Posts by Jeffro

46

Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem

by Sea Breeze in

recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.

it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.

think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.

Jeffro

Sea breeze:

So, If I understand your assumption correctly, what you are saying is that everything we see is a result of natural unguided processes because we see them, making the probability (for us) exactly one.
Is that a fair assessment?

No. 🤦‍♂️

First off, I didn’t make an assumption. There is no evidence of any ultimate ‘cause’ other than natural processes. That does not inherently preclude a supernatural cause, but you would need to provide evidence of any proposed supernatural cause. Arguments from incredulity are not evidence for a preferred religious or otherwise superstitious or unfounded belief. The fact that something has happened means the probability that the thing has happened is one. Notions of assigning significance to humans seeing a particular thing as if the act of seeing it influences the outcome of past events are superstitious and irrelevant.

46

Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem

by Sea Breeze in

recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.

it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.

think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.

Jeffro

It is true in a way that is unremarkable and entirely incidental to the discussion.

Unless you are claiming that ‘evolutionists’ (actually just biologists) assert that evolution ‘plans’ for specific outcomes before the process begins. Which would be an idiotic misrepresentation.

46

Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem

by Sea Breeze in

recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.

it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.

think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.

Jeffro

Sea breeze:

This image below is an x-ray cross section of an actual human cell. It's beauty and complexity is stunning.

hahahaha. No. It was a computer rendering of a cell cross-section based on various datasets, including datasets based on X-ray imaging.

46

Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem

by Sea Breeze in

recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.

it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.

think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.

Jeffro

You’ve rounded off the probability a little more than the slightly more accurate probability I provided, but it’s also suitable for the purpose here.

But the problem here is that you are assigning special value to a particular outcome, apparently imagining it’s some kind of ‘gotcha’. Back in reality, any order of the cards has the same probability.

46

Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem

by Sea Breeze in

recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.

it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.

think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.

Jeffro

Sea breeze:

No they don't. Successful businesses and lives don't work like this at all.

Your response is entirely wrong at every level. Every shuffled deck of cards that currently exists is in an order that is 1 in 8x10^67. Every one of them is an improbable event. And that’s just cards.

You are confused between improbable events and specific desired outcomes.

What this means is that every time that a deck of cards has EVER been shuffled, since cards were invented, the order that they ended up was the first time they were ever in that order, or ever will be.

Wrong again. It means it’s extremely unlikely that two decks would be the same, but there is no mechanism to ensure that every outcome is actually unique.

Also, the order of a deck of cards does not favour any particular patterns as more stable, so it also is not directly comparable to chemical or biological systems.

46

Complexity, Evolutionists Biggest Problem

by Sea Breeze in

recently, some scientists modeled one of the simplest known cells - that of a bacteria.

it took an army of 128 computers running for 10 hours to process the data required in the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in this "simple cells'" life processes.

think about that for a moment - 128 computers running for 10 hours just to compute the data, not actually do it mind you; but just to model the known processes in one of the simplest known cells, which is many orders of magnitude simpler than a human cell.

Jeffro

The chance of a pack of playing cards being in any particular order is 8x10^67. By creationist ‘logic’, any shuffled deck of cards cannot exist because the probability of it happening is ‘too low’. The chance of a randomly shuffled deck being ‘in order’ (which you could think of loosely as a beneficial mutation) is exactly the same as the deck being in any other random order. Assigning special meaning to a specific order has no bearing on the actual probability of that order. It is only the probability of a predicted order that is low. Once it has already happened, the probability that it happened is exactly one.

Improbable events occur all the time. And when conditions are more favourable for particular combinations of improbable events over other less favourable conditions, it is inevitable that complexity will arise. This is particularly the case in chemistry (and by extension, biology), where particular combinations are more stable than others, making them more likely than just ‘random chance’. This is long before you get to the concept of ‘natural selection’ in more complex biological systems.

24

6000 yrs for mankind

by lastmanstanding in

i have a question to the board.. if someone asks you the below question, how do you respond?

please reflect on why you think the question was asked.

(background... the spouse was talking to dubs about 6000 yrs and wanted to tell them that it was proved false).

Jeffro

The question as phrased in the thread is ambiguous. It could mean “have humans not yet existed for 6000 years” or “have humans existed for longer than 6000 years”. Assuming the latter, the briefest and correct answer would be “yes” (though “I don’t know” would be a convenient shortcut to terminate the discussion amicably).

In the context of responding to your spouse, just saying “it doesn’t matter” without elaboration is probably the worst possible response. Pre-supposing a specific reply to a response that essentially shut down the line of inquiry might have seemed enigmatic but was doomed to fail.

24

6000 yrs for mankind

by lastmanstanding in

i have a question to the board.. if someone asks you the below question, how do you respond?

please reflect on why you think the question was asked.

(background... the spouse was talking to dubs about 6000 yrs and wanted to tell them that it was proved false).

Jeffro

TD:

I might be tempted to point out that negatives can't be proven,

It’s not really the case that ‘negatives can’t be proven’. (Saying 1+1 doesn’t equal 3 is just as provable as 1+1 equals 2.)

Though perhaps you’re just using this as shorthand for ‘the burden of proof lays with the person making the assertion’.

24

6000 yrs for mankind

by lastmanstanding in

i have a question to the board.. if someone asks you the below question, how do you respond?

please reflect on why you think the question was asked.

(background... the spouse was talking to dubs about 6000 yrs and wanted to tell them that it was proved false).

Jeffro

It seems that either the question is misreported or something is missing from the context. If the question were asking whether ‘they’ have proved that humans had existed for MORE than 6000 years, then it was almost certainly a religious question. Though if it is about a discussion with JWs, then it’s almost certainly a religious question (with only incidental relevance to science) anyway. Perhaps the question is meant to say “only” instead of “not”?

I’m not aware of any statistically significant view suggesting humans have existed for less than 6000 years (though there are minor and sometimes purely conjectural views that everything could have been made ‘as is’ only a very short time ago), and it’s unlikely that a JW would be discussing those views.

But the other aspect is that if the person specifically asked for information about proving a view false, the response that “It doesn’t matter” isn’t particularly helpful and might understandably elicit some irritation. Perhaps “I don’t know” would have been a better response if you couldn’t (or didn’t want to) provide any helpful information.

56

Do You Get Easily Offended By What People Do or Don’t Do?

by minimus in

jw
friends

does using uncle ben’s food products offend you?.

are you offended if you see a flag?

what about a confederate flag?.

Jeffro

minimus:

Jeffro is happy the woke culture got rid of Aunt Jemima. I never looked at syrup and thought of slavery but I’m not woke either.

There you go deciding what I think again. 🤣 I’m not aware that the product range in question has ever been available in my country, so it doesn’t affect me in any way. Though I’m not convinced that the branding of food products actually affects you in any real way either. You’re just whinging about trivial nonsense.