/sci/ - Science & Math

RNA world is not provable and doesn't explain the origin of information anyway. Your average brainlet /sci/pseud thinks lightning striking a fucking crystal started it all. But as you will find, the more you study this subject without bias, the more you can't deny that it was started intentionally.

>>11513861
kicking the can down the road is an excuse not an answer.

>>11513864
This is a typical know-nothing response. Go do some research and then we'll talk. If you were to stumble across an arrowhead in the forest, you would assume that it came from a human designer. Just because the explanation for something might in itself have a further explanation, doesn't mean the initial explanation isn't true. When all signs point to x as an explanation, you have to conclude that x is more likely true than false, regardless of whether or not you think it's "kicking the can down the road".

>>11513914
How did your proposed intelligent agent come into existence?

>>11513936
this argument doesn't work, as we already know that the universe had a beginning and thus in not infinite.
The logic applied to this universe having a beginning does not apply to the concept of another universe or being not having a beginning. That is, there is nothing about logic or reality that says "because this universe has a beginning, everything must". That does not follow.

>>11513953
You dodged the question. I will assume you have none, so you have no argument.

>>11513968
You need some training in reasoning. Even if he has no answer for the origin of the explanation, that does not mean the explanation is false. Like I said earlier:

>If you were to stumble across an arrowhead in the forest, you would assume that it came from a human designer. Just because the explanation for something might in itself have a further explanation, doesn't mean the initial explanation isn't true. When all signs point to x as an explanation, you have to conclude that x is more likely true than false

... even if you can't explain the explanation. You might have no clue which tribe that arrowhead belonged to, or if it was even ancient, rather than a modern replica made to look old.

>>11513968
I didn't dodge anything.
Saying "where did this intelligent agent come into existence" is not a valid question as there is no reason to postulate that it must have a beginning in the first place. You have no counter argument to this.
There are an infinite amount of mathematical structures that have a beginning but no end. There is literally no reason to think reality isn't formed in this way, where "god" is the beginning that has nothing before it but wherein everything else that comes after is infinite. Denying this is peak midwit.

>>11513953
textbook kicking the can down the road.
There's no signs pointing to design, only baseless assumptions.

>>11513980
All correct.
>>11513981
Sorry, you're either emotionally invested in a reductionist materialism, or you simply do not know the material very well.

>>11513861
When first posts like these follow ones desultory as OP's is, I begin to suspect that the same designer is behind both.

>>11513981
I don't know if there is design and I don't actually believe it. My only point is that we know that this universe has a beginning (the big bang) and so attempting to apply that logic to the concept of an eternal universe or entity doesn't hold.

My crackpot hypothesis is that entropy itself is a force in the universe and is capable of causing contrived events to occur in the name of increasing entropy. Since that's what life is: a complex form that spreads and increases entropy quickly where it would have increased slowly otherwise. The higher the entropy of a potential future, the more fate will bend reality in that direction.

This is easily testable though, but I don't have the materials for it. To test this, you simply:
1. Take something that can generate a true random "coinflip" with quantum effects.
2. Rig a device to burn some high energy density fuel every time the coinflip lands on a particular side.
3. See if the coin flip lands on said side a lot more often than the other side.

>>11514004
that's the thing about just making shit up isn't it? no logic based in reality holds.

>>11514038
Thats ridiculous but so easily testable you might as well run the test. Do it and show your work

>>11513861
>RNA world is not provable
Says the guy who thinks godidit.

>doesn't explain the origin of information anyway.
There is information in randomly formed polypeptides. Nice LARP, retard.

>>11514098
I'm not a scientist. I don't know how to set up a test for something like this.

>>11513861
>the origin of information anyway
wat is dis nigga talking about? that's not in the scope of the problem. the information existed already due to the universe not being uniform at that time

>>11513914
>If you were to stumble across an arrowhead in the forest, you would assume that it came from a human designer.
Because you already know arrowheads are designed. Nice false analogy that has been debunked for hundreds of years. Why are creationists incapable of making an original argument?

>>11514123
Here's a retarded creationist parroting stale talking points he doesn't even understand, while pretending to have "done the research." Basically cringe incarnate.

This thread derailed quite a bit. It's just that i have been interested in the work they have been doing at mcmaster but have just wondered why no papers have been published yet in regards to experiments with the planet simulator.