| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"setrux" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2004 03:27:59 PM |
| Object: |
Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
First off I would like to say that I am by no means a religious
fanatic. I think God himself dislikes "religion". People twist and
distort religion to make excuses for their actions. You can argue
until you're blue in the face as to who's religion is "right" and
nobody would get anywhere. I also am not biased to others opinions or
thoughts. I will respect everyones opinions equally no matter if its a
satan worshipper, atheist, religious fanatic etc etc. I am simply
going to argue the question of "is there a God?", nothing more,
nothing less.
"Is there a God?" This question is answered by asking another, "how
did we get here?" 20th century science has demonstrated, with
certainty, that the universe is not eternal; the universe had a
beginning. Actually, mankind has contemplated this issue for
millennia, long before science proved a beginning. In all that time,
man has conceived of only two possible solutions -- either Someone
made the world, or the world made itself. Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default. The
incredible design that permeates all things implies a Designer.
Natural laws (cause and effect, thermodynamics, gravity, etc.) imply a
Lawgiver. Personal creatures imply a Personal Creator. Since
everything we observe in the universe is an effect, there must have
been a First Cause. Unless we are able to explain satisfactorily how
each of these things exist, without resorting to a supernatural force,
and find empirical evidence to support our conclusion, a Creator is
default. Furthermore, any derived conclusion must be within the bounds
of natural law, as natural law is a part of the universe and remains
unbroken within the universe. Is there a God, or isn't there a God,
depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests upon
atheism to validate its position. Currently, the common alternative to
Special Creation via a Personal Creator is the Big Bang Model of
Origins. This is the accepted theory today.
The Big Bang Theory is today's dominant scientific theory about the
origin of the universe. According to the theory, the universe was
created between 10 and 20 billion years ago from the random, cosmic
explosion of a subatomic ball that hurled matter and energy in all
directions. Over a period of approximately 10 billion years, this
newly created matter and energy coagulated into stars, galaxies and
planets, including our earth.
The Big Bang Theory finds its mathematical roots in Albert Einstein
and his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and his General Theory of
Relativity in 1915. In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre was
the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a
subatomic atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in
distant nebulas and comparing it to a model of the universe based on
Einstein's theories. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered evidence to help
justify Lemaire's theory. Hubble observed that distant galaxies in
every direction are going away from us at speeds proportional to their
distance. The big bang concept was initially suggested because it
explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great
speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background
radiation (the heat left over from the explosion itself). In 1964, the
big bang theory received a major boost when this radiation was
observed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel
Prize for their discovery.
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems however. First of
all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where
did everything come from?" Can nothing explode? This is contrary to
the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter).
Where did Space, Time, Matter, Energy, and Information come from?
Next, how did this explosion (or "expansion") cause order while every
explosion ever observed and documented in recorded history caused only
disorder and disarray? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What
organized the universe after the singularity?
Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics,
the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular
Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain
"Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the
backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of
Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Everything in the universe is spinning - planets, stars, galaxies,
etc. It would take an enormous amount of energy to start a planet
spinning (Inertia). To solve this, advocates of the Big Bang Theory
claim that the singularity that blew up in a sudden big bang was
spinning before it exploded, thus everything within it was spinning as
it flung out. The problem is Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning
backwards (Retrograde Motion). Why is this a problem? If something
spinning clockwise blows up, all of the pieces will be spinning
clockwise (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum). How can the
Big Bang explain Retrograde Motion? Some have suggested that cosmic
impacts upon these planets have stopped and then reversed the spin.
This is not acceptable, since many small impacts would be largely
self-defeating, and the force of impact necessary to stop and reverse
the spin of a planet all at once is incredible, so much so it would
certainly leave a mark -- probably take a huge chunk out of the
planet! At the very least, it would upset the orbit. Yet Venus has a
retrograde spin and is nearly flawless in both its shape and orbit.
Besides the significant problem of retrograde spin, some moons have
a retrograde orbit around their planet. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and
Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Once again, how can
Big Bang cosmologists solve this dilemma without violating the Law of
Conservation of Angular Momentum?
Finally, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For
example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution
of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and
"clumps". If the Big Bang was true, shouldn't all the matter be
(roughly) evenly distributed? Why are there incredibly vast voids of
empty space between the clumps of matter? It is true there is the
Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Electro Magnetic Force, and
Gravity. The problem is not so much, "How did all the matter clump?"
The question is, "Why has the clumping agent allowed these voids after
such an extended period of influence?" James Trefil writes, "There
shouldn't be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are
galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together the way they are." (James
Trefil, The Dark Side of the Universe, 1988, pg.3)
The Big Bang Theory provided an atheistic explanation for the
origin of the universe, but its obvious simplicity was subject to
multiple attacks. As a result, the original theory is no longer the
dominant scientific explanation for the atheistic origin of the
universe. While the original Big Bang Theory is now "dead," from its
ashes have emerged the various Inflationary Universe Theories (IUTs).
Starting with Alan Guth in the late 1990's (The Inflationary Universe:
The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins), the scientific
community has now proposed roughly 50 different IUT variants.
Scientists hope that one of the current IUTs will sire an accurate
reconstruction of the birth of our universe, though it is universally
acknowledged that all of the current IUTs have their problems. It
seems the only way to get realistic calculations to match an IUT model
is to make assumptions that are poorly justified.
The IUTs are essentially no better an attempt to explain the origin
of the universe without God than the Big Bang. The primary differences
between the IUTs and the original Big Bang Theory are really pre-Bang
explanations. What happened just prior to the explosion? What happened
during the first millisecond of the explosion? For instance, some of
the IUTs have included a concept called the 'epoch of inflation' to
explain the dynamic first millisecond after the Bang. However, the
basic premise of all these theory variants is the same -- the universe
was compacted into a little cosmic ball that subsequently exploded
with a big bang into everything that exists today. Thus, the IUTs
share the same post-Bang problems which we have discussed that plague
the original Big Bang Theory.
In addition, the Big Bang/IUTs are unable to explain a limitless
list of other issues related to cosmological, chemical, stellar,
planetary and biological causation, order and design. Where did all
that matter and energy come from in the first place? What caused its
initial release? How did this explosion of everything (from nothing)
order itself? How can simplicity become complexity? Where did the
chemical elements come from? Where did the mathematical laws and
physical properties come from? Where did the first rock come from? How
did life come from a rock? Where did the information code for all
biologic forms come from? Where did the language convention that
interprets that code come from?
Attempts to exclude a Creator from the "origin of the universe
equation" have been long on theoretical calculations and short on
common sense. The various models merely move the questions of where,
why and how did everything get here to "long ago and far away." But as
Aldous Huxley put it so eloquently, "Facts do not cease to exist
because they are ignored."
In conclusion, I am uncertain as to how anyone can completely
exclude the existence of God. It seems ridiculous to me that some
argue that it is far more inane to believe in God than all these
scientific theories of how we came into existence. Once again I must
reiterate that I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone, just
trying to simply argue my case intelligently, and without bias. I ALSO
must reiterate, I am only giving my views on the existence of God and
creation, not the Bible or any of its stories, or beliefs on different
religions, or on evolution etc etc. I'll debate on those topics later.
:) I could have said alot more but it would lead into different
topics. I would like to discuss this one before moving on to something
else. All retorts, comments, and opinions are welcome. Insults will be
ignored because if you cant respond even semi-intelligently and with
respect, then you shouldnt be reading this in the first place.
.
|
|
| User: "John Rohrer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
20 Jan 2004 11:42:41 PM |
|
|
It's easy - you don't. You just don't have to take that remote
possibility into real consideration any more than you need to take the
remote possibility that this world is really inside a giant rabbit
looking for a lollipop.
It's not - he's looking for the magic Easter egg.
Yes and when I find it
When YOU find it? Try reading again. It's the giant rabbit we live
in that's looking for it.
Brilliant observation, unfortunately not brilliant enough, for *I* am
the giant rabbit. And yes, you do live inside of me, like worms inside
of a dog!
Dude, get a hold of yourself. Now, what the hell are you talking about? You've taken this splash of wit and
throuroughly shat on it. Do you want to address the thread you started or make a total fool out of
yourself? I apologize for any ad hom overtones.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
10 Jan 2004 06:38:44 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2004 15:16:01 -0800, (setrux) wrote:
snip
Very true, so my question now is, how can atheists argue that there
is absolutely no remote plausability that God could be one of those
"infinite numbers of possible answers"?
You put a deity as evidence first then argue from that premise.
It's evidenced when you say, 'that God' as if it's real, and yours.
If you believe there is a deity 'out there' it must have attributes
that can be measured, no matter how tenuous the values are. If it
reacts with material reality, then by every law of nature there must
be some evidence.
What possible explanation would there be for a deity to hide itself
from reality?
Your problem is the age old 'golly... SOMETHING 'must' have made
us'. So human ego decides it must have been something divine, not
something natural.
But I suspect you're just another programmed, mindless loser
looking for converts. It's another part of the stupendous insecurity
theists have with non-believers.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
12 Jan 2004 09:57:55 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401101516.59004a49@posting.google.com:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was*
a cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is
to invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exercise in
pointlessness, and is far, far more likely to be wrong than right,
since the number of possible answers you could invent to fill the
vacuum is infinite.
Very true, so my question now is, how can atheists argue that there
is absolutely no remote plausability that God could be one of those
"infinite numbers of possible answers"?
But you see, atheists *don't* argue that. Well, some do. But atheism
qua atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. That is, since there is
no evidence for God (and no need for God to explain reality, since
science is doing quite well in that area on its own), we view any
speculation about his existence in much the same way that we view
speculation about whether leprechauns exist -- if you find some evidence
for leprechauns, show us. Until then, we'll just assume they don't
exist, thank you very much.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "setrux" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
12 Jan 2004 06:45:24 PM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns946E65B166586Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 10 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401101516.59004a49@posting.google.com:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was*
a cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is
to invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exercise in
pointlessness, and is far, far more likely to be wrong than right,
since the number of possible answers you could invent to fill the
vacuum is infinite.
Very true, so my question now is, how can atheists argue that there
is absolutely no remote plausability that God could be one of those
"infinite numbers of possible answers"?
But you see, atheists *don't* argue that. Well, some do. But atheism
qua atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. That is, since there is
no evidence for God (and no need for God to explain reality, since
science is doing quite well in that area on its own), we view any
speculation about his existence in much the same way that we view
speculation about whether leprechauns exist -- if you find some evidence
for leprechauns, show us. Until then, we'll just assume they don't
exist, thank you very much.
Yeah science has an impeccable track record, ranging all the way back
to when the Earth was flat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Hoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
13 Jan 2004 04:42:14 AM |
|
|
"setrux" <outgonecya@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89fa93b1.0401121645.75fe14f8@posting.google.com...
Yeah science has an impeccable track record, ranging all the way back
to when the Earth was flat.
the Bible says the earth is flat and insects are animals.
Barb
Barb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Hoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
13 Jan 2004 04:44:16 AM |
|
|
"Barb Hoy" <barbhoy31@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:aYPMb.30$iD6.49570@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"setrux" <outgonecya@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89fa93b1.0401121645.75fe14f8@posting.google.com...
Yeah science has an impeccable track record, ranging all the way back
to when the Earth was flat.
the Bible says the earth is flat and insects are animals.
Barb
correction....
the Bible says the earth is flat and insects have 4 legs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
13 Jan 2004 05:30:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:42:14 GMT, "Barb Hoy"
<barbhoy31@adelphia.net> spake thusly:
"setrux" <outgonecya@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89fa93b1.0401121645.75fe14f8@posting.google.com...
Yeah science has an impeccable track record, ranging all the way back
to when the Earth was flat.
the Bible says the earth is flat and insects are animals.
That's a claim, not proof.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
www.answersingenesis.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "HoundDog" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
14 Jan 2004 01:52:10 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<1nl700h39jcbmpbmf4qf4phfhfk2fcafuo@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:42:14 GMT, "Barb Hoy"
<barbhoy31@adelphia.net> spake thusly:
"setrux" <outgonecya@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89fa93b1.0401121645.75fe14f8@posting.google.com...
Yeah science has an impeccable track record, ranging all the way back
to when the Earth was flat.
the Bible says the earth is flat and insects are animals.
That's a claim, not proof.
Dave,
The Bible tells us bats are birds:
From Leviticus:
"
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls
; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the
ossifrage, and the ospray,
start-11:14
"
And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Every raven after his kind;
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after
his kind,
And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat
"
end-11:19
Or beware the 4 legged birds, again from Leviticus:
11:20
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination
unto you.
Again from Leviticus,we have the 4 legged insects:
"
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that
you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or
grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you
are to detest."
HD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
15 Jan 2004 08:07:10 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2004 11:52:10 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
Dave,
The Bible tells us bats are birds:
From Leviticus:
"
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls
; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the
ossifrage, and the ospray,
start-11:14
"
And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Every raven after his kind;
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after
his kind,
And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat
The Hebrew word "oph", translated as, "fowls", simply
means, "as covering with feathers, OR, as covering with
wings. Bats have wings.
end-11:19
Or beware the 4 legged birds, again from Leviticus:
11:20
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination
unto you.
The Hebrew word, "sherets", translated as, "creep",
simply means, "a swarm (an active mass of minute
animals)". And yes, there are fowls that do use all
fours. Bats are a perfect example. Watch them in a
cave sometime. There are others, of course. The Bible
does not say that they ONLY travel on all fours.
Again from Leviticus,we have the 4 legged insects:
"
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that
you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or
grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you
are to detest."
You are grasping at straws.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/bryanp/Evolution/Gre.Sci..htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
15 Jan 2004 08:54:45 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
The Hebrew word "oph", translated as, "fowls", simply
means, "as covering with feathers, OR, as covering with
wings. Bats have wings.
Ahhh, so the translation is wrong. OK.
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "HoundDog" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
15 Jan 2004 02:56:03 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<mb7d0093vm60tretiarcfmvhv9l8v4vnpa@4ax.com>...
On 14 Jan 2004 11:52:10 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
Dave,
The Bible tells us bats are birds:
From Leviticus:
"
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls
; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the
ossifrage, and the ospray,
start-11:14
"
And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Every raven after his kind;
And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after
his kind,
And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat
The Hebrew word "oph", translated as, "fowls", simply
means, "as covering with feathers, OR, as covering with
wings. Bats have wings.
So do insects but they were not in this list; seems the perfect bible
isn't.
end-11:19
Or beware the 4 legged birds, again from Leviticus:
11:20
All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination
unto you.
The Hebrew word, "sherets", translated as, "creep",
simply means, "a swarm (an active mass of minute
animals)". And yes, there are fowls that do use all
fours. Bats are a perfect example. Watch them in a
cave sometime. There are others, of course. The Bible
does not say that they ONLY travel on all fours.
Bats are mammals not birds. Another miss for the Bible.
Again from Leviticus,we have the 4 legged insects:
"
All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that
you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or
grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you
are to detest."
You are grasping at straws.
No, I'm quoting from the "perfect" bible. And, bats are mammals not
fowls as you seem to imply in an attempt to spin away the error in
this section of the Bible.
HD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
16 Jan 2004 11:40:09 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2004 12:56:03 -0800,
(HoundDog) spake thusly:
You are grasping at straws.
No, I'm quoting from the "perfect" bible. And, bats are mammals not
fowls as you seem to imply in an attempt to spin away the error in
this section of the Bible.
Man calls them mammals. God calls them fowls. They
are fowls, by God's criteria.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
13 Jan 2004 10:09:25 AM |
|
|
(setrux) wrote in message news:<89fa93b1.0401121645.75fe14f8@posting.google.com>...
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns946E65B166586Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 10 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401101516.59004a49@posting.google.com:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was*
a cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is
to invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exercise in
pointlessness, and is far, far more likely to be wrong than right,
since the number of possible answers you could invent to fill the
vacuum is infinite.
Very true, so my question now is, how can atheists argue that there
is absolutely no remote plausability that God could be one of those
"infinite numbers of possible answers"?
But you see, atheists *don't* argue that. Well, some do. But atheism
qua atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. That is, since there is
no evidence for God (and no need for God to explain reality, since
science is doing quite well in that area on its own), we view any
speculation about his existence in much the same way that we view
speculation about whether leprechauns exist -- if you find some evidence
for leprechauns, show us. Until then, we'll just assume they don't
exist, thank you very much.
Yeah science has an impeccable track record, ranging all the way back
to when the Earth was flat.
Science is self-correcting. Religion is "infallible."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
14 Jan 2004 05:07:45 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2004 16:45:24 -0800, (setrux) wrote:
Yeah science has an impeccable track record, ranging all the way back
to when the Earth was flat.
Science has NEVER said the earth was flat.
And, unlike religious dogma, science has a self correcting mechanism;
namely objective evidence and the scientific method. Theories can
always be improved as new data comes along.
William
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
13 Jan 2004 10:02:47 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401121645.75fe14f8@posting.google.com:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns946E65B166586Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 10 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401101516.59004a49@posting.google.com:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The
default, when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully
know what caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if
there even *was* a cause. To claim by default that God did it,
when we don't know, is to invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an
exercise in pointlessness, and is far, far more likely to be wrong
than right, since the number of possible answers you could invent
to fill the vacuum is infinite.
Very true, so my question now is, how can atheists argue that
there
is absolutely no remote plausability that God could be one of those
"infinite numbers of possible answers"?
But you see, atheists *don't* argue that. Well, some do. But
atheism qua atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. That is,
since there is no evidence for God (and no need for God to explain
reality, since science is doing quite well in that area on its own),
we view any speculation about his existence in much the same way that
we view speculation about whether leprechauns exist -- if you find
some evidence for leprechauns, show us. Until then, we'll just
assume they don't exist, thank you very much.
Yeah science has an impeccable track record, ranging all the way back
to when the Earth was flat.
Yes, many scientific theories have been wrong. That is the way science
operates -- we come up with a theory that is substantiated by the
evidence, we test the predictions of that theory, and if the predictions
are correct and the evidence fits, we accept that theory until we find
something it *can't* explain. In this way, Newton's mechanics are
incorrect, and our current best replacement theory is Einstein's ToR --
but Newton's mechanics are still correct for the areas they were
originally tested in, as is any true scientific theory. They just need
to be expanded to cover areas the original theory didn't cover, as
Newton's mechanics didn't (correctly) apply to objects traveling at very
high speeds.
Interestingly, the idea that the earth is flat was *never* a scientific
theory -- it was around before there was science as we know it, and once
there was science as we know it, the common people continued to believe
the earth was flat while scientists and educated people knew it was
round.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
11 Jan 2004 12:04:47 AM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was* a
cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is to
invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exercise in pointlessness, and
is far, far more likely to be wrong than right, since the number of
possible answers you could invent to fill the vacuum is infinite.
We know that the probability that ordered complexity can come about by
chance random processes is very small. Random processes could not have
created life.
A designer, that designed it on purpose must exist.
There are serious scientists and mathematicians that deal with the
laws of probability that will tell you that this universe with all of
its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To
have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed
by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one
human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him
hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library
full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are
forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must
be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that
are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability
that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by
chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296
power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance
is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This
means that the probability that the living cell is created by an
intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The
probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296
power to 1.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous
astronomer and mathematician.]
The laws conscerning entropy are well established in physics. Entropy
is the measure of the randomness or disorder in a system. Entropy is
always observed to increase in natural physical processes. Natural
processes in science always tend toward more disorder. The idea that
the universe could develope the ordered complexity that it has, by
natural processes violates the law of entropy, that says disorder must
increase in natural processes. Therefore, one must conclude that the
complex order that we see in the universe did not come about by chance
scientific processes. It was developed on purpose by an intelligent
creator. God created it.
The law of entropy exists in thermodynamic systems involving heat,
that is true. Entropy also exists as a measure of disorder in a system
in statistical mechanics having nothing to do with thermodynamics.
S=klnp + c. S = value of measure for a system in a given state. P is
the probability of the occurence of that state. K is a fixed constant
and c an arbitrary constant. Heat is disordered energy. Entropy is a
broader term describing either heat or the amount of disorder in a
system. The chemical reactions that you suppose will produce hundreds
of thousands of ordered building blocks of amino acids to produce
genes cannot occur by chance processes because statistical mechanics
says that the reactions will tend toward more disorder. Genes and
chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly ordered parts.
Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot come from
chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.
There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by
science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random
chance occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In
all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases.
In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to
more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity.
The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence,
of some sort deliberately assembling something together.
Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a
tornado. When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves
into a house. They just fall into a more disordered pile of building
materials. An intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials
into a house to get ordered complexity.
God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no
observed scientific processes that can account for it happening by
itself.
Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species
according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a
species changing to another variety of the same species known as a
subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark
caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural
selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into
another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do
not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural
selection cannot account for the origin of the different species.
There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been
found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to
become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found
in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were
originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the
chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have
had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large
enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than
one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the
correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130
"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level
turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138
"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to
explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but
rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution",
Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange
them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289
"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or
ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide
the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290
"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz
and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291
"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293
Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is
true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of
transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with
undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been
collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of
probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent
transitional forms.
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and
the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants,
between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between
invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between
amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between
reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between
apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so
thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they
will never be filled. ---
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: ?
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed
[must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation
and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly
does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this,
perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
against the theory [of evolution].
W. I. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, 1954, p. 48.: The reason
for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the
imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when
paleontology was a young science.
Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural
History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26
November 1978:?
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures,
like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably
never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet
found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the
fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They
have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern
humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are
to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum
in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of
transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I
fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of
evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or
living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the
line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a
watertight argument."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major
transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our
imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has
been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of
evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982,
p. 140
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to
the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is
vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its
present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the
billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to
have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dastardly" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
12 Jan 2004 03:22:36 PM |
|
|
(stone) wrote in message news:<5cfa0b68.0401102204.2c83652@posting.google.com>...
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was* a
cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is to
invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exercise in pointlessness, and
is far, far more likely to be wrong than right, since the number of
possible answers you could invent to fill the vacuum is infinite.
We know that the probability that ordered complexity can come about by
chance random processes is very small. Random processes could not have
created life.
A designer, that designed it on purpose must exist.
There are serious scientists and mathematicians that deal with the
laws of probability that will tell you that this universe with all of
its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To
have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed
by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one
human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
Baaahhhp! Wrong! This had to be a result of there being an infinite
number of universes. Actually, a universe sufficiently large in space
could guarantee our existence. And, just because there is an edge to
the visible universe does not mean the actual edge of space is not
somwhere many times farther than the visible edge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
11 Jan 2004 08:47:02 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2004 22:04:47 -0800, (stone) posted
to alt.atheism:
We know that the probability that ordered complexity can come about by
chance random processes is very small. Random processes could not have
created life.
I don't know which web site you stole this from without attributing
it, or which site stole it from which, but it's just as totally
incorrect in your post as it is on every site it appears on.
(BTW, "ordered complexity" is an oxymoron.)
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review -- FICTION |
12 Jan 2004 02:01:32 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Jan 2004 22:04:47 -0800, (stone) posted
to alt.atheism:
We know that the probability that ordered complexity can come about by
chance random processes is very small. Random processes could not have
created life.
I don't know which web site you stole this from without attributing
it, or which site stole it from which, but it's just as totally
incorrect in your post as it is on every site it appears on.
(BTW, "ordered complexity" is an oxymoron.)
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
===>Einstein also referred to it as the "God of Spinoza".
Of course THAT so-called "GOD" does indeed exist!
Compared to it the puny little deity of Genesis fabricating
humans and animals out of mud and bringing them to life
by blowing air into their nostrils is an obvious character of
fiction. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
11 Jan 2004 08:46:07 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2004 22:04:47 -0800, (stone) wrote:
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to
the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is
vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its
present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the
billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to
have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
Except darlin- Prigogine happened to be a friend of my father who
taught Chaos Theory too. Prigogine did not have any belief in
'Intellegent Design'. If this is an accurate quote, he wasn't
referring to that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
11 Jan 2004 08:48:01 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2004 08:46:07 -0600, (Kate ) posted to
alt.atheism:
On 10 Jan 2004 22:04:47 -0800, (stone) wrote:
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to
the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is
vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its
present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the
billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to
have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
Except darlin- Prigogine happened to be a friend of my father who
taught Chaos Theory too. Prigogine did not have any belief in
'Intellegent Design'. If this is an accurate quote, he wasn't
referring to that.
"prebiotic evolution"? I don't think so.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arno" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
14 Jan 2004 05:43:34 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:am24005obd6n535srmmmch6d92bc4onqaq@Pern.rk...
On 11 Jan 2004 08:46:07 -0600, (Kate ) posted to
alt.atheism:
On 10 Jan 2004 22:04:47 -0800, (stone) wrote:
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to
the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is
vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its
present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the
billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to
have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
Except darlin- Prigogine happened to be a friend of my father who
taught Chaos Theory too. Prigogine did not have any belief in
'Intellegent Design'. If this is an accurate quote, he wasn't
referring to that.
"prebiotic evolution"? I don't think so.
I agree. It doesn't sound like anything a scientist would say. Sounds more
like creationist blather. Plus, the statement that life in its present form
is highly improbable is nonsense, since life in its present form has already
happened and is here now.
Probability is about predicting the chance of future events => computing the
ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely
outcomes that produce a given event, say heads, to the total number of
possible outcomes, heads or tails. So the probability of a coin landing
heads is one in two, 1/2. Somebody hasn't been doing his homework and
thinking things through. Probably gonna get an F in his probability and
statistics class ibetcha. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
14 Jan 2004 08:25:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:43:34 GMT, "Arno"
<arno02165@hotmailspamblock.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:am24005obd6n535srmmmch6d92bc4onqaq@Pern.rk...
On 11 Jan 2004 08:46:07 -0600, (Kate ) posted to
alt.atheism:
On 10 Jan 2004 22:04:47 -0800, (stone) wrote:
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to
the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is
vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its
present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the
billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to
have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
Except darlin- Prigogine happened to be a friend of my father who
taught Chaos Theory too. Prigogine did not have any belief in
'Intellegent Design'. If this is an accurate quote, he wasn't
referring to that.
"prebiotic evolution"? I don't think so.
I agree. It doesn't sound like anything a scientist would say.
It's also a contradiction in terms. A prebiotic biological process?
Plus, the statement that life in its present form
is highly improbable is nonsense, since life in its present form has already
happened and is here now.
No, even as recently as 1,000 years ago, any particular individual
living now was highly improbable. The point is that there was no
"drive" for evolution to turn out producing human beings now - as
Gould said, if we could do it all over again, the life forms that
would come about would be different than the ones that came about this
time.
Probability is about predicting the chance of future events => computing the
ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely
outcomes that produce a given event, say heads, to the total number of
possible outcomes, heads or tails. So the probability of a coin landing
heads is one in two, 1/2.
And cretinists tell us how improbable life was, back before there was
life. Any particular cretinist was even more improbable back then.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "N" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
14 Jan 2004 09:45:54 PM |
|
|
NO - If you belive in God, I sell you the Golden Gate bridge.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:25:19 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:43:34 GMT, "Arno"
<arno02165@hotmailspamblock.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:am24005obd6n535srmmmch6d92bc4onqaq@Pern.rk...
On 11 Jan 2004 08:46:07 -0600, (Kate ) posted to
alt.atheism:
On 10 Jan 2004 22:04:47 -0800, (stone) wrote:
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to
the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is
vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its
present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the
billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to
have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
Except darlin- Prigogine happened to be a friend of my father who
taught Chaos Theory too. Prigogine did not have any belief in
'Intellegent Design'. If this is an accurate quote, he wasn't
referring to that.
"prebiotic evolution"? I don't think so.
I agree. It doesn't sound like anything a scientist would say.
It's also a contradiction in terms. A prebiotic biological process?
Plus, the statement that life in its present form
is highly improbable is nonsense, since life in its present form has already
happened and is here now.
No, even as recently as 1,000 years ago, any particular individual
living now was highly improbable. The point is that there was no
"drive" for evolution to turn out producing human beings now - as
Gould said, if we could do it all over again, the life forms that
would come about would be different than the ones that came about this
time.
Probability is about predicting the chance of future events => computing the
ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely
outcomes that produce a given event, say heads, to the total number of
possible outcomes, heads or tails. So the probability of a coin landing
heads is one in two, 1/2.
And cretinists tell us how improbable life was, back before there was
life. Any particular cretinist was even more improbable back then.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
12 Jan 2004 10:11:57 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2004, (Kate ) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:4009601b.58157953@news-west.newscene.com:
On 10 Jan 2004 22:04:47 -0800, (stone) wrote:
Prigogine, a Nobel Prize winning thermodynamicist:
"The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of
molecules is assembled to rise to the highly ordered structures and to
the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is
vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its
present form is therefore highly improbable even on the scale of the
billions of years during which prebiotic evolution is speculated to
have occured."
Ilya Prigogine, et al, Nov 1972, Physics Today p. 23-31
Except darlin- Prigogine happened to be a friend of my father who
taught Chaos Theory too. Prigogine did not have any belief in
'Intellegent Design'. If this is an accurate quote, he wasn't
referring to that.
Key phrases:
"a macroscopic number"
"in it's present form"
"highly ordered structures and ... coordinated functions"
He's apparently saying that it's impossible for fully-formed, modern
life to randomly spring from a pool of molecules. This is true, but it
says nothing about abiogenesis as it presumably happened billions of
years ago, which is not supposed to have operated in that way. I'd say
that this is an out-of-context quote either dismissing some sort of
strawman or commenting on Pasteur's work.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
12 Jan 2004 10:06:03 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2004, (stone) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:5cfa0b68.0401102204.2c83652@posting.google.com:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was*
a cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is
to invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exercise in
pointlessness, and is far, far more likely to be wrong than right,
since the number of possible answers you could invent to fill the
vacuum is infinite.
We know that the probability that ordered complexity can come about by
chance random processes is very small. Random processes could not have
created life.
<snip long-***** cut 'n' paste that says the same thing over and over for
pages>
You know, you're absolutely right. Completely random processes could
*never* have created life, or at least the likelihood is so small that
it's not worth consideration. Congratulations for utterly demolishing
that wicious, turrible strawman with big, big teeth and NASSSTY
CLAWSSSS!
Ok! Now that that suspenseful and dramatic Strawman vs. Stone battle is
over with, let's move on to what *science* (specifically, evolution and
abiogenesis research) says, which interestingly enough is *not* that
life arose from pure random chance. Do you know what, exactly, it is
that science tells us about how life arose? You, yes you, Stone, in the
back. Can you tell the class what we know about how life came about?
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
11 Jan 2004 12:07:57 AM |
|
|
stone wrote:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was* a
cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is to
invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exercise in pointlessness, and
is far, far more likely to be wrong than right, since the number of
possible answers you could invent to fill the vacuum is infinite.
We know that the probability that ordered complexity can come about by
chance random processes is very small. Random processes could not have
created life.
A designer, that designed it on purpose must exist.
Wrong from the start.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Rohrer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
21 Jan 2004 12:45:10 AM |
|
|
stone wrote:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns946BA239ABB81Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was* a
cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is to
invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exercise in pointlessness, and
is far, far more likely to be wrong than right, since the number of
possible answers you could invent to fill the vacuum is infinite.
We know that the probability that ordered complexity can come about by
chance random processes is very small. Random processes could not have
created life.
A designer, that designed it on purpose must exist.
Extensive trials by an obscure british researcher over the past 20 years seems to indicate that we can replicate
seemingly random patterns found in nature through the use of some very simple and rudimantary rules computed
over successive generations. My point: divine beauty does not necessitate a divine creator of that beauty. In
this case, the equations are self-evident and entirely reproduceable. Their math would exist whether we wereto
think of it or not.
The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance
is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible.
What makes you so naive as to think that life sprang up as the cells we usually see today? You're missing the
instinctive purpose of cells and organisms: to perpetuate their genetic code. Cells and organisms may as well be
the genes' "survival machines" (to quote Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene"). Modern lab recearch has actually
created the nucleotides which form DNA by reproducing the pre-life organic soup of early Earth's seas and
introducing the equivalent of a bolt of lightning.
...chromosomes have hundreds of thousands of complexly ordered parts.
Accoording to statistical mechanics this much order cannot come from
chance scientific processes. It had to come from an intelligent
creator.
Over and over, you tout that it HAD to come from an intelligent creator. Can you ACTUALLY comprehend how long 14
billion years is? That's more time than a human mind can grasp outside of scaled-down metaphors. You assume that
to get from A to Z there must have been divine help. We may not be able to say our cosmic ABC's, but we've
gotten enough glimpses of the other letters in the alphabet to evolve [relatively] internally consistent
theories regarding it. To assume that, because Z is so complex, it had to have been intentionally created, is to
ignore all of the evidence pointing to A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,&Y.
Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species
according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a
species changing to another variety of the same species known as a
subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark
caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural
selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into
another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do
not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals.
Well, they apparently haven't done any such dramatic transformations during the comparatively short time (3
million years or so) that homo sapiens sapiens has been on the scene. The fact that evolution's baby steps are
an observable present reality seems to me to be a compelling argument against your case. I don't know how else
you plan on explaining the fossil record, if not in terms of evolution. As in the case of the angel dissolving
the sodium and chloride ions to make saltwater, the angel would seem quite superfluous.
Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large
enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148
The case of the monkey reproducing Skakespeare is a shot-in-the dark excercise in misapplied statistical
thinking, just like your "statistics" regarding the chance that a cell would spontaneously come togther from its
respective components. You may be forgetting A through Y again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Is There A God? - Empirical Review |
09 Jan 2004 05:04:26 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
On 09 Jan 2004, (setrux) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:89fa93b1.0401091327.139c47e5@posting.google.com:
<snip>
Unless we can demonstrate
the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default.
This is where you go wrong. God is *not* the default. The default,
when you don't know, is "we don't know". We do not fully know what
caused the universe to come into being, or indeed if there even *was* a
cause. To claim by default that God did it, when we don't know, is to
invent an answer to fill a vacuum, is an exer | |
