Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You never did properly define "random" in your own words. As a result you are not in a good position to demand that others repeat a clear argument for you in their own words.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Theories aren't facts and never become facts.
Instead, theories explain facts.
Yet evolution is also a (genetic) fact. Species demonstrably share ancestry.
Somehow, one way or the other, a common ancestral species produced all mammals we know today.
The theory deals with the mechanism of how that occurred.
If the theory turns out wrong or incomplete - it still happened in some way. Common ancestry remains a genetic fact.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Either it is completely random OR it was created by some unsupportable magical entity.
There are plenty of natural processes that are not random and which aren't created / controlled by some third party conscious agent.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Is it random chance that rocks fall down to earth instead of shooting into space?
Is it random chance that 2 H atoms and an O atom under certain conditions combine into a H2O molecule?
I say no, it's not random at all.
Does it require some third party agent to work? Nope.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..but you take the natural laws as a given, with no explanation as why they are as they are,
or where they come from.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No. They are not a given. We had to work hard to understand them. You appear to be using a black and white fallacy. Things are more complicated than that. We may understand some of the laws of nature. That does not mean that we know everything that there is to know about those laws. And not knowing is never an excuse to bring a God into the discussion.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
They are a given in a sense. You speak of these laws as if they are prescriptive of how things should act. This is not the case.
They are descriptive.
They are really no more or less then a description of how matter and energy interactin a space-time continuum due to the properties all these actors have.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Umm .. what is your explanation then?
I don't know is a poor answer.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
"I don't know" can also be an honest answer. And it is certainly better than lying about knowing and/or making stuff up.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's an honest answer.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
For what?
And you are quite incorrect. There is nothing "poor" about saying 'I don't know' when one doesn't know. The problem is that too many theists do not say that when they should.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
And obviously you do not know.
Where did the universe come from?
If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?
If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect.
It also violates every law of conservation too.
If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?
If that thing always, existed that violates the law of increasing entropy.
If that thing has not always existed what was there before the thing that was prior our universe to come into being?
Please continue this until you get something that has always been.
And then that will violate the law of increasing entropy.
Where did the laws of nature come from?
Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?
Where did all energy come from?
Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?
Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?
Where did the laws of nature come from?
Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?
Where did all energy come from?
Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?
Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There you go, refuting your own God again according to your "logic". No one needs to refute your version of God since by your version of logic you do so yourself.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
You have no logic just blind hate of God I guess.
If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?
There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?
The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.
Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Whoa! I have no blind hatred of God. Now there is a false accusation for you. The fact that your version of God is refutable is not "hating God". The fact that your version of God is evil is not "hating God". Nor is it blind. It is mere observation. It's in the Bible. You should read it some day.
But they are not all missing. Until you correct that error there is no point in dealing with your other false claims. We have clear human transitional fossils.
Because you are wrong again. Your concept of "half evolved organs" is just silly. It is wrong. I can show you all stages of evolution of the eye. They still exist today. Here is an important point that you need to understand. There is no goal to evolution. It works on "good enough". So if an existing eye is "good enough" for a critter to thrive and survive there will be no pressure to improve on what it already has.
The problem is that one does not have to calculate the odds of a strawman argument. Identify the strawman and the argument is refuted. Your strawman has been identified countless times.
And yet you cannot do the math. Remember, no strawman arguments allowed when you set up your argument.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So you love the God of the Bible that calls evolution a lie, and puts those that believe it into the lake of fire forever?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The God of the Bible does not call evolution a lie. And there are countless "God of the Bible"s. Your version of God is not the same version that other Christians have. Most Christians realize that Genesis was not meant to be read literally.
As to me, I am rather neutral to the Christian God. If you ignore the evil versions of God, like yours, it is not much better or worse than other Gods.
One does not need to love or hate. There s a wide range in between. As to your version, that is just a mythical version. It is an evil version of God that is little different from other evil characters in literature. Was Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter "evil"? Yes. Do I hate him? No, he is just a powerless fictional character. Just like your version of god. That is not hate, That is reality.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Genesis 1, Exodus 20:11 and Christ call it a lie and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I think that's as evil as a God can get. Belief is something that could go in countless directions from the standpoint of humans living their everyday lives, and not having a full and complete understanding of existence, plus being born and having to learn everything from ground zero about how to survive, cope, and assimilate all the mountains of information that is available, and pertinent to living life.
Belief is easily subject to error, and knowledge takes serious effort, trial, and error to achieve. Knowledge that a human can achieve also has limits to what can be acquired and known for sure.
Evolution at the very least is convincing. Perhaps if a believer in this sort of God grew up in a totally different experience and environment, they would have totally different beliefs, convictions, and knowledge sets, and look at other life experiences as alien or strange, or even a bit hard to fathom.
The Bible can be read in many different ways as well which is why there are so many different denominations that conflict with each other. Yet your version of God, and all your interpretations are 100% true somehow, and moreover it's the obvious truth that the whole world has blinded themselves to it. And this version of God passed all tests, and trials and is 100% reliable, to base all conclusions about reality after. Then in doing that there's no need to explore the earth and the world to find out if any of it is factual. Plus there's a whole history of people that didn't have a Bible. Yet somehow it's all true, and the rest of the world is damned for eternity for living and exploring the earth and universe assuming that whatever knowledge they get is going to be from self discovery about nature, and what previous generations have handed down to them otherwise. No Thanks!
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Well that is the God of the Bible which you love right?