The Odds of Life Occurring by Random Chance and The Odds of Sexual Reproduction and Genetics

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: InTheLight

I speak as a scientist here, do not believe that the general public, as a whole, understand what empirical evidence is. Now in terms of this thread, kinetics (which started this off) is pretty meaningless, when taken in isolationist. Kinetics and thermodynamics together are a better view, though the latter is full of calculus which scares a lot of the populace away

Are you implying budding scientists don't want to do the math?

originally posted by: cooperton
If there is no intelligence involved with chemical interactions, why are there intelligible mathematical equations that can predict the way chemicals behave?

Because humans created the math to explain the observed reactions.

This is like a 2-dimensional creature ranting that width is impossible.

Yes, those exist.

Just because said 2D creature has never experienced the 3rd dimension does not mean it is non-existent.

It also doesn't mean it exists.

to think it is impossible for a Being to be transcendent of our current limitations would be naive.

I never said it was impossible, but this post was about odds, so if you can explain to me how a system arises with an always existing god as the first thing in existence, I'd love to know such such a feat is possible. "Oh, don't mind me, I've just always been here". Ok, but how? You can argue about the probabilities of certain chemical reactions coming together to create the first life, but compared to something like that the odds are not in your favor. That relies on pure blind faith and random chance.

a reply to: AlienView

For in this magical atheist universe all order and science occurs by magic - After all there is no a priori [preceeding] intelligence so what ever is happening is happening without any preceived order - But they will tell you the order was there
and we just came upon it. DUH!!! - What kind of crazy logic is that

a reply to: InTheLight

Having trained a great number of undergrad scientists, and future doctors. I will confirm, they don't want to do the mathematics. They will avoid University mathematics papers if they can. Now remember this is scientists in training. The majority of the public will also avoid "doing the math" .

No 2-d or 3-D all is one, if there was a creator what created the creator, then what created that creator etc..
It's all simulated and nothing actually is what it is.

Have you ever wondered what the universe looked like before the Human mind existed

What did the universe look like before there was a mind to percieve and define it ?

You who stand by empirical science 'assume' it looked like what we now percieve it to be.

But how can you say that if there was no MIND perceiving it

You make an assumption that reality exists independently of the mind perecieving it - this is a great fallacy

For without perceptual mind there is not only no proof - but no reason to believe anyting exists

And you are part of the universe your pecieve to exist - Your existence is interdependent with the universe you are a part of.

Your science, your math, and your perceptions did not, and could not exist, and netiher could the universe exist if not for
an a priori mind which could not have come from nothing, and nothing can never exist.

Whether you believe in 'a creator' or not is irrelevant - But MIND in some form or other is the bottom line of all that exists.

It precedes energy, matter and time - MIND is eternal


And for the scientists among you:

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real” – Niels Bohr[a very famous physicist of the 20th Century]

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

"In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place......."

See whole article here:
www.sciencedaily.com...


And again to answer my original question on:
"The Odds of Life Occurring by Random Chance and The Odds of Sexual Reproduction and Genetics"

'Quie likely' there are no 'odds' involved - It is more than likely that life and the genetic experiment leading to its many
varieties are an inevitable consequence of the MIND backing all that exists

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

originally posted by: Barcs

Because humans created the math to explain the observed reactions.

So you don't think these intelligible equations - the Laws themselves - are the result of an intelligent force?

What would be proof for you - God incarnating and telling people the whole Truth? You wouldn't believe it if He did.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

But no, you put down an esoteric formula, and suddenly its a spell they can cling too, as "a model of reality" rather than "a decent guess".

^You're describing the theory of evolution.

originally posted by: AlienView
Have you ever wondered what the universe looked like before the Human mind existed

What did the universe look like before there was a mind to percieve and define it ?

You who stand by empirical science 'assume' it looked like what we now percieve it to be.

But how can you say that if there was no MIND perceiving it

You make an assumption that reality exists independently of the mind perecieving it - this is a great fallacy

For without perceptual mind there is not only no proof - but no reason to believe anyting exists

Good points. And the double-slit experiment demonstrates that the observer/mind plays a key role in the manifestation of matter.

a reply to: cooperton

So you don't think these intelligible equations - the Laws themselves - are the result of an intelligent force?

what we think has nothing to do with it.

What would be proof for you - God incarnating and telling people the whole Truth? You wouldn't believe it if He did.

what we believe has nothing to do with it.

Good points. And the double-slit experiment demonstrates that the observer/mind plays a key role in the manifestation of matter.

and flipping a light switch plays a key role in the manifestation of your kitchen.

originally posted by: cooperton
So you don't think these intelligible equations - the Laws themselves - are the result of an intelligent force?

Nope. Because the intelligible equations are created by humans, as I already explained. Those are our observations of the laws of the universe. The equations don't magically exist without us first creating them and using them as a tool. If you have evidence that these laws were created, then by all means, let's have it instead of talking in riddles and relying on semantics in word similarities.

What would be proof for you - God incarnating and telling people the whole Truth? You wouldn't believe it if He did.

God is allegedly all powerful, so it's pretty easy to convince me. Just stop by and say hello... or say SOMETHING, ANYTHING to us. Show the world what your true word is instead of making them blindly guess which religion to follow. Anything tangible and verifiable would convince me. I'm not going to blindly believe 4000 year old scriptures as you do, just because they say so. I need a valid reason before believing anything.

Good points. And the double-slit experiment demonstrates that the observer/mind plays a key role in the manifestation of matter.

Completely wrong. In my deleted post above, I explained that act of observing DOES NOT affect what is being observed. This is a common misconception, the electron microscope that is needed to make observation on particles that small causes interference because of the electrons. That doesn't mean the act of observing changes reality. I know I've explained that to you before.

originally posted by: Barcs
Because the intelligible equations are created by humans, as I already explained.

Our equations are used to consistently describe physical law, that does not mean we created the laws. Mathematics are indicative of intelligence; our mathematics are capable of predicting these laws that act according to predictable equations.

God is allegedly all powerful, so it's pretty easy to convince me. Just stop by and say hello...

He did: The New Testament

I explained that act of observing DOES NOT affect what is being observed.

That's not what the empirical evidence shows. In the double slit experiment, the photon begins behaving like a particle only when it is observed through a quantum measuring device. This is empirical evidence and not my opinion.

a reply to: cooperton

Our equations are used to consistently describe physical law, that does not mean we created the laws. Mathematics are indicative of intelligence; our mathematics are capable of predicting these laws that act according to predictable equations.

math doesnt have to be steered or supervised, if thats what you mean by "indicative of intelligence". math is self sufficient.

That's not what the empirical evidence shows. In the double slit experiment, the photon begins behaving like a particle only when it is observed through a quantum measuring device. This is empirical evidence and not my opinion.

the simple answer is: we dont yet know what it means.

consider it a scientific curiosity that deserves the utmost rigor of our experts and equipment.

a reply to: cooperton

I'm not describing the theory of evolution neighbour.

What is the "esoteric formula" that we scientists use?

What I was describing was your misunderstanding of chemical kinetics. I assume you plan to dodge the rest of my points?

Now consider this:

8 Studies that Show How Consciousness Affects Reality

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
– Max Planck

See whole article here:
www.powerofpositivity.com...


Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, FRS[2] (/plɑːŋk/;[3] 23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) was a German theoretical physicist whose work on quantum theory won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.[4] Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame as a physicist rests primarily on his role as an originator of quantum theory, which revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes. However, his name is also known on a broader academic basis, through the renaming in 1948 of the German scientific institution, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (of which he was twice president), as the Max Planck Society (MPS). The MPS now includes 83 institutions representing a wide range of scientific directions.
See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...

So again;
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
– Max Planck

So don't take my word for it - After all who am I - An alien who calls himself a ScienceFictionalist writing on the
ATS internet forum - But Max Planck is rated by your scientists as being one of the great theoretical physicists of the
20th Century


"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
- Max Planck


"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
- Max Planck


"The scientist needs an artistically creative imagination."
- Max Planck


"In all my research I have never come across matter. To me the term matter implies a bundle of energy which is given form by an intelligent spirit."
- Max Planck


"There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other."
- Max Planck


"The entire world we apprehend through our senses is no more than a tiny fragment in the vastness of Nature."
- Max Planck


"What seems today inconceivable will appear one day, from a higher standpoint, quite simple and harmonious."
- Max Planck


"Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view"
- Max Planck


"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."
- Max Planck


"Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never-relaxing crusade against skepticism and dogmatism, against disbelief and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and will always be, 'On to God.' "
- Max Planck


Incredible isn't it

- A great man of science referring to a God concept

a reply to: AlienView

That is not via a reputable site/source. We've had this very same discussion before, next you will whip out the double slit experiment.... so in preemptive anticipation:
blogs.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: cooperton

If there is no intelligence involved with chemical interactions, why are there intelligible mathematical equations that can predict the way chemicals behave?

Ive got a better question.. Why do you even care that intelligible mathematical equations exist that can predict the way chemicals behave, when you clearly believe in nonsense that defies the laws of physics?
Even if your invisible friend invented math and set the laws of physics in motion, it does not tell us "how" he did it or who created him. That and the fact a deity can't be detected or measured makes him useless in any real world application. Unless you need tax free cash, he seems to need lots of cash, he can create the universe but needs Minions to collect his cash?..Curious.

I sometimes approve of the Atheists' criticism of religion - much wrong in the world can be blamed upon the misuse of religious thinking - but that was not the intent of religion and Man misuses many other ideologies besides religious ones.

Now the much common consensus is to dismiss all religion and/or mystical thinking as superstitious nonsense,
like religion this can be used as an easy escape from the elusive nature of what the universe and reality might actually be
- What science is yet to explain.

A little research and I found one ot the most famous theoretical physicists of the 20th Century was expressing views similar to mine and others who are debating the atheistic materialist view given by some here and on other posts.

So again:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
– Max Planck

"Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, FRS[2] (/plɑːŋk/;[3] 23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) was a German theoretical physicist whose work on quantum theory won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.[4] Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame as a physicist rests primarily on his role as an originator of quantum theory, which revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes. However, his name is also known on a broader academic basis, through the renaming in 1948 of the German scientific institution, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (of which he was twice president), as the Max Planck Society (MPS). The MPS now includes 83 institutions representing a wide range of scientific directions."
Qhote source:
en.wikipedia.org...

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
- Max Planck

"There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other."
- Max Planck

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

a reply to: AlienView

Instead of quote mining, actually provide scientific evidence for your arguments. Yeah, I know, crazy idea, huh?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AlienView

Instead of quote mining, actually provide scientific evidence for your arguments. Yeah, I know, crazy idea, huh?

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
Quote source:
en.wikipedia.org...