Nope, not even that. People will believe a whole lot of things.
Argumentum ad populum. Widespread belief is not proof and it does not constitute a valid argument.
I used to believe this, back in the days when I knew little of the universe and how it worked. I maintained an agnostic stance – a term I took to mean one who does not believe or disbelieve the existence of a God, but maintains an open enough mind to the possibility that there might be one. I too looked at the incredible order that the world exhibited and found it hard to believe that there wasn’t some sort of intelligence behind its creation.
But that was before I started to learn about the world and the universe at large, before I could comprehend the scales that were involved. Once I got old enough and read enough on the subjects and learned the vastness of the universe, the elements that were involved in creating life, the conditions that needed to be present for it to exist, and the time frames for it all to happen, I started to realize that the idea of a cosmic confluence of events that did, in fact, come to pass more or less at random through what amounted to trial and error over a period of billions and billions of years, was not nearly so far fetched after all. Evolution made much more sense then. The idea that everything we see all stemmed from some primordial goo makes a lot more sense when you understand that there have been roughly four billion intervening years that have passed between the two states. That’s a hell of a long time for amoebas swimming in primordial goo to evolve, ultimately into every living thing on the planet. There is also a lot more evidence to support evolution than there is to support idea of supernatural deities, so I am much more inclined to believe science than religion.
Do I call myself an atheist, now? I’ll admit I’m more likely to call myself that than an agnostic these days, if I am required to pick a side. I am open-minded enough never to rule out any given possibility just because there is no evidence to support it, though, but I’m leaning pretty heavily in the atheistic camp simply because the more I learn of the universe, the less stock I put in the idea that invisible, omnipotent beings had anything to do with it.
Crap, I guess the old saying is right. Well, lets try it.
Oh yeah? Well I’ll bet you can’t get most other people to say so which means you’re wrong.
Why do you believe in energy? That’s just silly. You’re wrong.
My D&D group is going to pissed about this. With no randomness combat is going to suck. I’ll let you know on Monday how it went, then I can tell you you’re wrong.
Well good then, if that’s what you want, I’m glad we can all agree that you’re wrong.
Jousting windmills? I don’t have a lance or a horse or a windmill so you’re wrong.
But if you think you know what you say you know and we know what we say we know then maybe you can’t know what you say you know so what you say you know can’t be what we say we know so it’s wrong.
Woah… that’s so deep… you know, like wow… 
I have pretty much covered that same ground, but didn’t come to the same conclusion. The odds were just to great for me to give credit to the idea. I was an agnostic for about 40 years before I had my spiritual experience, everything fell into place after that. I can’t go back, it would be like trying to unlearn how to read and write, it is a part of me. It is me. I know those without spiritual experiences think we are crazy, etc. It is only because they don’t have anything to base a belief on, I am sure it will come, I have lived a lot of years and seen a lot of people change as they grow older. I regret that science has taken the path it has, science has no more evidence or proof than spiritual people do, it is just a matter of choice.
So, you are telling me there is a law of statistics in randomness that turns it into order. Order implies intelligence, I think you have found God.
Well, no wonder you think the way you do, you’re completely and totally ignorant of all science! Jeez, you really should go actually learn about science, something, anything really, before you go talking about it that way.
Reminds me of the ancient saying:
If you meet a man that doesn’t know, and doesn’t know he doesn’t know. Avoid him.
If you meet a man that doesn’t know, and knows he doesn’t know. Teach him.
If you meet a man that knows, and doesn’t know he knows. Enlighten him.
If you meet a man that knows, and knows he knows. Follow him.
It must be nice being able to randomly throw answers out into the ether and not have to back them up with anything.
Is this an actual ancient saying that you can provide a cite for, or is this another “revelation”?
I know science pretty well, it is nine parts theory and one part fact.
Yeah, well, I don’t believe the Bible has all the truth either.
Put another way order is intelligence. Otherwise you could put a firecracker under the Sunday edition of the New York Times, and the paper would blow up into the air and come down as the Gettysbury address.
About the same odds as the random formation of the universe and planet earth and us people upon it.
I didn’t make it up, but I am flattered that you asked.
It would appear that you’ve been the victim of a large practical joke. You really should have a word with your teachers.
Life is my teacher, the world my classroom.
I’m sorry, but considering your lack of accuracy when it comes to quotes, that’s just not good enough. Cite?
When you’re reading that Physics book, take a look at the gas laws. And the way different sizes of particles get sorted in liquids proves that order does not require intelligence.
Those who don’t know can’t distinguish the first person from the fourth. Especially if the first is convincing, and the person is a sucker.
My contention stands. Both of them.
Another ringing endorsement of No Child Left Behind.