666...the Devils Moving Average

You didn't say it so I will: as it turns out, this is a fantastic example of potential Design. Great article!

 

Found a great Hoyle quote. It says:

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after is... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Here's the link:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/physicalscience/story/0,9836,541468,00.html

Notice the huge # att'd to it. Was Hoyle saying it was literally 40,000 zeros? No! He was just saying it was a virtually infinitely small probability.

And that by the way is exactly why he turned to Panspermia. Crick had the same reason. At the end of his career Crick also began admitting the mathematical impossibility of the DNA he co-discovered ever being produced on earth and so he too turned to panspermia as a possibility.

So, Stu, I may have made a mistake and added 10,000 zeros accidently, but the problem is there are still 10,000 left.

So this time instead of cussing and swearing at me and telling me what genetic disorder I have, how 'bout some science instead? I'll ask again: let's see your models for the universe's origin and life's origin?

 

By the way, an ironic part of this is that Stephen Gould once presented the Panda's Thumb as an example of a bad design that could not be intelligent, i.e. God could not have played a direct role in the Panda, etc.

I'm almost positive it was Dawkins who criticized him for it and showed how poor his argument was. Now Dawkin's is shown to be guilty of the same crime...

 

You know what I'm going to ask: how can a cell survive that cannot reproduce? that cannot metabolize and convert into energy some type of fuel/food? that has no cell wall/membrane?

Now you're talking about a cell that lives indefinitely or is some kind of weird gel w/ no cell membranes or somehow mysteriously stores energy, etc., which is clearly in the "strange science" category.

But clearly Morowitz is thinking something along the lines of what you are since he is trying to find this in the Kreb's cycle.

 

http://panspermia.org/ is a great site, thanks for posting it. that idea is, without question, a better explanation than the bible. if that shocks anyone here, get with the program.

if you combine panspermia with what i said earlier, that the first real forms of life would probably not even be considered life to humans, this could very well be the answer.

 

look here (http://panspermia.org/bacteria.htm) and here (http://panspermia.org/oseti.htm). it talks about how some bacteria can live a long time without many requirements.

 

This is not a concession.!! It is merely that you cannot know it is not that way

You asked me to concede to 2 big assumptions for the sake of argument (1&2). You should not then assume I must therefore also conceed to the third one you made..

In the same way you say (1)God exists and (2)he is not anthropocentric, then I am reasonably and logically able to posit, at least by the same standards of validity which exists in your 1&2, that God may have already decided that everything will be considered in or by an anthropocentric viewpoint

Do you now wish me to make 3 concessions for the sake of your argument ?? If so make it clear before you put your case forward

I have read this carefully and it makes no sense to me.

We defined anthropocentrism, we both know what it means (at least I hoped you did since you defined its terms).

Whatever you say about regard it makes no difference whatsoever. IF God wanted man to view everything including himself from an anthropocentric regard or whatever, then end of story. You cannot know he has not and further, you cannot assume he has not made it so.

No. Please read more carefully. I have emphasized for good reason !

There is nothing in any proposition which makes it an inherent proposition

I don’t want to nit pick this. It was mentioned as an aside to the main discussion. I am simply saying any proposition does not as an essential constituent or characteristic of itself (inherently) need to, or make it necessary to, propose yet another proposition.

Again darkhorse NO. This won’t do at all. This is basic logic and reasoning stuff here. You are adding confusion to a straight forward situation. Again IF 1 & 2 then you cannot say to me "And when did God decide this?".

You must either
(a) Have me agree as yet another concession (#3) that God did not decide this or (b) give ‘proof’ or substantial reasons over mine that he did not decide this.

All I have said is that he could well have decided this on the same grounds you use for saying he has not. You simply do not know. Therefore as I said before your statement to axeman and your assumption that God is not anthropocentric (I repeat he may have made himself purposely anthropocentric) FAILS. It is simple logical reasoning. I thought that’s what you wanted ??

"God's relation to man has no bearing on whether He is anthropocentric or not"

Nothing to do with this. That is another separate assumption/proposition you are adding in

Stop trying to be evasive. If you don’t want to remain serious about this then don’t waste my time. There were 2 clear and distinct definitions agreed right at the beginning of this.

"I agree with your definitions of anthropocentric and an "anthropocentric view: " Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. That’s a good start !! Now let’s both stay focused in the logic reservation ...."

I have not used the word anthropomorphism, neither have any of my replies referred to the word itself, meanings or connotations. All my reasoning stands on the word anthropocentric and context already defined. Instead of trying to add one assumption onto the next, perhaps it would benefit you to read and try and understand what is actually being said.

The rest of what you wrote is the same old flashy darkhorse prose but has no bearing, substance or connection with the subject. You should stop always trying to bluster your way through.

You are way off base, well outside your ‘logic reservation’ either get back in and face the issue at hand, or give it up.

It is simple and straightforward, the argument is that your following statement is False

"i respect axeman's general line of argument, however i think the flaw in the argument is that ;it is unintentionally anthropocentric and thus rests on flawed presuppositions

I have given good reason why..... and that is because it is based on an assumption that God has not made himself anthropocentric.
I offered good explanation to back my statement up..... if you should care to read it properly and carefully.

 

I am so glad shoeshineboy,. But thank goodness you spoke to someone who is knowledgeable !! Just imagine if you had spoken to someone who took pleasure and joy in putting misinformation about the place. Someone who didn’t ask somebody knowledgeable before he posted up incorrect and misinformed conclusion sheeesh. Someone like doub… nooo I won’t say it

Btw. It wasn’t an oversimplification by Coppedge. It is plain to see the added qualification Coppedge used to make Morowitz’s phrase say something it was not saying. Coppedge then used that to ‘prove’ his ‘point’. What is so ridiculous is that when you actually look at Coppedges ‘point’, it is a completely meaningless one anyway and has nothing to do with anything of any interest.

Now l@@k…. I thank you very much for being so honorable in recognizing the reality on the Morowitz issue. I take no pleasure in ‘proving that I was right’ as it were, because all I really want is to understand these big questions better than I think I do anyway. It’s the muddying of the water with incorrect assertion which doesn’t assist at all.

Discussing issues and trying to confirm what is and what isn’t ….but accepting willynilly anything anybody says without thinking things through… is crap !

Being constructively sceptical from all viewpoints is required.

Oh well, grateful for small mercies.

I don’t think you should build any of your major points on any number where all the conditions are not yet known. Your number and your major point are immediately made invalid because ALL the conditions cannot be taken into account. To be blunt I can't see where you have come up with just one major point so far. Certainly not one which is based upon anything but incorrect or misinformed assertions (no offense intended)

 

Hey, I hate the trash-talking, but I do appreciate that you do your homework. Believe it or not, I do not want to believe a number that is false or a point where I do not understand the underlying assumptions. The source that I got this from is generally very reliable, so I was shocked to find that the point was oversimplified. But, anyway, live and learn...

 

Again, I agree that you cannot prove anything until you have all probabilites and conditions as you have stated. But by the same token, I don't think one can ignore the data that has come in.

Example:
Say you walk into a casino and see someone win 122 blackjacks in a row. You could deal with this situation in 3 ways:

1. "Wow, that guy was lucky. I bet he'll have a good time tonight."
2. "No big deal. I don't know how many shoes are on the table and I can't calculate the odds exactly."
3. "I don't think this was all luck. He must have cheated."

I think that you are dealing with scientific findings that aren't fitting your model of the universe with #2. (No offense intended - that's how I really see it.) But at the least I am trying to push you to at least admit that there is merit to the argument posed in #3. The person in #3 sees that the probability of this event is so low that they ask if this is guided by some sort of intelligent oversight (i.e. cheating)?