Again, odds are from science, not religion. And, science has nothing to say about god. Period. And, your claim that your own religion is the one that is right is exactly what everyone who has ever lived claims (or claimed) about their own religion. So, that can't possibly form an argument.
What are the odds that three different but pretty much the same "Gods" decided to stop into one part of the world to select a couple tribes vs. one part of the world grasping onto a story and doctoring into religions?
I'm not the 'fanatic here and I 'cling' to nothing (except perhaps to a few delusions about how my how attractive I am to members of the opposite sex, so sue me.) What you don't seem to grasp is that I wasn't talking about a single, linear chain of probability. The synthesis of complex proteins and other biochemicals occurred trillions of times a second for hundreds of millions of years. Even then it only requires a basically function version of the protein to exist and be used in simple life forms for further adaption to lead to more efficient versions up to and including the final human version of the protein in question. I don't no whether you are choosing to willfully misinterpret what I was say or not. I was using an analogy from computer science (which I clarified more fully in another post). I was NOT inferring that there was some kind of global supercomputer over sighting the development of life on Earth merely, as per above that the same chains of chemical reactions that lead to the development of life on Earth were occurring simultaneously across the planet wherever conditions were suitable. The fact that dramatically speeds up the time taken to develop complex biochemicals Go read up on the scientific method. If you insist on rejecting reject one theory regarding a certain aspect of the physical world in whatever branch of science you choose then by default it HAS to be replaced with another competing theory that can be tested/researched - otherwise you leave an empty space. Your argument is like suggesting that because you are not interested in visiting Cleveland there's no need to put in on a map. Lets just leave a blank spot on the map marked 'Terra Nullius' shall we? And what the hell is "There are countless observations that we can't explain and don't even care to?' You may think ignorance is bliss, most people don't. In fact that's ALL science cares about - observing the unexplained and trying to explain it. And if a scientist doesn't 'care to' study a particular issue its because, like everyone else they have to prioritize. Oh please, stop it. "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong." - Linus Pauling[/QUOTE] Sooo according to you the laws of chemistry don't have to comply with the laws of physics as they relate to the structure of atoms???? and you can separate any little bit of 'science' you don't like (for whatever reason), throw it away and replace it with whatever you like - without consequences. Oh and Pauling virtually invented the field of 'quantum' chemistry, which as its name implies unified principals from two different fields of science, was an atheist and a supporter of evolutionary theory.
I never said with infinite possibility anything can happen. What I meant was if is something is possible, if it is tried enough times, it becomes certain. For example, if there is a small chance you will be caught shop-lifting. If you try it enough times, you will be caught. Actually it is mathematically proven: P(M) =1 - ( 1 - P(1) ) ^ T P(M) is the probability of an event happening at least once when tried multiple times. P(1) is the probability of an event when tried once. T is the number of times tried. Statistics 101. You have to first show that a process that creates a God is possible, and that it was tried enough times to become certain. I never said a creator is impossible. A creator is possible too. Random chance didn't make anything. Forces and chemical reactions made everything. For example, evolution works by natural selection and mutations, not chance. Planets and starts formed because of gravity. The universe is expanding because of the big bang. Abiogenesis, if it happened, happened because of chemical reactions in the early earth.
Your attractiveness delusion is fanatic, your lack of understanding of biochemistry is utterly and hopelessly incorrect, and your attempt to simplify biochemical synthesis is sadly typical of Richard Dawkins and his acolytes. "A>B>C>D" may be in Richard Dawkins' books, and in books *explaining* evolution, but it is ignorant alphabetology, without any basis whatsoever. 1. Changes don't occur "trillions of times a second." They begin with a random mutation, which is both rare as well as detrimental or useless 99.999% of the time. Learn that if nothing else. YOU used the term "global supercomputer" to pretend and fantasize what does not happen. Richard Dawkins calls the process "step by million year step." One functional protein in 10 to the 77th power syntheses is hopelessly impossible when "only" 10 to the 40th organisms have ever lived on earth, and the overwhelming majority of these were one-celled. How much is 10 trillion divided by 10 to the 77th? Ten to the 50th power grains of sand would fill fifteen spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Try finding one specially marked grain of sand in fifteen of those spheres full of sand, on your FIRST and ONLY try. That is the definition of "one chance in 10 to the 50th." It's "Impossible." Remember that volume of sand every time you see a photograph of a huge expanse of desert sand, or a beach that stretches to the horizon. And stop pretending to be some sort of *scientific wizard* when your language and pretenses show otherwise. I'll present some quite trivial science I posted recently on the subject of ocean acidification. Why don't you show something YOU have written on this forum that does likewise. Wouldn't that be interesting, instead of you just puffing yourself up by saying "learn the scientific method." ============================== From Ocean Acidification Thread Yes and no. The constraining factor is Henry's Law, which states that the concentration of a gas in solution is a function of the concentration of that gas to which the solution is exposed. So in other words, no matter how cold water is, it cannot absorb more carbon dioxide which is not present in ambient air. Contrariwise, warm water can have a great deal of carbon dioxide in solution under pressure, for example inside a soda can, which is 100% carbon dioxide above the soda. Many people prey on your fear and ignorance. Ocean "acidification" is a subset of "global warming" where hundreds of billions of dollars have been squandered unnecessarily. All of us have been paying for these frauds for over a decade. Don't believe them. School children are being frightened by claims of “ocean acidification” based on gross exaggeration which kids cannot hope to properly understand inasmuch as few adults can. Those trying to spread fear of global catastrophe want to control your lives, and redistribute your wealth to appease their own sense of moral and intellectual superiority. On the more technical side: Atmospheric carbon dioxide accounts for approximately 400 parts per million, or in other words about .0400% (.000400 decimal equivalent). The annual increase (AI) in total atmospheric carbon dioxide is a miniscule 1.34 parts per million, or .00000134. Only a tiny amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, in accordance with Henry's Law, proportional to the partial pressure of CO2 which is 400/1,000,000 or .0004 atmosphere. CO2 + H2O ↔ H2 CO3 (aq) = 4 x 10-4 But another step is required to produce the hydronium ion, H3O + , which is acid. Only 2.5 molecules of H2 CO3 per 10,000 combine to form acid. H2 CO3 (aq) + H2O ↔ H3O+ + HCO3- K2 = 2.5 x 10-4 This two-step equilibrium is represented by the following equation: CO2 + 2H2O ↔ H3O+ + HCO3- K1 K2 = 1.0x 10-7 Therefore the effect of annual increase from all sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the ocean is .00000134 ("AI") times .0000001 ( K1 K2) which equals 1.34 x10-13. But humans produce only a small fraction, (about 4%) of this small fraction (1.34 x10-13). The overwhelming majority of carbon dioxide increase results from decomposition of biomass, and volcanic gas expulsion. 4% of 1.34 x 10-13 = 5.36 x 10-15 the human annual component of acid contributed to the sea. Is that anything to be scared about?
You mean I'm not Gods gift to women??? Man, I'm devastated... I mean have we met, do you know how handsome I am??? Oh well.. for the rest, most your 'rant' is simply a personal attack (on me) that fails to address any of the points I raised. That's when its not just simply being incoherent (anger issues much??) And before we segue off topic to 'Ocean Acidification'? WTF? To remind you - you were the one who started this thread, if anyone should be able to stay on track its you, obviously not. The really sad thing about all this is that if you are (as appears to be case) Christian?? then your faith is so weak that the theory of evolution and science behind it appears threatens it. News flash - tens, if not hundreds of millions of Christians around the world have no problem reconciling their faith with science. For them Jon 3:16 rings out a call to belief as true and clear as when those words were first written down two thousand years ago. But never mind, obviously your right and they are wrong. You should tell them.
1. I created the narrative on ocean pH. It is valid science in case you don't know what that is. 2. Science is wholly compatible with Abrahamic faiths. Many books prove that point. You should read them. I just completed reading Counting to God by Douglas Ell, and before that one by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks titled The Great Partnership (Between religion and science). Obviously your knowledge of everything is weak. You don't even know the difference between "you're" and "your." I know, they're big words for you.
..then your 'theory' should also abide by this rule. Show me repeatable, scientific evidence that demonstrates the possibility of a random big bang, and subsequent abiogenesis. If you cannot demonstrate this part of your speculative 'odds', than dismissing a Creator is just bias.. religious bigotry.
If you do not rely on 'random chance!', then show how any of these things are possible, and not just a religious belief about origins.. Your earlier argument relied heavily on 'random chance!', aka the infinite monkey theorem. Are you claiming that there is now real physical evidence for the belief in atheistic naturalism?
The big bang isn't random. It follows forces of nature and the laws of physics. Abiogenesis is still speculative at this point. If you have a theory with strong scientific evidence, the floor is yours. I never dismissed a creator. I just lack belief in a creator due to lack of evidence.
Thats kind of a big discussion since so much science is involved. So I will start with natural selection and mutations since we are talking about evolution. Do you doubt that natural selection and mutations are possible? All the 'infinite monkey theorem' explains is why unlikely events happen, because they are tried many times. But some events are certain because certain forces and chemical processes are happening and will produce them. I wouldn't call naturalism atheistic. Naturalism is just the science of the natural world and says nothing about whether there is a God or a supernatural. In the same way, computer science is about the science of computers and says nothing about the existence of God, and its not accurate to call it atheistic.
"If you can't explain it (creation by our Creator), then it never happened." - Atheists How many of us have had medical procedures we cannot understand much less explain? Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. Lots of things are forever beyond our purview, the simplest of which is gravity. Plants and animals everywhere live within its stringent restrictions. They know them only too well. But neither they nor any scientist alive can explain the whys and wherefores of gravity. We're spending many millions of dollars looking for gravity waves. Not much success so far.
Can you provide a quote from an actual atheist who has made this claim? In my opinion it is a pretty ridiculous claim. Science is all about exploring the unexplained, so these certain atheists on the internet don't believe in science?
I know you created the 'narrative' and I know its 'valid science' we studied the chemical reaction you are so impressed by in High School. However you still haven't (or won't) address the question I asked - what has this series of chemical reactions got to do with the topic of evolution? You went off on a complete tangent for no particular reason. Link ocean PH to the topic of evolution and we have a discussion point, insert it randomly and it just looks like you are trying to prove how clever you are, even if that's not what you are trying to do. Was what you were trying to do? Again, I never said they weren't compatible. In fact I was the one who pointed out that they were. So ...? Ah yes, I must be completely ignorant because I disagree with you, that's the only possible explanation. More insults plus a critique of my hastily typed/poorly reviewed spelling. All of which proves you are right how exactly? You need to work on your debating skills, insults are not arguments.
Yes, and I exposed the flaw in it. You're welcome. Presumably this is reassuring to someone, for a reason I can't imagine.
First you stated that I don't understand science - a Talking Point used by Darwinists in every discussion anywhere. I cited interesting chemical equations to deflate your lie about me. You complained that my chemistry discussion had nothing to do with evolution. They are related because the anti-scientific "consensus" nonsense is used in climate change sharia as it has long been used in Darwin's Magic Selection. Science, evolution, just keep changing the subject until you get to Cleveland. With a blank spot on the map. That's your evolutionary expertise in a nutshell. When facts don't fit theory, the theory must be rejected. End of discussion. There is no "scientific" rule that you MUST have a theory. You got that nonsense from evolutionary biologists who have a Darwinian Pacifier in their mouths, as you do.
You accuse science of consensus as if it's some sort of bad thing. If you understood science you would know that scientific process does not have a method of proving a theory to be true. Instead, it works by weeding out what is proven to be false. Citing some equations really doesn't indicate that you understand scientific process. The result of that is that consensus is significant.
Fallacy: Dodging a fact based discussion, to inject doubt toward the credibility, understanding, education, and psychological motives of the opposition. It is a combination of 'poison the well,' and 'argument of authority'. Pounding the Narrative Drum, is the Way in Progresso World, not open examination of facts, science, and reason. The State Approved Beliefs must be defended at all costs, and any outliers or detractors must be silenced. Are you comfortable in your Indoctrination? Wouldn't you like to free your mind from the veil of Darkness that binds you to State indoctrinated belief? Reason and science are useful tools of discovery. That is why they are hated and feared by the Protectors of Progressivism.
Initially, your claim seems impossible UNTIL you consider: 1. "Progressives" (sic) (a one-word oxymoron) deny the reason and science behind our very sexes, behind reproduction, denying that a developing baby is human. Abortion is a violation of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill." 2. They deny the reason and science behind our Founding Fathers who established a republic based on liberty. Today "Progressives" (sick) clamor for socialism, a violation of the Commandment against covetousness. They clamor for outlawing guns, a violation of Jesus' admonition, "Let him who hath no sword sell his garment and buy one." 3. They refute Jesus' Commandment "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's as they continue their insanity against the duly elected President, Donald Trump. 4. They refute the Biblical injunction, "Who will not work should not eat." 5. They bear false witness against anyone who stands up against their incessant lying, claiming we want to kill people who are incapable of working, that we are not generous and THEY are. Brandolini's Law It takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than it takes to create it. And "Progressives" (sick) create mountains.
Arguing over a theory is what the scientific method is all about. However, the arguments that involve some explanations for observable phenomena are far stronger than those arising from beliefs. Chem Engineer doesn't like the theory of evolution. That's fine. It is, after all, only a theory. But he needs to bring some observable data into his conversation if he wants to move acceptance of the theory he dislikes. My education is limited enough that I don't pretend to argue about chemical reactions. I simply explain that a theory based on observation is more valuable than one that is based on a belief that can't be observed, measured or even defined.
I would add that theory is the very best answer science can possibly develop concerning how something in our universe works. Theory can be found to be false or limited in some way, because humans don't know everything. For example, Newton didn't know about issues relating to the speed of light, so his theory of gravity is useful here on Earth's surface, but in general ist's not correct as Einstein showed.
Knowing some chemistry and ‘knowing’ how science works (which is what I criticized) are NOT the same thing. My point, and it is a point you seem completely unable to grasp is that ALL scientific theories and knowledge are interlinked. I cannot propose a new theory of gravity and expect it to be accepted by the scientific community if that theory contradicts results verified by other researchers in other fields of science. If my theory states in part that gravitation waves travel faster than the speed of light then experimental physicists will happily point out that the speed of gravitation waves has been measured and it appears to approximate the speed of light quite closely. If another part of my theory states that photons are unaffected when passing through gravitational fields then astronomers would point out that the lensing of light beams by gravitational fields is a well observed phenomena. In other words they would point out that my ‘theory’ was wrong. In any event you real enemy is not evolution its time. Prove the universe is only 6000 years old (or whatever) not 14 billion as is currently believed by the vast majority of the scientific community and you automatically disprove evolution. Take out evolution without first disproving the rest and all you end up with is a lifeless 14 billion year old universe. This leaves you with only two options I can see; Theory X – the universe is still 14 billion years old but all life spontaneously appeared on the Earth 6000 years ago, presumably because God put it there. Theory Y – The universe as we now perceive it (including all the currently known universal scientific constants) came into existence it 6000 years ago, again presumably because God did it. Theory X saves you from having to change the entire laws of physics as we understand them. That’s a plus for you because it means less man hours spent cracking away on your Casio scientific calculator trying to re-construct the sum total of all human scientific knowledge into a model that supports a 6000 year old Universe. Unfortunately Theory Y means you have to do have to do just that. And that’s because our observations of the known universe currently tell us the exact opposite of your pet theory. Your key problem will be what science refers to as the physical constants of the universe. These are the set of observed values that underpin all of modern science. In summery if they are universal constants we believe them to be then the universe as we understand it has to 14 billion years old or thereabouts. These constants are things like the speed of light, the Hubble constant (which measures the expansion of space), the Plank constant and others. Don't believe me?- look them up. Collectively when plugged into our models of physics they define the universe as we know it (scientifically) . As far as is humanly knowable these values are the same everywhere in the universe and every when. Meaning they do not change over time. (Note; it is possible to argue that they can change over time but then you have to develop a model of the physical universe that shows how they naturally arrived at their current values and what will happen to those values in the future – to date no-one has done this successfully - ever). So there you go. I suggest you start tapping out a set of new equations from which we can derive the current structure of the universe based on a 6000 year timeline ASAP. I will let the Nobel Prize Committee know you are working on your “Theory of Everything' so they can cast your medal in advance. Of course if you want to avoid all that hard work you can just go to that old standby ‘God did it’. Unfortunately since that is not an empirically testable claim it is also NOT SCIENCE – and we’re back to that ‘you don’t seem to understand how science works’ thingy. (I’m not won’t even going to touch that ‘climate change sharia comment’.) And to clarify one other issue. The current scientific consensus around evolution is NOT a consensus based on a mob based rejection of any and all other potential theories as you seem to imply. It is based on the fact that as scientists any countervailing theory absolutely has to be scientifically testable. ‘God did it’ as a stand-alone scientific theory cannot be verified by any scientific means whatsoever. And that is why your pet theory is rejected, not because of prejudice but simply because it is the perfect theoretical ‘Black Box’. ‘God created the universe 600 years ago’ (separate from any belief in the existence of God which is another topic) simply can’t be subjected to scientific testing. It can’t be measured, weighed or scanned, can’t be derived from direct observations of the universe using scientific instruments and it can’t be mathematically modeled. You are literally not giving scientists anything to work with. It’s like asking a Doctor for a diagnosis without giving them a list of symptoms. ‘No scientific rule that says you must have a theory??? WTF? That’s what science is - a collection of theories based on observations of the material world followed by experiments designed to test the validity and accuracy off those theories. You always have to have a theory otherwise IT IS NOT SCIENCE. You are literally arguing that there is no ‘rule’ demanding that a library needs to have any books in it in order for it to still be considered a library! And as per all the other analogies I used I’m sure you will still fail to grasp the point – and here we are back at ‘how science works’, I sense an ongoing theme.
Let me know when you get off your soapbox. I would like to use it to get some aspirin from the top shelf. I just developed a terrible headache after this thread. Seriously though, you do make some interesting points. I don't agree with them but they are interesting nonetheless.
