Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

athiests and evolution

gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 3:04:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1) does anyone really believe in evolution? I'm talking like primordeal soup, or crystal mutations, or some other crap. . . . . If so, please explain how its possible for life to come from dead. . .. . after all we don't believe in fairy tales. .. . . and scientists have never been able to TRULY create life in a test tube. . . . and if we with all our technology cant do it, then how could randomness do it?? . . .. .it doesn't make sense

2) also. . . I was wondering if you could provide an example or two where genetic mutations improved a creature. . . .and not just simple bacteria (which isn't simple at all) or other single celled organisms. . .. .I'm talking a naturally occurring genetic mutation that has helped a specific organism. . . .

3) third, a study by evolutionary scientists (some of your very own) found that the likeliness of all these evolutionary steps occurring correctly to yield our current state of man iiiiiiiiiisssssss wait a second!!! drumroll . .. . . . zero! . .. . . due to these impossible odds, how can YOU rationalize this irrational belief. . .. just wondering

4) finally. . . .. by believing in evolution you believe that there is a finite ammount of matter in the universe (regardless of how great). . .. . then how can you dismiss the theory of infinited complexity?. . . . .how can an infinite ammount of things come from anything that is finite? I don't understand it so please enlighten me.. . ..

5) and one other thing, please explain how evolution isn't in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics. . .. . I thought that the the 2nd law of Thermo. stated that over time a given system tends to move towards disorder .. . . not order and close-to-perfect balance. . . .

please answer the answers you have to the questions, and if you find yourself at a loss for any of them feel free to just say that an almighty God creating the universe is much simpler and a better explanation . .. . . .. =]
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 3:23:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 3:04:16 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
1) does anyone really believe in evolution? I'm talking like primordeal soup, or crystal mutations, or some other crap. . . . . If so, please explain how its possible for life to come from dead. . .. . after all we don't believe in fairy tales. .. . . and scientists have never been able to TRULY create life in a test tube. . . . and if we with all our technology cant do it, then how could randomness do it?? . . .. .it doesn't make sense

That's abiogenesis; not evolution.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 5:35:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 3:04:16 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
then how could randomness do it?? . . .. .

Randomness + infinity = All possibilities fulfilled

Randomness + A really really long time = life from inanimate thing quite possible
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 6:24:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What does this thread have to do with atheists?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 6:27:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 3:04:16 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
1) does anyone really believe in evolution? I'm talking like primordeal soup, or crystal mutations, or some other crap

Yes, most intelligent people.

. . . . . If so, please explain how its possible for life to come from dead. . .. . after all we don't believe in fairy tales. .. . . and scientists have never been able to TRULY create life in a test tube. . . . and if we with all our technology cant do it, then how could randomness do it?? . . .. .it doesn't make sense

We can. See the Miller-Urey experiment;
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) also. . . I was wondering if you could provide an example or two where genetic mutations improved a creature. . . .and not just simple bacteria (which isn't simple at all) or other single celled organisms. . .. .I'm talking a naturally occurring genetic mutation that has helped a specific organism. . . .

There's natural mutation, e.g. the peppered moth;
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Then there's induced mutation, e.g. the chickpea
http://journal-phytology.com...


3) third, a study by evolutionary scientists (some of your very own) found that the likeliness of all these evolutionary steps occurring correctly to yield our current state of man iiiiiiiiiisssssss wait a second!!! drumroll . .. . . . zero! . .. . . due to these impossible odds, how can YOU rationalize this irrational belief. . .. just wondering

First; prove it. Let's see the study.

Secondly, your logic is completely moronic. First, you're arguing that genetic mutation is random (it is not, as I'll explain in a second.) Assuming it is random and you say that the likelihood of us being made by means of genetic mutation is 0, that's incorrect. The actual likelihood would be an infanticide amount (let's say, one in ten trillion.) BUT so would every other permutation. There would be a one in trillion chance that we'd have tusks, or that we'd be green. You see, saying that our current form is unlikely doesn't disprove evolution, it merely means that out of all the possible things that could have happened, this is it.

But we know that genetic mutation isn't random. Our genes are passed on selectively and they mutate based on environmental conditions. This means that every time the evolutionary process favours one gene over another, it takes down those odds by one. So rather than the chances of us having been produced as we are being one in a trillion, it is a much much bigger probability (but there is definitely some chance involved.)

4) finally. . . .. by believing in evolution you believe that there is a finite ammount of matter in the universe (regardless of how great). . .. . then how can you dismiss the theory of infinited complexity?. . . . .how can an infinite ammount of things come from anything that is finite? I don't understand it so please enlighten me.. . ..

What? How does my belief in evolution entail a belief in finite amount of material (what are you even getting at?) I know, because science has told me, that the universe is comprised of nothing but matter. I have no comprehension of what lies outside the universe, and neither do you.


5) and one other thing, please explain how evolution isn't in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics. . .. . I thought that the the 2nd law of Thermo. stated that over time a given system tends to move towards disorder .. . . not order and close-to-perfect balance. . . .

The second law states:

"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."

Now, how does this contradict with evolution? Maybe you're talking about this re-phrasing of the law;

"The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."

Well if you're going to try and apply this to evolution, you need to know that life is an open system, whereas anywhere that the second law of thermodynamics applies must be a closed one. Let's continue as though you have a clue, though.

You can't really believe that the world is in order. Every creature is unique and different, and evolution does not profess to order the entire system into perfect mathematical order.

One of the best explanation of entropy is putting salt and pepper into a bag and shaking it. The result is irreversible and causes disorder. However, we can predict the outcome, more or less. If we were to enter it into an intensely complex (and I suppose, mundane) computer, we could predict where each grain of salt or pepper will go. Now, would you not argue that this is a type of order?

please answer the answers you have to the questions, and if you find yourself at a loss for any of them feel free to just say that an almighty God creating the universe is much simpler and a better explanation . .. . . .. =]

Nope, no god here.

Also, accepting the simpler explanation is the practice of weak and lazy minds.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 6:31:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I hope I'm not being too offensive, but I'm just going to be blunt for once. Other people on this forum are very well qualified in explaining the intricacies, but the main point is really this:

ATTN: To anyone that says Evolution doesn't make sense.

There's a difference between something not making sense, and being too ignorant to understand it.

That's it. It's that simple. If you've cranked what you know about Evolution through your head, and you think it doesn't make sense, your head is either messed up, or lacking in raw materials. In other words, you lack the intellectual ability to understand it. The problem isn't with Evolution, Evolutionists, or atheists. It's with your own shortcomings.

Nothing else really needs to be said.

Sorry if that was offensive to anyone, everyone else's contributions are as always, educational and informative.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 6:51:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 6:31:52 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I hope I'm not being too offensive, but I'm just going to be blunt for once. Other people on this forum are very well qualified in explaining the intricacies, but the main point is really this:

ATTN: To anyone that says Evolution doesn't make sense.

There's a difference between something not making sense, and being too ignorant to understand it.

That's it. It's that simple. If you've cranked what you know about Evolution through your head, and you think it doesn't make sense, your head is either messed up, or lacking in raw materials. In other words, you lack the intellectual ability to understand it. The problem isn't with Evolution, Evolutionists, or atheists. It's with your own shortcomings.

Nothing else really needs to be said.

Sorry if that was offensive to anyone, everyone else's contributions are as always, educational and informative.

The truth should never be offensive. I'm coming more around to Sam Harris' idea of conversational intolerance, that is, that theists who are talking stupid-talk shouldn't be protected by this maddening 'intolerance' card.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 6:57:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 6:31:52 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I hope I'm not being too offensive, but I'm just going to be blunt for once. Other people on this forum are very well qualified in explaining the intricacies, but the main point is really this:

ATTN: To anyone that says Evolution doesn't make sense.

There's a difference between something not making sense, and being too ignorant to understand it.

That's it. It's that simple. If you've cranked what you know about Evolution through your head, and you think it doesn't make sense, your head is either messed up, or lacking in raw materials. In other words, you lack the intellectual ability to understand it. The problem isn't with Evolution, Evolutionists, or atheists. It's with your own shortcomings.

Nothing else really needs to be said.

Sorry if that was offensive to anyone, everyone else's contributions are as always, educational and informative.

Never said better, Kleptin.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2010 11:53:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 3:04:16 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
1) does anyone really believe in evolution?

Yes.

I'm talking like primordeal soup, or crystal mutations, or some other crap. . . . . If so, please explain how its possible for life to come from dead.

No, explaining how life comes from death is in no way required.

. .. . after all we don't believe in fairy tales. .. . . and scientists have never been able to TRULY create life in a test tube.

Scientists have never been able to create sweden in a test tube, despite this I am reliable informed it exists.

. . . and if we with all our technology cant do it, then how could randomness do it?? . . .. .it doesn't make sense

Yes because comparing 15 billion years of events on a countless number of worlds to a bloke in a laboratory is fair isn't it?


2) also. . . I was wondering if you could provide an example or two where genetic mutations improved a creature. . . .and not just simple bacteria (which isn't simple at all) or other single celled organisms. . .. .I'm talking a naturally occurring genetic mutation that has helped a specific organism. . . .

There are countless examples.


3) third, a study by evolutionary scientists (some of your very own) found that the likeliness of all these evolutionary steps occurring correctly to yield our current state of man iiiiiiiiiisssssss wait a second!!! drumroll . .. . . . zero! . .. . . due to these impossible odds, how can YOU rationalize this irrational belief. . .. just wondering


1: Do you have a link.
2: If an evolutionary scientist determines that evolution is impossible how do they retain their position?
3: This is not a valid point unless you can demonstrate the maths involved.


4) finally. . . .. by believing in evolution you believe that there is a finite ammount of matter in the universe (regardless of how great)

Non-sequiter, I might very well believe that the universe is infinite, or that new matter is constantly being created. This would be an entirely seperate issue.

. . .. . then how can you dismiss the theory of infinited complexity?. . . . .how can an infinite ammount of things come from anything that is finite? I don't understand it so please enlighten me.. . ..


Your question makes no sense.


5) and one other thing, please explain how evolution isn't in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics. . .. . I thought that the the 2nd law of Thermo. stated that over time a given system tends to move towards disorder .. . . not order and close-to-perfect balance. . . .

Maybe the second law of thermodyamics is bs.


please answer the answers you have to the questions, and if you find yourself at a loss for any of them feel free to just say that an almighty God creating the universe is much simpler and a better explanation . .. . . .. =]

It is far, far more complicated actually, but a lot more rewarding.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 4:05:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 3:04:16 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
1) does anyone really believe in evolution? I'm talking like primordeal soup, or crystal mutations, or some other crap. . . . . If so, please explain how its possible for life to come from dead. . .. . after all we don't believe in fairy tales. .. . . and scientists have never been able to TRULY create life in a test tube. . . . and if we with all our technology cant do it, then how could randomness do it?? . . .. .it doesn't make sense

2) also. . . I was wondering if you could provide an example or two where genetic mutations improved a creature. . . .and not just simple bacteria (which isn't simple at all) or other single celled organisms. . .. .I'm talking a naturally occurring genetic mutation that has helped a specific organism. . . .

3) third, a study by evolutionary scientists (some of your very own) found that the likeliness of all these evolutionary steps occurring correctly to yield our current state of man iiiiiiiiiisssssss wait a second!!! drumroll . .. . . . zero! . .. . . due to these impossible odds, how can YOU rationalize this irrational belief. . .. just wondering


4) finally. . . .. by believing in evolution you believe that there is a finite ammount of matter in the universe (regardless of how great). . .. . then how can you dismiss the theory of infinited complexity?. . . . .how can an infinite ammount of things come from anything that is finite? I don't understand it so please enlighten me.. . ..


5) and one other thing, please explain how evolution isn't in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics. . .. . I thought that the the 2nd law of Thermo. stated that over time a given system tends to move towards disorder .. . . not order and close-to-perfect balance. . . .


please answer the answers you have to the questions, and if you find yourself at a loss for any of them feel free to just say that an almighty God creating the universe is much simpler and a better explanation . .. . . .. =]

Up to the end of the corridor, turn left, take your second right and it's the first door on your right; science forum.. Toodle pip!
The Cross.. the Cross.
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 6:52:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
well, i knew before i posted this topic that I was ignorant (regarding abiogenesis or evolution. . . whichever), but thanks anyways for reiterating . . . .. I understand that my questions may seem "below" your new found places of enlightenment and glory. . . . I didn't realize that trying to understand something was such a high crime . . .. .

besides that, thanks for clearing up some of my questions, those of you who actually attempted at answering the questions at least . . .. .

@ kleptin . . ..

sometimes being blunt is whats best, and I HAVE "cranked it through my head" and I know that it does make sense, sorta, however making sense and being at all probable are two different things entirely, and there is no way that you can convince me that trillions of years of chance can "explain" the world I'm seeing through my window right now. . . . . either way, thanks for the comment. . . .
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:04:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/17/2010 4:08:59 PM, Puck wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org...



heeey. . . . good video, I got some questions regarding it, and his first "four beliefs" of christians is BS, i have never met a Christian who believes in spont. gen., but it is still a strong argument, thanks for clearing up my confusion regarding evolution/abiogenesis
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:22:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 6:52:16 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
@ kleptin . . ..

sometimes being blunt is whats best, and I HAVE "cranked it through my head" and I know that it does make sense, sorta, however making sense and being at all probable are two different things entirely, and there is no way that you can convince me that trillions of years of chance can "explain" the world I'm seeing through my window right now. . . . . either way, thanks for the comment. . . .

That's the part of your head that's damaged. You should dedicate some time into asking yourself why it is that you're talking about chance and probability, when chance and probability actually have nothing to do with evolution.

The world that you are seeing through your window isn't the world that is. Isn't it painfully obvious that if you look at the world through the eyes of someone who isn't a scientist, you would never be able to come up with legitimate scientific conclusions?

Accepting that you are wrong = hard.

Accepting that the entire thinking style that led you to your wrong conclusion is wrong = even harder.

When you finally accept the latter fact, you'll be able to realize why your questions are absurd and make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:33:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 6:52:16 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
well, i knew before i posted this topic that I was ignorant (regarding abiogenesis or evolution. . . whichever), but thanks anyways for reiterating . . . .. I understand that my questions may seem "below" your new found places of enlightenment and glory. . . . I didn't realize that trying to understand something was such a high crime . . .. .

Your questions are below because you did not pose them as a means of general understanding, rather, you posted them as a contemptuous challenge to those of us who understand science. You expected us to be stumped so that you could call us ignorant, but failing that, you played the victim card. Grow up and come back with an open mind, rather than skulking around, trying to find an ignorant believer in evolution that you can stump so that you may reaffirm your ignorant belief and feel vindicated.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 7:40:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 7:22:23 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 6:52:16 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
@ kleptin . . ..

sometimes being blunt is whats best, and I HAVE "cranked it through my head" and I know that it does make sense, sorta, however making sense and being at all probable are two different things entirely, and there is no way that you can convince me that trillions of years of chance can "explain" the world I'm seeing through my window right now. . . . . either way, thanks for the comment. . . .

That's the part of your head that's damaged. You should dedicate some time into asking yourself why it is that you're talking about chance and probability, when chance and probability actually have nothing to do with evolution.

I guess my heads broke too then, as I always thought that it did.

I guess you'd say it was destiny??

I think that it just so happens that the chances, given so much time, are quite likely.

Especially when you think: What was the big bang? Was it a regularly occuring phenomenon with some cause? For if it was, then the time frame in which evolution might occur really becomes infinite, and just because the particular chances of things going certain ways is rather small, there is no reason to say it can't explain reality, as infinite time mandates all possibilities.
Plus finite time in no way rules out the smallest of possibilities occuring.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:00:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Being the resident scientists and biology expert, i suppose i shall answer.

At 1/17/2010 3:04:16 PM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
1) does anyone really believe in evolution?
Yes

I'm talking like primordeal soup, or crystal mutations, or some other crap. . . . .

That has nothing to do with Evolution. The theory of evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life, not the start of life.

If so, please explain how its possible for life to come from dead. . .. . after all we don't believe in fairy tales. .. . . and scientists have never been able to TRULY create life in a test tube. . . . and if we with all our technology cant do it, then how could randomness do it?? . . .. .it doesn't make sense

Okay, thats too much.

First, for something to be dead, it must have first been alive. You were not dead before you were born.

Secondly, if we with all our technology cannot create a black hole, then how could randomness of the universe do it?? The answer is one and the same.

Thirdly, it makes perfect sense. There is much that we cannot do with our technology. Do you think that humans were capable of creating stars, planets, black holes, etc? Of course not. Does this mean that these things do not exist naturally and occur naturally? Of course not.

2) also. . . I was wondering if you could provide an example or two where genetic mutations improved a creature. . . .and not just simple bacteria (which isn't simple at all) or other single celled organisms. . .. .I'm talking a naturally occurring genetic mutation that has helped a specific organism. . . .

Atleast you got something right. Yes, Bacteria are not simple at all.

But then, you make a mistake. I could not possibly understand how a mutation that occurs within a bacteria is not "Natural", nor why a bacteria, or rather, a specific bacterial species, is not a "specific organism".

The CCR5 delta-32 mutation is a mutation in humans which seem to increase resistance against harmful diseases such as AIDS. Yup, that AIDS.

3) third, a study by evolutionary scientists (some of your very own) found that the likeliness of all these evolutionary steps occurring correctly to yield our current state of man iiiiiiiiiisssssss wait a second!!! drumroll . .. . . . zero! . .. . . due to these impossible odds, how can YOU rationalize this irrational belief. . .. just wondering

I have no idea why an evolutionary scientist, which by its very definition must be apart of biology, would be doing studying mathematics. Not even Bioinformatics has to do with this. However, i shall answer.

First of all, this argument is fallacious from the start. You, and this scientist, are looking at the current outcome of evolution as a goal. If you handed out a 5 card hand from a deck of 52, the chances of getting a royal straight flush is one in 6 billion or something close to that. Yet, the odds are the SAME for ANY 5 card hand.

What does this mean? Well, by your logic, any 5 card hand is as impossible as getting a royal straight flush for every hand in every game of poker you have ever played. However, if you understand that all hands have the same odds of coming out, and that looking at any hand as a goal provides this absurdity of improbability, you start to understand that your argument is BS.

4) finally. . . .. by believing in evolution you believe that there is a finite ammount of matter in the universe (regardless of how great). . .. . then how can you dismiss the theory of infinited complexity?. . . . .how can an infinite ammount of things come from anything that is finite? I don't understand it so please enlighten me.. . ..

What does evolution have to do with matter in the universe?

However, being nice, i shall address it.

There isnt an infinite amount of "Things" in the universe. I have never heard of this "Theory of infinited complexity", nor am i exactly convinced that you have gotten the spelling correct.

5) and one other thing, please explain how evolution isn't in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics. . .. . I thought that the the 2nd law of Thermo. stated that over time a given system tends to move towards disorder .. . . not order and close-to-perfect balance. . . .

I thought point 4 was your final point?

In any case, the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with disorder. Entropy can increase while order increases as well, and vice versa. You are mincing words which shouldnt be minced.

please answer the answers you have to the questions, and if you find yourself at a loss for any of them feel free to just say that an almighty God creating the universe is much simpler and a better explanation . .. . . .. =]

Oh, i agree that God creating the universe is a much simpler explanation. But better? Do you think it was better to have the explanation that God threw lightning bolts down to the ground? It sure as hell was simpler. Do you think it was better to have the explanation that God made the sun rotate around the earth? it sure as hell was simpler. Or that God made obejcts fall to the ground? it sure as hell was simpler.

None of these explanations are better, but they are all clearly simpler. Your argument fails because of this.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:08:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 6:52:16 AM, gr33k_fr33k5 wrote:
sometimes being blunt is whats best, and I HAVE "cranked it through my head" and I know that it does make sense, sorta, however making sense and being at all probable are two different things entirely, and there is no way that you can convince me that trillions of years of chance can "explain" the world I'm seeing through my window right now. . . . . either way, thanks for the comment. . . .

I bet that if you took someone who lived 3000 years ago, and brought him to your window so that he could look out of it, he would also be unable make sense as to how 3000 years couldve possibly explained the world outside your window.

The problem here, is that you are unable or unwilling to remove your biblical glasses and see the world from a secular point of view. If you want, id be happy to go through with any evidence or problems that you see with Evolution, although i wont be able to do much for the Big Bang theory and the likes, as i am not a physicist. However, once we do, you will notice that every objection that seemingly made sense, utterly failed, and in the end, you have to make a choice as to whether you want to hold your beliefs despite a complete lack of evidence and arguments, or disregard your beliefs in favor of truth and reality.

And although i see nothing wrong with the probability aspect, as i have stated before with the cards, keep in mind, that just becuase you cannot think of a way that this couldve come through via "chance"(and i use the word chance in the loosest possible meaning) doesnt mean it could not occur.

Just like how just because a man 3000 years ago could not think of a way to fly, doesnt mean that it flight for humans is infact impossible.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:10:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:00:38 AM, tkubok wrote:

Oh, i agree that God creating the universe is a much simpler explanation. But better? Do you think it was better to have the explanation that God threw lightning bolts down to the ground? It sure as hell was simpler. Do you think it was better to have the explanation that God made the sun rotate around the earth? it sure as hell was simpler. Or that God made obejcts fall to the ground? it sure as hell was simpler.

None of these explanations are better, but they are all clearly simpler. Your argument fails because of this.

God is not a 'simpler' answer for why there's existence generally though, as there is no reason for this God's existence.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:11:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 7:40:23 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Especially when you think: What was the big bang? Was it a regularly occuring phenomenon with some cause? For if it was, then the time frame in which evolution might occur really becomes infinite, and just because the particular chances of things going certain ways is rather small, there is no reason to say it can't explain reality, as infinite time mandates all possibilities.
Plus finite time in no way rules out the smallest of possibilities occuring.

The problem is that none of this is relevant. When the theist presents arguments by probability, retorting with the "infinite timeline" response does nothing but egg on the notion that probability and chance are taken into account.

The main concept is that in dealing with probability, you have preferred outcomes over possible outcomes. The theist represents the numerator as this particular setup of the universe, and represents the denominator as infinity. The basic logic behind this is completely fallacious.

If this were the case, you could point at a snowflake and say that it is impossible. The response that improbable things happen in an infinite timeline is a compromise that the theistic position is not worthy of. A better response is to point out the flaw in the logic behind the theistic position to begin with.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:12:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 7:40:23 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

I guess my heads broke too then, as I always thought that it did.

I guess you'd say it was destiny??


I think that it just so happens that the chances, given so much time, are quite likely.

Especially when you think: What was the big bang? Was it a regularly occuring phenomenon with some cause? For if it was, then the time frame in which evolution might occur really becomes infinite, and just because the particular chances of things going certain ways is rather small, there is no reason to say it can't explain reality, as infinite time mandates all possibilities.
Plus finite time in no way rules out the smallest of possibilities occuring.

By "Chance", i think hes talking about evolution. The Big bang and the phenomenon that caused it may have been just happenstance, and i dont quite understand the "Evolution might occur really becomes infinite" argument, as i have no idea what infinity has to do with evolution, but as far as evolution is concerned, it is far more than simple "chance".
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:15:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:11:55 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 7:40:23 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Plus finite time in no way rules out the smallest of possibilities occuring.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:17:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:11:55 AM, Kleptin wrote:
A better response is to point out the flaw in the logic behind the theistic position to begin with.

Yeah, but I was also trying to actually respond to the whole probability thing, not ignore it.

Some probability of something occuring really just means an eventuality given enough time.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:18:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:12:28 AM, tkubok wrote:
but as far as evolution is concerned, it is far more than simple "chance".

It is chance built upon chance occurences that stuck around/reproduced.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:19:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:17:09 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/18/2010 8:11:55 AM, Kleptin wrote:
A better response is to point out the flaw in the logic behind the theistic position to begin with.

Yeah, but I was also trying to actually respond to the whole probability thing, not ignore it.

Some probability of something occuring really just means an eventuality given enough time.

Yes, I am aware of this, but I do not condone that response. Suppose a lawyer asks your client the following question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife"?

Would you advise him to answer "I have never beat my wife", or would you object on the notion that it is a loaded question and that the fault lies with the interrogating lawyer?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2010 8:22:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/18/2010 8:19:51 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 1/18/2010 8:17:09 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/18/2010 8:11:55 AM, Kleptin wrote:
A better response is to point out the flaw in the logic behind the theistic position to begin with.

Yeah, but I was also trying to actually respond to the whole probability thing, not ignore it.

Some probability of something occuring really just means an eventuality given enough time.

Yes, I am aware of this, but I do not condone that response. Suppose a lawyer asks your client the following question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife"?

Would you advise him to answer "I have never beat my wife", or would you object on the notion that it is a loaded question and that the fault lies with the interrogating lawyer?

lol, I don't know that the example is a perfect corollary to the situation, but point taken.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."