Quo Vadis, "science"?

[Tuatara]

7. In fact, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, allows that the universe is strangely....'precise'...

Crick says: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 88.




Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book "Life Itself," instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

"Directed Panspermia" - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Op.Cit., p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
From Origin of Man 7 Directed panspermia



It would be difficult for any to argue that Francis Crick is not a scientist.
So....let's get this straight: "God" is out of the question for 'scientists'....but space aliens, just fine.


And, if one accepts Crick's thesis......
....one is now left with the question of the origin of his space aliens.....



Ain't life strange.

I've been on these and other forums for over 12 years and not once have I seen any atheist in support of this theory. Someone needs their Red Herring back.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. A universe out of nothing?
A Creator?
Space aliens?

No matter what variety of faith one chooses, it is interesting to try to verify using mathematics and probability.



Of course we can use mathematics on both sides of the question of the probablility of all sorts of things.....

" For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123(Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead tosomeform of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent." Intelligent Design Humans Cockroaches and the Laws of Physics



The upshot?
For me, random formation of the universe, and of life, possible but highly unlikely.

The take-away? Not physics, or mathematics, nor cosmology, biology, nor evolution.....none definitively provide the basis that would suggest sneering at theology.
All involve one kind of faith or another.


But here is one idea with a probability close to 100%: The less one understands science, to more vitriolic atheistic.

"Human

The dolt in post #2 suggests that my quotes come from a source that is based on a bias.....but is too dumb to recognize the bias in the icons of whom he is enamored.
They profess beliefs that are no less based on faith.


4. Well, perhaps one SHOULD sneer at beliefs with no provable basis.....


"As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well.

The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification..... If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

Get that? Seems the 'sneerers' are open to be sneered at.





5. But there are other scientists, even physicists such as Dr. Alan Lightman, who are puzzled by the exactitude of our universe, and the precision that seems to have been designed for human life.

"...…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.
For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



Random?

Coincidence?

....what are the chances?

7. In fact, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, allows that the universe is strangely....'precise'...

Crick says: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 88.




Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book "Life Itself," instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

"Directed Panspermia" - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Op.Cit., p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
From Origin of Man 7 Directed panspermia



It would be difficult for any to argue that Francis Crick is not a scientist.
So....let's get this straight: "God" is out of the question for 'scientists'....but space aliens, just fine.


And, if one accepts Crick's thesis......
....one is now left with the question of the origin of his space aliens.....



Ain't life strange.

What's strange is your continued use of lies and manufactured "quotes" to press your extremist religious agenda.

On at least 8 occasions now, I've taken some time to review your "quotes" and exposed them (and you) as frauds and lies. The fraudulent "quote" you posted, attributed to Crick is yet another example of your dishonest and fraudulent tactic of posting edited, parsed or outright fraudulent "quotes" you and your creation ministries perpetrate.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret



You Christian fundies are among the most dishonest lot I've ever encountered. What's even more remarkable is that the lies and edited "quote" you posted from Crick is one I exposed in a prior thread you opened with a similar anti-science / pro-fundamentalist Christian agenda.​

1. No quotes have been "manufactured."
As you have inadvertently admitted, the quote is accurate.
Note, the post includes this: 'Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God...'

2. You refer to a deletion...but have not provided where or what it is.

3. Glad to see that this time you actually made an attempt to confront the (true and accurate) post, rather than the same three or four tired trite phrases I usually reduce you to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stupidity?

Once you make the post about me, rather than what is actually in the post, you reveal your abysmally stupidity.

Let's see you tackle post #6, you moron.

...Was responding to this:

""Before you claim in some snarky way that I'm stupid or ignorant..."

That would be redundant."

Thought you were saying saying stupid and ignorant together would be redundant.

When I wanna insult you I"ll come up with something custom and a lot more witty and clever.

You've attempted to side-step my challenge to respond to the posts.

Is that because you are stupid, or ignorant?

'Both' is an acceptable response.

Why would you expect anyone to spend time responding to your silly cut and post "quotes". You are not able to defend the "quotes" and you're not able to offer even a middling understanding of what the"quotes", (edited, parsed and out of context), are intending to convey?

But no examples?

So....basically, as much as you'd like to find fault with the posts.....

...you couldn't?

OK....see ya.'

What examples would you like?

Hey, how about your "quote" from David Berlinski. He's among those select group of failed hacks who has been relegated to the bowels of the Christian fundie outlands - the Disco'-tute.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

(for a nice description of the difference between skepticism and paranoid denialism, I recommend these three articles: here, here, and here.)

1. Let's say that your slander of Dr. Berlinski was correct, what does that have to do with the truth of his statement?

It seems that you haters attempt to attack the messenger when you cannot refute the message.


2. Now for the truth about the doctor...
"David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1]He has written on philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fictional works.
Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford University, Rutgers University, The City University of New York, the University of Washington, theUniversity of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Université de Paris.
Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics."
David Berlinski - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


3. So, it is false and inaccurate to refer to Berlinski as a "failed hack."
The only place that would apply would be to you.

 

[Hollie]

10. A universe out of nothing?
A Creator?
Space aliens?

No matter what variety of faith one chooses, it is interesting to try to verify using mathematics and probability.



Of course we can use mathematics on both sides of the question of the probablility of all sorts of things.....

" For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123(Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead tosomeform of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent." Intelligent Design Humans Cockroaches and the Laws of Physics



The upshot?
For me, random formation of the universe, and of life, possible but highly unlikely.

The take-away? Not physics, or mathematics, nor cosmology, biology, nor evolution.....none definitively provide the basis that would suggest sneering at theology.
All involve one kind of faith or another.


But here is one idea with a probability close to 100%: The less one understands science, to more vitriolic atheistic.

"Human

The dolt in post #2 suggests that my quotes come from a source that is based on a bias.....but is too dumb to recognize the bias in the icons of whom he is enamored.
They profess beliefs that are no less based on faith.


4. Well, perhaps one SHOULD sneer at beliefs with no provable basis.....


"As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well.

The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification..... If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

Get that? Seems the 'sneerers' are open to be sneered at.





5. But there are other scientists, even physicists such as Dr. Alan Lightman, who are puzzled by the exactitude of our universe, and the precision that seems to have been designed for human life.

"...…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.
For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



Random?

Coincidence?

....what are the chances?

7. In fact, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, allows that the universe is strangely....'precise'...

Crick says: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 88.




Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book "Life Itself," instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

"Directed Panspermia" - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Op.Cit., p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
From Origin of Man 7 Directed panspermia



It would be difficult for any to argue that Francis Crick is not a scientist.
So....let's get this straight: "God" is out of the question for 'scientists'....but space aliens, just fine.


And, if one accepts Crick's thesis......
....one is now left with the question of the origin of his space aliens.....



Ain't life strange.

What's strange is your continued use of lies and manufactured "quotes" to press your extremist religious agenda.

On at least 8 occasions now, I've taken some time to review your "quotes" and exposed them (and you) as frauds and lies. The fraudulent "quote" you posted, attributed to Crick is yet another example of your dishonest and fraudulent tactic of posting edited, parsed or outright fraudulent "quotes" you and your creation ministries perpetrate.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret



You Christian fundies are among the most dishonest lot I've ever encountered. What's even more remarkable is that the lies and edited "quote" you posted from Crick is one I exposed in a prior thread you opened with a similar anti-science / pro-fundamentalist Christian agenda.​

1. No quotes have been "manufactured."
As you have inadvertently admitted, the quote is accurate.
Note, the post includes this: 'Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God...'

2. You refer to a deletion...but have not provided where or what it is.

3. Glad to see that this time you actually made an attempt to confront the (true and accurate) post, rather than the same three or four tired trite phrases I usually reduce you to.

What a shame you believe your religious views provide an allowance for lies.



Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."[\QUOTE]

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth mayhave been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. In fact, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, allows that the universe is strangely....'precise'...

Crick says: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 88.




Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book "Life Itself," instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

"Directed Panspermia" - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Op.Cit., p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
From Origin of Man 7 Directed panspermia



It would be difficult for any to argue that Francis Crick is not a scientist.
So....let's get this straight: "God" is out of the question for 'scientists'....but space aliens, just fine.


And, if one accepts Crick's thesis......
....one is now left with the question of the origin of his space aliens.....



Ain't life strange.

I've been on these and other forums for over 12 years and not once have I seen any atheist in support of this theory. Someone needs their Red Herring back.

1. The reason that I've given the example is to show the lengths of absurdity to which some recognized scientists will go.

The fact that the point has moment is shown by the fact that you haven't tried to deny it.

a. Nor is he the only recognized scientist to take this tack.

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle advanced after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis. “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick. When aliens are dropped from the argument, there remains a very intriguing question: Why do the constants and parameters of theoretical physics obey such tight constraints?

2.For an even more widely accepted theory, there is the multiverse, or landscape thesis, in which it is posited that the life enabling parameters of our universe are simply one of a multitude of permutations....meaning that there are other universes where gravity pushes things away from the center of a body, and every other law of physics is reversed.

Yes....they believe such nonsense.....but God is out of the question.


Physicist Leonard Susskind wrote “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape [multiverse] turns out to be inconsistent — maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation — I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID [intelligent design] critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”


So, it matters not if you or any other 'board atheist' is knowledge-challenged.....

These are the facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. A universe out of nothing?
A Creator?
Space aliens?

No matter what variety of faith one chooses, it is interesting to try to verify using mathematics and probability.



Of course we can use mathematics on both sides of the question of the probablility of all sorts of things.....

" For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123(Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead tosomeform of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent." Intelligent Design Humans Cockroaches and the Laws of Physics



The upshot?
For me, random formation of the universe, and of life, possible but highly unlikely.

The take-away? Not physics, or mathematics, nor cosmology, biology, nor evolution.....none definitively provide the basis that would suggest sneering at theology.
All involve one kind of faith or another.


But here is one idea with a probability close to 100%: The less one understands science, to more vitriolic atheistic.

"Human

The dolt in post #2 suggests that my quotes come from a source that is based on a bias.....but is too dumb to recognize the bias in the icons of whom he is enamored.
They profess beliefs that are no less based on faith.


4. Well, perhaps one SHOULD sneer at beliefs with no provable basis.....


"As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well.

The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification..... If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

Get that? Seems the 'sneerers' are open to be sneered at.





5. But there are other scientists, even physicists such as Dr. Alan Lightman, who are puzzled by the exactitude of our universe, and the precision that seems to have been designed for human life.

"...…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.
For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



Random?

Coincidence?

....what are the chances?

7. In fact, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, allows that the universe is strangely....'precise'...

Crick says: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 88.




Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book "Life Itself," instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

"Directed Panspermia" - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Op.Cit., p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
From Origin of Man 7 Directed panspermia



It would be difficult for any to argue that Francis Crick is not a scientist.
So....let's get this straight: "God" is out of the question for 'scientists'....but space aliens, just fine.


And, if one accepts Crick's thesis......
....one is now left with the question of the origin of his space aliens.....



Ain't life strange.

What's strange is your continued use of lies and manufactured "quotes" to press your extremist religious agenda.

On at least 8 occasions now, I've taken some time to review your "quotes" and exposed them (and you) as frauds and lies. The fraudulent "quote" you posted, attributed to Crick is yet another example of your dishonest and fraudulent tactic of posting edited, parsed or outright fraudulent "quotes" you and your creation ministries perpetrate.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret



You Christian fundies are among the most dishonest lot I've ever encountered. What's even more remarkable is that the lies and edited "quote" you posted from Crick is one I exposed in a prior thread you opened with a similar anti-science / pro-fundamentalist Christian agenda.​

1. No quotes have been "manufactured."
As you have inadvertently admitted, the quote is accurate.
Note, the post includes this: 'Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God...'

2. You refer to a deletion...but have not provided where or what it is.

3. Glad to see that this time you actually made an attempt to confront the (true and accurate) post, rather than the same three or four tired trite phrases I usually reduce you to.

What a shame you believe your religious views provide an allowance for lies.



Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."[\QUOTE]

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth mayhave been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret

From your very link:

" In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle."


Exactly my point, and you've not only verified it......
.....but admitted you lied when you claimed it was 'manufactured.'





You should only open your mouth to change feet.

 

[Hollie]

...Was responding to this:

""Before you claim in some snarky way that I'm stupid or ignorant..."

That would be redundant."

Thought you were saying saying stupid and ignorant together would be redundant.

When I wanna insult you I"ll come up with something custom and a lot more witty and clever.

You've attempted to side-step my challenge to respond to the posts.

Is that because you are stupid, or ignorant?

'Both' is an acceptable response.

Why would you expect anyone to spend time responding to your silly cut and post "quotes". You are not able to defend the "quotes" and you're not able to offer even a middling understanding of what the"quotes", (edited, parsed and out of context), are intending to convey?

But no examples?

So....basically, as much as you'd like to find fault with the posts.....

...you couldn't?

OK....see ya.'

What examples would you like?

Hey, how about your "quote" from David Berlinski. He's among those select group of failed hacks who has been relegated to the bowels of the Christian fundie outlands - the Disco'-tute.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

(for a nice description of the difference between skepticism and paranoid denialism, I recommend these three articles: here, here, and here.)

1. Let's say that your slander of Dr. Berlinski was correct, what does that have to do with the truth of his statement?

It seems that you haters attempt to attack the messenger when you cannot refute the message.


2. Now for the truth about the doctor...
"David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1]He has written on philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fictional works.
Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford University, Rutgers University, The City University of New York, the University of Washington, theUniversity of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Université de Paris.
Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics."
David Berlinski - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


3. So, it is false and inaccurate to refer to Berlinski as a "failed hack."
The only place that would apply would be to you.

10. A universe out of nothing?
A Creator?
Space aliens?

No matter what variety of faith one chooses, it is interesting to try to verify using mathematics and probability.



Of course we can use mathematics on both sides of the question of the probablility of all sorts of things.....

" For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123(Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead tosomeform of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent." Intelligent Design Humans Cockroaches and the Laws of Physics



The upshot?
For me, random formation of the universe, and of life, possible but highly unlikely.

The take-away? Not physics, or mathematics, nor cosmology, biology, nor evolution.....none definitively provide the basis that would suggest sneering at theology.
All involve one kind of faith or another.


But here is one idea with a probability close to 100%: The less one understands science, to more vitriolic atheistic.

"Human

The dolt in post #2 suggests that my quotes come from a source that is based on a bias.....but is too dumb to recognize the bias in the icons of whom he is enamored.
They profess beliefs that are no less based on faith.


4. Well, perhaps one SHOULD sneer at beliefs with no provable basis.....


"As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well.

The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification..... If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

Get that? Seems the 'sneerers' are open to be sneered at.





5. But there are other scientists, even physicists such as Dr. Alan Lightman, who are puzzled by the exactitude of our universe, and the precision that seems to have been designed for human life.

"...…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.
For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



Random?

Coincidence?

....what are the chances?

7. In fact, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, allows that the universe is strangely....'precise'...

Crick says: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 88.




Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book "Life Itself," instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

"Directed Panspermia" - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Op.Cit., p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
From Origin of Man 7 Directed panspermia



It would be difficult for any to argue that Francis Crick is not a scientist.
So....let's get this straight: "God" is out of the question for 'scientists'....but space aliens, just fine.


And, if one accepts Crick's thesis......
....one is now left with the question of the origin of his space aliens.....



Ain't life strange.

What's strange is your continued use of lies and manufactured "quotes" to press your extremist religious agenda.

On at least 8 occasions now, I've taken some time to review your "quotes" and exposed them (and you) as frauds and lies. The fraudulent "quote" you posted, attributed to Crick is yet another example of your dishonest and fraudulent tactic of posting edited, parsed or outright fraudulent "quotes" you and your creation ministries perpetrate.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret



You Christian fundies are among the most dishonest lot I've ever encountered. What's even more remarkable is that the lies and edited "quote" you posted from Crick is one I exposed in a prior thread you opened with a similar anti-science / pro-fundamentalist Christian agenda.​

1. No quotes have been "manufactured."
As you have inadvertently admitted, the quote is accurate.
Note, the post includes this: 'Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God...'

2. You refer to a deletion...but have not provided where or what it is.

3. Glad to see that this time you actually made an attempt to confront the (true and accurate) post, rather than the same three or four tired trite phrases I usually reduce you to.

What a shame you believe your religious views provide an allowance for lies.



Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."[\QUOTE]

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth mayhave been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret

From your very link:

" In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle."


Exactly my point, and you've not only verified it......
.....but admitted you lied when you claimed it was 'manufactured.'





You should only open your mouth to change feet.

Its truly a pathology with you. In your alternate existence, there is no difference between lies and truth. You have convinced youself that lies are acceptable in furtherance of your Christian religious beliefs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You've attempted to side-step my challenge to respond to the posts.

Is that because you are stupid, or ignorant?

'Both' is an acceptable response.

Why would you expect anyone to spend time responding to your silly cut and post "quotes". You are not able to defend the "quotes" and you're not able to offer even a middling understanding of what the"quotes", (edited, parsed and out of context), are intending to convey?

But no examples?

So....basically, as much as you'd like to find fault with the posts.....

...you couldn't?

OK....see ya.'

What examples would you like?

Hey, how about your "quote" from David Berlinski. He's among those select group of failed hacks who has been relegated to the bowels of the Christian fundie outlands - the Disco'-tute.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

(for a nice description of the difference between skepticism and paranoid denialism, I recommend these three articles: here, here, and here.)

1. Let's say that your slander of Dr. Berlinski was correct, what does that have to do with the truth of his statement?

It seems that you haters attempt to attack the messenger when you cannot refute the message.


2. Now for the truth about the doctor...
"David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1]He has written on philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fictional works.
Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford University, Rutgers University, The City University of New York, the University of Washington, theUniversity of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Université de Paris.
Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics."
David Berlinski - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


3. So, it is false and inaccurate to refer to Berlinski as a "failed hack."
The only place that would apply would be to you.

10. A universe out of nothing?
A Creator?
Space aliens?

No matter what variety of faith one chooses, it is interesting to try to verify using mathematics and probability.



Of course we can use mathematics on both sides of the question of the probablility of all sorts of things.....

" For example, consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of physical properties is one part in 1010123(Penrose 1989: 343). However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other possible universes formed with different properties could still have lead tosomeform of life. If it is half, then the probability for life is fifty percent." Intelligent Design Humans Cockroaches and the Laws of Physics



The upshot?
For me, random formation of the universe, and of life, possible but highly unlikely.

The take-away? Not physics, or mathematics, nor cosmology, biology, nor evolution.....none definitively provide the basis that would suggest sneering at theology.
All involve one kind of faith or another.


But here is one idea with a probability close to 100%: The less one understands science, to more vitriolic atheistic.

"Human

The dolt in post #2 suggests that my quotes come from a source that is based on a bias.....but is too dumb to recognize the bias in the icons of whom he is enamored.
They profess beliefs that are no less based on faith.


4. Well, perhaps one SHOULD sneer at beliefs with no provable basis.....


"As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well.

The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification..... If the mystification induced by its mathematics were removed from the subject, what remains would appear remarkably similar to the various creation myths in which the origin of the universe is attributed to sexual congress between primordial deities."
David Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."

Get that? Seems the 'sneerers' are open to be sneered at.





5. But there are other scientists, even physicists such as Dr. Alan Lightman, who are puzzled by the exactitude of our universe, and the precision that seems to have been designed for human life.

"...…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.
For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary.

On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life."
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



Random?

Coincidence?

....what are the chances?

7. In fact, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, allows that the universe is strangely....'precise'...

Crick says: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..."
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature', Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1981 p. 88.




Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God as he declares in no uncertain terms in chapter fifteen of his book "Life Itself," instead puts forth what he considers to be a more plausible theory for the origin of life and man. Crick explains,

"Directed Panspermia" - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and that life here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Op.Cit., p.141

According to Crick, this is the only alternative that satisfactorily explains what Darwinism and punctuated equilibria do not - this planet's absence of transitional forms; transitional forms being the evidence for evolution which, "would only have existed on the sender planet, not on Earth,"
Dr. Crick then informs us what to expect of the fossil record: p.144
From Origin of Man 7 Directed panspermia



It would be difficult for any to argue that Francis Crick is not a scientist.
So....let's get this straight: "God" is out of the question for 'scientists'....but space aliens, just fine.


And, if one accepts Crick's thesis......
....one is now left with the question of the origin of his space aliens.....



Ain't life strange.

What's strange is your continued use of lies and manufactured "quotes" to press your extremist religious agenda.

On at least 8 occasions now, I've taken some time to review your "quotes" and exposed them (and you) as frauds and lies. The fraudulent "quote" you posted, attributed to Crick is yet another example of your dishonest and fraudulent tactic of posting edited, parsed or outright fraudulent "quotes" you and your creation ministries perpetrate.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret



You Christian fundies are among the most dishonest lot I've ever encountered. What's even more remarkable is that the lies and edited "quote" you posted from Crick is one I exposed in a prior thread you opened with a similar anti-science / pro-fundamentalist Christian agenda.​

1. No quotes have been "manufactured."
As you have inadvertently admitted, the quote is accurate.
Note, the post includes this: 'Now, Dr. Crick does not endorse miracles or even the slightest belief in God...'

2. You refer to a deletion...but have not provided where or what it is.

3. Glad to see that this time you actually made an attempt to confront the (true and accurate) post, rather than the same three or four tired trite phrases I usually reduce you to.

What a shame you believe your religious views provide an allowance for lies.



Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous

Quote #74

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)


Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":

" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."[\QUOTE]

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth mayhave been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret

From your very link:

" In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle."


Exactly my point, and you've not only verified it......
.....but admitted you lied when you claimed it was 'manufactured.'





You should only open your mouth to change feet.

Its truly a pathology with you. In your alternate existence, there is no difference between lies and truth. You have convinced youself that lies are acceptable in furtherance of your Christian religious beliefs.

I just proved that the only one lying ......is you.

 

[Tuatara]

I've been on these and other forums for over 12 years and not once have I seen any atheist in support of this theory. Someone needs their Red Herring back.

1. The reason that I've given the example is to show the lengths of absurdity to which some recognized scientists will go.

The fact that the point has moment is shown by the fact that you haven't tried to deny it.

a. Nor is he the only recognized scientist to take this tack.

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle advanced after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis. “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick. When aliens are dropped from the argument, there remains a very intriguing question: Why do the constants and parameters of theoretical physics obey such tight constraints?

2.For an even more widely accepted theory, there is the multiverse, or landscape thesis, in which it is posited that the life enabling parameters of our universe are simply one of a multitude of permutations....meaning that there are other universes where gravity pushes things away from the center of a body, and every other law of physics is reversed.

Yes....they believe such nonsense.....but God is out of the question.


Physicist Leonard Susskind wrote “If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape [multiverse] turns out to be inconsistent — maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation — I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID [intelligent design] critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”


So, it matters not if you or any other 'board atheist' is knowledge-challenged.....

These are the facts.

I said I haven't seen one atheist support his position and then you say I haven't tried to deny it? If I don't support the existence of bigfoot I'm also denying the existence of bigfoot. It's the same thing. Someone seems to be comprehensively challenged.

As for Hoyle he seemed to get weirder as he got older and guess what. "While Hoyle was well-regarded for his works on nucleosynthesis and science popularization, his career was largely dominated by the controversial positions he held on a wide range of scientific issues, often in direct opposition to the opinions and evidence supported by the majority of the scientific community" Doesn't sound like he was getting support from his peers for his later ideas. So you find a handful of scientists with a few crazy ideas and you think you can brush a broad stroke and say look, not even .05% of atheist scientists believe in something crazy therefore they must all be crazy. What a piss poor argument.