whiskey the hedonist

I'm just wondering why Lee is allowed great latitude in interpretation of phrophecies and I'm not. If his explanation of that is anything like his explanation of the tyre prophecy, it should at least be entertaining.

Lee, of course, thinks that if you say that there are 2^2 possible combinations of 2 coin flips, therefore the chances of any given combination is 1/4, that you have "forgotten to consider the order", so who KNOWS what wacky stuff he'll come up with next! Numbers, words, they all mean what lee wants them to mean!

John A. Broussard

Lee is a living IQ test. It took me dozens of posts before I caught on to what you figured out in only a half-dozen or so.

Congratulations, you outclassed me.

whiskey the hedonist

Ah, but I've had your lead to follow, so this is hardly fair.

Dryhad

First off, yes we are. They had an entire city's worth of people and a great deal of time for growth. Second, the task is actually quite different. The Babylonians didn't take some plans for a great city, track down the exact place, and build the entire thing. Babylon grew from agricultural settlements over many, many generations. Like Rome, it wasn't built in a day. Also, there were no criteria for building it. They were just building a place to live and later to do business. Rebuilding something specific is quite different from building something nonspecific.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Read carefully! I said it might or might not. No description necessarily describes the origin of life, until we know how it actually happened.

I did, actually, taking one amino acid from the end and putting it on the beginning makes a different protein! Now tell me that this protein is also self-replicating. Go ahead, tell me...

Which it is! So there...

I again quote Francis Crick, and Leslie Orgel. It seems they understood. Not to mention Antony Flew.

The problem is the implication! It upsets all that science assumes, that there is no need ever to invoke the supernatural for an explanation. Thus there would indeed be some resistance to this conclusion, regardless of how probable it seemed.

I don't recall agreeing to that, though. It seems you can make me say anything you wish! That would, of course, make me easy to refute.

That's a good point! So I would say in reply that I am not requiring the whole city, instead, I would require much less, as specified previously.

Regards,
Lee

whiskey the hedonist

Exactly! Your equation cannot be said to refute abiogenesis by your own statement, as it may not describe the origin of life. So it is worthless for the point you wish it to make. I mean, we agree that we can't say whether your equation is relevant, so why on earth should I believe that it is? Help me out, here.

The total size of the search space (32 amino acids, 20 possible acids per position) is 20^32. Your protein is 1 protein in that search space. Musgraves is a different one. The odds of drawing either one from the search space is 1/20^32. No one is "forgetting the order."

As I said, you did not show that Musgrave forgot the order, you merely asserted that he did, but your assertion is false. ALL POSSIBLE orders are represented by the size of the search space, and we want 1. 1/size = probability= 1/20^32.

I wrote:
Quote:
Now, on to your tyre prophesy: There is no conceivable set of circumstances, as you interpret that prophesy, that could possibly not fulfill it.

You replied:
I agree that this prophecy is not so improbable, apparently God seems not to have scruples about predicting events that people would think could likely happen.

So whether you recall it or not, you agreed with my original statement. Now, given the vast latitute that you are allowed in interpretation, why am I not allowed similar latitude?

Dryhad

But you're still requiring specifics. I could get a bunch of people to build a city in the style that Babylon would have been built, and there's no way you'd call it Babylon. It is certainly not a simple task, even if you're not requiring the whole city (BTW, could you restate exactly what you're looking for, I've looked through this thread and I can't seem to find it specified, just references in posts).

John A. Broussard

Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

A prophecy is true when it has been fulfilled.

When will anyone know for sure that the Babylon prophecy you hold so dear has been fulfilled?

Give me a date. Try to give me a date. Take a wild guess as to how long it will take before the observer can say, for sure, that the prophecy has been fulfilled.

C'mon, lee. How long will your Babylon prophecy take so that we can be sure it has been fulfilled?

whiskey the hedonist

I prophesize that lee will not admit that he has made an error, here. He has yet to admit that Francis Crick is dead, and believes, somehow, that I should trust Anthony Flew's opinion on biology and chemistry. I have no idea what spectacular arithmagymnastics lee will attempt this time--its hard to see how he could top "he forgot the order"--and its possible that he will just repeat himself, but stay tuned, maybe he can come up with something even better.

Leslie Orgel, for those of you who don't know, is a biologist. Here is a quote from his home page:
In fact, Orgel is the originator (or one of the key orignators) of the RNA world hypothesis of simple replicators that Musgrave's article uses as a basis for the calculations that Lee so ham-handedly attempts to critique.

However, despite the fact that Crick is dead and Orgel is an enthusiastic supporter of abiogenesis, Lee will continue to use both of them as examples of scientists who do not find current abiogenetic scenarios plausible. He will bring up Flew, who is not a scientist of any kind and who has also stated that he was "misled" as to the likelihood of design by ID advocates, and he will quote Yockey, an information theorist who makes the same mistakes Musgrave notes, and he will CONTINUE to use his critique of Musgrave, despite the fact that it is absolute bullshit.:banghead:

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

This is simply incorrect, you are not reading my posts carefully! One hint, I did not say "Roll the dice for just one protein." And yes, all orders are represented in the search space, but we require a particular order of the amino acids for the protein to work, that was my point. That reduces the probability...

No, I said the Tyre prophecy could be a probable event. That is different than saying you or I can interpret prophecies in any way we please. These are different statements!

I was actually told to give specifics! By the skeptics, so ... I gave some.

How do you know this, though, may I ask? And here are the specifics that I had mentioned:

"At least two blocks with a total of two miles of streets with houses along them, three temples similar to the ones we know were there once, if you wish me to define 'similar,' I would say as evaluated by at least 60% of the archaeologists who have published in Archaeology Review and who respond to a poll, where at least ten of them respond, and at least 1,000 inhabitants, all on the former site of Babylon, and I would include rebuilding similar walls to those the city had, with again, 'similar' being as stated above."

Certainly, yet an "always" prophecy can be overturned at any time, by doing what it says will never happen. That is my point.

In any case of such decisions, we have to deal with probabilities, not proof! Even if the prophecy just said "Babylon will not be rebuilt for 2000 years." So we weigh the possibilities, when asked a question such as "Is Babylon not being rebuilt by now improbable?" and then decide.

And WTH has not refuted me! If the conclusion of abiogenesis is so obvious, it should be easy to show how Musgrave's computation does not disprove his point.


Um, how was Crick refuted, may I ask? That is the important question here.

I was mistaken about Orgel, though, either what I read about him was wrong, or he has changed his mind. Well, people do change their minds, that is one reason we have such forums as this one. And if Flew has not changed his mind (which as far as I know, he hasn't) this would imply that he was not seriously misguided by any such ID theorists, and so accepts the basic conclusion still. And how has Yockey made the mistakes outlined by Musgrave? I have checked, and as far as I can see, Yockey has not made these errors. What errors did Yockey commit?

And this is not a refutation...

Regards,
Lee