Irony of the evolutionary belief

[gnostic]

In other words, can you prove that there is no God?

As I said, there are no evidence.


Need I remind you, that when you are dealing with science of nature - “nature” as in the natural & physical world, like everything in this universe, including the planet Earth - then Natural Sciences will require EVIDENCE are “observable”, “testable” & “verifiable” to determine if our understanding of the natural world (“understanding” as given in the explanations in the models of a scientific theory) is probable or not probable.

God and everything that are deemed “supernatural“, are considered UNFALSIFIABLE - therefore, there are no evidence to observe, because you cannot observe the supernatural, you cannot detect & measure something supernatural. Given that, you cannot observe God, as you cannot study & analyse God as God have physical properties to observed, then you cannot detect & measure God, PEROID!

Natural Sciences - be they physics, chemistry, biology, Earth sciences or astronomy - every single current scientific theories in those sciences, must pass the Scientific Method (SM require scientists to formulate a hypothesis, followed by testing the hypothesis, and such TESTS would require observations of nature, observations such as experiments, evidence & data.

You are still using the wrong word, YoursTrue.

In the world of sciences (Natural Sciences, as opposed to Social Sciences) and the world of mathematics, the word “prove” means “proof“, and proof in the context of language of mathematics and language of science, proof referred to a logical statement or a logical model, like mathematical equations.

So when you ask mathematicians or theoretical physicists “to prove” something, it would mean either the following -

• solving an equation, eg break down a large equation into a smaller equation or breaking it down into multiple smaller equations (both of these processes (simplifying the equation), or incorporate multiple equations into a single equation, etc
• or finding mathematical explanations to understand the natural phenomena scientists are investigating, by formulating mathematical equations.

While equations are useful tools in Natural Sciences, these equations are not evidence. Equations are man-made logic or logical solutions, and they are abstract, existing only as set of variable(s), constant(s) & number(s), they are not physical evidence that can be observed.

Like explanations in the hypothesis, equations can be wrong, if the evidence don’t support the equations (proofs). It is possible to refute both explanations and the equations, which would means the maths or proofs are no good.

Proofs are more about mathematics than about sciences.

For any of current scientific theories to be “scientifically true”, scientists need to test them with observable & verifiable physical evidence, or subjected the theories with experiments - experiments that are repeatable and reproducible, so that an independent scientist or team of scientists can carry out the experiment and get the same results as the original experiment.

Answer me these questions:

Can you test God? ​

​

Can you observe God? ​

​

Can you analyse God’s physical properties & measure those properties?​

That’s what would be required for every hypotheses and for every scientific theories, each and every one of them (hypotheses or theories) have to be rigorously tested in some ways - like empirical evidence & repeatable experiments.

Your answers should be “no”, “no” & “no”, because there are nothing physical about God - to observe, to test & to measure.

And btw, YoursTrue, seeing that I have identified (and “defined“) proofs as some mathematical equations, i have yet to see any creationists to present a single mathematical equation (or single proof) to prove God. So another question for you:

Can you “mathematically” prove the existence of God with an equation or with set of equations?​

If the answer is “no”, then you also cannot prove God.

 

[blü 2]

Well at worst we have a designer that you personally don’t understand or a case where you think a designer should have done things differently. (Something strange if you will)

And at best we dispense with the idea of a designer and of magic and get on with our reasoned enquiries into the nature and history of the universe, hein?

In the case of chance, the BB paradox completely refutes any chance hypothesis.

Sorry, what paradox is that, and refutes it how, exactly?

As for refuting, bear in mind that the actual nature of the Big Bang is a work in progress, as you know, but so is the whole of science. We work with what we actually know, and we test the things we hypothesize / imagine and modify or discard them if they don't work.

I suspect a major difference between us is that you want absolute "truths" and I don't think such things exist.

A refuted hypothesis is worse than a “strange hypothesis”

Which reminds me that you forgot to clarify where you think your "designer", your purposeful creator of the universe, came from, and how you know.

Besides I don’t think your objection represents a big of a deal…………….for example when it comes to the pyramids in Egypt, it is a very large complex an expensive building, just to burry a single man, but I wouldn’t conclude “therefore no design”

The pyramids represent human concepts of personal power and human ingenuity in expressing them. They come from an era when some humans developed techniques for working with very large stones, and spread that knowledge across the ancient world from Turkey to around the Mediterranean and up to the British Isles. You can still see evidence of such things in Turkey, the Middle East, Malta, Egypt, France, Stonehenge, Scotland and more.

But you appear to be saying that some entity personally constructed the sun and the planets. Science offers us reasoned and evidence-based alternatives to magical notions.

On the other hand if you're right then the entity was a pitiable obsessive so-and-so to put septillions of solar systems together one brick at a time.

 

[F1fan]

Well at worst we have a designer that you personally don’t understand or a case where you think a designer should have done things differently. (Something strange if you will)

Gee whiz, are you pleased with your creator and his decision to create cancer, and otehr fatal diseases? Frankly I can't understand you believers who want to claim your God actually created this world and all the deadly things humans encounter. If believers were smart they would want to keep their God far away from accountability for all the fatal chances in the lottery of life. Your creator is either incompetent or a sociopath. I suggest it's you that doesn't understand what you worship.

In the case of chance, the BB paradox completely refutes any chance hypothesis.

The whole "chance" debate is absurd. Why? Because the chance of the universe existing as it does is 100%. Wjhat are the chances of any god existing? Close to 0%.

If any God could create the universe as it exists today (which functions naturally and consistently according to laws) why couldn't it exist naturally, and without any cause? It's only believers with some personal motive who keep pushing the creator angle, and without evidence, and without any valid argument.

A refuted hypothesis is worse than a “strange hypothesis”

Like your fine tuning.

The thing about fine tuning is odd. If the universe is "fine tuned" for life then why wasn't it just created already tuned? It sounds like God created a universe that wasn't quite right and had to fiddle with it until it worked as he wanted. Let's not forget this "tuning" includes nasty diseases that kill children and moms with young kids. Do you still want to claim your God is responsible for that?

If some guy breaks into a home and tortures and murders a mother of five, that guy get's life in prison, or evn the death penalty. In your religious beliefs you want your God to be that killer, and don't have a problem with it. And your God gets away with it, and you don;t express any concern.

Besides I don’t think your objection represents a big of a deal…………….for example when it comes to the pyramids in Egypt, it is a very large complex an expensive building, just to burry a single man, but I wouldn’t conclude “therefore no design”

That's the advantage of owning slaves, something else your God allows.

 

[leroy]

And at best we dispense with the idea of a designer and of magic and get on with our reasoned enquiries into the nature and history of the universe, hein?


Sorry, what paradox is that, and refutes it how, exactly?

@It Aint Necessarily So also made a similar request.... (I know we have a pending post)

You can google and learn about the BB paradox in any source that you consider relaible, this is not a “creationists mallicious concept” but rather a common and well understood concept that scientists talk about all the time.

The BB Paradox represents a devastating objecton to any chance hypothesis , including does that have to do with multiverses.

I will do my best in explaining the paradox, please do your best in understanding, (please for 5 minutes, remove your “defensive mode” and try to understand the argument)............
You don’t have to answer today nor tomorrow take your time if necessary, please make sure that you understand the objection, if you have questions you can ask before responding



Basically what the paradox says is that a FT universe like ours is so unlikely that it is much , much much, more likely that we live in a simple universe (with less FT) and that our observations of a complex FT universe are just a dream or an illusion. …. In other words it is much more likely that you are a mentally handicapped patient living in some psychiatric hospital, who in this moment is having a hallucination of being someone else, reading a forum and wondering about the FT of his imaginary universe.

In other words as an analogy, if you observe yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row, it is far more likely that you are just hallucinating or dreaming, than “you simply got lucky”

So if there are a potentially infinite number of universes, sure someone will win the lottery 100 times in a row, in some universe, but for every person who wins the lottery 100 times in a row, there would also be billions and billions of people who hallucinated or dreamed that the won the lottery 100 times………….therefore you should always prefer the “hallucination hypothesis” rather than the “I got lucky hypothesis”

So back to topic
1 We live in a big FT universe
2 but observers could also excist in “small” universes, with less fine tunning (say as small as our solar system)
3 Small universes are much, much much likely and would be more common in a multiverse, for every big universe like ours there would be 10 ^600 small universes (this is a number with 600 zeros)
4 therefore if you are appealing to chance you most conclude that we live in a small universe, and that you are just a person with mental illness who is just imagining/hallucintating that we live in a big universe …. This conversation and the forum, is also part of the hallucination.

Given that you presumably are not a person with mental illness who suffers from hallucinations, you should drop any chance hypothesis for the FT or the universe, (or find a way to avoid this paradox)

What does this has to do with Boltzmann Brains?
Well even a small universe is much more complex and has more FT than necessary, a single planet is enough or even a single Brain (hence Boltzmann brains)………….. in a multiverse these brains are the most common observers, and most of the observations of complex FT universes are made by these entities that are just imagining or dreaming in such universe………..the paradox is that you most assume that you are a B Brain. (or drop chance hypothesis)

I suspect a major difference between us is that you want absolute "truths" and I don't think such things exist.

THE BB paradox refutes any chance hypothesis because in leads to a Reductio ad absurdum, it has nothing to do with our understanding of the big bang.

Note that I am not saying that BB paradox “proves design” just that it refutes chance hypothesis, any non-chance hypothesis would be immune to this objection

Which reminds me that you forgot to clarify where you think your "designer", your purposeful creator of the universe, came from, and how you know.

I don’t know where the creator came from, so what? I don’t know where did the Egyptian came from ether, does that mean that I can´t claim that Egyptians designed pyramids?

The pyramids represent human concepts of personal power and human ingenuity in expressing them. They come from an era when some humans developed techniques for working with very large stones, and spread that knowledge across the ancient world from Turkey to around the Mediterranean and up to the British Isles. You can still see evidence of such things in Turkey, the Middle East, Malta, Egypt, France, Stonehenge, Scotland and more.

But you appear to be saying that some entity personally constructed the sun and the planets. Science offers us reasoned and evidence-based alternatives to magical notions.

On the other hand if you're right then the entity was a pitiable obsessive so-and-so to put septillions of solar systems together one brick at a time.

You are taking analogies in a too literal way, the point is that there are many reasons for why Egyptians could have crated such complex building, when there are many more efficient ways to build tombs………………so why couldn’t there be good reasons for not creating more life in this universe?

The FT argument doesn’t say that the universe is FT to optimize the number of living things nor that “life” is the only purpose in gods mind.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Basically what the paradox says is that a FT universe like ours is so unlikely that it is much , much much, more likely that we live in a simple universe (with less FT) and that our observations of a complex FT universe are just a dream or an illusion

OK. I agree. If there were only one big bang and one universe, then it being perfect for life and mind to exist in would be very unlikely. And that scenario you and Boltzmann presented would be a possible explanation. You can include that in my list of naturalistic candidate hypotheses as an unconscious source for our universe, which I've called a multiverse.

I can see now why you're keen to say that the multiverse cannot generate an infinite number of universes. From Boltzmann-brain argument against multiversal fine-tuning | Felicifia forum:

"The problem of fine tuning is often addressed by appeal to a multiverse hypothesis. The idea is that in an infinite multiverse, some universes will be fine-tuned for observers, and by anthropic selection, we'll only find ourselves in those universes. So the probability of fine-tuned universes conditional on a multiverse is very high."

But I don't see that you can insist on that.

And frankly, if I'm a Boltzmann brain, that's fine, too. My current arrangement is quite satisfactory whatever hidden aspects to reality there may be, which is also my answer regarding free will being illusion. If that's the case, that's also fine. Whether I'm a deterministic "robot" or a Boltzmann brain living some last Thursdayism existence or a brain in a vat or the victim of Descartes' demon, it's all good.

Not sure if you believe there is no God

I am an agnostic atheist, although if by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, then no, I'm not agnostic about that god. It's ruled out by the incoherent description of it. It knows all but grants free will. It is perfectly loving and all powerful and all-knowing, yet their is gratuitous suffering in the world. It is perfect but made the engineering error of creating a species that displeased it followed by the moral error of drowning most of the world for that followed by the intellectual error of using the same breeding stock to remedy that error. It caused a global flood on a planet incapable of being completely covered with liquid water with the amount of water on it and some mountains several miles high. THAT god doesn't exist.

But the deist god? Maybe. I can't rule it out, nor think of a test for deciding that possibility. Moreover, the answer would be useless even if we could have it, since we couldn't use that information to predict anything (see apatheism).

can you prove that there is no God?

Just with a few logically impossible gods. Do you think one needs to in order to justify ignoring gods claims and religions? I don't, and neither did Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

 

[leroy]

Gee whiz, are you pleased with your creator and his decision to create cancer, and otehr fatal diseases? Frankly I can't understand you believers who want to claim your God actually created this world and all the deadly things humans encounter. If believers were smart they would want to keep their God far away from accountability for all the fatal chances in the lottery of life. Your creator is either incompetent or a sociopath. I suggest it's you that doesn't understand what you worship.

The whole "chance" debate is absurd. Why? Because the chance of the universe existing as it does is 100%. Wjhat are the chances of any god existing? Close to 0%.

If any God could create the universe as it exists today (which functions naturally and consistently according to laws) why couldn't it exist naturally, and without any cause? It's only believers with some personal motive who keep pushing the creator angle, and without evidence, and without any valid argument.

Like your fine tuning.

The thing about fine tuning is odd. If the universe is "fine tuned" for life then why wasn't it just created already tuned? It sounds like God created a universe that wasn't quite right and had to fiddle with it until it worked as he wanted. Let's not forget this "tuning" includes nasty diseases that kill children and moms with young kids. Do you still want to claim your God is responsible for that?

If some guy breaks into a home and tortures and murders a mother of five, that guy get's life in prison, or evn the death penalty. In your religious beliefs you want your God to be that killer, and don't have a problem with it. And your God gets away with it, and you don;t express any concern.

That's the advantage of owning slaves, something else your God allows.

Why did you quote my post, if you are not going to address it?

Why don’t you start a new thread on cancer, or slavles or any of the various topics that you brought ?

My comment is about how chance hypothesis fail as an examplanation for the FT , any comment unrelated to that will be ignored

The whole "chance" debate is absurd. Why? Because the chance of the universe existing as it does is 100%

Straw man, in this context chance means “by a random mechanism”

 

[YoursTrue]

OK. I agree. If there were only one big bang and one universe, then it being perfect for life and mind to exist in would be very unlikely. And that scenario you and Boltzmann presented would be a possible explanation. You can include that in my list of naturalistic candidate hypotheses as an unconscious source for our universe, which I've called a multiverse.

I can see now why you're keen to say that the multiverse cannot generate an infinite number of universes. From Boltzmann-brain argument against multiversal fine-tuning | Felicifia forum:

"The problem of fine tuning is often addressed by appeal to a multiverse hypothesis. The idea is that in an infinite multiverse, some universes will be fine-tuned for observers, and by anthropic selection, we'll only find ourselves in those universes. So the probability of fine-tuned universes conditional on a multiverse is very high."

But I don't see that you can insist on that.

And frankly, if I'm a Boltzmann brain, that's fine, too. My current arrangement is quite satisfactory whatever hidden aspects to reality there may be, which is also my answer regarding free will being illusion. If that's the case, that's also fine. Whether I'm a deterministic "robot" or a Boltzmann brain living some last Thursdayism existence or a brain in a vat or the victim of Descartes' demon, it's all good.

I am an agnostic atheist, although if by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, then no, I'm not agnostic about that god. It's ruled out by the incoherent description of it. It knows all but grants free will. It is perfectly loving and all powerful and all-knowing, yet their is gratuitous suffering in the world. It is perfect but made the engineering error of creating a species that displeased it followed by the moral error of drowning most of the world for that followed by the intellectual error of using the same breeding stock to remedy that error. It caused a global flood on a planet incapable of being completely covered with liquid water with the amount of water on it and some mountains several miles high. THAT god doesn't exist.

But the deist god? Maybe. I can't rule it out, nor think of a test for deciding that possibility. Moreover, the answer would be useless even if we could have it, since we couldn't use that information to predict anything (see apatheism).

Just with a few logically impossible gods. Do you think one needs to in order to justify ignoring gods claims and religions? I don't, and neither did Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

God has the ability to know what He wants to know. That's how I decipher it.

 

[YoursTrue]

@It Aint Necessarily So Oh, and I also do not believe He foreordains salvation for everyone. He may draw close to some.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God has the ability to know what He wants to know. That's how I decipher it. Oh, and I also do not believe He foreordains salvation for everyone. He may draw close to some.

Thanks for sharing your theology, but that doesn't address what I wrote to you. Shall we try again?

You: "Not sure if you believe there is no God"

Me: "I am an agnostic atheist, although if by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, then no, I'm not agnostic about that god. It's ruled out by the incoherent description of it. It knows all but grants free will. It is perfectly loving and all powerful and all-knowing, yet their is gratuitous suffering in the world. It is perfect but made the engineering error of creating a species that displeased it followed by the moral error of drowning most of the world for that followed by the intellectual error of using the same breeding stock to remedy that error. It caused a global flood on a planet incapable of being completely covered with liquid water with the amount of water on it and some mountains several miles high. THAT god doesn't exist. But the deist god? Maybe. I can't rule it out, nor think of a test for deciding that possibility. Moreover, the answer would be useless even if we could have it, since we couldn't use that information to predict anything (see apatheism)."

You: "can you prove that there is no God?"

Me: "Just with a few logically impossible gods. Do you think one needs to in order to justify ignoring gods claims and religions? I don't, and neither did Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

You: "God has the ability to know what He wants to know. That's how I decipher it. Oh, and I also do not believe He foreordains salvation for everyone. He may draw close to some."

I don't know why you wrote either of those sentences. I'd prefer words from you that suggest that you read and understood my words just as my words indicate that I read and understood what you wrote. Did you?

Here's an exercise for you: please try to paraphrase what I just wrote. Rewrite it in different words. That will be easy if you understood me whether you agreed or not, but impossible if you didn't, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Thanks for sharing your theology, but that doesn't address what I wrote to you. Shall we try again?

You: "Not sure if you believe there is no God"

Me: "I am an agnostic atheist, although if by "God" you mean the god of Abraham, then no, I'm not agnostic about that god. It's ruled out by the incoherent description of it. It knows all but grants free will. It is perfectly loving and all powerful and all-knowing, yet their is gratuitous suffering in the world. It is perfect but made the engineering error of creating a species that displeased it followed by the moral error of drowning most of the world for that followed by the intellectual error of using the same breeding stock to remedy that error. It caused a global flood on a planet incapable of being completely covered with liquid water with the amount of water on it and some mountains several miles high. THAT god doesn't exist. But the deist god? Maybe. I can't rule it out, nor think of a test for deciding that possibility. Moreover, the answer would be useless even if we could have it, since we couldn't use that information to predict anything (see apatheism)."

You: "can you prove that there is no God?"

Me: "Just with a few logically impossible gods. Do you think one needs to in order to justify ignoring gods claims and religions? I don't, and neither did Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

You: "God has the ability to know what He wants to know. That's how I decipher it. Oh, and I also do not believe He foreordains salvation for everyone. He may draw close to some."

I don't know why you wrote either of those sentences. I'd prefer words from you that suggest that you read and understood my words just as my words indicate that I read and understood what you wrote. Did you?

Here's an exercise for you: please try to paraphrase what I just wrote. Rewrite it in different words. That will be easy if you understood me whether you agreed or not, but impossible if you didn't, right?

Maybe later -- I don't have the time right now to parse through your ideas. Thanks.

 

[leroy]

I'm going to take the liberties believers take and just start making unfounded, unfalsifiable claims ad hoc in an homage to Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

No, leprechauns aren't physical until they enter the universe. They antedate the universe, and after they created it, they entered it and assumed a visible form much like the character Jesus allegedly did, but leprechauns are real.

Yes granted, the FT argument doesn’t takes you to God………..it only takes you to an intelligent designer that doesn’t require a FT universe to exist. (for example designars that are made out of atoms would be excluded as possible designers )

So sure a hypothetical nonphysical leprechaun could also be a candidate………the Christian most provide additional arguments (other than the FT argument) to explain why his god and not some other god or entity………..but in my opinion such arguments do exist, so this is not a big issue for me.

All naturalistic hypotheses are more parsimonious than any that require that a supernatural realm exists and is also required.

I´ll agree that naturalistic hypothesis tend to be more parsimonious, and for that reason they score more points…. But parsimony is not the only criteria

1. The dog is missing because somebody left the door open.
2. The dog is gone because your angry ex-girlfriend took it to make you suffer.
3. The dog is gone because a cartel broke in, took it, and intends to ransom it.
4. The dog is gone because extraterrestrials beamed it up for an anal probe.
5. The dog is gone because Odin teleported it away.

Yes in this case all hypothesis are equal in terms of explanatory power and explanatory scope, so for that reason we should go for the more parsimonious.

But assuming that you also have a note that says “ohhh I stole your dog because I want you to suffer”

In this case, while 1 is more parsimonious than 2. The best hypothesis would be 2 because this hypothesis explains both the missing dog and the note (it has more explanatory scope, it explains a greater number of things)

I think I already have, but I don't think I can make you understand me.

Perhaps we simply mean different things with parsimony…………In order to avoid 100 post of discussion I can take the blame and assume that I am the one who misunderstand the concept.

1 I agree on that if 2 hypotheses are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, intrinsic probability etc. one most go for the most simple hypothesis (the one that makes less assumptions)

2 but if one hypothesis has more explanatory power and/or scope, etc… this hypothesis could be the best even if it is not the simplest

Do we disagree on a relevant point? If our disagreement only boils down to “correct definition” then I would like to be corrected, but I wouldn’t consider it a relevant disagreement

Then there is no such thing as fine tuning. You're saying that God could have created this universe any other way and it would be fit to sustain life and mind, but the fine-tuning argument says that that is not so. Yes, God could have made physical law however he chose, but if he didn't finely tune it, then life couldn't exist here. The gist of the argument is that there is a very narrow tolerance in the range that those physical constants can be to yield this kind of universe.

You just quoted Hawking: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

You can't have it both ways - the universe just happens to be just right for life AND God could have made it otherwise and it would still be hospitable to life. If you invoke the fine-tuning argument, you are implying that God himself was constrained in how he could build a universe fit for man, and my point is that if that is the case, God needed to discover what those constants needed to be to engineer such a world, and this implies that God is constrained by rules that limited his choices.

I'm hoping you can follow that.

I'm hoping you can follow that

No I can´t follow that opbjection-.---

For example God could create a FT basketball game, this would be a “normal game” where one has to put the ball inside the basket. In order to do this you have to trow the ball at a very specific speed, from a very specific distance , very specific angle etc….. such that if you change any of this variables you would fail to sccore a point (this is why the game is FT)



Or he could create a non FT Basket Ball, this would be a game where the basket is very big, so it doesn’t matter if you change the angle 10% or 20%



I do see how this constrains God in any way

Or would you say that the analogy fails? Why?

I don't understand where you're going with this line of inquiry, and I'm not interested in falling down another of these rabbit holes. I can't help but believe that you're trying to establish some point that is part of a larger creationist issue, but right now, I can't find a reason to consider any of this further. And it looks like a straw man version of the actual claim, which was uncounted numbers of all possible universes.

OK. I'll stipulate to that. That doesn't that mean I agree, just that I don't want to argue it without knowing why I should. You haven't made an argument for supernaturalism. If such a universe is possible, then maybe we live in such a universe, and maybe it arose naturalistically. Are we past that now?

It is just an example of an absurd consequence of the multiverse hypotheiss. ……….. if everything that is possible will happen in some universe (no matter how unlikely) then talking snakes and young universes that look old would occur in some universes…………because this things are possible, (just very unlikelly)

 

[YoursTrue]

It is just an example of an absurd consequence of the multiverse hypotheiss. ……….. if everything that is possible will happen in some universe (no matter how unlikely) then talking snakes and young universes that look old would occur in some universes…………because this things are possible, (just very unlikelly)

Agreed -- rather unlikely. Except, of course, in the stories of sci-fi writers. And/or in the minds of realm of possibilities of some. Who knows and who cares? Not me...right now. And later, if there ARE talking snakes etc. somewhere -- or who knows? maybe in the minds of some, evolving here -- ok --oh and don't let me leave out lephrechauns and their outfits. I guess there could be clothing makers for these particulars somewhere in the forest. or a cloud maybe?

 

[F1fan]

Why did you quote my post, if you are not going to address it?

Why don’t you start a new thread on cancer, or slavles or any of the various topics that you brought ?

This thread is about how evolution is ironic. What's ironic is that creationists insist that the universe was designed and fine tuned by a God, and all done deliberately. But you don't like having to explain the bad things like cancer and other diseases because you have trapped yourselves. "God is love, oh but he nature might kill your child with Leukemia, and won't intervene." Creationists built the trap without realizing it. You decided to use it without realizing it's a trap. And now you are upset that the trap is being pointed out to you. You would rather ignore and forget that creationism is a trap as an explanation, and you want to forget it.

My comment is about how chance hypothesis fail as an examplanation for the FT , any comment unrelated to that will be ignored

The whole "chance" issue is not something that can be calculated and argued. The universe exists at 100%. What are the odds of a God existing? You didn't even bother to play with that math because you have no data, just obsolete cultural stoires that don't correlate to reality. If every person on the planet was issued a lottery ticket and soneone will win, the odds are highly against any of us winning, over 8 billion to 1. It's improbable that we will win. But when someone wins is it so improbable that they won that God is the only explanation? No.

The fine tuning idea is highly flawed, and you don't like acknowledging how it is flawed, you just want to believe it and write about it.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Not sure if you know this, but evolution requires two things: significant amounts of time (particularly in the case of populations that reproduce relatively slowly, like humans), and environmental attrition. In other words, it takes a tremendous amount of selective pressure to produce changes in a population over time, and since the human population of earth is... everywhere and we suffer relatively little environmental attrition, the selective factors for our reproduction won't produce significant changes for a very, very long time.

that does not answer the question...

show us the intermediatory for the next evoutionary generation of humans...where are they???

The evoution of man has gone from ape like to us...from walking on all fours to on twos...more upright, but where is the next progression shown? (Is it black skin to white...whats next?)

I read a news story only yesterday saying cancer rates in younger people are on the increase, are you claiming thats an improvement?

 

[F1fan]

God has the ability to know what He wants to know. That's how I decipher it.

So God can be ignorant, and thus is no longer omnipresent? Could a God prefer no to acknowledge the bad thing he crearted, like cancer and deadly bacterias? If so how could this God be moral?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Can you “mathematically” prove the existence of God with an equation or with set of equations?
If the answer is “no”, then you also cannot prove God.

thats stupid...

can you prove love exists in any manner differently than what is used to prove God exists?

No you cannot, so by your own theory, there is no such thing as love!

 

[AdamjEdgar]

But you don't like having to explain the bad things like cancer and other diseases because you have trapped yourselves

eh? Who told you that nonsense about Christians? The real claim is amigo, which you have no clue about obviously, is that Christianity at is foundational level is the only world view that best explains (through internal and external evidence) the "bad things" in this world.

I suggest you actually open a bible and read the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Then, once you have done that, read Matthew Chapter 27. Finally, read Revelation Chapter 21.

Unless you are actually willing to read the above 3 references...please do not waste this forums time with your errant wives tails about the origin of Sin and Evil!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

that does not answer the question...

show us the intermediatory for the next evoutionary generation of humans...where are they???

The evoution of man has gone from ape like to us...from walking on all fours to on twos...more upright, but where is the next progression shown? (Is it black skin to white...whats next?)

I read a news story only yesterday saying cancer rates in younger people are on the increase, are you claiming thats an improvement?

Evolution depends on adaptation to existing conditions. If you can accurately predict conditions in the future (like whether we change our climate, and to what, or where the next mountain range will erupt due to plate tectonics, or how continuing continental drift continues, and in what directions, or where the next great earthquake happens, or the next massive meteor hits our planet), how on earth would you expect anyone to answer how we'll adapt it whatever the heck it is?

Jeez, thinking isn't that difficult!

 

[AdamjEdgar]

But you don't like having to explain the bad things like cancer and other diseases because you have trapped yourselves

eh? Who told you that nonsense about Christians? The real claim is amigo, which you have no clue about obviously, is that Christianity at is foundational level is the only world view that best explains (through internal and external evidence) the "bad things" in this world.

I suggest you actually open a bible and read the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Then, once you have done that, read Matthew Chapter 27. Finally, read Revelation Chapter 21.

Unless you are actually willing to read the above 3 references...please do not waste this forums time with your errant wives tails about the origin of Sin and Evil!

Evolution depends on adaptation to existing conditions. If you can accurately predict conditions in the future (like whether we change our climate, and to what, or where the next mountain range will erupt due to plate tectonics, or how continuing continental drift continues, and in what directions, or where the next great earthquake happens, or the next massive meteor hits our planet), how on earth would you expect anyone to answer how we'll adapt it whatever the heck it is?

Jeez, thinking isn't that difficult!

evolution isnt a sudden voila and the next complete update appears...its claimed to be a slow process over very long periods of time (even for humanity).

Take a look around you next time you are out in a large shopping center...do you see any slow change to the next step in evolution for humanity?

The reason for my inclusion of cancer here is a simple one...our bodies are not finding solutions to cancer...we are spending billions of dollars each year around the world desperately trying to find artificial medical solutions to the problem that evolution clearly is unable to solve through natural selection! The additional dilemma is that cancer is found in animals as well...which is supportive of the biblical claim that this kind of disease is a result of sin and not a gain in the level of evolutionary achievement.

Not sure if you know this or not, but the concesus i have been given a few years ago by a medical researcher who worked in Newcastle University under a professor who was studying cancer was that given enough time, we will all die of cancer eventually!

 

[F1fan]

eh?

But you don't like having to explain the bad things like cancer and other diseases because you have trapped yourselves

Who told you that nonsense about Christians?

It's been Christians themselves. Creationist Christians make claims about the universe and how life exists as being a magical creation, all deliberate, and I ask about all these negative, natural things that kill innocent people. These Christians can't explain why their God created cancer, and why cancers kill children horribly. Thus the nonsense is creationism, and literalist interpretations of Genesis.

The real claim is amigo, which you have no clue about obviously, is that Christianity at is foundational level is the only world view that best explains (through internal and external evidence) the "bad things" in this world.

Just not in a way that is factual, nor is consistent with what we observe about reality. No doubt creationists have their own fantasy explanations, but they aren't backed by experts, and not consistent with reasoning.

Let's note that not all Christians are creationists. Most are well educated and rational. They have come to terms with the absurdities of conservative Christian beliefs, and don't regard them as true.

I suggest you actually open a bible and read the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Then, once you have done that, read Matthew Chapter 27. Finally, read Revelation Chapter 21.

Unless you are actually willing to read the above 3 references...please do not waste this forums time with your errant wives tails about the origin of Sin and Evil!

When I look at the Bible I do so without assuming it is true at face value. I also consider the human history of how the Bible came about, in its many versions and forms. I can't make conclusions that defy reason, fact, and reality.