Just Accidental?

[ArtieE]

I think they were all made by God, but this one is obviously pretty special

I think that 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets weren't made by a god, but if you can show me that it would be impossible for them not to have been made by a god I'll change my mind.

 

[ArtieE]

I think they were all made by God, but this one is obviously pretty special

And this planet is supposed to be so special that not a single one out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets could happen to be like this without the intervention of a god?

 

[ArtieE]

I love when religious people start talking about frauds.
15 Religious Swindles That Shame the Holy Name
https://www.forbes.com/sites/walter...hurches-but-you-wouldnt-know-it/#50b58a1ad9d4
Religious Hoaxes

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And this planet is supposed to be so special that not a single one out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets could happen to be like this without the intervention of a god?

I don't think any of them would be here without a God no, because you need some extremely sophisticated engineering just to create space/time matter/energy as we know it in the first place- and this all boils down to information.

create 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages of random software code- how many will develop their own sentience and start a conversation with you?

none, the numbers of rolls of dice are just one side of the equation, you have to factor in the other side, the improbability of the result.

Just like HELP on the beach, chance is never impossible, it's just not always the least improbable explanation

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I love when religious people start talking about frauds.
15 Religious Swindles That Shame the Holy Name
https://www.forbes.com/sites/walter...hurches-but-you-wouldnt-know-it/#50b58a1ad9d4
Religious Hoaxes

Let him without sin cast the first stone!

 

[ArtieE]

I don't think any of them would be here without a God no, because you need some extremely sophisticated engineering just to create space/time matter/energy as we know it in the first place

Heh... how do you know enough to be able to pronounce that space/time matter/energy as we know it was created and doesn't exist naturally?

 

[ArtieE]

Guy, you can also show that the chances of you existing are so astronomically small that a god must have specifically meant for you to exist since you can't be a result of chance. How does that make you feel? Special? Important?
The Odds Of You Being Alive Are Incredibly Small

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Heh... how do you know enough to be able to pronounce that space/time matter/energy as we know it was created and doesn't exist naturally?

same way you concluded that a mysterious undetected creative intelligence wrote help on the deserted island beach, instead of a natural mechanism. it's the least improbable explanation

Guy, you can also show that the chances of you existing are so astronomically small that a god must have specifically meant for you to exist since you can't be a result of chance. How does that make you feel? Special? Important?
The Odds Of You Being Alive Are Incredibly Small

Okay, so now consider a completely random assortment of rocks on that beach, using the same number of rocks.

What are the odds of this configuration?

Just as improbable as any other, including the one saying HELP- correct?

Same goes for 5 royal flushes in a row v any 5 particular losing hands at poker, the odds are the same; astronomically tiny


i.e. what lets us deduce creative intelligence in all these cases, is not that the odds are lower than other particular outcome, it's that the odds of creativity are higher for that particular outcome

so much so that we can only conclude chance by utterly ruling out creativity to an impossible degree.

Never mind that we have no known auto-card shuffler for the universe.
We don't have any security system trying to actively prevent cheating either!

 

[ArtieE]

same way you concluded that a mysterious undetected creative intelligence wrote help on the deserted island beach, instead of a natural mechanism. it's the least improbable explanation

Did your god write "HELP" on a planet somewhere and sign it "God"? Can we see it on our telescopes? If so, you would have a watertight case.

i.e. what lets us deduce creative intelligence in all these cases, is not that the odds are lower than other particular outcome, it's that the odds of creativity are higher for that particular outcome

I see. So since the odds of you existing are astronomically small are you saying that the odds of having been created by a god are higher than existing by chance therefore you were created by a god? What Are The Odds of You Existing At All?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And this reinforces exactly what the Bible predicted centuries ago.....that the majority of those alive at the time of the end would perish because they are not only godless, but ungodly in their behavior, ignoring God's laws and doing whatever they wish.

Artie wrote, "According to a recent Pew Research Center report, 73 percent of American adults younger than 30 expressed some sort of belief in evolution, a jump from 61 percent in 2009, the first year in which the question was asked. The number who believed in purely secular evolution (that is, not directed by any divine power) jumped from 40 percent to a majority of 51 percent. In other words, if you ask a younger American how humans arose, you’re likely to get an answer that has nothing to do with God."

How does that reinforce the idea that there is an end time, or that anybody will be perishing because if increasing irreligiosity in America? I'd say that it reinforces the idea that religion is a phase in mans history that connects the time when he first began wondering and postulating answers to the time when he found the correct answers.

If creation is a religious idea, not a scientific one.....then science can ignore all other ideas about life on earth and carry on as if there is no one to answer to

Even if creationism were a fact, science would have no reason to change its successful methodology and no ability to do more than it does now. You seem to imply that scientists do what they do because they don't have god beliefs. Many do have god beliefs, and those that get published do the same science as those that don't believe.

If they acknowledged the existence of an Intelligent Creator, then they would also realize that he had a purpose to creation, and it would be up to them to find out what that purpose was, and fit themselves into it.

That's out of the purview of science. If it weren't, and there were an intelligent designer, they'd likely already have some answers there

It would not be possible for them to procure this information by any means at their present level of knowledge, so they would have to rely on the Creator himself to supply that information.....which he already has in the Bible.

Even if we find evidence of an intelligent designer, why would scientists go to the Christian Bible for anything? Also, if there were anything in that Bible that scientists could use, they would with or without belief in an intelligent designer.

The fact of the matter is that discovering that there was an intelligent designer would change nothing for science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which fairy tale would you like Sapiens....? The one where life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason and then magically turned itself, undirected in to all the life forms that have ever existed on earth....? or the one where an Intelligent Life-form of immense power brought matter together and gave it life. Which of those two scenarios sounds "scientific" to you? Which of those actually agrees with what science already knows? That "all life comes from pre-existing life"....unless you believe in evolution of course....then you get a pass.

Well, since you've misrepresented abiogenesis as something "magical" I'd have to say neither and you should probably try again.

You're still confusing evolution with abiogenesis for some reason.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In defining "evolution", did you happen to mention that the "genetic changes" that were triggered by adaptive challenges were only ever observed within the one specific family under examination? The different species within those taxonomic families produced variety, not different species (kinds) altogether. This is crossing that blurred line between adaptation and macro-evolution. This is what science students are not told. The actual evidence is proof for that line, but science pretends that it isn't there....why? Because they can't (or don't want to) find it. Macro-evolution could not be promoted without that line being removed.

Can you give me clear examples where one kind of creature eventually morphed into another? After you provide the examples, could you then provide the clear unequivocal evidence linking them?



I have no doubt as to your teaching ability metis, but you were offering these students only what you yourself had accepted as truth. You must have presented your case well if your students accepted what you taught them without question. I cannot deny the massive amounts of information that exists, but if it is all really misinformation based on what science wants to believe, and backed up by their interpretation of evidence in favor of its theory, then it is a mountain of useless information IMO.

The Biblical equivalent to that kind of situation would perhaps be the Pharisees and what was taught in the schools of higher learning in Bible times. Jesus said....."Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves." (Matthew 23:15)

That is a pretty sobering thought, isn't it? A person could be so misled that they are headed on a sure course for death, then they pass on their views and opinions to others, but this will only mean death for all who found their view appealing. Do we have no concerns about that? What we teach then, had better be the truth.... The teacher has the greater accountability, don't you think?



If "creationism" was the alternative to "macro-evolution" then the choice was between one imaginative fairy story and another. Churches who accept creationism are not doing their homework. Their faith is blind and is also leading them in the wrong direction. The scripture quoted above applies equally to them. The Bible and science are completely compatible. It isn't a choice between one or the other...those who think so are on the wrong track.

Just because scientists tell you that evolution is a foregone conclusion, or when creationists tell you that the earth and the universe were created in 7/24 hour days, doesn't mean that they can't be misled by the ones who influenced them. If the evidence for either side is as good as it gets, then a lot of people are placing their faith in people who haven't earned it. What if all their suppositions are dead wrong? Where does that leave any of them?



And that applies equally to those who pursue science as blindly as others hang onto what they think the Bible says. We need to examine all sides to this story because it isn't just a "them and us" situation. Scientists can be just as blind as what they claim creation supporters are. Both need to step back and consider the possibility that they could both be wrong.

What science "knows" is brilliant in so many fields, but what it doesn't know, it fudges. What creationists believe about the age of the earth and how long the universe and all its earthly creatures have been around is equally unbelievable.

True science and the Bible can marry quite happily.....its the theoretical parts....the parts where science say "I think" rather than "I know", that are leading people down a wrong path......its a dead end.

There is only one road to life according to the Bible and "few" find it....because they are too busy arguing about who is right to see where each of them really are.

Well put, Deeje!

Regarding macroevolution, we have the generational study of Drusophila melanogaster, the fruit fly. Scientists' predictions certainly failed on that one! Even under controlled conditions!! (Poor flies.)

Hey, guess what? It's still a fly!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

.. So since the odds of you existing are astronomically small are you saying that the odds of having been created by a god are higher than existing by chance therefore you were created by a god? What Are The Odds of You Existing At All?

No, you are a smart fella, but you missed the point this time, my fault for not making it more clearly perhaps:

what are the odds of 5 royal flushes in a row?

it's somewhere beyond 1 in the number of stars in the universe.

what are the odds of any particular losing sequence of 25 cards?

exactly the same- agreed?


Okay, but we suspect intelligent agency (cheating) in the first case, but not the latter, even though the odds of chance are exactly the same- why?

Because the odds of cheating are not the same.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Time will tell then, won't it? Who has more to lose? Bait is always tempting because it appeals to a certain appetite. Can I explain why I like things that my siblings don't? Appetite and what appeals to us as individuals is very personal, isn't it? My sisters love chocolate but I don't. Go figure.



I don't recall Poseidon ever claiming to be the Creator, nor do I see any writings inspired by him that pertains to right conduct or to events that will transpire as a result of his intervention in the future.

True science backs up what the Bible says.....earthquakes have been part of God's expressions at times. When Jesus died e.g. a great earthquake occurred perhaps as an indication of God's displeasure over the manner of Christ's death? Many of the Romans thought so anyway.

But, "great earthquakes" were foretold as part of the sign Jesus gave about the last days of this present system of things. That is not to say that God is causing them, but that whatever is responsible for their frequency will probably be attributable to man's negative impact on this planet in this time period.

Seismology is a science that has real evidence to back it up. Like other branches of science, it is not theoretical, but measurable and often predictable. We don't have to wonder when a great earthquake has occurred.....do we?



Yes, one only has to mention "abiogenesis" and watch the evolutionists duck for cover.

You can't ask the bigger question about how life began, because science has no idea really.....try as they might, they cannot make anything 'live', unless it was taken from something already alive....they know for sure that "all life springs from pre-existing life"....and yet this apparently doesn't apply to evolution, because if life was created by an Intelligent Designer, then their whole theory goes down the gurgler.

"Don't ask me about abiogenesis because it has nothing to do with evolution" is a poor cop-out....how life began is THE more important question. Who cannot acknowledge this?

It is the very large elephant in the room.

Maybe because you're asking the wrong people. Go ask the abiogenesists how abiogenesis works. Do you often ask your mechanic to check your blood pressure? Does your mailman perform your surgeries for you? Do you ask your dentist for law advice?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Maybe because you're asking the wrong people. Go as the abiogenesists how abiogenesis works. Do you often ask your mechanic to check your blood pressure? Does your mailman perform your surgeries for you? Do you ask your dentist for law advice?

Yes, we should always trust astrologers, above anyone, to tell us how astrology works, nobody else's findings are valid

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing is even being speculated. How many examples do you need of "scientists" themselves wishing negative information/findings were published or examples of "scientists" having their negative information/findings rejected in publishment? Seek for yourself.... have you refused to? If you care to reason or communicate with another more effectively and honestly, it's very helpful if you don't misconstrue things said and you do some reading/work yourself into publication bias. Just a suggestion though.

No, what "you" are describing is a conspiracy by misunderstanding what was said.

Any example at all would be nice. I don't recall you providing any.

So you are declaring that there's no conspiracy at the same time you are claiming that "negative" information is being systematically suppressed. And you wonder why I'm confused?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In order for us to conclude chance, we must first utterly rule out the slightest possibility of creative intelligence

But we don't conclude chance. Nor do we need to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

Furthermore, this isn't the standard you used to conclude that an intelligent designer exists, so how do you justify attempting to impose it on others? If your argument is valid, it also argues against an intelligent designer.

God. It's simply the less improbable explanation for the observation

A god is the least likely thing imaginable to exist undesigned and uncreated.

same way you concluded that a mysterious undetected creative intelligence wrote help on the deserted island beach, instead of a natural mechanism. it's the least improbable explanation

Show me "Help" written with stars, and we can revisit this argument.

Have you thrown in the towel like Deeje apparently has on the request to provide a reason for throwing out a scientific theory that works a religious hypothesis that generates no useful ideas even were it true? Don't you think that at least one of you should try given how intensely you advocate for intelligent design? Until you do, your arguments are as unpersuasive as a salesman who asks the owner of a running car to trade it in for one that doesn't run, can't be restored, and isn't even useful for parts.

 

[Sapiens]

Which fairy tale would you like Sapiens....? The one where life just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason and then magically turned itself, undirected in to all the life forms that have ever existed on earth....?

That is a strawman based figment of your imagination that has been repeatedly debunked but the you insist on wrong headedly promulgating.

or the one where an Intelligent Life-form of immense power brought matter together and gave it life. Which of those two scenarios sounds "scientific" to you?

Now that, featuring as it does invisible friends who like to play hide and seek more closely resembles a fairy tale than anything else ... and then we can get into the issue of infinite regression.

Which of those actually agrees with what science already knows? That "all life comes from pre-existing life"....unless you believe in evolution of course....then you get a pass.

To understand the true landscape you need to step back from the Platonic error of seeing everything as an on/off switch and by doing so grasp the truth that most natural things are a continuum. "Dead" things did not suddenly stand up "alive." Life appeared slowly through a number of intermediate forms, consider the question of whether prions or, for that matter, viruses, are alive and what their position would be in the development of life. But ... we all know that you will not do this, all you will do is repeat your now worn out skree.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But we don't conclude chance. Nor do we need to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer.

chance, spontaneous, naturalistic, unguided, whatever term you prefer. In the analogies; intelligent agency must be ruled out altogether before unintelligent mechanisms can be concluded as 'most likely'

Furthermore, this isn't the standard you used to conclude that an intelligent designer exists, so how do you justify attempting to impose it on others? If your argument is valid, it also argues against an intelligent designer.

For me it largely is- a matter of probabilities, I don't rule out spontaneous mechanisms, like the waves spelling help, it's possible, just not the most probable.

A god is the least likely thing imaginable to exist undesigned and uncreated.

Yet according to the tenets of atheist belief, our creative intelligence exists entirely undesigned

Show me "Help" written with stars, and we can revisit this argument.

the word HELP is selling the stars extremely short

If you want to revisit the argument using the entire list of universal constants instead... we can do that, but it's not going to help your case!

Have you thrown in the towel like Deeje apparently has on the request to provide a reason for throwing out a scientific theory that works a religious hypothesis that generates no useful ideas even were it true? Don't you think that at least one of you should try given how intensely you advocate for intelligent design? Until you do, your arguments are as unpersuasive as a salesman who asks the owner of a running car to trade it in for one that doesn't run, can't be restored, and isn't even useful for parts.

C'mon Ted, if I may call you that, I think among the atheists here, you make some good thoughtful substantive arguments, & generally insult free which is much appreciated

But "why throw out my true theory for your false one' is not up to your usual standards! and constitutes throwing in the towel on substance- don't give up so easily!

You seem like an honest guy/ (gal?) too, but I would not like to buy a car from you sight unseen, on the promise that it presumably must have run at some point in the remote past!

I like to see what actually works now- adaptation, and the strict limitations thereof, models that require outcomes to be predetermined, chemistry, physics, a reality that requires deeper instructions at the quantum level to operate, not merely a handful of 'immutable' Victorian age laws

 

[ArtieE]

No, you are a smart fella, but you missed the point this time, my fault for not making it more clearly perhaps:

what are the odds of 5 royal flushes in a row?

it's somewhere beyond 1 in the number of stars in the universe.

what are the odds of any particular losing sequence of 25 cards?

exactly the same- agreed?


Okay, but we suspect intelligent agency (cheating) in the first case, but not the latter, even though the odds of chance are exactly the same- why?

Because the odds of cheating are not the same.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.