Yeah, it’s scientists with their fingers in their ears going, “la, la, la. I don’t wanna hear nothin about a loving god! la, la, la”
Google is, in fact, not broken. If you’re discussing probability but don’t know the word “probabilistic”, you probably should stop discussing probability.
Are you unfamiliar with the principle of argument by analogy? The point which was made is correct. To say nothing of the fact that chemical assortments, bonding, dynamics (etc) are not random.
[My Name]Yeah-I can feel the love from here.[/My Name]
Sigh
So, do you go to the doctors (the experts) when you get sick, or do you go to the local Shaman?
If it’s to the doctors, please explain why.
Yeah, science is out to get theism. It’s not that it’s the single most powerful analytic, investigative and predictive system ever developed by humanity. Scientists defined the structure of scientific inquiry just to fuck with your particular mythology.
Tell you what, let’s perform an experiment.
Spit into one hand, pray into the other.
See which one fills up first.
Yes. You can look it up here if you’re unsure of its meaning.
Actually, the odds of your getting that particular 13-card bridge hand are much less than you probably imagine: in fact, less than one in a sextillion.
You’d have to be dealing yourself about one thousand bridge hands per second for the entire estimated lifetime of the universe (something under 15 billion years according to science) to have a reasonable likelihood of getting that particular bridge hand by random chance.
So yes, it’s quite a good analogy to the “incredible unlikeliness” of the occurrence of life in the universe that you’re trying to argue for. In both cases, the fact that a particular outcome is probabilistically very unlikely is offset by the fact that the occurrence of SOME outcome is not very unlikely.
If you understand that basic point, then we can move on to discussing just how unlikely the formation of living organisms somewhere sometime in the entire lifetime of the universe might be.
No, sir. A theory is a logical construct, supported by evidence, that is used to guide further research. The problem with Intelligent Design is that it doesn’t serve as any kind of a research framework, nor is it supported by, or derived from, evidence.
Further, in point of fact, a majority of people involved in STEM fields do profess religion to some degree. Finding comfort in a loving deity is not antithetical to empirically based research.
look, it’s been fun and all. You are absolutely free to believe whatever you like. I would hope you would offer me the same freedom. I believe there is a loving God called Jesus Christ who loves you and wants to know you. It’s nothing more fanciful than believing in a more advanced, higher-evolved being if that helps you accept it better. I think that being loved me and created me and you as well. He wants to know you. It’s really that simple.
I didn’t start this debate to bring hatred into your afternoon. You are loved by someone greater than yourself. We are not alone in this universe. There IS a hope and a purpose to your life and I really hope you find that peace in your heart.
Now who wants to go into a lottery pool with me? I’m buying tonight!
Fun fact: The “Top 10 Scientific Proofs of Creation” are neither Scientific, nor Proofs. But there are ten of them, so they’ve got that going for them.
Look, super, in all seriousness, I was a Creationist in high school. I understand the appeal. But please trust me, you can believe in a loving God without checking your brain in at the door. Most major church denominations like the Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants are comfortable recognizing the scientific validity of evolution. As my momma would say, “use the brains God gave you.”
Well, I know that I’ve decided to go to church during lunch.
By ‘church’ I mean ‘Fazoli’s’.
So we are free not to believe the nonsense you’ve posted? Good deal.
No thank you.
Then why the inflammatory rhetoric?
It’s fine that you believe that, but I don’t need any of that flavor-aid.
You should spend your money on some actual science books.
Why does your loving god hate amputees?
I want to hear about a loving god…please show me in any realistic way how the god of Abraham can be considered loving.
To me he appears to be a petty little murderous rat bastard in all the books that were written about him.
That’s fine that you believe it. It’s very possible you have a good reason to believe it- perhaps something you’ve seen or experienced (or you were taught as a young child).
But for me to believe it, I have to have a reason. And so far, I don’t. Plenty of people tell me what I should believe, and mostly their “testimony” conflicts with each other. So the only way I can figure out which might be right is what the evidence points to.
So you’re saying it hasn’t evolved? Maybe he’s onto something!
Surprise: another guy trying to debunk evolution and The Big Bang without the foggiest idea of what they are or what a theory is. It must be Thursday.
Talk amongst yourselves. I’m getting verklempt.
I should add (as you can see by the responses to your most recent post) that your evangelistic witness is not helped by advocating scientific ignorance.
Let me try to help you out a bit here. I was raised with more or less the same beliefs you’re espousing here. I’m still a Christian, but the more I learn about science, the more I realize that creationism actually belittles God, that it puts him in a box and limits him. One of the major aspects of God is that he is a force of order and harmony, so why would he behave in a way that contradicts the order he created? Or, even more interestingly, that his creation was in someway “complete” at one single moment in the past, for a non-temporal being.
That is, the great realization that really helps understand why evolution is actually more consistent with the nature of God is that creation wasn’t a single event, it is an ongoing event. A song isn’t “created” with the onset of the first note, the entire piece is an act of creation. And it is in that sense that limiting God to a single event of creation belittles him to try to put him and our place in his creation into a manner that we think we can understand.
First of all, as others have said, you’re not really understanding what theory means. Theory, as we use it in common vernacular is more akin to a scientific hypothesis. In science, theory is a completely different and much stronger term. Law isn’t above (or, for that matter below) a theory, it’s a different concept altogether. I encourage you to look into it and understand it because, frankly, confusing it comes across very poorly and won’t do well in convincing people you know what your’e talking about.
But here’s the point you’re missing, the chances that any one person is going to win the lottery are tiny, and yet someone always does. From their perspective, it seems like a miracle that they won it, that it must have some significance. But we can’t necessarily assign any meaning to it because everyone else who played didn’t win. The difference with life is that the lottery losers, all the other lifeless planets, don’t get to question why they don’t have life because they don’t have life to question it. It’s a tautology that anywhere life exists is going to be ideal for that life to exist.
And so you see, the existence of life doesn’t actually say anything about the existence or non-existence of God. If I’m going to argue that, that with trillions of chances among the various planets in the universe, even extremely remote combinations of conditions are likely to occur. But, again, that’s the of the point. Science isn’t the method for examining or understanding the nature of God any more than religion is a method for examing or understanding the nature of the physical laws of the universe. It’s like using a measuring tape to explain how colorful something is.
Indeed. If He’s God, and He created me, then He knows where to find me.
And please, Jesus, have the courtesy to call directly. I’m really tired of hearing sales pitches from your downline reps.
That’s what you get with MLM.
So you claim that there is a magical being that created the universe in contradiction to all the known laws of physics, created “sin” ex nihilo and organized a system to punish His children with literally Hellish torments, for eternity, out of His limitless Love… and then sacrificed His only son to Himself in order to change a rule that He created, in his omnibenevolent omnipotence. Then you claim that this being is not more fanciful than carbon-based organisms which have simply been around for a bit longer than humans?