04 Nov 13
Originally posted by King TigerBut we have to keep in mind that DNA is a sequence of adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, and the exact sequence of these determines the code of each gene. When DNA is transcribed, RNA is synthesized using this code leaving the nucleus, and it is translated into a protein in the cytoplasm; each set of three contiguous RNA nucleotides codes for a single aminoacid, and the protein is made of a chain of aminoacids hooked to one another, therefore each set of three nucleotides in the DNA codes for one aminoacid in the final protein that is made from a given gene. The nucleotides and the aminoacids are not similar chemically -the protein synthesis machinery of the cell, which evolved through time, is needed to translate one code into the other. All in all, the process of the proteinosynthesis machinery becomes successful thanks to the DNA transcription, a trancsription that evolved the way we acknowledge herenow through time.
Well, do you feel comfortable with a mathematical probability of 0.00% basically, no matter the amount of time ? Be honest please? While I agree it is in theory possible, how likely can it be? [b]10 ^ -14,184 is pretty low. In fact, If you invert it, 10^14,184 that is a huge number. In fact, so large that it outnumbers the number of atoms in the know ...[text shortened]... Yet, as an academic, I do consider all views hopefully equally. Academic integrity demands that.[/b]
On the other hand, the “low and thus nearly improbable probability” you are talking about is by far higher than, say, the probability that we two are discussing this and that over here at RHP. What is the probability of our mutual births? What is the probability of the birth of my parents and of your parents, and of their parents and so on during the, say, previous 6-7 generations for starters? And what is the probability of the meeting of our lot here at this site and at this very thread? Still, although the probability is next to 0.0000%, here we are, and I surely feel comfortable with this mathematical probability;
So, as regards our core discussion, with twhitehead’s thesis I remain
😵
04 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleSo tell me, if you were to throw 20 coins and you didn't care what the out
But we have to keep in mind that DNA is a sequence of adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, and the exact sequence of these determines the code of each gene. When DNA is transcribed, RNA is synthesized using this code leaving the nucleus, and it is translated into a protein in the cytoplasm; each set of three contiguous RNA nucleotides codes for a sin ...[text shortened]... atical probability;
So, as regards our core discussion, with twhitehead’s thesis I remain
😵
come was going to be, would your odds of getting an answer be 1? Now
if you throw 20 coins and you had to pick the outcome wouldn't that be
much less?
Kelly
04 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayCorrect. And that difference is one of the major flaws of King Tigers probability calculation. It is not the only flaw.
So tell me, if you were to throw 20 coins and you didn't care what the out
come was going to be, would your odds of getting an answer be 1? Now
if you throw 20 coins and you had to pick the outcome wouldn't that be
much less?
Kelly
If for example, you want to know the probability of getting a useful protein by some method, you need to know how many useful proteins are possible and how many unuseful proteins are possible. Nobody knows these figures or can even estimate them, so such a calculation is impossible.
04 Nov 13
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not at all suggesting that someone is fabricating anything! I am
saying that getting a result that we have to assume is correct that can
never really be shown as wrong, should be taken with a very large grain
of salt. It may be useful and heartening to see several tests give the
same type of answers, but that too bottom lining it, are assumptions wi ...[text shortened]... few more data points.
I know you were addressing King Tiger, and I was addressing you.
Kelly
I am
saying that getting a result that we have to assume is correct that can
never really be shown as wrong, should be taken with a very large grain
of salt.
You must be confused. Scientific hypotheses can "really be shown as wrong", since they have disconfirmation conditions. You're the one who has a proposed answer/explanation for the earth's age that has no disconfirmation conditions.** That's your problem, and it is a problem that does not translate to the geologists out there. You are just projecting your own problems onto others here....
--------
**We've already been through this point. Your view is so plastic that you can bend it to accommodate any observations we can make. For example, you can simply say that God made the earth recently but in a form that looks and tests as much older...so, no disconfirmation conditions for you. That means you justifiably get ignored in discussion aimed at understanding how old the earth is. Do not presume to project this irrelevancy onto others, though. Hard working geologists do not justifiably get ignored here....
04 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't see how or why if the math doesn't work in his field would he or
anyone else concern themselves with another field giving more time to
not be able to do something.
We are not talking about infinite time to get it right where we always
have eveything required to get it right, in the same place, under the
right conditions, in the proper quaniti ...[text shortened]... er come that number is turning off one's
brain and not looking at the problem carefully.
Kelly
We are not talking about infinite time to get it right where we always
have eveything required to get it right, in the same place, under the
right conditions, in the proper quanities and so on.
Right, we've already established that no one has infinite time and resources available for study into such inquiries. But, golly, pertaining to the inquiry of how old the earth is, it's particularly relevant to check what the geological evidence has to say on the matter...don't you think???
04 Nov 13
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloWell, what does it matter how old it is if you are not sure what the properWe are not talking about infinite time to get it right where we always
have eveything required to get it right, in the same place, under the
right conditions, in the proper quanities and so on.
Right, we've already established that no one has infinite time and resources available for study into such inquiries. But, golly, pertaining t ...[text shortened]... rly relevant to check what the geological evidence has to say on the matter...don't you think???
requirements are? You can have endless time and if what you are trying
to do cannot be done, what does it matter? Can you describe the perfect
conditions, the prefect quantities of all the proper material? The window of
getting it right has to be open for how long? Time is just one small part of
the whole process, and if your material is mishandled, it could mix into
material that isn't proper so the whole process would become useless.
The number of things that have to be just right is quite large and if for
example the earth is to hot or cold you could lose everything. Endless
time does nothing if the window of everything coming together is never
there. Getting the proper conditions, with the proper material, that are
put together in the proper quantities can only happen briefly that becomes
more important than how much time you have to get it all wrong.
Kelly
04 Nov 13
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayHave no idea what you're talking about. Look, we already know you're a selective radical skeptic about the deliveries of scientific endeavor: if the results are going to bear negatively on the question of whether or not your god exists, then you take an attitude of radical skepticism; if not, then not. That's basically your litmus test, and it is profoundly irresponsible. You have no trouble relying on scientific method for your DUT analysis, but if the subject pertains to the age of the earth or something, suddenly you become a radical skeptic towards science.
Well, what does it matter how old it is if you are not sure what the proper
requirements are? You can have endless time and if what you are trying
to do cannot be done, what does it matter? Can you describe the perfect
conditions, the prefect quantities of all the proper material? The window of
getting it right has to be open for how long? Time is just ...[text shortened]... can only happen becomes more
important than how much time you have to get it all wrong.
Kelly
Your view on this is not consistent; has never been consistent to my knowledge; and maybe never will be consistent....
04 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't think there is issue one saying that if God is real He can create
Have no idea what you're talking about. Look, we already know you're a selective radical skeptic about the deliveries of scientific endeavor: if the results are going to bear negatively on the question of whether or not your god exists, then you take an attitude of radical skepticism; if not, then not. That's basically your litmus test, and it is profou ...[text shortened]... ot consistent; has never been consistent to my knowledge; and maybe never will be consistent....
life, it would be as difficult for Him to write the code for life as it is for
us to write to each other, you type its there.
You don't have any idea what I'm talking about, really!? The conditions
have to right for life to begin from non life and to maintain life, all the
proper material has to be there for life to start and to continue over time
and all the material that has to be there has be there in the proper
quantities to start life and to maintain it. All these things and others have
to fall into place, and as I pointed out having endless time to get it wrong
does nothing to add to the discussion, it actually means you have more
time to get it wrong which works against you.
My view about the claims life can just spring up from non life and maintain
itself is no different that believing a CPU can just occur over time too, in
other words it will not happen without a guiding force.
I've yet to see anyone discuss my concerns, I've seen them like you just
did here say you don't know what I'm talking about, which as far as I'm
concern means you don't understand the questions so you cannot answer.
Kelly
04 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayBoy, you really are confused. My comments before were in regards to the relevancy of incorporating geological evidence into a study program oriented at understanding the age of the earth. Meanwhile, you're talking about something related to abiogenesis. 🙄🙄
I don't think there is issue one saying that if God is real He can create
life, it would be as difficult for Him to write the code for life as it is for
us to write to each other, you type its there.
You don't have any idea what I'm talking about, really!? The conditions
have to right for life to begin from non life and to maintain life, all the
prop ...[text shortened]... ich as far as I'm
concern means you don't understand the questions so you cannot answer.
Kelly
04 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI was talking about both, you have to start and maintain life, and having
Boy, you really are confused. My comments before were in regards to the relevancy of incorporating geological evidence into a study program oriented at understanding the age of the earth. Meanwhile, you're talking about something related to abiogenesis. 🙄🙄
more time is only one variable, it is not the key to over coming all issues.
I see time more as a danger than something that is going to help the process
not only start but continue over time. If you ruin anything that is required
your done. It seems to me that no matter what you'll find an excuse
to brush off the issues.
Kelly
04 Nov 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI believe that a handful of planets in the "Goldilocks Zone" have already been found and that is just in a few patch of sky of nearby stars. There will be many more just in our galaxy ... and there are billions of galaxies.
The number of things that have to be just right is quite large and if for
example the earth is to hot or cold you could lose everything.
Kelly
Don't think we are that special!!!
btw: too hot
04 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat you are talking about is appeal to an old earth as an ancillary component in explanation of abiogenesis and subsequent maintenance of life. That's not relevant to my earlier commentary.
I was talking about both, you have to start and maintain life, and having
more time is only one variable, it is not the key to over coming all issues.
I see time more as a danger than something that is going to help the process
not only start but continue over time. If you ruin anything that is required
your done. It seems to me that no matter what you'll find an excuse
to brush off the issues.
Kelly
Do you have any considerations that are actually relevant to my claim that consideration of geological evidence is particularly apt to (and probably demands inclusion within) a study program oriented at understanding the age of the earth?
It seems to me that no matter what you'll find an excuse
to brush off the issues.
Oh, that's rich coming from you. You "brush off" whole fields of scientific endeavor, even when they are directly applicable to the questions at hand. Like I said, we already know you are a radical skeptic when it comes to science...but only selectively so....
05 Nov 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloPalonium halos in granite provide unambiguous and unrefuted evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
What you are talking about is appeal to an old earth as an ancillary component in explanation of abiogenesis and subsequent maintenance of life. That's not relevant to my earlier commentary.
Do you have any considerations that are actually relevant to my claim that consideration of geological evidence is particularly apt to (and probably demands inc ...[text shortened]... we already know you are a radical skeptic when it comes to science...but only selectively so....
http://www.halos.com/
The Instructor