Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[dpogs]

OT:

"Ang tuldok ay may sanaysay at may kahulugan,
Na dapat malaman at maintindihan,
Na dito sa mundo ikaw ay tuldok lang."

Sir, point lang talaga. Walang time, space, laws of physics (including causality), as in point lang talaga.

hmm... and if someone here says that that 'point' was created by supreme being... will you believe that?

[bumblebee]

OT:

"Ang tuldok ay may sanaysay at may kahulugan,
Na dapat malaman at maintindihan,
Na dito sa mundo ikaw ay tuldok lang."

hmm... and if someone here says that that 'point' was created by supreme being... will you believe that?

No need for someone else to say that. That is what I believe.

[dpogs]

hmm... believer of guided evolution?

[bumblebee]

hmm... believer of guided evolution?

Let's just say that point that banged contains all the necessary ingredients for life to happen. God didn't have to guide or intervene during different phases.

[docelmo]

and beside... assisted process yan (seems a work of an ID)... controlled environment... not natural process as evolutionist claimed...

Exactly, this is what is infered by theory of ID although as sir barrister has keenly pointed out with pre-existing material. While on the other hand the universe was created Ex Nihilo by the designer or by the point as mentioned by sir bumblebee.

[docelmo]

Let's just say that point that banged contains all the necessary ingredients for life to happen. God didn't have to guide or intervene during different phases.

Let me see now if i get right, take the dish Kare-kare for example which i am sure everyone loves to eat.

By your description above, You mean to say that the kare-kare had all the ingriedients already and just cooked itself without the benefit of a cook?

[bumblebee]

Let me see now if i get right, take the dish Kare-kare for example which i am sure everyone loves to eat.

By your description above, You mean to say that the kare-kare had all the ingriedients already and just cooked itself without the benefit of a cook?

Stars formed on their "own", right? What I'm saying is that when the universe came into being, lots of conditions, parameters happened. These conditions helped make the kare-kare.

You argued there wasn't enough time, right? Let's go to the kare-kare example. How long will it take to cook? Say 5 hours to soften the meat. Can it be cooked faster? Yes, by increasing the pressure. This is what we've been saying, that we don't know the environment then, that's why the population genetics numbers don't add up to the evidences.

[docelmo]

Stars formed on their "own", right? What I'm saying is that when the universe came into being, lots of conditions, parameters happened. These conditions helped make the kare-kare.

You argued there wasn't enough time, right? Let's go to the kare-kare example. How long will it take to cook? Say 5 hours to soften the meat. Can it be cooked faster? Yes, by increasing the pressure. This is what we've been saying, that we don't know the environment then, that's why the population genetics numbers don't add up to the evidences.

How did all the parameters came about for the stars to form? Or for that matter how do you increase the pressure to cook the kare kare faster? In both cases you need something else outside of the star and the kare kare to make things happen. In both cases the enviroment don't just happen.

[docelmo]

that's why the population genetics numbers don't add up to the evidences.

Population genetics shows that evidence of evolution is the one that does not work.

[bumblebee]

Yes, the specific environment to cook kare-kare is one of infinite possibilities, yet it happened. Just like what will happen tomorrow, one of infinite possibilities, yet, it will happen.

Take the lotto example. Very small chance that you will win. But, your chances of winning is the same as the winning ticket's.

[docelmo]

Yes, the specific environment to cook kare-kare is one of infinite possibilities, yet it happened. Just like what will happen tomorrow, one of infinite possibilities, yet, it will happen.

Take the lotto example. Very small chance that you will win. But, your chances of winning is the same as the winning ticket's.

You still need a cook to make kare kare, and the more you need a cause to make the infinitely more complex universe!

[bumblebee]

That is if you intend to cook kare kare. For you, we are purposely created. My view is that humanity is just one of infinite possibilities, that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

[docelmo]

That is if you intend to cook kare kare. For you, we are purposely created. My view is that humanity is just one of infinite possibilities, that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Signifance or insignifance of humanity is irrelevant to our discussion. What we are discussing are prossesses, laws, physics that govern us. We cannot escape the reality of cause an effect as such everything bounded by time and space follows this fundamental principle and so with all the other parameters.

[Tempter]

@docelmo

It seems to me that you are so sure of everything that you say...

[leomarley]

@docelmo

It seems to me that you are so sure of everything that you say...

it all comes down to faith with them.

[bumblebee]

It's very relevant. Our perspective differs because of that. I won't ask yours anymore because babalik lang tayo kay God.

[majoe]

if your premise is the basic principle that he's from a different and higher plane of existence, then yeah. But wholly, the intervening God in the Bible still does not. do i believe that Jesus existed? he might have but i doubt his holiness.

i see. it seems that you are an agnostic who is inclined to believe in Spinoza God just like a deist or pantheist. well, that's cool
i tend to be one few years ago but when i thought of spending some time to read the bible, just a few chapters of Genesis which is the creation account, i was really amazed when i found out that it is scientific. from then on, i reaffirmed my faith in God. a God revealed in the bible, a personal God, our Father, and His son Jesus, our savior.
 

[barrister]

Take the lotto example. Very small chance that you will win. But, your chances of winning is the same as the winning ticket's.

Someone always wins the Lotto.  Why?  Because the game was designed so that someone will always win.

Why was it designed that way?  Because if winnings are too infrequent, customers will decrease.  Someone has to win, so that customers will be inspired to bet.
 
What is the probability for a single 6 - 49 bet?  Computed as 49! / [6! × (49 - 6)!], the probability is 13,983,816. 
 
If there are 99,000,000 Filipinos, just 1/4 of that is 25,000,000.  That's sufficient to get a winning number including rollovers, and that's before considering that many customers bet several combinations per draw.
 
If the probability for a single bet is 1.4 x 10⁷,  what is the probability that someone will win the Lotto?  100%, because the draw is rolled over until someone wins.
 
Now, let's compare with abiogenesis.
 
Compared with the 1 chance in 1.4x10⁷ for  Lotto, what is the chance for abiogenesis?   

Based on the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance, it's estimated to be 1 in 2.4x10³⁹⁰.   Based on the probability of the chance formation of  a hypothetical functional simple cell, it's worse than 1 in 10⁵⁷⁸⁰⁰.   

To appreciate how large a 10³⁹⁰ and a 10⁵⁷⁸⁰⁰ denominator are, compare that with the number of all the atoms in the observable universe, which is 10⁸⁰. 
 
These numbers are too astounding to comprehend.  Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, using analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem, said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time --- and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by evolutionists (real world ‘simple’ bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex).
 
That's hardly comparable to Lotto, which is designed so that someone should always win.

[docelmo]

@docelmo

It seems to me that you are so sure of everything that you say...

it all comes down to faith with them.

Sir, being a physician we were trained to have a "clinical eye" which means that you have to extract as much information as possible from the patient, the history, physical exam and diagnostics. After that you make the diffential diagnosis from the mostly likely to the least likely diagnosis. That same principle i apply here, i gather as much information as possible and then made my decision based on what i've read regarding ID, evolution etc. Based on my clinical eye the mostly likely diagnosis on the emergence of life is Design rather than chance........so i beg to disagree that my position just "comes down" to faith.

In fact i am a science geek but i also have my faith it's a healthy combo.

[docelmo]

Someone always wins the Lotto.  Why?  Because the game was designed so that someone will always win.

Why was it designed that way?  Because if winnings are too infrequent, customers will decrease.  Someone has to win, so that customers will be inspired to bet.
 
What is the probability for a single 6 - 49 bet?  Computed as 49! / [6! × (49 - 6)!], the probability is 13,983,816. 
 
If there are 99,000,000 Filipinos, just 1/4 of that is 25,000,000.  That's sufficient to get a winning number including rollovers, and that's before considering that many customers bet several combinations per draw.
 
If the probability for a single bet is 1.4 x 10⁷,  what is the probability that someone will win the Lotto?  100%, because the draw is rolled over until someone wins.
 
Now, let's compare with abiogenesis.
 
Compared with the 1 chance in 1.4x10⁷ for  Lotto, what is the chance for abiogenesis?   

Based on the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance, it's estimated to be 1 in 2.4x10³⁹⁰.   Based on the probability of the chance formation of  a hypothetical functional simple cell, it's worse than 1 in 10⁵⁷⁸⁰⁰.   

To appreciate how large a 10³⁹⁰ and a 10⁵⁷⁸⁰⁰ denominator are, compare that with the number of all the atoms in the observable universe, which is 10⁸⁰. 
 
These numbers are too astounding to comprehend.  Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, using analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem, said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time --- and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by evolutionists (real world ‘simple’ bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex).
 
That's hardly comparable to Lotto, which is designed so that someone should always win.

+ 10⁵⁷⁸⁰⁰

[dpogs]

and to believe in something that is mathematically impossible requires tremendous faith... a +10⁵⁷⁸⁰⁰ more faith... 

and it all boils down to - just add another billion of years and it will be possible...

[leomarley]

i see. it seems that you are an agnostic who is inclined to believe in Spinoza God just like a deist or pantheist. well, that's cool
i tend to be one a few years ago but when i thought of spending some time to read the bible, just a few chapters of Genesis which is the creation account, i was really amazed when i found out that it is scientific. from then on, i reaffirmed my faith in God. a God revealed in the bible, a personal God, our Father, and His son Jesus, our savior.
 

i'm not really sure who or what a Spinoza God is. It's not really my belief but more of a view of what a possible higher being is. I don't really subscribe to any theist/atheist/agnostic literature as i'm just basing my view my on reading and watching things about Quantum Theory, String Theory, Physics Journals, etc.

what part exactly of Genesis do you say is scientific?

[bumblebee]

and to believe in something that is mathematically impossible requires tremendous faith... a +10⁵⁷⁸⁰⁰ more faith... 

and it all boils down to - just add another billion of years and it will be possible...

That is because you're looking at the probability of something specific happening. You're mixing probabilities with actual occurrences. Hindi mo matanggap kasi maliit probability.

[dpogs]

That is because you're looking at the probability of something specific happening. You're mixing probabilities with actual occurrences. Hindi mo matanggap kasi maliit probability.

we're talking about series of events ... not just the forming of melocules necessary to create life... others parameters external weather... etc... also the perfect position of each stars, planets, moons, comets, etc ...

these were series of all mathematical impossiblities happened at the same time... isn't it logical to think that someone placed them there perfectly and meticolously... rather than leaving it to chance that it will happen eventually taking into consideration billion of years..

as a student of numbers/probabilities... i am not convinced that it actually happened by mere chance... because of these events huge improbabilities i am more convinced that someone rigged them to happen at perfect time and place...

even we add eons of time... there is no chance that life will sprout from non-life... not even great evolutionist can show proof that life came out from non-life unassisted...

[bumblebee]

^Yun nga, series of events di ba? So tanggalin mo na sa equations mo yung mga nangyari na. Nangyari na e. It's no use saying zero probability kasi nga nangyari na.

For example, what is the probability of your parents having grandchildren from a son born on your birthdate and joined a forum named PinoyDVD using the name dpogs before they met? Zero di ba? Ask the same question now, lumaki probability di ba?

[dpogs]

^Yun nga, series of events di ba? So tanggalin mo na sa equations mo yung mga nangyari na. Nangyari na e. It's no use saying zero probability kasi nga nangyari na.

For example, what is the probability of your parents having grandchildren from a son born on your birthdate and joined a forum named PinoyDVD using the name dpogs before they met? Zero di ba? Ask the same question now, lumaki probability di ba?

hmm... magkaiba talaga tayo ng pananaw tungkol sa probabilities...

tinitingnan ko ang isang bagay na mathematically impossible pero nangyari as a work of someone much powerful to alter the outcome...

so ang complete piyesa ng kotse kapag iniwan natin sa space ... given enough time... will assemble themselves para maging kotse...

to answer your question...probabilities of an outcome from known population never change... probability is kung tama computation ko = 1/3.629⁺²⁰

[bumblebee]

hmm... magkaiba talaga tayo ng pananaw tungkol sa probabilities...

tinitingnan ko ang isang bagay na mathematically impossible pero nangyari as a work of someone much powerful to alter the outcome...

so ang complete piyesa ng kotse kapag iniwan natin sa space ... given enough time... will assemble themselves para maging kotse...

E, hindi naman nagrereproduce piyesa ng kotse e. You really can't use that argument.

to answer your question...probabilities of an outcome from known population never change... probability is kung tama computation ko = 1/3.629⁺²⁰

It does change. If it doesn't, hindi ako maniniwalang apo ng magulang mo ang anak mo kasi zero probability e, using your reasoning.

[docelmo]

That is because you're looking at the probability of something specific happening. You're mixing probabilities with actual occurrences. Hindi mo matanggap kasi maliit probability.

You actually have to test the probability with the actual occurrence, because there is an assertion that life occurred by chance this is the one being tested...

Thus there are 3 things we know....
-Theory of evolution which says that life occurred by random chance
-Result of the calculations of the probability of life occurring by chance which gave us a mind-blowing number!
-Last is that LIFE is here! In so "short" a time!

What should be examined objectively and be put in doubt is the legitimacy of "random chance" producing life....which runs counter to the probability result and the presence of life!

The other option that bests fit this is that Life was designed.

[docelmo]

what part exactly of Genesis do you say is scientific?

The Bible is NOT a science book, but it doesn't mean that things mentioned there are unscientific.
 i suggest leaving our "religious biases" out of the door so to speak and just examine and understand text as it is...

Up until the time of hubble and einstein sceintist taught that the universe static, unchanging, eternal. But when hubble saw that that the universe was expanding and was later on confirmed by einstein himself, this lead to the new understanding that the universe was not static and in fact had a beginning in time.

Genesis 1: Say In the beginning God created the heavens and earth...which to me simply means that Time, Space and the Universe had a beginning in the distant past.....removing the reference to God, does this statement have no basis in science?

And I believe The Reproductive system was mentioned repeatedly in the creation account when the Bible mentioned the phrase "according to their kind".

These two are not in genesis but in another chapter but are now part of medical protocol in Infection Control:
The "washing using running water" and the isolation of someone during the duration of a sick person....both of which were mentioned in the bible but were not practiced until the discovery of microorganism.

[Tempter]

Sir, being a physician we were trained to have a "clinical eye" which means that you have to extract as much information as possible from the patient, the history, physical exam and diagnostics. After that you make the diffential diagnosis from the mostly likely to the least likely diagnosis. That same principle i apply here, i gather as much information as possible and then made my decision based on what i've read regarding ID, evolution etc. Based on my clinical eye the mostly likely diagnosis on the emergence of life is Design rather than chance........so i beg to disagree that my position just "comes down" to faith.

In fact i am a science geek but i also have my faith it's a healthy combo.

So these made you SO SURE about everything you say???