Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 xole wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

Technically, the odds of the amino acid chains forming and all subsequent events happened to be 100%, as we currently exist.

Unfortunately that is not how probability works - winning the lottery is not 50:50 because you "either win or you don't" for example

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 xole wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

Technically, the odds of the amino acid chains forming and all subsequent events happened to be 100%, as we currently exist.

Unfortunately that is not how probability works - winning the lottery is not 50:50 because you "either win or you don't" for example

No, you misunderstand me. Everything has a 100% or 0% chance of happening. For instance, last week I had a 0% chance of winning the California lottery, as I did not win. I didn't play, either, but that is more or less beside the point. Tonight I had a 100% chance of eating chicken nuggets and weird pasta stuff, as that is what I ate for dinner. The only reason we have odds other than 0% or 100% is because we do not possess enough information to make an entirely correct assessment of an outcome, since most of us are not omniscient.

In short, it had to happen that way, because that's the way it happened.

 scarletsquig wrote:
The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

The assumption of pure randomness is a mistake as there are basic pattens produced through various chemical reactions.

For instance, the odds of a lot of sodium and chloride bonding, and then aligning in an ordered form just as a matter of random chance is incredibly close to zero. And yet it happens all the time because there are basic patterns and systems to how those atoms interact, and the crystalline structure they line up. The same is true of amino chains - there are chemical processes that combine as they do not out of random chance, but as part of a series of chemical reactions.

Then there's also the implicit assumption that humans, or even life in general, is somehow so remarkable that if it did happen it must mean something made it so. And, well, of course we think we're remarkable - we would. But in the scope of the vast universe, is that really true? Some time sooner or later we'll be gone, and out in the galaxy there will be suns that were burning before we ever came in to being that will still be burning, and we weren't at all remarkable in comparison to that sun.

And finally there's the assumption that if life didn't form as we did, then it can't have formed any other way. For all we know there might be countless other complex ways for life to form, and this just happened to be the one that worked to produce us.

There's a certain elegance to the laws of physics that implies design, too.

Whereas I'd look about the planet and see a random mess that doesn't look like anything any creature would deliberately make. I ask myself if there was a being that had the power and inclination to invent some kind of existance, would he put a tiny in orbi of a vast mass of burning fuel (and then put billions more suns and planets out there in the universe), and then dedicate much of the planet to areas where little can live, and then introduce a handful of primitive organisms and just sit back for millions of years watching while they slowly evolve?

Whenever I look about at nature and the greater world, I can't see how any being would have done it on purpose.

That's just my take on it.

And it's an interesting take, and thanks for sharing it. I hope my replies are taken as invitations to discussion, and not an attack.

 Manchu wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
how commen is the belief that dinosaurs did not exist in catholic society

Extremely uncommon.

Manchu's got the right of it. I spent grades K through 9 in Catholic education, and not once did any class teach me (this includes religion and science classes) that dinosaurs were put on this earth to test the faith of believers, or that we could not believe in dinosaurs because they weren't mentioned in the bible.

Granted my religion classes were more concerned with teaching the whole, "be a good person" aspect of the bible and my science classes were held to the Ohio standards.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
how commen is the belief that dinosaurs did not exist in catholic society

Extremely uncommon.

Manchu's got the right of it. I spent grades K through 9 in Catholic education, and not once did any class teach me (this includes religion and science classes) that dinosaurs were put on this earth to test the faith of believers, or that we could not believe in dinosaurs because they weren't mentioned in the bible.

Granted my religion classes were more concerned with teaching the whole, "be a good person" aspect of the bible and my science classes were held to the Ohio standards.

And you were taught properly. The correct response is that God created Texas to train the Faithful.

It is by will alone that I set this post in motion.

 Manchu wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
so leaves the "how did it all start?" question unanswered

And Catholics are okay with that because what we call faith is not a collection of fact claims or even opinions but rather an orientation toward human experience.

See? That's why I don't lump Catholicism under the "crazy irrational religions" category.

Anyways, the comment was in response to one of my pet peeve arguments. Whether transport on a meteor, aliens, or gods are used, the "Terrestrial life is too complex to originate randomly, so it must have come from someplace else" argument annoys me. This is because it provides no meaningful answers or predictions, yet tends to pretend it does; it's not "I believe in a higher power that is oriented towards the human experience (to use your words)", it's "I'm just gonna pass the buck on explaining this and say that it is an explanation". Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. For me, folks who want to simplify the natural history of the world for the sake of promoting religion are kind of blaspheming. It's like they are insisting that God must be as simple as their own vision, which seems unlikely.

 Manchu wrote:
And Catholics are okay with that because what we call faith is not a collection of fact claims or even opinions but rather an orientation toward human experience.

That's really well said, Manchu.

Thanks. Took me a long time to learn that.

 xole wrote:
No, you misunderstand me. Everything has a 100% or 0% chance of happening. For instance, last week I had a 0% chance of winning the California lottery, as I did not win. I didn't play, either, but that is more or less beside the point. Tonight I had a 100% chance of eating chicken nuggets and weird pasta stuff, as that is what I ate for dinner. The only reason we have odds other than 0% or 100% is because we do not possess enough information to make an entirely correct assessment of an outcome, since most of us are not omniscient.

In short, it had to happen that way, because that's the way it happened.

I am afraid you are entirely incorrect. Even assuming for a second you might be on to something, the uncertainty principle dictates that complete knowledge of a system cannot be obtained. Nor can the outcome of an event be determined to a probability of 1. Nor does the fact that because something has happened in the past imply it had a probability of 1 simply because it happened; the probability of you selecting certain food to eat would vary depending on what you had in the fridge, what you felt like eating etc. The act of eating it does not raise the probability of you selecting to eat it to 1, it simply indicates that at that particular event you decided to eat it... in entirely identical circumstances you could have elected to order something in, for example.

Xole, if you honestly believe there is only a 100% or 0% chance of something happening, you need to go back to 8th grade math. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You are dealing in absolutes only, and chance plays a role in almost everything, if not everything. Even if it's only a 0.01% of something happening.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
I have a friend,a very very catholic friend, who, recently revealed to our "group" that, due to them not being mentioned in the bible book, doesn't. Believe. In DINOSAURS! you heard right.
*smashes head on school desk multiple times ( I did this when she/he told us)*
so, I must ask, do any of you caths share this mind set?

What does he think/say when looking at a dinosaur skeleton then? There are plenty about, does he think they are models made by the museum to trick people?

xole wrote:In short, it had to happen that way, because that's the way it happened.

NO. Just no.

Hume's Guillotine

 xole wrote:

 Forar wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Higher power = definite yes.

The odds of the correct sequence of amino acids necessary for life to form at random (as a result of a non-alive universe bashing rocks together) is so small as to be effectively impossible.

A million monkeys on a million typewriters on hundreds of thousands of millions of stars for billions of years...

Technically, the odds of the amino acid chains forming and all subsequent events happened to be 100%, as we currently exist.

It's like the lottery. You either win or you lose, so the chances are 50%.

Oh wait, that's not how statistics really work either, is it...

 kronk wrote:
Oh wait, that's not how statistics really work either, is it...

Already used that example

Bah. I said it with style!

I thought the only dinosaur Catholics believed in was the pope (both in age and beliefs/morals)

I went through secondary education in a catholic school and we got taught science , religion class was for learning about other religions after about year 9 interestingly , so It could be said that a catholic school is responsible for my religious pluralism.
Science was always taught in science, and if anyone mentioned creationism they were laughed out of class by the students.

and Xole lesson #1 in dakkaness, never and i repeat NEVER bring up statistics on dakka, there are too many people who utilise statistics properly on here who will then send the thread meandering off into areas that normal people have no chance of understanding.

I repeat, Rule #1 of dakka : Don't talk about statistics, or "what happens in statistics class stays in statistic class".

Bullockist wrote:

and Xole lesson #1 in dakkaness, never and i repeat NEVER bring up statistics on dakka, there are too many people who utilise statistics properly on here who will then send the thread meandering off into areas that normal people have no chance of understanding.

But then we can never argue about what kind of errors are preferable, false positives or false negatives, because that differs across disciplines, and other fun statistical discussions!

Maybe you should read a bit about the present pope. Dinosaur beliefs and or morals aren't exactly what you'd attribute to the most progressive Pope ever.

But you know, don't let me get n the way of your hilarious quip.

 motyak wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

and Xole lesson #1 in dakkaness, never and i repeat NEVER bring up statistics on dakka, there are too many people who utilise statistics properly on here who will then send the thread meandering off into areas that normal people have no chance of understanding.

But then we can never argue about what kind of errors are preferable, false positives or false negatives, because that differs across disciplines, and other fun statistical discussions!

I've tried to read enough of them Motyak , I just come away mumbling to myself "Maths, i thought i knew you" and "Why the hell am I so stupid"

I think we have to consider the possibility that not only were there dinosaurs in the time of Jesus, they went extinct because he willed it to be so.

I went to one of the few non-catholic vocational schools in my area, and I had a crazy evangelical biology teacher who refused to teach us about evolution, told us condoms didn't work because rubber is porous and also ranted about the antichrist on occasion. Fun guy. Wasn't a catholic though.

The kids that went to the Catholic controlled schools got a proper education in evolution, and at the least weren't told any lies about condoms.

Wait, you have crazy evangelicals in Germany?

~Tim?

They're pretty much everywhere, but I'm originally from the Republic of Ireland.

Bullockist wrote:
I thought the only dinosaur Catholics believed in was the pope (both in age and beliefs/morals)

LOL and they say the Church is out of touch. Read the news once in a while, Bullockist.