Who would've thought a country of atheists has more morals (and balls) than us?

The questions in boldface are questions put to me by jem. My answers are in lightface type.

do you think the universe came about entirely randomly?
No, I think that is statistically impossible.
do you think life evolved from non-life randomly?
I don't know how life evolved. But I do know that chemical and physical events are controlled by natural law and the laws of both physics and chemistry. Therefore the outcomes will not be random. Though the encounters may appear random, they too are controlled by the physical laws. The outcomes are dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry. They are NOT random in the least.

do you think science shows either of the above Science 'shows' neither of the above.

do you think science points to fine tunings of our universe and directed evolution? 'Fine Tunings' is a term that creationists use, or those that use the terms 'Directed Evolution' or 'Intelligent Design' use to rationalize their beliefs. These terms, when used in particular contexts, have a basis in religion. I try to avoid using those terms, because their meaning has already been influenced by those that use them as I have described, and I don't want to be misunderstood.. Evolution is not 'directed' at all in the sense that you mean it. So if I said "evolution is directed by the laws of physics and chemistry," you would possibly misinterpret that to think that I agree with you. You might ask, "So who then is the Director?" And already you would have started down the wrong path and been misled by me. There is no 'who'. So to avoid this, you force me to say instead that evolution is not 'directed,' it is restricted -- restricted by the laws of chemistry and physics. It is the opposite of random, where random means random outcomes.

if you accept that science shows the likelyhood[sic] of use[sic] being here by random chance is almost nil I do accept that.

... and that there is evidence of a Tuner or Something or Someone that caused a drive for life in evolution... I don't accept any personification. It makes no sense whatsoever, and would require a believe in the supernatural, which is itself a violation of the natural laws.

then really, we[sic] are we not just speculating about the nature of the Designer? No, 'we' are not. Apparently 'you' are. I respectfully request that you leave me out of any such speculation. I am no more interested in it than I am in trying to sort out the lineage of the 'seven dwarfs.'

Perhaps you would be interested in an elegant and rigorous mathematical proof that evolution must occur if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not to be violated. (See Joseph Henry Vogel's Ph.D. Dissertation available via the Rutgers University Library.)

You might also be interested to learn why all living organisms in the Universe will always be based on carbon and no other element -- that's hardly random! See "Why Life Exists," by M.J.S. Dewar.

 

That's hilarious, Lucrum!

 

Reminds me of the old

"An engineer, a biologist and a mathematician are watching a bar

As they watch, two people enter.

Later, three people leave.

The engineer says, "There was someone in there before."

The biologist says, "They must have reproduced."

The mathematician says, "If one more person enters there will be nobody left in the bar."

 

interestingly answer... but.. .
1. You misrepresent some definitions.

a.
I use fine tuning the way Susskind uses fine tuning which he explains here when describing how some of the constants of our universe are fine tuned.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

b.

I use directed evolution the way some of scientists have used it when they say it seems that non life evolving into life was so improbable in the amount of time we had... that the laws and chemistry must have been set up to cause life.


you may wish to read this...

http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

You're not using it in the same way at all Jem. You are using it as a rationalization for a religious concept, that of a 'fine tuner.' Fined tuned as an adjective in no way requires 'fine tuner' as a noun. This was pointed out to you by someone else previously.

He's toying with you jem. Did you notice that he points out that when physicists, or other scientists for that matter, say "'whoever' made the Universe.." he is careful to add "they don't really believe it!" Susskind does not believe in a 'who' either. When he mentions God as a possibility there is a smile, and its along with three other possibilities, among which is "who knows."

Susskind does not believe any of the stuff you do, any more than I do. When he mentions there are an enormous number of ways one can, on paper, arrange DNA sequences, which is true by the way, he also mentions that only a "very small number of possibilities are conducive to life." Susskind is pointing out to you the same thing I pointed out. That the laws of chemistry and physics dictate a 'restricted' number of possibilities that can be successful. He leaves out a very important point that I mentioned to you, and that is that at every step in the reaction of two chemical particles --atoms or molecules-- the possible results are finite in number and restricted by the laws of chemistry and physics.

Consequently where we have arrived after a few billion years is where we had to arrive. The probability of arriving at our present station is huge, not tiny as some theologians believe. They assume incorrectly that without "divine guidance"--or the equivalent-- that the only evolutionary mechanism available is random combination with random outcomes. In reality the events and outcomes are anything but random.

In one sense, however, These theologians are correct. If the events and outcomes were truly random, and not restricted by the laws of chemistry and physics, none of us would be here! But then they make a big mistake. They assume because we are, in fact, here, that there must be a creator, intelligent design, directed evolution, or whatever. They are only allowing for random events with random outcomes. They don't consider how restrictive the outcomes for evolutionary events are, and they certainly don't consider that there was a googleplex of sites on our young planet where these events could take place more or less simultaneously --and may, incidentally, be taking place still! That hugely changes the probabilities of arriving at our present state.

When you take limited possible outcomes at each step and combine that with a googleplex of encounters over a few billion years, you end with a high probability of complex organisms resulting. And don't fail to allow for the addition of new mechanisms over time, such as, for example, sexual reproduction, which becomes an exceedingly important evolutionary mechanism. It allows organisms to influence their rate of evolving. We mustn't assume a constant evolutionary rate. The rate must vary, and there is strong evidence that the rate accelerated non-linearly over time. Incidentally, you can't arrive at the destination we are at today, starting with only one person, an extra rib or two, and only 5000 years to get the job done.

Susskind asks the important questions, chiefly, why do we have these specific laws of chemistry and physics and not some other laws? But because he's an intelligent man, he doesn't answer his own question. I'm not going to give you the answer either.

 

It's beyond shocking that some here could fathom the Son of Man being gay. He was sent here to save people, show how others can be saved, and knew He would die at the hands of the lost so sinners can be saved. It's so sad others here think the Son of Man was gay because he didn't "hook up" with "beeeotches" vs spending his time doing what He was sent here to do. I'm quite perplexed at this kind of blasphemy. I pray for souls here, even sick ricter...

 

its funny that you could write all that and provide to big red herrings which completely discount everything you say.

I will address your answers in reverse order...

a. Just on the last page... I gave you info about scientists in the field of DNA research and biology. I explained some of them even say there was not enough time on earth for non life to evolve into life. That last page is full of info about scientists... That is science prize winners saying that... not theologians.
Where do you get this crap abut theologians.
I provided you with a paper from MIT and scientists.



b. Secondly... where do you get the balls to just make shit up like that? Just because Susskind speculates there are almost infinite universes does not mean he rules out a Creator for the creation. You do not like Tuner?

How about " as if prescribed by an outside agency"...

"In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a
bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully &#64257;ne-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency
3See [6, 7, 8, 9] for recent work on the existence and the construction of observables in cosmological
spacetimes.1"


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf

 

I'm afraid I'll be disappointed, but my first guesses would be Keystone Light, or maybe Boone's Farm?