Jump to content


Photo

Factors Required For Complex Life


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#41 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 12 July 2005 - 04:31 AM

chance:
You have been debating the probability argument for some time now with me,


Actually you were doing the debating I was doing the correcting.

According to the experts in probability theory, your (chance) position is quite wrong. We can & do figure out probabilities "after-the-fact". Second science does not do "proof". Third science does not do lucky.

Either we are here by luck, your position, or by design, my position. Science can't explain luck but it can & does explain design.

The inference drawn from The Privileged Planet would be habitability = measure-ability.

"The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also offers the best over all conditions for scientific discovery."

#42 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 12 July 2005 - 01:54 PM

chance:
You have been debating the probability argument for some time now with me,

Actually you were doing the debating I was doing the correcting.


:lol:

According to the experts in probability theory, your (chance) position is quite wrong. We can & do figure out probabilities "after-the-fact".


What experts are you referring to?
And how is my position wrong according to these experts?
My position is sound re 'after the fact' because it wont end with a conclusion of “it so improbable it must be designed” or "habitability = measure-ability" and especially with such formula as the drake equation. So if you have a counter example proving your point lets see it.


Second science does not do "proof". Third science does not do lucky.

If you use:

The point of the list is to show how very incredibly lucky we are. We won the cosmic lottery! Or is there a purpose for our existence? Does Occam’s Razor really favor one designed universe over multiple chance collisions & multiple lucky events? Does science really favor the chance collisions & multiple lucky events scenario?


Lets leave the semantic arguments out of this, it smacks of desperation, I’m sure you know what is meant especially in light of the above quote from yourself.

Either we are here by luck, your position, or by design, my position. Science can't explain luck but it can & does explain design.


Luck is a personal perspective for an unlikely event, if you use the pronoun ‘we’ then luck is an appropriate qualifier in that context.
You have yet to demonstrate where this ‘proof of design’ is, all you have is the ‘it’s too improbability argument’ from your first post (that is nothing more than an expanded drake formula).

The inference drawn from The Privileged Planet would be habitability = measure-ability.


Infer all you like, but I want to talk specific evidence that can lead to the conclusion of ‘habitability = measure-ability’. What exactly is being measured?

"The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also offers the best over all conditions for scientific discovery."


More post hoc reasoning! Without a control or another group of similar planets to our own with which to compare, it remains conjecture. E.g. how do you know what effect there would be on life, man, or civilisation if the moon had it’s own moon? Do you have a method to determine the consequences?

#43 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 13 July 2005 - 05:40 AM

Let's see- was the theory of evolution (or any theory proposed) before or after the observations were made? If it was after then according to chance it is nothing more than "post hoc" reasoning.

Neither Creationists nor IDists say that something that is improbable must have been designed. I have said this several times now but chance keeps repeating it anyway.

Notice that all chance can say is:

My position is sound re 'after the fact' because it wont end with a conclusion of “it so improbable it must be designed” or "habitability = measure-ability" and especially with such formula as the drake equation. So if you have a counter example proving your point lets see it.


But that is it. Nothing to substantiate the claim just a repition of the claim.

On one hand we have scientists and probability theorists who use the Drake equation and say it is OK to do. On the other hand we have chance who says it isn't.

BTW chance, science is done via inference. It seldom concludes and it never proves.

What ius being measured? LoL! This is why it is never a good thing to debate something you don't know anything about. We can measure just about anything we can observe. Distances, light and radio frequencies, decay rates...


If the moon had its own moon? LoL! What do you know of science? If our Moon had its own moon we wouldn't be here to observe it- that is what science says.

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2005 - 02:03 PM

Let's see- was the theory of evolution (or any theory proposed) before or after the observations were made? If it was after then according to chance it is nothing more than "post hoc" reasoning.


You know very well that I am specifically referring to probability style questions re the privileged planet, solar eclipses, Drake equation and the like. To take that and infer that it applicable to was the theory of evolution (or any theory proposed) before or after the observations were made? is a gross error of logical argument.

Neither Creationists nor IDists say that something that is improbable must have been designed. I have said this several times now but chance keeps repeating it anyway.

Really! Then why present such argument if not to infer such? What is it’s purpose if not to demonstrate, “irreducible complexity”, or “it’s too improbable to have happened by chance” if there is an alternate explanation to why these subject are used, here is you chance to set the record straight. What do these examples represent and why bring them to discuss?

Notice that all chance can say is:

My position is sound re 'after the fact' because it wont end with a conclusion of “it so improbable it must be designed” or "habitability = measure-ability" and especially with such formula as the drake equation. So if you have a counter example proving your point lets see it.


But that is it. Nothing to substantiate the claim just a repition of the claim.

On one hand we have scientists and probability theorists who use the Drake equation and say it is OK to do. On the other hand we have chance who says it isn't.


Hah, the difference is that scientist are under no illusion about the claim you can make with a drake equation, or any other similar probability exercise, far different from inferring design from an eclipse, do you agree?

BTW chance, science is done via inference. It seldom concludes and it never proves.


All theory is tentative and relies on the evidence available to support the theory. Not sure what you mean by is done via inference .

What ius being measured? LoL! This is why it is never a good thing to debate something you don't know anything about. We can measure just about anything we can observe. Distances, light and radio frequencies, decay rates...


The question was, Infer all you like, but I want to talk specific evidence that can lead to the conclusion of ‘habitability = measure-ability’. What exactly is being measured? So what is being measured that allows the conclusion, habitability = measure-ability,? lets talk specifics, so that we can see who knows what about what.


If the moon had its own moon? LoL! What do you know of science? If our Moon had its own moon we wouldn't be here to observe it- that is what science says.


Interesting, on what do you base this? (pre-emptive reply – before you answer please note I made no qualifying requirements on the size of the second moon, or method or date of capture, so you can drop any orbital mechanics objections re unstable orbits). So to repeat the question

how do you know what effect there would be on life, man, or civilisation if the moon had it’s own moon? Do you have a method to determine the consequences?

bolded to emphasise actual line of questioning, i.e. lack of a control, or low of sample size.

#45 John Paul

John Paul

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Maynard, Massachusetts

Posted 20 July 2005 - 06:08 AM

THe Drake equation was formulated by a scientist- Dr. Frank Drake. Scientists such as Ward, Browlee, Gonzalez et al., use and have revised it. The revisions came after further research demonstrated the original was inaccurate.

All chance can do is to say the Drake equation is invalid. Nothing to substantiate the claim.

As I already have stated several times I will take the word of known scientists over that of an unknown poster named chance.

If chance or Cal were really interested in reality they would read the references I provided. That they will not do so is evidence enough that they are not interested.

#46 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 20 July 2005 - 02:08 PM

THe Drake equation was formulated by a scientist- Dr. Frank Drake. Scientists such as Ward, Browlee, Gonzalez et al., use and have revised it. The revisions came after further research demonstrated the original was inaccurate.


If you use Drake or Drake+ it is irrelevant to a probability question posed in the first post, all that will do is widen the parameters.

All chance can do is to say the Drake equation is invalid. Nothing to substantiate the claim.


In a formula with unknowns and a sample size of one, Drake style equations are handy for speculating ‘what if’ questions, nothing more. You cannot then stretch this to imply The Privileged Planet is (because it’s so improbable) some foundation as proof of design.

As I already have stated several times I will take the word of known scientists over that of an unknown poster named chance.

If chance or Cal were really interested in reality they would read the references I provided. That they will not do so is evidence enough that they are not interested.


I am really interested, these are your links:
post #1 The Privileged Planet [probability]
post #5 What is Life (complexity of the cellular structure)
post #19 An Open Letter to My Open-Minded Colleagues [probability]

But you are debating me and Cal, you must defend your position with words (and a link for amplification is nice). We are not debating scientists who cannot defend themselves in person.

You position in clear in post #1, as is, your championing of the statement habitability = measure-ability to which I am still waiting for your response to:

I want to talk specific evidence that can lead to the conclusion of ‘habitability = measure-ability’.
What exactly is being measured?
what is being measured that allows the conclusion, habitability = measure-ability,?
lets talk specifics, so that we can see who knows what about what.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users