- #1
ikos9lives
- 41
- 0
I'd like a mathematical and/or scientific critique of the assertions made at the following website: EDIT: link to crackpot post deleted
Note there are some comments on the side that are directed towards a mathematical critique of the poster's assertions. These critiques appear to be valid, but I think the underlying premise in the post has something to it.
The underlying argument posed at the site is that it is, essentially, mathematically impossible (or at least so improbable as to be impossible) for life to have arisen on its own using pure random chance. The poster appears to believe that this means that life could not evolve from non-life without the intercession of a greater power (i.e., God).
What I'm thinking of is recasting the argument in a more mathematically or scientifically correct way - if that's possible. It may not be possible, given lack of understanding of how amino acids could combined and eventually form cells exhibiting industrial complexity. Nevertheless, it stands to reason that while 4 billion years is a long time, the number is still quite finite and may be too small to support random chance.
I suspect the counter argument may be that industrial complexity builds on itself as time goes on. However, I'm not sure how much that will hold water scientifically speaking; after all, you have to achieve some measure of industrial complexity in the first place.
I know the basic argument of life from non-life, but to my knowledge the argument has never been positivistically proven; and thus is subject to skepticism in the scientific realm.
To you atheists out there - I'm not interested in proving or disproving God using an argument of probabilities. While I admit that eventually I would like to use this type of argument as merely one argument in a range of arguments that, as a whole, point to God's existence, I first need to know if the underlying premise is sound before engaging in any kind of metaphysics. For, if the physics or math is wrong, then any rationale supporting metaphysical conclusions based on it (either for or against God's existence) must also be flawed (i.e., the premise is flawed and thus not helpful to the conclusion).
Same thing to my fellow brothers in Christ: This is no challenge against God or proof for Him, I merely want to inquire if the premise is sound or weak - and if it is weak whether it can be improved so that it is sound.
Accordingly, again, what I really want is a purely scientific or mathematical analysis of the argument posed in the website. From there I might springboard into another, separate, thread discussing metaphysical speculation.
Thank you for your time!
Note there are some comments on the side that are directed towards a mathematical critique of the poster's assertions. These critiques appear to be valid, but I think the underlying premise in the post has something to it.
The underlying argument posed at the site is that it is, essentially, mathematically impossible (or at least so improbable as to be impossible) for life to have arisen on its own using pure random chance. The poster appears to believe that this means that life could not evolve from non-life without the intercession of a greater power (i.e., God).
What I'm thinking of is recasting the argument in a more mathematically or scientifically correct way - if that's possible. It may not be possible, given lack of understanding of how amino acids could combined and eventually form cells exhibiting industrial complexity. Nevertheless, it stands to reason that while 4 billion years is a long time, the number is still quite finite and may be too small to support random chance.
I suspect the counter argument may be that industrial complexity builds on itself as time goes on. However, I'm not sure how much that will hold water scientifically speaking; after all, you have to achieve some measure of industrial complexity in the first place.
I know the basic argument of life from non-life, but to my knowledge the argument has never been positivistically proven; and thus is subject to skepticism in the scientific realm.
To you atheists out there - I'm not interested in proving or disproving God using an argument of probabilities. While I admit that eventually I would like to use this type of argument as merely one argument in a range of arguments that, as a whole, point to God's existence, I first need to know if the underlying premise is sound before engaging in any kind of metaphysics. For, if the physics or math is wrong, then any rationale supporting metaphysical conclusions based on it (either for or against God's existence) must also be flawed (i.e., the premise is flawed and thus not helpful to the conclusion).
Same thing to my fellow brothers in Christ: This is no challenge against God or proof for Him, I merely want to inquire if the premise is sound or weak - and if it is weak whether it can be improved so that it is sound.
Accordingly, again, what I really want is a purely scientific or mathematical analysis of the argument posed in the website. From there I might springboard into another, separate, thread discussing metaphysical speculation.
Thank you for your time!
Last edited by a moderator:
