IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Paper trades | Main | Quantum tuna »

Comments

People travel more in cars than planes increasing the likely hood of cars mortality rates.

The point I was making Michael is that probability is based in the past, and in some instances, probability can frequently change.

People are travelling more by plane these days, global warming is certainly having its toll, particularly in some parts of the world such as Asia, causing stormier monsoon weather and increased unpredictable flying conditions for pilots. Terrorist acts are also hard to precisely predict etc.

"For instance, the formation of a single protein by chance would appear to be statistically impossible, given that it would take longer than the age of the universe. The encoded information in DNA also seems to defy any probabilistic explanation."

I see it differently. Since science is yet to understand its quantum world and how it functions. These assumptions are based on their current understanding- or as someone phrased it- the coat tails of creation. Cheers Lyn.

Having trouble sending these days with unreliable internet ugh!

Here's some recent research with regard to DNA and protein formation not previously known.

https://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113306999/this-protein-doesnt-need-dna-to-build-other-proteins-010214/

Cheers Lyn.

If people find this argument persuasive they should stick to their convictions, it's a lot better than any argument of any atheist I'm familiar with. I don't need it but it is such fun to think about those exponential numbers and such practical examples as those coins that I predict that, without actual, physical evidence to refute the "fine-tuning" that it will become increasingly believed.

To answer a comment, there is absolutely no evidence that any of those "other possible universes" exist except in peoples' imagination and the ones atheists talk about were their invention to make those vast and imponderable improbabilities of fine tuning they find so disturbing and scary go away. Those who choose to believe them have the decided SCIENTIFIC advantage that there is some evidence those improbabilities are there whereas the imaginary universes may well not be.

"To answer a comment, there is absolutely no evidence that any of those "other possible universes" exist except in peoples' imagination and the ones atheists talk about were their invention to make those vast and imponderable improbabilities of fine tuning they find so disturbing and scary go away."

I am not in favor of the physical multiverse hypothesis, but what you think of this?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2326869/Is-universe-merely-billions-Evidence-existence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html

Thanks for the link, Juan.

Further discussion is here:

https://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/the-multiverse-is-there-evidence-for-it/

A critical reply can be read here:

https://excursionset.com/blog/2013/5/30/weinsteineinstein-hot-spotcold-spot

My impression is that many theories have been proposed to explain this anomaly (which itself is controversial), and the multiverse theory is just one of them.

It is interesting, though, that some scientists believe that evidence for a multiverse can be found in the effects of neighboring universes on our own universe. At least this means the multiverse is a testable hypothesis.

Why a multiverse would still need to be fine-tuned..............


https://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-would-still-need-to-be-fine-tuned-in-order-to-make-baby-universes/

The anything-that-can-happen-will-happen type of multiverse undermines the very concept of probability.

https://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-multiverse-is-the-poker-players-best-friend/

Cute, short and sharp. A video showing how RNA changed it function to relay information, when scientists created a primordial soup lacking oxygen in a lab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFhHcvasHA

Thats why we science is somewhat limed when it bases probability and understanding on the universe as of what they observe in their environment now. Lyn x.

Ahh last line should read " that is why science is limited if it bases probability or what it understands, on what it observes in its environment now". Lyn x.

With regard to day to day predictions on probability, science can come close I admit. But as I say, probability is always based on a constant, and so its open to change.

*Notice pilots when given predictable problems in simulators they come out tops. But when they are given mixed protocols, they failed miserably. Understandable reactions when a situation calls for split second decisions in a plane, rather than armchair evaluations.

But how life evolved is likely to have causal elements that science is yet to understand, making probability predictions incorrect.
Cheers Lyn x.

Thanks for those links Faisal,

I've just perused the Uncommon Descent site (https://www.uncommondescent.com/) and I must say it's a breath of fresh air.

While I don't agree with 'creationism', usually referring to bible literalists and other whackos, I didn't know there was a forum for people who are interested in Intelligent Design (ID) but who do NOT define themselves as creationists.

Critics have conflated creationism with ID, but this site makes it clear that there is a real distinction. It IS legitimate to ask whether there is an element of ID at work in our universe, and this in no way contradicts the general concept of evolution; it only questions to what extent randomness plays a role, and Darwinists may have overstated the degree of randomness in the system.

It's great to find a site that allows for an exploration of ID without the creationist taint.

The comments to this entry are closed.