God vs Athiesm: Which Is More Rationale?

[the_human_being]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

You misuse math, a tool.
Math needs rational concepts to manipulate.

Mathematics can predict odds of occurrences. Math is a tool and is used to support many scientific facts - it simply will not support evolution.

Math supports evolution much better than a made up concept of "God ".
.

No, it really doesn't. Math actually disproves evolution.

 

[the_human_being]

I see you didn't dispute what I said. If evolution can't pass the mathematical tests, then it fails.

Every single thing you said was wrong. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

No. You made an accusation but did not offer any proof of your accusations. Now do the math I asked you to do. I am waiting.

The math you asked for has nothing to do with evolution since it is NOT a random process.

Hossfly, I can measure radiation emissions from a radioactive source which is a totally random emission rate. I can even measure the background decay of radiation which is also a random decay. Do you actually know anything about science or mathematics?

I know there are things that are random and things that are not. Evolution has a random component but natural selection is NOT a random process.

Make up your mind. I said nothing about natural selection. I only said that the odds of a single cell organism evolving into a four celled organism is mathematically impossible.

 

[the_human_being]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

The math is easy. The odds are 100% given enough time. I must be right since that is what happened.

Since you prize math so much, what are the odds that God created this universe. Please show your work.

Time has nothing at all to do with anything as I have pointed out. I can actually do the math, unlike you but I'm not going to do it for you since you wouldn't do it for me. If that is actually what happened, then the argument would be over among scientists, but it isn't. There are a dozen theories even among evolutionist.

 

[hauke]

acctually belief and reason aren t like oil and water
belief is a set of thought
reason is a set of thought

they don t even touch

 

[alang1216]

Make up your mind. I said nothing about natural selection. I only said that the odds of a single cell organism evolving into a four celled organism is mathematically impossible.

When you speak of evolution you are speaking about natural selection. Just like when you speak of gravity you must talk about mass.

 

[the_human_being]

Make up your mind. I said nothing about natural selection. I only said that the odds of a single cell organism evolving into a four celled organism is mathematically impossible.

When you speak of evolution you are speaking about natural selection. Just like when you speak of gravity you must talk about mass.

Here's a scientific fact for you to chew on:

Probability and time can never accomplish anything without 1) a causal mechanism and 2) an underlying structure, or order.

 

[alang1216]

There are a dozen theories even among evolutionist.

There may be details about the mechanism that remain to be worked out but the fact of evolution is a proven scientific fact.

 

[alang1216]

Here's a scientific fact for you to chew on:

Probability and time can never accomplish anything without 1) a causal mechanism and 2) an underlying structure, or order.

That's true so far as I know.

 

[the_human_being]

There are a dozen theories even among evolutionist.

There may be details about the mechanism that remain to be worked out but the fact of evolution is a proven scientific fact.

No it isn't. The fact that you still have to work it out proves it is still only a theory. Which single theory that is being presented as fact by the evolutionists are you claiming to be the fact? There are so many I would like to know which one.

 

[ChrisL]

So . . . if you don't know something or how something works, attribute it to god (s) and THAT is your idea of being logical? Aye-yi-yi. Scary.

 

[the_human_being]

The chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible

 

[Syriusly]

I
The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.
]

If a child was raised on a deserted island with no exposure to religion- if she didn't believe in a god- how would that be 'faith'?

When I see water flowing in a river- it is not faith for me to acknowledge the river- even though I don't know where the river started.

As an atheist it doesn't take 'faith' for me to not believe in a god. No more than it takes 'faith' to not collect stamps.

But I do think it is a shame you have no faith in your god.

 

[pinqy]

Every single thing you said was wrong. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

No. You made an accusation but did not offer any proof of your accusations. Now do the math I asked you to do. I am waiting.

The math you asked for has nothing to do with evolution since it is NOT a random process.

Hossfly, I can measure radiation emissions from a radioactive source which is a totally random emission rate. I can even measure the background decay of radiation which is also a random decay. Do you actually know anything about science or mathematics?

I know there are things that are random and things that are not. Evolution has a random component but natural selection is NOT a random process.

Make up your mind. I said nothing about natural selection. I only said that the odds of a single cell organism evolving into a four celled organism is mathematically impossible.

I'm sorry, could you show us that math? How are you deriving the probability?

 

[ChrisL]

The chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible

Much more logical than a sky daddy creating stuff! This is what the ancient people did because they didn't understand how things worked! Little by little, science has shown us how things really work, and now the religious people are scrambling to include their versions of god (s) into it!

 

[the_human_being]

No. You made an accusation but did not offer any proof of your accusations. Now do the math I asked you to do. I am waiting.

The math you asked for has nothing to do with evolution since it is NOT a random process.

Hossfly, I can measure radiation emissions from a radioactive source which is a totally random emission rate. I can even measure the background decay of radiation which is also a random decay. Do you actually know anything about science or mathematics?

I know there are things that are random and things that are not. Evolution has a random component but natural selection is NOT a random process.

Make up your mind. I said nothing about natural selection. I only said that the odds of a single cell organism evolving into a four celled organism is mathematically impossible.

I'm sorry, could you show us that math? How are you deriving the probability?

No. My computer keyboard will not permit me to input equations. Figure it out yourselves or look it up on the internet. It's available.

 

[the_human_being]

The chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible

Much more logical than a sky daddy creating stuff! This is what the ancient people did because they didn't understand how things worked! Little by little, science has shown us how things really work, and now the religious people are scrambling to include their versions of god (s) into it!

Now scrambling? The Bible has been around for quite some time now. The Torah even before that. I don't think it is anything new. The Bible even speaks of atheists and agnostics way back when.

 

[the_human_being]

I
The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.
]

If a child was raised on a deserted island with no exposure to religion- if she didn't believe in a god- how would that be 'faith'?

When I see water flowing in a river- it is not faith for me to acknowledge the river- even though I don't know where the river started.

As an atheist it doesn't take 'faith' for me to not believe in a god. No more than it takes 'faith' to not collect stamps.

But I do think it is a shame you have no faith in your god.

Why would the child have to be a female?

 

[ChrisL]

The chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible

Much more logical than a sky daddy creating stuff! This is what the ancient people did because they didn't understand how things worked! Little by little, science has shown us how things really work, and now the religious people are scrambling to include their versions of god (s) into it!

Now scrambling? The Bible has been around for quite some time now. The Torah even before that. I don't think it is anything new. The Bible even speaks of atheists and agnostics way back when.

No kidding. It's not new. This is what bible thumpers have been trying to do forever, even after their "god theory" has been debunked! Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

I
The conclusion that God exists doesn’t require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.
]

If a child was raised on a deserted island with no exposure to religion- if she didn't believe in a god- how would that be 'faith'?

When I see water flowing in a river- it is not faith for me to acknowledge the river- even though I don't know where the river started.

As an atheist it doesn't take 'faith' for me to not believe in a god. No more than it takes 'faith' to not collect stamps.

But I do think it is a shame you have no faith in your god.

Why would the child have to be a female?

Why not?

 

[the_human_being]

The chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible

Much more logical than a sky daddy creating stuff! This is what the ancient people did because they didn't understand how things worked! Little by little, science has shown us how things really work, and now the religious people are scrambling to include their versions of god (s) into it!

Now scrambling? The Bible has been around for quite some time now. The Torah even before that. I don't think it is anything new. The Bible even speaks of atheists and agnostics way back when.

No kidding. It's not new. This is what bible thumpers have been trying to do forever, even after their "god theory" has been debunked! Lol.

Debunked? Link??