't you say?
Cells "randomly trying* to form" ARE subject to probability.
*I say trying in a totally random kind of way, since Nature didn't have a goal.
and it's not nearly as moronic as the garbage science that dj posts.
and no probability of random event describe random events not controled ones.
Why would it bother you if you were a product of of nature?
09 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHere's a quote from his book:
This should give you a pretty good overview of his assumptions:
http://creationsafaris.com/jfc.htm
Please note that the Ph.D. this fellow received was in theology, not any relevant quantitative science. I guess all you need is your Bible to do the calculations! Hooray for the new creationism!
Dr. Harold J. Morowitz of Yale University has done extensive research for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to discover the theoretical limits for the simplest free-living thing which could duplicate itself, or, technically, the minimal biological entity capable of autonomous self-replication. He took into consideration the minimum operating equipment needed and the space it would require. Also, attention was given to electrical properties and to the hazards of thermal motion. From these important studies, the conclusion is that the smallest such theoretical entity would require 239 or more individual protein molecules.
This logic is flawed. The simplest free living thing which could duplicate itself is a single RNA molecule. Unless this guy is playing word games and defines "living" as a cell or something composed of cells. If this is the case, then any claims that such a cell would arise spontaneously without evolving from earlier non cellular molecules is a misrepresentation of the mechanism by which most scientists today believe life came to be without a designer.
From here the author argues this:
In order to account for the [fact that all biological amino acids have left handed chirality], chance alone, unaided by natural selection, would have to arrange at least one complete set of 239 proteins with all-left-handed amino acids of the universal 20 kinds.
This conclusion does not follow for the reason I gave above.
http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c04.htm
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusHuman behavior can be predicted probabalistically.
That was an incredibly intelligent way of saying something pretty moronic.
Humans have free will, something that throws probability off quite a bit, wouldn't you say?
Cells "randomly trying* to form" ARE subject to probability.
*I say trying in a totally random kind of way, since Nature didn't have a goal.
09 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderGood point. The guy does have an MS in chemistry, but there was a strong implication that this guy has a Ph.D in probabalistic biology or something.
Since dj2becker used his supposed credentials to try to establish the legitimacy of his argument to wit: "Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D., director of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in Clifornia,", to show those credentials are bogus is a direct refutation of a point raised by dj2becker and is clearly relevant. It is dj2becker who should ...[text shortened]... own has any credentials in Biology or Probability; not Bbarr who (truthfully) said he had none.
10 Apr 05
5 edits
Bbarr, It would be nice in the context of teaching extra-terrestrials like me to reason logically, to not only address the fallacies the religious folk are struggling with but also to address the fallacies the self-appointed "rationals" are spouting on the forums. It would at least be very entertaining but, and that's more important, it would be very educational. As a positive premium you would lose at least part of your image of being rather one-sided in choosing your students who need correction.
May I count on your coöperation in this urgent matter ?
10 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusHow do you know that humans have free will? Maybe we don't but only think that we do, and are unable to escape our delusion of self control due to initial programming. Essentially random decisions get rationals built around them after the fact to induce a sensation of choice in a depressingly predictable way.
Humans have free will, something that throws probability off quite a bit, wouldn't you say?
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by Darfiusif you knew anything about probability theory you would have easily seen the analogy the only difference is my math is actually correct and it's integral with respect to radius is the outter boundary of a volume of a sphere that when the volume of a sphere with radius ,such that R>r , is subtracted from it giive the useful volume for chemical reaction to occur ,,and since chemical reactions occur on a sub-atomic level , estimating the number of possible chemical reactions in that volume would resolve to an astronomically high figure ,,that would be a divisor to the numbers that dj is relying on.
That was an incredibly intelligent way of saying something pretty moronic.
Humans have free will, something that throws probability off quite a bit, wouldn't you say?
Cells "randomly trying* to form" ARE subject to probability.
*I say trying in a totally random kind of way, since Nature didn't have a goal.
AND: since radio-astronomer are begining to pick up evidence of massive interstellar clouds of building block of life.. my numbers are most likely only a tiny fraction of thet volumes avialable for chemical reactions to occur.
P.S. to any mathematicians here : I realize I used a definite integral but, I didn't have a value for r on hand.
I am not a mathemitician or a scientist
10 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Maustrauserprob0bility theory :
No you miss read him. It wasn't statistics being a new science it was : "the laws of probobility studies."
I'm not sure what a 'probobility' is. Perhaps a small proboscis? Can you shed any light on this new science?
In psysiology , is the theoretical maximum lenght a human nose can be without additional genes ,,SEE Pacydermius longarosis.
In theology , the number of times a person can thumb his nose at God without getting hit by a lightning bolt
In Fairy tales : the theory on cellular creation derived from the psuedo mathematics of Dr. James Coppedge, Ph.D
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, I don't read all the threads in these forums, so I may miss a lot posts from both sides of the ideological divide that would seem flawed to me. You're right, however, that I normally focus on those folk who are actively disagreeing with me, and those folk tend to be theists. I will do my best to at least note problems that I see in the reasoning of others, regardless of their ideological persuasion.
Bbarr, It would be nice in the context of teaching extra-terrestrials like me to reason logically, to not only address the fallacies the religious folk are struggling with but also to address the fallacies the self-appointed "rationals" are spouting on the forums. It would at least be very entertaining but, and that's more important, it would be very ...[text shortened]... ur students who need correction.
May I count on your coöperation in this urgent matter ?
I didn't know you were an extra-terrestrial. Cool. Are you an extra-terrestrial in virtual of being a celestian?
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe, I don't read all the threads in these forums, so I may miss a lot posts from both sides of the ideological divide that would seem flawed to me. You're right, however, that I normally focus on those folk who are actively disagreeing with me, and those folk tend to be theists. I will do my best to at least note problems that I see in the reasoning o ...[text shortened]... were an extra-terrestrial. Cool. Are you an extra-terrestrial in virtual of being a celestian?
There are people who claim I'm an angel ........
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrBBarr: "Ah, Ivanhoe, you're my little angel.😉 "
Ah, Ivanhoe, you're my little angel.😉
So, I'll try to bust heads equitably from now on. But tonight I've plans, so I'll see you later.
..... yes, bbarr ...... 😕
BBarr: "So, I'll try to bust heads equitably from now on."
...... Hurray ! ....... 😀
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by bbarrbust on me first, I'm always in dire need of correction , but mind you I don't paste from pseudo science sites , so its not the fault of my sources.
Ah, Ivanhoe, you're my little angel.😉
So, I'll try to bust heads equitably from now on. But tonight I've plans, so I'll see you later.
10 Apr 05
Originally posted by DeepThoughtCome on DeepThought! Apply some!
Since when has statistics been a new science?
This is unanswerable without a reference. I'd guess he assumed that the base materials were at an even concentration throughout the oceans, that way the dilution would be enough to stop anything happenning. If you ignore volcanos and other events like meteorite strikes or lightening that generate all so ...[text shortened]... can't supply a reference here either, it was a documentary probably Horizon) and guess what...
Address the point, instead of the cop-out route.
The science of probability virtually disproves the whole card-house of evolutionary theory. It's that simple.