We are, and are very happy to be, Christians.
Poll
Are you a Christian?
| I would like to be | 50% | 50% - 157 | 50% | 50% - 157 | ||
| I don't want anything to do with that! | 55% | 55% - 174 | 44% | 44% - 140 | ||
| Total: 314 | ||||||
How is it possible for a god to form by random chance? God has always been and always will be. Any single known cell is way too complex to form by random chance..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Are you honestly going to try to argue that a single cell is too complex to have formed by random chance yet an all powerful god can just form by random chance?JaMDuDe wrote:
Anfidurl, that link you gave us still cant explain the first cell, never mind everything else. They gave up on how it could form on earth and said it came from a comet. Could you explain how a random cell could survive thousands of years of radiation and then come through the atmosphere and start evolving? How did the cell get on this miracle comet that was heading for earth? They didnt even try to explain it. But i like how they would rather believe aliens put the first cell here than God did.
Skruples, you could compare it to that, but comparing evolution to Spontaneous Generation is much closer.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-07-17 08:09:54)
Here's a little perspective on random chance, there are roughly 10^79 atoms in the visible universe for life to get going requires a small number of nucleic acids to be formed in the same place. Even for a full blown modern bacteria only contains something on the order of 10^11 atoms ie. 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the atoms to be in the right place at the right time within a timescale of 10 billion years.JaMDuDe wrote:
How is it possible for a god to form by random chance? God has always been and always will be. Any single known cell is way too complex to form by random chance.
Skruples, you could compare it to that, but comparing evolution to Spontaneous Generation is much closer.
This is based on the assumption that there is nothing outside the visible universe. For all we know the uneverse, actually extends indefinately and contains an indefinate quantity of atoms over indefinate timescales, hence the probability of spontaneous life occuring somewhere at sometime begin to head towards 1.
Also comparison of spontaneous generation is actually alot closer to the creationist point of view, that a god spontaneously appeared via an entirely unexplained method and set things going in an unexplained way. Comparison to the theory of evolution is just stupid because the modern scientific method hadn't even been established by the time that got discredited.
First of all, we dont know how many atoms are in the universe. If you want to talk about chances, you should see this and this. For life to start requires MUCH more than some atoms to be in the right place in the right time. And why did it only take a few million years or so for life to start if the chances are it will happen once in about 10 billion years?
God never appeared. He has always been. He most likely set things going through something like the big bang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
God never appeared. He has always been. He most likely set things going through something like the big bang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-07-17 10:45:35)
Oh boy, another christian website and that movie that was heavily discredited the first time you linked it!JaMDuDe wrote:
First of all, we dont know how many atoms are in the universe. If you want to talk about chances, you should see this and this. For life to start requires MUCH more than some atoms to be in the right place in the right time. And why did it only take a few million years or so for life to start if the chances are it will happen once in about 10 billion years?
God never appeared. He has always been. He most likely set things going through something like the big bang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
I simply cannot believe that something has always been, and that something can randomly make beings as complicated as ourselves...we went throught millions of years to get this way...JaMDuDe wrote:
How is it possible for a god to form by random chance? God has always been and always will be. Any single known cell is way too complex to form by random chance..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Are you honestly going to try to argue that a single cell is too complex to have formed by random chance yet an all powerful god can just form by random chance?JaMDuDe wrote:
Anfidurl, that link you gave us still cant explain the first cell, never mind everything else. They gave up on how it could form on earth and said it came from a comet. Could you explain how a random cell could survive thousands of years of radiation and then come through the atmosphere and start evolving? How did the cell get on this miracle comet that was heading for earth? They didnt even try to explain it. But i like how they would rather believe aliens put the first cell here than God did.
Skruples, you could compare it to that, but comparing evolution to Spontaneous Generation is much closer.
Skruples do you have any good scientific evidence against the movie?
Konfusion, God has no limits. We arent complicated at all compared to God.
Konfusion, God has no limits. We arent complicated at all compared to God.
ah...but there is the flaw: who created god?
As I mentioned the first few times you linked that in the last religious thread, even if we assume their calculations about the probabilities of life are correct, they are only counting the stars in our galaxy. There are hundreds of millions of other galaxies out there, and they are all just as likely to have produced life. You didn't seem to grasp this concept, however, and kept insisting that our galaxy is the only one that should be considered. Also, they mention an 'oxygen rich atmosphere' (which is the result of photosynthesis, and thus is not a problem when considering the origins of life. Life happened before the oxygen rich environment).JaMDuDe wrote:
Skruples do you have any good scientific evidence against the movie?
Furthermore, that movie doesn't really inspire much trust in me. Just because a couple guys with fancy credentials sit in front of a camera and say things does not, actually, make them true. They don't describe the process they used to come up with those variables, and they don't describe the science behind their conclusions. In short, it seems like an attempt to convince the uneducated that the chances of life are so small that it's literally impossible (or at least so unlikely that its not worth considering), without actually trying to explain why they are correct.
Lastly, Illustra Media, the creator of that video, appears to be an organization created for the purpose of advocating intelligent design. Not quite the unbiased perspective you make it sound like.
Noone created God, he's always been in spite of the logical problems with that assumption. Because clearly it's ok to bring God into science without bringing science into God...Konfusion0 wrote:
ah...but there is the flaw: who created god?
He doesnt need a creator.Konfusion0 wrote:
ah...but there is the flaw: who created god?
Skruples I dont get why they cant make the odds of life in our galaxy. Why cant they? They arent trying to prove how likely life is in general they are just trying to show that we arent an average rock orbiting an average star. Actually thats just a preview of the movie and the book, but they get the point across. They give great scientific explanations of everything in the book and i dont think many scientists disagree.
Our galaxy is nothing unique. It's purely misleading to say that the odds of life occurring are 'x', and then limiting the scope of that to a certain area of the universe. If we lived in the Pegasus galaxy instead of the milky way, I imagine that video would still say the same thing, regardless of the fact that it doesnt what galaxy we're in, they're mostly the same. I don't know how much more clear I can make this. If they're going to give the odds of life for any given star, they must by necessity include every star in existence.
Not to mention the scope of any odds relating to life on any other star is based entirely on our own relative experience here in Sol.
I fail to believe that there was always something around - either god or the universe... it just doesn't make sense to me...
Why is it a necessity to include every star in the universe to give us the odds of life in our galaxy alone? If they know what factors are needed for life, and they know how many stars there are, i see no reason why they cant tell us the odds of life in our galaxy. Are you saying if we see a star and it is right next to a black hole, we cant say the odds of intelligent life being there unless we include the rest of the universe?Skruples wrote:
Our galaxy is nothing unique. It's purely misleading to say that the odds of life occurring are 'x', and then limiting the scope of that to a certain area of the universe. If we lived in the Pegasus galaxy instead of the milky way, I imagine that video would still say the same thing, regardless of the fact that it doesnt what galaxy we're in, they're mostly the same. I don't know how much more clear I can make this. If they're going to give the odds of life for any given star, they must by necessity include every star in existence.
Konfusion, God isnt physically limited to the universe he created. God has always been around and the universe hasnt.
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-07-17 18:57:37)
Branch Davidian!
My friend, read more carefully, I said:JaMDuDe wrote:
Konfusion, God isnt physically limited to the universe he created. God has always been around and the universe hasnt.
- I can't believe that god was around forever.I fail to believe that there was always something around - either god or the universe... it just doesn't make sense to me...
- I can't believe that the universe was around forever.
Does this clarify the matter?
Yeah but there is no forever when there is no time.
I stated my opinion, please do not try and twist it around.
Single KNOWN cell. I see you remain very confused - you're asserting that 4 billion years of evolution has done absolutely nothing. The oldest life-forms still alive (stromatolites) formed way, way, way after the 'Big Birth', as it is known.JaMDuDe wrote:
How is it possible for a god to form by random chance? God has always been and always will be. Any single known cell is way too complex to form by random chance..:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:
Are you honestly going to try to argue that a single cell is too complex to have formed by random chance yet an all powerful god can just form by random chance?JaMDuDe wrote:
Anfidurl, that link you gave us still cant explain the first cell, never mind everything else. They gave up on how it could form on earth and said it came from a comet. Could you explain how a random cell could survive thousands of years of radiation and then come through the atmosphere and start evolving? How did the cell get on this miracle comet that was heading for earth? They didnt even try to explain it. But i like how they would rather believe aliens put the first cell here than God did.
Skruples, you could compare it to that, but comparing evolution to Spontaneous Generation is much closer.
Remember that biologists count the 'beginning of life' as the first life-form to have arisen from ANOTHER life-form. There were probably billions of 'life-forms' before that, and evolution had probably had a bit of a headstart.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I do not "remain very confused". I put known in on purpose cause i know you think it was an unknown cell like thing that randomly formed.
It still amazes me that people believe that most christians actually BELIEVE in the god they "worship" in the first place. I mean hell, I go to church, but I don't BELIEVE any of it, I do however think it's a great way to meet people that are either
A) Rich.
B) Stupid.
C) All of the above.
And besides, we shouldn't really ever disprove religion in the first place, it's a basis of hope and morality for otherwise ignorant or useless people in our world, though showing people who aren't brainwashed into religion that it actually is based mostly on faith and slightly on construed/hazy facts is perfectly fine. Now, I personally think that religion is just a person/persons way of blaming things on a higher, controlling power, and a simple way to explain the fact that they don't want to contemplate what the afterlife, or non-existence thereof could really mean for them.
A) Rich.
B) Stupid.
C) All of the above.
And besides, we shouldn't really ever disprove religion in the first place, it's a basis of hope and morality for otherwise ignorant or useless people in our world, though showing people who aren't brainwashed into religion that it actually is based mostly on faith and slightly on construed/hazy facts is perfectly fine. Now, I personally think that religion is just a person/persons way of blaming things on a higher, controlling power, and a simple way to explain the fact that they don't want to contemplate what the afterlife, or non-existence thereof could really mean for them.
No religion for me, just believe in myself, my girlfriend and the rest of our lives....thats enough for me, I don`t need some religion telling me how to live my life. Further more I believe that religion is an excuse for a lot of things happening to the religious ppl in their daily life...Something went wrong/not the way U wanted it?---> Ah must be Gods will<---- an EXCUSE ! ! ! If U want good things happening to you or your family? Take control of your own life instead of letting your life be controlled by a church or a religion! ! !
At least, thats my opinion
At least, thats my opinion
No, I am pointing out that the 'first' cells were much, much, much simpler.JaMDuDe wrote:
I do not "remain very confused". I put known in on purpose cause i know you think it was an unknown cell like thing that randomly formed.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Have a look at the Earth, it is "perfect" to harbour life. A few thousand kilometres nearer or closer to the Sun would turn us into Mars or the Moon or Venus, which are lifeless. So is it by pure chance, that surrounding this yellow star, a planet with all the chemicals and conditions which are essential for life to begin, grouped together? The air temperature, the vast oceans of water, the oxygen in the atmosphere, the ozone which blocks out UVb and UVc, and the carbon and nitrogen and complex carbohydrates and proteins and DNA: the chances of all that is infinitesimal. These conditions were set in place when God created the Earth.
Another thing, there are some extremely complex and ingenious structures in the world, such as the eye, which couldn't have developed out of random mutations.
Another thing, there are some extremely complex and ingenious structures in the world, such as the eye, which couldn't have developed out of random mutations.
A. there wouldn't be a star right next to a black hole. You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of what black holes are and what they do.JaMDuDe wrote:
Why is it a necessity to include every star in the universe to give us the odds of life in our galaxy alone? If they know what factors are needed for life, and they know how many stars there are, i see no reason why they cant tell us the odds of life in our galaxy. Are you saying if we see a star and it is right next to a black hole, we cant say the odds of intelligent life being there unless we include the rest of the universe?Skruples wrote:
Our galaxy is nothing unique. It's purely misleading to say that the odds of life occurring are 'x', and then limiting the scope of that to a certain area of the universe. If we lived in the Pegasus galaxy instead of the milky way, I imagine that video would still say the same thing, regardless of the fact that it doesnt what galaxy we're in, they're mostly the same. I don't know how much more clear I can make this. If they're going to give the odds of life for any given star, they must by necessity include every star in existence.
B. If you'd like to stick with that analogy, it would be like the illustra media folks saying "we see this star and its next to a black hole, we are now going to assume that every other star in the universe is next to a black hole and make our calculations accordingly." As Marconius pointed out, we have no idea what any of the rest of the galaxy, let alone the universe is like beyond very vague ideas. Again, this video is little more than a 'look, we put a bunch of numbers together and we said it's impossible. Really, its true!'
C. They are not giving us the odds of life in our galaxy, they are giving us the odds of [complex] life and comparing that with the number of stars in our galaxy. Allow me to quote your video for you, so you might finally understand.
Nowhere does it mention those odds being limited to our galaxy. They come up with a probability and compare that to the number of stars in the galaxy. Period. End of story. Game over man, game over.that video, as transcribed by skruples wrote:
If every element has to be there at the same time, you have to multiply the probabilities, and thats what makes the probability at the end so small. Youve got 10% of this and 10% of that, and these things rapidly multiply to exceedingly small numbers. The number is on the order of 10 to minus 15, which is one one thousandth of one one trillionth, and its a number like that that you have to compare to the hundred billion stars that are in the galaxy.
D. Finally, for the last time, there is no difference between the stars in our galaxy and the stars in others when it comes to what the video is talking about. It would be exactly the same if I were to say "the odds of a baby being born in my house are 1/1000000000000000, thus every baby born on Earth is a violation of the laws of probability and a miracle of god." Do you not see how that is an absolutely ridiculous statement? that is exactly what the video is saying, except exchange 'baby' with 'life' and 'house' with 'galaxy'.
Now, do you understand, or am I wasting my already worthless time trying to explain this to you?