Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What's more probable?
05-31-2011, 05:17 AM
Post: #1
What's more probable?
If god created everything, and 'fine tuned' the parameters so that life could exist, like adding Jupiter, a strong gravity well to suck up meteors and other debris; why did he keep earth's core molten and its crust moving causing so much pointless death and destruction the kills the good along with the bad?

Isn't it just more rational that he was dreamt up by a fearful intelligence that saw unexplainable vengeance killing it's kin, and decided it must have made something angry?

On the other hand, not believing in a God who demands you believe in him, leaves you open to an eternity of torture. So one must weigh this possibility (however remote, and I personalty think it is so improbable that I dismiss it the same as I do Zeus) against the problems believing it causes. Problems like murdering in the name of your God, oppression of people, believers that try to guess God's will and warp the dogma into something extreme, like you shouldn't use medicine or condoms, etc.

Also, since I was trying to make this post about what is more probable, do you think it is more likely that there is some form of life on any of the billions of planets in the billions of galaxies? Or that a God exists that created you, hears your prayers, takes a personal interest in you, and then judges you when you die? Mathematically life on other planets has more likelihood of being correct. Not just more likelihood, but vastly more, not that the two are mutually exclusive. Although as my grandfather who was a missionary and preacher, told me, there is no life anywhere else because the bible sates God only created life here! Not that the bible doesn't say a crap load of contradictory things, or things that someone can contort to their own will.

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 06:43 PM
Post: #2
RE: What's more probable?
Someone could argue that there is no real proof of life just like there is no real proof of god. Statistical probability isn't real proof of anything. Having said that, since life does exist on earth there is probably many planets with life. Since there is no evidence of god on earth, Alien life wins.

I think another question would be how many planets have intelligent life and of those how many have a concept of god? Is god a universal meme or is it just us?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2011, 06:58 PM
Post: #3
RE: What's more probable?
It would really be unlikely that life doesn't exists some where in the universe other than our planet (and out of our solar system too.) But there is also a good possibility that we may ever know it or find it.

I was watching a conference between Richard Dawkins & Neil deGrasse Tyson and they brought up the point that we can hardly communicate with life on earth and this life is incredibly similar to us, imagine how hard it may be to communicate with a species that has no relationship to us. Different emotion, senses and so forth and so on.

I just thought that was an interesting point, if not a depressing one.

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-17-2011, 01:39 PM
Post: #4
RE: What's more probable?
(06-08-2011 06:43 PM)jefffsr Wrote:  I think another question would be how many planets have intelligent life and of those how many have a concept of god? Is god a universal meme or is it just us?


If there is in fact intelligent life on other planets, and if they are similar to us, then I find it likely that the idea of a deity lurks at the core of their existence. I can't play a numbers game and estimate the likelihood or guess if this life evolved like we did. The fact that we are even here and that we outlasted others in an evolutionary sense is remarkable. Assuming that there are other reasoning beings out there somewhere who developed through natural selection, I find it easy to assume that they once evoked the supernatural as a means of explaining the transcendent.

Andy
Reasonist Products
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-17-2011, 06:01 PM
Post: #5
RE: What's more probable?
Evolution vs. Creation: The Great Debate
The Evolution vs. Creation debate is often referred to as the "Great Debate." It's the emotion-packed question of "Origins" -- why, how, and where did everything come from? 20th century science has made the compelling discovery that, at some point, the universe began. Both sides of the Great Debate now agree that the universe has not existed eternally. However, this is where the agreement ends. As far as the "why" and "how" of the "origin event," this is where the division and contention begin. There are two basic theories in this Great Debate. The first is the historical default - the Creation Model of Origins. This theory maintains that the intricate design permeating all things implies a Designer. The second theory is the more recent, atheistic explanation - the Evolution Model of Origins. This theory postulates that the intricate design permeating all things is a product of random chance and excessive time.

Evolution vs. Creation: The Contentions
Evolution vs. Creation is indeed the Great Debate of our scientific times. In any scientific debate, the theories must be tested according to the evidence. We propose that the burden of evidence should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years. Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists. Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind. Furthermore, the mathematical and physical laws inherent in all things (including, most dramatically, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect) effectively validate this evidentiary claim.

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins
In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.

Evolution vs. Creation: Complexity
The Evolution vs. Creation debate further seeks to solve the riddle of complexity. Creationists believe the universe was designed to be complex by an Intelligent Designer. Evolutionists, in their effort to exclude a designer, contend that complexity has developed from simplicity over time. Evolutionists view time as their solution. However, hard science tells us that time is the enemy of complexity. This fact has been so well documented that it has obtained the stature of a physical law, the "Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Evolution vs. Creation: The Resolution
Evolution vs. Creation -- Until Evolutionists find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evolutionary movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all. Creation is the default. Evolutionists insist that complexity developed from simplicity despite the contradiction to known physical laws. Moreover, Evolutionists maintain that this simplicity just sprang into existence without any cause at all. Let's collect the evidence, and then we can start a debate.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-17-2011, 07:20 PM (This post was last modified: 06-17-2011 07:25 PM by Reasonist Products.)
Post: #6
RE: What's more probable?
(06-17-2011 06:01 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  We propose that the burden of evidence should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years.


The burden of proof is undoubtedly on the creation theory. Until creationists can supply even a shred of evidence to support any of its claims, it holds a mighty large burden of proof. Evolution has gobs and gobs of evidence. I don't even see how this is in question by any developed thinker in the year 2011.


(06-17-2011 06:01 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  Until Evolutionists find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evolutionary movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all.


Evidence continues to poor in. There actually is a debate, but ONLY now. As the evidence keeps coming in and as science continues to makes profound progress, it will seem laughable to even call it a debate. Creation is slowly losing.


(06-17-2011 06:01 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  Creation is the default.

Creation is not and should never be considered the default. Simply because the human mind has been susceptible to superstition for longer than science has been around is clearly not good enough of a reason.

Andy
Reasonist Products
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-17-2011, 11:58 PM
Post: #7
RE: What's more probable?
There's no point me even adding anymore your minds are made up against creation when basically none of you really know!! Put forward the evidence for evolution and then we have a debate! The problem is you can't because scientist keep finding problems with it and bring out a new theory to try and look less embarrassed! Now Bible prophecy is solid unchanging fact and there is not a dam thing the atheists can do about this! By the way humans will not always continue to be an adversary to God therefore the atheist movement will ultimately fail.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-18-2011, 11:56 AM
Post: #8
RE: What's more probable?
(06-17-2011 11:58 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  There's no point me even adding anymore your minds are made up against creation when basically none of you really know!! Put forward the evidence for evolution and then we have a debate! The problem is you can't because scientist keep finding problems with it and bring out a new theory to try and look less embarrassed! Now Bible prophecy is solid unchanging fact and there is not a dam thing the atheists can do about this! By the way humans will not always continue to be an adversary to God therefore the atheist movement will ultimately fail.

What you talking about, with regard to no evidence for evolution our forward. Garrett has provided a ton of evidence in another post !
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-18-2011, 02:32 PM
Post: #9
RE: What's more probable?
Lets pick one of his supposedly points of evidence at Random. I am only picking one for now because it is enough information!

The Mammal-Like Reptiles
The "mammal-like" reptiles were a highly varied, widely distributed group of reptiles that had a number of characteristics that are found in mammals.

The evidence is all in favor of the creationist view, since there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to link the vertebrates to any supposed ancestor among the invertebrates. Even though this transition is supposed to have taken 100 million years, not a single intermediate has ever been discovered. If vertebrates themselves have not evolved, as seems certain, evolution theory is dead, and it is foolish to speculate about evolution of groups within the vertebrates, or within any other division.

Let us first examine the evidence, which supports the assumption that mammals have evolved from reptiles. In doing so, we will look at the geological column and time spans through the eyes of evolutionists, as must be done if the evidence is to be evaluated within the assumptions of the evolution model.
When evolutionists wish to cite evidence for evolution, they almost always point to the alleged reptile-to-mammal transition, Archaeopteryx (a supposed intermediate between reptile and bird) and the horse series. Gould and Eldredge exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form, calling it a strange mosaic which doesn't count as a transitional form1, and Eldredge, although he does believe that horses have evolved, states that there are no transitional forms between the different types of fossil horses.2 Thus, there seems to be pitifully little evidence for evolution if indeed millions of species have gradually evolved through hundreds of millions of years. If this has happened, our museums should be overflowing with vast numbers of unquestionable transitional forms.
The case for evolution rests on a very few doubtful examples, one of which is the alleged reptile to mammal transition.

Let us now look at the so-called reptile to mammal transition from a critical viewpoint.
Mammal-like reptiles appeared supposedly right at the start of the reptiles, gradually became more mammal-like through the Permian and Triassic, and finally culminated in the appearance of the first real mammals at the end of the Triassic. At this time the mammal-like reptiles essentially became extinct, even though earlier they had been amongst the most numerous of all reptiles, world-wide in distribution. Since evolution is supposed to have involved natural selection, in which the more highly adapted creatures reproduce in larger numbers and thus gradually replace the less fit, we would now expect the mammals, triumphant at last, to flourish in vast numbers and to dominate the world. A very strange thing happened, however. For all practical purposes, the mammals disappeared from the scene for the next 100 million years! During this supposed vast stretch of time, the "reptile-like" reptiles, including dinosaurs and many other land-dwelling creatures, the marine reptiles, and the flying reptiles, swarmed over the earth. As far as the mammals were concerned, however, the "fittest" that replaced the mammal-like reptiles, they were almost nowhere to be found. Most of the fossil remains of mammals recovered to date from the Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods, allegedly covering more than 100 million years, could be contained in two cupped hands. Most such mammals are represented by a few teeth. If evolution is supposed to involve survival of the fittest, and the fittest are defined as those that reproduce in larger numbers, the origin of mammals represents something very strange, indeed. Since they survived in very few numbers, evolution apparently occurred by survival of the unfit!

Now for another very strange event (from an evolutionary viewpoint) took place.
Very suddenly (on an evolutionary geological time scale), most reptiles, including all the dinosaurs, marine reptiles and flying reptiles, disappeared and were abruptly replaced by a great variety of land-dwelling, flying, and marine mammals, which appear fully-formed. As documented in an earlier Impact article (No. 87—"The Origin of Mammals", September 1980), each specific type of mammal, such as bats, whales, primates, hoofed mammals, rodents, carnivores, insectivores, and monotremes (duck-billed platypus and spiny anteater) appear in the fossil record with their basic characteristics complete at the very start. It is strange that all that can be produced to document the evolution of the mammals are some generalized forms, but not one shred of evidence can be produced to document the evolution of a single specific mammal, such as bats, whales, rodents or primates.

The organ of Corti is an extremely complicated organ. It is suggested that the reader consult one of the standard texts on anatomy for a description. One cannot help but marvel at this complex and wondrously designed organ.
According to evolution theory, all evolutionary changes occur as the result of mistakes during the reproduction of genes. These are called mutations, and each change brought about by such mutations, which survived, must have been superior to preceding forms. Thus, if evolution is true, we must believe that a series of thousands and thousands of mistakes in a marvelously coordinated fashion gradually created the organ of Corti to function in an ear which at the same time had to be reengineered accordingly while dragging in two bones from the jaw which had to be redesigned. Furthermore, each intermediate stage not only had to be fully functional but actually must have been superior to the preceding stage. And after all this was accomplished, we still have reptiles and birds today with the same old-fashioned reptilian auditory apparatus which is just as efficient as the corresponding mammalian apparatus".

Quick Summary
All mammals, living or fossil, have a single jawbone, a fully developed mammalian jaw-joint, and a vastly different auditory apparatus involving three bones in the middle ear and a totally unique and extremely complex structure, the organ of Corti. As described briefly above, there are many other fundamental differences between reptiles and mammals. It is argued here that these changes could not possibly have occurred gradually, and thus the notion that a reptile gradually evolved into a mammal is scientifically unacceptable.

Let me know if you want the references and I will tackle another so called evidence for evolution if you so wish.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-19-2011, 03:08 AM (This post was last modified: 06-19-2011 03:23 AM by Garrett Fogerlie.)
Post: #10
RE: What's more probable?
fxmikey Wrote:There's no point me even adding anymore your minds are made up against creation when basically none of you really know!! Put forward the evidence for evolution and then we have a debate! The problem is you can't because scientist keep finding problems with it and bring out a new theory to try and look less embarrassed! Now Bible prophecy is solid unchanging fact and there is not a dam thing the atheists can do about this! By the way humans will not always continue to be an adversary to God therefore the atheist movement will ultimately fail.

We are purview to the same information you are. We look at the evidence and until there is enough evidence for something, we choose not to believe it. If there was any credible evidence for Allah I would believe! Are you kidding me, eternal life would be great, hell, not even eternal life, I would be ecstatic with a day or even an extra moment. I lost my girlfriend a while back, and I would give my arms and legs to see her again. But unfortunately I have never come across something that has given me, even the most remote possibility of that.

fxmikey Wrote:Now Bible prophecy is solid unchanging fact

Think of what would happen if science wasn't science, and the first idea of whatever stayed solid and unchanging? There is next to no possibility of you being alive. Humanity would still have a 50% infant mortality rate. No car, hell not even gas, since the distillation process wouldn't have evolved.

What makes this a 'good' thing in a book about how to live your life? The bible is archaic and no longer relevant. Not to mention that the 'Bible' that you know and adore now, has been changed thousands of times throughout its 1700 year long canonization. And that’s just the changes that have been documented. Who knows how it was modified throughout the millennia before any changes were being documented.

You have a horrible understanding of the most basic of things. I saw this tweet of yours, “when we listen to beautiful music by Handel say Queen of Sheba surely we marvel that this could not have evolved like this!!” What the hell are you smoking? Of course music evolved, not just music, Handel’s musical abilities evolved. He went form not even knowing what a composition was to being a great composer. Year by year, day by day, step by tiny step!

(06-18-2011 02:32 PM)fxmikey Wrote:  Lets pick one of his supposedly points of evidence at Random
...
The Mammal-Like Reptiles
...
The evidence is all in favor of the creationist view, since there is not a shred of evidence in the fossil record to link the vertebrates to any supposed ancestor among the invertebrates. Even though this transition is supposed to have taken 100 million years, not a single intermediate has ever been discovered. If vertebrates themselves have not evolved, as seems certain, evolution theory is dead, and it is foolish to speculate about evolution of groups within the vertebrates, or within any other division.

Let me repeat your quote, “Even though this transition is supposed to have taken 100 million years, not a single intermediate has ever been discovered.”

We have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). The standard phylogenetic tree indicates that mammals gradually evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and that transitional species must have existed which were morphologically intermediate between reptiles and mammals even though none are found living today. However, there are significant morphological differences between modern reptiles and modern mammals. Bones, of course, are what fossilize most readily, and that is where we look for transitional species from the past. Osteologically, two major striking differences exist between reptiles and mammals: (1) reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw (e.g. the dentary, articular, angular, surangular, and coronoid), while mammals have only one (the dentary), and (2) reptiles have only one middle ear bone (the stapes), while mammals have three (the hammer, anvil, and stapes.)


[Image: jaws2.gif]

[Image: reptile_ear.gif]

[Image: jaws1.gif]

You started your 'randomly picked' refute with a absurd lie! Either you are intentionally lying to make your point or you are repeating someone else’s claim and you are just too ignorant to even check if what they said was bullshit or not. Either way, there is no since in me reading any further.

When someone puts forth a logical argument, A -> B Therefore C..., and B is wrong, that can be discussed, but when their initial argument A isn't even correct, there is no reason to go on to B..

I have presented you with more than enough information in previous posts. I will wait for you to research and understand, if not evolution, than at least just logic, logical arguments, and logical fallacies.

Garrett Fogerlie

My personal #1 reason that I don't like religion is because I like knowledge! And Religion suppresses knowledge; not just the knowledge unfortunately, but it suppresses the entire drive to understand.
http://www.EvilTheists.com
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


[-]
Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Linkedin Technorati Twitter Digg MySpace Delicious

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)