Richard Swinburne's Mad Scientist Argument

[SuperNatural]

The astrophysicist Fred Hoyle made the calculation that the probability that a small typical ensyme would form at random is comparable to the probability that a tornado whipping through a junkyard would stir up the scrap to form a Boeing 747.  Therefore, the probability that life on earth arose out of purely natural processes is very small.  Does this entitle us to conclude that God must have had a hand in the creation of life?


Suppose you are imprisoned by a mad scientist who locks you in a room with an automatic card-shuffling machine.  He tells you that unless the card-shuffling machine draws ten aces of hearts from ten different decks, the machine will explode and kill you.  To your amazement, the machine does indeed draw ten aces of hearts from the ten different decks and you continue to live another day.  Would you believe in this situation that your survival is due to pure luck, or would you conclude that the mad scientist must have manipulated the machine?

[Johnny Apollo]

1.Junk in an junk yard isn't alive and can't reproduce. Bad comparison.

2.The card machine compairson makes no sense. Life that doesn't make it dies and life that does make it does live. 1 card machine wouldn't work. You'd have to change it to a living organism and then make millions of them and add natural selection into the matter.

[Cavalier22]

at one ttime this Earth had no living things.  Then we did. How do you explain that?

[ToxicAvenger]

The astrophysicist Fred Hoyle made the calculation that the probability that a small typical ensyme would form at random is comparable to the probability that a tornado whipping through a junkyard would stir up the scrap to form a Boeing 747.  Therefore, the probability that life on earth arose out of purely natural processes is very small.  Does this entitle us to conclude that God must have had a hand in the creation of life?


Suppose you are imprisoned by a mad scientist who locks you in a room with an automatic card-shuffling machine.  He tells you that unless the card-shuffling machine draws ten aces of hearts from ten different decks, the machine will explode and kill you.  To your amazement, the machine does indeed draw ten aces of hearts from the ten different decks and you continue to live another day.  Would you believe in this situation that your survival is due to pure luck, or would you conclude that the mad scientist must have manipulated the machine?

tyhis brings up the idea of   absolute vs relative time...if ya locked me in that room and i had an infinite amount of time..sure i'd come across a come across the correct combination..as far as the machine exploding and killing me..goes..thats unfair..quantum uncertanity had billions of years...

[ToxicAvenger]

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/time.html





http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html

read..learn..before making dumbfuck threads...

my students acting like dumbfucks today..people making dumbfuck threads..arrrrgh

[Johnny Apollo]

at one ttime this Earth had no living things.  Then we did. How do you explain that?

Abiogenesis

[Cavalier22]

Its only a theory. It has never been replicated as far as I know.  Amino acids are a far cry from life.

[Johnny Apollo]

Its only a theory. It has never been replicated as far as I know.  Amino acids are a far cry from life.

Amino acids are to life as letters are to words.


No abiogenesis hasn't been completly replicated,However it happened as we see life on earth today!

[a_joker10]

I thought that you were a man of science and that you only believed things that were proven.

You are using supposition that abiogenesis works.

Since it is a theory and not proven, you should use a different argument.


In the end.
Abiogenesis might be the way life was created but it would still be God's will.

[Johnny Apollo]

I thought that you were a man of science and that you only believed things that were proven.

You are using supposition that abiogenesis works.

Since it is a theory and not proven, you should use a different argument.


In the end.
Abiogenesis might be the way life was created but it would still be God's will.

It's not a supposition when it had to of occured. We have life and we know abiogenesis is possible,So the conclusion is it happened.

In science theories are never proven. Period.


Abiogenesis was the way life formed,But did a "God" play a role in it? I don't think so.

You can't prove a God exists.

[a_joker10]

You can't prove God doesn't exist.

Biogenesis is not proven. But that does not mean it isn't possible.

Any theory proven, is a law.
The laws of thermodynamics for example. Energy is always conserved, period.

[Johnny Apollo]

You can't prove God doesn't exist.

I'm not claiming he doens't exist. I've been over this already.

The one making the CLAIM(you) has the burden of proof.

You claim he exists? The burden is on you then to prove he exists.

If you can't...Your claim is thrown out.

Biogenesis is not proven. But that does not mean it isn't possible.

Abiogenesis is proven. It happened. That's a fact.
We just don't know exactly HOW it happened.

Any theory proven, is a law.
The laws of thermodynamics for example. Energy is always conserved, period.

Scientific theories are never proven to be true. A law is seperate from a theory by definition. An example..

A "Law" would be the measurments of how objects react to gravity.

A "fact" would be that they react to gravity.

A "Theory" would be why they react to gravity.

A theory can't become a fact or a law. A theory can only be disproven.

The laws of thermodynamics are laws but how and why they occure are theories.

A theory doesn't mean a guess.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html

[a_joker10]

Scientific theories are never proven to be true. A law is separate from a theory by definition. An example..

I read the web site you took that from.


This is closer to what I learned in University.
Laws are from theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Actually I don't have to prove that God exists.
You have to disprove the theory. That is how science works.

[Johnny Apollo]

I read the web site you took that from.


This is closer to what I learned in University.
Laws are from theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Actually I don't have to prove that God exists.
You have to disprove the theory. That is how science works.

"God" isn't a scientific theory. It's a baseless hypothesis.

A scientific theory is supported by observations.

A scientific theory makes predictions

A scientific theory is supported by experiments.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable.


Now inorder for "God" to be a theory it must fit the criteria of a scientific theory.

What observations support a "God"?
What predictions does this theory make?
What experiments support it?
Is itfalsifiable? If so how.

[a_joker10]

What observations support a "God"?

God is love. Is there love in the world

What predictions does this theory make?

The theory is that you believe in God you go to heaven.

A scientific theory is supported by experiments.

Love eixist therefore God exists

A scientific theory must be falsifiable.

If God is Love why is there hate?

Regardless. You have your opinion and I thak you for it.

[Johnny Apollo]

God is love. Is there love in the world

Prove God is love.

The theory is that you believe in God you go to heaven.

How can this prediction be shown to be true to those who don't die?

It can't. It's never shown to be true thus can't be called science.

Love eixist therefore God exists

What experiments support the conclusion that because love exists God exists?

If God is Love why is there hate?

You've yet to prove "God=Love". Now how is that falsifiable? How would hate negate it? Assuming God=love? Hate existing doesn't mean love doesn't exist.

Not that any of it matters.

Regardless. You have your opinion and I thak you for it.

And mine is support by facts. Yours isn't.

[a_joker10]

And mine is support by facts. Yours isn't.

Not all in science is fact. Many times ther are competing theories.
Global warming. Which side are you on.

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?
There is little imperical evidence either way.

Do you think there could be more than one universe?

Do you believe in intelligent  life outside of the Galaxy?

[Johnny Apollo]

Not all in science is fact. Many times ther are competing theories.
Global warming. Which side are you on.

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?
There is little imperical evidence either way.

Do you think there could be more than one universe?

Do you believe in intelligent  life outside of the Galaxy?

Listen...I'm not going to waste my time playing Science Teacher for you. You obviously haven't studied science at all and I see no need to waste my time explaining basic scientific concepts to you.

It's just claim and question after another and I answer and respond and you don't respond to them, you just ask more questions or make more claims for me to refute. I don't have time for that.

[a_joker10]

Listen...I'm not going to waste my time playing Science Teacher for you. You obviously haven't studied science at all and I see no need to waste my time explaining basic scientific concepts to you.

It's just claim and question after another and I answer and respond and you don't respond to them, you just ask more questions or make more claims for me to refute. I don't have time for that.

These are questions with no real answer.
Many theories, but no answers.

Your not playing science teacher to me, I have my beliefs on these topics, based on the latest science. I am sure you do too.

I have stated many times science and Faith are separate.

You believe that they are not. So be it.
Thanks for the discussion. It made my Monday.

[FREAKgeek]

The astrophysicist Fred Hoyle made the calculation that the probability that a small typical ensyme would form at random is comparable to the probability that a tornado whipping through a junkyard would stir up the scrap to form a Boeing 747.  Therefore, the probability that life on earth arose out of purely natural processes is very small.  Does this entitle us to conclude that God must have had a hand in the creation of life?

I believe you mean the DNA molecule, not an enzyme.