Confused on Religion! Need Insight

You'd think it would make headlines, maybe it would if it wasn't so commonplace, or if it actually broke any of the laws of physics, which it doesn't.

The laws of entropy are not broken when complexity forms from simplicity, especially in cases where energy is continually added to the system, and Earth is just such a system thanks to it's proximity to the sun. (The "entropy reversal" argument is often used by theists to justify the need for a creator - it's a fraud...or maybe just ignorance, either way it's wrong)

May I recommend the book "Chaos" by James Gleick. He explains it much better than I.

How many planets to you think there are? If sol is a typical star, you could work on an average of 10 planets and 90 moons per star. There are 400 billion stars in our galaxy and there are 500 BILLION GALAXIES in the universe....So if you multiply those two together and then multiply that by 100........I'm sorry but that is clearly a "gazillion" in my book.

0 Replies

Of course, it takes more than random energy input into a system to produce complexity. Sorry. Not one example can be shown where raw energy alone produces complexity of any kind. Can you name one? It does however reduce complexity on a fairly regular basis. (Just turn a blowtorch on your car.)

As you know, to date, relatively few stars in our galaxy are found to have anything resembling a planet (remember we are talking about facts as a foundation for faith, not hopeful theory i.e "One day we'll probably find a lot of them").

But even when your estimate of every single star having the same number of planets and moons as the Sun is used, the addition of only 22 zeroes doesn't come close to increasing the odds very much in your favor. So complex is even the simplest cell, that producing life by randomness on the level of complexity we see here on earth appears much more unlikely than even a few years ago. The target is moving away from you, not in your direction.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Of course, it takes more than random energy input into a system to produce complexity. Sorry. Not one example can be shown where raw energy alone produces complexity of any kind. Can you name one?

The Mandelbrot set is an example... real-life examples include the following: A pan of water with heat applied uniformly to its bottom will develop convection currents more complex than the still water; complex hurricanes arise from similar principles; complex planetary ring systems arise from simple laws of gravitation; complex ant nests arise from simple behaviors; and complex organisms arise from simpler seeds and embryos.

Quote:

As you know, to date, relatively few stars in our galaxy are found to have anything resembling a planet (remember we are talking about facts as a foundation for faith, not hopeful theory i.e "One day we'll probably find a lot of them").

Oh, OK you are one of those people who thinks that Earth is the centre of the universe, the rest of it is just there to make the sky look pretty and to help us navigate before GPS. Fair enough then, I can't argue rationally with that perspective.

Ultimately, the entire crux of your arguments seem to be the "argument from incredulity", namely, that because you find a non-creationist universe difficult to understand, that everybody else should be equally confounded. Even if I was, I wouldn't suddenly reach the decision that gods exist, because the origins of gods would be even more difficult to explain!

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Ultimately, the entire crux of your arguments seem to be the "argument from incredulity", namely, that because you find a non-creationist universe difficult to understand, that everybody else should be equally confounded. Even if I was, I wouldn't suddenly reach the decision that gods exist, because the origins of gods would be even more difficult to explain!

It's not hard to explain after reading the bible.

0 Replies

M!THÂºÂ§ wrote:

It's not hard to explain after reading the bible.

That would depend on what else you've read, I should think, and on how diligently and rigorously you have read. Personally, I find the Judaeo-Christian mythopoeia its own strongest contradiction.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

The Mandelbrot set is an example... real-life examples include the following: A pan of water with heat applied uniformly to its bottom will develop convection currents more complex than the still water; complex hurricanes arise from similar principles; complex planetary ring systems arise from simple laws of gravitation; complex ant nests arise from simple behaviors; and complex organisms arise from simpler seeds and embryos.

None of your examples are raw energy added to a system to produce complexity.

"(A measured amount of) heat applied uniformly (only) to the bottom of a pan of water" implies both intelligent direction and restraint on your part, (the water and heat must be brought into proximity, the pan must be conducive to heat,etc . All conditions brought about by intelligent direction) and fails to produce any substance more complex than water, which is what you started with. It only accomplishes movement of the water, not a complex system.

Hurricanes , to my knowledge, have never produced more complex systems from less complex. Just the opposite. They destroy complexity. And the hurricane itself is not a new entity created either. It is still air and water, just as it was when it started. Powerful chaos (movement of air) is still just chaos, not an example of complexity.

Planetary rings. What can be said. The rocks are rearranged. Where's the complexity?

Complex ant nests are designed by living beings, not random chance, hadn't you noticed?

Complex organisms arising from embryos or seeds required the pre-existing pattern or design in the DNA to reproduce a living organism. No pre-existing pattern, no living organism.

Eorl wrote:

Oh, OK you are one of those people who thinks that Earth is the centre of the universe, the rest of it is just there to make the sky look pretty and to help us navigate before GPS. Fair enough then, I can't argue rationally with that perspective.

There you go again. Where did I make that statement? I simply pointed out that the (almost) innumerable planets that you hope exist, have not actually been FOUND to exist. Science is about verifiable fact. You are correct when you say you cannot argue rationally from this perspective, because you have no facts to back it up.

Eorl wrote:

Ultimately, the entire crux of your arguments seem to be the "argument from incredulity", namely, that because you find a non-creationist universe difficult to understand, that everybody else should be equally confounded. Even if I was, I wouldn't suddenly reach the decision that gods exist, because the origins of gods would be even more difficult to explain!

Of course you had to try to slam someone here. Call someone stupid. Yep, how logical that is. How sad your argument has sunk to this level.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Of course, it takes more than random energy input into a system to produce complexity. Sorry. Not one example can be shown where raw energy alone produces complexity of any kind. Can you name one?

You asked for one, I gave you several. Your refusal to accept them is silly. Your statement is just plain wrong.

eg. Complex current convection occurs in a pool of water with lava beneath the surface - no "intelligent design" required. Please stop twisting the facts of nature to fit your claims.

Quote:

I simply pointed out that the (almost) innumerable planets that you hope exist, have not actually been FOUND to exist. Science is about verifiable fact. You are correct when you say you cannot argue rationally from this perspective, because you have no facts to back it up.

You are correct. My mistake. I always assume it's obvious.

Quote:

Eorl wrote:
Ultimately, the entire crux of your arguments seem to be the "argument from incredulity", namely, that because you find a non-creationist universe difficult to understand, that everybody else should be equally confounded. Even if I was, I wouldn't suddenly reach the decision that gods exist, because the origins of gods would be even more difficult to explain!

Quote:
Of course you had to try to slam someone here. Call someone stupid. Yep, how logical that is. How sad your argument has sunk to this level
.

I did not call you stupid. I called your argument the "argument from incredulity" and that's exactly what it is, including your aunt's conclusion. At what point in her calcultions did she see any evidence of anything other than long odds?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Of course, it takes more than random energy input into a system to produce complexity. Sorry. Not one example can be shown where raw energy alone produces complexity of any kind. Can you name one?

You asked for one, I gave you several. Your refusal to accept them is silly. Your statement is just plain wrong.

eg. Complex current convection occurs in a pool of water with lava beneath the surface - no "intelligent design" required. Please stop twisting the facts of nature to fit your claims.

Again I will note that movement of water is not complexity.

Eorl wrote:

You are correct. My mistake. I always assume it's obvious.

Something that seems "obvious" to you doesn't constitute fact. It seemed "obvious" for centuries that the Earth was flat. Don't let what seems obvious substitute for fact.

Eorl wrote:

I did not call you stupid. I called your argument the "argument from incredulity" and that's exactly what it is, including your aunt's conclusion. At what point in her calcultions did she see any evidence of anything other than long odds?

When you say someone is "confounded", that they are finding any view but their own "hard to understand" and that they argue "from incredulity" , these are euphemisms for stupidity, ignorance, simpleness. The fact that you had to resort to this low kind of street argument indicates you have run out of facts.

Long odds? Well, here is how another (not my aunt) put it:
www.icr.org/newsletters/btg/btgnov03.htmlBefore you read it, please take advantage of your opportunity to disagree.

0 Replies

real llife,

let me quote from the article you posted......

Quote:

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

This is the classic "argument from incredulity"

It states that the chances of (insert any given situation) being true are so high as to make it "logically indefensible" ie....not credible.

The main problem with the conclusion (leaving aside the flaws in the actual "evidence" ) is that it merely states that you find those odds as proof of some other conclusion...and assumes that I should also accept that conclusion.

So, to repeat, pointing out that this is the "argument from incredulity" is not calling you stupid....although having to point it out so many times is really starting to make me wonder !!!

Oh, and turbulence is complexity. This is fact.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real llife,

let me quote from the article you posted......

Quote:
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

This is the classic "argument from incredulity"

It states that the chances of (insert any given situation) being true are so high as to make it "logically indefensible" ie....not credible.

The main problem with the conclusion (leaving aside the flaws in the actual "evidence" ) is that it merely states that you find those odds as proof of some other conclusion...and assumes that I should also accept that conclusion.

So, to repeat, pointing out that this is the "argument from incredulity" is not calling you stupid....although having to point it out so many times is really starting to make me wonder !!!

Oh, and turbulence is complexity. This is fact.

If you are actually trying to argue that the concept of mathematical impossibility is not valid, you might want to recheck your figures.

You are trying to establish that not only COULD this happen, but in addition that it DID happen (actually a historical argument, not a scientific one). And you have not provided evidence of either.

The examples you offer of complexity spontaneously arising from non-complexity show nothing of the sort. But you want to claim that it happens "all the time" and is so common as to not be a big deal. Yet not one valid example can you bring.

Turbulence an organizing factor? C'mon. Yeah it makes cool patterns to look at, artistically and aesthetically pleasing. But producing complexity and greater organization? Ah, no.

Sorry, if you want to make an argument from science use repeatable, verifiable data.

0 Replies

Dude, I'm trying to play nice and not make you look stupid, but you are doing a fine job all by yourself.

You are the one stating baldly that complexity cannot come from simplicity, despite that fact that a whole branch of science is devoted to the study of exactly that. Google it. There's plenty to be found. Here's a quick definition to get you started:

Definition of Complexity Theory
The main current scientific theory related to self-organization is Complexity Theory, which states:

Critically interacting components self-organize to form potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system properties.
The elements of this definition relate to the following:

Critically Interacting - System is information rich, neither static nor chaotic
Components - Modularity and autonomy of part behavior implied
Self-Organize - Attractor structure is generated by local contextual interactions
Potentially Evolving - Environmental variation selects and mutates attractors
Hierarchy - Multiple levels of structure and responses appear (hyperstructure)
Emergent System Properties - New features are evident which require a new vocabulary

Next.. no, I am not trying to prove anything. YOU arrived here claiming your aunt had discovered the mathematics that proves that life could not come about by accident. All I did was demonstrate that you were using the classic argument from incredulity, which is useless and founded on false assumptions.

Specifically I am not saying I KNOW how ANYTHING happened. I am however, quite certain that you can't prove that you DO know, and nor can your aunt. I'm also sure you can't prove how it DIDN'T happen.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Dude, I'm trying to play nice and not make you look stupid, but you are doing a fine job all by yourself.

You are the one stating baldly that complexity cannot come from simplicity, despite that fact that a whole branch of science is devoted to the study of exactly that. Google it. There's plenty to be found. Here's a quick definition to get you started:

Definition of Complexity Theory
The main current scientific theory related to self-organization is Complexity Theory, which states:

Critically interacting components self-organize to form potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system properties.
The elements of this definition relate to the following:

Critically Interacting - System is information rich, neither static nor chaotic
Components - Modularity and autonomy of part behavior implied
Self-Organize - Attractor structure is generated by local contextual interactions
Potentially Evolving - Environmental variation selects and mutates attractors
Hierarchy - Multiple levels of structure and responses appear (hyperstructure)
Emergent System Properties - New features are evident which require a new vocabulary

Next.. no, I am not trying to prove anything. YOU arrived here claiming your aunt had discovered the mathematics that proves that life could not come about by accident. All I did was demonstrate that you were using the classic argument from incredulity, which is useless and founded on false assumptions.

Specifically I am not saying I KNOW how ANYTHING happened. I am however, quite certain that you can't prove that you DO know, and nor can your aunt. I'm also sure you can't prove how it DIDN'T happen.

Gee, I'm really sorry. If it's on the internet, it's GOT to be true.

Now c'mon. "It happens all the time" you said. One example please? Pretty please?

0 Replies

You miss the point, real life - the point being your argument fails at the outset, by flaw of logic. No matter how presented, there simply is no forensically valid proof of your core hypotheis. The premis itself is structurally untestable.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

You miss the point, real life - the point being your argument fails at the outset, by flaw of logic. No matter how presented, there simply is no forensically valid proof of your core hypotheis. The premis itself is structurally untestable.

My point is that things do not put themselves together starting from the simple leading to complex all on their own.

A gentleman replied, and insists that it is so and happens all the time. All that is needed is to add raw energy and.... presto! By way of proof, he replies that I am stupid if I don't take his word for it.

I have asked for a specific example, verifiable data. Something testable, in your words.

Nothing so far. (Though our friend firmly believes that moving water qualifies as complex.) Do you want to give it a go?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

My point is that things do not put themselves together starting from the simple leading to complex all on their own. ... I have asked for a specific example, verifiable data. Something testable, in your words.

Do you want to give it a go?

Child's play. While it did not produce "Life", the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment did produce complex organics from simple inorganic molecules. Among the products of the reaction were amino acids. In 1961, Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in an aqueous solution. His experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine, an organic compound which is one of the 4 common bases of RNA and DNA, as well as being the foundation of ATP, or adenosine triphosphate, the primary energy-producing molecule in cells. Later experimentation along the same line showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through introducing other simple inorganics - known to be common throughout interstellar space, and abundant even on the primordial Earth - to the reaction. Even the essential organic components of cell walls were produced, though of course not cell walls themselves. Thus, complexity from simplicity is a lab-proven, reproducible, readilly observable phenomenon. Its done routinely as course material in college bio labs, and even in some well equipped highschool bio labs. If it can be done in a few hours in a lab, given nothing more than the chemistry and conditions known to be characteristic of planetary formation, no leap is required to accept that a lot more would develop over a few hundred million years.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

real life wrote:
My point is that things do not put themselves together starting from the simple leading to complex all on their own. ... I have asked for a specific example, verifiable data. Something testable, in your words.

Do you want to give it a go?

Child's play. While it did not produce "Life", the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment did produce complex organics from simple inorganic molecules. Among the products of the reaction were amino acids. In 1961, Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide and ammonia in an aqueous solution. His experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine, an organic compound which is one of the 4 common bases of RNA and DNA, as well as being the foundation of ATP, or adenosine triphosphate, the primary energy-producing molecule in cells. Later experimentation along the same line showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through introducing other simple inorganics - known to be common throughout interstellar space, and abundant even on the primordial Earth - to the reaction. Thus, complexity from simplicity is a lab-proven, reproducible, readilly observable phenomenon. Its done routinely as course material in college bio labs, and even in some well equipped highschool bio labs.

Hi Timber,

I believe the key phrase I used was "all on their own". The experiment you cited, while interesting, I believe was conducted with some element of intelligent direction. Unless you want to assert that the scientists involved played no more a role than blind chance would.

Our friend asserted that this happens IN THE NATURAL WORLD all the time. Again, you want to give it a go?

0 Replies

The scientists did no more than reproduce the necessary conditions. The chemistry existed wholly apart from any outside influence, and the chenistry and conditions are common throughout the observed universe.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

The scientists did no more than reproduce the necessary conditions. The chemistry existed wholly apart from any outside influence, and the chenistry and conditions are common throughout the observed universe.

Thank you for making my point. They planned carefully for a long period of time, produced the precise conditions (temperature, humidity, light, etc) , brought the needed elements together in a controlled environment and in the needed amounts, excluded elements thought to be detrimental to the desired result , applied the necessary forces in measured amounts..... Intelligent direction all the way.

Now, in the natural world, where do we see the simple arranging itself into the complex with no design or pattern supplied, no direction, nothing but brute force (energy from the sun, I think our friend specified) applied?

We do not see it.

0 Replies

Hardly is your point made - once again, all the scientists in the lab did was replicate conditions that existed on the pre-biotic earth. They didn't create or direct those conditions, they merely replicated them ... and on an all but unimagineably smaller scale, across an all but unimagineably shorter timeline, with all but unimagineably less chemical complexity than pertained at the time in question. It certainly works for me ... and for the mainstream scientific community. At the very least, it will do untill something better comes along, and some paranormal guiding intelligence sure doesn't fill that bill.

That is what there is to be seen, whether you choose to see it or not.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

They didn't create or direct those conditions, they merely replicated them ...

This statement is self contradictory. Of course they created and directed the conditions that their experiment was conducted under.

They worked and planned to recreate an atmosphere that scientists of their day believed to have existed long ago, but no evidence of the actual existence of this toxic atmosphere has been produced.

The presence of some of these chemicals at some time in the past does not prove the absence of other chemicals in the same atmosphere.

Yes "unimaginably less chemical complexity" . Yours is certainly an understatement in this case. And one that is fatal to your central premise, that the conditions used by Miller replicate those found on early Earth. Another contradiction that knows no cure.

Moreover, the assumed reducing atmosphere that Miller used did not contain oxygen, since the presence of this ingredient would oxidize any amino acids they hoped to produce.

More to the point of the actual argument, apparently you do not want to try to produce an example from nature of complexity arising spontaneously from simplicity, which is after all, where the rubber meets the road.

0 Replies

Confused on Religion! Need Insight

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know