ID as a Cultural Phenomenon (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 04, 2009, 04:17 (5528 days ago) @ xeno6696

dhw,
I need to expand:
 
> Saying that a direct line of contingencies necessitates astronomical odds in terms of the going from matter to us is "can't-stagger-any-further" is betraying lack of knowledge of an important detail or two.
> You've mentioned here that the odds of that arch appearing are better than that of us appearing. By what knowledge can you make that claim?-My question is for a purpose here. By invoking the odds "of all things appearing by chance," this amounts to having knowledge about the origins; something which we lack. Turell thinks that because certain enzymes need to be, certain processes cannot exist. While this is a valid observation, it isn't knowledge. It isn't something that he can know: As I've tried to point out, it could well be that whatever was the start of life, may not have even looked like RNA or DNA. The thing that frustrates me when you or David try to apply statistics, is that those statistics are based on a lack of knowledge. With only 8 of 20 amino acids present at the start of our planet, of course the odds of life forming are bad. However, our lens is cloudy when looking that far back. I said before that statistics are only meaningful when we know *everything* about the system were studying; that we know all its variables. We don't. And since we don't, claims such as "the odds of life happening by chance are .00000015," are meaningless. The odds at present are as random and unknowable as a cosmic game of pinata.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"