Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Squirt5

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by barkjj

And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.

 

But you cant prove he isnt.  You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail. 

 

True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.

It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.

 

How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.

 

So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.

 

I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.

Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Squirt5

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by barkjj

And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.

 

But you cant prove he isnt.  You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail. 

 

True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.

It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.

 

How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.

 

So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.

 

 

I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.

Those probabilities count what the probability is that the Universe exist in that specific state. It's similar to asking what is the probability that the atoms in the rock you pick up on the street get arranged in the specific order by picking from a set of those atoms at random. The odds of it are so extrodinarily high that their value is truly unreal. Nevertheless, those atoms must exist in some state. Apply that reasoning to our state in the Universe.

That is your answer in all simpleness, you may not like it but that doesn't make it any less true.

Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Squirt5

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by barkjj

And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.

 

But you cant prove he isnt.  You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail. 

 

True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.

It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.

 

How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.

 

So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.

 

 

I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.

If you realise how big the universe is and how much of the universe life is not possible, i think the chance of it happening isn't that small at all.
 

The chance of 12 dices each arriving at "6" when thrown is small, but if you keep tossing 1 million times, chances are it'll eventually happen.

the bible and ID both say that something happened that is unrepeatable and untestable.

they are not scientific.

they can't be used as the basis for a scientific theory.

Science is simply based on repeatable observation. Also scientific theory is incomplete so it is not 'true' in any absolute sense. You can reafirm scientific theory through observation, but that doesn't make it true.

science is a tool for developing predictable technologies. stuff that we know works, and will continue to work. sure sometimes things can not work out and be puzelling, but that's where we have the opportunity to investigate further and develop stronger models.

As soon as you add a logical dicontinuity to your scientific model, there is no longer any predictability. for example, an item outside the interactable universe exists and it created the universe. as it is outside the interactable universe (supernatural) you can't test for it as you can't rely on it.

did it create any other universes? can't test or predict.

does it exist? can't test as it is outside the observable universe.

has it interacted with the observable universe in the past? can't test and if it has all of the past can not be rationally modeled.

can it interact with the present? can't test, and if it can all of our predictability for the future is worthless.

can it interact with the future? can't test, and if it can all of our predictability is worthless.

does it care/love me? can't test and if it did, it still doesn't help make technology

This logical addition of an external untestable interventionist to scientific theory simply makes science unusable as there is no longer any reliability to any of the models. the interventionist can simply alter the past, present or future. so you are as reliably able to access the cure for cancer by sacrificing a goat and praying, which is a lot easier than actually understanding cancer and then treating it.

---

Originally posted by Arndur

---

Originally posted by Gameloading

---

Originally posted by Arndur

---

Originally posted by Squirt5

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

---

Originally posted by barkjj

And as long as PEOPLE write the word "god" on everything, yes the word "god" will always exist. That doesn't prove that god is real.

---

 
But you cant prove he isnt.  You might as well face it, he will always be with us. Progressive liberals try, to remove him from our lives but fail. 

---

 
True, you can't. But you can show that the likelyhood of a supernatural beings existance is extrodinarly small.
It just reflects poorly on one to cling onto that extrodinarly small likelyhood, particularly in the face of such an overwhelming likelyhood that it doesn't exist.

---

 
How bout the extrodinarly small odds that the universe as we know it happens.

---

 
So how big are these odds, really? I want actual numbers, not some made up numbers that Creationists love to toss around.
 

---

 
I don't have the book anymore I just barowed it. It just quoted some aethist mathmaticans who came up with the odds of everything happening the way it did. I mean you can't say thats odds weren't very small. I mean come on so many factors had to come into place for this to happen a 5 year old would see it was luck that it happen. Doesn't have to be proof it was a ID just luck. But if your going to call me out then I want the numbers that show the odds of have having a higher being.

---

this a common mistake in the use of statistics. the definition of possibilities is where the error can be found.

take the example of the change in your pocket. What is the chance that the exact combination of change in your pocket came to be? I mean the types of coins, the year they were made etc. Seems pretty unlikely, yes?

The answer is 100% likely, as there is no other possible combination for you to have in your pocket as what you have in your pocket is not variable. so the chance is the number or outcomes dived buy the possible number of outcomes, so 1/1=1

if the question is how many combination of change could you have in your pocket? the answer is a very large set indeed.

For the universe, how many combinations of universes are there? well, if the universe is everything we can interact with, there are no others that can be found. then there is only one possibility and that is the one that is observed. 1/1 = 1

Evolution has evidence - yes- but not enough to make it a law in scientific terms- the evolution from the beginning of amino acids to the person sitting behind this computer right now-

And creationism,is by definition, unprovable because it is based on a faith in something that will not allow itself to be tangibly proven. That IS why its called faith in the end.

and maybe what it all boils down too is that everyone wants to know the answer to that ultimate unprovable question- WHY are we all here?

I suppose i've never been able to accept that I am simply an arbitrary being forced to live among other arbitrary beings for no other reason than it was simply how nature worked out.

There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human.

Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

outfctrl, seriously, just drop it.

You're continued attempt at putting creationism up there with evolution has failed. You have no idea how evolution works nor do you know how science work. Theories don't become "Laws", they don't become "Facts".

There is no excuse anymore, you chose to remain ignorant. You have been explained multiple times that science does not work the way you think it works, but you continue to ignore that to keep up your creationism, for the lack of a better word, bullshit.

I can give you another link explaining that your views of Evolution are wrong

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

But honnestly, i ask myself why I even bother, it's not like you're interested in actually educating yourself.

---

Originally posted by outfctrl
Evolution has evidence - yes- but not enough to make it a law in scientific terms

---

however this is not a problem. As a scientific theory, it is sound, just like the theory of gravity. We still don't understand gravity, but that doesn't mean that you can use it to develop technology, like hydroelectric power.

---

Originally posted by outfctrl
- the evolution from the beginning of amino acids to the person sitting behind this computer right now-
And creationism,is by definition, unprovable because it is based on a faith in something that will not allow itself to be tangibly proven. That IS why its called faith in the end.
and maybe what it all boils down too is that everyone wants to know the answer to that ultimate unprovable question- WHY are we all here?
I suppose i've never been able to accept that I am simply an arbitrary being forced to live among other arbitrary beings for no other reason than it was simply how nature worked out.

---

arbitrarily forced to? Don't you care about the people around you? aren't they important? why do you need an external unknowable entity to blame/appeal to/love? Why not face a world where we make our own choices, we use courage in the face of adversity to make the world a better place for ourselves and for our loved ones? to be greatful for the unselfice efforts and sacrifices of those people who have gone before us? To explore a universe that we understand to be beyond our comprehension, but that through the testing of small parts we can understand a piece of it then through that understanding build better technology?

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human.
Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

---

there is real problems when your only experiments are to look for more supporting evidence. Especially when it is hard to find, can be destroyed during the searching process, is often individual data points and is an emotionally charged environment pursued by fallible humans.

So if you limit the 'evidence' for evolution solely to the fossil record you will have a very weak model with lots of flaws. If you are after transitional evidence, it is better to look in a more data rich environment, the present. If macro evolution is correct then all life that we observe now is in transition.

Also about what is taught in schools, well text books are often wrong or a simplified version and always need to be updated. One of the nice things about teaching the scientific method is that it relies on the individual to actually test the theories constantly with experimentation. It is a process that can be used even if you are told the wrong things. for example. your car doesn't start, i tell you that it is a blocked fuel line. you can test my theory and prove me right or wrong.

Originally posted by Gameloading

outfctrl, seriously, just drop it.

You're continued attempt at putting creationism up there with evolution has failed. You have no idea how evolution works nor do you know how science work. Theories don't become "Laws", they don't become "Facts".

There is no excuse anymore, you chose to remain ignorant. You have been explained multiple times that science does not work the way you think it works, but you continue to ignore that to keep up your creationism, for the lack of a better word, bullshit.

I can give you another link explaining that your views of Evolution are wrong

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

But honnestly, i ask myself why I even bother, it's not like you're interested in actually educating yourself.

Well, explain this, if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

---

Originally posted by outfctrl
 
Well, explain this, if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

---

actually they are in the process of evolving.

---

Originally posted by outfctrl
Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?
 

---

I think part of your misunderstanding of what evolution involves is the part where it requires a population. there is never one critter evolving, it is a population of critters that changes over time.

I guess it all boils down on what I want to believe. My faith in God overrides the evolution process.  I just cant except that we are just another biological entity.  Do we have a soul?  I thnk so.  Are we different than an elephant, fish, bird?  Yes, I think so.

Are we made in the likeness of God, I know so.

I have no problem with that at all. I believe differently but that isn't really unusual.

What i will argue about is if you try to move evolution out of the area of science or try to move ID into science.

we did not all come from adam and eve, in the bible it says before adam and eve were made that god told beings on the earth to be fruitful and multiply, this was before adam and eve.

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by Gameloading

outfctrl, seriously, just drop it.

You're continued attempt at putting creationism up there with evolution has failed. You have no idea how evolution works nor do you know how science work. Theories don't become "Laws", they don't become "Facts".

There is no excuse anymore, you chose to remain ignorant. You have been explained multiple times that science does not work the way you think it works, but you continue to ignore that to keep up your creationism, for the lack of a better word, bullshit.

I can give you another link explaining that your views of Evolution are wrong

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

But honnestly, i ask myself why I even bother, it's not like you're interested in actually educating yourself.

 

Well, explain this, if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

 

 

Define "Complete and fully formed" please. Everything you see on this world is in a transitionary state. Nothing has fully evolved including humans. Everything will continue to evolve until it becomes extinct. Extinction of a species is the only thing that stops evolution in that species. Everything you see around you is "partially evolved" as you put it including us.

Bren

Originally posted by outfctrl

I guess it all boils down on what I want to believe. My faith in God overrides the evolution process.  I just cant except that we are just another biological entity.  Do we have a soul?  I thnk so.  Are we different than an elephant, fish, bird?  Yes, I think so.

Are we made in the likeness of God, I know so.

It's great that you can believe in whatever makes you happy, but that doesn't make it true. I'd rather believe in something because there's more evidence in it than just because I think it'd make me happier, nor could I do that.

Also, what do you attribute to the soul? Is it your decisions (Animals make decisions too)? Is it your emotions (taking into account that a physical object, i.e. an anti depressant drug, can alter your emotions)? Or possibly your self awareness (the fact that there are animals who can recognise their own reflection as themselves means there are self conscious animals)?

The idea of a soul is nice but when it boils down to what that soul does I'm pretty sure anyone with a basic understanding of what the brain is can conclude we don't have one.

Originally posted by nurgles

I have no problem with that at all. I believe differently but that isn't really unusual.

What i will argue about is if you try to move evolution out of the area of science or try to move ID into science.

 

Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences.

It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.

 In my case, I believe it is God.

---

Originally posted by outfctrl

Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action.

---

No, ID is not scientific in any shape or form. the first and most basic problem is that it is untestable.

If there is an external intelligence, how can we reliably interact with it? the answer is we can't. This very fundamental point makes it loose any scientific validity as a theory.

---

Originally posted by outfctrl
Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences.

---

Stripped of the big words, this says "things are so complicated they must have been designed" which again has no scientific rigor. There is plenty of evidence that a great deal of complexity can arise from simple non-linear systems. How far can you predict the weather for example. Additionally, there is plenty of evidence of ordered structures forming by themselves, for example, the crystallization of minerals. This formation doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics either.

So there are local systems that can show great complexity as well as some that show high order. This is readily observable around you, things that can be explored and tested, changed and manipulated.

Now, knowing how evolution works, you can develope simple reproductive rules in some elementary computer code and you can get things like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Everything we see observe interacts with things we can observe. As soon as you reach for an external influence to explain a model you give up the opportunity to explore the world around us further. Not only is it unscientific to me it is simple cowardice.

A lack of courage to actually ask harder questions.

If you say "that is so complex it must have been designed" you loose the opportunity to find out how it formed naturally and then use that knowledge to build new technology.

The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.
 

Kinda  like frog soup...the frog has all the building blocks needed to make life.

So lets throw it into a blender and put into a glass and expose it to all the elements of mature for lets say 1 million yrs.. so million yrs later what to we have, still frog soup.with out the code it just frog soup.

Although DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros.
 

This is the single most powerful complex fact that they the scientific community is trying to understand.

With out the code its all just soup,this is why we still apes with us that never evolved.

Hm... I'll try to explain this as simple as I can: the "myth" of Adam and Eve is-just-a-story from a book (considered sacred for one religion) called the Bible.

And when you consider your "microevolution" (or whatever you want to call it), have in mind an event that not only happens over a very long period of time (millions of years) but that also happens many repeated times (consider a population of a species).

---

Originally posted by frodus
The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard.
 

---

of course, only a god could make something with DNA
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/dna-box-3d-dna-nanotechnology.html