A lesson for the liberal elite

manu1959 said:
why can't they be random?

remeber .... anything is possible
Possible, but not likely

A one in a million chance (six zeroes)is the same as saying that if you did something once a second, it would take 3.2 years before the "one in a million" event took place.

A one in a billion chance (9 zeroes) is the same as above, except it would take 3200 years.

A one in a 10 to the 60th chance (60 zeroes) is the same as the first example except it would take

3, 200, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 (3.2 million trillion trillion trillion trillion) years. Which is more time than ever existed, so the likelihood is so small that it's as good as saying it's impossible.

P.S. Even if the event took place more often (say once every 10 to the -33 seconds which is the smallest possible interval of time), it would still take 3.2 times 10 to the 20th (3.2 trillion billion) years. Still more years than the universe is expected to last, so it's still as good as saying it's impossible.
 
Interesting discussion, here are my 2 cents:
Let me start off by saying that I don't see religion and science as being mutually exclusive. However, there are individual religious based arguments that simply don't work for me.
1. If science can't fully explain it, God must have done it.
There was a point in time when lightning couldn't be scientifically explained and must have been caused by Zeus throwing a temper tantrum. Much later we discovered how lightning worked and it turns out that those Zeus believers were wrong. I have no answers to some of the good questions that have been posed in this thread but that doesn't mean that God must have done it. Maybe he did but simply saying that it must be so because science can't explain it is not a convincing argument. Who are we to say that in 300 years, science won't come up with a great explanation for what the universe was like before the big bang?

2. It is too impossible a coincidence that everything happened just right for something as complicated as humans to exist today if it wasn't for ID.
This has been answered before in this thread but maybe it needs to be said again: If anything had gone wrong, we wouldn't be here to marvel at how everything had to be just right. Maybe ID is the right answer but the "impossible coincidence" argument simply isn't a convincing argument for ID.

3. Evolution can't be right because the changes from species to species are too big to happen a little at a time.
There are definite holes in the theory of evolution but I think one thing that is sometimes glossed over is the fact that monkeys didn't turn into men overnight (or at least our common ancestors didn't turn into monkeys and humans overnight). This has been a story 3 billion years in the making. This is an amount of time that is absolutely incomprehensible to us as beings that are lucky if we live to be 100. Maybe evolution is all wrong but I for one can't dismiss it simply because I can't understand what could happen over 3 billion years. In fact, God as a concept is far more incomprehensible to me than the idea that little changes over 3 billion years could add up to the difference between an amoeba and a man. Far more faith is required to believe creation than is required to believe evolution.

On the other hand, I will fully admit that some people hold science up to a far higher standard than it deserves. Science only ever attempts to come up with explanations that are reproduceable and predictable, it shouldn't ever claim to come up with absolutely "right" answers. Newton's equation for force (F=ma) was, at that time, reproduceable, predictable, and therefore extremely useful, but it wasn't "right" as Einstein later showed (nor was Einstein fully correct as Hawking showed, etc. etc.). Let's not turn science into a religion it never claimed to be.
 
KarlMarx said:
P.S. Even if the event took place more often (say once every 10 to the -33 seconds which is the smallest possible interval of time), it would still take 3.2 times 10 to the 20th (3.2 trillion billion) years. Still more years than the universe is expected to last, so it's still as good as saying it's impossible.
This is assuming that "now" is the only time this universe has existed. Certain theories suggest that our Universe could have gone through infinite big bang and collapse cycles before "our" big bang managed to hit that 1 in 10^60 chance.

It also assumes that "our" universe is the only one in existence. Maybe there are 10^60 other, completely lifeless universes where no one exists to wonder how amazing DNA is?
 
HorhayAtAMD said:
Interesting discussion, here are my 2 cents:
Let me start off by saying that I don't see religion and science as being mutually exclusive. However, there are individual religious based arguments that simply don't work for me.
1. If science can't fully explain it, God must have done it.
There was a point in time when lightning couldn't be scientifically explained and must have been caused by Zeus throwing a temper tantrum. Much later we discovered how lightning worked and it turns out that those Zeus believers were wrong. I have no answers to some of the good questions that have been posed in this thread but that doesn't mean that God must have done it. Maybe he did but simply saying that it must be so because science can't explain it is not a convincing argument. Who are we to say that in 300 years, science won't come up with a great explanation for what the universe was like before the big bang?

2. It is too impossible a coincidence that everything happened just right for something as complicated as humans to exist today if it wasn't for ID.
This has been answered before in this thread but maybe it needs to be said again: If anything had gone wrong, we wouldn't be here to marvel at how everything had to be just right. Maybe ID is the right answer but the "impossible coincidence" argument simply isn't a convincing argument for ID.

The hole in your argument is that you assume that ID is not based on scientific principles, when in fact it is. See here: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136

3. Evolution can't be right because the changes from species to species are too big to happen a little at a time.
There are definite holes in the theory of evolution but I think one thing that is sometimes glossed over is the fact that monkeys didn't turn into men overnight (or at least our common ancestors didn't turn into monkeys and humans overnight). This has been a story 3 billion years in the making. This is an amount of time that is absolutely incomprehensible to us as beings that are lucky if we live to be 100. Maybe evolution is all wrong but I for one can't dismiss it simply because I can't understand what could happen over 3 billion years. In fact, God as a concept is far more incomprehensible to me than the idea that little changes over 3 billion years could add up to the difference between an amoeba and a man. Far more faith is required to believe creation than is required to believe evolution.

The idea that given enough time, anything could happen is a fallacy - in fact, the major fallacy behind evolution. For example, even if I lived to be a trillion years old, monkeys would never spontaneoulsly appear in my rectum, get clearance from the tower, and fly out my butt. That's basically the leap of faith that evolution takes. It states that life just spontaneously appeared, like those monkeys. All that ID does is say that life appeared after it was designed and created.
 
gop_jeff said:
The hole in your argument is that you assume that ID is not based on scientific principles, when in fact it is. See here: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136
Thanks for the link, I'll take a look. My argument isn't that ID is wrong, only that the arguments I've heard for it (and against big bang/evolution/etc.) are not convincing. The arguments I've heard are always based on "well, you haven't come up with anything better so God must have done it". If there are better arguments, I'm keen to hear them.

The idea that given enough time, anything could happen is a fallacy - in fact, the major fallacy behind evolution. For example, even if I lived to be a trillion years old, monkeys would never spontaneoulsly appear in my rectum, get clearance from the tower, and fly out my butt. That's basically the leap of faith that evolution takes. It states that life just spontaneously appeared, like those monkeys. All that ID does is say that life appeared after it was designed and created.
No, a monkey will never spontaneously appear in your rectum, just like evolution has never claimed that man spontaneously appeared on earth (that is Creationism's argument ;) ). However, if you lived to be a trillion, it is possible that a tumor will develop in your rectum and evolve into a monkey. Nothing happens overnight but a trillion years of changes can add up to something that is incomprehensible to organisms that can only live 100 years.

PS I love your quote about convicted cows! :bow3:
 
A non-Christian is a human being capable of independent, logical reasoning to the highest order.

A non-Christian is not a mindless entity seeking to obey public religious leaders, such as Pat Robertson, John Paul II, Ralph Reed, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani or anyone beyond his/her conscience when voting on the future of America.

A non-Christian must protect his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the local, state and federal laws of the United States and common decency.
 
The idea that given enough time, anything could happen is a fallacy - in fact, the major fallacy behind evolution. For example, even if I lived to be a trillion years old, monkeys would never spontaneoulsly appear in my rectum, get clearance from the tower, and fly out my butt. That's basically the leap of faith that evolution takes. It states that life just spontaneously appeared, like those monkeys. All that ID does is say that life appeared after it was designed and created.

Doesn't evolution also assume a "static earth"? That is that the earth remained more or less the same and unmolested during its history? But it has been proven that the Earth has been hit by asteroids many times in our past causing most life to perish and have to start all over again. Couldn't it be that "evolution" is actually just God filling in the holes left by cosmic catastrophes? After all, God created the Earth in "six days", but the Bible doesn't say how long the days were (I once read that the Hebrew word for "day" is also the same word as "age", as in "The Dark Ages") nor how God went about accomplishing the creation during each of the days. Isn't it possible that God created and recreated life during those "days", thus causing an illusion of evolution?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top