Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[AProudLefty]

I suggest you read the Mythical Man Month and apply it to monkeys.

Oh yeah we learned about that in computer science courses.

 

[Into the Night]

That’s a bit dated lol.

Do the monkeys die every time they type gghhhdesss?

No, but monkeys have a limited life span. Eventually what you get is an infinite pile of dead and rotting monkeys.

Not a pretty sight.

 

[Into the Night]

The distinction between biology and chemistry is arbitrary lol.

I wonder what my chemistry professor would have said if I made that claim?

He probably would've asked you if table salt (NaCl) is alive...just to prove his point.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. You were talking about the probability of information developing just right. The probability would be almost zero.

However, with natural selection (yes that also applies to chemicals), patterns start to form.

The Theory of Natural Selection is not a theory of science nor even a nonscientific theory. It builds a paradox.

In chemistry, bonds will develop depending on the energy available to put into the bond betwen atoms. The 2nd law of thermodynamics apply here, so the easiest bonds to form are lower energy molecules.

When you throw many coins into the air multiple times, how often patterns will emerge as they land on the ground?

Math error. Boundary undeclared.

Now consider this:

An entertaining video. Nice little bit of engineering.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. Yeah.

Some people just don't understand the forces that influence the evolution.

Care to elaborate?

 

[AProudLefty]

An entertaining video. Nice little bit of engineering.

That is the only thing that makes sense from you in your whole post.

 

[Into the Night]

Seems to me that there is one major difference between the creationist and the atheistic scientists:

- they both have faith in their respective beliefs.

- the DIFFERENCE is that the scientist have faith in the scientific method to eventually explain it all. The creationist have faith that eventually God will appear to validate what is already "explained".

Maybe they should have a conference call and compare notes. Who knows, they may figure something out all can agree with.

Science isn't a religion. It does not require faith. It is not a 'method' or 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

Whether one is a Christian, a Buddhist, a believer in one of the many forms of Shinto, or a member of the Church of No God. None of these religions have anything to do with science. Science is agnostic. It simply doesn't have anything to do with any religion or any belief system.

 

[AProudLefty]

Care to elaborate?

The fundamental forces. Boundaries.

When you find a smooth round pebble in the woods, do you conclude that it's manmade?

 

[Into the Night]

First, I understand a lot more than you. Information is not material but always present to it.

So what is the information in a cubic meter of air?

 

[Into the Night]

That we can discern order does not imply a code or a writer. Their mistake is that simple. They are simpletons. Why convince morons. Just shit on them.

Actually, it does. Discernment itself is the act of an intelligence. Without intelligence, there is no discernment. Even the act of assigning an 'order' of some kind is the act of intelligence. Without intelligence, there is nothing to assign an 'order' to anything.

 

[BidenPresident]

So what is the information in a cubic meter of air?

The way it is measured or observed.

 

[AProudLefty]

Is this by design?

 

[Darth Omar]

It has to start somewhere. Unless you think life has always been there.

Eternal existence is an attribute of the Judeo Christian God. Eternal existence also contradicts evolution since the concept of change over time implicates a beginning or starting point: organisms evolved from simple to complex over geological time.

 

[Into the Night]

You're getting too philosophical and metaphysical.

The question of what constitutes 'life' is a philosophical one. Feel free to abandon all hope ye who enter here.

 

[AProudLefty]

Eternal existence is an attribute of the Judeo Christian God. Eternal existence also contradicts evolution since the concept of change over time implicates a beginning or starting point: organisms evolved from simple to complex over geological time.

So you think life has always existed?

 

[Into the Night]

My two cents is that theology and science are asking fundamentally different questions.

The creationist attempt to read literal historical significance and scientific principles into the Torah is a pathetic attempt by fringe Christians to fight a last stand against the forces of modernity.

World religions, at their best, are asking questions about how to cultivate virtue, how to live a meaningful life, and how to reconcile human existence with the nature of evil and suffering in the world.

Those are the right questions to be asking -- but that intellectual tradition never going to provide insight into a grand unified theory of physics or the mysteries of abiogenesis.

Both religion and science have common elements. They are both theories. A theory is an explanatory argument.

Theories of science are falsifiable. That means that tests can be developed to try to break the theory itself. Such tests are available, definable, practical to conduct, are specific, and produce a specific result. A theory of science can be shown to be wrong, or shown to be False.

Theories of religion are not falsifiable. There is no way to test them at all. It is not possible to prove such a theory True or False.

NO theory can ever be proven True.

So...religion explains by simple assertion. The explanation remains a circular argument (the way all theories start). Science explains by testing to see if the explanation makes any sense, and by testing the theory to try to destroy it.

It is the test of falsifiability, and ONLY the test of falsifiability, that separates a theory of science from religion.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There did not used to be our solar system. Now there is. That is what I mean by evolve.

...it eventually dies. No one gets out alive. The Universe and life is a one-way trip. My philosophy is anyone not trying to be a better person and having fun doing it, should try harder or something different. Find what works.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/andromeda-milky-way-galaxy-black-hole-collision-simulation
Previous simulations have suggested that Andromeda and the Milky Way are scheduled for a head-on collision in about 4 billion to 5 billion years. But the new study estimates that the two star groups will swoop closely past each other about 4.3 billion years from now and then fully merge about 6 billion years later

Then there's this: https://www.space.com/14732-sun-burns-star-death.html
...in about 5 billion years, the sun will run out of hydrogen. Our star is currently in the most stable phase of its life cycle and has been since the birth of our solar system, about 4.5 billion years ago. Once all the hydrogen gets used up, the sun will grow out of this stable phase. With no hydrogen left to fuse in the core, a shell of fusion hydrogen will form around the helium-filled core, astrophysicist Jillian Scudder wrote in an article for The Conversation. Gravitational forces will take over, compressing the core and allowing the rest of the sun to expand. Our star will grow to be larger than we can imagine — so large that it'll envelope the inner planets, including Earth. That's when the sun will become a red giant.

 

[AProudLefty]

Proof is for mathematics.
Evidence is for science.

 

[Into the Night]

isn't the ability to reproduce enough?

No. For example, a crystal of ice will guide and form other crystals of ice as water freezes. One crystal helps to reproduce the next, until the water is completely frozen.
Crystals are also ordered matter. There is no DNA or RNA in them. There is no code in them. It's just the molecules themselves, forming the crystal lattice because of the shape of the molecule.

Plastics, as they polymerize, will form the beginning of a chain, then extend that chain longer and longer. The chain is essentially 'growing' or 'reproducing'. This can also act to begin the formation of other chains. This will continue until the plastic is fully polymerized. Plastic has no DNA nor RNA nor any code in it. It's just the molecules doing what they do due to their shape and electronic structure.

One of the simplest crystals is table salt (NaCl). This common material is a cubic crystal. We grind them up to sell as table salt. The fragments are still crystals, however. Leaving them larger forms the commonly used 'rock salt' sold for ice cream machines and sometimes as ice melting material for roads (they use a more benign salt for this nowadays, since table salt acts a rather persistent herbicide and promotes rust in cars that have no underbody protection (Get it. It's worth it!).

All reproduction. No life. No 'code' to speak of. No consuming energy to speak of. These materials don't 'eat'.

 

[Into the Night]

If biological information can be conjured out of lifeless chemicals the abiogenesis problem solves itself.

Francis Crick [he knew a thing or two about biological information] was skeptical that it could. He postulated that aliens seeded the planet with DNA [or life] and it jumped started the rest. They made fun of him but it’s as good an idea as any.

Crick at least understood the problem.

Not quite. Say a cell DOES somehow get created by some random unspecified events.

What does it eat? How does it gain sufficient energy to divide?