[QUOTE]Despite being incredibly simple, much simpler than our own universe appears to be, [I]GoL[/I] supports structures and behaviours of immense complexity.[/QUOTE]A simple example:

[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=91456&postcount=46[/url]

:max:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;244976]1) If you understood evolution, you'd understand that the origin of life is not within the scope of evolution. Evolution is about what happens to life once it exists. Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life, just as metallurgy does not concern itself with the nucleosynthesis of iron, even though iron has to be formed in stars and spewed out by supernovas and eventually form solid bodies that crash into Earth and be mined from those remains before the iron can become the subject of metallurgy.[/quote]
This makes no sense to me, I've never heard anyone differentiate between the Theory of Evolution and The origin of life. Can anyone else back this up?


[quote]2) Your continuing (mis)use of "random chance" without ever acknowledging the importance of probability distributions (as in quantum mechanics) also shows your ignorance, or at least ignoring, of the role of atomic and molecular attractions in the formation of molecules from atoms and the formation of complex molecules from simple molecules.[/quote]
Have you ever tried to actually [i]do the math?[/i] The numbers involved are huge. We're basically calculating the chance of multiple events happening at once.

[quote]See? "random chance" again. Your clinging to that simple phrase instead of acknowledging the complexities of chemistry and physics shows that your vision is being clouded by your disbelief of what you don't [I]want[/I] to believe.[/quote]
Again, instead of insulting me, let's define the minimum necessary events and do the math. Or are you suffering from cowardice, and disguising it with intellectual elitism?

[quote]You talk about meaningless arbitrary numbers instead of the meaningful complexities of physics and chemistry -- why is that?[/quote]
Numbers can be very informative. If there's a 1 in a 10,000 chance of dying in a place crash, and a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car crash, driving to Florida because planes are scary is illogical.

[quote]So what? You've just avoiding the realities of evolution while pretending to discuss it.[/quote]
I am simply saying that I don't believe it and why. You're dodging reality by not facing my argument head on.

[quote]... especially when that super-being is just a creation of human minds anyway? Of course a super-being which is the creation of human minds in the first place can "come up" with what humans come up with![/QUOTE]
This is just the same old crap which has been spewed by unbelievers for millenia, the proof of God's existence exists for anyone who WANTS to see it. God has an annoying enough time dealing with Christians, why should He screw around with you when you don't want Him around.

You don't want Jesus around, He won't come around. Pretty simple, logic, there. Jesus doesn't exist for you because you don't want Him to exist. Jesus doesn't give a damn about scientific experiments. He's proved His existence to you, you just don't want to deal with reality.

Real man love Jesus, real men praise the Lord and thank Him for his mercy. Maybe you should man up and face your problems head on.

[QUOTE=jasong;245080]This makes no sense to me, I've never heard anyone differentiate between the Theory of Evolution and The origin of life. Can anyone else back this up?[/QUOTE] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#Origin_of_life[/URL] has
[quote]The origin of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life"]life[/URL] is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[/quote]There. Now you've heard.

While that Wikipedia entry for "Theory_of_Evolution" isn't necessarily intended to be a good place for beginners to learn, there's another,

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution[/URL]

that "is intended as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject."

Have you ever read either of those Wikipedia articles?

[QUOTE=jasong;245080][in reply to cheesehead]Or are you suffering from cowardice, and disguising it with intellectual elitism?[/QUOTE]

Good one!

After examining the evidence presented in a sample of his 5000+ posts the only reasonable conclusion is that cheesehead is entirely unfit to comprehend anything that requires more than half a brain. But keep in spinal cord, that this is not proof that you have a brain at all.

[QUOTE=Calvin Culus;245118]Good one!

After examining the evidence presented in a sample of his 5000+ posts the only reasonable conclusion is that cheesehead is entirely unfit to comprehend anything that requires more than half a brain. But keep in spinal cord, that this is not proof that you have a brain at all.[/QUOTE]Please, can you two (jasong and Calvin Culus) keep your civility?

Such remarks may ease your frustration but they sure as hell do not help you to support your positions in a discussion --- quite the reverse in fact.


Paul

[QUOTE=jasong;245080]This is just the same old crap which has been spewed by unbelievers for millenia, the proof of God's existence exists for anyone who WANTS to see it.[/QUOTE]

Then how do you explain those who want to find god, but can't? The implication is that your god only reveals itself to certain people who are looking for it. What makes some people so special and others not special at all?

If nobody believed in god at all, would god still exist? I ask that philosophically, so be careful how you answer.

[QUOTE=jasong;245080]This makes no sense to me, I've never heard anyone differentiate between the Theory of Evolution and The origin of life. Can anyone else back this up?[/QUOTE]

I'm only skimming, but this statement pretty well justifies the suspicion that the only things you know about evolution come from Intelligent Design dis-information sources. The two cornerstones of evolution are random variation and differential survival - neither cornerstone makes any sense in a pre-life environment.

[QUOTE=jasong;245080]Have you ever tried to actually [i]do the math?[/i] The numbers involved are huge. We're basically calculating the chance of multiple events happening at once.[/QUOTE]

I, for one, would be very much interested in seeing your calculations and the underlying model you use as the basis for those calculations. My guess is that the flaw (if any) will be in your model rather than your calculations.

[QUOTE=wblipp;245141]The two cornerstones of evolution are random variation and differential survival - neither cornerstone makes any sense in a pre-life environment.[/QUOTE]Are you [B]sure[/B] of that? Your claim is far from obviously true to me.

For instance, consider the distribution of bodies orbiting a star a few billion years after its formation. Initially, the material in the circumstellar disk is relatively but not completely evenly distributed. Small random variations in the density lead to gravitational collapse into a moderately large number of compact objects, a few billion, or perhaps a few trillion. As the star heats up and the stellar wind increases (I'm thinking of a solar-mass star in the T Tauri phase) those bodies close to the star with relatively higher concentrations of refactory components will survive much better than those made of , for instance CO, CH[SUB]4[/SUB] or NH[SUB]3[/SUB] ices. There will be what I would call evolutionary pressure for the survival of rocky bodies close in to the star.

Later on in the system's history, the protoplanets will sweep up bodies in their vicinities. Whether any particular body survives to have an independent existence a few gigayears after creation depends very much on where it orbits with respect to the larger planetary body. As far as I can tell, the masses and orbits of planets have a substantial random element to them. Certainly those planetary systems which we have characterized so far have a rich distribution of orbital elements but, unfortunately, current technology isn't yet capable of providing us with a detailed and comprehensive sample of planetary systems in our galactic neighbourhood, let alone for the galaxy as a whole.

If we look at our own solar system, almost all the small bodies are to be found in the Kuiper belt and, especially, the Oort cloud, far away from the major planets. Almost all the bodies made from volatile ices are to be found several AU from the sun. Of the small involatile bodies, the great majority are to be found where, presumably by chance, they have not been swept up by the major planets, primarily by Jupiter.

Of course, if you believe planetary systems to be alive, I'm on completely the wrong track.


Paul

[QUOTE]Are you [B]sure[/B] of that? Your claim is far from obviously true to me.

For instance, consider the distribution of bodies orbiting a star a few billion years after its formation. Initially, the material in the circumstellar disk is relatively but not completely evenly distributed. Small random variations in the density lead to gravitational collapse into a moderately large number of compact objects, a few billion, or perhaps a few trillion. As the star heats up and the stellar wind increases (I'm thinking of a solar-mass star in the T Tauri phase) those bodies close to the star with relatively higher concentrations of refactory components will survive much better than those made of , for instance CO, CH[SUB]4[/SUB] or NH[SUB]3[/SUB] ices. There will be what I would call evolutionary pressure for the survival of rocky bodies close in to the star.

Later on in the system's history, the protoplanets will sweep up bodies in their vicinities. Whether any particular body survives to have an independent existence a few gigayears after creation depends very much on where it orbits with respect to the larger planetary body. As far as I can tell, the masses and orbits of planets have a substantial random element to them. Certainly those planetary systems which we have characterized so far have a rich distribution of orbital elements but, unfortunately, current technology isn't yet capable of providing us with a detailed and comprehensive sample of planetary systems in our galactic neighbourhood, let alone for the galaxy as a whole.

If we look at our own solar system, almost all the small bodies are to be found in the Kuiper belt and, especially, the Oort cloud, far away from the major planets. Almost all the bodies made from volatile ices are to be found several AU from the sun. Of the small involatile bodies, the great majority are to be found where, presumably by chance, they have not been swept up by the major planets, primarily by Jupiter.

Of course, if you believe planetary systems to be alive, I'm on completely the wrong track.[/QUOTE]Excellent overview and nice inclusion of some specifics.

Orderliness out of complexity, randomness, and time extension is
the common link of galactic/stellar and biological/life evolutionary
origins. There is I think a tendency to ascribe to a "designer" the
creation of anything new and important, but when it comes to the
universe as a whole or the beginnings of life and consciousness,
it is simply not a meaningful suggestion.

[QUOTE=xilman;245121]Such remarks may ease your frustration but they sure as hell do not help you to support your positions in a discussion --- quite the reverse in fact.[/QUOTE]

Observable evidence supports that evolution is the mechanism how increasingly complex lifeforms develop, so any discussion is exclusive to feeble-minded bores.

Now, even if theories about the degree of stupidity people demonstrate in this discussion offend your religion of political correctness: if you are unable to furnish evidence that cheesehead isn't a half-wit and jasong isn't a nit-wit, these theories withstand your religious conviction that any discussion must be a civil exchange of arguments.

Please realize that any censorship on your behalf is evidence that your intellectual and moral cowardice is greater than your respect for truth.