Proof of intelligent design

The probability life arose by accident in absolutly 0.

This article explains the difficulty science has explaining abiogenesis.

http://www.rae.org/revev6.html

A problem with that article is that not only is the scientific info dated (over a decade and research has since moved on), it's biased in a way even I find unpleasant. Scrolling down to the bottom shows it's essentially a Bible study!

The Infinite Improbability Drive is only a step away!

The flaw....

Not only is intelligent design proved, but it turns out it really was the fault of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

If the Bible was written thousands of years ago and it is still accurate, then it's really not a big deal if the article is 11 years old.

Please post information that would prove the data is incorrect, rather than ignoring it based on the year it was written. The formulas and data used is all still valid. Just because a math book is 10 years old, would you say the fact it teaches 2*2=4 is wrong?

Let me know how the data is wrong. Thank you

It's not science, Kevn. It's not molecular biology nor organic chemistry. There's nothing definitive to be found in the correlations or lack thereof. It's just "statistics" - a manipulation of interpretive statistical formats with an agenda in mind - mixed in with a series of inductive and deductive statements. Which makes it Aristotelian - in that it largely depends on a logical argument based on assumptive statistics and positivist arguments, instead of a program of experimental verification. And that means it's useless for the types of proof you have in mind.

I don't need to challenge the data - the article doesn't present any. It's enough for me to challenge the method.

Please define "intelligence" and what model of intelligence we're talking about. Thanks.

Seth, It's statistically impossible. Just as it's statistcally impossible to flip a coin 100 million times and always land on heads.

Intelligent would mean "having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high degree"

Are dogs intelligent? Define "thought" and "reason."

*Edit: I should also add that if we are talking ultimate intelligences, then they wouldn't have to think or reason anything (as I think it means) because they'd already know everything.

Wow!




The resemblance is uncanny!!

-Ghoti

No, Kevn, this is where your basic assumptions lead you astray. Nothing is statistically impossible. Nothing. Zero as a statistical concept does not exist in open systems, only in closed (artificial) ones that are used for simplifying and modeling physical conditions. And closed systems, by definition, do not exist in physical reality.

Therefore it is statistically possible to flip a coin a trillion trillion times and always have it land on heads. Or a trillion trillion trillion times. Or tails. Or have it land on its side and stand up. Life can be rare, but it can never be "impossible". Nor is it necessarily restricted to the conditions the article outlines, thus further calling those statistical conclusions into question.

Your perspective is much too narrow. That's not an insult - I'm saying that your assumptions spring from a view of the universe which is far smaller, more limited, and more enclosed than it really is. It's a common problem among creationists - like the person who mangled statistics and then mistook them for science, in order to write that article. If there is a God, then he or she or it must have a cosmic point of view. Creationists must become closer to God on that score.

It is statistically impossible that drug users have never consumed water, therefore water consumption leads to drug addiction.

Science had "difficulty" inventing the transistor, too.

But --- DID it invent the transistor? Or did God do that?

Science had "difficulty" saving my aunt from the cancer that was overwhelming her body a few years back.

But --- DID it save my aunt? Or did God do that?

Science had difficulty making the computer you use to post in these forums.

But --- DID it make the computer? Or did God do that?



And what did this God do that the Flying Spaghetti Monster DIDN'T do?

Show me the proof, boyo.

And don't think I'm joking --- or that any pastafarian is joking: the FSM is no less valid than any god you can conjure.

(Well, except maybe Cthulhu.)

(Ghoti is right: don't mess with the Old Ones.)

I will respond to anyone who refers to the statistics and probabilities found within this article. To change my mind, simply show how one can flip 100 million coins and get every single one to land on heads. That would be to produce a single amino acid, it doesn't even touch on creating a protein, which would require a perfect alignment of many of these rows of 100 million coin possibilities. All that, just to just to get a basic protien needed as the basic building blocks of life.

The statement above is true (the probability is in fact infintessimal not zero) and with it one can rule out all theories which rely on a random process to explain the observed phenomenon known as evolution. The currently accepted theory, natural selection, which explains the change in organisms over time, evolution, is not a random process.

In fact natural selection gives a hint in it's very name that something is being selected. In natural selection, random variations in genotype (genetic structure) lead to variations in phenotype (the form an organism takes) which provide varying levels of fitness in a given environment. Organisms which are more fit are more likely to survive and thus pass on their genes to another generation. Over time a greater percentage of organisms cary these genes, thus leading to evolution (a change in an organism over time).

It is not random. It is selection.

~Ulrika~

As soon as you show me how a single drug user has never consumed water.

Before we can get to evolution we must first get to life that evolves. That is abiogegesis, not evolution. At this point we are talking about the origins of life rather than the development of life.

Highly unlikely, but statistics do not *prove* this is impossible.

Scientists agree if the chances are more than 10 to the 50th power, it's impossible.

The intelligentless design theory? The absent-minded design theory? Hehe.

Sorry Kevn, did not mean to be that flip about it.

Opinion on that issue is constantly evolving, if you read the science news daily you will find one or two articles a year on it arguing one of the other side of the question.

That's why an eleven year old article is often discounted.

I'm curious... where does it say this? And which scientists?