AzurePhoenix

Hoyle's probability for the random formation of life is a long-debunked speculation that ignores reality and is widely referred to, specifically, as Hoyle's Fallacy. Yet you are basing this entire thread on this spectacularly erroneous, fallacious speculation. This thread was done from the opening post. All you've done is cherry-picked a few facts, if that much, and warped them with poor, biased reasoning, logical fallacies, and outright make-believe.

Bah, they knew they might be in the control group, and everyone was advised and instructed on how to avoid HIV-risky behavior. They knew what they were getting into and made their choices.

So where is the information coming from when a complex crystal forms from a solution? Or, say, a snowflake?

What thermodynamics requires for order to increase is simply an outside source of energy. We have one of those. Ok I get it, the point of this thread is to examine the likelihood of life occurring spontaneously as if natural chemical processes as they actually and conclusively occur weren't in play. Got it. So we're discussing a hypothetical alternate universe with different laws of physics. I understand. Erm... why?

Ah, from my perspective that sort is exactly what we need more of. I'm irked by all the people with sugary-sweet or declaratively proud or self-righteously pious people that go around expressing their seriousness via stickers on car bumpers or windows. It seems to me like a medium specifically intended for nothing more than snarky mockery or clever quips rather than a serious way to lecture people. Some people prefer an unbound sense of humor, others prefer stuffiness and manners, some prefer the middle-ground. Whatever, it's totally subjective. I personally think we're too obsessed with not offending people as it is.

Do you know what evolution is? o.O

ah yes my personal favorite is "my juvenile delinquent is banging your honor student," a rare one that i think comes from American Gods...

it really varies widely community to community, in Phoenix you see tons of "CCV" decals (christ's church of the valley,) a prominent megachurch, plenty of jesus fish, fairly standard right vs left wing bumper stickers, and then various random cartoons are quotes or jokes that more just represent the drivers attitude to drivers or traffic or whatever, plus the various "i give blood," "help a child," "my student gets honors" crap. Ive only seen a handful of the epitaph ones though. North in Flagstaff it's a different story, sure you get the political ones (in different ratios though,) and the personal expression ones of course, but we have a ton more hippy-dippy "tolerance" and "diversity" and neo-pagan or new age symbols, and comparatively few jesus fish. In either town I haven't seen more than two or three darwin fish, and unfortunately never seen an FSM in use.

Soooo, muffins are still ok?

Erroneous. There's no reason to suggest that science can't answer it. What's that based on? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Labeling something religious or spiritual or supernatural does NOT render it impervious to reasoning or empirical examination like some sort've magic cloak. Not to mention, your label of god is meaningless. What specifically did it create? how? what's it's nature? Is is deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, is it an anthropomorphic conscious entity like yahweh or is it like the transcendent source of all being like Brahman? Or maybe just advanced but perfectly organic, worldly aliens from before earth-life like in Raelism? Just saying god without context is a shrug of ignorance. by what means would you disprove it then? what's this alternative methodology of yours? If you could really prove or disprove anything, it'd be happily regarded.

Which? And based on?(Maybe I'm coming off as priggish, but this is a science forum. The evaluatory mocking of baseless assertions and logical fallacies is pretty much mandatory.)

Wow! Pretty pictures AND a song... I mean... just... wow... you're right... I can't believe I've wasted all these years bothering to THINK about anything, when all I really had to do was let emotional imagery circumvent my intellect and lead me to the irrefutable reality of Our Lord and Father In Heaven God Almighty via feelings! I'm gonna start applying this to everything in life! Starting with healthy well-rounded meal of McDonald's McNuggets! They too have snappy imagery and catchy jingles that my sinful brain has been ignoring out've anti-emotivistic denialism! Thank you rigney, for opening my eyes to the light! I'm gonna burn all my Dawkins RIGHT NOW

We could just pump a bunch of nice sulfates into the sky

fine tuning is not a fact, it's an extrapolation based off of erroneous assumptions. you are being tricked by your own refusal to understand perfectly explainable, unguided material properties that have been proven to occur at multiple levels fine tuned systems are an illusion and an indicator of an individual's ignorance of basic principles false. please offer some evidence of what you suggest. they are better supported because they provide viable models, and require fewer assumptions. A creator has neither.

Rigney... The following video is of an Ohio lawman targeted for murder by a United States native. Is he a good cop, a bad cop, I have no idea and at this time, really don't give a damn. What I can see is; with the video cam rolling; a maniac is trying to kill this American cop. Give it a look and tell me; are local americans a problem, pretentious; or a good thing? Vicious Attempted Murder of Law Enforcement Officer

I'm morbidly a fan of the clathrate gun hypothesis... but that version really goes out on a sensationalist limb. Not that it couldn't still happen, but if it did, it'd probably be in the arctic ocean. Alot've semi-stable methane buried down there under a lot less rock and water, kept more in check by a permafrost cap than by immense pressures, and already spilling out in large amounts. What I truly fear is that the Taliban will catch wind of this and be inspired to begin raising vast legions of methaney cows in a final insidious bid to destroy us once and for all...

maybe I'm niggling, but "fine tuned FOR life" presumes the intent of making the universe for life... But the existence of one world that does harbor life on a tiny proportion of its overall mass, where even most environments on that world are hostile to non-native life, in a universe overwhelmingly hostile to life is sufficient to claim fine tuning? But it's not... you have to be delusionally optimistic to look out in space, or even on the surface of the earth, and think "wow, this place is made with life in mind". The odds are prohibitively against us as far as we can tell... vacuum, cold, heat, radiation, insufficient resources... Kind've different ideas... life is a bunch of replicants. who... replicate. Every blackhole on the otherhand has to start from scratch. Hundreds of billions of stars in a galaxy (trillions in some,) hundreds of billions galaxies, at least, many or most with a central supermassive blackhole. It's more intellectually honest to rate the comparison by regarding individual abiogenic events against individual blackholes. Which would put the ratio of blackholes to life in the countless billions to 1. You have not given any indicators of design. you quoted a few preliminary stats for things that aren't even yet understood so CAN'T be reduced to true odds, AND fail to take into account the basic inevitabilities of complex, dynamic physical / chemical / evolutionary principles. What you have said amounts to "I don't like the odds," based on figures that don't take into account how the universe works, then make a leap of faith and assume it must have been created by a hypothetical being while rejecting other hypothetical, more parsimonious alternatives on the basis that THEY don't have support, while even if what you you claimed was true, they'd be sufficient solutions to the odds-dilemma.

This is a portion of the aforementioned test

This has become pointless. What it's boiled down to, is that you are basing your claims / conclusions on alleged evidence that none of us have ever, indeed, no mainstream scientists have had the privilege to encounter. Now, if we could re-examine the whole concept with respect to this evidence, we may very well change our minds and begin agreeing with you whole-brainedly. So the answer is simple; share some of this evidence you keep talking about with us

My dad's a cop... and I don't see your point either. Saying "illegal aliens are bad for this reason" when "this reason" is just as likely to be committed by anyone else from any other demographic is nonsensical. Do a few muslim terrorists make all muslims dangerous? Does Ted Bundy being a serial killer make all psychology majors a threat? You have to back up your claim with stats that indicate some sort've significant inclination for whoever you're profiling to do whatever it is you're alleging, singular events are meaningless outside of the context of the specific event in question.

The entire concept of the fine tuned universe "goes beyond this point," in that it's based on unverifiable numbers based off of a particular view of the nature of the singularity vs the multiplicity of the universe. You are already exceeding the reach that you claim you stop at right from the get-go. Our uninteresting examinations of your allegations are playing at the exact same level of assumption. Once more, and I'm sure once more you'll ignore it, no objective scientist has ever observed any empirically testable indications that support your baseless, imaginary claims. It is not empirical. It is not rational. It is denial.