the universe and space....?

hodgepodge wrote:

Let me ask all of you who think that "intelligent life coming about randomly is not possible" a question.

Chances of winning the lottery are very low.

So let's say you actually win the lottery, would you proceed to say, "Well the chances of me winning the lottery were very low, so I must not have won."

I ask that because that is exactly what you are saying about intelligent life.

No Hodge, that is not exactly what we are saying. In fact, it is not even close.

What I am saying is roughly analogous to the same person winning the lottery 6 times within her/his lifetime.

Assuming an honestly undirected chance selection of winning numbers each week, the probability of a given lottery ticket being a winner in my state's lottery's weekly pick are 1 chance in 10 billion = 10^(-10). The probability of buying 1 winning ticket out of say 1 million purchased over a lifetime would be 10^6 x [10^(-10)]^1 = 10^(-4). That's a poor way to invest: spend over a lifetime $1,000,000 at a $1 per ticket and have one chance in 10,000 of winning less than 100 times as much. But whatthehell, go for it. :wink:

What are the chances of winning 6 times with a purchase of 1 million?
10^6 x [10^(-10)]^6 = 10^(-54). Crying or Very sad

The chances of evolving one particular genome sequence (mouse or human) starting with the genome of the common ancestor to mice and humans, is much less than 10^(-1,000,000). At least six times in the history of evolution of life (e.g., 6 evolutionary epochs) on this planet, environmental disasters wiped out all fossil producing life for thousands of years. Nonetheless, evolution restarted and each time proceeded to evolve more intelligent life than had been evolved in the prior epoch that ended with the previous disaster. That's hardly natural selection assisting evolution of us. Natural selection ultimately eliminated the more intelligent life, and did not foster it.

Sticking with the lottery analogy, let's buy 10^99 lottery tickets over a 10 billion year period (the age of the earth is alleged to be less than 5 billion years). That's a little less than 10^91 tickets (e.g., genome edits, mutations, whatever) purchased per second in our universe. Assuming there are 10^48 life evolving planets like our earth in our universe, then there were 10^43 tickets purchased per second per planet.

Yes of course I'm exaggerating with that 10^99 lottery ticket assumption. Shocked

. I'll also exaggerate the number of possible genome sequences to be no more than 10^1,000,000. Shocked

I'll even assume that the number of possible winning tickets was not 1 after each restart but was 10^1,000. Shocked

What are the chances of 6 restarts of the evolution of intelligence on earth where in the case of each restart what was subsequently evolved was more intelligent than that which evolved prior to the restart?
10^43 x 10^1,000 x 10^[(-1,000,000)]^6 = 10^(-5,998,957).

What are the chances of 6 restarts of such evolution of intelligence on some planet in the universe?
10^48 x 10^43 x 10^1,000 x 10^[(-1,000,000)]^6 = 10^(-5,998,909).

Undirected Chance plus Natural Selection are probably insufficient for evolving intelligence equal to or greater than human intelligence.

Shows what I know! Shocked

As a disinterested observer, I would have previously bet on evolution culminating with those hardy cockroaches at the end of the last epoch, if I actually believed Undirected Chance plus Natural Selection were sufficient for evolving intelligence. Rolling Eyes

Why would evolution waste time with evolving more intelligent critters, if they are only going to get wiped out at the end of each evolution epoch? Yes, possibly humans might escape and survive the next major environmental disaster; or they won't. But if they don't, I'd now bet, if I could, on even more intelligent critters than humans being evolved in the next epoch. And that ain't merely Undirected Chance plus Natural Selection evolution Laughing

0 Replies

Hodgepodge

But of course, if the universe is infinite -- and if time is infinite -- none of the estimates of "chances against it happening" mentioned by Ican really matter.

In an infinite universe -- with infinite time -- even if the chances of all this happening by accident were a gazillion bazillion times a quadrillion, bazillion, sintillion, megaphillion to one...

...that would just be a drop in the bucket.

In an infinite universe -- with infinite time -- the chances of something like our evolution happening without help from Higher Intelligence...

...would be damn near certain.

And if it happens that the REALITY is that we are that one in a gazillion bazillion times a quadrillion, bazillion, sintillion, megaphillion to one to one against...

...there would be people like Ican calling attention to the fact that the odds are very high against it happening...

...and would be asserting that it is virtually impossible.

BTW...it goes without saying that in an infinite universe with infinite time -- someone somewhere will hit a megalottery dozens of times in his/her lifetime.

Just here on Earth in the United States -- we have one individual who has hit the major multi-million dollar prize twice in his lifetime. And lotteries have only been around for a relatively few years.

So you point was correct.

Thanks for making it.

I've been making that same point to Ican for over two years now.

It hasn't penatrated.

0 Replies

Re: hi

ican711nm wrote:

According to the history of the rock strata there were several long epochs which left zero fossils in the strata. Of course, zero fossils, don't equate to zero life. But they do equate to a wipe out of anything capable of being fossilized. That includes but is not limited to intelligent life.

This is not true. The absense of a fossil does in *no* way equate to the absense of the type of life capable of producing a fossil. There are very specific conditions required to produce a fossil that have nothing to do with the animal from which it is to be produced. Maybe the creature simply died in the wrong place and was not preserved. Maybe the endo-/exo-skeleton was pulverized.

0 Replies

one more thing...

ican711nm wrote:

Nonetheless, evolution restarted and each time proceeded to evolve more intelligent life than had been evolved in the prior epoch that ended with the previous disaster. That's hardly natural selection assisting evolution of us. Natural selection ultimately eliminated the more intelligent life, and did not foster it.

I believe what you mean by "restarted" is actually "resumed." And again, you have absolutely no proof that the more intelligent life was eliminated. I actually have a PERFECT example... To produce a fossil, except for with very very rare circumstances, a lifeform must contain hard tissue like bone or cartilage. However, you are assuming that "more intelligent life," must have contained such tissues. That is absurd. The octopus has one of the most advanced nervous and muscular systems on this planet. It is an amazingly cunning and intelligent animal. Yet, the only hard tissue in its body is a small beak. Octopuses don't leave fossils. So are you certain that an intelligent octopus-like creature did not survive these distasters?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

At least six times in the history of evolution of life (e.g., 6 evolutionary epochs) on this planet, environmental disasters wiped out all fossil producing life for thousands of years. Nonetheless, evolution restarted and each time proceeded to evolve more intelligent life than had been evolved in the prior epoch that ended with the previous disaster.

ican, don't know where you got this absurd idea, but there has NEVER been an extinction that wiped out ALL life for thousands of years! This bit of misinformation is typical of the half-truths and misconceptions on which you base your meaningless calculations.

Even the worst extinction in history (Permian-Triassic) left 5% of all species (and 30% of land species) alive to continue the process of evolution. 12,500 out of 250,000 marine species may have survived. These surviving species represented 47% of the marine families in existence just prior to this extinction and subsequently evolved many new families.

Quote:

Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago, probably caused or aggravated by impact of several-mile-wide asteroid that created the Chicxulub crater now hidden on the Yucatan Peninsula and beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Some argue for other causes, including gradual climate change or flood-like volcanic eruptions of basalt lava from India's Deccan Traps. The extinction killed 16 percent of marine families, 47 percent of marine genera (the classification above species) and 18 percent of land vertebrate families, including the dinosaurs.

End Triassic extinction, roughly 199 million to 214 million years ago, most likely caused by massive floods of lava erupting from the central Atlantic magmatic province -- an event that triggered the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. The volcanism may have led to deadly global warming. Rocks from the eruptions now are found in the eastern United States, eastern Brazil, North Africa and Spain. The death toll: 22 percent of marine families, 52 percent of marine genera. Vertebrate deaths are unclear.

Permian-Triassic extinction, about 251 million years ago. Many scientists suspect a comet or asteroid impact, although direct evidence has not been found. Others believe the cause was flood volcanism from the Siberian Traps and related loss of oxygen in the seas. Still others believe the impact triggered the volcanism and also may have done so during the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. The Permian-Triassic catastrophe was Earth's worst mass extinction, killing 95 percent of all species, 53 percent of marine families, 84 percent of marine genera and an estimated 70 percent of land species such as plants, insects and vertebrate animals.

Late Devonian extinction, about 364 million years ago, cause unknown. It killed 22 percent of marine families and 57 percent of marine genera. Erwin said little is known about land organisms at the time.

Ordovician-Silurian extinction, about 439 million years ago, caused by a drop in sea levels as glaciers formed, then by rising sea levels as glaciers melted. The toll: 25 percent of marine families and 60 percent of marine genera.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html

This site has a graph showing the number of families surviving each mass extinction:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/complex_life/complex_life.html

More information on these as well as other extinctions:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/low_bandwidth.html

0 Replies

I'm curios what Ican has to say about the theory of multiverses.

I read all about it in an issue of Scientific American that I got. It says the universe is so big that the chances that there is another earth and milky way just the same as ours with human life on it is more than likely. It goes to say something like (these are random figures but hold proportionality to the original figures) 10^80 miles is the size of the universe at the time the article was written, our visual capability (read: the farthest we can see due to the speed of light) is only 10^28. It goes to say that if you run those figures through a probability equation that the chances there are many galaxies just like ours with you and me on it are very high. It states that these "parallel" universes are growing in number and that basically on each and every one every possible string of events has occured i.e. in another universe, you the reader, stop reading this and go eat something or I stop typing around now and go ejaculate into the wind.

Run your probabilities on that Ican. Not only does that show that intelligence coming about is possible and HAPPENED, but it shows that it has most likely happened a million more times. Now granted we will never really be able to get physical evidence for this in a lifetime because the light from those galaxies will never reach us, but if they use probability (the thing Ican seems to love) and it seems likely, then it probably is.

0 Replies

hodgepodge, That you think there might be intelligent life forms in other galaxies, what is your position on theism?

0 Replies

Well, growing up my parents always told me there was a god and all that good stuff, but I never really bought into it. As I grew older and began relying on logic more and more I became atheist. As of late I've been moving more towards agnostic because I don't really know FOR SURE. If there are parallel universes I don't really know what I would think of theology. I'd probably move back towards atheist because the whole idea of a soul wouldn't make sense unless it was in the "divine plan" for us to experience everything at every time.

Shocked

0 Replies

I'm a dyed in the wool atheist. My world is more black and white, and what I don't see, I don't trust. What I have observed is that people of religion have been as inhuman as those without religion. All the religious teachings of good human behavior has not worked, and some even turned out worse (such as the Taliban), so I go by my own life's philosophy to treat all living things with respect and dignity. One simple rule for a simpleton like myself serves me well. Our life on this planet is short; live it to the fullest under the circumstances from which we came. I consider being born in the USA as a lucky stroke of luck, and I thank my ancestors.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Hodgepodge

But of course, [if] the universe is infinite -- and [if] time is infinite -- none of the estimates of "chances against it happening" mentioned by Ican really matter.

In an infinite universe -- with infinite time -- even if the chances of all this happening by accident were a gazillion bazillion times a quadrillion, bazillion, sintillion, megaphillion to one...

...that would just be a drop in the bucket.

In an infinite universe -- with infinite time -- the chances of something like our evolution happening without help from Higher Intelligence...

...would be damn near certain.

And [if ] it happens that the REALITY is that we are that one in a gazillion bazillion times a quadrillion, bazillion, sintillion, megaphillion to one to one against...

I agree! Shocked

However, a possibility does not equate to a probability. Absent some sort of evidence that our universe is infinite, your if is a mere possibility. Everything is possible that you cannot prove to a certainty is impossible. All things actually possibile are not equally probable.

What data do you have that implies the probability that our universe is infinite?

Currently, the cosmological evidence that I am aware of, such as it is, Smile

implies the universe is finite.

Frank Apisa wrote:

...there would be people like Ican calling attention to the fact that the odds are very high against it happening...

...and would be asserting that it is virtually impossible.

Possibly! :wink:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I've been making that same point to Ican for over two years now.

It hasn't penatrated.

Yes you have! And, no it hasn't. I've been trying to penetrate your thinking over that same time period, trying to get you to understand that not all possibilities are equally probable. In particular, current data and their implications, together, imply the universe is finite in time and finite in total stuff (i.e., matter and energy). There is too little data to indicate whether the space containing that finite stuff, which the data imply has probably existed for a finite time, is infinite or not.

0 Replies

Re: hi

USAFHokie wrote:

[Maybe] the creature simply died in the wrong place and was not preserved. [Maybe] the endo-/exo-skeleton was pulverized.

Maybe? Well, I guess it's possible you are right! Then again I guess it possible that you are wrong! Confused

F=Fossils; n=no fossils

Rock Strata -- a schematic (each level represents 1000s of years):

youngest
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
...
oldest

There were at least 6 sets of those contiguous n strata found in digs worldwide. Their alleged time of formation is approximately the same worldwide.

0 Replies

ican, I think you would enjoy reading Simon Winchester's "The Map That Changed the World." It's about William Smith, the geologist that mapped the geologic strata of England. I saw the book on our boat when I visited the Galapagos Islands last May, and ended up borrowing the book from the local library to finish it What makes the story so engrossing is that the book mentions many of the places I have visited in England during my many visits. It also supports your ideas about strata being the same from one location to the next.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
At least six times in the history of evolution of life (e.g., 6 evolutionary epochs) on this planet, environmental disasters wiped out all fossil producing life for thousands of years. Nonetheless, evolution restarted and each time proceeded to evolve more intelligent life than had been evolved in the prior epoch that ended with the previous disaster.

ican, don't know where you got this absurd idea, but there has NEVER been an extinction that wiped out ALL life for thousands of years! This bit of misinformation is typical of the half-truths and misconceptions on which you base your meaningless calculations.

I don't know where you got the absurd idea that I had the absurd idea that an extinction

Quote:

wiped out ALL life for thousands of years

Read again what I actually wrote.

Quote:

environmental disasters wiped out all fossil producing life for thousands of years

"This bit of misinformation is typical of the half-truths and misconceptions on which you base your meaningless" retorts.

0 Replies

hodgepodge wrote:

I'm curios what Ican has to say about the theory of multiverses.

It's possibly a valid theory. I have not encountered any data upon which I can base a guess as to its probability of being a valid theory.

hodgepodge wrote:

I read all about it in an issue of Scientific American that I got. It says the universe is so big that the chances that there is another earth and milky way just the same as ours with human life on it is more than likely.

I read the same article. The author did not give adequate attention to the fact that cosmologists infer much about that part of the universe they cannot see from that part which they can see. For example, the age of our universe is estimated to be finite, and it is estimated to have originated from a finite or infinitesimal point, and it is estimated to have expanded at finite speeds. To me that implies the universe is probably finite. But they cannot see the universe's origin nor can they see all of the universe's stuff. They can merely infer those things .... probably.

hodgepodge wrote:

It states that these "parallel" universes are growing in number and that basically on each and every one every possible string of events has occured

Well, that's alot more benign belief than believing that if you die killing non-believers your reward will be 72 or whatever virgins. Laughing

hodgepodge wrote:

Run your probabilities on that Ican.

I can not! Shocked

I don't know how to compute the probability that what one imagines is true is actually true. Crying or Very sad

hodgepodge wrote:

Not only does that show that intelligence coming about is possible and HAPPENED

Obviously, it happened. What we are debating is how it happened! Confused

hodgepodge wrote:

it shows that it has most likely happened a million more times.

It merely shows that the author has a flair for creative guessing. Possibly he is right; possibly he is wrong.

hodgepodge wrote:

if they use probability (the thing Ican seems to love) and it seems likely, then it probably is.

That's a truism we all probably can agree on! Laughing

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm a dyed in the wool atheist. My world is more black and white, and what I don't see, I don't trust. What I have observed is that people of religion have been as inhuman as those without religion. All the religious teachings of good human behavior has not worked, and some even turned out worse (such as the Taliban), so I go by my own life's philosophy to treat all living things with respect and dignity. One simple rule for a simpleton like myself serves me well. Our life on this planet is short; live it to the fullest under the circumstances from which we came. I consider being born in the USA as a lucky stroke of luck, and I thank my ancestors.

We agree! Even this "a simpleton like myself" we agree on. I'm scheduled to be omniscient by next Tuesday, but I'm way way ... way behind schedule. Smile

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, I think you would enjoy reading Simon Winchester's "The Map That Changed the World."

Thank you! I'll put it on my priority reading list.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Yes you have! And, no it hasn't. I've been trying to penetrate your thinking over that same time period, trying to get you to understand that not all possibilities are equally probable. In particular, current data and their implications, together, imply the universe is finite in time and finite in total stuff (i.e., matter and energy). There is too little data to indicate whether the space containing that finite stuff, which the data imply has probably existed for a finite time, is infinite or not.

TO ANYONE WHO HAS NOT INTERACTED REGULARLY WITH ICAN:

Ican considers anything he want to be more probable than an alternative -- TO BE MORE PROBABLE THAN AN ALTERNATIVE -- for no other reason than that he says it is.

Buy into this nonsense at your own peril.

The only thing science can say is that the stuff we see as the result of the Big Bang appears to be finite. Science has no idea if the Big Bang is a single occurance; a series of multiple occurances; one of many such occurances -- or any of the other stuff that must be arbitrarily discounted so that Ican can make these preposterous statements about the need for a God which he is now calling INTELLIGENCE.

Enjoy this stuff for the interesting cartoon value.

Just don't take it seriously.

0 Replies

Re: hi

ican711nm wrote:

Maybe? Well, I guess it's possible you are right! Then again I guess it possible that you are wrong!

F=Fossils; n=no fossils

Rock Strata -- a schematic (each level represents 1000s of years):

youngest
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
...
oldest

There were at least 6 sets of those contiguous n strata found in digs worldwide. Their alleged time of formation is approximately the same worldwide.

alleged? approximately? Those words are of no more meaning or stability than my newly bolded maybe's. Still, it's more probably that I am right than it is probably that there was a divine hand in our creation.

I find it amusing that you throw statistics around and use creative mathematics to calculate probabilities for events that we can not quantify. You talk about "undirected chance" and whatnot and come up with numbers.
Nondeterminism is just that... non determinied. It is impossible to connect any probability with nondeterminism without at least knowing all possible outcomes. And since you obviously cannot know all possible chain of events, genomes, or environments which could produce [intelligent] life, you cannot with even a slight certainty say that it is improbable that we simply were by chance.
Until you can define every single sequence of dna that would produce life, and every single chain of events that could lead to the production of such dna, your argument is moot.
Now, supposing that somehow you did define all intelligence-producing dna sequences... There is no reason to think that all life is begotten from dna. All [organic] life on Earth contains dna.... but there is quite possibly another form of life that requires neither carbon, hydrogen nor oxygen, and may be derived of a completely new group of elements not existant in this part of the universe.

My ponit is that you say it is highly improbable that undirected (nondeterministic) chance produced us... and you cannot possibly have any idea.

0 Replies

Re: hi

USAFHokie wrote:

alleged? approximately? Those words are of no more meaning or stability than my newly bolded maybe's.

I use the word alleged as my way of referring to what the scientific community claims is probably true, but I cannot directly verify myself by experiment.

I use the word approximately in both the scientific and engineer senses. Geologists cannot date strata exactly, but their techniques are improving and so is the mutual agreement among their many different methods of estimating. Most scientists and engineers know that any number or set of numbers they use to describe a mechanism or phenomena are approximations; some approximations are more accurate than others. The ones that work are obviously good enough.

USAFHokie wrote:

Still, it's more probably that I am right than it is probably that there was a divine hand in our creation.

The issue for me now is not whether there was a devine hand influencing evolution. I have written here in this forum more than once that I have not encountered sufficient data to even warrant a guess on a valid definition of God. So I'm in no position to debate whether God (what's that) exists or not. My hypothesis is that undirected chance plus natural selection are insufficient causes of the evolution of life on our planet. I hypothesize that some additional influence exists to drive evolution in what seems to me to be a relentless process to evolve more intelligent life (i.e., life with more intelligent brains). Mechsmith guesses that influence is molecular in nature. That's plausible to me. But I cannot yet estimate a probability of its validity.

USAFHokie wrote:

you throw statistics around and use creative mathematics to calculate probabilities for events that we can not quantify. You talk about "undirected chance" and whatnot and come up with numbers.

.

Scientists and engineers do this kind of thing (i.e., "throw statistics around and use creative mathematics to calculate probabilities for events that we can not quantify") as a matter of course; they refine their approximations in multiple iterations until they establish in the scientific community that their hypotheses are correct or incorrect

USAFHokie wrote:

Nondeterminism is just that... non determinied. It is impossible to connect any probability with nondeterminism without at least knowing all possible outcomes.

One does not have to know all possible outcomes to come up with valid practical theories on how something probably will work and then make something that works that way (e.g., the Wright Brothers invention of a piloted powered aircraft that flies). Similarly,one does not have to know all possible outcomes (just a lot of them) in chess to play better than one's opponent.

Which do you actually mean: non-determinism or non-fatalism?

Main Entry: de·ter·min·ism
Pronunciation: di-'t&r-m&-"ni-z&m, dE-
Function: noun
Date: 1846
1 a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws b : a belief in predestination
2 : the quality or state of being determined
- de·ter·min·ist /-n&st/ noun or adjective
- de·ter·min·is·tic /-"t&r-m&-'nis-tik/ adjective
- de·ter·min·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: fa·tal·ism
Pronunciation: -"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1678
: a doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them; also : a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine
- fa·tal·ist /-ist/ noun
- fa·tal·is·tic /"fA-t&l-'is-tik/ adjective
- fa·tal·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

USAFHokie wrote:

Until you can define every single sequence of dna that would produce life, and every single chain of events that could lead to the production of such dna, your argument is moot.

Humans can more than 50% of the time predict acceptable approximations of weather changes and timings without knowing "every single ..." I think your claim here is contradicted by a plethora of examples (only three of which I have given here) of actual human experience .

USAFHokie wrote:

Now, supposing that somehow you did define all intelligence-producing dna sequences... There is no reason to think that all life is begotten from dna. All [organic] life on Earth contains dna.... but there is quite possibly another form of life that requires neither carbon, hydrogen nor oxygen, and may be derived of a completely new group of elements not existant in this part of the universe.

I guess it's possible, but is it probable?

USAFHokie wrote:

My ponit is that you say it is highly improbable that undirected (nondeterministic) chance produced us... and you cannot possibly have any idea.

Undirected Chance is causative. Of Course, so is directed chance. the difference is one occurs purely randomly and the other is chance biased by some influence (e.g., stacked deck, weighted dice, organic molecule propensities, sun's variations in radiation intensity, etc.) toward some set of outcomes.

Yes, I possibly don't have any idea. Yes, Possibly you don't have any idea whether I possibly have an idea or not. But I bet I do have an idea; I think I probably do, because your arguments are based on what you think is possible and not on what you think is probable. Of course to justify thinking something probable one must "throw statistics around and use creative mathematics." Smile

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Buy into this nonsense at your own peril.

Assuming my hypothesis is nonsense, what is the peril you guess is to be derived from "buying into" it. The worst that can happen is you risk being wrong. But whatthehell, you do that in almost every post you write. Or is there some other peril you have in mind? Rolling Eyes

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only thing science can say is that the stuff we see [and infer from what we see] as the result of the Big Bang appears to be finite. Science has no idea if the Big Bang is a single occurance; a series of multiple occurances; one of many such occurances ...

THAT'S TRUE "But that ain't bad for openers."

Frank Apisa wrote:

-- or any of the other stuff that must be arbitrarily discounted so that Ican can make these preposterous statements about the need for a God which he is now calling INTELLIGENCE

What's that? What's God? Gad, how clearly must I write it? The intelligence I'm writing about is that intelligence which has evolved with the evolution of the brains of living organisms.

If you really are desperate to debate the existence of God, I'm willing on one condition. Tell me first whatthehell God is, possibly is, probably is, or is alleged to be. Confused

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know