If the probability of a single protein to form naturally is 10164 and if a single cell to form at 10360000 then why are all the astro physicist telling us that the universe should be filled with life?
>>13422543To grift for more useless funding
>>13422549Now compare that to the size of the visible universe and the number of times the formation could have taken place.
>>13422543>If the probability of a single protein to form naturally is 10164 and if a single cell to form at 10360000Based on what math?
>>13422543Life appeared on Earth fairly shortly after the conditions became right for it, so it stands to reason that it must not have been a terribly unlikely event.
>>13422543Something something rare earth hypothesis
>>1342287810^77 for life to be on a planet, that includes this onewhats your point? Its still retardedly unlikely
>>13422543>why are all the astro physicist telling us that the universe should be filled with life?Perhaps because the main purpose of science is to feed scientists? And there are a lot of other marketing gimmicks in science. Maybe there's a study on the number of theories versus the probability of funding.
>>13422543Where'd you get those numbers, faggot?
>>13423058The only 100% definitive fossil evidence for complex life if 3.5 billion years old, anything before that is debatable. That 1 billion years after the Earth formed, hardly shortly after.Even ignoring that that amount of steps involved from evolving from a single cell to sapient life is arguably even more unlikely to happen.
what's the probability that OP is a faggot?
>>13422543>>13422543No one knows the probability of abiogenesis you tard
>>13423204Can't we do a big simulation of the primordial soup and look at life emerging?
>>13423215It's been attempted many times. All that has been achieved is the formation of precursors like amino acids - which to be fair is an essential step.
>>13423215theyve been doing this for 70 years, all they can get are some amino acids. Intelligent design is literally true, the mainstream biological fields are going to steal the methods of intelligent design theorists and use them under different names. It is already happening in comp sci, archaeology, SETI etc
>>13423229>>13423249Can you guys link some good recent paper review about the topic? Could the lack of success be due to the inaccessibility of timescales, or maybe to the absence e.g. of sunlight in the simulation?
>>13422543>>13422549i think these probabilities have low certainty.
>>13423359Theyve already done all the timescales etc. The problem is they have pushed the meme that it is literally random mutation so far that they boxed themselves into a corner where a large percentage of biologists think that we literally flipped a coin and got heads billions and billions and billions...... of times in a row
>>13423249>theyve been doing this for 70 years, all they can get are some amino acids.Wrong. >Intelligent design is literally true, the mainstream biological fields are going to steal the methods of intelligent design theorists OK, schizo. What methods?
>>13423390>tries to criticize evolution>ignores selection
>>13423415So no ID "methods?"
>>13423433can't you just post a couple papers where chemists synthesize complex proteins in a lab, rather than some vapid "DUBUNKER" video? i'm not the same anon as before. >>13423441i have no clue what you're talking about.
>>13423433I was just going to post a video of this guy. Okay, on one hand he is a creationist, but on the other hand he's had a highly successful career in synthetic molecule biology, so he understands that stuff. Some of his stuff kinda comes off as a televangelist type where he's just trying to milk Christians
>>13423433Check out James Tour's lengthy response here>>13423278
>>13423445>can't you just post a couple papersAll papers are linked in the video description. Don't pretend you'll read them, IDtard.>i have no clue what you're talking about.So you didn't read the post you replied to?
>>13423454The video I posted is a response to those videos. Thanks for revealing you didn't even watch the first minute.
>>13423447He's the perfect example of religion turning people into idiots.
>>13423497Take a look at his credentials and awards, in what sense is he an idiot exactly? He understands way more about chemistry than I could ever hope to do. Just because he disagrees about something doesn't make him dumb
>>13422543Because life doesn't form from proteins. IT forms from autocatylitic sets.
>>13423523>Take a look at his credentials and awards, in what sense is he an idiot exactly?In exactly the way we're talking about. He is forced by his religion to spout utter nonsense about abiogenesis even though he should know better.
>>13423528Got any experimental evidence of your claim?If it's so easily explained, then why do simulations only return protocells?
>>13423568How is it nonsense? It just seems like cold statistics to me. The likelihood for this stuff seems incredibly minute. Much like OP, I feel like people wildly overestimate how much life there is out there. I wouldn't even be surprised if we were currently the only planet with life in this galaxy. Or at the very least intelligent life
>>13422543you are doing it wrong: life is everywhere in the universe, but we are on the Woke Planet. It's like the Tyrannosaurus Rex walled habitat in Jurassic Park: you, as mentally sane alien, don't go there
>>13423786Well if these stats are true then not even one universe would be enough for the chances of one intelligent life to form.
>>13422543>If the probability of a single protein to form naturally is 10164 and if a single cell to form at 10360000>>13422549>10^164>10^360000not really, you can't use the n out of k possibilities model with proteins or abiogenesis since there is selection which means certain states are more probable and it's not independent probability either. when certain proteins exist other proteins become more probable. and yes chemical molecules do compete with each other and experience selection
>>13422543>probability of a single protein to form naturally is 10164 and if a single cell to form at 10360000What does this even mean? I assume 1 in x is what you were going for, but like in what settings and in what stretch of time?
>>13422543>If the probability of a single protein to form naturally is 10164 and if a single cell to form at 10360000I'mma need a source on your numbers. And you _do_ understand the earliest building blocks of life weren't full-blown cells, right?Let's also not forget how big the world is compared to micro-life. There's about 5x10^30 bacteria in the world today.>why are all the astro physicist telling us that the universe should be filled with life?That's a strawman.
>>13423390>pushed the meme that it is literally random mutationPLUS selection. Only people who don't understand it think it is purely ransom.
>>13423123>10^77 for life to be on a planet, that includes this oneStill not clear where you're getting these numbers.Actual observation shows 1 in 8 planets have life.Post again when we've got a larger sample size.
>>13422568>more useless funding>>13423159>main purpose of science is to feed scientists?Do you guys really believe anybody gets paid to shill for biological life elsewhere?
>>13423786>It just seems like cold statistics to me.What statistics? Making up numbers is not statistics. OP has been asked several times where his numbers come from and has not answered.
>>13423229>All that has been achieved is the formation of precursors like amino acids - which to be fair is an essential step.Amino acids, nucleotides and polynucleotides.In real life, it probably took millions of years to go from that to primitive proto-cells, even in a perti dish the size of all the world's oceans combined.People who complain about scientists not being able to recreate life in the laboratory might as well be bitching I can't go out to the garage and build a racoon from scratch.
>>13423278If you're familiar with Christian Apologetics, you've heard this a thousand times before. He's beating the same drum the church has been for the last thousand+ years: "I don't know how X could happen without God, therefore God must be real!"
>>13424035Congrats, that's the least coherent post in the thread, _and_ it looks custom made just for this thread.Wow.
>>13424045I'm not talking about OP, I meant that James Tour guy. Here's a brief video where he talks about that stuffhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y
>>13424431This crap was already refuted in https://youtu.be/SixyZ7DkSjA The argument he gives about the probability of life forming isn't even statistical. He says molecules deform over time, which is a non sequitur in whether there is enough time for a specific sequence of reactions to occur, since molecules are constable being formed and deformed. Where are the statistics?
"Despite advances in prebiotic chemistry, it has not yet been possible to demonstrate robust and continuous RNA self-replication from a realistic feedstock.RNA in isolation may not be sufficient to catalyse its own replication and may require help from either other molecules or the environment.Major obstacles for RNA copying such as efficiency, regiospecificity and fidelity and are discussed elsewhere [18,19] but are mostly true for both non-enzymatic and enzymatic scenarios. The ever-looming strand dissociation problem is of particular concern (Figure 2). The high melting temperature (Tm) of long RNA duplexes, such as those that arise from template-directed replication, results in the formation of dead-end duplex complexes in the absence of highly evolved helicases. When complementary RNA strands are separated, for example, by heat denaturation, reannealing occurs orders of magnitudes faster than known copying reactions In the case of ribozymes, only ‘simple’ ligation or recombination-based RNA replication from defined oligonucleotides has been demonstrated [20–23]. Such systems have only a limited ability to transmit heritable information and so are not capable of open-ended evolution — the ability to indefinitely increase in complexity like living systems . Open-ended evolution requires that a replicase must at least be able to efficiently copy generic sequences longer than that required to encode its own function."
>>13425930" even an RNA-based replication process needs energy: it can’t shelve metabolism until later. And although relatively simple self-copying ribozymes have been made,1 they typically work only if provided with just the right oligonucleotide components to work on. What’s more, sustained cycles of replication and proliferation require special conditions to ensure that RNA templates can be separated from copies made on them.In the soupPerhaps the biggest problem is that self-replicating ribozymes are highly complex molecules that seem very unlikely to have randomly polymerised in a prebiotic soup. And the argument that they might have been delivered by molecular evolution merely puts the cart before the horse. The problem is all the harder once you acknowledge what a complex mess of chemicals any plausible prebiotic soup would have been. It’s nigh impossible to see how anything lifelike could come from it without mechanisms for both concentrating and segregating prebiotic molecules – to give RNA-making ribozymes any hope of copying themselves rather than just churning out junk, for example."
>>13423390>durr mutations happened just as planned you guisseLmao retarded brainlet
>>13423058This proves nothing from the same perspective you could argue life is an extremely rare event and it just so happens life not only formed on Earth but also not long after the planet solidified. Without other data to compare to you cannot make a case if life is rare or isn't.
>>13423171>Even ignoring that that amount of steps involved from evolving from a single cell to sapient life is arguably even more unlikely to happen.A lot of animals had increasingly complex brains, they're just not all exactly as intelligent as we are.It's even not so clear if not a lot of life is sapient by the "more likely to act on knowledge than instinct" definition.
>>13423902That's not how statistics work lol. Every time I come to /sci/ it gets dumber.
>>13424549You are clinically retarded.
>god did itreligioncucks have been saying this to every question and they have been proven wrong on every single one. all life started from chemical molecules and processes especially autocatalytic reactions. there is so much evidence for these theories and not a single one for god intervening. whenever something can't be explained (yet) it's god but once it's explained it's no longer god
>religioncucks have been saying this to every question and they have been proven wrong on every single one. all life started from chemical molecules and processes especially autocatalytic reactions. there is so much evidence for these theories and not a single one for god intervening. whenever something can't be explained (yet) it's god but once it's explained it's no longer god
>>13423058>>13423117Doesn't tell us anything. It is possible that life must necessarily emerge early for the next sequence of highly improbable events to have time to also occur. Huge leaps like abiogenesis, eukaryogenesis, etc probably occured far, far more quickly here than on the average planet simply by a statistical fluke and the average timescales for these events to happen could be billions and billions of years. The anthrophic principle applies then and to us these events appear common because they necessarily had to occur extremely fast for us to at all be here to reason about it today. If abiogenesis had been just a billion years slower, the emerging humans would have been wiped out by the sun >>13426391You can believe we are alone without being a creationist
>>13426252>Cope argument.Not hearing what's wrong with my argument.
>>13426330Not an argument, thanks for admitting Tour is a brainwashed idiot.
>billions of years of life on earth>99.9999% of species are retarded>only humans ever become intelligent enough in this whole time period>retards think we have any chance of finding intelligent lifeWe are far more likely to find endless worlds full of dinosaur like creatures
>>13426955Even worse, fucking dinosaurs existed for millions of years, if we cope and say that in that period an intelligent specie arise, that would mean that it couldnt reach space travel technology and just dissapeared, that would mean that even if intelligents species existed in thousands, they are destined to die and leave withouth trace.>tdlr Great Filtrer
>>13426955>We are far more likely to find endless worlds full of dinosaur like creaturesUsing Earth as an example, life has been around for up to 4 billion years, and we've got a billion to go before the sun heats up enough to evaporate all surface water on Earth.If we count 4 billion years ago as "zero": 3,460 years fall into Pre-Cambrian times: 69.2% 289 years for the Paleozoic: 5.8% 186 years for the Mesozoic: 3.7% (Dinosaur Times) 66 years bring us up to the present: 1.3% Of that, homo sapiens have been here 300,000 years, and we were all hunter-gatherers until about 12,000 years ago. There's another 20% we haven't seen yet.No telling how long humans will last, and a single planet is an awfully small sample size, but if we're typical we get dinosaurs on less than 4% of the planets, human-like folk on 0.00006% plus a percentage based on however much time we've got left, up to 20% if we last another billion years (seems unlikely).
>>13427181Oops, all "year" figures should be millions of years.
>>13424051>might as well be bitching I can't go out to the garage and build a racoon from scratchif your contention you accused people of "denying science" for not believing was that raccoons came into existence this way, this would be a valid thing to say>guys this totally happened but OF COURSE we can't be expected to prove it that would be really hard stop bitching
>>13426391>once it's explained it's no longer godNope. A naturalistic explanation cannot be given for the existence of nature itself. Finding an instrumental cause of something in nature does not discount the overarching creation and design of God. You people seem to think for God to have done something it has to be something miraculous and inexplicable. In reality God is perfectly capable of designing a universe from the ground up to intentional to produce the emergent reality we see. Thinking an action of God must be some sort of random, inexplicable divine intervention is an extremely primitive perspective, Christian thought moved beyond such ideas long ago.
>>13428026>this would be a valid thing to sayScience isn't 100% capable of reproducing nature, ESPECIALLY when nature has millions of years to work with on a global scale.We know pretty well how the sun works, but wee can't build one in a lab.Also science doesn't go jumping through hoops just to satisfy the pointless objections of creationists.
>>13428165>science doesn't go jumping through hoops just to satisfy the pointless objections of creationists>wanting confirmation something is possible is a "pointless objection"What about all the experiments where researchers have tried (and failed) to actually create life in laboratory conditions? Seems strange to say "science" i.e researchers don't do something while we're discussing the actual past attempts to do it. >We know pretty well how the sun works, but wee can't build one in a labretarded example. We can see very clearly that the sun works, we cannot see how naturalistic abiogenesis happened or if it is even possible.
>>13428224>What about all the experiments where researchers have tried (and failed) to actually create life in laboratory conditions?Name one.Besides, at this point you're mixing up science with engineering.>>13428224>we cannot see how naturalistic abiogenesis happened or if it is even possible.Because it takes millions of years, even on a global scale.Now make your claims for a supernatural abiogenesis?We don't know if God happened or is even possible.
>>13428404>Because it takes millions of yearshow do you know?
>>13422543>the astro physicist telling us that the universe should be filled with life?Because they have their pet hypothesis they mistake for a theory. Just because somebody with credentials says something doesn't make it true, they got to back it up and I guarantee no astrophysicist claiming it can
>>13423058I bought a lottery ticket and won $100M next day. It must not have been a terribly unlikely event.
>>13426391believing in Aliens is worse than believing in God.
>>13428430Believe in god is worse then believing in Aliens
>>13428407>how do you know?The alternative is the creationist strawman "a bunch of chemicals just rubbed up against each other, in just the right configuration to form a whole cell from scratch".Do your own research, Rev.Try starting here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/Just like in all other branches of /sci/ence, no researcher has ever found a necessary God.
>>13428432God = rule of universe. God exists by definition.Alien = scifi imagination. Aliens exist because... they just do ok?
>>13428438How is it possible that all lives are equal, atheists?
>>13428440>God = rule of universe. God exists by definition.Not even remotely true.>Alien = scifi imagination. Aliens exist because... they just do ok?The alternative to aliens is that we're the only life in the universe.You really think God built 10^21 stars (in the observable universe alone) just for us?Checkmate.
>>13428448>How is it possible that all lives are equal, atheists?A: Not an atheist, just not a creation-tard.B: No idea what you're struggling to say, try again.
>>13428458>No idea what you're struggling to saytypical brainlet no understanding of basic philosophy topics
>>13428438>The alternative isargument from ingnorance is not evidence. I'll ask again, how do you know "it takes millions of years"?>no researcher has ever found a necessary GodScience can by definition only examine within the context of the material universe. What sort of experimental evidence would you expect to find if God was necessary?Really though you're trying to shift the focus. Some conception of God being incorrect doesn't make your belief any more true.
>>13428450>we're the only life in the universeso? what is your proof to the contrary? you guys have some abstract, higher level belief, that's not only unprovable, you can't even express it clearly. worse than religion.
>>13428469>philosophyNot science, not math.
>>13424013No, real observation shows that one planet have life.
>>13428450>You really think God built 10^21 stars (in the observable universe alone) just for us?>for usHe built them for HIM, not us. But really there's no reason that they couldn't all have been created purely so that we would see the vastness of the cosmos and marvel at it. There's also no reason the universe couldn't be teeming with life. I don't know either way, no one knows the "odds" of a planet having life because no one knows how life originated here and how unlikely it was at any stage of the process (if it was even random).
>>13428469It sounds like a strawman to me, and nothing "atheists" typically espouse.I'm trying to work with you here, so let's try some spoon-feeding:Are you claiming atheists can't claim all lives are "equal" (whatever that's supposed to mean).Or maybe you're claiming atheists DO claim that all lives are "equal", but you think they're wrong?Let's not forget, atheists simply lack faith in one or more gods, and don't have any other unifying philosophy.
>>13428480>so? what is your proof to the contrary?Dumbass.So, let's call reasonable expectation foolishness, huh?10^21 stars in the observable universe, but it's unreasonable to assume there's life out there somewhere?And how many of those star systems do you think I've checked for life?
>>13428488>No, real observation shows that one planet have life.Our sample size for that observation is 0.0000000000000000001% of star systems."Real observation" show 100% of surveyed star systems have at least on life-bearing world.Please see me after class.
>>13428492>atheists simply lack faith in one or more gods, and don't have any other unifying philosophyHilarious to hide behind this. Yeah "ATHEISTS" aren't strictly unified by anything, but the individual atheist in a discussion has a philosophy which can be addressed, though they're often loathe to actually present a positive position because it would mean the discussion would involve more than them getting to endlessly critique someone else before hiding behind muh lack of belief.And there's not that much diversity in atheist thought, guarantee you 90+% of atheists on this board are secular humanists or nihilists in their moral beliefs, and materialist in their metaphysical beliefs.
>>13426891>Tour is a brainwashed idiot.Lol cope more brainlet. Tour is more accomplished than you'll ever be, even if you were given a thousand lifetimes to try to compete with his one. You just hate him because he is smarter than you and says things that you don't like.
>>13428522AGAIN, I'm not an atheist.And I'm still not following your rambling, incoherent train of thought.
>>13428572I'm not the dude asking if "all lives are equal" or whatever. I was just responding to the "um actually atheism is a lack of belief" meme. >rambling, incoherent train of thoughtWhat is unclear about what I said?
There likely is life on other planets. however, we will not be able to see them for a long time. our own universe spans 100k light years, so the light we receive from planets in the milky way is at most 100k years old. how long ago did life develop on earth? the nearest galaxy - Andromeda - is 2.5 million light years away. so, we're only able to see what was there 2.5 million years ago. other galaxies are much, much further away. records of human society only go as far back as 16k years.in reality, we likely won't ever see life by peering through a lens in our local region of the universe. we may only meet other advanced entities when they visit us. in that case, we would only be able to see their vessels after they've entered our solar system. we would not have much time to prepare for such an encounter by the time we've detected them.
>>13423058Yes, but also all life on earth has a common ancestor presumably dating back to that, so perhaps we were just lucky.
The whole crux of the argument comes down to that it looks like God tried to create a self-reliant system. If that were the case, then if chemical evolution is possible, that would be the design. There are then arguments in favor of intelligent design due to the unlikelihood of chemical evolution.Materialists rely upon the narrative that evolution is true, therefore chemical evolution is true. However, the narrative of how exactly this occurred constantly changes and adapts as they search all possible avenues.In the end, physicalists rest their faith on vague and general concepts and expect that materialism must be true until proven otherwise, failing to see the burden of proof rests upon them.There are many hypotheses of abiogenesis, all of which have critics within the scientific community... Perhaps, none of them are true?
>>13428430extraterrestrial life doesn't violate any physics law, god (except deism) does
>>13428053this god not a problem but the god/s of many religions aren't like this. christian god literally stepped down to earth to do shit miraculously
>>13429113Yes miraculous action happens but it's not the rule. The purpose of miracles are unequivocal demonstrations of God's power, they're things that would be impossible within the confines of the world we know unless God Himself made them to happen. The opposition to miracles seems to be that they violate natural laws and... yeah that's the point. If it happened in the course of nature it would just be a random event, providential but not a miracle.The Old Testament frequently describes God's creation and ordering of the natural world, and it's not all described as unique or miraculous. There is a big difference between how storms are described and how something like the parting of the sea is described for example. Both were believed to be caused by God, but storms were seen as events which were normal within the design of nature. If you were able to explain to people of that time (and certainly later Christians) our modern knowledge of meteorology and what sorts of weather conditions bring about storms, this knowledge wouldn't alter their fundamental beliefs. Traditionally, science and the pursuit of knowledge have been viewed by many involved as an exercise in coming to know God's creation order (it's been argued that a belief in a rational universe which comes from Christianity is what allowed the scientific revolution), it's only in modern times that Christianity and the discipline of science itself have been painted in opposition. This change wasn't brought about by new scientific discoveries but rather a cultural shift. There was no conflict in the minds of people fairly recently between believing in a universe which was consistent as a rule and believing in exceptional events called miracles.
>>13428550>Tour is more accomplished than you'll ever beOK, he's still a brainwashed idiot. Thanks for not even disagreeing with me.
>>13429075>The whole crux of the argument comes down to that it looks like God tried to create a self-reliant system.What doesn't look like something an omniscient being can do? How do you falsify God?>There are then arguments in favor of intelligent design due to the unlikelihood of chemical evolution.No one had calculated the likelihood of chemical evolution. Making up numbers is not a calculation. >Materialists rely upon the narrative that evolution is true, therefore chemical evolution is true. Nope. >However, the narrative of how exactly this occurred constantly changes and adapts as they search all possible avenues.Yes, that's how science works. The fact that religious dogma doesn't change regardless of new evidence and reasoning is not something to boast about. >In the end, physicalists rest their faith on vague and general concepts and expect that materialism must be true until proven otherwise, failing to see the burden of proof rests upon them.The entire process of science is constantly meeting the burden of proof to prove materialism correct. That doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof for your own positive claims. Nice God of the gaps you've got there. >Perhaps, none of them are true?Perhaps leprechauns created life.
I believe all the energy of the Universe was just a big ass "recipee" to create a single life-bearing planet. Think in terms of the amount of work necessary to create a single planet, starting from the "big-bang" event, then the interactions between all that matter which ultimately will create stable systems only after billions of years when the cosmic dust has settled and the universe has cooled enough to bake the ingredients to stabilize the sub-atomic particles suitable for conventional matter (as we know it), then the star clusters from which the sun came from, then the different elements, etc, etc, just for ONE planet, that is, the Earth. If you only took the equivalent amount of matter just for the solar system and then placed it as the limit/starting/maximum of mass of the universe: would that create the solar system as we know it or something else entirely different and less complex would come from such a little amount of matter?, well, I think it's the later, so, instead you would need all the "weight" of the universe together in order to create the solar system, as it is, so it can come to be. Then what is everything else? just leftovers, remnants, the "weight" of the universe that placed everything in place for the right conditions to happen for Earth to come into existence. According to this logic, Earth is in fact the center of the Universe.
>>13429276>I believeStopped reading there.
>>13428955>likelyIt's more likely we are created by some kind of God that's far beyond our comprehension. Unless you are an egomaniac who thinks humans are the top intelligent beings that the universe could produce.
>>13429216You can falsify types of Gods or inactions thereof.For example, if God is real, this "God" isn't the kind of God to just provide you a Taco Bell crunchwrap supreme, anytime you're hungry.(I want to live in that Universe...)"God" doesn't partake in active action in this Universe to fit individual human desire.Could "God" have the ability to do so? We have no evidence that supports God has such an ability, thus negating a fully omnipotent God until such evidence is provided. Sorry God, but if you made us, you'd know we operate on scientific rigor, and if you won't give us evidence, you don't exist. Sorry that I'm taking a shit on The Holy Bibble, but the Holy Bibble isn't peer reviewed by greater academia.
>>13429596>It's more likely we are created by some kind of God that's far beyond our comprehension.Based on what math?>You're an egomaniac of you don't accept my religion!Uhuh...
>>13428955>our own universe spans 100k light years>Andromeda - is 2.5 million light years awayPlease do not swap the word universe and the word galaxy. I'm having a fucking mental meltdown.
>>13429629>You can falsify types of Gods or inactions thereof.Doesn't answer my question. >"God" doesn't partake in active action in this Universe to fit individual human desire.How do you know?>We have no evidence that supports God exists, thus negating God until such evidence is provided.Ah, I see.If you were able to think rationally you would see that your model is not capable of being tested and is garbage compared to any model that is.
>>13429633based on your math>universe is infinite, so if something is possible it must have happenedso it must be true that God happened; once it did, it's likely that all human-level lives are guided by God instead of chance.
Listen, morons, if you want to feel superior by laughing at rank and file bible thumpers, you are really pathetic. You are one of the billions of I-Love-Science morons who has never had any deeper thoughts. Science is the omnipotent Big Daddy, just have faith in him and you are on the Right-Side-Of-The-History.
>>13429216>to prove materialism correctHow do you prove materialism? Science only functions on physical measurements or observations, how can you take that to then say nothing which isn't physically measurable or observable exists? Basically an elaborate form of sampling bias. The tools you're using are incapable of disproving materialism.
>>13429647>based on your math>>universe is infinite, so if something is possible it must have happenedI didn't say that. >so it must be true that God happenedWhat is "God happening?" God either exists or doesn't exist.
>>13429680>How do you prove materialism?Constant testing. >Science only functions on physical measurements or observations, how can you take that to then say nothing which isn't physically measurable or observable exists?If it's not physically measurable or observable, why even posit it exists? It's useless. Anyone can posit invisible magic elves are behind everything. Who gives a shit? The only way to have non-arbitrary explanations is to test them against reality. Get over it.>The tools you're using are incapable of disproving materialism.They disprove materialism when they stop working according to how materialism says they work. You have no tools.
>>13429640>How do you know?Because a crunchwrap supreme isn't in my hand right now. I had to eat a shitty salisbury steak tv dinner.I'd say that's enough evidence for me.You can repeat my experiment.Think of something you desire.Ask God to give it you, right now.When God doesn't give it to you, there you go, God didn't meet your individual desire.If God DOES give it to you, please share your data.If existence is your evidence for the existence of God, then I posit that your God is just existence.It's equally logical.
>>13429662I don't believe God and science are exclusive.Untested faith in either is fool's logic.One day religion and science will be seeking the same thing, in the same way.
>>13429706>Constant testingtesting of what? Using physical measurements you will get physicalist results. What sort of experimental result would falsify materialism?>when they stop working according to how materialism says they workMaterialism doesn't claim how specific tools work, it's not a specific model of the universe. It's the assertion that only this physical reality exists, backed up by the separate assertion that physical measurements are the only valid way of evaluating truth claims. Neither of these assertions can be proven, especially not scientifically proven.>You have no toolsPhilosophy has provided numerous proofs/arguments for things beyond this physical reality, but they are always ignored by materialists because there is no "evidence" i.e physical evidence which there definitionally cannot be. It would be like if I asked for a soil sample from Mars to prove it existed but then ignored a soil sample from there because it wasn't from Earth because of course only Earth is real. Do you see the problem?
>>13429944First, tell me about how philosophy is not within physical reality. Then tell me about how it can prove things beyond this physical reality if it is either in or not in this physical reality. Because it seems like philosophy is just a bunch of words in some books.
I'll chime in again.Abiogenesis science is sus.They go to show that abiogenesis is possible under certain conditions on early earth, but that should make it probable given similar conditions on other planets.Yet there are no examples of extra terrestrial intelligence.Clearly life is a remarkably rare event.It just doesn't add up.The way they are formulating their conjecture to show how plausible it is, naturally implies a degree of likelihood.Clearly, there could be a lot going on here, for instance, how often intelligent life evolves, or perhaps life is so incredibly unlikely that it only occurs once in the universe's lifetime. But in regards to the latter, what would that look like in their models?
>>13422878This still practically precludes that life becoming intelligent. There is likely life out there, very very VERY unlikely to be intelligent life anywhere near us.
>>13423058And yet, we have not observed life elsewhere. Scientifically speaking, we have proof of life exactly once, and as such it is entirely unfounded speculation to presume there is life elsewhere.
>>13428955quoting my post again because seems like people are concerned that we haven't found other life.I would just assume that there is life. probably lots of it, and on planets we've observed.the problem is light takes a long time to travel, so even if there was life on some distant planet, we couldn't see it. we can only see a very old version of it. in many cases, the light we receive is so old that the planets themselves appear to still be forming even.for all we know, the universe could be full of giant, highly intelligent robots flying around harvesting pulsars. we literally wouldn't have a clue if that were the case.
>>13423058Also adding to this; life as we know it is primarily made of some of the most common elements in the universe.>>13430102It kinda sucks, but it's largely a waiting game at the moment. We have to wait for all these space agencies to build & send more probes and rovers so we can wait for those probes and rovers to collect more data. And waiting for them to build better telescopes. Humanity has also been scanning parts of the sky for relatively no time at all.There are several celestial bodies within our own solar systems that could theoretically support simple life, but lack sufficient data to definitively say if it is or isn't there.
>>13429596>It's more likely we are created by some kind of God that's far beyond our comprehension
>>13423058Why hasn't abiogenesis happened multiple times on Earth? If it would be self-evident, it should've. It's ridiculous to think that there could even unicellular life outside of this planet in this galaxy. In the universe, sure, but we are alone in this galaxy most certainly. Universe isn't filled with life, there's probably just a few species who are either as advanced or more advanced than we are in the whole observable universe.
>>13427181Eh, that's some ground level math there.Here's an actual study and math done more logically and in depth which suggests that intelligent life is astronomically rare:https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149
>>13430204>Why hasn't abiogenesis happened multiple times on Earth?Those n00bs got spawnkilled by veteran players.
>>13430156>And waiting for them to build better telescopes.is it possible to build a telescope that captures distant photons? afaik a telescope works by collecting a smaller region of local photons, then projecting them into a larger image by angling up through a lens. so you can see distant things as being larger, and you can see more details. However, in order to see distant planets properly, we would need a way to capture the photons millions of light years away somehow. We can enlarge their images certainly, but we're seeing a very old, stale version of them unless we solve for this.
>>13429709>Because a crunchwrap supreme isn't in my hand right now. I had to eat a shitty salisbury steak tv dinner.That only disproves one example, it doesn't disprove God acting in general. >If existence is your evidence for the existence of God, then I posit that your God is just existence.I don't believe in God. It's an arbitrary and untestable model.
>>13429944>testing of what?Models. >Using physical measurements you will get physicalist results.Only if materialism is correct. >What sort of experimental result would falsify materialism?A nonphysical result. >Materialism doesn't claim how specific tools work, it's not a specific model of the universe. It's the assertion that only this physical reality existsThat's a specific model. Just show something nonphysical existing and you disprove materialism. >backed up by the separate assertion that physical measurements are the only valid way of evaluating truth claims.That's not materialism. It's not like materialists reject math and logic. >Philosophy has provided numerous proofs/arguments for things beyond this physical realitySuch as?
>>13430204>Why hasn't abiogenesis happened multiple times on Earth?How do you know it hasn't? LOL. At this advanced stage it's unlikely to occur because already existing life has altered the planet so much and competes for resources that would be needed for abiogenesis. Are creationists not able to use critical thinking?
>>13430350>Only if materialism is correctNo. PHYSICAL instruments only take PHYSICAL measurements, definitionally. How would you propose to physically measure the properties of something that doesn't have any physical properties? >show something nonphysical existingThe problem there is "show". "Show" would scientifically mean to provide physical evidence. You're falling into the trap of materialism: science is strictly the observation of the physical universe, if you believe that science is the only valid means of "proving" things then you automatically discount anything non-material. For example, consciousness is nonphysical and to many immediately calls materialism into question. Materialists have many ways of coping with this, from groping for some theoretical way to explain how consciousness is actually totally material despite lacking physical properties, to denying it really exists precisely because it can't be physically measured thus "proven" to exist. The experience of consciousness ubiquitous to humanity is "subjective testimony" thus invalid as physical scientific evidence, and if science can't prove it it's not "real". Information is another good example of something which is non-physical, materialists cope hard about it as well.
>>13423409>>13424001>selection happens before proteins are codedlol no one is gunna select anything if we cant even fold proteins that function 99.999999999999% of the time
>>13423404>>Intelligent design is literally true, the mainstream biological fields are going to steal the methods of intelligent design theorists>OK, schizo. What methods?specified complexity, its already in used in comp sci and seti under different names after it was introduced by dembski, once the ID generation dies out they are going to use it if they want to keep their research grants
>>13430359>How do you know it hasn't? LOL.yet you get called an ID wack job if you dont agree with the universal common ancestor theory.
>>13431046>No. PHYSICAL instruments only take PHYSICAL measurements, definitionally.You're saying nonphysical stuff doesn't have any effect on anything measurable. Then why do you think it exists? It might as well not exist. >The problem there is "show". "Show" would scientifically mean to provide physical evidence.What is nonphysical evidence?> you believe that science is the only valid means of "proving" things then you automatically discount anything non-material.I'm not discounting anything. I'm asking you to show me something non-material. The only one claiming this can't be done is you. >For example, consciousness is nonphysicalSo if somebody bashes your brains in, your consciousness will be unaffected?
>>13431046>consciousness is nonphysical>Information is nonphysicalGot any proof for any of those assertions? Have any actual reasons to believe those assertions? No? Thought so.
>>13431114Are you saying information and consciousness have physical properties?
>>13422543Cause the probability of a god forming naturally is even smaller
>>13431071No one has any clue what you're trying to argue. What billions of mutations occurred before proteins?
>>13431120God literally necessarily exists. This is the first thing you learn in philosophy
>>13431093>specified complexity, its already in used in comp sci and seti under different names after it was introduced by dembski>The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology. A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results." Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."
>>13431098>yet you get called an ID wack job if you dont agree with the universal common ancestor theory.The common ancestor theory doesn't preclude abiogenesis occurring multiple times, it precludes that life being an ancestor of currently existing life.
>>13431130What?Im saying that natural selection works AFTER the functional proteins are made in the organism. If we cant even make a few proteins through random molecular movements then what purpose does natural selection even serve in this context?
>>13431119Of course. Show me information without a physical medium. Show me consciousness without a brain. The conceptual abstraction doesn't exist beyond the physical.
>>13431136Isnt it funny how academia praised his work when he applied the ideas to other fields? Then his career goes down the toilet when you point out that you aren't going to solve abiogenies by random molecular movements using the same methods? Really makes you think... Look at the ideas for yourself, its all online you dont need Wikipedia to think for you.
>>13431144>If we cant even make a few proteins through random molecular movementsBut that's wrong. https://youtu.be/lQrCsPrh11MYou originally were talking about mutations, now you're talking about abiogenesis. Just stop posting.
>>13431154>Isnt it funny how academia praised his work when he applied the ideas to other fields?Isn't it funny how you keep making shit up? You should try getting out of your creationist bubble and actually factchecking their claims before you parrot them.
>>13431112>You're saying nonphysical stuff doesn't have any effect on anything measurable. Then why do you think it exists? It might as well not exist.>I'm not discounting anything. The only one claiming this can't be done is you.Really think about what you're saying.>So if somebody bashes your brains in, your consciousness will be unaffected?I don't know, no one does. But this is actually beside the point, the brain can somehow be related to consciousness without consciousness being material.You must address the fact that consciousness can't be observed or measured. It has no physical properties. Solipsism as a problem is only resolved by using reason to justify a BELIEF than anyone except you is conscious. Debates over whether any non-human animals are conscious are so muddy because consciousness can't be strictly observed much less rigorously defined. In consciousness threads here you always get people saying it isn't even real because it can't be scientifically shown to be real, there are researchers who take this line of thinking.>>13431151>I can't see it so it's not realWhat physical properties does information possess? In what you're saying, you're actually denying that information exists in itself. The encoding medium of the information and the information itself must be interchangeable for "information" to have physical properties.
>>13431154>No don't read Wikipedia and it's sources, just listen to me and my baseless claimsDesperate, not an argument. I guess you admit Dembski is full of shit.
>>13431188Dosent matter if dembski is full of shit or not, what matters is if the idea is true.>>13431172Go look up the reviews of his ideas in statistics from the late nineties. Again, dont take my word for this shit, do it yourself.
>>13431187>Really think about what you're saying.I did. I guess you're not going to answer my questions because you realize there is no actual evidence behind your beliefs. >I don't know, no one does.You're projecting. Neuroscientists have studied a lot of brain damaged people and know the answer. >But this is actually beside the point, the brain can somehow be related to consciousness without consciousness being material.How is that possible if the nonphysical has no effect on the physical as you claim? You're contradicting yourself. >You must address the fact that consciousness can't be observed or measured.If it can't be observed or measured, how do you know it exists? Either you're wrong or you're "not even wrong." >Solipsism as a problem is only resolved by using reason to justify a BELIEF than anyone except you is conscious. I don't see how solipsism is a problem any more than any other arbitrary speculation is a problem. >>you can't show it so I have no reason to believe it's realftfy>What physical properties does information possess?I already explained this to you. Insofar as information exists, it exists as a physical form with physical properties. It's like saying a geography exists without land. No, a geography by itself is not something that exists. >In what you're saying, you're actually denying that information exists in itself. Correct. Only a Platonist argues otherwise.
>>13431191>Dosent matter if dembski is full of shit or not, what matters is if the idea is true.Are you not capable of following a simple train of thought? Demski is full of shit because specified complexity is a bunch of useless nonsense, that clearly is about the idea itself.>Go look up the reviews of his ideas in statistics from the late nineties.No thanks. Go look up the evidence that his idea of specified complexity were ever respected or used, as you claim. Otherwise you forfeit.>Again, dont take my word for this shitI would never. Why do creationists not understand how the burden of proof works?
>>13431196>muh lies about philosophy
>>13431187>can't demonstrate their baseless claims>resorts to: n-n-no YOU show me the lack of my baseless claimssad, you'd be all over the global news and maybe bathed in money and awards if you demonstrated & proved the nonphysical-ness of literally anything
>>13431196It's funny because I remember taking a college course in philosophy about intelligent design and how philosophically bankrupt it is.
>>13431223I'm not answering your questions because they're dishonest. You continually claim to not be assuming materialism yet demand physical proof as the only real standard of evidence. I can't answer you in the way you decided you're supposed to be answered. >Neuroscientists have studied a lot of brain damaged people and know the answerwoah guys the hard problem of consciousness is solved! Neuroscientists had the answer the whole time! I guess they just forgot to tell us kek. >You're contradicting yourselfWhat effect am I claiming they have on each other? >how do you know it exists?are you denying that subjective experience exists?>I don't see how solipsism is a problemOf course you don't, you don't even believe consciousness exists. Or you believe it is somehow an emergent property of the physical structure of the brain or something to that effect. >you can't show it so I have no reason to believe it's realYou don't have to believe anything. The issue is you make the jump from "I have no reason to believe it's real" to "I believe it's not real". When you move from claiming ignorance to claiming to know one way or another, you've made a positive claim. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. >it exists as a physical form with physical propertiesPROVE IT>inb4 prove to me it doesn'tnot how this works, you made the claim now prove it. Should be really simple as materialism is "constantly tested" right?
>>13431386>I'm not answering your questions because they're dishonest.How?>You continually claim to not be assuming materialism yet demand physical proof as the only real standard of evidence.No, I'm not. You're the one saying all proof is physical, therefore I'm demanding physical proof. I would accept nonphysical proof if you had it, but it appears you can't even explain what that would be. You are free to present whatever proof you can for your beliefs. No one is stopping you. So stop making excuses and do it already.>woah guys the hard problem of consciousness is solved!That's not the hard problem. >What effect am I claiming they have on each other?You just said they are somehow related. >are you denying that subjective experience exists?No, in asking you a question. Stop stalling.>The issue is you make the jump from "I have no reason to believe it's real" to "I believe it's not real".No I don't. It's like saying I believe unicorns aren't real. I don't even bother thinking about unicorns let alone believing anything about them. >When you move from claiming ignorance to claiming to know one way or anotherUnfortunately for your argument, I didn't. >Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.It is though. The absence of evidence of WMDs in Iraq increased the probability that WMDs were absent from Iraq.>PROVE ITOK, take anything with information. Is it in a physical form? Now repeat. Tell me when you find information existing without a physical form.
>>13422543>>13422549Your "probabilities" are all greater than 1. Troll or retard? Either way, you should stop posting.