What is wrong is that they claim something to be possible, which has already shown to be impossible.
Adonai, we inhabit different intellectual, spiritual, worlds.
Rather than wasting more time playing chasing-your-tail games with you - I was spending my time finishing a project I dare say is about the science.
You don't have a clue what is impossible and or not. OK, neither do I, but at least I realize my limitations.
Let me tell you a story son, :)
I'm convinced the CERN atom-smasher can not coordinate all those billions of functions to nano second timing - absolutely f'n impossible
But damned if the thing isn't doing what they promised us.
After years of scratching my head, every time I look at pictures of the thing, NO F'n way! - I still can't believe it.
But damned if the thing isn't doing what they promised us.
How do I know? Was I there? No but I am a member of humanity and I can't believe all those other people looking at this and reporting back are busy trying to trick me. Maybe that's because I do make that leap of faith that the world still exists when I close my eyes.
So there I am, my head and heart can't fathom that machine operating and doing what it's supposed to be doing.
But damned if the thing isn't doing what they promised us.
The moral of the story
I know not to always believe what I believe. :-)
Before screaming it's been shown to be impossible by someone somewhere.
Why not spend some time just learning what scientists have found out and learned about.
You'll never know all you don't know if you never seek to question yourself.
On a more philosophical note, one of the very few things I am certain of, is that this confined intellectual landscape you seem trapped in, is a cartoon compared to what the grownups are reporting back to those willing to listen and observe their own worlds with a modicum of objectivity.
For instance:
Thursday, January 14, 2016
{3} Evolution of Carbon and our biosphere - Professor Hazen focuses on the element Carbon
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/3-evolution-carbon-biosphere-hazen.html
This third installment of Considering our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine series will be featuring a second Professor Robert Hazen talk. In it he retraces the same ground as the previous lecture, but with a focus on the element carbon which turns out to be an outrageously interesting element/molecule worth spending a few moments learning about before moving on to the evolution of our atmosphere.
I believe this sort of background information will enable you to reply more effectively the next time some contrarian stooge tosses you that old standby: "The bottom line is that CO2 is at all-time lows going back five hundred million years." Those trying to be especially sciencie, will flourish a graph looking like: . . .
You don't have a clue what is impossible and or not. OK, neither do I, but at least I realize my limitations.
well, i actually think, i do know what is impossible.
for example :
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2267-the-origin-of-the-genetic-cipher-the-most-perplexing-problem-in-biology
The British biologist John Maynard Smith has described the origin of the code as the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. With collaborator Eörs Szathmáry he writes: “The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existence, or how life could have existed without it." To get some idea of why the code is such an enigma, consider whether there is anything special about the numbers involved. Why does life use twenty amino acids and four nucleotide bases? It would be far simpler to employ, say, sixteen amino acids and package the four bases into doublets rather than triplets. Easier still would be to have just two bases and use a binary code, like a computer. If a simpler system had evolved, it is hard to see how the more complicated triplet code would ever take over. The answer could be a case of “It was a good idea at the time." A good idea of whom ? If the code evolved at a very early stage in the history of life, perhaps even during its prebiotic phase, the numbers four and twenty may have been the best way to go for chemical reasons relevant at that stage. Life simply got stuck with these numbers thereafter, their original purpose lost. Or perhaps the use of four and twenty is the optimum way to do it. There is an advantage in life’s employing many varieties of amino acid, because they can be strung together in more ways to offer a wider selection of proteins. But there is also a price: with increasing numbers of amino acids, the risk of translation errors grows. With too many amino acids around, there would be a greater likelihood that the wrong one would be hooked onto the protein chain. So maybe twenty is a good compromise. Do random chemical reactions have knowledge to arrive at a optimal conclusion, or a " good compromise" ?
An even tougher problem concerns the coding assignments—i.e., which triplets code for which amino acids. How did these designations come about? Because nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries, there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids. Other translations are conceivable. Coded instructions are a good idea, but the actual code seems to be pretty arbitrary. Perhaps it is simply a frozen accident, a random choice that just locked itself in, with no deeper significance.
That frozen accident means, that good old luck would have hit the jackpot trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility.
That frozen accident means, that good old luck would have hit the jackpot trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility.
We're right back where we started. Nothing learned.
You describe something that doesn't reflect the reality in the least and then tell us the reality as we find it is impossible.
How would you know?
. . . that sort of thinking only works within your echo-chamber.
That frozen accident means, that good old luck would have hit the jackpot trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility.
We're right back where we started. Nothing learned.
You describe something that doesn't reflect the reality in the least and then tell us the reality as we find it is impossible.
How would you know?
. . . that sort of thinking only works within your echo-chamber.
i am describing facts of reality. Either you beliece , chance picked the lucky number, and established the genetic cipher out of 10^84 possible codes, and we are here, or you believe in a creator..... Sorry, but i do not trust in chance, as you do. Specially not, when the odds are that kind of hudge.
i am describing facts of reality. Either you believe, chance picked the lucky number, and established the genetic cipher out of 10^84 possible codes, and we are here, or you believe in a creator.....
I've been listening to a new book today, not as good as Deamer's "First Life" (though I'm on my first listen and shouldn't judge.)
and I am getting stuff out of it
and it got me to thinking about your thoughts and wondering - how you justify them?
I know the numbers and time spans are huge - mind boggling even, but is that enough to be so certain?
Life Unfolding
How the Human Body Creates Itself
Jamie A. Davies
Provides a unique conceptual framework, using the principle of adaptive self-organization to explain
how a simple egg becomes a complex body
An account of an exciting new area of research, outlining both the controversies and the gaps in our understanding
Written in a clear and accessible way bringing together principles from physics and control theory,
as well as embryology and physiology...
It's fascinating. One thing that caught my attention was how much time he spent explaining gaps and questions -
but it's a descriptive type of thing.
That's what's different about the honest science approach, it's all about focusing on the subject and what is know and not known.
With your kind it always seems to be about selling me something, telling me what to think and what not to think about.
______________________________________________
It got me to thinking further about things you've said and how you've arrived at your smug certainty.
But, I'm ready to suspend my skepticism and listen.
You say "a creator" - in other places you've said "intelligent design" - What do you mean by that?
Can you define what this creator is?
What does intelligent design mean to you?
And do you base your certitude on more than a formula and for you unimaginable odds? . . . What would that be?
I honestly curious, because I do wish I could understand how you derive your understanding and certainty.
Cuthbert I hope you don’t mind me hijacking your comment - it just seemed a perfect follow up to my unanswered questions above.
Well I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I'll grant you there was an intelligent designer, just for yucks. How does that help? There's no possible way to proceed to prove that the designer is the guy who accords with the Christian god, or the Hindu chief god, or Allah, etc. There MIGHT be an argument in fact that this ID can't be THE god you're trying to fit things to because the designer's design is so obviously flawed. At best you can argue that the designer is super intelligent but not perfect, so more likely some higher being unimaginably "better" than humans, but still not the Big God. Bottom line - you lose.
Oh ya, and to add to the above questions, Is the ID a boy or a girl? If It's an it, then are you comfortable refering to it as It? Do you think Christians would be praying to It instead of He/Him? Would they be okay with Almighty It, Our Thing That Art in Heaven?
Hello Adonai?
You came here looking for lively intellectual discourse, we're trying to offer it, so please don't weenie out of it with pure silence.
Time to try to explain some, rather than just repeating your conviction.
You know I just watched that video again. It is pretty unfathomable, but damn there you go, it's happening all the time.
A folks understand it, much more than ID types could ever admit.
The whole ID thing is built on willfully deluding oneself about the available evidence, information and understanding.
I've been listening to an amazing book, this one over and over not just 2,3 times, but over a half dozen and counting,
it simply that amazing of narrative.
First Life
by David Deamer
another real scientist, in fact he's collaborated with Robert Hazen
another origins author who I can listen to repeatedly, got to if I'm going to absorb any of that amazing information.
http://news.ucsc.edu/2011/06/first-life.html
Biochemist David Deamer explores how life began in new book, 'First Life'
New findings support author's view of membranes as key to the origin of life
June 02, 2011
By Tim Stephens
It's worth reading or listening, much more refreshing and inclusive than that ID fairytales and such machinations.
abiogenesis is impossible. Deal with it.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible
Yessiree. A website called reasonandscience.heavenforum.org sounds very trustworthy and rational!
So sayeth the blind elder], to the wise ass kids who can see through his facade.
The only thing you've produced here is your self-certain convictions but you have no clue about the territory].
