Our obligation to accept scientific knowledge as truth

Started by finti4 pages

Attempts have also been made to determine the probability of life forming as it exists on Earth. Any studies done in this field all suggest that the universe hasn't been around for long enough to reasonably assume that even simple single-celled organisms and strains of amino acids should have been able to form...let alone complex organisms and creatures as complicated as human beings. Such complexification of life over a relatively short amount of time (even though billions of years seems long to us) blatently suggests some sort of intelligent design.
any studies?, well what studies would that be that suggest what you are writing?

If need be, I can produce more specific examples of where I am getting this data from.
should have been included right away

I'll have to dig it up, but I'll find the sources...it's all stuff I dug up quite a few years ago and have misplaced since, but glad to see there was some interest in what I wrote.

✅ Yes dig it up......I've read some similar studies too.

Here we are...this is just a smattering of main points from a couple books. Book, author, and page numbers are noted.

From The Voice of the Earth, by Theodore Roszak

On Role of Chance in Evolution
“In the real study of nature, it makes no sense to hold that anything is in principle possible when in practice there is not enough time in the history of time itself for the process to work through all the permutations. The history of the universe is all the time there is; when we go beyond it, that is the point at which we confront zero probability.” (114)

“In the nineteenth century, Ludwig Boltzmann, one of the pioneers in the study of gases...took the position that chance alone accounted for the coherent structure of the universe. He even calculated the time required for chance to achieve that result. Enough time equals 10 [to the 10th to the 80th] years. A heroic calculation indeed: ten raised to a power expressed by another ten followed by eighty zeros. There would not be enough pages in all the books in all the libraries in the world to contain that large a figure.” 111

On the probability of life emerging out of the “primordial soup.”
“In the last 1970's Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated the odds that life could have originated from just such an undirected sloshing about. Rather than trying to compute the probability for an entire organism springing into existence, they limited the problem to a sequence of twenty or thirty key amino acids in the enzymes of some hypothetical cell. The number they came up with was one chance in 10 to the 40,000. (116)

“when it comes to the spontaneous origin of life, Christian De Duve has worked out the combined probability of a series of hypothetical but necessary “biogenic steps” taking place in exactly the right order. The numbers that result “border on the miraculous: 10 [to -300] for as few as one thousand consecutive steps.” He concludes that “a multiple-step process that relies on one improbable event’s following another is sure to abort sooner or later.” (130-131)

“When it comes to the role of pure chance in the nature, scientists have shown as great a capacity as the pious to become true believers, granting accident and coincidence a creative power once reserved only to God.” (130)

and the other one...

John Gribbin and Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and The Anthropic Principle, New York, Bantam Books, 1989, pp. 15-18

The density parameter:
(Expresses the rate at which the universe must have expanded at the time of the Big Bang to achieve the present estimated density of matter.)
“John Gribbin has called this the “finest of finely tuned cosmic coincidences”’ he calculates that if the parameter had been different by the merest fraction (“a decimal point followed by sixty zeroes and a one”), galaxies could never have formed, and within them the stars that have generated every element besides hydrogen and helium.”

...

The density parameter is the whole mass of the universe thing I referred to earlier...it isn't quite so clear in the caption, even though it describes the idea well. I've read parts of both books, and they're both very good...highly reccommended for this sort of stuff.

-DM

Information such as this along with similar studies I have read make it clear that life couldn't have been just some random act. It's impossible to say that it would be, just impossible. You'd have to be blind. One small calculation off and poof.. all lost.

Information such as this along with similar studies I have read make it clear that life couldn't have been just some random act
whoever said evolution was random? law of the nature is for the strongest to survive................we just let a bunch of species follow this trend ......to go instinct is natures law we just gave them 15 more minutes of lime light

Ok then we can say that evolution is not random and it can be directed by some intellegents of some kind.

I consider nature to have an intellect

Nature seems to be connected in the way it acts within the whole of everyhing including the solar system, like a thinking type organism. Would you agree?

dont know about the rest of the system nor organism...... I really dont know and aint afraid to say so, but i dont put my lack of knowledge in the hands of a dream though.........dreams are for you in a state of sleep

Ok...Then Nature here on earth......There are a multitude of examples of it's intelligence...That'll do.

And Einstein was a dreamer.....I'll put it in his hands.

Ok then we can say that evolution is not random and it can be directed by some intellegents of some kind

that's a dumb question. Surely you already know that human beings (who are intelligent) have been responsible for the extinction of a multitude of species, allowing others to flourish in their place. Our intelligence defied nature's law (survival of the fittest, natural selection). Surely you know that we humans have indeed forged evolutionary paths for other species. Have you never seen a dog show? We have created hundreds of breeds out of 3......by selecting suitable animals to mate with one another for generations. That's not natural selection, that's human selection.

Also, I believe 'survival of the fittest' to be fundamentally flawed simply because we cannot live unto ourselves. We are in a biologically interdependant ecosystem, and if only the 'fittest' survived, they would eventually crumble because so-called lesser organisms would be wiped away and our chain of living would collapse. "Coexistence of the whole" should be a new mantra for us, rather than proclaiming to be the 'fittest' and using that to justify or turn a blind eye to the extinction of species.

-DM

...bit off topic, but it was mentioned.

once humans began civilization........natural selection went out the window DigiMark. It can't be used as an excuse by anybody anymore. We do not live by nature's law. We live by society's law.

Naturally.....

- If we're hungry, we must hunt our own food. those of our species to weak to do so parish, ensuring the strongest of our species to survive to carry on the best genes possible. Society has thrown this natural law out the window, where as a few hunt/gather the food for the many.....ensuring that not only the weak survive but also the ill and diseased.

- We are to protect ourselves from predators. Those too weak to do so will parish.....yadda yadda yadda. Society has eliminated our natural predators........again ensuring that even the weak, ill and diseased of our species will survive to pass their genes along to the next generation of human beings.

natural selection in any part of the civilized world is dead. Humans have brought an end to our own evolution and that of many other species. Instead of allowing a species to grow and change according to natural law, we instead cast them in the roles we deem fit for them and keep them there........as we do our own species.

I don't necesarily disagree with you. But right now, humans are probably the most dominant ecological force on the planet. We are able to change the planet faster than nature can change itself...and in more profound ways. I was simply stating that using the fallacy of survival of the fittest doesn't mean we shouldn't get food, protect ourselves etc. I also agree that natural selection is gone...at this point it's human selection. And if we simply ignore our power (which we have quite a bit of ecologically and scientifically speaking) that itself is a selection...one that will ultimately lead to the extinction of multiple 'lesser' species.

What I was trying to say was that if you take survival of the fittest to its natural conclusion, it involves stamping out other forms of life to preserve your own species. That would be suicide to our species, since we are dependant on the planet and its ecosystems. I was merely trying to endorse a more peaceful-sounding alternative to Survival o.t. Fittest since that philosophy alone can be disastrous.

-DM

Originally posted by Evil Dead

- If we're hungry, we must hunt our own food.

Actually, little birds bring me mine...

I think you missed the whole point of this discussion.......it's one thing to be a smartass and be on point, it's completely different to be a smartass and not understand the conversation going on around you.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I think you missed the whole point of this discussion.......it's one thing to be a smartass and be on point, it's completely different to be a smartass and not understand the conversation going on around you.

You need to read between the line...It says I don't care.

Actually, little birds bring me mine...

Don't worry about a thing,
Cause every little thing gonna be all right.
Singin Don't worry about a thing,
Cause every little thing gonna be all right

Rise up this mornin
Smiled with the risin' sun,
Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep

Singin' sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true,
Sayin, This is my message to you-ou-ou
- Bob Marley

Bob Marley....I....llike em.....I just love songs in the morning..