Author Topic: The Probability of the Big Bang  (Read 33048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 625
  • Darwins +49/-21
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2012, 09:18:07 AM »
Poe.

Enjoy.

Probably, but if not:

The probability of Christianity or any other self-contradicting theory is ZERO. Realize this, and then come talk to me about the Big Bang.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1368
  • Darwins +41/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2012, 09:34:10 AM »

It's a ridculous claim.  It's analgous as to asking what are the odds of all the people doing and creating the exact same art, poetry, music, movies, and entertainment with the exact same lines and characters as what has happened in all of history.  That probability would be very, very, very, very high to ever happen in the exact same order and manner.  But we know it happened because it happened...

Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2012, 09:45:33 AM »
What are the odds that theists will actually someday understand probabilities?
It would take too long to write them out.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2012, 03:10:29 AM »
What are the odds that theists will actually someday understand probabilities?
It would take too long to write them out.

Not if you used scientific notions.  &)
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2012, 02:42:57 PM »
It's a silly way to argue against the Big Bang. It's like doubting a lotto win occurred because the odds against it are long.

This is invalid.  The odds still exist.  Yes, there is a winner, but the Big Bang still has the same odds of occurring.  We can't simply state, "Well, someone won the lottery, therefore it's possible".  There has to be a winner.  The same rules do not apply to the natural world.  In the natural world, there does NOT "have" to be a winner.  See the difference?

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1368
  • Darwins +41/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2012, 02:48:57 PM »
^^^ No, what's your stance? That we were given the 'golden' ticket by pure chance or that there is a 'supreme being' in the life factory named jesus-Willy Wonka that is creating life out of a supernatural factory?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 02:50:36 PM by DVZ3 »
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2012, 02:53:34 PM »
We can't simply state, "Well, someone won the lottery, therefore it's possible".  There has to be a winner.

I'm quite surprised to hear you say this, because it's not correct.  It's quite usual for a lottery drawing not to have a jackpot winner.  In fact, with many if not most lotteries, it's the rule, not the exception.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2012, 03:04:35 PM »
It's a silly way to argue against the Big Bang. It's like doubting a lotto win occurred because the odds against it are long.

This is invalid.  The odds still exist.  Yes, there is a winner, but the Big Bang still has the same odds of occurring.  We can't simply state, "Well, someone won the lottery, therefore it's possible".  There has to be a winner.  The same rules do not apply to the natural world.  In the natural world, there does NOT "have" to be a winner.  See the difference?
No it is still valid. The odds no longer exist as the outcome has transpired. Probability is a statistical math concept that requires assumptions, which in this case, is quite the problem. If you wanted to compute the odds of a few flips of a coin, you would need as a minimum to be able to recognize all possible outcomes, to know when you have a positive "heads" and a negative "Tails" outcome. In addition you would need to know when an event took place, such as the "flip" of the coin. Too little is known about the states of the assumptions to make any valid predictions.  The big bang does not only include a transformation of matter and energy, it is also a function of time transformation.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1368
  • Darwins +41/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2012, 03:44:10 PM »

Rocky has either left his computer or has spent the last almost hour formulating a very well thought out response.  I truly hope it's the latter...
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2012, 05:29:08 PM »
This is invalid.  The odds still exist.  Yes, there is a winner, but the Big Bang still has the same odds of occurring.  We can't simply state, "Well, someone won the lottery, therefore it's possible".  There has to be a winner.  The same rules do not apply to the natural world.  In the natural world, there does NOT "have" to be a winner.  See the difference?
Probability only matters before an event occurs, not after.  After it happens, it's a certainty, and the rules of probability no longer apply.  Therefore, the Big Bang, which already occurred, is a certainty, not a probability.

There's such-and-such a probability of getting a winning jackpot combination in a lottery, but there's no guarantee that someone will actually pick that combination.  However, the moment someone does pick it, it instantly stops being a probability and becomes a certainty.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2012, 10:09:03 PM »
Moderator edit: fixed quoting

Quote from: jaimehlers
Probability only matters before an event occurs, not after.  After it happens, it's a certainty, and the rules of probability no longer apply.  Therefore, the Big Bang, which already occurred, is a certainty, not a probability.

There's such-and-such a probability of getting a winning jackpot combination in a lottery, but there's no guarantee that someone will actually pick that combination.  However, the moment someone does pick it, it instantly stops being a probability and becomes a certainty.

I agree, yes.  But what's your point again?  Supposing the odds were extremely high and we "won the lottery", it doesn't make the odds prior to winning good.  I think the "odds" argument fits better into the evolution topic.  Either way, are any of you saying that the odds were ever good for things to come about the way they have?  Seriously?   Everything exploded and fell into place for life to arise to the point that we are now typing on computers?  This Big Bang came from where?  Matter and gases came from where?  Magic?  Something arose from nothing?  Explosions create order?  How many odds had to be beaten to go from the Big Bang to me typing on this computer?  Not just one lottery, but millions of lotteries in a row.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2012, 10:57:51 PM by jetson »

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2012, 10:50:20 PM »
I agree, yes.  But what's your point again?  Supposing the odds were extremely high and we "won the lottery", it doesn't make the odds prior to winning good.  I think the "odds" argument fits better into the evolution topic.  Either way, are any of you saying that the odds were ever good for things to come about the way they have?  Seriously?   Everything exploded and fell into place for life to arise to the point that we are now typing on computers?  This Big Bang came from where?  Matter and gases came from where?  Magic?  Something arose from nothing?  Explosions create order?  How many odds had to be beaten to go from the Big Bang to me typing on this computer?  Not just one lottery, but millions of lotteries in a row.
The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it magic, the fact that you don't understand how the probabilities actually work doesn't mean it would have taken "millions of lotteries in a row", and the fact that you can't imagine any cause but a higher being (which brings its own problems, not the least of which is "who created this higher being?") doesn't make that explanation any more coherent.

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2770
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #41 on: March 11, 2012, 11:11:47 PM »
Either way, are any of you saying that the odds were ever good for things to come about the way they have?  Seriously?

Given that things are the way they are... yes.


Quote
Everything exploded and fell into place for life to arise to the point that we are now typing on computers? 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

You're grossly oversimplfying how things worked.  There are science books out there.  You can go to a library and read them.  You have an internet that you can do research on.  Just type in things like 'big bang theory' or 'origin of universe' in a search engine to get started.



Quote
This Big Bang came from where?

Nobody knows yet.


Quote
Matter and gases came from where?


Nobody knows yet.


Quote
Magic?
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination


Quote
Something arose from nothing? 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination


Quote
Explosions create order? 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination


Quote
How many odds had to be beaten to go from the Big Bang to me typing on this computer?  Not just one lottery, but millions of lotteries in a row.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #42 on: March 12, 2012, 12:17:41 AM »
I agree, yes.  But what's your point again?  Supposing the odds were extremely high and we "won the lottery", it doesn't make the odds prior to winning good.  I think the "odds" argument fits better into the evolution topic.  Either way, are any of you saying that the odds were ever good for things to come about the way they have?  Seriously?   Everything exploded and fell into place for life to arise to the point that we are now typing on computers?  This Big Bang came from where?  Matter and gases came from where?  Magic?  Something arose from nothing?  Explosions create order?  How many odds had to be beaten to go from the Big Bang to me typing on this computer?  Not just one lottery, but millions of lotteries in a row.
The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it magic, the fact that you don't understand how the probabilities actually work doesn't mean it would have taken "millions of lotteries in a row", and the fact that you can't imagine any cause but a higher being (which brings its own problems, not the least of which is "who created this higher being?") doesn't make that explanation any more coherent.

Therefore, the fact that you don't understand how God could exist in a different paradigm, doesn't make it magic either.  Thing is, both evolutionists and creationists are in a tie, when it comes to the "unexplained".  We will/may never understand some things, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real.  But what is the better option, when confronted with "we just don't know"?  Chance or intelligent design.  Based on what we perceive.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #43 on: March 12, 2012, 12:20:56 AM »
Also, posting links to answer a question mean nothing.  I have asked time and time again in different forums for someone to explain the evolution of sex...or the inner ear, etc...  I get links to websites.  These websites give assumptions.  Do you realize there are numerous theories for how sex evolved?   NEVER an answer.   If you really believe it and claim to "understand" evolution, explain it in your own words. 

Offline jakec47

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Darwins +4/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #44 on: March 12, 2012, 12:32:06 AM »
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2770
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #45 on: March 12, 2012, 12:37:59 AM »
Therefore, the fact that you don't understand how God could exist in a different paradigm, doesn't make it magic either.

"God" is nothing more than a patch answer when we come across something that we are uninformed about.


Quote
Thing is, both evolutionists and creationists are in a tie, when it comes to the "unexplained". 


Nope.  "Evolutionists" have explained far more than creationists ever did.  We look for evidence and see where it leads.  Creationism is little more than "goddidit, the end".


Quote
We will/may never understand some things, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real.  But what is the better option, when confronted with "we just don't know"?  Chance or intelligent design.  Based on what we perceive.

The best thing to say when confronted with "we don't know" is to say "we don't know".  Saying "goddidit" is not a good answer.


Quote
Also, posting links to answer a question mean nothing.  I have asked time and time again in different forums for someone to explain the evolution of sex...or the inner ear, etc...  I get links to websites.  These websites give assumptions.  Do you realize there are numerous theories for how sex evolved?   NEVER an answer.   If you really believe it and claim to "understand" evolution, explain it in your own words.

Again, you live in an age of libraries and internet sites.  You don't need to ask a layperson about these subjects.  You have access to material written by people that study those things for a living.  Go to a library and read a book, it's as simple as that.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2770
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #46 on: March 12, 2012, 12:39:55 AM »
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context


What Charles Darwin actually said:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2012, 12:45:29 AM »
Therefore, the fact that you don't understand how God could exist in a different paradigm, doesn't make it magic either.

"God" is nothing more than a patch answer when we come across something that we are uninformed about.


Quote
Thing is, both evolutionists and creationists are in a tie, when it comes to the "unexplained". 


Nope.  "Evolutionists" have explained far more than creationists ever did.  We look for evidence and see where it leads.  Creationism is little more than "goddidit, the end".


Quote
We will/may never understand some things, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real.  But what is the better option, when confronted with "we just don't know"?  Chance or intelligent design.  Based on what we perceive.

The best thing to say when confronted with "we don't know" is to say "we don't know".  Saying "goddidit" is not a good answer.


Quote
Also, posting links to answer a question mean nothing.  I have asked time and time again in different forums for someone to explain the evolution of sex...or the inner ear, etc...  I get links to websites.  These websites give assumptions.  Do you realize there are numerous theories for how sex evolved?   NEVER an answer.   If you really believe it and claim to "understand" evolution, explain it in your own words.

Again, you live in an age of libraries and internet sites.  You don't need to ask a layperson about these subjects.  You have access to material written by people that study those things for a living.  Go to a library and read a book, it's as simple as that.

You are uninformed about how the Big Bang started.  And believe that it happened.

God did it...the end?  No.  We believe that through scientific observation, there is a proof in that it took an intelligent designer to create you and I typing on a computer.  Am mean really.  Think about what you are doing.  Doesn't it seem rather mind-blowing to think about our human bodies and the universe and life as we know it?  It doesn't just blow you away when you hold a new-born baby in your arms?  How could it not?  Thinking about evolution from start to "finish".....wow.  That's a miracle, IMO.

Go to a library and read a book?  You don't think creationists read books?  You don't think that I have read The Origin of Species, or The God Delusion?..etc... 

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #48 on: March 12, 2012, 12:46:56 AM »
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context


What Charles Darwin actually said:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

And yet, still no answer of how it evolved.....   Hmmm...

Online Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2770
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #49 on: March 12, 2012, 01:05:02 AM »
You are uninformed about how the Big Bang started.  And believe that it happened.

There is scientific evidence of the big bang.  It is not a matter of belief.

Quote
God did it...the end?  No.  We believe that through scientific observation, there is a proof in that it took an intelligent designer to create you and I typing on a computer.  Am mean really.  Think about what you are doing.  Doesn't it seem rather mind-blowing to think about our human bodies and the universe and life as we know it?  It doesn't just blow you away when you hold a new-born baby in your arms?  How could it not?  Thinking about evolution from start to "finish".....wow.  That's a miracle, IMO.

This nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

Once again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination


Quote
Go to a library and read a book?  You don't think creationists read books?  You don't think that I have read The Origin of Species, or The God Delusion?..etc...

If you have read sciencific books, then you should know that the process is about evidence, not about incredulity and applying a dabble of god magic whenever we come across a gap in our knowledge.


Quote
And yet, still no answer of how it evolved.....   Hmmm...

*sign*  Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6616
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #50 on: March 12, 2012, 01:16:14 AM »
Therefore, the fact that you don't understand how God could exist in a different paradigm, doesn't make it magic either.  Thing is, both evolutionists and creationists are in a tie, when it comes to the "unexplained".  We will/may never understand some things, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real.  But what is the better option, when confronted with "we just don't know"?  Chance or intelligent design.  Based on what we perceive.

You're in luck. I'm a non-expert on the bible, so I won't be throwing any quotes at you and ask what they mean, or how they mean something different to me than to you.

I became an atheist because it was readily apparent to me that the christian religion was a myth just like all the other myths they were teaching me in school. Magic this, moral lesson that, heros and villains, and of course, gods. The only difference between a hindu god and a christian god is that different groups are falling for the stories. And just as you know that the many armed hindu god vishnu is not real, hindu's know that the two armed god yahweh is not real. Since I'm so all-inclusive, I look at both religions and say both are false.

Now as it happens, the many discoveries of science keep validating my point of view. Or at least not challenging said view. The bible says if you mate goats in front of a striped stick you'll get stripped goats. Science says bullpuppy, and describes a provable model of how genetics work. The bible said the snakes eat dirt. Science has proven otherwise. The bible says the earth was flooded and completely under water, science can't find even a hint that such a thing happened. And of course the disconnect between the creation story and the reality of science is quite noticeable too.

(I am aware that various fundamentalists have put forth various ideas about how current landforms and canyons and erosion patterns prove a flood, but all of the "science" they use to prove such claims is made up. None of it is consistent with anything real scientists have discovered. How do I know? I can understand every word that scientists use to disassemble the fundamentalist's claims. I can't for the life of me figure out how the fundy's came up with their theories. They make no sense from the get-go.)

The more fundamental a christian you are, the more you have to diss the reality described by science, because there is a huge difference in the back story. And while social scientists and brain researchers can explain the source of religion (as a cultural phenomena aided by tendencies in the brain to see things that aren't there), about all believers can do to try putting down religion is say "Uh-huh, that's not true". With no demonstrable way of backing up such generic claims.

The fact that ID proponents or biblical scholars impress you with their various stories doesn't make any of them true. While you base your beliefs on hope and faith, millions of scientists around the world are researching, discovering, confirming and otherwise putting together a story of the whole universe that actually makes sense. Or at least (in the case of quantum physics) can predict with great accuracy what we will find, even when nobody can figure out exactly how the heck it works.

Do we know everything? Of course not. We haven't had the time of the money or the scientific wherewithal to do that, and probably never will. There is no way to know absolutely everything. But enough of science has put together enough of an explanation to make our general view of reality one that is far more understandable than anything any religion has managed to assemble.

And do keep in mind that not all scientists are atheists. Atheism itself is merely one point of view that gives one group of people one point of view about reality. Many a scientist has at least a spiritual view of the world, and some are downright believers. And yet they look for more knowledge in the right places and see no conflict between their beliefs and their work.

You don't like evolution. It makes no sense to you. So you claim it can't be true. We don't agree with the concept of any god, let alone your's. The idea makes no sense to us. So we claim it isn't true. And of course, in the process of disassembling your god ideas we will mention things like how much more moral we humans are than your christian god. I can't actually speak for any of the others, but personally I would never give a thought to drowning the entire planet, giving the egyptians a hard time, turn a person to salt, trick Adam and Eve, let "my people" wander around lost in the desert for 40 years, scare the crap out of Abraham by making him think he had to kill his son, or off my boy just to fix my own mistake in Eden. Not to mention my inability leave people in the dark or cause doubt or depend on faith or send billions of innocent (or at least halfway decent)  humans to hell and an eternity of torment. Plus, I can't imagine wanting to let a bunch for goodie two-shoes into my heaven for an eternity. That would torment me.

Now of course you have a huge disadvantage over us. We don't have any imaginary boss that you can denounce as false. We are short of stories for which there is no historical evidence. Those of us not big into religion haven't narrowed our worldview down small enough to rely on one book that can fit into a motel room nightstand. I'd apologize, but for what?

If believers and those of us who accept evolution, are in a tie regarding the "unexplained", it is because the everything that you have that you can't explain is equal in volume to the few little things we can't quite understand yet.

That doesn't make it a tie. I'd call it a coincidence.

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5063
  • Darwins +584/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #51 on: March 12, 2012, 06:42:50 AM »
Therefore, the fact that you don't understand how God could exist in a different paradigm, doesn't make it magic either.  Thing is, both evolutionists and creationists are in a tie, when it comes to the "unexplained".  We will/may never understand some things, but that doesn't mean that they aren't real.  But what is the better option, when confronted with "we just don't know"?  Chance or intelligent design.  Based on what we perceive.
No, I do understand how it could work if gods actually existed.  However, to posit a god or gods complicates matters enormously[1], despite the fact that it's supposed to be a simple explanation.  Furthermore, that explanation offers nothing for understanding how things actually work.  I can give an example to illustrate this; long ago, people believed lightning was an expression of divine wrath, because people didn't understand what it was or how it worked.  All they knew is that when lightning struck, things burned and people were hurt or killed.  What else could it be but the hand of the divine, smiting evildoers and sinners?

Yet, we gradually discovered things that always held true about lightning.  It tended to strike things that were high up, it was attracted to metal, it only struck during specific weather conditions.  That was the process of science, even though it was not especially systematic, since science is the discovery of how things actually work.  Eventually, we figured out why lightning works the way it does; air is a very poor conductor, so lightning will always take a shortcut through solid objects if possible, especially if that object stands taller than its surroundings; metal is a very good conductor, so lightning will take a shortcut through it if possible; lightning only happens when clouds are ionized[2].  It's easy to confirm that latter with a simple experiment; wear socks and rub your feet against a carpet, especially during winter when the air is dry, and then touch something made of metal, and you'll discharge electricity into the metal before you actually touch it.  We've confirmed that lightning and electricity are the same thing, just different in degree; we've confirmed that electricity and magnetism are different facets of the same force, electromagnetism, which is why running an electrical current through a magnet dramatically increases its attractive force.  All of this happened through science, not through religious belief.

Evolution is also a scientific process, an attempt to discover how the incredible diversity of living things came about.  We're still working on that explanation (basically, we're coming up with answers that make sense for why evolution happened the way it did), yet, you would have us believe that evolution is in a "tie" with religious belief, and that it's a matter of choice which is better based on perception?  Evolution versus creationism is as much a choice as electromagnetism versus divine wrath.  Or, more simply, knowledge versus ignorance.  There is no contest between the explaining power of the various branches of science, and the explaining power of religious belief.  "God" can be used as an answer for everything, but it explains nothing.  Science is better because it doesn't try to make a single answer fit everything.

So what's the better answer between chance and creationism[3]?  Neither.  Using science to discover the real answer is better than letting someone get away with a false dichotomy which is solely intended to support a pet belief.  If you understood the first thing about evolution, you would understand that it was not caused by random chance.  Influenced, yes, caused, no.
 1. Just to cite one example, if it is impossible to conceive of the universe existing without a god having created it, then what created that god?  Saying God created the universe seems convenient, but it isn't even that because you still have to answer what created God.
 2. ions are atoms which have an electrical charge, as opposed to a neutral charge
 3. which is what the term "intelligent design" is intended to cloak

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappĂ©
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #52 on: March 12, 2012, 07:13:20 AM »
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

Well?  Go on... quote the rest of it.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1313
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #53 on: March 12, 2012, 07:23:54 AM »
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context


What Charles Darwin actually said:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

And yet, still no answer of how it evolved.....   Hmmm...

Since you're the bookreading type, pick up Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins ... contains a detailed step by step explanation about the evolution of the eye.
* Fiji grabs some crisps while he waits for rockv12 to move the goalposts

*edit ... hehe, there's an actual / me function in this forum, neat!
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #54 on: March 12, 2012, 07:29:41 AM »
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

Well?  Go on... quote the rest of it.

I'll help with that one.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #55 on: March 12, 2012, 09:08:12 AM »
How to create extremely improbable events

1) Get a jar
2) Go outside
3) Fill jar with rocks
4) Shake jar

5) MIRACLE!


It's a miracle because the "odds" of the rocks landing in that exact configuration is astronomically high, and yet, they had to land somewhere.  If you were a bacteria living on the rocks, you might come to the conclusion that the universe was "fine-tuned" just for you, especially if other bacteria kept insinuating that THIS particular arrangement was "special".

But shake it again.

Whoa! Another miracle!  And again....MIRACLE!  and again... ANOTHER MIRACLE!  You are some kind of "God" aren't you?  You can make "miracles" "at will"

Oh, except the "miracles" aren't even contingent on YOU, lots of things shake rocks, don't they?  Hmmmm.
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11134
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #56 on: March 12, 2012, 09:29:42 AM »
Nice, Cyberia, although I prefer decks of cards. Easier to calculate the odds.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #57 on: March 12, 2012, 09:41:29 AM »
If you got a problem take it up with this guy, I don't know how he did the research or whatever, just thought you all would like to say something about his theory (wrong as it might be).

Nice copout there - why are we not surprised? Lesseee...don't like what I said - well take it up with (this guy who isn't on the forum, by the way...). Yup, you should do real well as a policeman.

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler