‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

reply to post by ArcAngel


Well MBB, thank you for the comment...DRAKES, huh? Nice to meet you..

How long have you known BuddhaS?

Didn't really appreciate the GB slap tho or the wiki-mod post you laid here, but that's cool....I've done it

With that said, I'll sleep on it and we can discuss if you wish.


Add: Some aren't so sure friend, I guess you can sleep on this:

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Thus the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind. As T.J. Nelson states:[1]

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless. Likewise, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated:[2]

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless... Another objection is that the very form of the Drake equation assumes that civilizations arise and then die out within their original solar systems. If interstellar colonization is possible, then this assumption is invalid, and the equations of population dynamics would apply instead. [3]

1-T.J. Watson. "Review: The Science of God". brneurosci.org...
2-Michael Crichton. "Aliens cause Global Warming". www.michaelcrichton.com...
3-Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart (2002). Evolving the Alien. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ. Chapter 6, What does a Martian look like?.]]


[edit on 2-9-2010 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by Noncompatible


(oh and NEXT? Really, you must control that ego.)

Yeah, you're probably right....my wife's been telling me that for decades...

My take is: I can be happy or right...

BUT NOT BOTH

reply to post by ArcAngel


I think I agree with Enrico Fermi, a prominent nuclear physicist of the last century, asked the question, "Where are they? Shouldn't their presence be obvious?"

= = = =

"Enrico" "Fermi"---sounds like two singers from the Black-eyed Peas

= = = =

Their new song...

WHERE

ARE

THEY?

reply to post by ArcAngel


I thought you'd find the following dialog interesting and relevant...

What are the Chances?But do aliens actually exist? We don’t have any direct evidence one way or the other[36]; but an absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence. That depends upon how likely it is that we would find evidence of ETI if they exist.

Whether or not you think aliens exist depends upon what assumptions about the origin of life you bring to the question. The relevant assumptions were organized into an equation by pioneer SETI researcher Frank Drake (as Jill Tarter says, “An equation is nothing more than a lovely way to organize our ignorance”[37]). The Drake Equation, as it has become known, suggests that the number of detectable civilizations (N) is determined by: multiplying the rate of formation of stars suitable for life (R*) by the fraction of those with planets (fp), by the number of those planets that are suitable for life (ne), by the fraction of these planets where life actually evolves (fl), by the fraction of these on which intelligent life evolves (fi), by the fraction of these that develop civilizations that produce detectable signs of their existence (fc), by the length of time such civilizations will produce detectable signs of their existence (L). That is:

N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

The value of N (number of detectable civilizations) derived from this equation depends more upon the philosophical assumptions underlying the values assigned to its component parts than it does to hard scientific evidence. For atheists the answer mainly depends upon how likely the evolution of sentient life by purely natural processes is (i.e. upon the values of fl x fi). As evolutionary biologist Paul Ewald writes: “if there is life on other planets, natural selection has to be the fundamental organizing principle there, too.”[38] While I think a Christian can accept evolution by natural selection as God’s way of populating creation, there can be no “has to be” about it for anyone who believes in God, and there are a range of other options that Christians should seriously consider.[39]

The more we learn about the structure of life the less likely it seems that life could be the result of purely natural processes (whether or not those processes were designed by God).[40] Stephen C. Meyer calculates that “the probability of constructing a rather short, function protein at random [is] so small as to be effectively zero (no more than 1 chance in 10125), even given our multi-billion-year-old universe.”[41] To put this figure in context, there are only 1065 atoms in our entire galaxy! Such a staggeringly improbable explanation is the only one available given naturalistic assumptions.

Christian astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross argues that there are at least 26 characteristics of the universe and 33 characteristics of our galaxy, solar system, and planet that are finely tuned for life. He estimates that the probability of all 59 factors coming together by natural processes alone are 1053 to 1 (i.e.: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to 1)! A liberal estimate of how many planets may exist (though we have only documented about 40, none life-bearing) is 1022, (i.e. 10000000000000000000000 planets). Combining these two probabilities tells us that the odds of there being just one life sustaining planet in the universe, given only the operation of natural causes, is 1031 to 1 against (or 10000000000000000000000000000000 to 1). Therefore, says Ross, by natural processes alone, we shouldn’t even be here – let alone alien life forms on another planet.[42]

While atheists have to argue for or against alien life from assumptions based in naturalistic evolution, Christians are free to argue from other premises. For example, philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues: “It would seem strange if God would have created this entire universe and have creatures in only one small corner who were able to witness it and see what miraculous work he has done. So the natural thing to think from a Christian perspective is that there are lots and lots of intelligent species out there.””

more: www.quodlibet.net...

reply to post by ArcAngel


Arch, a biggie/problem with his equation is that very few of the numbers are amenable to experimental determination.

Drake said communicating civilizations would either be relatively short lived (approx. 1000 years), or very long lived (100s of millions). Then there should be between 1000 and 100 million civilizations in the galaxy attempting to communicate.

The holes in this are obvious bro. Most of those numbers are guesses. The astronomical numbers may not be too unreliable, but the real dispute in the equation concerns the biological numbers, fl and fi which involve the probability of the development of life given a habitable planet, and the probability of the development of intelligence, given that life gets going.

Remember back in the day, 58 I think… Harold Urey and Stanley Miller took a 'primordial soup' of simple chemicals - hydrogen, water, methane, ammonia, carbon monoxide - and subjected this soup to electric discharges and ultra-violet radiation. They found that more complicated molecules were built up. It is believed that something like this process was responsible for the origin of life on earth.

Problem tho--the code for reproduction is in the DNA molecules. DNA codes for the production of proteins. But on the other hand, DNA needs the proteins to get made in the first place.

Evolutionary Biologist John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary said '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 fife could have existed without it':
DNA is all about order in which the nucleotides are placed on the chain. Unless the order is right, the molecule is biologically useless.

To illustrate:

There are about 2 x 10 (to the 44) nitrogen atoms near the surface of the earth or in its atmosphere. A single 600-nucleotide length of DNA contains about 2000 nitrogen atoms. Hence the maximum number of strands of DNA existing on the primitive earth is about 10 (to the 41). Suppose every such strand could split up and recombine with other fragments at the rate of 30 times a second. In 1 year (3 x 10' secs) you would get a maximum of 10 (to the 5) different strands forming. Then in 10 billion years you would get a maximum of 10 (to the 6) strands forming. The problem is that the number of possible arrangements of the four nucleotides into a strand 600 nucleotides long is 4 (to the 600) , i.e. about 10 (to the 360). Therefore, the chance that a particular one would be formed during the lifetime of the galaxy is about 1 in 10 (to the 300) – an extremely small probability (ref 1). Now one can argue about this figure. It increases considerably if you allow that certain permutations on the DNA molecule are equivalent. But then it decreases to a far lower number if you realise that all you have done is produce one gene. Unless other compounds are also present, and indeed many other genes, you will never get even a simple organism. It is absolutely clear that if you put a figure anything like this into Drake's equation it totally swamps all the other numbers.
The probability of getting life anywhere in the universe, let alone our galaxy, is extremely small. The naive but oft repeated argument from the sheer number of stars and planets in the cosmos is defeated.

Sources: 10 Michael H Hart (1995) in Zuckerman and Hart (eds.), op. cit., . 222. and Dr Rodney Holder is a C of E (Episcopalian) minister, who has a PhD in Astrophysics




[edit on 3-9-2010 by OldThinker]

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps

I am sure that also being in a coffee shop surrounded by all of the different aromas of coffee, pastries and breakfast sammiches' adds to the experience. Damn I love Funkin Gonuts coffee!

Thx, that was great...a lil levity helps this thread. And it's relevant to the subject too

More coffee...More alert

More alert....more brainpower

More brainpower....more intune with the truth

Heck, Jesus loves chocolate sprinkles latte' and a side of egg-white flatbread, he get free coupons too...royalty thing

Dude I found a pix of him enjoying a brew:
adweek.blogs.com...

reply to post by OldThinker


Happy or right?

Scientists are more than happy to be proved wrong, it makes them happy that they have been given further truth, they have been wrong.

I never ever get this feeling from you, the way you see it is that you are right, and you have a awfully smug way about showing it.

he states "NEXT" as if he's answered and solved every argument people have, if this was the case, if it could be that easy to prove as true, most people would be Christian, except for those who deny evidence. These guys would get sat down in the Philosophy arena, and told to spout their childish claims elsewhere.

Think about why this guy has so many posts; it's because he replies with smug, smarmy short messages that do not answer the claims he has made previously, little content, little intelligence, little logic, little humour. nothing to offer for someone who debates seriously.

I don't know how you don't feel guilt tbh, suppose you just pray to the invisible guy for forgiveness.

[edit on 3/9/10 by awake_and_aware]

reply to post by awake_and_aware


A%A, I apologize for being that way sometimes, no excuse bro. I'll try to do better ok?

reply to post by OldThinker


k,

thanks,

bye

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Any comment on all the content I posted?

This one for example?

"There are about 2 x 10 (to the 44) nitrogen atoms near the surface of the earth or in its atmosphere. A single 600-nucleotide length of DNA contains about 2000 nitrogen atoms.

Hence the maximum number of strands of DNA existing on the primitive earth is about 10 (to the 41). Suppose every such strand could split up and recombine with other fragments at the rate of 30 times a second. In 1 year (3 x 10' secs) you would get a maximum of 10 (to the 5) different strands forming. Then in 10 billion years you would get a maximum of 10 (to the 6) strands forming.

The problem is that the number of possible arrangements of the four nucleotides into a strand 600 nucleotides long is 4 (to the 600) , i.e. about 10 (to the 360).

Therefore, the chance that a particular one would be formed during the lifetime of the galaxy is about 1 in 10 (to the 300) – an extremely small probability (ref 1). Now one can argue about this figure. It increases considerably if you allow that certain permutations on the DNA molecule are equivalent. But then it decreases to a far lower number if you realise that all you have done is produce one gene.

Unless other compounds are also present, and indeed many other genes, you will never get even a simple organism. It is absolutely clear that if you put a figure anything like this into Drake's equation it totally swamps all the other numbers.

The probability of getting life anywhere in the universe, let alone our galaxy, is extremely small. The naive but oft repeated argument from the sheer number of stars and planets in the cosmos is defeated."

reply to post by OldThinker


Sample size. It's already been said.

Predicting there is NO life elsewhere is like saying 1,2,3,4,5, will NEVER come out in the lottery. Have we performed and recorded the lottery enough times to produce accurate results? No. Do we have enough data? Is simply looking at 3 results of the lottery proving that 1,2,3,4,5 will never show.

Besides, we don't have the technology to scour every inch of our solar system, let alone the universe.

We don't even know that Mars isn't inhabited for sure, we don't have a rover clever enough to scan all of the planet.


In my opinion, the Hubble telescope combined with the drake equation show to me that it would be more of a miracle if there wasn't life elsewhere in the universe.

I think the drake equation is just a rough guess, estimate, but how could it be accurate, parts of the universe are shown to be more clustered, contain more suitable enviroments to support solar systems like our own. And there's parts of the universe we can't even see. So it's fairly rough but plausible, and like i said, it would be more startling or suprising if there was no life elsewhere.

[edit on 3/9/10 by awake_and_aware]

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by Noncompatible


(oh and NEXT? Really, you must control that ego.)

Yeah, you're probably right....my wife's been telling me that for decades...

My take is: I can be happy or right...

BUT NOT BOTH

So of my original response, you pick the observation to answer ?
Interesting technique.
Rather transparent diversionary tactic though. It appears you surrender the points.......

Maybe here is where I say NEXT!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What if the Bible was corrupted and changed to create a story which the evil Cabal created hundreds of years ago, and which their future generations are tasked to fulfill? Or fulfill at least 90%? And fill their pockets and their egos at the same time.

reply to post by Noncompatible



Nah, I'll get to it...

Planning for holiday right now

reply to post by wcitizen


here is the procedure used by very devout and lernerd men to copy the transcript of the bible.

take the original copy and lay it next to a blank "paper"
copy the original onto the blank "paper"



you now have two papers with the same writing on each paper.

both go to the supervisor who checks their accuracy.

Here is what he does.

He counts down on the original fifteen lines and over sixty one letters.
lets just hypothetize that the letter is a "Y"
He does the same thing over again on the copy. And lets hypothetize the
letter is also a "Y".

He does this over and over again counting down x number of lines on the original and over x number of letters, and repeats the process on the copy.

If he finds a mistake then he throws the copy away and goes to the copier and has him do that page over again.

So the guy who copied learned very quickly to do a perfect job of copying manuscripts because copying just one page could take a couple of days. Plus paper was hard to come by, as was ink so "waste not want not"

This was spell check at its ultimate.

So were the originals copied incorrectly?

In fact letters were invented much to the chagrin of mankind, because this removed the need to pay attention and commit things to memory internally to your mind, all you had to do was write it or read it if you could not remember.

So were people extremely perfectionistic and meticulous in their copying of manuscripts, you bet your bottom dollar they were, much more careful than anything put out today.

The books of the bible at that time were considered sacred, holy and were cared for very well, as is evidenced by the manuscripts and scrolls they find in the mid east recently.

Find any other old writings, in the quaantity of the biblical notes, that had as much care and concern in copying, memorizing, and preserving and I will buy a hat and eat it.

reply to post by OldThinker


look you joke most people 99 percent cant even reason most people dont even breath correctly and cant do the simplest things right where to start to tell you how much a bunch of no nothings you all are here would take forever start reasoning and thinking or the new world order will deservedly get rid of you all
those here who understand properly should be kept by them they need all of us they can get who correctly understand

reply to post by OldThinker

Unless other compounds are also present, and indeed many other genes, you will never get even a simple organism.

The probability of getting life anywhere in the universe, let alone our galaxy, is extremely small. The naive but oft repeated argument from the sheer number of stars and planets in the cosmos is defeated."

What simple organism? We do not know how simple first life was. Therefore your argument is invalid. It could be just a short strand of RNA, or some other simple compound.

reply to post by Maslo


His argument has always been false, He's trying to convince people with pseudo-science and incorrect data.

Whether it's to do with dignity, pride or whether he's actively trying to decieve people on the internet, i just don't know.

Judging by some of his posts...it's the latter.

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

Any comment on all the content I posted?

Its still based on assumptions. It's still assuming random occurance as opposed to preferential combination. It still does not take account of the latest experiment (New scientist two weeks ago) which shows that the basic blocks of life can form VERY easily.

All of sudden the probabilities shift from one extreme to the other and hey presto life everywhere. Life in fact becomes the norm and NOT an exception.

Still if you want to believe in extreme probabilities to backup your belief in God then so be it.......but where did god come from? Why did god waste all that effort in creating the rest of the universe? What a pointless exercise!! What an idiot he is (a point of view based on what believers say is the truth)

reply to post by malcr



this thread is about the probability that there should be 1000's of planets teeming with life.

The fact that there are not is proof of creation.