"What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?" Consider the question: It asks if irreducibly complex systems such as cells can "emerge" (from any cause). The answer is YES. The use of the term *emergence* suggests a *duration of exchange of information* in accordance to certain immutable constants inherent in the fabric of space. The result is Time and that is the argument of Evolution, "change over time". .the answer is no. in the same manner, as jumbos do not emerge from a tornado over a junk yard, nor a book by chance, a cell cannot emerge without guiding intelligence. quite obvious i'd say. Not obvious at all. You are making a category error. A jet and a book are man-made objects. A livimg cell is a natural, biological phenomenon. There is no comparison between them.
What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?
A mathematically functioning universe could. Anyway, you have not proven your point and it appears I have not been able to persuade you to change your view, So we are back to where it all stared. Hopeless.i am not here to be persuaded. Why do you have this goal anyway ? Can you not think for yourself, and understand that life could not emerge by chance ? what is so difficult to get that ? THINK !! It wouldn't be by "chance". It would have an antecedent, an explanation. Just because we don't know how it happened doesn't mean it could not happen. Maybe it's you who needs to THINK! "A team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK believes they have solved the mystery of how it was possible for life to begin on Earth over four billion years ago. In their paper published in the journal Nature Chemistry, the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html#jCp You speak of the "low probability" of life beginning without a designer, yet you ignore the even lower probability of there being a designer in the first place. If life could not have always existed or have spontaneously developed how can a designer have always existed or have spontaneously developed? All you're doing is moving the goalposts. You haven't answerd anything and your notions of probability are bizarre.
A mathematically functioning universe could. Anyway, you have not proven your point and it appears I have not been able to persuade you to change your view, So we are back to where it all stared. Hopeless.i am not here to be persuaded. Why do you have this goal anyway ? Can you not think for yourself, and understand that life could not emerge by chance ? what is so difficult to get that ? THINK !! I see, you are here to proselytize, not to learn science. Your single *mind-set* is the existence of a motivated intelligent designer. But you are unable to scientifically or even logically prove it. Yet you dare accuse others of not thinking. That makes you a troll with an agenda. Can you suggest where I should send my tithing? Watch this and THINK!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
"What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?" Consider the question: It asks if irreducibly complex systems such as cells can "emerge" (from any cause). The answer is YES. The use of the term *emergence* suggests a *duration of exchange of information* in accordance to certain immutable constants inherent in the fabric of space. The result is Time and that is the argument of Evolution, "change over time". .the answer is no. in the same manner, as jumbos do not emerge from a tornado over a junk yard, nor a book by chance, a cell cannot emerge without guiding intelligence. quite obvious i'd say. Not obvious at all. You are making a category error. A jet and a book are man-made objects. A livimg cell is a natural, biological phenomenon. There is no comparison between them. i think you have not thought about how to recognize design.
You are confusing patterns with design
Natural patterns include spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tilings, cracks, and those created by symmetries of rotation and reflection. Patterns have an underlying mathematical structure;[1] indeed, mathematics can be seen as the search for regularities, and the output of any function is a mathematical pattern. Similarly in the sciences, theories explain and predict regularities in the world.Pattern - Wikipedia
THINK!!
i am not here to be persuaded.That was obvious long ago. We're ahead of you. Edit: You should check out the Forum Rules, especially this part:
(2) Members’ Roles: The CFI Forum is open to anyone willing to abide by the Forum Rules. We welcome reasoned discussion, debate and disagreement, so long as it is in an objective spirit of inquiry and does not become disruptive as described below in the sections on problem threads, posts and members.You just admitted you are not open to reason (which has been obvious since your first post here) and as such are violating the forum rules. My fellow skeptics, it is time to ostracize this troll.
i am not here to be persuaded.
THINK !!Oh the irony . . . It burnz . . . And the fool can't recognize no matter how many hints he gets. That is why the Religious Right has done nothing but grow more fanatical and disconnected with every year. And now we given our damned United States Government to them and form the looks of this national organization's internet forum (CFI) sure seems like near no one is concerned about it at all. "Well give the dude a chance man - relax bro - here enjoy another sleepy-time . . . PS Adonai fuck your blind self-certain absolutism - it's the devil's own curse on you. The pocks on whole bunch of ya
BIOLOGY: Irreducible Complexity - Richard Dawkins Hay Levels https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZg_9EBhMWo A) Natural Selection is NOT a RANDOM PROCESS B) MUTATION IS RANDOM C) Development happens by degrees - no great jumpsI noticed that YouTube is flooded with Creation's videos that proportion to debunk the ID Debunkers - but when I listen to them, they consistently misrepresent what scientists are explaining about the evolution of complexity. So what the fuck, it's like arguing with a shadow, and we wonder why no body learns anything from the exercise, except how to turn your brain into a salt pillar.1:30 irreducible complexity is a phrase that's used for something which is alleged to be too complicated to have come about - not only too complicated to come about by chance everybody agrees on that. But too complicated to have come about by gradual evolution by natural selection, if there is anywhere in the animal kingdom of the plant kingdom an organ which is too complicated to come about by natural selection then Darwin's theory is blown out of the water. No such has has ever been know.Argument from personal incredulity 2:35 in the case of all the examples that have ever been put forward we do understand how it's come about there is no such thing as irreducible complexity in that sense.
You are confusing *patterns* with *design*pfff..... patterns do not produce coded instructional information. Prove me wrong.Natural patterns include spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tilings, cracks, and those created by symmetries of rotation and reflection. Patterns have an underlying mathematical structure;[1] indeed, mathematics can be seen as the search for regularities, and the output of any function is a mathematical pattern. Similarly in the sciences, theories explain and predict regularities in the world.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern THINK!!
i am not here to be persuaded.
THINK !!Oh the irony . . . It burnz . . . And the fool can't recognize no matter how many hints he gets. That is why the Religious Right has done nothing but grow more fanatical and disconnected with every year. And now we given our damned United States Government to them and form the looks of this national organization's internet forum (CFI) sure seems like near no one is concerned about it at all. "Well give the dude a chance man - relax bro - here enjoy another sleepy-time . . . PS Adonai fuck your blind self-certain absolutism - it's the devil's own curse on you. The pocks on whole bunch of ya disconnection with reality is to believe that cells can emerge by chance.
i am not here to be persuaded.That was obvious long ago. We're ahead of you. Edit: You should check out the Forum Rules, especially this part:
(2) Members’ Roles: The CFI Forum is open to anyone willing to abide by the Forum Rules. We welcome reasoned discussion, debate and disagreement, so long as it is in an objective spirit of inquiry and does not become disruptive as described below in the sections on problem threads, posts and members.You just admitted you are not open to reason (which has been obvious since your first post here) and as such are violating the forum rules. My fellow skeptics, it is time to ostracize this troll. no. i am not open to irrational pseudo scientific claims. Provide evidence that chance can produce complex machines and factories , and we talk.
For anyone out there who may be confused, here a couple educational opportunities to find out what evolution and development of complexity is all about.
Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker cdk007] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&list=PLF626DD5B2C1F0A87 Uploaded on Jun 5, 2007 READ THIS In this video I deconstruct the broken watch straw man argument used by creationist / ID supporters to attack evolution. I had to pack a ton of information into this video so you WILL need to pause it periodically. The basic premise of the argument is that a bunch of parts will never randomly assemble into the correct arrangement to form a properly functioning complex. Once again, creationists / ID supporters miss the basic concept of evolution entirely. No biologists believes, nor is there any evidence that complex systems form spontaneously in one fell swoop. That would be creation. Systems evolve through many intermediates, one step at a time, slowly building up the complexity. Here I deconstruct their straw man argument. Basically, I simulate clocks as living organisms. Selective pressure is focused on their ability to accurately tell time. NO goal is imposed on the design (you can tell this because every simulation ends with a differently constructed clock). And it works. Clocks evolve through a series of transitional forms: Pendulum, Proto-clock, 1-handed Clock, 2-handed Clock, 3-handed Clock, and 4-handed Clock. Gradually the complexity is built up. These labels I have assigned to the transitional forms have nothing to do with the simulation itself. They are names I assigned so that we could analyze what the population was doing. The clocks are just clocks, living in their world, trying to tell time as accurately as possible. One thing I wanted to address but didn't have time in the video is how rapid the transitional period can be. In some simulations the population goes from pendulums to 3-handed Clocks in a hundred or so generations. And the transitions between the transitional forms are even more rapid, happening in about ten generations. Chances are none or a very limited representation of that transition will be preserved in the fossil record. One thing I should add. The program does not draw the clocks. It maintains, mates, and simulates them, but the drawing must be done manually from the genome matrix. The program is written in MatLab. The hand rotations that begin with 86 are 86,000 not 86.000. When YouTube compressed the video it becam hard to tell a comma from a period. To download the program go to: http://www.mediafire.com/?1umdtnwayyp Alternate link to download Clock Evolution Program: http://www.mediafire.com/?yygr5xhmzdm
You are confusing *patterns* with *design*pfff..... Awesome argument.........*the breath of life*. We even have a picture of God breathing life into inanimate matter.Natural patterns include spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tilings, cracks, and those created by symmetries of rotation and reflection. Patterns have an underlying mathematical structure;[1] indeed, mathematics can be seen as the search for regularities, and the output of any function is a mathematical pattern. Similarly in the sciences, theories explain and predict regularities in the world.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern THINK!!
patterns do not produce coded instructional information. Prove me wrong.Patterns ARE mathematically coded instructional information. http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?
"What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?" Consider the question: It asks if irreducibly complex systems such as cells can "emerge" (from any cause). The answer is YES. The use of the term *emergence* suggests a *duration of exchange of information* in accordance to certain immutable constants inherent in the fabric of space. The result is Time and that is the argument of Evolution, "change over time". .the answer is no. in the same manner, as jumbos do not emerge from a tornado over a junk yard, nor a book by chance, a cell cannot emerge without guiding intelligence. quite obvious i'd say. Not obvious at all. You are making a category error. A jet and a book are man-made objects. A livimg cell is a natural, biological phenomenon. There is no comparison between them. i think you have not thought about how to recognize design. You have not thought through how to posit a designer. What is the origin of a designer?