Zone1 Atheist Nonsense - Again

[ChemEngineer]

Why do atheists claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies to their imaginary space creatures, but NOT to Nature's God?

 

[rightwinger]

Atheists have evidence

Those believing in God have faith

 

[Votto]

Atheists have evidence

Those believing in God have faith

Pure BS

There is evidence for those of faith.

 

[rightwinger]

Pure BS

There is evidence for those of faith.

name some

 

[Votto]

name some

 

[rightwinger]

That is not evidence of a God

 

[Votto]

That is not evidence of a God

Life produced by chance is virtually impossible, at least statistically impossible.

So you are wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

Life produced by chance is virtually impossible, at least statistically impossible.

So you are wrong.

Again you fail to provide evidence of your theory……A God

 

[Votto]

Again you fail to provide evidence of your theory……A God

No, you fail to accept it.

Also, evidence is not proof.

In a court of law, eyewitness evidence is evidence.

The Bible is full of such eyewitness evidence as well as personal testimony regarding God touching the lives of various people we have today.

But again, you dismiss it out of hand.

I've essentially obliterated your lie.

 

[rightwinger]

Also, evidence is not proof.

In a court of law, eyewitness evidence is evidence.

Evidence includes…

Fossil evidence
Geologic evidence
DNA evidence
Biological evidence

Proof…….all you have is Faith

 

[rightwinger]

The Bible is full of such eyewitness evidence as well as personal testimony regarding God touching the lives of various people we have today.

Much of the “eyewitness“ testimony in the Bible is stories passed down through time or just made up

 

[Augustine_]

Why do atheists claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies to their imaginary space creatures, but NOT to Nature's God?

The good thing about imaginary space creatures is that nobody commits genocides in their name. "Nature's god" is a violent, bloody asshole.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why do atheists claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies to their imaginary space creatures, but NOT to Nature's God?

Atheists seem to have some deep seated need to justify their disbelief in and denial of God. And they don't like to question why they are so interested in the topic, sometimes to the point of obsession, and are often drawn to participate in it on message boards et al.

I think the presence of God is in all of us. Some embrace it. Some wonder about it. And some waste an awful lot of words, energy, effort, band width denying it. The most fanatical try very hard to destroy the faith that others have and/or prevent them from demonstrating or acknowledging it in any place in the public sphere.

That fact to me is likely one piece of evidence that God exists. If He did not, what drives their obsession to deny him? There is no comparable degree of obsession to oppose the beliefs of flat Earthers, those who believe in alien visitations or ghosts or Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster.

It is an awful lot of effort expended for something that does not exist.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates in science are Christians and Jews. They understand evidence far better than any atheist. The evidence is overwhelming, but they close their eyes, and shout and scream. Evil is like that.

The statistics of naturalistic protein synthesis are insuperable, notwithstanding the petty caterwauling by the godless Left.

Weasel program - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In chapter 3 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, biologist Richard Dawkins gave the following introduction to the program, referencing the well-known infinite monkey theorem.*

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

[NOTE: How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

This is nonsense compounding nonsense. And yet my high school math teacher presented this proposition to his classes in the 1960’s.

First, an “army of monkeys” wouldn’t be very interested in hitting typewriter keys repeatedly. There is nothing for them to gain in so doing.

Second, those who did hit the keys would quickly get to the end of the line, and have no concept of returning the carriage to type the second line.

Third, those very few who somehow overcame the first and second hurdles, repeatedly, would find that the paper was ejected from the carriage, and they are hopelessly unable to replace the first page with a fresh sheet of paper.

Fourth, we will never get to the fourth problem of exhausting the ink in the typewriter ribbons because the “army of monkeys” would have defecated on or otherwise ruined every typewriter.

Fifth, Sir Arthur Eddington never began to consider the statistics of monkeys “selecting” 1 out of approximately 100 different keys, counting upper and lower case of all letters, numbers, and punctuation marks. A page of an average book has 250 – 300 words. (Novel Length: How Long is Long Enough?)

*Finally, the largest army in the world is the People’s Liberation Army of Communist China, with over 2,000,000 troops. This is hardly “infinite” in number. (Business News Today: Read Latest Business news, India Business News Live, Share Market & Economy News | The Economic Times)

The average word has 6.47 letters. (Capitalize My Title)

Using the lower value of 250 words, times 6.47 letters equals 1,617 characters in a page.

1/100 to the 1,617th power is 10 to the -3,234, for just one page, much less “all the books in the British Museum.”

“we just think of one chance in 10 to the 40th power” as “impossible”. – Richard Dawkins, (The Blind Watchmaker, page 142)

Emil Borel, a famous statistician, defined “impossible” as an event with a probability of 10 to the -50 or less.*1

https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

This is equivalent to finding one unique marble, in 82,800 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto, all full of identical marbles except for one, on your first and only attempt. You do not get an infinite number of attempts, not even two.

There are 100 such marbles per meter, and 100 times 1,000 per kilometer.

Therefore 10 to the 5 marbles cubed equals 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic kilometer.

Pluto is 5.906 billion kilometers from our sun*2, the radius of which is 700,000 kilometers.*3

From the center of our sun to Pluto is 5.906 billion km + 700,000 km, or 6.606 x 109 kilometers.

The volume of a sphere the size of our solar system to Pluto is 4/3 pi x (6.606 x 109)3, or 1.2075x 10 to the 30 cubic kilometers.

1.2075 x 10 to the 30 cubic kilometers x 10 to the 15 marbles per cubic kilometer = 1.2075 x 10 to the 45 marbles to fill that one hypothetical sphere.

1050 marbles / 1.2075 x 10 to the 45 marbles per sphere = 8.28 x 10 to the 4 , or 82,800 spheres out to Pluto.

1 https://owlcation.com/stem/Borels-Law-of-Probability

2 Pluto's Distance from the Sun

3 Solar radius - Wikipedia]





Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. In Dawkins' words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2]

Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P

Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P

Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL

Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL

Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Dawkins continues:

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.



[So much for Dawkins’ specious argument in defense of Darwinism, which he proudly claimed, “… made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Uncommon Descent | Serving The Intelligent Design Community) Twenty-six capital letters plus the space bar equals twenty-seven. Twenty-seven to the twenty-eighth power equals ten to the fortieth different possible combinations, of which we seek only one specifically. Dawkins admits his definition of “impossible” is 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power. This is not for all of Shakespeare’s works, but for one short sentence, and even then, on a dramatically altered keyboard, not of fifty possible keys, lower case, and fifty more keys, upper case, but for only twenty-six keys, all upper case.



Of critical but neglected importance is the fact that for “selection” to occur, the intermediary produced by the random mutation MUST confer a “selective advantage” for the host organism, otherwise it will be lost. It is therefore incumbent on the advocate for Darwinism to demonstrate, in each case, what that improvement is and how it operates, every single time, without exception. “Selection” requires no less. This is easily done when copying short sentences, but not so easily done when originally constructing over 20,000 proteins in humans*a, the largest of which is titin, at 38,138*b amino acid residues in length.

One out of 20 amino acids “selected” consecutively 38,138 times has a probability of 1 chance in 10 to the 49,618. This is for only one protein. Calculating for chirality, i.e. the “selection” of L amino acids instead of D amino acids*c and all peptide bonds rather than the equally probable non-peptide bondsd reduces the probability of original naturalistic synthesis to 1 chance in 1072,578. Twenty thousand more proteins to go! ]

*a - https://www.omim.org/entry/188840\

*b - The Size of the Human Proteome: The Width and Depth

*c - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the -11,480

*d - ½ to the 38,138 = 10 to the -11,480





[Postnote: After considerable thought, I have an important addition. Dawkins wrote, “We shall make it relatively easy by giving him (the monkey) a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, only 26 keys…”

Thus Dawkins extrapolates from “a restricted keyboard,” producing only one brief sentence, to typing out “all the works of Shakespeare” (sic) rather than what Sir Eddington originally said, “All the books in the British Museum” – a prodigiously larger collection of works than Shakespeare’s.

This ignorant extrapolation of a monkey typing a single line, to typing all of Shakespeare’s works, much less the British Museum’s, is no different from the ignorance of trivial adaptations being extrapolated to produce all living organisms from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA).]

 

[Augustine_]

Atheists seem to have some deep seated need to justify their disbelief in and denial of God. And they don't like to question why they are so interested in the topic, sometimes to the point of obsession

So much violence and hatred has been and is still being committed in the name of various imaginary gods that it grows irksome

 

[rightwinger]

Atheists seem to have some deep seated need to justify their disbelief in and denial of God. And they don't like to question why they are so interested in the topic, sometimes to the point of obsession, and are often drawn to participate in it on message boards et al.

I think the presence of God is in all of us. Some embrace it. Some wonder about it. And some waste an awful lot of words, energy, effort, band width denying it. The most fanatical try very hard to destroy the faith that others have and/or prevent them from demonstrating or acknowledging it in any place in the public sphere.

That fact to me is likely one piece of evidence that God exists. If He did not, what drives their obsession to deny him? There is no comparable degree of obsession to oppose the beliefs of flat Earthers, those who believe in alien visitations or ghosts or Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster.

It is an awful lot of effort expended for something that does not exist.

Yet it is never Atheists starting these threads about Atheism or even starting threads about religions

 

[Votto]

Much of the “eyewitness“ testimony in the Bible is stories passed down through time or just made up

You could say that about any eyewitness, but their evidence is still admissible in court.

It would then be your job to discredit them which you have failed to do.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?

[NOTE: How lazy of Richard Dawkins to fail to look up the author of his monkey business. It was Sir Arthur Eddington.

In 1928, British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington presented a classical illustration of chance in his book, The Nature of the Physical World: “If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.”

A group of scientists once tried to recreate the “monkeys typing Shakespeare” claim

They placed keyboards in the cages with the monkeys and tried to see how often they typed legible words.

They quickly abandoned the experiment when they found out that the monkeys would just shit all over the keyboards

 

[Foxfyre]

So much violence and hatred has been and is still being committed in the name of various imaginary gods that it grows irksome

More than an estimated 23,000 Christians were killed in the persecutions of the Roman Empire. As Russia, China, North Korea et al adopted Marxist doctrines and made Atheism the only acceptable religion of the land, they collectively murdered more than 60 million innocent people in the 20th Century alone.

I would be the first to say that evil people use religion in evil ways. There is no way to justify the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, et al. But the carnage in the wake of all of that is at the most a few thousand over hundreds of years. And the vast majority of Christendom is innocent of all that.

And now almost all the on going humanitarian efforts around the world--orphanages, leper colonies/ministries, private homeless shelters, ministry to some of the most desperate and needy of the poor in myriad countries are all created and/or staffed by people of faith. Millions more have been saved, restored, benefitted from the such activities by such benevolence than were ever harmed by the misuse of the JudeoChristian religion.

There are no relief agencies or ongoing humanitarian ministries established and staffed by Atheists.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yet it is never Atheists starting these threads about Atheism or even starting threads about religions

To people of faith, their beliefs are important to them. Christians aren't out there filing lawsuits or sending in moles to trigger lawsuits protesting Atheist beliefs or generating some reason to attack or harm an Atheist for his/her Atheist beliefs.

I don't start threads about Atheists or Atheism UNLESS there have been verbal attacks on other threads and the issue needs to be discussed without derailing the other thread. Or there is one of those lawsuits or attempts to deny people of their constitutional right to the free exercise of their religious faith.

There is no ongoing effort to suppress Atheism though Christians will absolutely argue why Atheism makes little or no sense. There is an ongoing effort to protect our constitutional right to be religious and the free exercise of our religious beliefs.

And now back to the topic that you and Augustine et al again tried to suppress with other topics:

Atheists love to claim there is no evidence for God. And they deny the evidence that exists. That's the topic. Would you care to discuss that?