Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Phantasman]

LOL -- To use your own argument, because the probability of something so complex springing into existence de novo is so much lower than a series of small steps; steps that are easily observable in Nature and in the lab.
It is more reasonable to posit known, observable, reproducible mechanisms than to posit magic. Magic is entirely unsupportable.

Is it possible that through spiritual creation that the 7 main parts of the DNA strand brought together (under astronomical odds) to create life weren't driven by a force much higher than our own perception allows us to see?

Man has never created anything. He merely moves what's created around to engineer a "thing". The components of everything man has made were already here. Like making glass from sand.

Thee Chinese just claimed to clone 2 monkeys. If man cloned a human, he merely grabs from something already created. But if the human has a mind, man doesn't give it to him. He cannot create a mind. It comes from somewhere non physical, since thoughts and memories cannot be grabbed, but are "created". So if man created nothing, how does the mind create a thought, or memory.

Move beyond your normal thinking, if you want to keep up. We can go as deep as you like.

 

[Phantasman]

I think you're confusing the terms 'fact' and 'evidence.' Yes, black holes exist and the knowledge of their existence is based on evidence.



No. Theory, as it relates to evolution, is based on evidence, not faith. It utilizes the scientific method which consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

scientific method - Google Search

Facts are based on "conclusive" evidence. I am not confused. Theory is based on "inconclusive" evidence. Theories are argued for that very reason.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Facts are based on "conclusive" evidence.

On this point you are correct. A fact is a statement that can be proven with evidence.

Theory is based on "inconclusive" evidence. Theories are argued for that very reason.

This is where you go off the rails. Once again scientific theory is built upon evidence. Conclusive evidence. Scientific theory is a compilation of facts.

I provided you a definition in my last post. Please provide a definition of 'scientific theory' that states it is based on inconclusive evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Are black holes based on facts? End of the Universe, fact? Theory is based on faith of what is seen, not experienced. Does the God particle exist? Once the Higgs boson is discovered, what then? The makeup of atomic structure? Even the Large Hadron collider will never figure out the smallest of all particles. Just as man will never map the entire Universe through circumnavigation. The mind can conceive much more than it has the ability prove, or disprove. It's limitations are only limited by it's "physical" structure.

I don't think I follow. A given scientist might have great faith in a particular theorem but, as a scientist, he knows it can't be accepted on just faith.

This is what makes the spiritual much more believable to me. It is conceived as eternal and limitless. And the mind can equate it, even in it's limited knowledge and decaying shell.

How does an inability to physically observe the entire universe support "the spiritual?" And what do you mean by the spiritual, exactly?

There are many scientists that believe spiritual faith (many Christian). Not because they fail to prove it, but because they can not disprove it.

I doubt there are many scientists who would reason thus. I can't prove there are no pink unicorns on Mars, but I don't, therefore, believe in them.
No, a faithful scientist is faithful for the same reasons a non-scientist is faithful: he was raised with that particular world-view, instilled before he had any capacity for critical analysis or grounds for skepticism. Faith gives him comfort, it gives him community, &c.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Is it possible that through spiritual creation that the 7 main parts of the DNA strand brought together (under astronomical odds) to create life weren't driven by a force much higher than our own perception allows us to see?

Man has never created anything. He merely moves what's created around to engineer a "thing". The components of everything man has made were already here. Like making glass from sand.

Thee Chinese just claimed to clone 2 monkeys. If man cloned a human, he merely grabs from something already created. But if the human has a mind, man doesn't give it to him. He cannot create a mind. It comes from somewhere non physical, since thoughts and memories cannot be grabbed, but are "created". So if man created nothing, how does the mind create a thought, or memory.

Move beyond your normal thinking, if you want to keep up. We can go as deep as you like.

Man has not created a LIVING AUTONOMOUS thing YET! But he has, and will continue to created many, many non-living things. The forces and events that brought the DNA molecule together, took place over Billions of years. It's assembly was the result of random chemical and physical events, guided by the Laws of Probability. What do you think the probability of you winning the lottery, if you bet the same group of numbers for a Billion years? In fact, if we consider all the planets in the Universe capable of sustaining life, it would be near impossible for life NOT to have started on at least one(Earth). Remember, citing astronomical odds are meaningless, once the event has already happened. Since life DID begin on this planet, you are left with only an argument from ignorance, or begging the question. Both are fallacies.

Thoughts, memories, perception, and self-awareness, are the non-physical manifestations of physical reality, represented and created by a normal functioning physical brain. The Law of Natural Compensation can allow you to augment some sensory inputs, by diminishing others. But these states are only temporary and unnatural. Our mental states are based on defined physical forces, not undefined spiritual forces. We can easily and experimentally induce, modify, create, many different altered states of consciousness. In short, we are trapped in our subjective reality, and our brain's best-guess representation of it. Nothing more, nothing less. Don

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no proof of creation or evolution. It's just a theory on each side. And I find trying to rely on either a moot point, since neither can travel to the origin. Both are based on what one desires to have faith in.

This is incorrect. At best you are trying to claim a false equivalence. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by almost endless evidence. There is no reliable evidence for creationism at all. It is a myth that has been shown to be wrong The theory of evolution has been tested countless times and continually passes all major tests and minor tests merely result in clarification. Those that believe in creationism are afraid to even put their beliefs into a testable format. The fear of the scientists that believe in that story tell us that deep down inside they know that it is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more minor point. The OP has conflated evolution and abiogenesis. Even if a creator made the first life form that does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not rely on how the first life got here. It merely tells us what happened after that time.

 

[Valjean]

Is it possible that through spiritual creation that the 7 main parts of the DNA strand brought together (under astronomical odds) to create life weren't driven by a force much higher than our own perception allows us to see?

Components of RNA/DNA will self create under the right chemical conditions, as will membranes, amino acids and other components of life.
Why would you find this doubtful? It's observed all the time.
What is the mechanism 'spiritual creation' uses to create life? As far as I know, none is posited, making the process tantamount to magic.
Is magic really more plausible than known, natural, observable mechanisms?

Man has never created anything. He merely moves what's created around to engineer a "thing". The components of everything man has made were already here. Like making glass from sand.

Man can take basic, chemical components and create all sorts of materials and things from them. Nature does the same, with basic components from the Big Bang plus more complex atoms originating (by natural methods) in stars.
Where's the difference? The only difference I can think of off the top of my head, is intentionality.

Thee Chinese just claimed to clone 2 monkeys. If man cloned a human, he merely grabs from something already created. But if the human has a mind, man doesn't give it to him. He cannot create a mind. It comes from somewhere non physical, since thoughts and memories cannot be grabbed, but are "created". So if man created nothing, how does the mind create a thought, or memory.

We don't understand consciousness, and there's still much being learned about neurology and psychology. So how does this support creationism?
Creationism "explains" nothing, it just keeps positing a magical agent wherever there's a gap in our understanding. This God's-hand pleading has been in retreat for several centuries now, as our understanding of how the world works has expanded. I see no evidence that this retreat will slow down.

Move beyond your normal thinking, if you want to keep up. We can go as deep as you like.

And I would make the same reply to you.

 

[questfortruth]

No.

Spontaneous generation submits that complex living organisms...well...spontaneously generated...in a singular event from decaying substances.

Abiogenesis describes a process in which life arises from non-living matter such as organic compounds through chemical reaction.


Some reading material...just for you:

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

It is just excuses not to repent. There is formulation, that found the Pasteur: "life only can be produced by life" (to my memory). Perhaps he even tried to voltage the decaying mud. Look his experiments.

 

[questfortruth]

Is this a serious post? What does garbage, landfills, and the birth of a rhinoceros have to do with evolution?
You can't claim that "from lifeless only lifeless can come", then claim that god made life from lifeless.

What are the underlying assumptions and how did you compute that the chances of life without a god is negligible? Please share your calculations.......

You are sounding rather ignorant about now.

1) Do not mix the god of atheism with the God of Theism. The god of atheism can not produce life, because he is not existent. The God of Theism miraculously (it means without laws of physics) can.
2) Dr. Pasteur has found following law, in his formulation: "life can only be produced by life" (to my memory). Then, because laws of nature are scale-invariant, on the macro scale of billion years there are no Frankensteins either.

 

[Valjean]

It is just excuses not to repent. There is formulation, that found the Pasteur: "life only can be produced by life" (to my memory). Perhaps he even tried to voltage the decaying mud. Look his experiments.

Creationism disagrees with the statement about life being produced only by life. In this it agrees with science. The difference is that science researches the mechanism by which it happened, while religion merely posits an agent. Apparently God 'spoke' them into existence.

 

[Valjean]

1) Do not mix the god of atheism with the God of Theism. The god of atheism can not produce life, because he is not existent. The God of Theism miraculously (it means without laws of physics) can.
2) Dr. Pasteur has found following law, in his formulation: "life can only be produced by life" (to my memory). Then, because laws of nature are scale-invariant, on the macro scale of billion years there are no Frankensteins either.

What is this God of atheism?

Maybe this?

 

[questfortruth]

Creationism disagrees with the statement about life being produced only by life. In this it agrees with science. ....

Do not mix the Holy Creationism with Godless Darwinism. Creationists never said it. God is alive, he made humans. Life has made life. Because Atheism can not be scientifically proven, it is not differerent from paganism. About the god of atheism: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is just excuses not to repent. There is formulation, that found the Pasteur: "life only can be produced by life" (to my memory). Perhaps he even tried to voltage the decaying mud. Look his experiments.

Why didn't you read the articles that explained your errors to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do not mix the Holy Creationism with Godless Darwinism. Creationists never said it. God is alive, he made humans. Life has made life. Because Atheism can not be scientifically proven, it is not differerent from paganism. About the god of atheism: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

Oh my! You have that backwards. The burden of proof is upon theists, not atheists. So by your standards your beliefs are no different from paganism.

And there is nothing holy about a lie. Creationism has been shown to be a myth. Learning reality does not mean that you have to quit being a Christian.

 

[Misunderstood]

Still incorrect. Pasteur made no such claim:

"No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves" - Pasteur

Show me where he said that abiogenesis on prebiotic earth over deep time is impossible. You can't because he never said any such thing.

And if he had, he would be making an unsupported claim that should be rejected on that basis.

If you want to argue scientific issues with the scientifically literate, you need to show an understanding of science and sound reasoning yourself. You make the errors we are familiar with from creationists. They never seem to understand what a scientific theory is, what scientists actually claim, what observable and reproducible refer to, the place of proof in science, that positing a god to explain a cell is not an argument for a god, that complexity is not an argument for intelligent design,that finding something hard to believe or noting that it is unexplained is an argument for God.



All theists are faith based thinkers unless they are agnostic theists. I can accept the conclusion that there may be a god, that it pleases someone to think so, and that they find the belief harmless whether correct or not.

Once the theist begins speaking of things as fact that he couldn't know even were they true, he's lost the skeptical empiricist.

Hmm. I kind of think that is exactly what he was saying. "Life can only come from life". Here's the link to where I think you quoted this, if you want to read the whole thing.

Louis Pasteur - Wikiquote

 

[gnostic]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Sorry, but what does the universe have to do with evolution?

The likelihood of creating the universe is zero, because there are no evidences that God - or gods - ever existing.

All we see, is man have long ago, created God to explain something they couldn't understand.

In fact, until the very late 1910s, astronomers only found out that the universe is BIGGER THAN the Milky Way.

Before the largest telescope in the world (at that time) - the Hooker Telescope - was constructed, everyone since Galileo, thought the Milky Way was the whole universe.

BEFORE 1919, people thought Andromeda and other galaxies, were not galaxies, but nebulae within the Milky Way.

Imagine everyone surprise, when Edwin Hubble looked through the Hooker Telescope, and saw that Andromeda and Triangulum were galaxies, separate from the Milky Way.

As newer and larger terrestrial optical telescope were constructed over succeeding decades, more and more galaxies were discovered.

But in less than 10 years from Hubble's discovery, 3 astrophysicists independently came up with novel ideas of the expanding universe model (EUM) during the 1920s, later known as the Big Bang (BB) model.

1. Alexander Friedmann, Russian, 1922
2. Howard P Robertson, American, 1924-25
3. Georges Lemaitre, Belgian, 1927

Lemaitre, was the one, most people called the father of the Big Bang theory, even though Friedmann and Robertson were also pioneers of EUM. And Lemaitre was a Catholic priest.

Yes, there are some scientists who were atheists, but there are some theists, who also support EUM/BB.

Science is not about atheism vs theism. Neither of them are science.

And how the universe started, have nothing to do with how life started on Earth. If this thread is about evolution, then you should talk about evolution, but even then, you are wrong about that too.

Evolution is about speciation, about biodiversity, depending on regions and climates, on genetic trends of population (not individuals). Evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

If you want to talk about how life started on Earth, then your thread should be about "Abiogenesis".

And please, do a bit of research on Abiogenesis, because you are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

 

[Valjean]

Do not mix the Holy Creationism with Godless Darwinism. Creationists never said it. God is alive, he made humans. Life has made life. Because Atheism can not be scientifically proven, it is not differerent from paganism. About the god of atheism: The war of Gods: idol of Atheists vs. God of Theists

I still don't understand what you mean by the God of atheism. The linked post is pretty much a ranting word salad.

The faith is faithfulness to KNOWLEDGE, so the Church Dogmas are scientifically PROVEN KNOWLEDGE. Science is quest for knowledge, not a method. Knowledge of any human is the knowledge, which has his God. Any human has God in his heart, atheists have idol of atheism in their hearts. Who is making atheists say "there is no god"? Science proof? No, they say Science has no notion of proofs. Even trigonometry is not proven for atheists.

No, religious faith is faithfulness to doctrine, and it's faith because it's belief without sufficient (or any) evidence. Religious doctrine is not proven, and is certainly not scientific. Were it scientific it would have been arrived at by the scientific method. Science is a methodology for investigating natural phenomena.
"Even trigonometry is not proven for atheists." ??? -- What does that mean? Mathematics is all about proofs.
So, again, what is this God of atheists?

Atheism is FALSE religion (atheism is only one alternative to Theism), therefore, the atheism is not religion. Why? Because this religion is false. False religion is not the religion.

Atheism is false because it's not religion, because it's false religion? What the heck does all that mean?
I agree atheism isn't religion, but not because it's false. It's not religion because it has none of the features of religion. It has no beliefs, no doctrine, no ethics, nothing.

Theological debates happen between two different theologies, so atheism is the "theology".

Theological debates are not limited to dueling theologies.

Atheism is the statement ("there are no gods"), is nonsensical talk about the God. Therefore, atheists talk about Gods. So, atheism closely relates to Religion.

Atheism, per se, is not a denial of Gods, it's just a lack of belief.
Not all atheists talk about God. With most atheists the subject never comes up, and some atheists have never even heard of God. So how does atheism closely relate to religion when it has none of the features of religion?

And, be aware, the idol called "non-existent True God" means that atheists can deny truth and invent lies, when ever it feels good for them.

How does something that has no beliefs or doctrine tell lies?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do not mix the Holy Creationism with Godless Darwinism. Creationists never said it. God is alive, he made humans. Life has made life.

So God is a form of life, right?

So what created God?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is it possible that through spiritual creation that the 7 main parts of the DNA strand brought together (under astronomical odds) to create life weren't driven by a force much higher than our own perception allows us to see?

Sure it is. Question is, how do you determine that it's reasonable to assume that's the case?

Man has never created anything. He merely moves what's created around to engineer a "thing". The components of everything man has made were already here. Like making glass from sand.

Thee Chinese just claimed to clone 2 monkeys. If man cloned a human, he merely grabs from something already created. But if the human has a mind, man doesn't give it to him. He cannot create a mind. It comes from somewhere non physical, since thoughts and memories cannot be grabbed, but are "created". So if man created nothing, how does the mind create a thought, or memory.

How do you assert that just because we can't "create" matter, that minds must "come from somewhere non physical"? Especially considering we have absolutely no reason to assume "non physical" is even a sensible concept.