what?Ahmed wrote:The last sentence of Sen-no-sen"How do you explain that something even more elaborate, such that a creator could be at the origin of it?
...I'll take that as a "yes"...Obamot wrote:[...] You still haven't understood that he is [...]
It is not a question of a boiling pot, but of the probability of the appearance of the first particle of anything that would have given life. The probabilities are not a few billion but billions, billions, etc. to obtain a simple bacterium. Which scientists recognize as impossible and not as improbable.In purely theoretical conditions (i.e. imagining a closed and sealed circuit for billions of years), we would probably have to wait a period much longer than the age of the universe to observe the spontaneous boiling of water in our "super saucepan".
Yes I know " si my aunt had it we would call my uncle " also! But here's the thing, even with favorable conditions (hormones, operations) my aunt remains my aunt and never my uncle!Yet whether it's in a Geyser in Yellowstone or in your kitchen, boiling water is completely natural under the right pressure and temperature conditions.
Except that these are not grains of sand from the earth, but grains of sand from the entire universe…and even beyond!Considering the immensity of the Universe (there are about as many stars in the observable universe as there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth!), the probability of the appearance of life is entirely possible.
Which ones? Like those who made us laugh yellow with covid!This is why the extraterrestrial question no longer makes many people laugh in science.
You really have a psychological problem with religions other than yours!Regarding the invisible hand in the Universe:
There is indeed a form of intelligence in the Universe, but it does not come from the god of the Bible or from some demiurge,
This is all just blah blah to confuse the issue.But the computational characteristics of our Cosmos are increasingly explained by work in thermodynamics and information science.
Completely stupid as a reflection. So I repeat for the dunces at the back of the class who didn't hear or understand anything: I don't give a damn about religious creationism, I repeat once again I don't give a damn about religious creationism whether it is biblical or Buddhist and even by certain aspects of some scientists of the doxaI quote mathematicians, biologists and even astrophysicists who express, through their specialty (including the founder of thermodynamics that you like to quote so much) an opinion different from the current doxa.Creationism is similar to conspiracy theories, which refuse to understand that the complexity of the world is the work of determinism, preferring to see it as the intervention of ultra-powerful secret societies.
You still haven't answered the complexity argument:
You are wrong! So I repeat for the same people: JE don't consider anything! I leave that to... how do you say, ah yes, naive... cutting-edge scientists recognized and honored by their peers in their discipline! NOT MINEYou consider that life is too complex to have appeared without "intervention" if I am not mistaken,
This is cat food! Be clearer and more concise!but then how do you explain that something even more elaborate than a creator could be at the origin?
although better formulated it doesn't change much in the substance of the subject! More elaborate than what or who or something else!The last sentence of Sen-no-sen should be read as follows: "How do you explain that something even more elaborate, such that a creator could be at its origin?
Ahmed wrote:Eclectronvolt, you write: "...and not exist in the sense of having a reality
It is not a physical reality, of course, and therefore inaccessible to scientific investigation, and therefore unprovable (this is not a criticism!).
indeed, as "some" others report all sorts of other things.Yes, "some" report all sorts of things...
You really have a psychological problem with religions other than yours!
I'm not talking about the god of the bible, but about mathematics and biology and your computationals don't answer that,
sen-no-sen wrote:To Janic:
You still haven't answered the complexity argument:
You consider that life is too complex to have appeared without "intervention" if I am not mistaken, but from then on How do you explain that something even more elaborate than a creator could be at the origin?
I note Janic that you are not answering the question asked.
sen no senYou really have a psychological problem with religions other than yours!
I'm not talking about the god of the bible, but about mathematics and biology and your computationals don't answer that,
Oh really? Where? I am, by choice, a-religious so I neither criticize nor support this type of approach. It would be valid if I opposed one religion to another, which is not the case here! But you: yes!This is really the hospital making fun of charity!
Yet it is obvious that an architect or an engineer, or any other creator uses mathematics and biologists do the same to establish probabilities of risks of infection of populations, or for statistics afterwards, as for vaccines; for example.Explain to me how a creator would have any connection with mathematics and biology?
This, as previously indicated, is the business of these specialists in their part, links already indicated however in the 200 pages in question such as the probabilities of the appearance of life by chance at the moment alpha!Where are the equations for all this?
Could you link some of them?
Back to "Science and Technology"
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 74 guests
