[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[John Reimer]

Hello Gregor,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to Simen,
>> 
>>> Chris Wright Wrote:
>>> 
>>>> BCS wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The chances of life happening by chance are something like that,
>>>>> if not worse. You could probably calculated a relative number for
>>>>> it with quantum physics and/or information theory and/or string
>>>>> theory or some such. IIRC there is a theory about how much info
>>>>> can be in a given volume.
>>>>> 
>>>> I don't think anyone has come close to describing the odds of
>>>> abiogenesis.
>>>> 
>>> I did some fun calculations after being given a book by Jehovah's
>>> Witnesses, as I've always been of the opinion that life being
>>> created by some higher being is less probable than it occuring
>>> naturally.
>>> 
>>> Way I figured was, I get 1 cubic centimetre of the simplest,
>>> carbon-based, self-replicating molecules, on this planet of 1
>>> trillion cubic kilometers (one cubic centimetre was chosen as some
>>> arbitrary amount that might come into being by chance). Not by any
>>> chance a big chunk, but is it enough for life to survive? Let's
>>> first see how many self-replicating molecules we can fit into my
>>> small cube - 1.6 quintillion. That ain't half bad. (Actually, I
>>> think the number was 1000 times bigger, but I don't remember the
>>> name of that number [Hexillion?], plus you can think of it as a bit
>>> of safety :p)
>>> 
>>> Now, spread that evenly across the world (258 billion square
>>> kilometers), and you get 162 such molecule for every square meter.
>>> With enough resources nearby, I'd give it a fairly good chance of
>>> survival.
>>> 
>> Someone once told me that if you take all the ways that you can
>> assemble the parts of the simplest form of life and put them in once
>> place, the ball would be something like the size of earth. (I havn't
>> checked the math or anything like that)
>> 
> I love that all arguments against natural abiogenesis come down to an
> argument from ignorance. The fact is that we haven't got the foggiest
> bit of a clue what the entire range of things that could have
> /potentially/ formed life are, we just happen to have been formed from
> a particular set of amino acids. We like to believe that only amino
> acids, or even only the set of amino acids life on Earth are based on,
> could form life, but that's just stupid. Given the uncountably many
> planets in the universe, life has probably come into existence and
> evolved in ways we could never remotely predict, and idiots on their
> planets are saying "The chances that a simple life based on hexavalent
> chromium would form naturally are so unlikely, we must have been
> created by some higher intelligence!" As it turns out, when you
> consider your very low but extremely ignorant statistic given the
> number of planets in the universe, and the potentially huge number of
> possible ways life could form (a number we can't even begin to
> fathom), it turns into 99.9999999999%. Unfortunately, the general
> populous doesn't understand statistics even in the slightest, and so
> they think "Wow, given the extremely low odds that a protozoan would
> appear by random chance, we must have been created by a higher power!"
> Idiots.
> 
> - Gregor Richards
> 


Count me an idiot then, Mr. Gregor. ;)

Those that claim any level of certainty of "natural" abiogenesis are subject 
to a conflict of their own making: is it better to suppose something came 
from nothing, in which no abstract physical law existed to make sure such 
processes could survive before hand; where means, motive, or reason for causation 
apparently spontaneously self-generated from a mass of nothing?  Or is it 
more ludicrous to believe in a spritiual sphere of existance outside of time 
that is not subject to the physical law, a God that created all things for 
his Own purpose.  

Interestingly, the bizarre and unnatural is often pursued relentlessly even 
to those that aspire to "realism" and reject the existance of a God:  a look 
at modern physics theorists and science fiction to see the yearning they 
have for an existance that, while relentlessly circumventing the spiritual 
(accusing it of not being observable), still doggedly pursue ideas and existances 
that amount to the same.  

Nothing seems to ever be adequately explained in a world that denies an absolute 
Creator, nor is there any basis for social, ethical, or ideological constraints, 
nor is there any meaning to existance, no motivation to hope in a future, 
no meaning or reality to respect life, no subjection to conscience, rules 
or authority, no existance of right or wrong beyond a rapidly changing social 
definition of morality; such an existance is one without laws and rules, 
self-perpetuated by survival of the fittest; no room for mercy, care, or 
gentleness in the ever "evolving" pursuit to the be the most evolved.  The 
existance of a  person who perceives himself only subject to what is "real" 
is forever without hope describing what is real or what real means, or if 
what he observes through science is really "real".  Instead, he is finally 
dominated only by a will to self-indulge and self-satisfy -- an entirely 
empty existance for anyone who has pursued that mode for any amount of time 
(most of us know what that feels like).

Evolutionary "Scientists" have long used the claim of general ignorance to 
justify their own conjectures on reality -- the masses apparently can never 
understand these higher matters, and thus we must be wrong because of knowledge 
is too hard to understand... such arrogance!  The true scientist, I think, 
is much more humble.  Their own general ignorance of what can or can't be 
possible renders them no closer to having a solid understanding of metaphysics 
than anyone else.  Science is not and never was designed for philosophical 
considerations -- that exists in parallel in the biases of the scientist's 
personal worldview.  Nor does science lend itself to making conclusions on 
the universes beginnings or development.

Evolution (abiogenesis) is not science... but merely a faith based movement, 
a philosophy, a worldview that attempts to manipulate/interpret observations 
to understand what is considered reality.  It is just as much a worldview 
as any system that believes in a God that created this world.  I would submit 
that evolution is a more "supernaturual" ideology in its incredible something-from-nothingness 
than any idea of a Creator and a Creation.

If that makes me ignorant, so be it.  :)

My apologies if this comes across as strong statement, but hey you guys seems 
to like discussing this stuff. ;)

-JJR