whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: jakec47 on March 07, 2012, 11:50:11 PM

Title: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 07, 2012, 11:50:11 PM
So I was reading about this thing that said about the probability of the Big Bang Theory being possible. And essentially it said that a mathematician did some calculations for if all the right variables were present at the right time and the right lightning hit the right spot on the premordial ooze and that created a living thing which through the random natural selections could this possibly result in the state we have today with humans. And he said the probability was:
1
in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
What are your thoughts on this?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 07, 2012, 11:51:32 PM
Oh and that number has 1230 zeros. I could have wrote it in scientific notion but i couldn't figure out how on here. 10^1230, maybe this is good enough.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: magicmiles on March 07, 2012, 11:56:12 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 08, 2012, 12:04:41 AM
jackec47, this is honest advice.

We atheists are sort of picky. Before we get in an argument with someone, we want them to know something about the subject. The "Big Bang" is a well supported scientific theory that currently provides the best explanation for how the universe as we know it began. It relates only the the early universe as it formed. Very quickly.

The Big Bang happened about 13.7 billion years ago.

Abiogenesis is the scientific term for the beginning of life. On earth, scientists believe life started about 3.5 billion years ago. And if you're hauling out the old creationist stories about primordial ooze and such, this is obviously what you are wanting to discuss, and not the Big Bang.

If I wanted to start and argument about the existence of jesus and began by wondering what he was doing in the Himalayas 4,000 years ago, you would not be the least bit impressed by my scholarship and I'm guessing you would not too inclined to reply to my claims. Because they would sound so preposterous to you.

It works both ways. You haven't even bothered to read the overview of either the Big Bang or Abiogenesis on Wikipedia. You got yourself seduced by a bunch of numbers (appropriately, zeros), and blustered your way through the first post of this thread, probably hurting yourself trying to type and pat yourself on the back at the same time. I would suggest you try reframing your argument in such a way that it qualifies as coherent and also makes a point.

This is 2012. You have at your fingertips information on everything from electrons and microbes to the universe and everything in between. And you're not even willing to pretend you are informed.

This is sad. I do hope you take the time to redeem yourself in our eyes by reading something relevant and reposting your question to make it intelligible.

You're not stupid. (Please don't prove me wrong about that.) Fix this post.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 08, 2012, 03:12:53 AM
jakec47, what you have stated is not the Big Bang, nor is it any accepted scientific theory. The "primordial ooze and lightning" scenario does not exist in any scientific theory.
The Big Bang theory states simply this:
About 13.7 billion years ago[1], the total mass of the universe (even the universe itself) was condensed into a singularity. This singularity then began expanding exponentially, getting colder as it did, per the laws of thermodynamics.
That's all.

It is supported by the fact that the universe is expanding even now (at an increasing rate, no less). If it had simply been created as it was right now, it would be contracting, due to gravity. We know it's expanding due to an effect known as "redshift".
Simply put, the light coming from a few "nearby" stars and galaxies has shifted towards infrared (and there is less light reaching us). If the universe were static, there would be no measurable effect whatsoever. If it were contracting (which would be bad for us) the effect would be reversed (the light would be shifting towards UV, rather than IR).
 1. Give or take 0.1 billion years, IIRC.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on March 08, 2012, 03:27:27 AM
Oh and that number has 1230 zeros. I could have wrote it in scientific notion notation but i couldn't figure out how on here. 10^1230 101230, maybe this is good enough.

There, fixed it for you...not that it actually helps.

There are a bunch of little buttons right above the text box. Just above all the smiley faces. Play with all of them and use the "preview" button in between the "post" and "spell check" buttons before you submit your post. 

Really, you can't even figure out how to use the functions a forum offers it's users when it's right in front of your face, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you try to talk about cosmology and abiogenesis?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Willie on March 08, 2012, 03:28:04 AM
Consider that if the opportunities for an event to occur are unlimited, then the event is certain to eventually occur if its probability of occurring at each opportunity is anything other than zero. That, of course, raises the question: were there unlimited opportunities for the big bang to occur? I don't know. And neither does the mathematician that you speak of. The answer to that would require an understanding of a larger context within which our universe exists, and currently, it's not at all clear what such a context would be like, whether there exists any possible way to learn anything about it, or even whether any larger context exists.

Do you see the problem? Without knowing the number of opportunities, the probability of a single occurrence tells us nothing at all about whether the big bang could have happened by chance. It doesn't matter how many zeros there are. There are other problems with creationist probability arguments against the big bang and evolution, but the opportunities problem alone is sufficient to render them all moot. And at the end of all the hand-waving and moot speculation, we're left with the fact that there is ample evidence that the big bang and evolution did, in fact, occur, whatever the odds.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Cyberia on March 08, 2012, 05:37:59 AM
At this point, the probability of the Big Bang is about 99.999....%

We can see that all galaxies are moving apart, and can measure how fast they are moving.  If we run that backwards, we get a date of ~13-14 billion years ago that they were all together at one point.

We also can make predictions about what SHOULD be there if the BB happened, like: There should be a residual background glow from the explosion...and we have found that background glow....and it exactly matches the predicted form.  From the glow we can determine a more exact age of 13.72 billion years for the universe, and that agrees with the above number.

We can also make predictions about what the chemical composition of the universe should be if the BB happened.....and the measured composition EXACTLY matches the predictions.

We have also never found ANYTHING (rocks, stars, galaxies, etc) that is older than 13.72 billion years old.

There are even more lines of evidence pointing to the BB.   It happened.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 08, 2012, 06:24:20 AM
The whole universe was in a hot dense state, then nearly 14 billion years ago expansion started..wait! The earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool, neanderthal discovered tools.
Math, science, history, unraveling the mystery. It all started with a big bang. BANG!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 08, 2012, 06:38:52 AM
jake

with all due respect

read more (specifically about that which you wish to talk about)
think more (specifically think about what you have read, and what it actually means)
speak less (until you are at least reasonably informed or educated about what you are wishing to discuss)

ask more questions from a basis of rational appraisal, not just uninformed guesses
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Brakeman on March 08, 2012, 06:45:04 AM
The probability of an event occurring after it occurs is one. Statistically it is one with 100% confidence.
Generally if something occurred and statistic prediction was strong that it shouldn't have occurred, the either the event was a very unlikely fluke, or most likely, you make a mistake in your assumptions or math. My first statistical assumption when I hear some "odds" like that, is that the person has shit for brains.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 08, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
Hi Jake:

Excuse my levity. I love the Bare Naked Ladies doing the theme for the Big Bang Theory. I just couldn't resist.

Spend a little time in the Evolution Vrs Creation threads and you will see that yours is a common misconception. Of course, Googling Big Bang theory can be quite helpful as well.

And asking questions here is a good start, too.

.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni on March 08, 2012, 07:17:13 AM
So I was reading about this thing that said about the probability of the Big Bang Theory being possible. And essentially it said that a mathematician did some calculations for if all the right variables were present at the right time and the right lightning hit the right spot on the premordial ooze and that created a living thing which through the random natural selections...  What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts, first and foremost, are that you don't know what you're talking about.  You are committing the same error that we have seen believers commit again and again and again: confusing the Big Bang Theory with abiogenesis and/or evolution, when in fact the three concepts have nothing to do with each other.  (The error is perplexing enough as it is, but what's even more peculiar is that, when science-minded types try to explain the error to the believer, the believer almost never says, "Oh, sorry, my mistake."  The reaction is almost universally, "Yes, they are too the same thing!")  You cannot speak out against a particular concept -- in science or in any other field -- if you don't even understand it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: inveni0 on March 08, 2012, 11:15:19 AM
Ignoring the lack of understanding for the Big Bang, let me say this:

The odds of something occurring become better as the circumstances for that occurrence become better.  Let's use the lottery as an example.  Pretend that you've picked 6 numbers: 4 8 15 16 23 42 (Lost reference).  The lottery works by drawing six numbers out of six separate bins each containing the numbers 0-99.  The odds of you having picked the right number sound astronomical.  But imagine that you were allowed to keep and replay the same numbers indefinitely.  Help your chances?  Not really.  So how do we tune the circumstances?  Well, we have to observe rules that support a win in your favor.  So now, each day that numbers are drawn, any numbers matching your list are placed on the pedestal and the drawing continues.  It may take a while, but eventually we would have six pedestals full of numbers that give us an occurrence of WIN.

This is how nature works.  There are set of rules in place that allow all of the occurrences we see to happen, given that the circumstances to create that occurrence increases past a certain threshold.

I also like to use lightning as an example.  The odds of lightning striking on a cloudless day is zero.  But as you add clouds, the circumstances change and allow the probability of a lightning strike to rise.

So arguing that something isn't possible because of "odds" is stupid.  If the circumstances are correct, it WILL happen.  That's just how nature works.  It is not magical, and no scientist will claim it is.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 08, 2012, 07:40:38 PM
Wow sorry your guys don't have to haggle me about it so much, I found that info on the web and wanted to know if you thought it was accurate, i would have posted the link but I couldn't find it. So i looked again and here it is http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html. Oh and thanks again for the nice comments. (Not serious). However I do appreciate the input of monkeymind and ParkingPlaces. 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).
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 08, 2012, 08:10:16 PM
Wow sorry your guys don't have to haggle me about it so much...

Jake, please try to mentally understand (even though you can't take the time to gather facts, that most of us on here have come to the 'obvious' conclusion about our reality and science is the best method yet to show this reality happening.

Please also understand that you are 1 out 1,293,930,393 people and counting who deliberatly sign onto this forum trying to make wacky judgements and baseless claims about something you have to take the time, gather information and facts, and then make a logical, 'unemotional' decision; even if it makes us feel uncomfortable because the ones who are closest to you probably believe this nonsense and hope and think you to do....

Please understand that this DOES get quite old on some of us at time....  Imagine someone coming into your house everyday with the same baseless questions and/or assertions about things you know to be facts about your own life.  I think you would be more than annoyed.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Graybeard on March 08, 2012, 08:30:16 PM
Wow sorry your guys don't have to haggle me about it so much, I found that info on the web and wanted to know if you thought it was accurate,  i would have posted the link but I couldn't find it. So i looked again and here it is http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html.
If you look at the site, it is allegedly from work by Roger Penrose.

I would be interested to see the original. However, I think that this would be unlikely as Penrose does not seem to have ever said this. I suspect it is "quote-mining" by creationists, for it is on creationist sites that you find all the references to the alleged Penrose claim, and I suspect that whatever he said has been deceitfully altered/taken out of context by all-too-common liars that inhabit the snake-oil department of Christianity.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 08, 2012, 08:39:42 PM
Wow sorry your guys don't have to haggle me about it so much, I found that info on the web and wanted to know if you thought it was accurate, i would have posted the link but I couldn't find it. So i looked again and here it is http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html. Oh and thanks again for the nice comments. (Not serious). However I do appreciate the input of monkeymind and ParkingPlaces. 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).

jakec47

First of all, it would have been wise of you to include the link in your first post. No biggie, but next time you are so inclined, you might pass on your source. If helps me with my rants.

Now that I know your source, I know a bit more about what you were talking about. And so the first thing I want to say is that the calculation in question does not say that there is only a one in 1010123 that ANY universe would form. But rather that is the chance of our specific universe forming.

One of the possibilities considered by physics is that there are a lot of universes. An infinite number, in fact. In which case, 1010123 is a drop in the bucket. Well, not even that much.

We don't know that, of course. And the Penrose calculation may or may not be considering all the factors accurately. I don't know how it could, actually, because we don't know all the factors. But that could mean the number, if calculated with all the appropriate data on hand, could be larger or smaller. We don't know that either.

We're here. Or at least I am. You guys on the site might be a figment of my imagination. But if we are indeed all here, then our existence is a fact. At least using our own standards. If it is a fact, then something happened for it to get here. We who accept that science is on the right track look at that number and say "Whew, we were lucky!" Those of you who think science is wrong every time it disagrees with holy scripture assume that the existence of an infinitely wise dude who loves us is more likely. You say "Whew, we were lucky!"

So see, at least we're in agreement about one thing. Wouldn't it be more fun to work with that than run around condemning the other side for being a bunch of ignorant hicks?

Be real nice, state your case and concerns in clear and unambiguous language, be fair about it and understand and accept that we have our differences, and I'll teach you how to post scientific notation here. Fair enough?

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 08, 2012, 08:56:33 PM
Poe.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni on March 09, 2012, 07:52:47 AM
For those who don't know, I majored in philosophy, and my thesis topic was the mind/body problem.  An interesting comparison from my research occurred to me this morning.  This individual says that the likelihood of the universe forming the way it did was 101230 -- that is, the number one followed by 1,230 zeroes.  Even assuming that that's accurate -- and we really have no way of knowing whether it is -- here's a fun little comparison regarding the human brain.

Quote
If one harbors doubts that a system of dopey neurons could remotely begin to account for the range of thought and the plasticity of cognition, consider this: A typical neuron has synaptic connections emanating from on the order of 3,000 other neurons (this is an average, some neurons have as many as... 100,000 [synaptic inputs], and some only a few).  That would make for on the order of 1014 distinct possible synaptic connections (1011 neurons times 103 connections).  If we assume that each of these 1014 connections is capable of one of only 10 possible weights at any given time (this is a conservative estimate), the total number of distinct neural states is 101014 or 10100,000,000,000,000.
{Source: Owen Flanagan, "The Science of the Mind"}

That's the number one followed by one hundred trillion zeroes.  I was going to expand on that, but decided not to.  I think it speaks for itself.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 09, 2012, 09:01:25 AM
For those who don't know, I majored in philosophy, and my thesis topic was the mind/body problem.  An interesting comparison from my research occurred to me this morning.  This individual says that the likelihood of the universe forming the way it did was 101230 -- that is, the number one followed by 1,230 zeroes.  Even assuming that that's accurate -- and we really have no way of knowing whether it is -- here's a fun little comparison regarding the human brain.

Quote
If one harbors doubts that a system of dopey neurons could remotely begin to account for the range of thought and the plasticity of cognition, consider this: A typical neuron has synaptic connections emanating from on the order of 3,000 other neurons (this is an average, some neurons have as many as... 100,000 [synaptic inputs], and some only a few).  That would make for on the order of 1014 distinct possible synaptic connections (1011 neurons times 103 connections).  If we assume that each of these 1014 connections is capable of one of only 10 possible weights at any given time (this is a conservative estimate), the total number of distinct neural states is 101014 or 10100,000,000,000,000.
{Source: Owen Flanagan, "The Science of the Mind"}

That's the number one followed by one hundred trillion zeroes.  I was going to expand on that, but decided not to.  I think it speaks for itself.

mind boggling      great stuff
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 09, 2012, 09:32:40 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).

But he didn't bring it up....you did!   ;D

Anytime you read a theory like that, ask that person to calculate the odds for this:

Take 8 people, 4 of each gender, out of the entire population of the earth.
Calculate the odds of them forming 4 specific pairs.
Calculate the odds of a specific sperm fertilising a specific ovum from each pair, forming 2 of each gender.
Calculate the odds of those four forming 2 specific pairs, and their fertilisation odds.
Calculate the odds of those two offspring meeting, out of all the billions of people in the world, and for a specific sperm fertilising a specific ovum there as well.

My bet is they won't be far off the astronomical odds that you quoted.....and yet the number they came up with would be the odds against them existing....traced ONLY back to great-grandparent level.

And yet it clearly happened!!!!!

Remarkable eh?  And a clear demonstration of why quoting probabilities, and understanding their application, are two entirely different things.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 09, 2012, 11:04:03 AM
Wow sorry your guys don't have to haggle me about it so much, I found that info on the web and wanted to know if you thought it was accurate, i would have posted the link but I couldn't find it. So i looked again and here it is http://www.faizani.com/news/news_2003/math_impossibility.html. Oh and thanks again for the nice comments. (Not serious). However I do appreciate the input of monkeymind and ParkingPlaces. 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).

seems that this is the usual thowing shit against a wall and hoping some of it sticks.  Creationists have been repeatedly shown that their lies don't work.   I don't believe for one moment that you "just thought" anything.   Like so many creationists you think you have some new magic bullet but you don't even try to see if it's already been addressed.  No, you just assume other creationists wouldn't lie to you and you try to spread their nonsense further. 

Again, if you really do want to be come a police detective, you have to know how to research.  Not doing so will get you bit in the ass every time.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Frank on March 09, 2012, 03:25:15 PM
. And he said the probability was:
1
in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
What are your thoughts on this?

We're here aren't we.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 09, 2012, 08:15:19 PM
Remarkable!

What are the chances that there is something? Instead of nothing. Bring out the famous mathematician again.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 09, 2012, 09:33:20 PM
With us existing in this universe we can proudly say that we beat the odds[1]

Now time to ask a question back.

What are the odds of god, of any belief system, appearing before a set of rational people and thus putting an end to atheism and agnosticism?
 1. The odds conjured by theists, I'm still looking for the mathematicians name.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rickymooston on March 09, 2012, 11:09:21 PM
So I was reading about this thing that said about the probability of the Big Bang Theory being possible. And essentially it said that a mathematician did some calculations for if all the right variables were present at the right time and the right lightning hit the right spot on the premordial ooze and that created a living thing which through the random natural selections could this possibly result in the state we have today with humans. And he said the probability was:
1
in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
What are your thoughts on this?



Well, how did the scientist ESTImAte the probability?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 10, 2012, 08:56:00 AM
What are the odds that theists will actually someday understand probabilities?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 10, 2012, 09:06:27 AM
And he said the probability was:
1
in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
What are your thoughts on this?

Wow, those are pretty high odds alright. Can you ask him to calculate the odds of a god becoming so bored with being Omnipotent that it would create a physical universe and also human beings to live in it?

Just like to compare the odds so I can decide which is more likely.

Thanks.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: lotanddaughters 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 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...

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Mr. Blackwell 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.  &)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 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?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 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?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Brakeman 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 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...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 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
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 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. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 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
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 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... 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 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...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 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
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces 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.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers 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
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Fiji 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.
/me grabs some crisps while he waits for rockv12 to move the goalposts

*edit ... hehe, there's an actual / me function in this forum, neat!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All 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."
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Cyberia 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.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 12, 2012, 09:29:42 AM
Nice, Cyberia, although I prefer decks of cards. Easier to calculate the odds.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ungod 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.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 12, 2012, 10:56:35 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.

aw, that's so cute, trying to excuse your ignorance and refusal to read the links as a problem for someone else.  Sorry, rockv, but there is no need for me to rewrite something that I already understand and would produce similarly.  You are the usual theist, trying to move the goalposts, and delay the inevitable, remaining willfully ignorant.

It's also cute to see you lie about Charles Darwin just like any other pathetic creationist.  I am always pleased to see a Christian who doesn't care about his religion at all.   So much for faith in a being that hates lies when you repeat them and fail to even apologize.  Such a good representative of your religion. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 12, 2012, 03:02:43 PM
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.

aw, that's so cute, trying to excuse your ignorance and refusal to read the links as a problem for someone else.  Sorry, rockv, but there is no need for me to rewrite something that I already understand and would produce similarly.  You are the usual theist, trying to move the goalposts, and delay the inevitable, remaining willfully ignorant.

It's also cute to see you lie about Charles Darwin just like any other pathetic creationist.  I am always pleased to see a Christian who doesn't care about his religion at all.   So much for faith in a being that hates lies when you repeat them and fail to even apologize.  Such a good representative of your religion.
.
Wow, simmer down.  I do read the links but have been through this before.  I ask a question and get directed to a quick Google search link that offers nothing other than assumptions.  Nobody can tell me how sex evolved but get angry when youtell them that evolution has not been proven.  And I lied?  What?  I'm confused as to the angry tone.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 12, 2012, 03:06:00 PM
Nobody can tell me how sex evolved but get angry when youtell them that evolution has not been proven.  And I lied?  What?  I'm confused as to the angry tone.

I'll assume that "Am I lied?" means "Am I lying?". If so, the answer is yes. Evolution has been proven ad nauseam. However, we can only speculate based on the evidence (create theories) as to how some parts evolved. We have a fossil record showing how bones evolved, as well as vestigial organs on some (maybe most) species (including our own), but soft tissues are exceedingly rare.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 12, 2012, 06:27:07 PM
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.



Oh so your going to insult me and what my profession is going to be. Well being a police officer is not the same as religion, being a police officer I will have to do things differently. And do you see me here insulting things about your life. Stick to the forum discussion and stay away from my life.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 12, 2012, 06:40:45 PM
Nobody can tell me how sex evolved but get angry when youtell them that evolution has not been proven.  And I lied?  What?  I'm confused as to the angry tone.

I'll assume that "Am I lied?" means "Am I lying?". If so, the answer is yes. Evolution has been proven ad nauseam. However, we can only speculate based on the evidence (create theories) as to how some parts evolved. We have a fossil record showing how bones evolved, as well as vestigial organs on some (maybe most) species (including our own), but soft tissues are exceedingly rare.
The fossil record does not show how bones evolved.  We see different looking and different size bones, that does not mean they changed shape and form due to evolution.  We only have assumptions.  How again, has it been proven? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Brakeman on March 12, 2012, 06:55:54 PM
Rockv12,
Have you ever heard of genetics? Of DNA? Have you ever personally judged where the delineation from ape ancestor to human was using skull fossils? Look them up and tell us which skulls were human and which were apes.

 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 12, 2012, 06:56:23 PM
rockv12:  When you have fossil skeletons which are similar but have certain key differences, and furthermore the fossils are in the same geographic area but from subsequent time periods, that is reasonable proof that the bones changed, thus the organisms changed.  But since you do not think so, what do you think the differences in the bones prove?  I don't mean just that they're different organisms, I mean why you think they're different.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jetson on March 12, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
The fossil record does not show how bones evolved.  We see different looking and different size bones, that does not mean they changed shape and form due to evolution.  We only have assumptions.  How again, has it been proven?

Dude, seriously?  You really have missed the basics of the theory, by a long shot.  Seriously.  Stop repeating the word assumptions like you have some authority on this field of study.  You don't.  You're not even close.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 12, 2012, 08:10:03 PM
No, we have much more than assumptions, much more than faith. We have evidence. The theory makes reliable, repeatable predictions about reality.

Much like the theory of gravity. Or do you find the theory of gravity lacks proof as well?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 12, 2012, 09:55:47 PM
No, we have much more than assumptions, much more than faith. We have evidence. The theory makes reliable, repeatable predictions about reality.

Much like the theory of gravity. Or do you find the theory of gravity lacks proof as well?

Theory of gravity?  I thought it was a law.  Look, we have never witnessed one species turn into another, therefore, yes, it is faith.  Actually, NOTHING can be proven.  God can't be proven.  We can't prove that life evolved as you say it has.  Transitional fossils, even evolutionists, agree that they are missing, tons of them are NOT there to see.  We NEVER see half an alligator, or half a bird.  Where are all the fossils?  We've just gotten unlucky with our digging? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 12, 2012, 10:00:03 PM
The fossil record does not show how bones evolved.  We see different looking and different size bones, that does not mean they changed shape and form due to evolution.  We only have assumptions.  How again, has it been proven?

Dude, seriously?  You really have missed the basics of the theory, by a long shot.  Seriously.  Stop repeating the word assumptions like you have some authority on this field of study.  You don't.  You're not even close.

Assumptions can be best guesses, as we see with evolutionists.  They have a guess of how the inner ear formed with it's semi-circular canals and the cochlea with it's intricacies.  BUT never does it seem, "Ah, that makes sense".  HOW would any living thing decide that it had to hear?  And that decision/need (whatever you will call it) turned into the middle ear bones, eustachian tube, and inner ear.  It is SO far advanced, it understands physics and acoustics perfectly.  Does that not seem odd?  Think about the process from beginning to end that evolution gives for its formation.  Think long and hard about the little living organism that evolved to a human being.  It's outrageous!!  And you just go, "Yea, it makes perfect sense".  And we are insane and delusional to believe that a creator designed it?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 12, 2012, 10:01:29 PM
And you just go, "Yea, it makes perfect sense".  And we are insane and delusional to believe that a creator designed it?

About this creator fellow, who I assume has ears...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 12, 2012, 10:25:00 PM

Theory of gravity?  I thought it was a law.  Look, we have never witnessed one species turn into another, therefore, yes, it is faith.  Actually, NOTHING can be proven.  God can't be proven.  We can't prove that life evolved as you say it has.  Transitional fossils, even evolutionists, agree that they are missing, tons of them are NOT there to see.  We NEVER see half an alligator, or half a bird.  Where are all the fossils?  We've just gotten unlucky with our digging?

Actually it's Newton's Laws of gravity or gravitation. That is... in the Standard Model of Physics. However, there are new theories of gravity relating to gravitons, gravity waves, etc. in string theory.

You are correct, nothing can be proven in the layperson's sense of the word, but things can be falsified.

Evolution does not say we should find half an alligator, but if you are referring to transitional fossils, in effect they all are. However, one can easily pull up many examples through Google. Or, you caould have spent a little time reading through the threads on evolution.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 13, 2012, 12:00:56 AM
  We can't prove that life evolved as you say it has.  Transitional fossils, even evolutionists, agree that they are missing, tons of them are NOT there to see.

I doubt these will be acceptable to you, but here are some fossil lineages that are pretty well known: ape-like ancestors to human, the progression of whales from land-dwellers to their present form and several others (http://transitionalfossils.com/#whales (http://transitionalfossils.com/#whales)).

Also, when you say something like "...even evolutionists, agree that they are missing,", please give a link or reference to the person who supposedly said it. We're giving you evidence to support our position; please reciprocate.

We NEVER see half an alligator, or half a bird.  Where are all the fossils?  We've just gotten unlucky with our digging? 

Evolutionary theory predicts that we will "NEVER see half an alligator, or half a bird". Such a chimera would be better evidence for special creation than evolution. AFAIK, no such fossil has ever been found.

We have fossils that show clear progressions of gradual evolutionary change, rocky12. We even have fossils showing relatively rapid change (rapid still meaning multiple millions of years), such as the "Cambrian Explosion" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion)). 

The idea that we should be able to see a complete record of morphological change in fossils is quite wrong, as Darwin himself recognized: (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html)).
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 13, 2012, 12:07:26 AM
Not to mention that there is plenty of evidence for evolution without fossils. If there were no fossils at all, science could still demonstrate that evolution is the best explanation for the millions of species on this planet.

That fossils do exist, buried and preserved by various geologic forces over time, in a manner quite consistent with the rest of the theory, is what we in the business call a frickin' bonus.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: pingnak on March 13, 2012, 01:06:23 AM
I should think the odds would be about 1:1, since the convincing evidence that we have accumulated over the centuries tends to indicate that the universe exists, and expanded from some central point. 

It's like debating the odds of life existing, or the odds that about 2/3 of the earth would be covered in water, or the 'odds' you lost in Vegas, riding the bus home with only the shirt on your back, and a stolen hotel towel wrapped about your waist, below.

Happened already.  Probability wave collapsed.

That some natural force would cause it seems a lot more likely than some extra-natural super-duper-prefect-sky-guy existing prior to the existence of anything else at all, causing all things to exist by talking at chaos.  You may as well calculate the odds the earth we live on is a flat, spinning disk, on four elephants, on a turtle, with sun and moon orbiting it.  Tack on a few trillion extra zeroes for THAT possibility.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 13, 2012, 05:39:20 AM
Look, we have never witnessed one species turn into another, therefore, yes, it is faith.  Actually, NOTHING can be proven.  God can't be proven. 

Fair enough.  So when you said:

....God created man, perfect and sinless.  Man sinned.  Sin seperated man from a perfect, holy God.  God requires holiness.  Man was created with free will, because God wants buddies in heaven that WANT to love Him.  The old covenant of reconciliation required perfection and offerings of lambs to God.  God realized this would not work and sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins.  We are now under a covenant of grace......

That was all just idle speculation on your part.  You can't prove any of it.  You've never witnessed any of it.  So as far as your argument goes, your random speculation about the nature of god is no more and no less relevant or truthful that the Muslim's speculation, or the Hindu's, or the Pastafarian's.

And, as such, you'll be in favour of the immediate cessation of any promotion of one of those speculations over any of the others?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 13, 2012, 06:17:15 AM
Every species is transitional. Everything before us, for example,  was a perfectly functional organism.  There are no freaks in any lineage. No crocoducks.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 13, 2012, 09:34:40 AM
Wow, simmer down.  I do read the links but have been through this before.  I ask a question and get directed to a quick Google search link that offers nothing other than assumptions.  Nobody can tell me how sex evolved but get angry when youtell them that evolution has not been proven.  And I lied?  What?  I'm confused as to the angry tone.

People can show you links that have hypotheses on how sex evolved, how bones evolved etc.  And you ignore them.  That’s called willful ignorance, Christians.  You want to claim that “goddidit” and you depend on this willful ignorance to do so.  Science may not have complete answerse *yet* but this does not mean that they will never have them and this also does not mean that your god exists. 

Evolution has been proven repeatedly.  You depend on evolution and the science that supports it every single day.  Evolutionary theory, and the predictions it makes are what allow antibiotics to be created and improved; modern food animals and plants to be improved so we can feed a growing population, etc.  The theory of the big bang also is supported by the same science that you hypocritically use every day.  Your computer, your car, etc, all depend on physics being what it is, and that science supports what we observe in the universe. 

I do get angry at liars and you are quite the one.  I expect you also get angry at people who lie to you too.  You see, your attempts at lying to me makes me think that you think you have the right to try to remove my ability to make an informed decision.  You come here and repeat things that are untrue and this is evidently because you are either too lazy or too afraid to even try to do your own research.  Between you and Jakec47, you have both told lies that are so easily found out. 

Rockv, you claim that the fossil record doesn’t show how bones evolved.  You show your utter ignorance about how fossils form and you are again a liar.  It does show how bones formed. We have fossils of creatures with notochords: Yunnanozoon lividum, we have fossils of creatures with cartilaginous skeletons, etc.  We have quite line of evidence that shows how skeletal structures formed.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/547371/skeleton/41991/Evolution-of-the-vertebrate-skeleton

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/donoghue/PDFs/2006/Donoghue_et_al_2006b.pdf

http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/live.html

we have seen speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html  and there are transitional fossils, and no, scientists do not agree with you that they are “missing”: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html 

It’s also so cute to see you claim that “nothing can be proven” as an excuse for your god’s evident non-existence.  Sad for you, little hypocrite, that we can be quite comfortable in knowing that reality exists everyday.  I know that the sun will rise, I know that if I drink cyanide I will die, etc.  The universe is not the Seussian nightmare you would pretend it to be to excuse your nonsense.

You are quite a moron when you say “We NEVER see half an alligator, or half a bird” or that you think that living beings “decide” to evolve.  It shows that you are too willfully ignorant to even attempt to understand the science that you attack.  How sad. 

So, again you lie.  Now, since I can do a google search and find this stuff, I find it that you could have done the same.  You chose not too, so you chose to lie.  Quite the Christians you are, Rockv and Jakec47.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 01:03:26 PM
Velkyn, you say you don't have the answers to everything...yet.  Can't that logic include someday  understanding a God?  Hmmm.  Goes for both, I would assume.  Fossils of different animals mean nothing.  A simple ear does not mean it was, at one time, a transitional form.  How can that be proven?   Explain.  No, links.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 01:14:05 PM
Every species is transitional. Everything before us, for example,  was a perfectly functional organism.  There are no freaks in any lineage. No crocoducks.
No, there has to be a crockoduck.  If a bird evolved wings from a reptile, she me the bird slash reptile. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 13, 2012, 01:15:23 PM
No, there has to be a crockoduck.  If a bird evolved wings from a reptile, she me the bird slash reptile. 

Let's try the "nice" approach.
Crocodiles did not evolve into birds, so there's no "crocoduck". As for bird/reptile, there are the velociraptors. They had feathers, you know.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 13, 2012, 01:22:23 PM
Velkyn, you say you don't have the answers to everything...yet.  Can't that logic include someday  understanding a God?  Hmmm.  Goes for both, I would assume.
You have to show real evidence that a god exists first.

Quote from: rockv12
Fossils of different animals mean nothing.  A simple ear does not mean it was, at one time, a transitional form.  How can that be proven?   Explain.  No, links.
Sure they do.  If you can show that they are similar, except for specific differences, and further show that those differences progress in one direction, you've just demonstrated a line of descent and transitional forms.  That's proof enough; the fact that it could be contradicted by future evidence just means that we're leaving room for future discoveries to enhance our knowledge.

By the way, I find it interesting that you keep demanding proof, and if/when people can't provide it, your argument goes that your belief is just as likely.  Doesn't fly.  Science may never be "proved" by the arbitrary standard you set for it, but it has far more evidence backing it than any religious belief ever has, and ever will.

No, there has to be a crockoduck.  If a bird evolved wings from a reptile, she me the bird slash reptile.
You mean something like a chimera?  No, there doesn't have to be any such thing.  Evolution doesn't work by taking the head of a goat, grafting it on the back of a lion, and grafting a snake onto the lion's tail.  Evolution works by having a population of like animals differentiate based on traits that benefit survival in a given environment.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 13, 2012, 01:25:00 PM
rockv12

First of all, there is a difference between not knowing everything but trying (science) and not learning what IS known because it conflicts with what one hopes is true (religion).

For you to maintain your incredulity when given alternatives to your POV, you have to put your hands over your ears and close your eyes. Luckily for you, those abilities evolved. Otherwise, you'd be in trouble.

What about your god's ears and eyes and such. He always existed, in human form? And you're okay with that, even though it makes less sense than even crockoducks? Even if he is out of time and all that crap, there is presumably some explanation as to why an infinite being exists

His existence, with all that mystery, is plausible to you. We are not. Theoretically, you shouldn't even be able to talk to us, since we can't possibly exist via  evolution. I'm sure you talk with your god about this every day at www.whyidonthealamputees.com. Does he believe in us?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 01:34:56 PM
No, there has to be a crockoduck.  If a bird evolved wings from a reptile, she me the bird slash reptile. 

Let's try the "nice" approach.
Crocodiles did not evolve into birds, so there's no "crocoduck". As for bird/reptile, there are the velociraptors. They had feathers, you know.
You didn't understand I was using the crockoduck as an example?  This debate may take a while.  A feathered dinosaur?  Thats the proof of evolution? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 13, 2012, 01:39:58 PM
Velkyn, you say you don't have the answers to everything...yet.  Can't that logic include someday  understanding a God?  Hmmm.  Goes for both, I would assume.  Fossils of different animals mean nothing.  A simple ear does not mean it was, at one time, a transitional form.  How can that be proven?   Explain.  No, links.

It could indeed go for both.  However, your problem is that I’m wondering how long do I have to wait, rockv?  Theists have had thousands of years and still no evidence that any gods exist.  Christians claim that if I just pray and am really sincere this god will reveal itself.  Hasn’t happened yet.   We have not one scrap of evidence to support the supernatural and you can’ t say it’s been from a lack of looking.  You sound like those who claim that JC will return real soon now, just wait.  But their claims have also proven to be lies.  For a god that is supposedly constantly interfering with humanity, that supposedly affects everything, that is omniscient and omnipotent, this god is awful hard to find.  It does nothing, it leaves no evidence. INdeed, it seems just like it would if your god didn't exist at all.

What do you mean that “fossils of different animals mean nothing”?  I’m guessing that you mean that no matter what you’ll refuse to accept anything as a transitional fossil no matter what.  Good to know that you are willfully ignorant again. I’ve shown you how bones evolved.  But I guess, if you are too stupid to actually find out how evolutionary theory works then you have no idea what you are looking at or how transitional forms come about.  You have no idea on how evidence supports transitional forms.  You don’t understand DNA or physiology  or even how fossils are formed.  You aren’t even trying and that’s sad, but typical. 

Quote
No, there has to be a crockoduck.  If a bird evolved wings from a reptile, she me the bird slash reptile.
Again, lovely example of a creationist who doesn’t even try to understand what he thinks he can lie about.  Evolution generally goes in increments, not one magical change that produces a chimera.  Sorry, again you fail so dramatically.

It’s always just hilarious when I can tell that you haven’t even read one link that you’ve been given.  The links explain it all and no, my poor Christian, I’m not rewriting everything out for you.   You can read the links just like I can and understand it just like I can *if* you want to.  I’m more than happy to clarify anything you don’t understand, but I am not willing to write out exactly what has already been done.  Take your lie about bones.  The fossil record *does* show the evolution of bones.  It shows how common ancestry makes all mammals, reptiles, etc have the same basic bone structure and how evolution to fit into various niches has changed the shape but not the basic blueprint.  One of the links I gave you shows this exactly but of course you didn’t look at it at all.   Scientists have been doing experiments with DNA to see what genes control what and surprise, the same genes that form my arm bone is the same as the one that forms a chicken’s wing. http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/bio336/lectures/lecture5/overheads.html 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

it’s so pathetic how creationists consistently rely on their willful ignorance and lies.  What’s even more funny is how creationists have changed their ideas on what the truth is and they’d be as heretical as any atheist is to the creationists who came before them and who had a whole different set of “truths”.   
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 13, 2012, 01:43:45 PM
You didn't understand I was using the crockoduck as an example?  This debate may take a while.  A feathered dinosaur?  Thats the proof of evolution? 

No. That's just what you asked for.
The proof of evolution is in genetics. It's not my field, but here's a short experiment ("dumbed down" a bit, for simplicity's sake) that effectively proved evolution (the appearance of a new, beneficial genetic trait that spread throughout a population):
There were these bacteria that "fed" on, let's call it element A. They were dipped in a liquid that had a very small percentage of element A and a very large percentage of element B. Through a DNA replication error (those occur on a fairly frequent basis), one single bacterium evolved the ability to utilize element B as well as element A.

There was also another experiment in which yeast evolved into a multicellular being.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 01:48:27 PM
Sorry, that was rude.  That is what I asked for.  A feathered reptile. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 13, 2012, 01:51:25 PM
dinos aren't reptiles.   
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 13, 2012, 01:55:56 PM
dinos aren't reptiles.   

Really?
Dumb question. Why not? What's the difference? Reptiles are cold blooded and have scales, right?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 02:01:11 PM
Vellum, chill.  Anyway, I never said a fish has to poop out a human.  Slow change still should result in a transitional being.  Slow, fast, who cares.  And I do read links.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 13, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
Slow change still should result in a transitional being.

How would you classify a "transitional being"? As was pointed out, any and all beings are transitional beings, due to the way evolution works.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 13, 2012, 02:07:32 PM
dinos aren't reptiles.   

Really?
Dumb question. Why not? What's the difference? Reptiles are cold blooded and have scales, right?
Actually I was wrong, they are in the Reptilia class, but are a seperate "branch".  Oh how I wish organizing these things was easier.  they keep coming up with extra things beyond kingdom, phyla, class, order, family, genus species.   :P  Science marches on as we get more information.

First, it seems that at least some dinos were not cold-blooded.  They also differ in hip design.  You can see a lot about it here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology_of_dinosaurs 

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 13, 2012, 02:08:27 PM
Vellum, chill.  Anyway, I never said a fish has to poop out a human.  Slow change still should result in a transitional being.  Slow, fast, who cares.  And I do read links.  Thanks.

aw, a nice little attempt at an insult.  How Christian.  Slow change *has* resulted in a transitional being.   Again, failure to actually know what you are attacking. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 13, 2012, 02:15:46 PM
First, it seems that at least some dinos were not cold-blooded.

I had forgotten about that. I read about it a while ago. Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 02:57:21 PM
Vellum, chill.  Anyway, I never said a fish has to poop out a human.  Slow change still should result in a transitional being.  Slow, fast, who cares.  And I do read links.  Thanks.

aw, a nice little attempt at an insult.  How Christian.  Slow change *has* resulted in a transitional being.   Again, failure to actually know what you are attacking.
Attempt at an insult?  Christian?  You expect a please and thank you after every comment?  Anyhooo, you missed my point.  Where are the transitions?  Everything is in constant transition?  So, where/what are they?  What is a dog between?  What is a mouse between?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 13, 2012, 03:34:35 PM
Attempt at an insult?  Christian?  You expect a please and thank you after every comment?  Anyhooo, you missed my point.  Where are the transitions?  Everything is in constant transition?  So, where/what are they?  What is a dog between?  What is a mouse between?
ROFL.  Oh my.  Yes, rockv, an attempt at an insult by you, a Christian.  I've seen better.  The transitions are shown in those links I gave you.  We have quite a nice sequence of how whales transitioned from land dwelling to water dwelling.  That’s what evolution does. It usually takes a very long time but sometimes it doesn’t depending the the life span of the affected organism and the strength of the environmental change. But you have no idea of that.  Again, you show you have yet to know what evolutionary theory says. I’ve asked you to tell me what you think it says, but I haven’t seen that yet.   I’ll give this a whirl but I’m pretty sure it will be rather pointless.

Animals and plants evolve when environmental pressures act on them.  Any individual who has a quality that allows them to survive in a new environment better will have a better chance at passing that quality along to offspring.  This leads to evolution and the splitting into species.  Now, the word species is still up for debate in some ways but the generally accepted as a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.  They share the same physiology, the same behaviors, etc that allow them to breed.  Now, to clarify, if there are no environmental pressures, things don’t change. Great White Sharks for example, they have been essentially the same for millions of years.  They fit very well into their environment and thus have no pressure to select for anything different.   

Now, take dogs.  Dogs apparently come from the wolf and this is known by molecular evidence, comparing their DNA. Wolves were impacted by humans and those that could stand being around humans became a different group since they would be impacted by human civilization as an environment that they were better at than other wolves who had different qualities, and would no longer be affected by the environmental forces in the wild away from humans. Humanity has been the environmental pressure that gets us all of the crazy shapes, sizes and behaviors that we see in domesticated dogs. Genetics show that this: is likely the basic “dog”.  Some of these are so severe that a Chihuahua can’t breed with a St. Bernard.  They might want to but they can’t physically.  So we have a likely split into a new species right there and as humans want weirder and weirder dogs, the extremes will grow.  Wolves evolved from carnivorans which share similar traits but found different niches (this is where felines come from too. Cats do different things than dogs so they fit different environmental niches).  The carnivorans came from earlier creatures called Miacoidea. And on and on. How do we know? by physiology and DNA when we can find it.  The same science that allows us to identify people from skeletal remains is the same that says that these creatures are related.   

All of the above is what Darwin observed with the Galapagos island finches.  They were from a base stock, then spread to the islands, where differing conditions put pressure on them and the most suited for the environment flourished.  They no longer interbreed.  And they are very identifiable because of their physiology. 

Like many creationists, I’m guessing that no matter how many transitional fossils we find, no matter how seamless the transition, you still would refuse to accept it because you are afraid. A common joke about creationists is that for every transitional fossil discovered, they’d whine that it only means that two more have to be found to be “believable. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 13, 2012, 04:11:33 PM
Isn't there something in the Bible about turning the other cheek, and doing good to those who despise you?  That doesn't mean you have to say please and thank you after every comment, but it does mean you should go to the effort to be polite when you comment, even if the other person isn't.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 05:46:20 PM
Attempt at an insult?  Christian?  You expect a please and thank you after every comment?  Anyhooo, you missed my point.  Where are the transitions?  Everything is in constant transition?  So, where/what are they?  What is a dog between?  What is a mouse between?
ROFL.  Oh my.  Yes, rockv, an attempt at an insult by you, a Christian.  I've seen better.  The transitions are shown in those links I gave you.  We have quite a nice sequence of how whales transitioned from land dwelling to water dwelling.  That’s what evolution does. It usually takes a very long time but sometimes it doesn’t depending the the life span of the affected organism and the strength of the environmental change. But you have no idea of that.  Again, you show you have yet to know what evolutionary theory says. I’ve asked you to tell me what you think it says, but I haven’t seen that yet.   I’ll give this a whirl but I’m pretty sure it will be rather pointless.

Animals and plants evolve when environmental pressures act on them.  Any individual who has a quality that allows them to survive in a new environment better will have a better chance at passing that quality along to offspring.  This leads to evolution and the splitting into species.  Now, the word species is still up for debate in some ways but the generally accepted as a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.  They share the same physiology, the same behaviors, etc that allow them to breed.  Now, to clarify, if there are no environmental pressures, things don’t change. Great White Sharks for example, they have been essentially the same for millions of years.  They fit very well into their environment and thus have no pressure to select for anything different.   

Now, take dogs.  Dogs apparently come from the wolf and this is known by molecular evidence, comparing their DNA. Wolves were impacted by humans and those that could stand being around humans became a different group since they would be impacted by human civilization as an environment that they were better at than other wolves who had different qualities, and would no longer be affected by the environmental forces in the wild away from humans. Humanity has been the environmental pressure that gets us all of the crazy shapes, sizes and behaviors that we see in domesticated dogs. Genetics show that this: is likely the basic “dog”.  Some of these are so severe that a Chihuahua can’t breed with a St. Bernard.  They might want to but they can’t physically.  So we have a likely split into a new species right there and as humans want weirder and weirder dogs, the extremes will grow.  Wolves evolved from carnivorans which share similar traits but found different niches (this is where felines come from too. Cats do different things than dogs so they fit different environmental niches).  The carnivorans came from earlier creatures called Miacoidea. And on and on. How do we know? by physiology and DNA when we can find it.  The same science that allows us to identify people from skeletal remains is the same that says that these creatures are related.   

All of the above is what Darwin observed with the Galapagos island finches.  They were from a base stock, then spread to the islands, where differing conditions put pressure on them and the most suited for the environment flourished.  They no longer interbreed.  And they are very identifiable because of their physiology. 

Like many creationists, I’m guessing that no matter how many transitional fossils we find, no matter how seamless the transition, you still would refuse to accept it because you are afraid. A common joke about creationists is that for every transitional fossil discovered, they’d whine that it only means that two more have to be found to be “believable.

I understand evolution and what it says.  What you wrote is not news to me.  But I appreciate the time you took.   The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok.  Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition?  I'm not being difficult but serious.  Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another.  Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!".  The question is actually more of.."WHY?"  Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath?  This is where evolution takes extreme guesses.  Why would an animal develop a wing?  What purpose would it serve?  To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all.   Any ideas?  And was that polite enough???
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 13, 2012, 06:05:30 PM
The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok.  Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition?  I'm not being difficult but serious.  Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another.  Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!".
No, it actually isn't based on preconceived notions.  That's not science.  Science is taking the evidence and making an explanation that fits with it, then having other people take a crack at it to make sure it fits.

Quote from: rockv12
The question is actually more of.."WHY?"  Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath?  This is where evolution takes extreme guesses.
Whales don't try to breathe underwater.  They have to surface to take a breath.  So, no extreme guesses needed, just simple logic and not making assumptions.  It stands to reason that having the breathing passage between the mouth and the eyes is not very efficient for a mammal that spends its time underwater, because it has to lift its head most of the way out of the water in order to breathe.  Therefore, it makes sense that a whale which had a random mutation, where the breathing passage is on top of the head instead of in front of it, would be able to do much better in terms of hunting for food and evading predators.

Quote from: rockv12
Why would an animal develop a wing?  What purpose would it serve?  To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all.   Any ideas?  And was that polite enough???
First off, large animals do not generally develop wings, because their body mass is too heavy to fly.  But there's little doubt that the ability to fly or even glide would be very advantageous, so a smaller animal that developed something like wings (even if they were only useful for short glides at first) would have an advantage over predators and competitors which couldn't fly at all.

And yes, it was more polite.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 13, 2012, 06:27:40 PM

I understand evolution and what it says.  What you wrote is not news to me.  But I appreciate the time you took.   The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok.  Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition?  I'm not being difficult but serious.  Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another.  Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!".  The question is actually more of.."WHY?"  Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath?  This is where evolution takes extreme guesses.  Why would an animal develop a wing?  What purpose would it serve?  To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all.   Any ideas?  And was that polite enough???
There are answers to all those. But they do not consciously develop anything. In fact evolution has no direction. When land was empty, it was of advantage for plants to go there, as no animals ate them there. Animals followed.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 13, 2012, 06:28:19 PM
I understand evolution and what it says.  What you wrote is not news to me.  But I appreciate the time you took.   The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok.  Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition?  I'm not being difficult but serious.  Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another.  Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!".  The question is actually more of.."WHY?"  Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath?  This is where evolution takes extreme guesses.  Why would an animal develop a wing?  What purpose would it serve?  To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all.   Any ideas?  And was that polite enough???

Politeness-wise, not bad. We've had worse.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution involves "why's". It doesn't. What it does involve is trillions of by-products. A small genetic change might give a little mouse slightly more fur, so he is able to live a little further north. Maybe not the first generation, because there is only one, but if he fathers some slightly furrier kids and those kids make even more slightly furrier little dudes then maybe some of them indeed move further north and open up a new niche and do just fine and over time they become a new species.

And why did whales go back to the water? That was perhaps a by-product of being chased off of the land by bigger things with bigger teeth, and having little choice. And if said pre-whales happened to be sort of watery fellows in the first place, then their chance of adapting to an even waterier environment are increased. Given the the closest relative to whales still living on land is the venerable and usually wet hippo, that is not out of the question.

It also doesn't mean they went from living mostly on land to living entirely in the sea in one fell swoop. A more plausible explanation would be that they moved into wetter environments, slowly adapted to spending more time in the water, and eventually were able to swim away from land. With millions of years to play with, and genes that never make perfect copies anyway, such alteration in critters, over time, is not that silly a proposition. And we have the a fossil record to back up this scenario.

Evolution is happening right now. Monsanto has been making the herbicide "Roundup" for many years. Recently they found that various weed species are starting to be less affected by the product. Because they are developing immunity to the deadly stuff being sprayed on them. They aren't evolving into Roundup proof species for a reason, but as a by-product of genetic variation. Some small number of each of those weeds always had the ability to survive a dousing of human-made poison, and when the ones that couldn't survive being poisoned died off, the only plants left to reproduce were the ones that could. And what could most of their offspring do. Survive more Roundup.

Now that wasn't "natural" evolution in the sense that the pressure put on those various weed species was very instant and almost always fatal. The selection process involved two things. Being genetically prone to surviving one specific substance, and having others that survived around to pollinate with.

In hindsight we can say why hippos and whales parted company, and why weeds are surviving certain pesticides, but when each of those things started, there were not any genes running around with iPads, researching their various options and deciding to whip out a few wings or make eyeballs. Genetic variation happened, it usually made no difference or killed the critters, but sometimes it did something that was advantageous. And that was relevant only if said advantaged plant or animal lived long enough to reproduce and pass on the new genetic combination.

Those who study fossils can pick up a bone from a known species and tell you how long ago that critter lived and in which geologic age it existed. The can also tell you in which geologic ages it did not exist. And guess what. You can't find the fossilized remains of such critters anywhere but where the paleontologists say it should be. If you could go out and find (without trickery) and a Silurian period sea scorpion or a Devonian period fish buried anywhere in stone identified as being from the Mesozoic era, you would undo evolution in one fell swoop. And get a Nobel Prize in the process.

And don't go saying the game is rigged. A paleontologist or geologist can show you exactly where you will be able to find only Cenozoic or only Paleozoic critters, and they can show you ahead of time which fossils are which. If you can then go dig into one age of stone and find critters previously described as being from another era, you win. You can't.

Life left too much evidence behind, and those who study such things have figured out what goes where. It's printed on paper and stored on hard drives. Were you to go out and find something in the wrong place, there is no way science could say "Oh, we made a little mistake in that one instance..." We know where that evidence belongs. And everybody has been told. Science has made it's findings public record. If you can find something that does not match that record, hooray for you. But again, you can't. It doesn't exist.

But the mere fact that it doesn't tie in with the biblical version of how life happened is all you need to diss it in an instant. And the only problem with that is that you have to either make stuff up or just stand there and say that's silly. Because you can't attack evolution with facts.

Notice how I ignored that you never answer my question about how a god could have an ear. There had to be a reason there too, if he is real. How did it evolve? But ignore that for now. Pay attention to the rest of my post. And tell me why we should throw evolution. That it doesn't match your bible is not a good reason. Because facts trump faith every single time.

Hope I've been polite too.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 08:30:20 PM

Politeness-wise, not bad. We've had worse.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution involves "why's". It doesn't. What it does involve is trillions of by-products. A small genetic change might give a little mouse slightly more fur, so he is able to live a little further north. Maybe not the first generation, because there is only one, but if he fathers some slightly furrier kids and those kids make even more slightly furrier little dudes then maybe some of them indeed move further north and open up a new niche and do just fine and over time they become a new species.

And why did whales go back to the water? That was perhaps a by-product of being chased off of the land by bigger things with bigger teeth, and having little choice. And if said pre-whales happened to be sort of watery fellows in the first place, then their chance of adapting to an even waterier environment are increased. Given the the closest relative to whales still living on land is the venerable and usually wet hippo, that is not out of the question.

It also doesn't mean they went from living mostly on land to living entirely in the sea in one fell swoop. A more plausible explanation would be that they moved into wetter environments, slowly adapted to spending more time in the water, and eventually were able to swim away from land. With millions of years to play with, and genes that never make perfect copies anyway, such alteration in critters, over time, is not that silly a proposition. And we have the a fossil record to back up this scenario.


Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it?  But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses.  Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases.  Therefore, shall we look at some other situations?  Let's start with the development of the eyeball.  I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light.  The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it.  The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives!  And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist....now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!! 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 08:35:48 PM

Notice how I ignored that you never answer my question about how a god could have an ear. There had to be a reason there too, if he is real. How did it evolve? But ignore that for now. Pay attention to the rest of my post. And tell me why we should throw evolution. That it doesn't match your bible is not a good reason. Because facts trump faith every single time.

Hope I've been polite too.

Sorry, yes, I ignored it, because I thought it was a joke or something.  Didn't really give it any thought.  Thing about a God and supernatural world/whatnot is.... We can't imagine a God.  Does He have an ear?  How did it form?  How did God get there?  These questions may never be answered in this life.  Just like a million other questions that blow our mind!  We can't fathom eternity....When did time begin?  We can't fathom space going on forever and ever.  We can't fathom so many things that it's impossible to say whether or not something is possible or impossible.  Could it be that there exists another dimension of reality?  Some supernatural world where a God exists?  Of course, we have NO reason to believe there isn't.  Just like we have no reason to believe that time doesn't stop or begin.  Questions plagueing the human mind for years.  But to dismiss God as silly, when we have so many other "silly" concepts and questions, is meaningless.  We HAVE to use what we have and do best we can with what we see.  Creationists argue that so much detail and design exist that it has to come from a designer.  Now that's a rational thing to think, isn't it?  Why is that so absurd?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 08:41:52 PM

First off, large animals do not generally develop wings, because their body mass is too heavy to fly.  But there's little doubt that the ability to fly or even glide would be very advantageous, so a smaller animal that developed something like wings (even if they were only useful for short glides at first) would have an advantage over predators and competitors which couldn't fly at all.


Large/small...who cares?  And the first wing allowed it to glide?  And the hummingbird took this to the extreme, I guess....  Think about the picture you are painting in your mind.  Think about how ridiculous that looks and sounds.  Think about the steps involved that you say happened for birds to develop flight.  It is so far advanced beyond "gliding to avoid a captor", that it becomes absurd. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 13, 2012, 09:07:16 PM

Politeness-wise, not bad. We've had worse.

You seem to be under the impression that evolution involves "why's". It doesn't. What it does involve is trillions of by-products. A small genetic change might give a little mouse slightly more fur, so he is able to live a little further north. Maybe not the first generation, because there is only one, but if he fathers some slightly furrier kids and those kids make even more slightly furrier little dudes then maybe some of them indeed move further north and open up a new niche and do just fine and over time they become a new species.

And why did whales go back to the water? That was perhaps a by-product of being chased off of the land by bigger things with bigger teeth, and having little choice. And if said pre-whales happened to be sort of watery fellows in the first place, then their chance of adapting to an even waterier environment are increased. Given the the closest relative to whales still living on land is the venerable and usually wet hippo, that is not out of the question.

It also doesn't mean they went from living mostly on land to living entirely in the sea in one fell swoop. A more plausible explanation would be that they moved into wetter environments, slowly adapted to spending more time in the water, and eventually were able to swim away from land. With millions of years to play with, and genes that never make perfect copies anyway, such alteration in critters, over time, is not that silly a proposition. And we have the a fossil record to back up this scenario.


Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it?  But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses.  Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases.  Therefore, shall we look at some other situations?  Let's start with the development of the eyeball.  I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light.  The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it.  The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives!  And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist....now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!!

That too is in the book I linked earlier. Simple creatures in water have an eye that is essentially a pinhole camera. No lenses needed.

But it was a different thread. Read a book and stop bothering people about things you could easily look up.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Show-Earth-Evolution/dp/B004AYCWY4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1331637775&sr=8-2
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 09:12:50 PM

That too is in the book I linked earlier. Simple creatures in water have an eye that is essentially a pinhole camera. No lenses needed.

But it was a different thread. Read a book asn stop bothering people about things you could easily look up.


Easily look up?  I can look up Bigfoot sightings, that doesn't mean they exist.  This argument that I need to Google search the answers to these questions is absurd.  Of course, there are explanations and ideas, but that doesn't make them true!!   Sorry, but I've read many a book on the evolution of the eye.  You know what they say?  Nothing about proof of how it evolved.  Do you understand?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 09:19:32 PM

That too is in the book I linked earlier. Simple creatures in water have an eye that is essentially a pinhole camera. No lenses needed.


I can't simply link a book to you and have you say, "Oh, creationism is true!  This book says so!".   Can I?  Nor would I.  If you can't explain it in your own words, then you don't truly believe it OR have blindly followed the answer of "some guy".   And I've read Dawkins...trust me. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 13, 2012, 09:32:13 PM
But to dismiss God as silly, when we have so many other "silly" concepts and questions, is meaningless.  We HAVE to use what we have and do best we can with what we see. 

Why is it meaningless to dismiss the concept of god when there is no evidence for such a being? In the absence of that evidence, "We HAVE to use what we have and do best we can with what we see." We don't see evidence for the deliberate creation of species. We do see evidence for an entirely natural process (evolution) that has and continues to act on living things.

Creationists argue that so much detail and design exist that it has to come from a designer.  Now that's a rational thing to think, isn't it?  Why is that so absurd?

It becomes absurd when there is zero evidence for special creation and literally tons of evidence (in the fossil record) for evolution, with additional evidence from genetics. It becomes absurd when creationists refuse to accept that evidence because it conflicts with their religious myth.

Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it?  But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses.

What's your definition of proof? I supplied one link showing some of the key fossils in whale evolution. Further proof can be found in the genetic similarities between modern cetaceans and their closest surviving relatives (the even-toed ungulates). 

Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases.  Therefore, shall we look at some other situations?  Let's start with the development of the eyeball.  I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light.  The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it.  The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives!  And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist....now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!!

The evolution of the eye is a favorite of creationists, because of its supposed "irreduceable complexity". Yet all we need to do is look at examples in nature for a plausible path from light-sensitive cells to the vertebrate (or cephalopod) eyeball:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html)

Evolution is a done deal, rocky12. If you refuse to accept the evidence, then fine. It can't be forced on you. But for your refusal to have any credibility, you need an alternative that explains what we know about biology better than evolution does. And it needs to be backed up with evidence. Without that, it's just your opinions against one of the best-established theories of modern science.

Seriously, what would be definitive proof of evolution for you?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 13, 2012, 09:42:35 PM
I looked up the garden of eden on youtube, and guess what. No videos for that either.

We get christian after christian who wants proof of evolution, and when we offer it, they say we're wrong. Then they hold the bible up in front of their screen and we ask for proof and they nobody needs proof, that we just need faith.

Even if we met your criteria for an answer, like with the eyeball, exactly, you would just say "Oh yea, well then, what about balls. Why do guys have balls" and we'd start over from the beginning and you'd complain that there is no way for animals to develop reproductive systems and claim you've read all about balls on the internet and it still sounds fishy to you and then you'd hold your bible up in front of the screen again and wonder how in the f**k we can't see your god.

And i'd say there are no videos of the flood and no videos of jesus and you'd say that's silly and I'd say I want proof and while you set about rejecting every anatomically developed feature in every living thing on the planet, we would continue to ask you to prove your god and you'd do nothing but hold your bible up in front of the screen.

The proof we have available regarding the legitimacy of the theory of evolution meets our criteria. Tens of thousands of scientific papers and thousands of geologic and paleontologic and archaeologic expeditions, museums and research facilities full of fossils and other pieces of evidence, agreement between specialists ranging from chemists and biologists to developmental anthropologists and zoologists and microbiologists. We've got DNA and multitudinous dating systems and corroborating evidence in the form of everything from ice cores and silt layers to giraffe larynxes and the complete genome of gorillas to prove our case.

You've got one book. And even those who believe it can't agree on much. You've got your amish, your anglican, your baptist, your catholic, your episcopalian, your lutheran, your orthodox, your presbyterian. You've got snake handlers and tongue-talkers and seventh day adventists and jehovah's witnesses and somewhere in the neighborhood of 37,000 other versions, all out of one book. You kill each other for being wrong, you get killed for being wrong, you boss around everyone for being wrong, you refuses to admit when you are wrong, and you think I'm wrong for even bringing up how wrong you are, because my only job is to stare at the bible you are holding up in front of the screen and say "pa-raise-a Jeeeeezus!"

But I don't. And I can prove it if you want a video.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 13, 2012, 09:45:21 PM
No, you should read the data, and try to remeber ehat PP said....science makes accurate predictions, which if found false, admits its mistake. Which is why religious folk, wielding  the power of their allmighty, as well as the funding of billions of adherents, continue to try, but never have  scientifically debunked the ToE. If they could, they would. Following that, Science, as well as most rational people, would have a change of opinion.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 13, 2012, 09:46:17 PM

That too is in the book I linked earlier. Simple creatures in water have an eye that is essentially a pinhole camera. No lenses needed.


I can't simply link a book to you and have you say, "Oh, creationism is true!  This book says so!".   Can I?  Nor would I.  If you can't explain it in your own words, then you don't truly believe it OR have blindly followed the answer of "some guy".   And I've read Dawkins...trust me.

That's because creationism and intelligent design are not true. There are no lab experiments I can repeat based on thousands of previous published papers.

Go read a book. Google is for cut and paste of regurgitated stuff.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 13, 2012, 10:14:57 PM
This post got away from me a little bit in the length department. sorry.

Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it?  But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses.

rockv,

You know how forensic scientists come up on a crime scene and investigate the clues left behind after a murder has taken place?  They look at the evidence at the crime scene and they piece together what happened based on the clues they find.  Do you find this to be a valid way to approach the situation? I mean, after all, most often they have no cameras, no proof, no eyewitnesses, yet they can gather information about the surroundings and make reasonable conclusions as to what happened.  This is what scientists are forced to do with the world around us.  We are looking at the scene in a snap-shot image of time, while having to understand that a SHIT load of time passed before we got here.   We have no cameras that can look back in time.  We have no way of knowing, in detail, how every single thing came to be... But that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable conclusions as to what happened based on the evidence we DO have, does it? 

Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases.

Yes, we do.  With regard to whales, the theory that it was first a land animal is supported by the facts that we observe about whales (such as residual hind limbs, air breathing, teeth invitro, etc).  It is the same thing that forensic scientists do at crime scenes; they look at facts and devise theories as to what happened.  For example, bullet holes.  An entry wound will typically be smaller than an exit wound if a bullet does not hit bone.  This fact can lead you to know whether or not someone was shot in the back or front.  The shape and look of the wound can also help you determine whether it was close range or far away.  There were no cameras, no eyewitnesses, yet they CAN make that determination based on information they gather.

So lets say a forensic scientists comes up with a theory that someone was murdered at long range.  If someone comes up with a piece of evidence that totally contradicts that theory (say something like... black soot very close to the wound edges), then they have to come up with a new theory.  The theory that whales evolved from land animals is consistent with fossil evidence, DNA evidence, and every other kind of evidence you can come up with.  There is NOTHING that contradicts the theory that whales had ancestors that came from land.  Therefore, it is reasonable to say that they had land dwelling ancestors, is it not?

Let's start with the development of the eyeball.  I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light.  The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it.  The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives!  And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist.

Do you think that one individual among an entire species of individuals who had this capability would have a better or worse chance of survival in an area with high predation?  All you have to do to answer this is ask yourself if YOU YOURSELF would have a better chance of escaping a predator in complete darkness, or if you had even the slightest bit of light?  Being able to recognize even the slightest bit of light would give you an advantage over another person who couldn't detect any light at all.  And thus you would have a higher chance of survival, and more chance to pass your genes (also with the ability to see light) to the next generation. 

This is plausible and reasonable to everyone.  What is the problem that you see? 

...now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!!

Yes, exactly.  Because seeing 2 pinholes of light is better than 1.  And 3 is better than 2. 

BUT what else do we see?  In animals who live in complete darkness, what do you get?  Just do a wiki search for 'blind animals' and see what pops up.  Blind animals are blind because they live in areas with complete darkness such as caves.  In places like that, there is NO statistical advantage to being able to see light because there isn't a single spec to be had.  Therefore, there is no advantage to be had by having light detecting abilities. 

Do you understand that now?

Sorry, yes, I ignored it, because I thought it was a joke or something.  Didn't really give it any thought.  Thing about a God and supernatural world/whatnot is.... We can't imagine a God.  Does He have an ear?  How did it form?  How did God get there?  These questions may never be answered in this life.

Being satisfied with not knowing things is not something to be admired.  To just toss up your hands and say, "Well, we'll never know, so I guess I'll just head to Arby's for a sandwich" is something you might be happy to do, but the rest of us want to know. 

We can't fathom space going on forever and ever.

That is because our brain evolved to deal with and survive in the world we live in.  Fathoming the depths of space is not something that would give us a statistical advantage in terms of survival over anything. 

Could it be that there exists another dimension of reality?  Some supernatural world where a God exists?  Of course, we have NO reason to believe there isn't.

Being open to the possibility of a god and actually forming the opinion that God is real are 2 very, very different things.  I am open to the possibility of a god, just like I am open to the possibility that a giant space slug is going to eat the planet Jupiter on the 12th of April 2024, but it would take a lot of evidence in order to make me believe that either of them are real.  And if you think the God claim is any more or less evidence dependent than my giant space slug routine, then you aren't looking for truth.  You should require evidence for both. 

Just like we have no reason to believe that time doesn't stop or begin. 

We have lots of reasons to believe that time slows down and speeds up, however.  Because it depends how fast you're traveling. 

Questions plagueing the human mind for years. 

We have a process now that allows us to start unraveling those questions, and it's called the scientific method.  It has allowed us to find answers to billions of questions that have been plaguing us for years.  It's already answered so many. 

But to dismiss God as silly, when we have so many other "silly" concepts and questions, is meaningless.

It's silly in the same way that my giant space slug is silly.  Because it's not based on evidence.  God creation was a crude attempt by mankind to understand the world we live in.  We don't need it anymore.  It's outdated.  We've moved on from it. 

We HAVE to use what we have and do best we can with what we see.

That is what science does, every single day. 

Creationists argue that so much detail and design exist that it has to come from a designer.  Now that's a rational thing to think, isn't it?  Why is that so absurd?

It is rational if all that you know about the world is what you see at face value.  In other words, the notion that our world is designed so it must come from a designer is nothing more than the application of logic in the absence of relevant information.  I've used this analogy before, but I'm going to use it again... If all you knew about milk was that it came from cows, when you come across chocolate milk, it is logical to think that it is produced by chocolate cows.  Again, this is logic applied without relevant facts.   

When you add up all the facts of our world, and you realize that natural forces cause things like earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, rain, wind, and then you toss in evolution, and the fact that more than 3/4 of our planet is not habitable by man, then the notion that our world was designed just becomes patently ridiculous.  There is just nothing to support that.  All the facts point toward a natural world with natural forces and no design. This is why a scientific viewpoint is so often devastating to religion; because you have more facts to work with than religious people do, which leads toward better, more accurate conclusions and away from chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows.   
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 10:31:35 PM
We do see evidence for an entirely natural process (evolution) that has and continues to act on living things.


No, you see evidence of variation, and call that similarity, tantamount to relation....  Yet, nobody wants to tackle how male/female sex evolved, OR the hummingbird. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 13, 2012, 10:37:51 PM
Talk about it then. Tell us why it's impossible. Falsify the theory.

We've given our evidence. Your turn.

This is how science works.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 13, 2012, 10:42:35 PM
Seriously, what would be definitive proof of evolution for you?
As he suggested earlier, video cameras or eyewitnesses.  This is clearly intended to set the bar too high for anyone to prove evolution to his satisfaction, so that he can then point to the Bible and say there were eyewitnesses to the events in it, thus the Bible is more reliable than evolution.  The fact that this is patently nonsensical apparently doesn't matter to him.  Even if the events related in the Gospels counted as eyewitness accounts - which they don't, since there is no proof outside the Bible that those events ever actually happened - the fact that they were not written down for years or decades after the fact would disqualify them under any reasonable considerations.  The human memory is anything but infallible, and it's been demonstrated in experiments that discrepancies in eyewitness accounts start creeping in within hours of the memory being formed.  Jesus's ministry, according to the Bible, lasted for three years, and there is no chance that someone was recording the events in it as they occurred.

Large/small...who cares?  And the first wing allowed it to glide?  And the hummingbird took this to the extreme, I guess....  Think about the picture you are painting in your mind.  Think about how ridiculous that looks and sounds.  Think about the steps involved that you say happened for birds to develop flight.  It is so far advanced beyond "gliding to avoid a captor", that it becomes absurd.
The fact that you dismiss the differences between large and small animals so easily demonstrates your disregard for the subject.  You are not interested in giving any of us a fair hearing; your demands for proof are a clever ploy to pretend that you are being reasonable, while your actual standards for acceptable proof are set to a bar so high that if you applied them to the Bible, it would flunk those standards as well.  Not that I expect you to acknowledge this contradiction, but it does demonstrate your lack of interest in anything but trying to establish your holy book as a valid piece of historical evidence.

And the "picture" is in no way ridiculous.  The only reason you conclude that it is, is because you are unwilling to give any evidence a fair hearing unless it meets your ridiculously arbitrary standards of "proof".  You made a vague claim about how ridiculous it looks and sounds, and said the steps involved were unworkable, yet you failed to point out any actual contradictions in my reasoning.  Such arguments depend on the credulity of the target, and as such have no real convincing power of their own.  You are in essence throwing doubt like mud to see if any of it sticks, and that doesn't work except on people who are uninformed as to the subject.

The same applies for your argument that a person must be able to put any scientific argument you call them on into their own words, or else it's just blind belief.  This is not a convincing argument.  It in essence pretends that a person who accepts that science is relevant and workable must understand any and all fields of science to a purely arbitrary degree, or else it's the equivalent of a religious belief.  This is not true.  For example, I have a college degree, and as a result, I have a fairly good layman's understanding of scientific fields outside my specialty of computer technology.  Therefore, my acceptance of science that goes beyond that understanding depends on how well it fits with what I already know and how coherent it is, that is to say, how well it follows from the basis of what I already know.  Science is anything but a religious belief to me, and the idea that my inability to provide an in-depth explanation of evolutionary trends in fossils "proves" is patently absurd.

It would be the same as if you had a basic understanding of computer technology, and because you were unable to explain some esoteric example of high-end computer technology in your own words on demand, it was actually a "religious belief" for you.  If I expected that to be a compelling argument, I would rightly be called on it; yet you expect your demands that someone has to give proof of something like evolution in their own words or else it's a religious belief to be taken seriously?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 13, 2012, 10:53:29 PM
...  Yet, nobody wants to tackle how male/female sex evolved, OR the hummingbird.

It is a classic theist tactic to take a portion of a specific theory that is not fully understood yet and use it as the basis for a counter argument.  Just because we do not have a perfect working understanding of how sex came to be, that doesn't mean that evolution is falsified; nor does it mean that 'Goddidit' is an acceptable answer. 

But the very fact that you chose to point to an example of something that is poorly understood in evolutionary terms, seems to indicate that you are finally beginning to understand the cases that are well understood.  That's great. It would be a step in the right direction for you.  Good stuff. 

It's not that nobody WANTS to tackle sex, it's just that AFAIK nobody fully has yet.  That doesn't disprove evolution; it just means the clues left behind are more difficult to sort out.  Who knows, though?  Is it possible that when we finally understand how sex came to be, that the theory of evolution is falsified?  Sure.  But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.   

As for the hummingbird, which one of the 356 species do you want to know about?  Each species likely evolved along a different path.  And what, about hummingbirds in particular, is so difficult to understand in evolutionary terms? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 13, 2012, 11:13:09 PM
Here is how sex evolved.

This part of the post is where I explain the process. While I'm doing that, you make up some reason to protest my information, or ignore it, whichever is more convenient. As I go into different levels of detail and explain the various advantages organisms that mated had over organisms that didn't and use terms like mitosis and fertilization and pollination, you rack your brain for that word you always use, what was it, oh yea, video, remember to ask for a video, and as I sum up my points with a few links and some quotes, you hold your bible up to the screen again and claim god did it and fend me off one more time.

I hope my explanation was useful in your quest for reliable information and the truth.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 13, 2012, 11:41:53 PM
So according to rockv12 there must be HD video's of Adam and Eve "knowing" each other? Anyone we know have access to those files? (This is strictly for academic purposes, no I am not into watching porn)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 11:48:34 PM
...  Yet, nobody wants to tackle how male/female sex evolved, OR the hummingbird.

It is a classic theist tactic to take a portion of a specific theory that is not fully understood yet and use it as the basis for a counter argument.  Just because we do not have a perfect working understanding of how sex came to be, that doesn't mean that evolution is falsified; nor does it mean that 'Goddidit' is an acceptable answer. 

But the very fact that you chose to point to an example of something that is poorly understood in evolutionary terms, seems to indicate that you are finally beginning to understand the cases that are well understood.  That's great. It would be a step in the right direction for you.  Good stuff. 

It's not that nobody WANTS to tackle sex, it's just that AFAIK nobody fully has yet.  That doesn't disprove evolution; it just means the clues left behind are more difficult to sort out.  Who knows, though?  Is it possible that when we finally understand how sex came to be, that the theory of evolution is falsified?  Sure.  But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.   

As for the hummingbird, which one of the 356 species do you want to know about?  Each species likely evolved along a different path.  And what, about hummingbirds in particular, is so difficult to understand in evolutionary terms?

But no good answer for a hummingbird OR sex, is problematic, don't you think?  Sure, it's easy to come up with a sequence of events for a bird to fly to escape a predator, BUT when confronted with difficult questions, evolutionists simply state "we don't know exactly, but we will find out eventually".  Isn't that convenient? 

What is so difficult to understand about a hummingbird?  Serious?  Again, WHY?  Gliding wasn't beneficial enough?  It had to burn a trillion calories a second to survive?  Isn't that a step in the opposite direction of "convenient", for the bird?  How about the honeybee?  How about the bat?  There are so many extreme cases of extraordinary features that blow the minds of physics and engineering, are there not?  But evolution just works so simply, as you state.... 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 11:50:33 PM
So according to rockv12 there must be HD video's of Adam and Eve "knowing" each other? Anyone we know have access to those files? (This is strictly for academic purposes, no I am not into watching porn)

I was making a point.  Obviously, blown out of proportion to immature lengths. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 13, 2012, 11:53:32 PM

The fact that you dismiss the differences between large and small animals so easily demonstrates your disregard for the subject.  You are not interested in giving any of us a fair hearing; your demands for proof are a clever ploy to pretend that you are being reasonable, while your actual standards for acceptable proof are set to a bar so high that if you applied them to the Bible, it would flunk those standards as well.  Not that I expect you to acknowledge this contradiction, but it does demonstrate your lack of interest in anything but trying to establish your holy book as a valid piece of historical evidence.


Acceptable proof?  You gave a guess for how wings evolved...  How did it happen again?  Seriously....give me the step by step of how wings evolved into birds of flight. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 14, 2012, 12:02:12 AM
I was making a point.  Obviously, blown out of proportion to immature lengths. 

It was a pretty laughable point to make, agreed. Especially when you evidently don't demand that level of evidence for your religious beliefs, as jaime pointed out.

Again, please give an example of what you would consider definitive proof of evolution.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 12:13:55 AM
I was making a point.  Obviously, blown out of proportion to immature lengths. 

It was a pretty laughable point to make, agreed. Especially when you evidently don't demand that level of evidence for your religious beliefs, as jaime pointed out.

Again, please give an example of what you would consider definitive proof of evolution.

Bad point, I agree.  But proof?  Because we think that an animal may have jumped into the water to avoid a predator?  That's the point I was trying to make.....nobody knows!!

Proof of evolution?  Well, we would have to see it happen for one.  Observable evidence.  We see "natural selection", but NEVER one species turning into another.  Time constraints of course.  Also, we should see more accurate and provable dating methods to prove where these fossils are found.  We should see clear transitional fossils....again, difficult to prove with the millions of species available to look at.  We should see a far more simplistic life schematic.  Why so many different kinds of trees?  Why not..."here we have a tree...here we have grass...here we have a weed....here we have a four-legged animal...etc".  There is so much variation and complexity and perfection among the life forms.  So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.   We should see obvious steps from each little transitional form and mutation.   We should see many more planets capable of supporting life....we got darn lucky to be the perfect distance from the sun.  We should see more planets with water.  Without water, no life.  We got awful lucky if you ask me....  Any more?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 14, 2012, 12:36:35 AM
Acceptable proof?  You gave a guess for how wings evolved...  How did it happen again?  Seriously....give me the step by step of how wings evolved into birds of flight.
No, I gave an example of how the process might have started.  The problem with your demand that I give you a step-by-step explanation is that I am not an expert on evolutionary biology or paleontology.  I can give examples of how it might have worked due to my general knowledge, but I lack the specific knowledge to be able to explain the current theory.  Yet, if I find information from someone who does have that knowledge, you will likely disallow it because I am not posting it in my own words, coupled with the probable accusation that I "blindly believe" in it as a result.  If I take the time to absorb that knowledge so I can explain it in my own words without plagiarizing, you will likely just find something else to use to criticize instead, if you do not simply disallow it because it is not "proof" (meaning eyewitness evidence).

Do you see the problem with this strategy?  You are not willing to give us a fair hearing, and you are not willing to apply the standards you expect of us to your own beliefs, if indeed you are even willing to consider that your beliefs might not be correct.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 14, 2012, 01:41:15 AM
Thanks for replying, rocky12. As a layman interested in evolution and cosmology, I'll try to show how at least some of your questions can be answered.

Proof of evolution?  Well, we would have to see it happen for one.  Observable evidence.  We see "natural selection", but NEVER one species turning into another.  Time constraints of course.

Precisely. Evolution predicts incremental changes over long periods of time, particularly the major morphological ones creationists seem to regard as the only acceptable form of specieation. And that is in fact what we see in the fossil record.

Quote
Also, we should see more accurate and provable dating methods to prove where these fossils are found.

It's unclear what you mean here. What does dating a fossil have to do with establishing where it was dug up? The various means we have of dating fossils (and geological specimens in general) provide acceptable and verifiable levels of accuracy. If they didn't, much of modern geology (including mining, oil drilling, earthquake prediction and other practical applications) would be unworkable and replaced with something that did work.

Quote
We should see clear transitional fossils....again, difficult to prove with the millions of species available to look at.

Again, I gave you a link to a number of transitional fossils. Are you still demanding chimeras? How many times do you have to be told that is a creationist parody of evolution, not the gradualism that mutation+natural selection+time actually produces? Archaopteryx is about as clear an example as we are likely to find, along with Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik)).

Quote
We should see a far more simplistic life schematic.  Why so many different kinds of trees?  Why not..."here we have a tree...here we have grass...here we have a weed....here we have a four-legged animal...etc".

Really? Why would this be proof of evolution and not creationism?

Quote
There is so much variation and complexity and perfection among the life forms.  So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.

There have been mass extinctions in Earth's history where between 50-80% of all animal genera died off:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinctions) Yet always some life persisted and through evolution diversified. So clearly at least some living things are just fine without a diverse ecology.

And "perfection"? Really? AIDS, appendicitis, the marine tongue-eating-louse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_parasite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_parasite)), all examples of perfection?

Quote
We should see obvious steps from each little transitional form and mutation.

Why? Given the dynamic nature of the Earth, it's remarkable that we have such an extensive fossil record. First, an animal has to die in an area where it won't decay too fast for at least its hard parts to be preserved. Then the preserving medium has to harden and be undisturbed by erosion. For extremely long periods, depending on the age of the fossil. Lastly, the strata containing it has to be accessible by us. And again, we have transitions showing fish to land-dwelling tetrapods, dinosaurs to birds, etcetera.

Quote
We should see many more planets capable of supporting life....

The universe is an awfully big place; we've barely begun to look around. But in just the last decade we've found over 700 extrasolar planets. From what we know of cosmology and planetary science, our sun and Earth are fairly typical in terms of stability, type and chemical composition.


Quote
we got darn lucky to be the perfect distance from the sun.  We should see more planets with water.  Without water, no life.  We got awful lucky if you ask me....

Weak anthropic principle:(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html)). The universe isn't designed for us; we're adapted to the universe.

And as for water-bearing worlds, there are Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, right in our own backyard. Enceladus in particular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29)) has been proven to have liquid water; something we have only indirect evidence of on Mars.

Quote
Any more?

I don't doubt you could come up with more. But I don't really expect any of my answers to convince you. I replied to educate myself.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 14, 2012, 02:16:04 AM
Acceptable proof?  You gave a guess for how wings evolved...  How did it happen again?  Seriously....give me the step by step of how wings evolved into birds of flight.

Guess what, rock? Nobody (yet) knows the exact step by step process under which wings evolved, because it happened over a period of millions of years. You spoke earlier of things the human mind cannot comprehend, and I would add to that list the concept of change over thousands of millenia. You seem to think that species evolve specific features or traits, such as wings, over the course of a few generations, but it just isn't so.

We are now 5 pages deep into this thread and, despite ample evidence presented to the contrary, your position remains the same argument from incredulity/ignorance that it was on page 1; I do not understand this, therefore god.

It is truly laughable that you insist on absolute, indisputable proof of evolution while accepting the notion of biblegod with absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever.

Open your eyes that you might see, and your mind that you might learn.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 14, 2012, 04:08:36 AM
.....We should see a far more simplistic life schematic.  Why so many different kinds of trees?  Why not..."here we have a tree...here we have grass...here we have a weed....here we have a four-legged animal...etc".  There is so much variation and complexity and perfection among the life forms.  So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.   

I thought this section was worth taking out because it is a good example of how Rocky likes to try to argue both sides at once.

He begins by saying that we should see very few types of life - something like "just dogs - no breeds within it, just dogs.  No wolves, dingos, hyenas, just a generic dog".  Similarly, just one type of horse- thing (no donkeys, mules, zebras, ponys, and so on).  Just a handful of simple things, if evolution is correct.....according to him, of course, ignoring the fact that evolutionary theory argues for multiplicity of lifeforms.

And he then goes on to say "everything is too complex for evolution", again giving the lie to his claims that he "understands" what evolutionary theory says.

Here's the thing, Rocky - if there was a big "god" who created everything, then a handful of simple forms is all we WOULD expect to see.  Horse.  Dog.  Cow.  Sheep.  Pig.  The child's farmyard of life, not the wide range of subtly different and specially adapted ranges we have today.

Maybe we should start with basics.  You seem to accept that "dog" can range from the chihuahua to the Great Dane, but affirm that both are in the same species.  (Quick Question #1: Define "species").  And presumably you are okay with the fact that because they are both from the same species, they both evolved1 from the same common ancestor?

But perhaps you DON'T accept that?  Perhaps you do really insist that Great Danes and Chihuahuas were both individually created by the goddess?  I'd be grateful if you would let me know what you think, before I continue?

So.....
1) What is a "species", in your opinion?
2) Chihuahuas and Great Danes.....two independently created creatures?  Or two creatures that evolved1 in increasingly different directions from one original ancestor?

-------------
1 Yup...evolved.  Changed through random mutations coupled with response to external stimulus.  The theory is the same, there's no practical difference between "natural" evolution and "breeding".
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 14, 2012, 06:42:13 AM
So there we have it. Because we do not see an animal evolve into another in a human lifetime, therefore there is no proof. All animals were created and none went extinct.

Fossils were created by God to test our faith.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 14, 2012, 06:43:49 AM
Rocky,

Where do you think oil comes from? Yes, the basic crude oil will extract from the ground and use for our energy.

Where did it come from, and why is it there?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 06:45:44 AM
Rocky,

Where do you think oil comes from? Yes, the basic crude oil will extract from the ground and use for our energy.

Where did it come from, and why is it there?

Let me try to answer that:
Magical oil fairies in the sky! Where else? Also, it's here because my god loves me very much. He wants me to have oil.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 14, 2012, 06:53:48 AM
So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.   

As Anfauglir alluded to, this also speaks much more to the probability of life evolving and adapting, than to a magic.

They wouldn't have so much dependency on one another, and they could, in fact, exist without the other, were they magical creations.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 14, 2012, 07:22:39 AM
So there we have it. Because we do not see an animal evolve into another in a human lifetime, therefore there is no proof. All animals were created and none went extinct.

Fossils were created by God to test our faith.

That tricky bastard!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Fiji on March 14, 2012, 08:03:50 AM
So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.   

As Anfauglir alluded to, this also speaks much more to the probability of life evolving and adapting, than to a magic.

They wouldn't have so much dependency on one another, and they could, in fact, exist without the other, were they magical creations.

And both Wallace and Darwin made predictions based on that. They came across orchids, the nectar of which could not be reached by any known animal. They, separate from eachtother, both predicted that there had to be an animal that could reach the nectar. Decades later, in both cases, moths were found who could reach the nectar of those particular orchids. There would have been no reason for this to be true if moth and orchid were created. Unless the creator is a deciever who actively wants to convince us that he/she/it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 09:11:02 AM
Acceptable proof?  You gave a guess for how wings evolved...  How did it happen again?  Seriously....give me the step by step of how wings evolved into birds of flight.

Guess what, rock? Nobody (yet) knows the exact step by step process under which wings evolved, because it happened over a period of millions of years. You spoke earlier of things the human mind cannot comprehend, and I would add to that list the concept of change over thousands of millenia. You seem to think that species evolve specific features or traits, such as wings, over the course of a few generations, but it just isn't so.

We are now 5 pages deep into this thread and, despite ample evidence presented to the contrary, your position remains the same argument from incredulity/ignorance that it was on page 1; I do not understand this, therefore god.

It is truly laughable that you insist on absolute, indisputable proof of evolution while accepting the notion of biblegod with absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever.

Open your eyes that you might see, and your mind that you might learn.

What would your proof of a God be?  I mean, I think He's made it extremely clear that He exists.  What do you want?  Voices from the sky?  Then you'd probably say that there is some scientific explanation for the voice coming from the sky...

Again, people think I don't understand evolution.  I know you think the wing took millions of years.  So what?  Step by step slowly is still step by step.  The transitions still took place.  Even if they were small steps...ok.  Why would a microscopic, itty bitty, step assist in the animals survival or adaptation?  You keep saying that they were extremely small steps, but then it gets even more ridiculous.  Feather color doesn't help the bird fly!  It's the darned wing that helps them fly!.  See my point?   And again, you say ,"we don't know exactly".  But then attack others if they don't have an answer then they are believing in some fairy tale, spaghetti monster.  See the double-standard?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 09:13:56 AM
Just because we don't know how every single structure in existence evolved is irrelevant to evolution, which has been proven ad nauseam.

As for "why", that question in itself shows your utter incomprehension of evolution. Beings don't choose to evolve.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 09:15:17 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 14, 2012, 09:15:46 AM
So I was reading

Here's the problem.  You read something asinine without bothering to do any research.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 09:16:48 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".

And it does. Have you ever thought of how much it would suck if polar bears were black? They'd be killed in no time.

Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you? 

Your question assumes that wings are only used to fly. Have you ever heard of "gliding"?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 14, 2012, 09:17:41 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

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

List of recent flightless birds

The following are flightless birds during or after the Holocene epoch.
[edit] Ratites
Ostrich

    Ostrich
    Emu
    Kangaroo Island Emu †
    King Island Emu †
    Cassowaries
    Moa †
    Elephant birds †
    Kiwis
    Rheas

[edit] Anseriformes (Waterfowl)
Campbell Teal

    Moa-nalos (extinct)
    Bermuda Island Flightless Duck †
    Fuegian Steamer Duck
    Falkland Steamer Duck
    Chubut Steamer Duck
    Auckland Teal
    Campbell Teal
    Dromornis †
    Genyornis †
    Chendytes lawi †
    Talpanas †
    Cnemiornis †

[edit] Galliformes (Wildfowl)

    New Caledonian Giant Megapode †

[edit] Podicipediformes (Grebes)

    Junin Grebe
    Titicaca Grebe
    Atitlán Grebe † (reportedly flightless)[5]

[edit] Pelicaniformes (Pelicans, Cormorants and allies)
Flightless Cormorant

    Flightless Cormorant

[edit] Sphenisciformes (Penguins)

    Penguins

[edit] Coraciiformes (Kingfishers, Hornbills and allies)

    Giant Hoopoe (extinct)

[edit] Ciconiiformes (Herons, Ibis)

    Apteribis †
    Jamaican Ibis †
    Réunion Sacred Ibis †

[edit] Gruiformes (Cranes, Rails)
Weka
Great Auk

    Cuban Flightless Crane †
    Red Rail †
    Rodrigues Rail †
    Woodford's Rail (probably flightless)
    Bar-winged Rail † (probably flightless)
    Weka
    New Caledonian Rail
    Lord Howe Woodhen
    Calayan Rail
    New Britain Rail
    Guam Rail
    Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so)[6]
    Tahiti Rail †
    Dieffenbach's Rail †
    Chatham Rail †
    Wake Island Rail †
    Snoring Rail
    Inaccessible Island Rail
    Laysan Rail †
    Hawaiian Rail †
    Kosrae Crake †
    Ascension Crake †
    Red-eyed Crake
    Invisible Rail
    New Guinea Flightless Rail
    Lord Howe Swamphen † (probably flightless)
    North Island Takahe †
    Takahe
    Samoan Wood Rail
    Makira Wood Rail
    Tristan Moorhen †
    Gough Island Moorhen
    Tasmanian Nativehen
    Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly)
    Adzebills †

[edit] Charadriiformes (Gulls, Terns, Auks)

    Great Auk †
    Diving Puffin †

[edit] Falconiformes (Birds of prey)
Dodo

    Terrestrial Caracara †

[edit] Psittaciformes (Parrots)

    Kakapo
    Broad-billed Parrot †

[edit] Columbiformes (Pigeons, Doves)

    Dodo †
    Rodrigues Solitaire †
    Viti Levu Giant Pigeon †

[edit] Caprimulgiformes (Nightjars)

    New Zealand Owlet-nightjar †

[edit] Strigformes (Owls)

    Cuban Giant Owl †
    Cretan Owl † (probably flightless)
    Andros Island Barn Owl †

[edit] Passeriformes (Perching Birds)

    Stephens Island Wren †
    Long-legged Bunting †
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 14, 2012, 09:22:49 AM
Rock, my antenna is broken, no reception. Tell me how you observe god.

I've been in curches and experienced guilt and feeling. But that was a mimister and a kind of group hug. Feelings! No god.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 14, 2012, 09:23:53 AM
Again, people think I don't understand evolution.  I know you think the wing took millions of years.  So what?  Step by step slowly is still step by step.  The transitions still took place.  Even if they were small steps...ok.  Why would a microscopic, itty bitty, step assist in the animals survival or adaptation?  You keep saying that they were extremely small steps, but then it gets even more ridiculous.  Feather color doesn't help the bird fly!  It's the darned wing that helps them fly!.  See my point?   And again, you say ,"we don't know exactly".  But then attack others if they don't have an answer then they are believing in some fairy tale, spaghetti monster.  See the double-standard?

Rockv12, Have you ever heard of the expression "the god of the gaps"?  I'm wondering what that means to you.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 14, 2012, 09:33:32 AM
What would your proof of a God be?  I mean, I think He's made it extremely clear that He exists. 

Our proof would be the same empirical, testable, observable, falsifiable evidence that we require for all of reality. Do you have any?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 09:49:59 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Sure color can make a huge difference. Ever heard of the flight of the Peppered Moth?
Do flying fish, flying squirrels, flying snakes count?
How about penguins, ostriches, dodo's...(oh wait they didn't make it). Are they birds?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 10:01:07 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Sure color can make a huge difference. Ever heard of the flight of the Peppered Moth?
Do flying fish, flying squirrels, flying snakes count?
How about penguins, ostriches, dodo's...(oh wait they didn't make it). Are they birds?

Dodged the question with an example of a flying squirrel.  Good try, but again, we are talking about birds.  Ostriches do not count.  Put the steps in your head of the wing evolving.  Let's start with the first step.  What did the very first step look like?  Any ideas? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 10:04:51 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".

And it does. Have you ever thought of how much it would suck if polar bears were black? They'd be killed in no time.

Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you? 

Your question assumes that wings are only used to fly. Have you ever heard of "gliding"?

So I'm the one making huge jumps in evolution?  Now everyone seems to be.  Microscopic, little changes, I thought.  Going from scratching your head with an arm to flyinf with it.  Think about it once more.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 14, 2012, 10:06:42 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Give enough thrust and even a brick can fly. The F-4 Phantom -2 is an example for that. Most missiles and rockets don't really have wings and yet they fly magnificently.

If you want a serious answer please give your definition to these terms: I would insist because of your predilection for changing the goalpost when the striker is about to get the pass.

1) Fly/flight - What do you mean by that?
2) Fully formed wings? Does a fledgeling's wing be called fully formed? Or is it not fully developed.

Color matters, why do you think the military spends millions in developing camouflages?

As it turns out, we can fly... Just fix the goal posts and we can talk about it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 14, 2012, 10:07:12 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Yep. Or at least glide, which is how flyers started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vhgC_g1cmU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vhgC_g1cmU)

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 10:07:44 AM
Again, people think I don't understand evolution.  I know you think the wing took millions of years.  So what?  Step by step slowly is still step by step.  The transitions still took place.  Even if they were small steps...ok.  Why would a microscopic, itty bitty, step assist in the animals survival or adaptation?  You keep saying that they were extremely small steps, but then it gets even more ridiculous.  Feather color doesn't help the bird fly!  It's the darned wing that helps them fly!.  See my point?   And again, you say ,"we don't know exactly".  But then attack others if they don't have an answer then they are believing in some fairy tale, spaghetti monster.  See the double-standard?

Rockv12, Have you ever heard of the expression "the god of the gaps"?  I'm wondering what that means to you.
I asked how an itty bitty mutation would help an animal survive? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 14, 2012, 10:18:58 AM
I understand evolution and what it says.  What you wrote is not news to me.  But I appreciate the time you took.   The transition from land to sea for the whale...hmmm.....ok.  Again, how is finding a fossil of what appears to be part this/part that proof of a transition?  I'm not being difficult but serious.  Anything found can be said to look like one and sort of like another.  Fits easily with pre-conceived notions that "This has to be the case!!".  The question is actually more of.."WHY?"  Why would a creature jump into the water and try to breath?  This is where evolution takes extreme guesses.  Why would an animal develop a wing?  What purpose would it serve?  To think about the logic involved takes quite the imagination...and I've heard them all.   Any ideas?  And was that polite enough???

why I’m a prophet! You again show you are ignorant and wish to remain that way.  How nice.  You do a lovely job at showing how stupid you have made yourself, rockv.  If you really did want to know the answers to the questions you ask, you would have already found them out if you really did read about evolution.  Even though I feel sorry for you, I do like watching Christians lie. 

and then you try to move the goalposts.  How not suprising!  Again, you demonstrate your stupidity, and I rarely use that word but you deserve it with your intentional ignorance and your ignoring of every attempt to try to teach you, about evolution.  Evolutionary theory never says that some animal would do as you say, so again, you create a strawman and try to attack it rather than the actual science.  You are a sad case, rockv, unable to admit you are wrong, unwilling to learn and a liar to boot.  Politeness doesn’t matter when you intentionally lie to me, rockv.  I wonder, do you apologize to your god every time you do it, saying “but I’m doing it for you!”.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 10:21:55 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Sure color can make a huge difference. Ever heard of the flight of the Peppered Moth?
Do flying fish, flying squirrels, flying snakes count?
How about penguins, ostriches, dodo's...(oh wait they didn't make it). Are they birds?

Dodged the question with an example of a flying squirrel.  Good try, but again, we are talking about birds.  Ostriches do not count.  Put the steps in your head of the wing evolving.  Let's start with the first step.  What did the very first step look like?  Any ideas?

You dodged the answer about color making  difference.

You also failed to grasp what I was saying, so I'll be more direct this time. Fish that fly and birds that don't, what's the difference? Please define flight.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 14, 2012, 10:23:20 AM
Proof of evolution?  Well, we would have to see it happen for one.  Observable evidence.  We see "natural selection", but NEVER one species turning into another.
wow, a lie!  I showed you this evidence.
Quote
Time constraints of course.  Also, we should see more accurate and provable dating methods to prove where these fossils are found.
we have them, again more lies and willful ignorance.
Quote
We should see clear transitional fossils....again, difficult to prove with the millions of species available to look at.
and more.
Quote
We should see a far more simplistic life schematic.  Why so many different kinds of trees?  Why not..."here we have a tree...here we have grass...here we have a weed....here we have a four-legged animal...etc".  There is so much variation and complexity and perfection among the life forms.  So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.
What the hell is this supposed to mean and dear rockv, explain why we should see this?  This interdependency is what would happen if evolutionary theory was right.
Quote
We should see obvious steps from each little transitional form and mutation.
again more willful stupidity about fossils. 
Quote
We should see many more planets capable of supporting life....we got darn lucky to be the perfect distance from the sun.  We should see more planets with water.  Without water, no life.  We got awful lucky if you ask me....  Any more?
oh really why should we?  And aw, the good ol' goldilocks argument, again showing more ignorance about how we evolved to fit the planet, the planet did nothing. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 14, 2012, 10:24:24 AM
Rock, what does evolution have to do with a god existing or not existing?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 14, 2012, 10:29:07 AM

Rockv12, Have you ever heard of the expression "the god of the gaps"?  I'm wondering what that means to you.
I asked how an itty bitty mutation would help an animal survive?

Please answer the question.  What does the expression "the god of the gaps" means to you?  There's a point to this question.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 14, 2012, 10:30:59 AM
What would your proof of a God be?  I mean, I think He's made it extremely clear that He exists.  What do you want?  Voices from the sky?  Then you'd probably say that there is some scientific explanation for the voice coming from the sky...
A better question is, what proves to you that God exists?  Don't tell us that he's made it extremely clear that he exists, because that's just an opinion.  Detail what leads you to believe that the evidence for God is as extremely clear as you say it is.  Give us examples of the evidence and how it clearly leads to God.

Quote from: rockv12
Again, people think I don't understand evolution.  I know you think the wing took millions of years.  So what?  Step by step slowly is still step by step.  The transitions still took place.  Even if they were small steps...ok.  Why would a microscopic, itty bitty, step assist in the animals survival or adaptation?  You keep saying that they were extremely small steps, but then it gets even more ridiculous.  Feather color doesn't help the bird fly!  It's the darned wing that helps them fly!.  See my point?   And again, you say ,"we don't know exactly".  But then attack others if they don't have an answer then they are believing in some fairy tale, spaghetti monster.  See the double-standard?
*shakes head*  Understanding is not simply being able to parrot back things that you've read.  That's simple memorization.  When you ask why a small change would assist in survival or adaptation, when you claim that feather color isn't important because it doesn't help birds fly, when you ask if flight is possible without a fully-formed wing (which, by the way, is the irreducible complexity argument), these demonstrate that you do not really understand how evolution actually works.  If you actually understood it, you would not have to ask why these things matter.

By the way, we know there are animals which can glide without proper wings, such as the flying squirrel, which has a membrane that stretches from wrist to ankle.  As a direct result of this, it can glide for dozens of meters, many times its body length, because the membranes increase its surface area relative to its weight.  This is an obvious survival advantage over squirrels that cannot glide, since it is both faster[1], less taxing[2], and safer[3].

Now, consider the bat, which has proper wings, but is in no way a bird.  Its wings do not have feathers, therefore feathers are not necessary for flight.  Useful, yes, but not necessary.  But if you look at its wings, it is easy to see that they stretch from the wrist area[4] to the ankle.  The primary difference between a bat's wings and a flying squirrel's membranes is that the bat's forelimbs are so much longer than a flying squirrel's, and the bat has bones within the wing which help to give it control and stabilize the wing membranes.  In other words, it would not take very many changes from a flying squirrel to end up with a flying mammal like a bat.  Longer arms in proportion to legs would allow it to glide further; bone or cartilage struts within the membrane would give it better stability and control while in the air; a wider membrane would give it the ability to flap effectively and thus actually fly.  In other words, this serves as a functional pathway for how you could go from an animal with only the capacity to glide to an animal with the capacity to fly.

Do not dismiss this simply because I am talking about mammals instead of birds.  If I can show a functional pathway from one organism to another, it can apply to more than just the specific example I gave.  I could go from a bird that could only glide to a bird that could fly using a similar process.

Also, here is something for you to consider.  You clearly believe in the existence of God and that he created everything that exists.  Yet you assume that he could only have done so by special creation/intelligent design.  Why?  I'm quite serious here.  Why is the only option the functional equivalent of God snapping his fingers in a Q-like fashion and causing fully-formed organisms to appear?
 1. the distance between one tree branch and another tree branch is far less than the distance required to run back along the tree branch, down the tree trunk, along the ground to the other tree, then back up the tree trunk
 2. because of the shorter distance and the fact that it does not require the same degree of leg muscle use
 3. ground predators generally have to wait until their prey is on hte ground to catch it; if the flying squirrel never needs to go to the ground because it can glide between trees, it is safe from most ground predators
 4. You can tell by looking at the place where the the wing bones all come together, especially with bats that have a claw that sticks out in front of the wing
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 10:31:45 AM
I asked how an itty bitty mutation would help an animal survive?

Examples of beneficial mutation, in case you are really interested.

1.)  Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
2.)   Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.
3.) Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas
4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast
5.) Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations
6.) Adaptation of yeast to  a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
7.) Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome
8.) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
10.)  12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 14, 2012, 10:46:04 AM
Dodged the question with an example of a flying squirrel.  Good try, but again, we are talking about birds.  Ostriches do not count.  Put the steps in your head of the wing evolving.  Let's start with the first step.  What did the very first step look like?  Any ideas?

A slight lengthening of an arm bone through a small genetic mutation that proved advantageous over other individuals in the species is one possible answer.  Another possibility is a slightly more hollow arm bone, thus making the animal a bit lighter than other individuals among the species.   

I asked how an itty bitty mutation would help an animal survive? 

If you're a rabbit living in the Canadian tundra and your itty bitty mutation makes you more white than another rabbit, you have a small, yet statistically significant survival advantage, because the wolves will have a harder time seeing you. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 10:53:45 AM
And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Yep. Or at least glide, which is how flyers started:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vhgC_g1cmU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vhgC_g1cmU)

You obviuosly don't understand evolution.  Gliding was the first step?  That's how flying started?  some in here get angry when you make big steps forward like that....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 10:54:19 AM
Penguins feet
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 10:58:29 AM
Quote
Although mutations that change in protein sequences can be harmful to an organism; on occasions, the effect may be positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-?32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[36] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-?32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[37] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[38]

Another example is Sickle cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[39] because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[40] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 11:00:14 AM
Quote
Murray Gray: A Breed of Beef Cattle

Murray Gray is a cattle breed, obtained accidentally from a traditional cow species. The calves produced by the specific cow were more productive than those produced by others. Farmers soon noticed the difference and started breeding from the offspring. This way, the Murray breed with some of the most positive characteristics have become popular all over Australia, which then spread to other countries.

CCR5-delta 32: HIV Immunity in Humans

Cysteine-cysteine chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) is a receptor molecule, located in the membranes of white blood cells (WBCs) and nerve cells. In a cell, CCR5 permits the entry of chemokines that signals the inflammatory response to any foreign particles. The gene responsible for coding CCR5 is present in the human chromosome 3. A mutation in this gene called CCR5-delta 32 (involving deletion of 32 base pairs) affects the normal functioning of the CCR5.

In the initial stages of HIV infection, the virus normally enters through CCR5. However, a mutated CCR5 blocks the entry of HIV. People carrying homozygous mutated CCR5-delta 32 are resistant to HIV, while heterozygous ones are beneficial, as it slows down the disease progression. Thus, CCR5-delta 32 provides partial or complete immunity to HIV. Similarly, it is a beneficial mutation against other chronic diseases.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 11:02:17 AM
So weather we are talking about squirrels. or birds or bacteria, or yeast or cattle or humans, itty bitty changes (can't get much smaller than a gene) can end up being beneficial.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
Dodged the question with an example of a flying squirrel.  Good try, but again, we are talking about birds.  Ostriches do not count.  Put the steps in your head of the wing evolving.  Let's start with the first step.  What did the very first step look like?  Any ideas?

A slight lengthening of an arm bone through a small genetic mutation that proved advantageous over other individuals in the species is one possible answer.  Another possibility is a slightly more hollow arm bone, thus making the animal a bit lighter than other individuals among the species.   

I asked how an itty bitty mutation would help an animal survive? 

If you're a rabbit living in the Canadian tundra and your itty bitty mutation makes you more white than another rabbit, you have a small, yet statistically significant survival advantage, because the wolves will have a harder time seeing you.

I'm talking significance.  Wings forming!   These over simplified possibilities don't account for fact feathers had to evolve, balance, etc..  Have we ever seen a mutation benefit us in any way?  We see birth defects, not birth advantages....maybe in the movies.... 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 11:23:20 AM
So weather we are talking about squirrels. or birds or bacteria, or yeast or cattle or humans, itty bitty changes (can't get much smaller than a gene) can end up being beneficial.
Think about the process you are proposing.  Visualize the entire course in your mind.  Arms evolved to legs to wings?  Our poop hole evolved?  The penis evolved?  The ear evolved?  The eye evolved?  Our nervous system evolved?  Our brain?  We see so many animals survive just fine, they don't need to talk....why do we talk?  Shall i go on?  Little changes mean nothing when you look at the monster job you have of filling in the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 14, 2012, 11:28:57 AM
I'm talking significance.  Wings forming!   These over simplified possibilities don't account for fact feathers had to evolve, balance, etc..  Have we ever seen a mutation benefit us in any way?  We see birth defects, not birth advantages....maybe in the movies....

... benefit us in any way?

Where do I start??? Ever wonder why the homo sapiens alone have so many different eye colors?

That is a mutation, right? Since Adam and Eve are our common ancestors, shouldn't we be all having the same eye colors???
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 14, 2012, 11:37:18 AM
Arms evolved to legs to wings?
Yep.
Quote
Our poop hole evolved?
  Yep
Quote
The penis evolved?
Yep
Quote
The ear evolved?
Yep 
Quote
The eye evolved?
Yep
Quote
Our nervous system evolved?
Yep 
Quote
Our brain?
Yep 

I know you have a problem with all of this, but that doesn't automatically mean it didn't happen. I don't actually understand all the physics of what goes on inside the sun, but I still tan nicely in the summer. It happens without my understanding the specifics. As does evolution.

Some of us tan. Some of us think. Some of us do both. Some of us do neither.

I tan too.

Don't tell me you don't tan either.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 11:53:44 AM
So weather we are talking about squirrels. or birds or bacteria, or yeast or cattle or humans, itty bitty changes (can't get much smaller than a gene) can end up being beneficial.
Think about the process you are proposing.  Visualize the entire course in your mind.  Arms evolved to legs to wings?  Our poop hole evolved?  The penis evolved?  The ear evolved?  The eye evolved?  Our nervous system evolved?  Our brain?  We see so many animals survive just fine, they don't need to talk....why do we talk?  Shall i go on?  Little changes mean nothing when you look at the monster job you have of filling in the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle.

You asked about little changes and I gave some. Now you want to look at the bigger picture. Fine.

You seem hung up about fossils. Look at the big picture. Simple things are found in the oldest strata. Complex things are found in the newest strata. In between the oldest and the newest strata one finds more and more complex things.

So one sees a progression from simple to complex....think about it!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 14, 2012, 11:56:41 AM
I'm talking significance.  Wings forming!   These over simplified possibilities don't account for fact feathers had to evolve, balance, etc..  Have we ever seen a mutation benefit us in any way?  We see birth defects, not birth advantages....maybe in the movies....

and you were given a list of them.  now you trie to move the goalpost and try to narrow it to only humans.  sad. 

Quote
Think about the process you are proposing.  Visualize the entire course in your mind.  Arms evolved to legs to wings?  Our poop hole evolved?  The penis evolved?  The ear evolved?  The eye evolved?  Our nervous system evolved?  Our brain?  We see so many animals survive just fine, they don't need to talk....why do we talk?  Shall i go on?  Little changes mean nothing when you look at the monster job you have of filling in the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle.
and more evidence you are willfully stupid.  It is all little changes.  oooh and animals don't have to talk.  how "profound".   Since you seem unable or unwilling to actually think for yourself, talking allows information to be passed along from person to person over distance, while carrying something.  All evolutionarily advantageous.  Animals make various noises to communicate and some do seem to have a language, like humpback whales, some monkeys: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/clever-monkeys/monkeys-and-language/3948/  etc.  but as I told you earlier, and which you more than obviously ignored, change doesn't happen if a pressure isn't there. 

 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 14, 2012, 12:30:41 PM
Think about the process you are proposing.  Visualize the entire course in your mind.  Arms evolved to legs to wings?  Our poop hole evolved?  The penis evolved?  The ear evolved?  The eye evolved?  Our nervous system evolved?  Our brain?  We see so many animals survive just fine, they don't need to talk....why do we talk?  Shall i go on?  Little changes mean nothing when you look at the monster job you have of filling in the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle.

I presume you've heard of, or even experienced, humans with webbed fingers and/or toes? Do you suppose that animals could also have that same mutation?  What do you suppose might happen if, in the daily fight for survival in a watery environment, those webbed appendages helped the animal either escape predation, or increase food production?

I'll tell you what might happen. That animal would likely live longer than one without, enabling that webbed animal to pass along it's genes to the next generation. And then, the "begats" start (I assume you're familiar with that term in your book).

Now take all those begats, for MILLIONS OF YEARS, realizing that the gene that allows the webbing to grow becomes more and more prevalent in that species, and tell me how those webbed feet and forelimbs absolutely COULDN'T grow into flippers and fins, one little change at a time.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 12:41:15 PM
So weather we are talking about squirrels. or birds or bacteria, or yeast or cattle or humans, itty bitty changes (can't get much smaller than a gene) can end up being beneficial.
Think about the process you are proposing.  Visualize the entire course in your mind.  Arms evolved to legs to wings?  Our poop hole evolved?  The penis evolved?  The ear evolved?  The eye evolved?  Our nervous system evolved?  Our brain?  We see so many animals survive just fine, they don't need to talk....why do we talk?  Shall i go on?  Little changes mean nothing when you look at the monster job you have of filling in the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle.

You asked about little changes and I gave some. Now you want to look at the bigger picture. Fine.

You seem hung up about fossils. Look at the big picture. Simple things are found in the oldest strata. Complex things are found in the newest strata. In between the oldest and the newest strata one finds more and more complex things.

So one sees a progression from simple to complex....think about it!
You didn't explain the most important change of all!  The topic at hand.  The wing, but rather point to polar bear color?  Again, step by little step, think about it....  Picture a time lapse movie showing each little step and.examples of the advantages that the little steps make.  Have you ever really done that?  Or quickly think about a glider and say, "see gliding eas it!". 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 14, 2012, 12:54:15 PM
You didn't explain the most important change of all!  The topic at hand.  The wing, but rather point to polar bear color?  Again, step by little step, think about it....  Picture a time lapse movie showing each little step and.examples of the advantages that the little steps make.  Have you ever really done that?  Or quickly think about a glider and say, "see gliding eas it!".
It's evident you haven't actually sat down and thought seriously and hard about it.  You read books about evolution, but you automatically reject the conclusions in them because of your preconceptions, therefore your understanding is deficient.  Because your understanding about evolution is deficient, you are not competent to make judgments about evolution.  This is in no way an insult - I'm sure you're competent in other areas, and nobody is fully competent in every area of human endeavor.

I can picture a figurative presentation that demonstrates the various little steps and gives examples of those steps quite easily, and it makes sense to me.  This is because I understand the basis of how evolution works, instead of dismissing it because of preconceived notions about how things "have to be".

Also, you need to answer my earlier question, about why special creation/intelligent design is the only acceptable answer to you.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 12:58:37 PM
You didn't explain the most important change of all!  The topic at hand.  The wing, but rather point to polar bear color?  Again, step by little step, think about it....  Picture a time lapse movie showing each little step and.examples of the advantages that the little steps make.  Have you ever really done that?  Or quickly think about a glider and say, "see gliding eas it!".
It's evident you haven't actually sat down and thought seriously and hard about it.  You read books about evolution, but you automatically reject the conclusions in them because of your preconceptions, therefore your understanding is deficient.  Because your understanding about evolution is deficient, you are not competent to make judgments about evolution.  This is in no way an insult - I'm sure you're competent in other areas, and nobody is fully competent in every area of human endeavor.

I can picture a figurative presentation that demonstrates the various little steps and gives examples of those steps quite easily, and it makes sense to me.  This is because I understand the basis of how evolution works, instead of dismissing it because of preconceived notions about how things "have to be".

Also, you need to answer my earlier question, about why special creation/intelligent design is the only acceptable answer to you.
Deficient understanding?  Yet, nobody can explain it to me.  Bear color is evolution....thats the big example?  So your visual of an arm lengthening and widening and feathers forming makes sense?  Make it make sense to me....go ahead.  It may take a few sentences, but I'm all ears.  Thanks.  Isnt arguing fun?.  Jk.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 14, 2012, 01:02:43 PM
Deficient understanding?

Yes, extremely deficient and intentional which suggests intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Quote
  Yet, nobody can explain it to me.

You're qualifications keep shifting and your dismissals are done out of personal incredulity.  Earlier you treated evolution as if changes were spontaneous, literally leaping out of an organism at whim, this has nothing to do with the various mechanisms for evolution under biological evolutionary science. 

Why do you expect others to answer for evolution in terms that have nothing to do with evolution?

Why do you keep shifting what you're asking for and dismissing answers out of hand when you receive them?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 14, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
rockv12, can you answer the questions I presented in post 139?  What does the term "god of the gaps" mean to you?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 14, 2012, 01:42:15 PM
rockv12

Now I know this is going to be hard, because you'll have to click on a link and then read some stuff and click on another link to get to the next page and finally click on a third link to get to the last page, then click a little more if you want to, but if you do at least that much, and read what is on each page, and take the time to digest what is being said, you will at least know where we are coming from.

I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm asking you to learn something about what we think happened via evolution. This will make you more able to develop good, sound dumb arguments.

Using your mouse pointer, click on this link to begin:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 14, 2012, 02:57:33 PM
Deficient understanding?  Yet, nobody can explain it to me.  Bear color is evolution....thats the big example?  So your visual of an arm lengthening and widening and feathers forming makes sense?  Make it make sense to me....go ahead.  It may take a few sentences, but I'm all ears.  Thanks.  Isnt arguing fun?.  Jk.
Yes, your understanding is deficient.  The fact that people have to explain evolution to you is proof of that.  The problem is that much of the stuff we're trying to tell you "bounces" off of those preconceptions of yours.  As a result, what doesn't bounce ends up sounding ridiculous to your ears.  What you need to realize is that it is your own mental filter that is causing this, not the explanations.

Yes, bear color is evolution.  Wing formation is evolution.  Flipper development is evolution.  Eye formation is evolution.  All of these and so many more are because evolution is the process which describes how species change over time.  Yet you are apparently not willing to even concede this is possible because you already believe in special creation/intelligent design.  So I'll ask again, why do you think special creation/intelligent design are necessary?  I mean this seriously.  Why does your understanding and conception of God need him to "intelligently design" various species, which he then pops into existence?  Speaking hypothetically, why couldn't God use evolution instead and let life develop to see what ends up coming about?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 03:02:43 PM
You didn't explain the most important change of all!  The topic at hand.  The wing, but rather point to polar bear color?  Again, step by little step, think about it....  Picture a time lapse movie showing each little step and.examples of the advantages that the little steps make.  Have you ever really done that?  Or quickly think about a glider and say, "see gliding eas it!".
Never said anything about the polar bear. I said peppered moth.

Time lapse IS a good example. Take a picture of your baby every day. Do this for 20 years. Hard to believe the 20 year old came from the 1 day old is it?

Look at a human embryo and a chimpansee embryo, not much difference.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: hickdive on March 14, 2012, 03:22:24 PM
...Have we ever seen a mutation benefit us in any way?...

Yes, you might want to look into lactase and lactose tolerance.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Cyberia on March 14, 2012, 03:52:28 PM
What is the fascination with wings?  Why is this so hard to fathom?

Do you recognize that Birds don't have ARMS?  Or even that their wings are their evolved arms?

Small therapod dinosaurs had arms AND they had feathers.  Probably most therapods had feathers, including T-rex, as baby T-rexs have been found with feathers.

So either through Neotony (retaining baby characteristics into adulthood) or by natural variation (allowing feathers to grow on the entire body) some therapods grew feathers on their arms........

Small therapods that could run fast and weighted little could go airborne for short distances by extending their arms.  A VERY VERY helpful adaptation when trying to escape predators.  So they survived more often.  Over time, they got better and better at staying airborne.

Arms became wings. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 14, 2012, 04:37:15 PM
American quail are like that. They run fast and just barely fly over a fence. Eurpean quail fly a little better.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 14, 2012, 04:54:26 PM
American quail are like that. They run fast and just barely fly over a fence. Eurpean quail fly a little better.

Exactly. An increment towards sustained flight. Just like you can find the various stages of eyeball development in different, extant species.

The pieces were there, rocky12. Darwin was just the first to organize them into a coherent theory that has been repeatedly borne out.

It explains the biological world as we observe it and makes predictions that so far have been valid. It works. Unless you can offer another theory superior in explanatory and predictive power, with evidence, your objections are unsupported opinion.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 06:18:25 PM
What is the fascination with wings?  Why is this so hard to fathom?

Do you recognize that Birds don't have ARMS?  Or even that their wings are their evolved arms?

Small therapod dinosaurs had arms AND they had feathers.  Probably most therapods had feathers, including T-rex, as baby T-rexs have been found with feathers.

So either through Neotony (retaining baby characteristics into adulthood) or by natural variation (allowing feathers to grow on the entire body) some therapods grew feathers on their arms........

Small therapods that could run fast and weighted little could go airborne for short distances by extending their arms.  A VERY VERY helpful adaptation when trying to escape predators.  So they survived more often.  Over time, they got better and better at staying airborne.

Arms became wings.

Fascination with wings?  Because it's a supposed to be a simple example of how absurd evolution is.  Shall I bring up a difficult example for all you to fumble through trying to explain?  You state that some dinosaurs had feathers.  What would this do?  Why would even a mutation that formed a bump on the arm (on it's way to being a feather) have benefited anything?  The rationale is NOT there.  You know how many mutations would have been needed for "flight" or "gliding" to take effect?  Lots and lots.  So on the way to "gliding", you have these odd looking bumps on the arms that are evolving for some reason on their way to feathers.  I'm trying to get you to think about what you are saying.  But you take these enormous leaps and start talking about "gliding".  That's a million mutations beyond the first little phase that a creature would have taken on its long journey to flight.  Understand?  You make it sound soooo simple..."a lightweight animal spread it's arms and soon learned how to fly".  And where is this evidence?  Cuz' right now, it's simply a far-cry. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 06:25:46 PM
Yes, bear color is evolution.  Wing formation is evolution.  Flipper development is evolution.  Eye formation is evolution.  All of these and so many more are because evolution is the process which describes how species change over time.  Yet you are apparently not willing to even concede this is possible because you already believe in special creation/intelligent design.  So I'll ask again, why do you think special creation/intelligent design are necessary?  I mean this seriously.  Why does your understanding and conception of God need him to "intelligently design" various species, which he then pops into existence?  Speaking hypothetically, why couldn't God use evolution instead and let life develop to see what ends up coming about?

Why couldn't God use evolution?  I suppose He could have.  I don't think He did, but He could have.  I don't see how science and natural causes could have brought about such complexity that we see.  Yet, nobody can give me a step by step of how things evolved.  Simply guesses.  Again, how did the middle ear ossicles form?  Does it seem rational to believe that evolution accidentally mutated a million times to create the middle ear ossicles?  The tympanic membrane?  The cochlea?  The semi-circular canals?  Such advanced designs and mechanisms that it makes you wonder, doesn't it?  And yes, all mutations are first accidental.  The benefitting ones lasted?  Think about the process!  The miraculous process that you propose.  From a scientific standpoint, I believe it becomes an impossibility.  Therefore, IF it's an impossibility....say for a second that it is.....what is left?  Ahhh, what's left is supernatural.  Something that we have NO idea of.  A new idea that we can't comprehend or explain.  Just think IF it was impossible. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 06:28:59 PM
Just think IF it was impossible. 

Excellent logic.[1] "If it was impossible, my explanation would be true, so my explanation is true."
Non-sequitur with false dichotomy and complete disregard for science. Genius.
 1. Sarcasm-meter overload!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 06:32:07 PM

You're qualifications keep shifting and your dismissals are done out of personal incredulity.  Earlier you treated evolution as if changes were spontaneous, literally leaping out of an organism at whim, this has nothing to do with the various mechanisms for evolution under biological evolutionary science. 


The changes aren't spontaneous?  The organisms planned their next reproduction as having an extra toe to help it dig?  They are ALL accidental.  According to evolution, some were a hinderance, some neutral, and some beneficial.  There's a 33% chance right there of being beneficial.  Spontaneous 33% chance odd right there.  And these beneficial ones lasted.  Then the beneficial ones had another 33% chance of mutating (if they mutated!) of being even more beneficial.  And slowly things advanced to the extreme level of sophistication we see today?  That seems likely?  Or even possible?  Again, using the wing as an example.....think about a time-lapse scene of this happening in a creature.  Then take this time-lapse scene and use it a million times over for the even more complex creations we see....The eye, the brain, the reproductive sexual organs..etc.....  It becomes mind-blowing absurdity.  Not that a cute little tale of science and mutations can't explain, but a rational one?  No.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 06:34:38 PM
According to evolution, some were a hinderance, some neutral, and some beneficial.  There's a 33% chance right there of being beneficial.

Shows how much you know about genetics. The truth is that we don't know the odds of there being a beneficial mutation because we simply do not understand DNA well enough. However, even if we did, we don't have the DNA of most extinct species. Try again.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 06:38:29 PM
According to evolution, some were a hinderance, some neutral, and some beneficial.  There's a 33% chance right there of being beneficial.

Shows how much you know about genetics. The truth is that we don't know the odds of there being a beneficial mutation because we simply do not understand DNA well enough. Try again.

So the odds are even worse?  I see how you dodged the other questions and focused on a meaningless % I threw out there.  Certainly we don't see over 33% of humans developing extra toes and eyes, do we?  Can you explain the simple one.  The wing evolving from start to finish.  The very first step (whatever it was) out there in the animal kingdom, of the mutation that started it ALL.  And then go from there.  I'm curious to see the development of the wing in action.  Since it's sooo simple and logical, and somehow I just don't get it...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 06:42:34 PM
So the odds are even worse?

Like I said - we don't know.

I see how you dodged the other questions and focused on a meaningless % I threw out there.  Certainly we don't see over 33% of humans developing extra toes and eyes, do we?  Can you explain the simple one.  The wing evolving from start to finish.  The very first step (whatever it was) out there in the animal kingdom, of the mutation that started it ALL.  And then go from there.  I'm curious to see the development of the wing in action.  Since it's sooo simple and logical, and somehow I just don't get it...

Whether we know how everything evolved or not is utterly irrelevant. Evolution has been proven ad nauseam and is used to save millions every year.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 06:46:45 PM
So the odds are even worse?

Like I said - we don't know.

I see how you dodged the other questions and focused on a meaningless % I threw out there.  Certainly we don't see over 33% of humans developing extra toes and eyes, do we?  Can you explain the simple one.  The wing evolving from start to finish.  The very first step (whatever it was) out there in the animal kingdom, of the mutation that started it ALL.  And then go from there.  I'm curious to see the development of the wing in action.  Since it's sooo simple and logical, and somehow I just don't get it...

Whether we know how everything evolved or not is utterly irrelevant. Evolution has been proven ad nauseam and is used to save millions every year.

So you don't know and can't do it?  But the above posts laughed at me for questioning the development of the wing.  Now, it's irrelevant and you say we don't understand how it evolved?  I'm confused.  Either it's true or it isn't.  The wing is a very simple example, I would think, to explain to a novice like me, how evolution worked. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 06:50:06 PM
So you don't know and can't do it?  But the above posts laughed at me for questioning the development of the wing.  Now, it's irrelevant and you say we don't understand how it evolved?  I'm confused.  Either it's true or it isn't.  The wing is a very simple example, I would think, to explain to a novice like me, how evolution worked. 

The term is "idiot, liar and troll", actually. I was making a point based on what I assumed was your point. I have also posted several instances of evolution, as has everyone else. Some even posted the evolution of the wing.
From colonies turning into multicellular beings to bacteria adapting to antibiotics and developing the ability to metabolize new substances, evolution has been proven so many times it's not even funny anymore.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 06:56:30 PM
So you don't know and can't do it?  But the above posts laughed at me for questioning the development of the wing.  Now, it's irrelevant and you say we don't understand how it evolved?  I'm confused.  Either it's true or it isn't.  The wing is a very simple example, I would think, to explain to a novice like me, how evolution worked. 

The term is "idiot, liar and troll", actually. I was making a point based on what I assumed was your point. I have also posted several instances of evolution, as has everyone else. Some even posted the evolution of the wing.
From colonies turning into multicellular beings to bacteria adapting to antibiotics and developing the ability to metabolize new substances, evolution has been proven so many times it's not even funny anymore.

I don't get the "liar" part....but I digress.  The posts of the development of the wing....I have looked at them all.  And, of course, there are explanations.  I never said that nobody has given it any thought....but logical?  And step by itty-bitty step?  No.  The fabrications are preposterous.  The reasoning far-fetched.  So you still can't give me a step-by-step?  I understand it would take a very long paragraph to compose, and I'm sorry.  But if you believe it to be true, at least think about what you believe.  That's all I'm asking, I guess.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 06:59:47 PM
<snip>

To reiterate: Whether we can accurately describe how structures evolved millions of years ago or not is irrelevant we have proof of evolution that occurred now ("now" being in the last five years).
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 07:05:20 PM
<snip>

To reiterate: Whether we can accurately describe how structures evolved millions of years ago or not is irrelevant we have proof of evolution that occurred now ("now" being in the last five years).

Is anything proven from millions of years ago?  I get laughed at when I say that it isn't. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 14, 2012, 07:05:42 PM
Why couldn't God use evolution?  I suppose He could have.  I don't think He did, but He could have.  I don't see how science and natural causes could have brought about such complexity that we see.  Yet, nobody can give me a step by step of how things evolved.  Simply guesses.
This is not the site to go to if you want someone who can explain the evolutionary process in exquisite step-by-step details to you.  You do notice that this site is WhyWon'tGodHealAmputees.com, not EverythingYouEverWantedToKnowAboutEvolution.org[1], right?  Many of us here are laymen who know enough about science to understand the basics, but lack the specific knowledge of particular fields such as evolution to be able to explain it beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote from: rockv12
Again, how did the middle ear ossicles form?  Does it seem rational to believe that evolution accidentally mutated a million times to create the middle ear ossicles?  The tympanic membrane?  The cochlea?  The semi-circular canals?
When you make claims like "it took a million accidental mutations to create body structure X", you prove all over again that you don't really understand evolution and that you aren't looking to even try to.  Evolution is still a work in progress, as are all theories.  For example, there's a relatively new sub-theory called facilitated variation which shows that you have constrained processes (which are basic functions like cell division) which are not subject to anything but accidental mutations (and rarely change as a result), and deconstrained processes which rapidly combine based on environmental pressures to adapt to them.  In other words, it modifies the standard view of evolution so that you no longer need many accidental changes over a great length of time, and more importantly, it fits observed facts such as explosions in variety after extinction events.

Quote from: rockv12
Such advanced designs and mechanisms that it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Makes me wonder...what, precisely?  Makes me wonder if someone actually designed it?  Not really.  You see, I've written computer programs, so I know that a competent designer works to get rid of all known bugs, and moreover, continues working to get rid of them.  Therefore, either life was "designed" by someone who is happy just getting it to work, even though there's tons of design flaws and "bugs", or it wasn't designed and the flaws and "bugs" are the natural result of the way it came together.

Quote from: rockv12
And yes, all mutations are first accidental.  The benefitting ones lasted?  Think about the process!  The miraculous process that you propose.
"Miraculous".  You think it's a miracle that mutations that benefit an organism in some manner would naturally tend to last because it just tends to do better than other organisms which don't have those beneficial mutations?  Yeah, maybe you'd better think about what you just got done saying.

Quote from: rockv12
From a scientific standpoint, I believe it becomes an impossibility.
Not surprising.  Also wrong.  "Impossible" is one of those words which gets overused a lot by people who don't really know how probability works.  I have a simple probability question for you, which I'd like you to answer out of your own knowledge; how many people do you have to have in a room before you have a 50% chance of two shared birthdays?  And while we're at it, how many people do you have to have in a room before you have a 99% chance of two shared birthdays?  I'll bet the answer will surprise you.

Quote from: rockv12
Therefore, IF it's an impossibility....say for a second that it is.....what is left?  Ahhh, what's left is supernatural.  Something that we have NO idea of.  A new idea that we can't comprehend or explain.  Just think IF it was impossible.
Okay, so...when do you consider the odds of something happening to be effectively impossible?
 1. the name is made up, but I'll bet someone's made a site like that
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 14, 2012, 07:07:34 PM
Is anything proven from millions of years ago?  I get laughed at when I say that it isn't. 

Fossil evidence, coupled together with what we know of genetics is enough to prove that things evolved and are still evolving. What you're proposing is that the laws of nature were different a few million years ago. That's why you get laughed at.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 14, 2012, 07:09:55 PM
rockv12

What is your explanation for the many hundreds of thousands of biologists and geologists and paleontologists and archaeologists and other scientists all around the world spending their entire career working on something that you consider patently ridiculous? Either directly studying sciences that support evolution, or doing work that only makes sense if evolution is real. Do you really think that that many people would voluntarily spend their entire life doing something that is obviously false. So obviously false that you, as a non-scientist, can see the many flaws in the theory?

I know or have known three professional fisheries biologists, several dozen archaeologists, a biochemist, an oceanic geologist, two oil company geologists, a geologist who studies continental drift, a paleontologist who has traveled all over the world searching for fossils, and a few others I'm sure I've forgotten. Most were very excited about their chosen field and very willing to talk about the work they were or are doing. Do you really think that intelligent people would spend their entire professional career working on something they know not to be true? And do you think that they would spend their entire careers working in these fields and not see the lies, if the subjects they were studying were indeed lies?

Would you work for a pharmaceutical that cheated on its testing and overcharged for medicines and...oh wait, bad example. Would you spend your entire life knowingly living a lie, just to support some sort of hidden agenda of some sort of shadowy conspiracy group that terrorized the world by printing books?

Think about it. If ID is legitimate, for instance, why aren't there thousands of christian scientists researching all the discoveries and disproving with ease every single detail of evolutionary theory. Why is the christian right dependent on people like you, who all read exactly the same sites before coming here. The inner ear question, the eye question. The wing question. You didn't come up with those. Others did, and you are assuming they asked good questions and you trust that they are right. If only because their simple version of what happened matches your own.

It took me less than fifteen seconds to find a number of sources that describe how flight seems to have evolved. Yes, you're right, we had no video cameras or other eyewitnesses, but the lack of a Sony camcorder and Faux News doesn't mean it didn't happen. It only means that we have to discern what did occur based upon the evidencet. And we're having a heck of a time interpreting it any other way. No matter how unbelievable it is to you that these things could have happened, they probably did. Not because we commanded it to happen. Not because several trillion atheist heathens manufactured a lie to foist off on the world so we wouldn't have to obey your god. But because all of the evidence, fossil and otherwise, points to a very consistent story of evolved life.

Compared to all the things that are knowable, we don't know diddly. Nobody does. But rather than sitting around burning incense and mouthing incantations and drinking holy water by the gallon, a whole bunch of folks decided to start asking intelligent questions, and then to look for intelligent answers.

I suspect you area suffering from what is called "cognitive dissonance". We all suffer from it one way or the other, but folks like you who have so much invested in religion have to find ways to convince yourself that you haven't been a fool. And in order to do that, you have to find ways to convince yourself that others are. And by reading a little blurb on a creationist site about inner ears and wings, and then coming here and insisting we don't know WTF we're talking about, you are more sure than ever that you have the world figured out. And that we atheists and the scientists of the world are wrong about everything.

That's normal. That's why people who have tried to quit smoking and failed start to tell themselves that smoking isn't all that bad for them after all. People who haven't tried quitting know damned well it's bad, but they haven't failed at quitting so they don't have to lie to themselves to justify sucking on yet another cancer stick.

Now of course, you could say we are all wrong and deluding ourselves for the same reason, but the problem there is we have reams of evidence and tons of non-contradictory research in dozens of scientific fields, and tens of thousands of scientists who all agree with the theory of evolution. They may differ in some of the details, because like you say, nobody was there with a video camera, and hence we don't have absolutely everything we need to know the specifics of any given evolutionary process. But we have evidence. We have genetic similarities between humans and mice and yeast and dung beetles and naked mole rats, all of which were predicted long before we could sequence DNA. We have a geology that matches very precisely not only the findings of paleontology, but also the predictions of that science. We know where fossils are, and why. And we know where they are not. And why.

Now, in case you didn't read all this, here's my summary. Science isn't a huge conspiracy. You're wrong. You are too invested in your beliefs to be able to comprehend that. And in either case, if I type any more it will probably bore you, so I'll stop now.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 14, 2012, 07:15:48 PM
.....and why would an intelligent designer design such unintelligent believers?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 07:19:27 PM
Rocky: Dude you need to stay off the Darwinrefuted website it's got you all tangled up.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 14, 2012, 07:32:13 PM
but lack the specific knowledge of particular fields such as evolution to be able to explain it beyond reasonable doubt.

So you admit that you can't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats not enough to convict someone in a murder trial so its not enough for me.

When you make claims like "it took a million accidental mutations to create body structure X", you prove all over again that you don't really understand evolution and that you aren't looking to even try to.  Evolution is still a work in progress, as are all theories.  For example, there's a relatively new sub-theory called facilitated variation which shows that you have constrained processes (which are basic functions like cell division) which are not subject to anything but accidental mutations (and rarely change as a result), and deconstrained processes which rapidly combine based on environmental pressures to adapt to them.  In other words, it modifies the standard view of evolution so that you no longer need many accidental changes over a great length of time, and more importantly, it fits observed facts such as explosions in variety after extinction events.

I like how you use theory..."a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Dictionary.com. So you can't prove anything, you can only theorize.

Makes me wonder...what, precisely?  Makes me wonder if someone actually designed it?  Not really.  You see, I've written computer programs, so I know that a competent designer works to get rid of all known bugs, and moreover, continues working to get rid of them.  Therefore, either life was "designed" by someone who is happy just getting it to work, even though there's tons of design flaws and "bugs", or it wasn't designed and the flaws and "bugs" are the natural result of the way it came together.

God did get rid of all the bugs, but a virus attacked the computer and messed everything up, since then he has been executing his plan to fix it again. Surely you would agree that if you have a computer program, someone had to make it, it just doesn't happen by itself.


"Miraculous".  You think it's a miracle that mutations that benefit an organism in some manner would naturally tend to last because it just tends to do better than other organisms which don't have those beneficial mutations?  Yeah, maybe you'd better think about what you just got done saying.

Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?






 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 07:39:24 PM
Let me state this differently. Creationists typically do not understand the basics of evolution. It is because they get their information from  lop-sided sources. Creationist books and websites.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Emily on March 14, 2012, 07:40:19 PM

Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?

Are you fucking serious? I mean, this is just stupid.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Emily on March 14, 2012, 07:51:06 PM

God did get rid of all the bugs, but a virus attacked the computer and messed everything up, since then he has been executing his plan to fix it again. Surely you would agree that if you have a computer program, someone had to make it, it just doesn't happen by itself.




Well, computer programs are basically nothing but math and logic (logic is something you're probably bad at). The program didn't happen *itself* persay - it's just we mere humans were able to harness the power of binary to our advantage to compute in into a readable form displayed on our monitors via some sort of interface.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 14, 2012, 07:58:33 PM

Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?

Are you fucking serious? I mean, this is just stupid.

Of course its stupid, just like your theories. But in reality, small guns wont kill a Grizzly Bear because of how thick their skin is, if you hit a Grizzly Bear in the head with a baseball bat it would do nothing, their skulls are harder. So if they have such hard skulls does that mean that in order for that to happen they had to have been two mutations one with hard skin and one with soft and the soft skins died and no we only have the hards. So what of humans, why do defects still exist, why aren't they being put out like the other problems. Humans have been here for a long time and yet it seems we have not gotten stronger but in fact weaker then our ancestors.


God did get rid of all the bugs, but a virus attacked the computer and messed everything up, since then he has been executing his plan to fix it again. Surely you would agree that if you have a computer program, someone had to make it, it just doesn't happen by itself.




Well, computer programs are basically nothing but math and logic (logic is something you're probably bad at). The program didn't happen *itself* persay - it's just we mere humans were able to harness the power of binary to our advantage to compute in into a readable form displayed on our monitors via some sort of interface.

Exactly my point. Without a human there would be no computer program, and no computer. Without God there would be no universe or anything in it. Everything has to come from something. Especially something as orderly as our world. For another example. How is it that we can predict where a particular star is going to be 100 years in the future. They move in exact patterns that make it possible to predict their movements. How does this exactness occur on its own?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 14, 2012, 08:00:51 PM
Quote
Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?

Sig claimed.

No one else touch it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 08:10:00 PM
The problem creationists have with dismantling evolution, is they take on too much at one time.

Let's start with the basics.
There are three main components of evolution.

1) heritability
2) mutation
3) natural selection

Which of these would you deny, and why?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 14, 2012, 08:14:26 PM
So you admit that you can't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats not enough to convict someone in a murder trial so its not enough for me.
First off, I see you carefully neglected to answer my point about the nature of this site, meaning that this accusation is a strawman.  You're pretending that someone admitting that they can't explain the step-by-step process of one organism evolving into another is important, despite the fact that they made it clear that there were other sites and people to go to which could explain that process in much greater detail.  Second, your analogy is bad.  We aren't talking about a murder trial, which operates under different rules to begin with.  Third, your argument boils down to the idea that someone who has a basic familiarity with criminal justice laws but hasn't studied them formally should be able to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt or else the evidence wasn't sufficient, even though someone who has formally studied criminal justice law would be able to do so much more handily.

Quote from: jakec47
I like how you use theory..."a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Dictionary.com. So you can't prove anything, you can only theorize.
This is such a common fallacy of creationists that it's actually amusing to see someone doing it so ineptly.  Also, it's blatantly obvious that you're cherry-picking definitions, since you skipped the first one on the list on the very site you linked to.  Theory:  "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity"[1].  Come on, did you really think I wouldn't notice?

Quote from: jakec47
God did get rid of all the bugs, but a virus attacked the computer and messed everything up, since then he has been executing his plan to fix it again. Surely you would agree that if you have a computer program, someone had to make it, it just doesn't happen by itself.
You do know what an "analogy" is, right?  Go look it up if you don't.

Also, your idea that God created the universe is a postulate.  That is, an idea you have which is based on nothing but an assumption (and has never been based on anything but an assumption no matter who says it).  It is also a synonym for the definition of "theory" you just quoted.

Quote from: jakec47
Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?
The depths of ignorance you reveal by this absurd statement do more damage to your own case than any rebuttal I could possibly have made.  You just clearly and unambiguously demonstrated that you don't have even the first idea of how evolution works.  And to think, you actually believe you can counter evolutionary theory with such nonsensical arguments as comparing evolutionary theory to a murder trial, deliberately citing the wrong definition of the word theory and expecting people to believe you, completely misunderstanding an analogy to be serious, and pretending that evolution should grant invulnerability because people get wounded.

Also, I note that you dodged answering my questions about probability (implying that you can't answer), even though you responded to most everything else.  I'll restate them, to give you the chance to show that you are not ignorant about probability, as you have clearly proved yourself to be about evolution:

1.  How many people do you need before the chance of a shared birthday becomes 50%?
2.  How many do you need before the chance of a shared birthday becomes 99%?
3.  How high do the odds need to be for you to consider them to be impossible?
 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory]]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory (http://)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 14, 2012, 08:18:15 PM
I think it was Aaron who called it earlier; he's arguing from incredulum. God of the gaps. He cannot fathom being wrong, because he doesnt understand how small his gaps really are in the light of science. He's hopelessly brainwashed to see only what he's been told he should see.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 08:23:04 PM
^^Agreed. It is why I think he should start at the beginning. Obviously his statement in the When Is the Return of Christ  thread which is similar to the op of this thread, indicates confusion as to what evolution is.

If we can take things one point at a time, starting at the most basic level, maybe we can help him and rock get a better understanding.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 14, 2012, 08:33:24 PM
The problem with that, mm, is that I suspect neither of them wants or expects to learn anything. They already believe they have all the answers.

Tragic, really.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 08:38:36 PM
You may be right, and I suspect you are. Thought I'd give it a try, anyways. Not one single creationist since 2009, that I have seen, will walk through it from the beginning. But there could be a first.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 14, 2012, 08:47:42 PM
Quote
First off, I see you carefully neglected to answer my point about the nature of this site



I didn't neglect anything, you weren't talking to me.

This is such a common fallacy of creationists that it's actually amusing to see someone doing it so ineptly.  Also, it's blatantly obvious that you're cherry-picking definitions, since you skipped the first one on the list on the very site you linked to.  Theory:  "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity"[1].  Come on, did you really think I wouldn't notice?
[\quote]

Very good, I have to commend you for that, I really didn't think you would actually go and check that, but nonetheless, it is still a definition of the word, and notice inside your definition "commonly regarded as correct" so it is regarded as correct not actually correct. But seriously nice job, I'm going to have to give you some karma points for that.

Also, your idea that God created the universe is a postulate.  That is, an idea you have which is based on nothing but an assumption (and has never been based on anything but an assumption no matter who says it).  It is also a synonym for the definition of "theory" you just quoted.
[\quote]

I wouldn't say I didn't base it off anything, however I can base it off the Bible, but using logic I can see that it makes sense. And correct again it is a definition of theory.

The depths of ignorance you reveal by this absurd statement do more damage to your own case than any rebuttal I could possibly have made.  You just clearly and unambiguously demonstrated that you don't have even the first idea of how evolution works.  And to think, you actually believe you can counter evolutionary theory with such nonsensical arguments as comparing evolutionary theory to a murder trial, deliberately citing the wrong definition of the word theory and expecting people to believe you, completely misunderstanding an analogy to be serious, and pretending that evolution should grant invulnerability because people get wounded.
[\quote]

Perhaps if I said natural selection, maybe not I've never really studied to much on the theories. So many words. The only words the Bible says are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Why couldn't the scientific theories on the origin of the world be so simple.

Also, I note that you dodged answering my questions about probability (implying that you can't answer), even though you responded to most everything else.  I'll restate them, to give you the chance to show that you are not ignorant about probability, as you have clearly proved yourself to be about evolution:

1.  How many people do you need before the chance of a shared birthday becomes 50%?
2.  How many do you need before the chance of a shared birthday becomes 99%?
3.  How high do the odds need to be for you to consider them to be impossible?

Again I did not dodge your question because you were not asking me. However I'm sure that the amount of people needed in a room to have those probabilities is probably not very high. And I generally consider impossible to be a 0% chance. If I have a box with 6 green balls in and I try for a yellow ball it is impossible for me to get it. (Note I did not give such an elementary example because I think its all you could understand I just added it for ease of reference to what I was thinking, simplest way I could put it).

You may be right, and I suspect you are. Thought I'd give it a try, anyways. Not one single creationist since 2009, that I have seen, will walk through it from the beginning. But there could be a first.

Oh and I'd be very grateful if you would explain that to me, in a message would be the most effective.

And excuse the horrendous looking quote mess. I don't know what happened to it and i tried to fix it but whatever.
 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory]]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory (http://)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 14, 2012, 08:51:44 PM
^^^I'm referring to the fact that not one single creationist that I have seen will start at the basics and work through it a step at a time. This way we can see where there is a misunderstanding.

Let's start with the basics.
There are three main components of evolution.

1) heritability
2) mutation
3) natural selection

Which of these would you deny, and why?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Azdgari on March 14, 2012, 08:57:46 PM
And to think, that's the edit of his post...

Jake, you might want to fix the quotes there.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 14, 2012, 09:02:47 PM
Of course its stupid, just like your theories. But in reality, small guns wont kill a Grizzly Bear because of how thick their skin is, if you hit a Grizzly Bear in the head with a baseball bat it would do nothing, their skulls are harder. So if they have such hard skulls does that mean that in order for that to happen they had to have been two mutations one with hard skin and one with soft and the soft skins died and no we only have the hards. So what of humans, why do defects still exist, why aren't they being put out like the other problems. Humans have been here for a long time and yet it seems we have not gotten stronger but in fact weaker then our ancestors.

Okay, you need to bear with me on this. And that's not a pun.

I just accidentally gave you a thumbs up when I meant a thumbs down. So you owe me.

What you wrote in the above shows that you have no idea what evolution is. You seem to think it is a process that has defined purposes, like making humans more invulnerable. That's for comic books, not real life. Before a human could become safe from gunshots and baseball bats, we would have to slowly evolve some sort of thick skin that protected us. And that developing thick skin would have to be at least neutral in it's effect on the life of the individual who underwent the genetic change. If it made them more vulnerable for other reasons (made cracking noises while trying to cut in line at the grocery store or caused incredibly more obvious tan lines and turned the girls off), then the thicker skin would be detrimental.

And that thicker skin would be an accident, not a response to bullets and bats. And such a variation would have to occur at a time in history when we're shooting each other and wielding large wooden clubs. If it evolved right after the hippies won the culture war and all we did all day was hug each other and have sex, it probably wouldn't take long for folks to decide that old thick-skin Eddie is no fun in either activity and he probably wouldn't get a chance to reproduce.

You are not taking into consideration several things. Time, measured in millions of years and including tens of thousands of generations, at least. And you're not taking into consideration all the failed alterations. The frogs born with stronger legs but no webbed feet, the cows with bigger udders but fewer lactating glands so they make too little milk, the genetic change that might cause an elephant or a cat have fragile cartilage, which would fail when too much pressure was put on it by muscles. Scads of critters had potentially evolutionary changes, but they didn't survive long enough to procreate, or if they did, their kids didn't do so well. The changes that we are talking about were completely random, and just like being lucky and having some dude accidentally give you a thumbs up, at times it works out to the individual's advantage. Most of the time it doesn't.

So the short answer. Vulnerabilities still exist in humans because a) no random mutation that would make us less vulnerable to various threats has yet occurred and b) in those rare instances where a mutation might be advantageous (six fingers, so you can grab a sword blade swung at you and still have one or two fingers left) might happen in the wrong environmental conditions. Six fingered people might die of frostbite because they can't get gloves that fit. (There are six and seven fingered and toed people, by the way. They evolved. A change that is generally neutral. Or slightly less so, if potential mates are put off by the extra digits.)

Evolution is not guided. It is a by-product. Until you can understand that basic fact, you are easy to confuse with creationist drivel. And evolution does not have a purpose. Sh*t happens, and sometimes it doesn't stink as bad and we benefit. Most of the time it is useless, if not downright bad. The only thing going for us is sheer numbers, both in population and time, measured in years and generations.

A god that put you on a planet that is 75% water, has high cliffs and big predators and didn't take that into consideration when he gave you air breathing lungs, non-gravity proof bones and skin, nor built in 50 caliber machine guns isn't much of a god. If he wants me to love him but I drown in the tub when I'm three, he's out one loving soul. If he wants me to love him but I fall off the roof when I'm 15, he's lost another. If he wants me to love him and a bengal tiger has me for lunch, he's out of luck again. But each of those vulnerabilities is completely understandable in a world that was created without purpose. It just happened. Hence you just happened and I just happened. And we each have enough genetic differentiation that you can envision and believe in a god and I can't.

/end of lecture

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 09:44:59 PM
rockv12

What is your explanation for the many hundreds of thousands of biologists and geologists and paleontologists and archaeologists and other scientists all around the world spending their entire career working on something that you consider patently ridiculous?

It took me less than fifteen seconds to find a number of sources that describe how flight seems to have evolved.

Because nobody wants to believe in a God.  And there must be an answer!  Anything but God!  Numbers mean nothing to me.  The majority of people watch Fox News.  Do you?  Why not?  Most people do.

You found a website?  Great.  So did I.  I just read one actually.  NO answers, just theories.  They show a couple pictures of flying dinosaurs and speculate that these must have been where birds came from.  Nothing about the "real" questions...about the little steps.  And they bring up "why?"  Why did animals develop wings.  Think about the beneficial mutations that started the whole thing.....  We don't see any half winged creatures....not enough to make an ascertation about proof of evolution.  Just because there are different kinds of animals that have different features, means nothing. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 14, 2012, 09:55:19 PM
I didn't neglect anything, you weren't talking to me.
I was trying to make a general point about the nature of this website, which is that it isn't made up of evolutionary biologists.

Quote from: jakec47
Very good, I have to commend you for that, I really didn't think you would actually go and check that, but nonetheless, it is still a definition of the word, and notice inside your definition "commonly regarded as correct" so it is regarded as correct not actually correct. But seriously nice job, I'm going to have to give you some karma points for that.
Most people on this site do actually at least look at the sources of someone's information, something to keep in mind.  And while you are correct that it is a definition of the word theory, that does not mean it is the correct definition used for scientific theories (which includes facilitated variation, evolution, and other such theories).  Also, "commonly regarded as correct", in this case, is the same as using 3.14 as the value for pi.  It is commonly regarded as correct, even though it is possible to be far more accurate than that (for example, a calculator will give the value 3.14159265, and pi has been calculated past a million digits), but for everyday practical purposes, 3.14 is correct enough.  The same principle applies to scientific theories.

Quote from: jakec47
I wouldn't say I didn't base it off anything, however I can base it off the Bible, but using logic I can see that it makes sense. And correct again it is a definition of theory.
Indeed.  One of the key mistakes many creationists make is the assumption that the Bible is an accurate depiction of events, when in fact many of the stories in it are metaphorical in nature.  Parables were a common thing in that day and age, and many stories commonly accepted as true in the Bible were the equivalent of parables - metaphorical stories meant to make a moral point, rather than literal retellings of history.

Quote from: jakec47
Perhaps if I said natural selection, maybe not I've never really studied to much on the theories. So many words. The only words the Bible says are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Why couldn't the scientific theories on the origin of the world be so simple.
First off, I'm glad for your honesty.  You have no idea how many people pretend that they understand something, when in fact they don't.  Being willing to admit that you don't understand something is one of the hardest things that anyone can do.  You deserve credit for being willing to make such an admission, especially in front of people who you disagree with so dramatically.

In answer to your statement, I actually do understand where you're coming from.  I work with a lot of people who don't really understand computers beyond how to use them, so I'm faced with the dilemma of trying to explain concepts which I understand because I've studied them, but are so much Greek to them.  What usually works is to relate the concepts to simpler things that they already understand, because they can then make the connection.  It isn't perfectly accurate, but it's good enough for someone who'll never have to make a living with computers.  Same thing goes with scientific theories like evolution which don't seem like they can be explained as simply as, say, gravity.

Quote from: jakec47
Again I did not dodge your question because you were not asking me. However I'm sure that the amount of people needed in a room to have those probabilities is probably not very high. And I generally consider impossible to be a 0% chance. If I have a box with 6 green balls in and I try for a yellow ball it is impossible for me to get it. (Note I did not give such an elementary example because I think its all you could understand I just added it for ease of reference to what I was thinking, simplest way I could put it).
For what it's worth, it takes only 23 people to have a 50% chance of two matching birthdays, and 57 to have a 99% chance.

Now, as for your example, that's a good way to define impossible.  And since simple examples are usually good, because they avoid ambiguities that cause confusion, let me compare evolution to a jigsaw puzzle.  Now, imagine that the pieces to the puzzle aren't all in a convenient box, but instead, they got scattered all over the place.  Many of them were destroyed - burned up, washed away, crushed into pieces, even eaten - and most of the remainder are buried underground and hard to find.  So, you've found some of the pieces, enough to start trying to put the puzzle pieces back together.  But you don't have the box, so you don't know what the picture is supposed to look like.  The only way you'll get anywhere is to start trying to put the pieces together, knowing that you might get it wrong and the pieces won't fit, but you can fix that once it happens.

Does that make sense?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 14, 2012, 09:58:15 PM
It's not necessary to throw your brain out if you are a scientist and still believe in some god.

See for example Francis Collins.

Science is a trade. You learn tools, you use them.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 14, 2012, 10:07:32 PM
I can pretty much guarantee you dude, that atheists don't watch fox news. We prefer actual information. And luckily, we can find statistics to prove you are wrong about the majority of people watching it. Otherwise, Hitler would have been cloned and installed as president for life.

Luckily, more people watch CNBC. Not that they're great. But they aren't fox.

And since only about 20% of the US population is atheist or undecided on the god issue, it is unlikely that all of those scientists are atheists. Those that believe don't mind their god at all. They just want to know things too.

We are obviously not going to get you to give any serious consideration to evolution. Funny how a person who lives a life based on faith can demand absolute proof from those he disagrees with. Science doesn't demand absolute truth because we can never have enough information. Every week new discoveries alter old ones, in every field. Some new structure is found in cells, or a new instrument gives us more accurate and insightful readings of neuron activity in the brain. If we were so stupid as to think we knew everything, we would rebel against the new findings just as adamantly as you do with every fact you see. Instead, we learn to incorporate new knowledge, not hate it. We use it to adjust our version of reality to fit the new information. And we always keep an open mind about the new, because we know it will appear, regularly.

The only thing new that you will accept is your own interpretation of your religion. Each christian does it. Has their own version, that makes them feel best. Sometimes they keep it a secret and go to a church they don't entirely agree with. Other times they start their own version of worship and sometimes start their own church. Some count up to 38,000 different versions of christianity.

You guys are evolving. Becoming different species, if you will. Not biologically, but socially. And denying any such process could exist under any set of circumstances. The irony is delicious.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 10:32:27 PM
Why couldn't God use evolution?  I suppose He could have.  I don't think He did, but He could have.  I don't see how science and natural causes could have brought about such complexity that we see.  Yet, nobody can give me a step by step of how things evolved.  Simply guesses.
This is not the site to go to if you want someone who can explain the evolutionary process in exquisite step-by-step details to you.  You do notice that this site is WhyWon'tGodHealAmputees.com, not EverythingYouEverWantedToKnowAboutEvolution.org[1], right?  Many of us here are laymen who know enough about science to understand the basics, but lack the specific knowledge of particular fields such as evolution to be able to explain it beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote from: rockv12
Again, how did the middle ear ossicles form?  Does it seem rational to believe that evolution accidentally mutated a million times to create the middle ear ossicles?  The tympanic membrane?  The cochlea?  The semi-circular canals?
When you make claims like "it took a million accidental mutations to create body structure X", you prove all over again that you don't really understand evolution and that you aren't looking to even try to.  Evolution is still a work in progress, as are all theories.  For example, there's a relatively new sub-theory called facilitated variation which shows that you have constrained processes (which are basic functions like cell division) which are not subject to anything but accidental mutations (and rarely change as a result), and deconstrained processes which rapidly combine based on environmental pressures to adapt to them.  In other words, it modifies the standard view of evolution so that you no longer need many accidental changes over a great length of time, and more importantly, it fits observed facts such as explosions in variety after extinction events.

 1. the name is made up, but I'll bet someone's made a site like that

So you concede the question.  It's ok.  You can't know everything.  But it seems like you should have a basic understanding of the theory that you believe with all your heart and be able to answer the question, "How did this or that evolve".  Too many tough ones I guess.

Accidental mutations did end up being "x".  Every mutation is accidental....nothing plans to create the semi-circular canals or our vestibular system... The middle ear ossicles.  Another mind baffler is it?  Step-by-step.  You can do it.  Seems like its only nice and convenient to think about the big leaps involved, but forget that those big leaps also took little steps. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ILOVEYOU on March 14, 2012, 10:35:38 PM
The probability is looking good so far..... wife permitting.   :)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 10:37:06 PM

We are obviously not going to get you to give any serious consideration to evolution. Funny how a person who lives a life based on faith can demand absolute proof from those he disagrees with. Science doesn't demand absolute truth because we can never have enough information. Every week new discoveries alter old ones, in every field.

I just think if it's a "proven" theory, that there should be a lot more answers and logical explanations for the theory.  I pose some questions, and get, "Well, we just don't know everything, we are still learning."  But I ask the simple questions about the theory, not even the hard ones!!  You say that every week, there are new discoveries.  Ever think that someday we may understand how the supernatural world exists?  Ever think that those un-answered questions about evolution could also be unanswered questions regarding God?  You say in one sentence that I'm foolish to believe in something that we can't understand fully, but then turn around and believe in something that we don't fully understand....  Seems like we are a lot alike!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Cyberia on March 14, 2012, 10:56:20 PM
You state that some dinosaurs had feathers.  What would this do?  Why would even a mutation that formed a bump on the arm (on it's way to being a feather) have benefited anything?  The rationale is NOT there.

Get this through your thick skull.  FEATHERS ALREADY EXISTED BEFORE FLIGHT.  Feathered dinosaurs existed.  Period.  We have the fossils.  We don't know how they first formed, one theory is that they are mutated reptile scales.  They probably served as either thermoregulators (just as feathers and fur do today) or for display (just like they do today) or both.

Some species had feathers all over their bodies, including their arms.

They ran, feathers benefited in gliding.  Evolution co-opted existing elements of the creature into novel functions.  THAT'S WHAT IT DOES.  New parts don't suddenly grow out of nothing, something ALREADY there is co-opted for something new.  By virtue of it happening to be BETTER.


You know how many mutations would have been needed for "flight" or "gliding" to take effect?  Lots and lots.  So on the way to "gliding", you have these odd looking bumps on the arms that are evolving for some reason on their way to feathers.

Your attempt at mockery is surprisingly close to what happened.  Good job.


 
I'm trying to get you to think about what you are saying.  But you take these enormous leaps and start talking about "gliding".  That's a million mutations beyond the first little phase that a creature would have taken on its long journey to flight.  Understand?  You make it sound soooo simple..."a lightweight animal spread it's arms and soon learned how to fly".  And where is this evidence?  Cuz' right now, it's simply a far-cry.

I do understand.  Your criticism is dead on.  Good job.  The only problem you miss is THAT WE HAVE FOSSILS OF FEATHERED DINOSAURS.  LOTS OF THEM, ACTUALLY.  It DID happen.  You might as well be incredulous of the Eiffel Tower.

Once you have gliding, you have a NATURAL SELECTION PRESSURE that rapidly pushes the population towards being better flyers.  Because gliding and eventually flying are HUGELY advantageous.  Better flyers survive much more often than bad flyers.

These small therapods had almost exactly the same bone structure as birds, and DID have modern flight-feathers, but they were dinosaurs.  A few million years later they were gone, and the first birds appeared.  Coincidence?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 14, 2012, 10:57:58 PM
<snip>
Ever think that someday we may understand how the supernatural world exists?
<snip>
Seems like we are a lot alike!

Before we attempt to understand a supernatural world, shouldn't we assert that such a world exists? A lot of members here, including myself, have been repeatedly asking you to prove the existence first and you were shamelessly dancing around evading the question. Emphasis is on the word "shameless".

We are not alike, we answer with honesty, if we dont know, we admit. You dont answer at all, if you dont know something or if you are simply stumped, you just do the shameless act of shifting the goal post.[1] Maybe being shameless is one possible evolutionary step, it is also referred to as being thick skinned.
 1. I can provide a dozen instances in this thread alone
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 14, 2012, 11:10:36 PM
We are a lot alike, since we both evolved to this point  :D  Just kidding...

We are both human, but seem to have different brain cells firing. Or something. That's not all bad. If everyone was like me, I can assure you the death rate from boredom would be much higher. But it's too bad we are so far apart that some of us humans are willing to kill because of our beliefs. You and I don't fall into that camp, but it's always hard to know what the difference is between the civilized and the uncivilized.

One comment. Evolution, if true (and obviously I think it is) would inevitably be somewhere today. The ear could have formed some other way. We could all be deaf. We could have one eye or two more in the back of our head. We could have longer legs and T-rex arms, feathers for hair and pubic hair all over our faces. And you would be asking why we have pubic hair all over our faces with just much zeal as you ask now about bird wings. Where we are is where we are. It is the outcome of billions of accidental mutations. And also byproduct of many trillion more that didn't work, which means they had no affect on the present.

Perhaps when you are calmer about the subject you can read up on the Recurrent laryngeal nerve, a short and sensibly routed nerve in the fish it began in, and is a 15 foot monster of a nerve in the giraffe. In the early fishes, the nerve went from the brain, past the heart and to the gills. As critters that descended from that fish evolved, those of us who became mammals developed a rather nonsensical path for said nerve. It leaves our brain, goes down our neck, around our heart and back up to our throat. So we can do things like talk. Or in the case of animals, make throat noises of various sorts.

The same nerve, traced back through the generations, goes from being a short and sensible nerve that helped control the gills to a long, complex one that helps a giraffe go "huff", or whatever it is that giraffe's say. And it is 15 feet long, because it has to go down that long neck and back to the larynx. Very cool. Unless you insist on having a video. Which takes all the fun out of it. Though there is a video somewhere on the net showing a giraffe autopsy where they search out the show the entire nerve and where it travels through the animals body. I'm just not in the mood to link to gore.

Well, if I must: http://www.wimp.com/giraffenerve/ (http://www.wimp.com/giraffenerve/)

Anyway, don't worry about it. If my brilliance can't touch yours, nor your's mine, so be it. Either we evolved to be like this or god did it. It ain't our fault.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 14, 2012, 11:33:55 PM
It's like pounding my head on a wall, but here I go again...

I just think if it's a "proven" theory, that there should be a lot more answers and logical explanations for the theory.

In science, a 'proven' theory is merely one that has stood the test of time without being falsified.  Such as the heliocentric theory.  The germ theory of disease.  The molecular theory.  What those theories do, and what evolutionary theory does, is explain how the facts of our world fit together.  It can never be 'proven' for 100% certainty, because if we finally go ahead and say that it is 'proven', then we are basically admitting that no evidence could EVER come along and dislodge it.  That is not how science works.  This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.  It's a self-correcting system.  No theory will EVER be proven, no matter how many facts come along that fit with it.  Not even the heliocentric theory will ever be 'proven', yet you do believe that the earth goes around the sun, right?  Even though we still don't call it 'proven'. 

Evolution has stood the test of time.  It explains how facts fit together perfectly. Here are a few.  Fact: Genetic information passes from parent to child.  Fact: Random mutations occur sometimes.  Fact:  These random mutations change how genetic information is formed and expressed.  Fact: Geological data points to a very old earth.  Fact: Expressed traits can be modified by intentional selective breeding.  Fact: There is massive diversity of life on the planet.  Fact: We have fossils that show up only in specific geological strata. 

If you want to falsify the theory of evolution, then all you have to do is present a single fact that counters it.  Here are a few possibilities.  Prove that genetic information does not pass from parent to child.  Prove that random mutations do not occur.  Prove that genetic changes have nothing to do with form and function.  Prove that the earth is young.  Prove that when we selectively breed for traits (lets say... in dogs), that it doesn't work. 

Disproving evolution does not start and end with "I don't see how that could happen; you can't prove that it happens down to the minute detail with video and witnesses, so there's no way it happens!"  You actually have to find a fact that counters it. 

I pose some questions, and get, "Well, we just don't know everything, we are still learning." 

That's not all you've gotten though.  What about the people who HAVE given you answers.  Are you too stubborn to admit that we could be right about them?  When we are asked things like "How could we know a whale came from land?" and we say things like, "It breaths air like a land animal does, it has residual hind limbs, it shares a crap ton of DNA with a Hippo, the tail moves up and down like a land animal runs whereas fish move their tales side to side" these things fit with the theory that this animal evolved from ancient ancestors that walked on land.  Evolutionary theory explains very, very well how those facts about whales fit together. 

We do not, nor can we ever know the exact evolutionary pressures that were being applied to the first animal that developed the first hint of a wing, but that does NOT disprove evolution rockv. Remember here, we are approaching the crime scene millions of years later.  Whatever selective pressures the animal was facing (and all it takes is a little creativity on your part to come up with one of a zillion possible scenarios), if a random mutation in the genetic code gave the animal any sort of statistical survival advantage over others of it's species, then it would have a better chance to mate and therefore pass on it's genes to the next in line.  This process happens still today, and there is absolutely no reason to think it did not happen millions of years ago too. 

You say that every week, there are new discoveries.  Ever think that someday we may understand how the supernatural world exists? 

Yes, that could happen.  We also might someday find out that the Tooth Fairy really does exist.  I'm not trying to be mean about that; I am just trying to show you the flaw in your argument here, which is the simple fact that we currently have no reason to believe in either of them.  Until we do, they are equally as improbable as anything else we could postulate. 

Ever think that those un-answered questions about evolution could also be unanswered questions regarding God? 

Sure, but only because people believe in lots of fictitious gods and those people force the rest of us to consider their ideas.  However, until someone shows a single piece of verifiable evidence that any type of god exists, there is no reason to think that the 'god' theory is of any use in explaining things anymore.  A long time ago, it was, because people were ignorant.  We stopped being that way a while back now.  God is not necessary to explain anything anymore. 

You say in one sentence that I'm foolish to believe in something that we can't understand fully, but then turn around and believe in something that we don't fully understand....  Seems like we are a lot alike!

It is foolish to believe in things for which there is no evidence.  Do you agree or disagree?  Common examples are... Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Zeus, Thor, etc, etc. 

I wish that for 5 minutes you could just remove your emotional attachment to your God belief and really engage in the learning process here.  If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works.  But it seems like you just aren't capable of doing it.  If you could just stop thinking of this whole thing as 'bad' or 'evil' or 'stupid' and approach it as if you are not as well versed in these things as we are, this might actually be a beneficial thing for you.  It really might.  You won't though.  You think you already have the truth in your God theory, and nothing can touch that.  It's very sad.     

Let me ask you, rockv.  How do you think dog breeding works?  If a breeder wants dogs with a shorter tail, how would he go about doing it? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 14, 2012, 11:35:06 PM
This just in! Something is evolving, even as we speak!

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0s2n4lgbD1r8pjnro1_500.gif)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 14, 2012, 11:53:18 PM

It is foolish to believe in things for which there is no evidence.  Do you agree or disagree?  Common examples are... Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Zeus, Thor, etc, etc. 


Correct.  Yet, we have evidence of God all around us.  Ever hold a newborn baby?  Ever study Biblical accuracy...I mean really study it?  Ever been baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Ever seen a demon possessed person?  Ask Alister Crowley if God exists.  There is a spiritual world out there...you just haven't experienced it, apparently.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Azdgari on March 15, 2012, 12:06:21 AM
Ever hold a newborn baby?

Err...relevance?  As a matter of fact, I have.  A wondrous experience, yet what does it have to do with supernatural beings?

Ever study Biblical accuracy...I mean really study it?

If by "really study" you specifically mean "study until I believe it", then no.  I suspect that's precisely what you mean by "really study".  Just like to a holocaust-denier, if you "really study" the history of the holocaust, you'll come to the conclusion that it didn't happen.  To such a person, if you study the history and disagree, then you havn't "really studied" it.

Ever been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

Last I checked, people were baptized in water.  Please say what you mean, instead of deliberately saying what you don't mean.

Ever seen a demon possessed person?

I've seen a schizophrenic go crazy and have terrifying quasi-religious experiences, until he was back on his pills.  Does that count?

Ask Alister Crowley if God exists.

That would be exceptionally difficult to do, since he died in 1947.

There is a spiritual world out there...you just haven't experienced it, apparently.

I have.  It just turned out that I was wrong about it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 12:10:22 AM

I wish that for 5 minutes you could just remove your emotional attachment to your God belief and really engage in the learning process here.  If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works.  But it seems like you just aren't capable of doing it.

Trust me, I'm trying.  Easily see how it all works?  I've asked simple questions of how it works and get no answers.  That's the big problem.  "This animal has a short arm, this animal has a long arm...therefore, the long arm evolved from the short arm so it could grab the apple that was higher in the tree"......this is basically evolution.  I propose that both are different animals...One with a short arm, one with a long arm. 

I asked many times the same question....start thinking about it all.  Think about the first cell forming.  Think about sexual reproduction evolving.  Without an erect penis, sex is rather hard.  Without the eustachian tube, hearing doesn't work!  A half formed eustachian tube does nothing.  A transition would NOT work.  There are millions of examples of things having to work together to even work.  The honeybee evolved alongside the flowers?  A spider's first devolopment involving spinning a web...looked like what?  Every single species has so many questions, that it becomes absurd to believe that it all evolved.  A woodpecker just evolved a head to stand pounding?  Why not just eat like other birds do?  They do fine.  I could go all night....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 15, 2012, 12:12:02 AM
Correct.  Yet, we have evidence of God all around us.  Ever hold a newborn baby?  Ever study Biblical accuracy...I mean really study it?  Ever been baptized in the Holy Spirit?  Ever seen a demon possessed person?  Ask Alister Crowley if God exists.  There is a spiritual world out there...you just haven't experienced it, apparently.

Yes (my daughter, the feeling is beyond words)
Yes, I mean really Yes (still wondering why people choose not to see the glaring discrepancies)
No
No (I am up to fourth season of Supernatural though, some of the demon possessed babes are super cute)

Now that I have answered your questions, answer mine. What is the point?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 12:13:02 AM
If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works.

Then "easily" explain the questions above.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 15, 2012, 12:44:14 AM
Then "easily" explain the questions above.

Did you mean "answer the questions above"? ("above" would be too vague, you can add clarity by citing the post number or link to the specific post)

Though we would like an explanation, especially on how to have a conversation with Crowley.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: voodoo child on March 15, 2012, 12:59:15 AM
If you could just stop fighting and start thinking, you would easily see how it all works.

Then "easily" explain the questions above.
sigh, I learned this stuff when I was in grade school.
Old school Carl Sagan.

http://youtu.be/-ONwp56pMBE
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 15, 2012, 03:31:18 AM
So you don't know and can't do it?  But the above posts laughed at me for questioning the development of the wing.  Now, it's irrelevant and you say we don't understand how it evolved?  I'm confused.  Either it's true or it isn't.  The wing is a very simple example, I would think, to explain to a novice like me, how evolution worked. 

The term is "idiot, liar and troll", actually. I was making a point based on what I assumed was your point. I have also posted several instances of evolution, as has everyone else. Some even posted the evolution of the wing.
From colonies turning into multicellular beings to bacteria adapting to antibiotics and developing the ability to metabolize new substances, evolution has been proven so many times it's not even funny anymore.

I don't get the "liar" part....but I digress. 

At least you won't dispute the "idiot and troll" part.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 15, 2012, 03:49:45 AM
Does anyone else find it odd that 2 new members joining at roughly the same time and spouting roughly the same rhetoric would also have such similar screen names (rockv12 & jakec47)? I'm not sayin' they're the same guy, but I would bet they've never been photographed together :?. An investigation may be in order if they suddenly start giving each other tons of karma points!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 15, 2012, 06:21:52 AM

So you concede the question.  It's ok.  You can't know everything.  But it seems like you should have a basic understanding of the theory that you believe with all your heart and be able to answer the question, "How did this or that evolve".  Too many tough ones I guess.

Accidental mutations did end up being "x". Every mutation is accidental....nothing plans to create the semi-circular canals or our vestibular system... The middle ear ossicles.  Another mind baffler is it?  Step-by-step.  You can do it.  Seems like its only nice and convenient to think about the big leaps involved, but forget that those big leaps also took little steps.
Nobody has claimed big leaps. Just get this into your head:  every intermediate animal was fully functional. A winner. There are no losers in the path to you.

But at least you got one thing right. Every mutation is accidental. Except, the system is set up to mutate every once in a while. It reads DNA wrong.

Go back to the text book. There are multiple steps. Every mutation is tested. Otherwise you would not be here.

Skip the crocoduck websites, please.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni on March 15, 2012, 07:22:30 AM
Yet, we have evidence of God all around us.

Oh, this ought to be good...

Quote
Ever hold a newborn baby?

That doesn't prove that god exists.  It only proves that somewhere, sometime, a man and a woman had sex.

Quote
Ever study Biblical accuracy...I mean really study it?

Yes.  It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist.

Quote
Ever been baptized in the Holy Spirit?

Being baptized does not prove or even suggest the existence of god.

Quote
Ever seen a demon possessed person?

No, nor have I ever heard of one.  I have heard of many cases of schizophrenia, however.

Quote
Ask Alister Crowley if God exists.

Can't.  He's dead.

Quote
There is a spiritual world out there...you just haven't experienced it, apparently.

The funny thing about the existence of an external world is that you will experience whether you want to or not, whether you know about it or not, whether you believe in it or not.  (If someone Points a gun at you and pulls the trigger, you cannot avoid the problem by deciding that the bullet doesn't exist.)  This happens with the physical world[1] all the time, and yet most believers in a "spiritual world" tend to argue that you can't experience it unless you believe in it.  Why is that?
 1. "Physical world", to me, is redundant, but that's a separate discussion.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 15, 2012, 08:41:47 AM
"This animal has a short arm, this animal has a long arm...therefore, the long arm evolved from the short arm so it could grab the apple that was higher in the tree"......this is basically evolution.  I propose that both are different animals...One with a short arm, one with a long arm. 

I asked a couple pages back for you to say whether you thought that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua both evolved from the same wolf-like ancestor.  From what you have said here, I'm guessing that you believe they were created exactly as they are.

So presumably, I'm guessing that you are arguing that there is no way that they can now change?  No way that we can go from a type of animal we have today to a different one?  Or, better, no way we can go from animals we had (say) a hundred years ago to different ones?

If not, then I'm confused as to what you are saying.  Are you saying that creatures do NOT change over time - are indeed incapable of chaning over time?  Or do you agree that they can and do change over time?  I'm guessing that you believe the former, but I'd like you to confirm it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 15, 2012, 08:42:40 AM
There is a spiritual world out there...you just haven't experienced it, apparently.
[/quote]

No, I haven't.  It seems you have.  Would you be prepared to explain to me clearly how I CAN experience it?  We can do it in another thread, if you like?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 08:47:47 AM
So you concede the question.  It's ok.  You can't know everything.  But it seems like you should have a basic understanding of the theory that you believe with all your heart and be able to answer the question, "How did this or that evolve".  Too many tough ones I guess.
Oh, please, "the theory that you believe with all your heart"?  Do you even realize how amazingly ironic it is for someone like you, who "believes with all your heart" in Christianity, to accuse someone else of having faith-based belief?  Sorry, but evolution is complicated and messy.  It isn't something I can break down into a series of begats, i.e., "the crocodile begat the crocoduck, which begat the duck".  And that's what you're asking for, essentially, when you say you want a step-by-step process by which one animal evolved from another.

For example, I can't trace the exact descent for a Chihuahua from its common ancestor with other dogs and wolves, because I haven't studied dog breeding.  Does that mean that I only "believe" that the Chihuahua came from that common ancestor, instead of being created in essentially its current existing form?  Of course not.  My lack of specific knowledge which would allow me to trace out the step-by-step evolutionary path between wolves and Chihuahuas[1] in no way invalidates the likelihood that it did.

Quote from: rockv12
Accidental mutations did end up being "x".  Every mutation is accidental....nothing plans to create the semi-circular canals or our vestibular system... The middle ear ossicles.  Another mind baffler is it?  Step-by-step.  You can do it.  Seems like its only nice and convenient to think about the big leaps involved, but forget that those big leaps also took little steps.
Yep, nothing plans out those biological structures, yet they exist.  Nothing planned out the Earth, yet it exists.  And it is not baffling at all, not unless you've fallen in love with the concept that the only way they could have come about is if someone planned them out and built them.  You see, I'm quite well aware that it's all little steps.  The thing that you do not understand is that those little steps don't require someone making sure they go off without a hitch.  Organisms that survive, reproduce.  Organisms that do not survive, do not reproduce.  If the little step doesn't result in an organism that survives, then it doesn't go anywhere.  If it does, then the step stays and gets built on by successive steps.  No planner is required, no builder is needed.
 1. Although selective breeding was involved, humans couldn't have bred Chihuahuas if the capacity to evolve didn't already exist before humans ever came on the scene
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 15, 2012, 08:50:32 AM
Rocky has confused ideas about sex. Penises and vaginas are trivial additions. Look up haploid and diploid cells. There was the revolution. In the sea.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 15, 2012, 08:55:53 AM
Rock:
I will be glad to go through evolution with you step by step. As I have stated twice before, we need to start at the basics and work our way up to your "bigger" questions.

Although I am not an expert, I will happily work through it with you and promise to stay with you through the whole process. Maybe we will both learn something. Deal?

Once more, here are the three basic components:
heritability
mutation
natural selection

First we can look at each one individually. Work out any difficulties we may have with them and then see how they work together.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 05:46:00 PM

Yep, nothing plans out those biological structures, yet they exist.  Nothing planned out the Earth, yet it exists.  And it is not baffling at all, not unless you've fallen in love with the concept that the only way they could have come about is if someone planned them out and built them.  You see, I'm quite well aware that it's all little steps.  The thing that you do not understand is that those little steps don't require someone making sure they go off without a hitch.  Organisms that survive, reproduce.  Organisms that do not survive, do not reproduce.  If the little step doesn't result in an organism that survives, then it doesn't go anywhere.  If it does, then the step stays and gets built on by successive steps.  No planner is required, no builder is needed.

Can't fathom the middle ear ossicles or cochlea, can ya?  Survival?  That's simple?  Tackle the middle and inner ear.  Please.  I keep getting these super simple examples that are nice to use as a response, but everyone avoids the baffling questions.  If evolution is so simple, please explain more than just "organisms survive".  Evolution is full of these "steps" that are needed to explain life!  Sex, hearing, sight, balance, thought, emotion, feeling, smelling, etc....  But all that seems to be talked about is simple natural selection and survival of the fittest.  Is this all that you've been taught about evolution?  Because there is FAR more to it than that. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 05:47:24 PM
Rock:
I will be glad to go through evolution with you step by step. As I have stated twice before, we need to start at the basics and work our way up to your "bigger" questions.

Although I am not an expert, I will happily work through it with you and promise to stay with you through the whole process. Maybe we will both learn something. Deal?

Once more, here are the three basic components:
heritability
mutation
natural selection

First we can look at each one individually. Work out any difficulties we may have with them and then see how they work together.

I appreciate the kind response and willingness to explain things.  I understand all of the above, however.  Can we begin by moving straight to the "meat"? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 05:51:55 PM

If not, then I'm confused as to what you are saying.  Are you saying that creatures do NOT change over time - are indeed incapable of chaning over time?  Or do you agree that they can and do change over time?  I'm guessing that you believe the former, but I'd like you to confirm it.

Perhaps I am more confusing that I realized.  I apologize.  Of course, natural selection exists.  If I was trapped on a deserted island with a bunch of others and we had to survive and some of us were short and some were tall, I suppose that if we had to survive by reaching fruit up in a tree (and didn't share), then the tall ones amongst us would survive, while the others didn't.  Then we may have a family of tall people.  However, this is as far as it has ever been witnessed to go.  Nobody amongst us would mutate frog legs to jump higher than the tall people, and eventually have a bunch of grasshopper legs on us.  Mutations don't work that way.  Nor have we ever seen this happen, therefore it is NOT proven.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 15, 2012, 05:55:00 PM
It's the same answer every time. You have to read an entire book. Not the crocoduck websites. The bones in the ear are clearly explained in

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331852019&sr=8-1

10 dollars invested and you will know more tha[n] any creationist than you may meet. Pages 158-172. Has all kinds of other neat stuff.

I will not explain the bones of the ear for you.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 06:03:41 PM
It's the same answer every time. You have to read an entire book. Not the crocoduck websites. The bones in the ear are clearly explained in

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331852019&sr=8-1

10 dollars invested and you will know more that any creationist than you may meet. Pages 158-172. Has all kinds of other neat stuff.

I will not explain the bones of the ear for you.

You won't?  Why not?  Clearly explained? I've read lots of stuff on the evolution of the middle ear ossicles.  Never do they explain how it occurred.  Only give examples of other animals with simple hearing.  Can you imagine it in your head?  The process and reasoning involved to create such a perfect mechanism?  Does it seem rational to you that it could evolve so perfectly?  Hearing!  It's far more advanced than being able to reach a higher branch or kill a predator.  We do NOT need such perfect hearing to survive, NOR do we need such perfect eyesight to survive.  I could run from a bear without color vision. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 15, 2012, 06:09:21 PM
The process and reasoning involved to create such a perfect mechanism?  Does it seem rational to you that it could evolve so perfectly?
<snip>
We do NOT need such perfect hearing to survive, NOR do we need such perfect eyesight to survive.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 15, 2012, 06:30:15 PM
  We do NOT need such perfect hearing to survive, NOR do we need such perfect eyesight to survive.  I could run from a bear without color vision. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_impairment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_impairment)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_impairment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_impairment)

This is your definition of perfection? So many things can go wrong with the human body; it's such a kludge of undirected evolutionary compromises.

Again, evolutionary theory far better explains what we see in the world than creationism, and it has evidence. Your incredulity remains unsubstantiated opinion.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 15, 2012, 06:48:52 PM
Of course, natural selection exists. 

Alright, alright, alright, stop right there.  You've accepted that natural selection exists.  Good.  This is a good step.

Now, do you believe that all species of living thing passes genetic information from 'parent' to 'offspring'?

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Cyberia on March 15, 2012, 06:50:09 PM
Perhaps I am more confusinged that I realized.  I apologize. 
Fixed.


Of course, natural selection exists.  If I was trapped on a deserted island with a bunch of others and we had to survive and some of us were short and some were tall, I suppose that if we had to survive by reaching fruit up in a tree (and didn't share), then the tall ones amongst us would survive, while the others didn't.  Then we may have a family of tall people.  However, this is as far as it has ever been witnessed to go.  Nobody amongst us would mutate frog legs to jump higher than the tall people, and eventually have a bunch of grasshopper legs on us.  Mutations don't work that way.  Nor have we ever seen this happen, therefore it is NOT proven.

You are RIGHT!  Evolution doesn't work that way though.  It takes something that's already there and adapts that to new and novel uses.

You also keep bringing up "hearing".  Think about the type of creatures that "hear".  They are ALL tetrapods.  The bones of the ear, and the eardrum itself evolved from GILLS.  The fish that crawled out of the ocean (the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds) didn't NEED it's gills anymore, so they could either fade away and become vestigial OR ........ they could become co-opted for a NEW PURPOSE.

NO OTHER CREATURES HEAR THIS WAY, THEY ONLY SENSE VIBRATIONS.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 07:25:00 PM
Perhaps I am more confusinged that I realized.  I apologize. 
Fixed.


Of course, natural selection exists.  If I was trapped on a deserted island with a bunch of others and we had to survive and some of us were short and some were tall, I suppose that if we had to survive by reaching fruit up in a tree (and didn't share), then the tall ones amongst us would survive, while the others didn't.  Then we may have a family of tall people.  However, this is as far as it has ever been witnessed to go.  Nobody amongst us would mutate frog legs to jump higher than the tall people, and eventually have a bunch of grasshopper legs on us.  Mutations don't work that way.  Nor have we ever seen this happen, therefore it is NOT proven.

You are RIGHT!  Evolution doesn't work that way though.  It takes something that's already there and adapts that to new and novel uses.

You also keep bringing up "hearing".  Think about the type of creatures that "hear".  They are ALL tetrapods.  The bones of the ear, and the eardrum itself evolved from GILLS.  The fish that crawled out of the ocean (the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds) didn't NEED it's gills anymore, so they could either fade away and become vestigial OR ........ they could become co-opted for a NEW PURPOSE.

NO OTHER CREATURES HEAR THIS WAY, THEY ONLY SENSE VIBRATIONS.

And the point is?  You can prove this how? How could I have missed that?  Gills!  Turned into ears!  How obvious!   Sorry for the sarcasm, but I can't say God did it without proof.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 07:25:49 PM
  We do NOT need such perfect hearing to survive, NOR do we need such perfect eyesight to survive.  I could run from a bear without color vision. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_impairment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_impairment)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_impairment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_impairment)

This is your definition of perfection? So many things can go wrong with the human body; it's such a kludge of undirected evolutionary compromises.

Again, evolutionary theory far better explains what we see in the world than creationism, and it has evidence. Your incredulity remains unsubstantiated opinion.

We get sick....that's your proof that our ears and eyes aren't extraordinary?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 07:31:15 PM
"Explanations of how the amino acids, nucleotides and sugars were formed, how they assembled in the form of DNA and RNA, and then "how these building blocks of life came to replicate themselves and acquire the enzymes to facilitate this process, are all still speculative."

"A compelling explanation of the origin of life here on Earth has not yet emerged."

"...it is difficult to understand how RNA — a notoriously unstable polymer — could have supported self-replicating systems in the hostile chemical and thermal environment of early planet Earth."

http://biologos.org/questions/the-origin-of-life

Shall we start at the beginning?  I mean to have evolution, we must have life.  Nobody knows how life started?  But I thought evolution was soooo simple to understand? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 15, 2012, 07:33:31 PM


Quote
I will not explain the bones of the ear for you.


Quote
You won't?  Why not?  Clearly explained?


Not worth my time and your 10 dollars would be wasted on the book, so here is some free piccies for you.
http://www.riddledchain.org/IntelligentDesign2.htm
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 15, 2012, 07:36:09 PM

Shall we start at the beginning?  I mean to have evolution, we must have life.  Nobody knows how life started?  But I thought evolution was soooo simple to understand?
It is. You are talking about abiogenesis for which we have little data. Biochemical pathways do not leave fossils.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 15, 2012, 07:44:01 PM
We get sick....that's your proof that our ears and eyes aren't extraordinary?

We get sick... that's your definition of perfect?

What's your definition of extraordinary? There are animals with far better vision and hearing than ours.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 15, 2012, 07:51:35 PM
rockv12

You keeps saying "Can you imagine?" We don't have to. Very detailed information about the formation of wings and inner ears and mammalian brains and vision exist. Rather than imagining, people have looked at all available information and come up with the best explanation available for now. Either what they are finding is dead wrong (your version) or it is closer to right than you are.

Your job is not to argue fruitlessly with a bunch of fruitcake atheists, but to get out there with your fellow christians and find a way to clearly disprove the explanations that science has come up with. Your job is to learn enough about the subject to be able to diss it into oblivion. I met a guy in the early 80's that hated nuclear power. And what was he doing? Going for a doctorate in nuclear engineering. Because he wanted to be sure that if the protests against nuclear power succeeded, that there was somebody (him) who could tell his fellow activists if the plants were being shut down safely and how well the used fuel was being handled.

If this evolution stuff is that important to you, I suggest you go out into the real world and find ways to disprove every single frickin' related discovery in science. Armed with what you believe to be the truth, you should have no trouble dismantling the knowledge base that we think is real. Inner ear questions, so obvious to you that you don't even have to know anything about them (I guess, because you keep asking us when myriad resources exist on the internet). Your job, if you choose to accept it, is to get out there in the real world and absolutely destroy the lie that is evolution. Because, if it is a lie, the flaws in the story should be copious and the proofs of more credible explanations should be even more innumerable than our lies.

Just a suggestion. You can stick around and we can butt heads if you want, but you know that will cause our kids heads to be harder and personally, that's the last thing a parent wants. A hard headed kid. (note: This is a joke, and not how I claim that evolution works. So please don't start harping on us to prove that banging heads will cause hard headed kids. Okay?)

If you really think it is more important to argue with us than go out and actually fix what you think the problem is, be our guest. But it means you are lazy.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 08:08:18 PM
Can't fathom the middle ear ossicles or cochlea, can ya?  Survival?  That's simple?  Tackle the middle and inner ear.  Please.  I keep getting these super simple examples that are nice to use as a response, but everyone avoids the baffling questions.  If evolution is so simple, please explain more than just "organisms survive".  Evolution is full of these "steps" that are needed to explain life!  Sex, hearing, sight, balance, thought, emotion, feeling, smelling, etc....  But all that seems to be talked about is simple natural selection and survival of the fittest.  Is this all that you've been taught about evolution?  Because there is FAR more to it than that.
I'm guessing you do not realize the irony of the condescending attitude you're directing towards me.  I said that I couldn't explain it in the step-by-step manner you keep demanding (which betrays your ignorance of the subject), so you assume that I don't understand evolution.  I use simple examples to get the overall point of how evolution works across, and you keep saying, "no, no, I want you to tackle these really tough examples because the questions and details baffle me".

It would be like if I were trying to explain how chemical bonds work, and you kept insisting, "No, I want to know the exact process used to generate chemical X from start to finish, or else you just blindly believe in chemistry".  Your argument is literally that ridiculous.  And the longer you try to insist that you understand evolution perfectly well even though you talk about "baffling questions", the more ridiculous you end up looking.  Before you can be taken seriously as a critic, you must demonstrate that you understand the basics of evolution by explaining them as you understand them.  Prove that you don't need the simple examples and the discussion about the basics by explaining exactly how natural selection, heritability, and mutation combine to cause evolution.  Don't just say, "I understand them, let's move on", because I'm in no way convinced that you do, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Prove to us that you aren't just throwing mud in the hopes that some of it will stick.  Because right now, that's exactly what it looks like you're doing, especially on an atheist site which is about God not healing amputees, rather than a scientific site about evolutionary biology.  You won't convince people by just claiming you understand, yet betraying your lack of understanding in the subsequent questions you ask.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Historicity on March 15, 2012, 08:13:25 PM
  Without the eustachian tube, hearing doesn't work!  A half formed eustachian tube does nothing.  A transition would NOT work. 

Reptiles have no eustachian tube! (http://www.anapsid.org/reptilehearing.html)  Their eardrums are on the surface!

Fish have internal ears with no connection to the outside environment! (http://www.me.gatech.edu/minami.yoda/FLOIDLab/fishhearing/fishhearing.htm)  They just have the inner ear!

You're an idiot!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 08:33:15 PM
We get sick....that's your proof that our ears and eyes aren't extraordinary?

We get sick... that's your definition of perfect?

What's your definition of extraordinary? There are animals with far better vision and hearing than ours.

Oh boy.  All of the sudden the human eye is a silly, simple, bad example of extraordinary.  I don't know what to say...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 08:36:42 PM
  Without the eustachian tube, hearing doesn't work!  A half formed eustachian tube does nothing.  A transition would NOT work. 

Reptiles have no eustachian tube! (http://www.anapsid.org/reptilehearing.html)  Their eardrums are on the surface!

Fish have internal ears with no connection to the outside environment! (http://www.me.gatech.edu/minami.yoda/FLOIDLab/fishhearing/fishhearing.htm)  They just have the inner ear!

You're an idiot!

That's great...for them.  I am talking about the human ear.  The eustachian tube is necessary for equalizing pressure in the middle ear....without it, the middle ear wouldn't work. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 15, 2012, 08:38:12 PM

Prove to us that you aren't just throwing mud in the hopes that some of it will stick.  Because right now, that's exactly what it looks like you're doing, especially on an atheist site which is about God not healing amputees, rather than a scientific site about evolutionary biology.  You won't convince people by just claiming you understand, yet betraying your lack of understanding in the subsequent questions you ask.

Why are a bunch of athiests blogging to each other about how God doesn't exist?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 08:47:32 PM
The eyes and ears aren't all that extraordinary.  I mean, the eye probably started as a photosensitive membrane, just a patch of tissue that could sense light.  Put the patch in a hollow, and you have directed sensitivity.  Divide the patch into two separate halves, and you have binocular sensitivity Put lids of less-photosensitive tissue over the hollow, and you have the ability to control how much light gets through.  Differentiate the photosensitive tissue into different types that register different wavelengths of light, and you have the ability to distinguish objects from each other.  Raise the tissue within the hollow so that you have a chamber the light enters, and you can get a clearer image.  And guess what, you have eyes that are remarkably similar to ours, that don't require all that many changes to make, and could have happened on their own because they were mutations that enhanced the basic photosensitive membrane and gave organisms with a survival advantage over organisms without.

This is probably not the exact pathway that the evolution of eyes took, but it is a feasible pathway.  It works as an explanation to help us understand how eyes came to be.  It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work based on what we know.  And it does work.  For all of the nitpicking I suspect you'll engage in to try to "show" that the specifics are too complicated, the fact is that you're massively overstating your case.  You're obsessing about the missing info and ignoring all the info we do have, and that is the least effective way to convince anyone of anything.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 15, 2012, 08:52:59 PM
Prove to us that you aren't just throwing mud in the hopes that some of it will stick.  Because right now, that's exactly what it looks like you're doing, especially on an atheist site which is about God not healing amputees, rather than a scientific site about evolutionary biology.  You won't convince people by just claiming you understand, yet betraying your lack of understanding in the subsequent questions you ask.
Why are a bunch of athiests blogging to each other about how God doesn't exist?
The fact that you asked a completely unrelated question instead of addressing my concern suggests that you really don't get the basics of evolution.  Do you concede this, or would you prefer to demonstrate that you do actually understand evolution?  If you try to dodge the question again, you will clearly demonstrate that you don't understand evolution and are just trying to cover it up.  So, don't try to dodge.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 15, 2012, 09:28:03 PM
Does anyone else find it odd that 2 new members joining at roughly the same time and spouting roughly the same rhetoric would also have such similar screen names (rockv12 & jakec47)? I'm not sayin' they're the same guy, but I would bet they've never been photographed together :?. An investigation may be in order if they suddenly start giving each other tons of karma points!

Interesting theory, but I don't know anything about him and have never even messaged him.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 15, 2012, 09:40:31 PM
Why are a bunch of athiests blogging to each other about how God doesn't exist?

If you mean here, we aren't blogging. We're finding a world of friends that is otherwise full of people like you. We enjoy each others company and harassing theists who haven't the slightest idea of what they're talking about. We don't like it that 16 year old girls in muslim countries have to commit suicide because they are ordered by the courts to marry their rapists. We don't like it that in America people like Rick Santorum can get more than three people to listen to him. His ways are so backwards we're going to have to invent a new word to describe them. Christianity is already taken.

I don't deny your god. If he exists, all he has to do is show me and I'll know. Not believe, know. It won't do him much good though. He has proven himself to be either incompetent or cruel, and neither is worthy of my respect. And those of you who get all exited about him seem to display rather backward ideas about what is good and what is bad. That irks us.

So we talk about it.

That's why.

Isn't that your mother calling?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 15, 2012, 09:44:31 PM
I didn't neglect anything, you weren't talking to me.
I was trying to make a general point about the nature of this website, which is that it isn't made up of evolutionary biologists.

Quote from: jakec47
Very good, I have to commend you for that, I really didn't think you would actually go and check that, but nonetheless, it is still a definition of the word, and notice inside your definition "commonly regarded as correct" so it is regarded as correct not actually correct. But seriously nice job, I'm going to have to give you some karma points for that.
Most people on this site do actually at least look at the sources of someone's information, something to keep in mind.  And while you are correct that it is a definition of the word theory, that does not mean it is the correct definition used for scientific theories (which includes facilitated variation, evolution, and other such theories).  Also, "commonly regarded as correct", in this case, is the same as using 3.14 as the value for pi.  It is commonly regarded as correct, even though it is possible to be far more accurate than that (for example, a calculator will give the value 3.14159265, and pi has been calculated past a million digits), but for everyday practical purposes, 3.14 is correct enough.  The same principle applies to scientific theories.

Quote from: jakec47
I wouldn't say I didn't base it off anything, however I can base it off the Bible, but using logic I can see that it makes sense. And correct again it is a definition of theory.
Indeed.  One of the key mistakes many creationists make is the assumption that the Bible is an accurate depiction of events, when in fact many of the stories in it are metaphorical in nature.  Parables were a common thing in that day and age, and many stories commonly accepted as true in the Bible were the equivalent of parables - metaphorical stories meant to make a moral point, rather than literal retellings of history.

Quote from: jakec47
Perhaps if I said natural selection, maybe not I've never really studied to much on the theories. So many words. The only words the Bible says are, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Why couldn't the scientific theories on the origin of the world be so simple.
First off, I'm glad for your honesty.  You have no idea how many people pretend that they understand something, when in fact they don't.  Being willing to admit that you don't understand something is one of the hardest things that anyone can do.  You deserve credit for being willing to make such an admission, especially in front of people who you disagree with so dramatically.

In answer to your statement, I actually do understand where you're coming from.  I work with a lot of people who don't really understand computers beyond how to use them, so I'm faced with the dilemma of trying to explain concepts which I understand because I've studied them, but are so much Greek to them.  What usually works is to relate the concepts to simpler things that they already understand, because they can then make the connection.  It isn't perfectly accurate, but it's good enough for someone who'll never have to make a living with computers.  Same thing goes with scientific theories like evolution which don't seem like they can be explained as simply as, say, gravity.

Quote from: jakec47
Again I did not dodge your question because you were not asking me. However I'm sure that the amount of people needed in a room to have those probabilities is probably not very high. And I generally consider impossible to be a 0% chance. If I have a box with 6 green balls in and I try for a yellow ball it is impossible for me to get it. (Note I did not give such an elementary example because I think its all you could understand I just added it for ease of reference to what I was thinking, simplest way I could put it).
For what it's worth, it takes only 23 people to have a 50% chance of two matching birthdays, and 57 to have a 99% chance.

Now, as for your example, that's a good way to define impossible.  And since simple examples are usually good, because they avoid ambiguities that cause confusion, let me compare evolution to a jigsaw puzzle.  Now, imagine that the pieces to the puzzle aren't all in a convenient box, but instead, they got scattered all over the place.  Many of them were destroyed - burned up, washed away, crushed into pieces, even eaten - and most of the remainder are buried underground and hard to find.  So, you've found some of the pieces, enough to start trying to put the puzzle pieces back together.  But you don't have the box, so you don't know what the picture is supposed to look like.  The only way you'll get anywhere is to start trying to put the pieces together, knowing that you might get it wrong and the pieces won't fit, but you can fix that once it happens.

Does that make sense?

Yes, that does make sense, thank you for your non aggressive answers. I appreciate that. So if in order to understand life we need to put together this "jigsaw puzzle" then why doesn't the Bible help us with this. It explains the jigsaw puzzle but why is it not accepted if it gives the answers everyone is looking for? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 15, 2012, 09:45:47 PM
Of course its stupid, just like your theories. But in reality, small guns wont kill a Grizzly Bear because of how thick their skin is, if you hit a Grizzly Bear in the head with a baseball bat it would do nothing, their skulls are harder. So if they have such hard skulls does that mean that in order for that to happen they had to have been two mutations one with hard skin and one with soft and the soft skins died and no we only have the hards. So what of humans, why do defects still exist, why aren't they being put out like the other problems. Humans have been here for a long time and yet it seems we have not gotten stronger but in fact weaker then our ancestors.

Okay, you need to bear with me on this. And that's not a pun.

I just accidentally gave you a thumbs up when I meant a thumbs down. So you owe me.

What you wrote in the above shows that you have no idea what evolution is. You seem to think it is a process that has defined purposes, like making humans more invulnerable. That's for comic books, not real life. Before a human could become safe from gunshots and baseball bats, we would have to slowly evolve some sort of thick skin that protected us. And that developing thick skin would have to be at least neutral in it's effect on the life of the individual who underwent the genetic change. If it made them more vulnerable for other reasons (made cracking noises while trying to cut in line at the grocery store or caused incredibly more obvious tan lines and turned the girls off), then the thicker skin would be detrimental.

And that thicker skin would be an accident, not a response to bullets and bats. And such a variation would have to occur at a time in history when we're shooting each other and wielding large wooden clubs. If it evolved right after the hippies won the culture war and all we did all day was hug each other and have sex, it probably wouldn't take long for folks to decide that old thick-skin Eddie is no fun in either activity and he probably wouldn't get a chance to reproduce.

You are not taking into consideration several things. Time, measured in millions of years and including tens of thousands of generations, at least. And you're not taking into consideration all the failed alterations. The frogs born with stronger legs but no webbed feet, the cows with bigger udders but fewer lactating glands so they make too little milk, the genetic change that might cause an elephant or a cat have fragile cartilage, which would fail when too much pressure was put on it by muscles. Scads of critters had potentially evolutionary changes, but they didn't survive long enough to procreate, or if they did, their kids didn't do so well. The changes that we are talking about were completely random, and just like being lucky and having some dude accidentally give you a thumbs up, at times it works out to the individual's advantage. Most of the time it doesn't.

So the short answer. Vulnerabilities still exist in humans because a) no random mutation that would make us less vulnerable to various threats has yet occurred and b) in those rare instances where a mutation might be advantageous (six fingers, so you can grab a sword blade swung at you and still have one or two fingers left) might happen in the wrong environmental conditions. Six fingered people might die of frostbite because they can't get gloves that fit. (There are six and seven fingered and toed people, by the way. They evolved. A change that is generally neutral. Or slightly less so, if potential mates are put off by the extra digits.)

Evolution is not guided. It is a by-product. Until you can understand that basic fact, you are easy to confuse with creationist drivel. And evolution does not have a purpose. Sh*t happens, and sometimes it doesn't stink as bad and we benefit. Most of the time it is useless, if not downright bad. The only thing going for us is sheer numbers, both in population and time, measured in years and generations.

A god that put you on a planet that is 75% water, has high cliffs and big predators and didn't take that into consideration when he gave you air breathing lungs, non-gravity proof bones and skin, nor built in 50 caliber machine guns isn't much of a god. If he wants me to love him but I drown in the tub when I'm three, he's out one loving soul. If he wants me to love him but I fall off the roof when I'm 15, he's lost another. If he wants me to love him and a bengal tiger has me for lunch, he's out of luck again. But each of those vulnerabilities is completely understandable in a world that was created without purpose. It just happened. Hence you just happened and I just happened. And we each have enough genetic differentiation that you can envision and believe in a god and I can't.

/end of lecture

That was pretty good, thanks for the explanation. And thanks for the thumbs up, even if it was an accident.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jakec47 on March 15, 2012, 09:48:41 PM
The problem creationists have with dismantling evolution, is they take on too much at one time.

Let's start with the basics.
There are three main components of evolution.

1) heritability
2) mutation
3) natural selection

Which of these would you deny, and why?

I don't know enough about any of them to answer. I know some about natural selection but not much at all.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 15, 2012, 10:11:56 PM

Yes, that does make sense, thank you for your non aggressive answers. I appreciate that. So if in order to understand life we need to put together this "jigsaw puzzle" then why doesn't the Bible help us with this. It explains the jigsaw puzzle but why is it not accepted if it gives the answers everyone is looking for?

...because the picture on the box (that is the bible) has proven too often to be a wild guess, that does not correlate at all to any of the so far assembled jigsaw puzzle pieces.

And please don't mistake my brevity for aggression.

The frustration you might perceive emanating from atheists here who've replied to you, is no doubt an artifact of the relentlessness of the untutored theists/creationists attempted onslaught.

Have a good look at how much effort some posters here have taken to educate you.
Have a think about how determinedly you have refused to acknowledge anything that clashes with your beliefs (no matter what evidence you are shown).
.......please note that the last was not an all-inclusive statement.
Recognise, that if it was the other way, ....where you were able to educate these atheist posters with sound demonstrable verifiable fact, contrary to their beliefs, they (unlike theists with vested interests) would embrace the new knowledge, admit their error and change their position.
Realise, that that willingness to learn, that ability to adapt to advances in knowledge, is the only true reasonable way of advancing thought/knowledge.

All else, is dogma.

Dogma is presented on a daily treadmill here, and yet still the "generous" atheists attempt to engage and educate each and every theist who shows up here presenting the same old tired and bankrupt and dishonest apologetics. (which is not describing the theists, but is describing their pitch)

If you are feeling a certain frustration from some here, just understand that even if by some miracle of intellectual honesty we manage to get you to understand that your questions have been well answered before, your theories have been totally debunked already, and the pitch you push is a weary and worn hand-me-down that should've been discarded decades ago,

...even if you finally "get it!" after everybody's efforts, tomorrow no doubt we'll be confronted with the next variant of the same old ...same old.

So if you sense some frustration, and a tendency to aggression, congratulate yourself for at least having the survival instincts to accurately pick up what some here must be feeling.....

....but at the same time understand that those people have every right to be expressing such frustration, and consider the fact that they treat you so well considering.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 16, 2012, 12:09:59 AM
Why are a bunch of athiests blogging to each other about how God doesn't exist?

If you mean here, we aren't blogging. We're finding a world of friends that is otherwise full of people like you. We enjoy each others company and harassing theists who haven't the slightest idea of what they're talking about. We don't like it that 16 year old girls in muslim countries have to commit suicide because they are ordered by the courts to marry their rapists. We don't like it that in America people like Rick Santorum can get more than three people to listen to him. His ways are so backwards we're going to have to invent a new word to describe them. Christianity is already taken.

I don't deny your god. If he exists, all he has to do is show me and I'll know. Not believe, know. It won't do him much good though. He has proven himself to be either incompetent or cruel, and neither is worthy of my respect. And those of you who get all exited about him seem to display rather backward ideas about what is good and what is bad. That irks us.

So we talk about it.

That's why.

Isn't that your mother calling?

Fair enough.  I wished I hadn't asked that question once I posted it.  I hear your frustration about what Christians call good and bad.  I understand how it may seem "hateful" to be against gay marriage or whatnot.  I don't know what you are talking about, but suppose it may include gay marriage or something like that.  It our defense, it is NOT hate that makes us disagree with gay marriage.  That is the farthest thing from a true Christian's mind.  (boy does this thread go far off topic of the Big Bang, I apologize)....  but God is a holy God.  He determined what is pure and holy.  To God, according to the way He created things, was for purity and holiness.  Those are two very good things.  They don't include something out of His plan.  Marriage was instituted by Him to be between a male and a female.  We simply view anything else as sin.  That doesn't mean we hate anyone or want anyone to not live a happy life.  Marriage is a sacred thing.  We want to preserve it the best we can.  That's all.  Ok, done....sorry. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 16, 2012, 03:50:49 AM
Of course, natural selection exists.  If I was trapped on a deserted island with a bunch of others and we had to survive and some of us were short and some were tall, I suppose that if we had to survive by reaching fruit up in a tree (and didn't share), then the tall ones amongst us would survive, while the others didn't.  Then we may have a family of tall people.  However, this is as far as it has ever been witnessed to go.  Nobody amongst us would mutate frog legs to jump higher than the tall people, and eventually have a bunch of grasshopper legs on us.  Mutations don't work that way.  Nor have we ever seen this happen, therefore it is NOT proven.

Thank you Rocky.  I would be grateful too if you would answer this part of my question also.

I asked a couple pages back for you to say whether you thought that a Great Dane and a Chihuahua both evolved from the same wolf-like ancestor. 

It's very important.  Were Great Danes ALWAYS Great Danes, and Chihuahuas ALWAYS Chihuahuas?  Or were they both once something very different?  I'm just trying to establish exactly what "Nor have we ever seen this happen, therefore it is NOT proven" actually covers.

- - - - -

(And, on a tangent.....
God ..... determined what is pure and holy.  To God, according to the way He created things, was for purity and holiness.  ..... Marriage was instituted by Him to be between a male and a female. 
I don't think you witnessed any of that happen.....so I guess you agree that none of THAT is proven, either?)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 16, 2012, 06:15:27 AM
Why did God create foreskins in the perfect man, then tell ancient Jews to cut it off?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 16, 2012, 07:57:53 AM
Rock:
I will be glad to go through evolution with you step by step. As I have stated twice before, we need to start at the basics and work our way up to your "bigger" questions.

Although I am not an expert, I will happily work through it with you and promise to stay with you through the whole process. Maybe we will both learn something. Deal?

Once more, here are the three basic components:
heritability
mutation
natural selection

First we can look at each one individually. Work out any difficulties we may have with them and then see how they work together.

I appreciate the kind response and willingness to explain things.  I understand all of the above, however.  Can we begin by moving straight to the "meat"?
Sorry, but no you don't and no we can't move straight to the meat.

Although important, how life began is NOT part of evolution theory. That is a different study we can address all together. The Big Bang is not part of evolution theory either.

So we have to remove those from the discussion. Then we need to lay a groundwork for our discussion. We need to define some terms, such as, scientific method, hypothesis, theory, fact, law, falsifiability and so on.

We do have to start at the basics, because there are things that we need to know about at the most basic level before we can proceed to more advanced concepts.

One can not study Thevinins Theorm, until one has studied Algebra, and one can not study Algebra until one has acquired some very basic math skills. Once one has a grasp of these things then one can navigate through the electrical circuit theory of linear networks.

Concepts in evolution are as complex as electronics, so we must familiarize ourselves with the basics. You say you have studied these things, but I suspect that you have a lopsided education on this by reading from particular sources like Darwin Refuted.com or the Discovery Institute.

By starting with the basics we may be able to unravel the inaccurate information that you and I may have. This will help you, me, Jake and everyone else reading along. We can all learn through the process. I know that I have a lot to learn, and I don't understand all that I  do know.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 16, 2012, 08:11:10 AM
(boy does this thread go far off topic of the Big Bang, I apologize)....

Yes Jake, and the topic of the Big Bang has nothing to do with the topic of evolution.

Of course it is necessary to have a universe to live in before life can begin, but that is not a topic for biology, but for cosmogony. It seems to be an issue for creationists, because they do not understand this. That is why I am trying to get you to start with the basics.

If you would like to discuss the Big Bang, start a thread in Science, and we can discuss it there.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 16, 2012, 08:41:51 AM
Hmm, new threads needed?

I had a story on Small Bang theory, it is in
my sig link about a year ago.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 16, 2012, 09:04:48 AM
Fair enough.  I wished I hadn't asked that question once I posted it.  I hear your frustration about what Christians call good and bad.  I understand how it may seem "hateful" to be against gay marriage or whatnot.  I don't know what you are talking about, but suppose it may include gay marriage or something like that.  It our defense, it is NOT hate that makes us disagree with gay marriage.  That is the farthest thing from a true Christian's mind.  (boy does this thread go far off topic of the Big Bang, I apologize)....  but God is a holy God.  He determined what is pure and holy.  To God, according to the way He created things, was for purity and holiness.  Those are two very good things.  They don't include something out of His plan.  Marriage was instituted by Him to be between a male and a female.  We simply view anything else as sin.  That doesn't mean we hate anyone or want anyone to not live a happy life.  Marriage is a sacred thing.  We want to preserve it the best we can.  That's all.  Ok, done....sorry.

If only. Were our differences only over gay vs. straight, life would almost be tolerable. But if you look carefully, you'll see we quibble here with christians about far more subjects than that. Science, for instance...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 16, 2012, 09:40:13 AM
Yes, that does make sense, thank you for your non aggressive answers. I appreciate that. So if in order to understand life we need to put together this "jigsaw puzzle" then why doesn't the Bible help us with this. It explains the jigsaw puzzle but why is it not accepted if it gives the answers everyone is looking for?
That is exactly the problem.  The Bible gives answers based on the questions people were asking thousands of years ago.  For their purposes, those answers were good enough for them, but we need to ask how relevant those answers, and more importantly the questions that prompted those answers, are today.

To relate it to the jigsaw puzzle, it's like they found some of the pieces, say the ones that were fairly easy to find (given that they didn't have a whole lot of time to spend looking), and put them together to form a picture.  Fine and good, it gave them something they could understand and use.  The problem is, we've found lots of puzzle pieces since.  And lots of those puzzle pieces don't fit very well with the picture that the writers of the Bible put together.  For exampe, Genesis 1 speaks of a literal seven-day creation, and by referring to the "begats" a little later on, they came up with an approximate figure of about 6,000 years for the age of the Earth.

However, we have dating methods which can determine the age of something reasonably accurately, and even using the simplest one, carbon-14 dating[1], we can accurately date things up to 60,000 years.  In other words, there's a conflict; if the Bible is correct, then there shouldn't be any organic matter whatsoever that is dated past the 6,000 year benchmark, but we've found lots of organic matter which dates to older than that.  We've even found organic matter which has no carbon-14 in it, which means it's at least 60,000 years old.  One of the reasons we can be sure of carbon-14 dating is that we've tested it against organic matter which we can accurately date via other methods, and it checks out.

If we know there's a contradiction between the Bible and something we've subsequently discovered, that's a problem.  I mean, imagine you put together a picture using a jigsaw puzzle, and then you start discovering more pieces, which don't fit with the picture.  That doesn't mean that some parts of the Bible "picture" might not be correct, but we can't assume they are.  Does that make sense?
 1. I'll try to define it as simply as possible, though if you don't understand something, please ask.  Carbon (carbon-12) has six neutrons and six protons.  Basically, the actions of cosmic rays cause neutrons to occasionally hit nitrogen atoms (nitrogen-14), which have seven neutrons and seven protons.  The neutron knocks a proton loose, so you end up with eight neutrons and six protons, known as carbon-14.  Carbon-14 is exactly like carbon-12 except for the extra neutrons, so plants use it in their respiration, and animals get it through eating things; the key is that no more carbon-14 is consumed once an organism dies, and carbon-14 slowly degrades back into nitrogen-14, so you can date the approximate age of the organic matter based on the time it it takes for this to happen
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 16, 2012, 10:00:04 AM
"Explanations of how the amino acids, nucleotides and sugars were formed, how they assembled in the form of DNA and RNA, and then "how these building blocks of life came to replicate themselves and acquire the enzymes to facilitate this process, are all still speculative."

"A compelling explanation of the origin of life here on Earth has not yet emerged."

"...it is difficult to understand how RNA — a notoriously unstable polymer — could have supported self-replicating systems in the hostile chemical and thermal environment of early planet Earth."

http://biologos.org/questions/the-origin-of-life

Shall we start at the beginning?  I mean to have evolution, we must have life.  Nobody knows how life started?  But I thought evolution was soooo simple to understand?

Selective reading there my friend. A little further down we find this:
Quote
The study of life's origins is an exciting area of research.  The jury is still out on how life first emerged. A simple response would be to give a God-of-the-gaps explanation: that some supernatural force, namely God, must have intervened to bring life into being.

See "What is evolution?".

But consider the timeline of these scientific quandaries.  Life on this Earth appeared approximately 3.85 billion years ago, yet serious scientific study of its origins began just 60 years ago.  A convincing scientific explanation may still emerge in the next 50 years. Though the origin of life could certainly have resulted from God’s direct intervention, it is dangerously presumptuous to conclude the origin of life is beyond discovery in the scientific realm simply because we do not currently have a convincing scientific explanation. Although the origin of life is certainly a genuine scientific mystery, this is not the place for thoughtful people to wager their faith. All that has happened in the history of life has happened in response to God's creation command (John 1:3).  Furthermore, God is immanent in creation, upholding the natural laws.  Colossians 1:17 tells us, "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."  What we do not know at this point is the extent to which God may have intervened supernaturally in the history of life.  Some believe that the creation command was carried out through the natural laws which have been continuously upheld by the ongoing presence of God in creation.  Others believe that since the God of the Bible and the God we experience in our lives intervenes in supernatural ways at times, that this would also likely have been true in the history of life itself.  Neither of these views are inconsistent with scientific findings.  The important thing is that in the BioLogos view, God’s sustaining creative presence undergirds all of life’s history from the beginning to the present.

Finally, as a purely technical matter, the theory of evolution does not propose an explanation to the question of the origin of life at all. The theory of evolution becomes relevant only after life has already begun.
Bold added
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 16, 2012, 10:07:49 AM
oh boy.  All of the sudden the human eye is a silly, simple, bad example of extraordinary.  I don't know what to say...

of course you don't since you've been shown that your claims are bullshit.  Human eyes are not special in anyway.  They are what we evolved with and they serve adequately.  Just like evolutionary theory predicts.  You fail so well, rockv. 

Quote
but God is a holy God.  He determined what is pure and holy.  To God, according to the way He created things, was for purity and holiness.  Those are two very good things.  They don't include something out of His plan.  Marriage was instituted by Him to be between a male and a female.  We simply view anything else as sin.  That doesn't mean we hate anyone or want anyone to not live a happy life.  Marriage is a sacred thing.  We want to preserve it the best we can.  That's all.  Ok, done....sorry. 
  Baseless claims and the words of an ignorant sycophant, afraid and full of greed.    And dear, your god says that homosexuals *deserve* death.  It's so cute to watch Christians back away from their god's horribleness, trying to claim that it's "god" saying such things, not that they are.  Unfortunately for you, your religion is completely man-made and is only a reflection of primitive human desires and hatreds.  You're stuck with that.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 16, 2012, 11:11:01 AM
It our defense, it is NOT hate

It is in every conceivable way, hatred.

Quote
   but God is a holy God.  He determined what is pure and holy.

No one has to be concerned with your superstitious value system.  The fact that your superstitious value system dehumanizes the out group in comparison to the in group only supports the case that Christianity is insular, xenophobic, and hateful.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 16, 2012, 11:17:22 AM
rockv12,

how old are you?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 16, 2012, 06:52:29 PM
^ I must admit I wondered that...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 16, 2012, 06:58:52 PM
rockv12,

how old are you?


I was born in 1976.  Can you do the math, or should I do it for you?  Seems evolutionists aren't too good at numbers.  But with enough of them, anything is possible.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 16, 2012, 07:00:29 PM
It our defense, it is NOT hate

It is in every conceivable way, hatred.


Hatred means extreme dislike.  How do Christians "hate" anybody?  You can disagree with someone and not hate them.  If your son decides to get a nose ring, and you don't particularly like it, do you hate him?  Of course NOT.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 16, 2012, 07:08:28 PM

of course you don't since you've been shown that your claims are bullshit.  Human eyes are not special in anyway.  They are what we evolved with and they serve adequately.  Just like evolutionary theory predicts.  You fail so well, rockv. 


Human eyes are not special in any way?  Is anything remarkable about our bodies?  Or are they just insignificant little machines?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 16, 2012, 07:10:38 PM
rockv12,

how old are you?


I was born in 1976.  Can you do the math, or should I do it for you?  Seems evolutionists aren't too good at numbers.  But with enough of them, anything is possible.

....irrational numbers can prove difficult (sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything negative by using a word with "cult" in it)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 16, 2012, 08:07:25 PM

of course you don't since you've been shown that your claims are bullshit.  Human eyes are not special in anyway.  They are what we evolved with and they serve adequately.  Just like evolutionary theory predicts.  You fail so well, rockv. 


Human eyes are not special in any way?  Is anything remarkable about our bodies?  Or are they just insignificant little machines?
Oppposable thumbs are cool, and hands. Toes are not all that much use.

Back to my previous off topic, located Small Bang story:
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2011/03/physicists-study-small-bang.html
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 16, 2012, 09:41:32 PM

of course you don't since you've been shown that your claims are bullshit.  Human eyes are not special in anyway.  They are what we evolved with and they serve adequately.  Just like evolutionary theory predicts.  You fail so well, rockv. 


Human eyes are not special in any way?  Is anything remarkable about our bodies?  Or are they just insignificant little machines?
Oppposable thumbs are cool, and hands. Toes are not all that much use.

Back to my previous off topic, located Small Bang story:
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2011/03/physicists-study-small-bang.html

I bet you yawned all during Science class in school.  Holding a newborn baby...."oh is that the ball game on?"...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni on March 17, 2012, 06:48:05 AM
Hatred means extreme dislike.  How do Christians "hate" anybody?

Christians are people just like anyone else, and just like anyone else, they're capable of any emotion, including hatred.  Most of the regulars here have experienced hatred from Christians in one form or another.  If you doubt us, start a thread asking for our stories.  For that matter, a random sampling of the Mailbag will probably enlighten you.  One Christian, for example, wrote in telling us to "be quiet because Christians never did anything to us".  About nine or ten of us responded telling stories about what Christians have, indeed, done to us.  David Mills has a "fun" story about his treatment at the hands of Christian police officers, too.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 17, 2012, 07:04:46 AM

I bet you yawned all during Science class in school.  Holding a newborn baby...."oh is that the ball game on?"...

I don't know about you, but I have been a scientist for 35 years. I did some of those biology experiments you mention as well.  Changed diapers and fed them. The older one is in college, the younger one will be in the fall. What have you accomplished on the planet?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 17, 2012, 09:14:58 AM
I was born in 1976.  Can you do the math, or should I do it for you?  Seems evolutionists aren't too good at numbers.  But with enough of them, anything is possible.
So you don't even have the excuse of being young for the way you're acting.

Also, what do you mean by "aren't too good at numbers"?  Your assertion makes little sense in context of anything, except possibly to try to "show" that you're smarter than "evolutionists".  By the way, think about that term you just used.  You just used it to mean "people who believe blindly in evolution".  Yet your argument, that people need to be able to explain a perfect step-by-step evolutionary process from one arbitrary example to another, or else it's blind belief on their part, is an argument from ignorance.  It's like saying that people "blindly believe in math" if they can't explain something from trigonometry or calculus.  It also shows that you don't actually understand how evolution works - you might have read the words, but they don't make sense to you, or you wouldn't have to try to demand "step-by-step proofs" to begin with.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 17, 2012, 10:26:18 AM
I was born in 1976.  Can you do the math, or should I do it for you?  Seems evolutionists aren't too good at numbers.  But with enough of them, anything is possible.
So you don't even have the excuse of being young for the way you're acting.

Also, what do you mean by "aren't too good at numbers"?  Your assertion makes little sense in context of anything, except possibly to try to "show" that you're smarter than "evolutionists".  By the way, think about that term you just used.  You just used it to mean "people who believe blindly in evolution".  Yet your argument, that people need to be able to explain a perfect step-by-step evolutionary process from one arbitrary example to another, or else it's blind belief on their part, is an argument from ignorance.  It's like saying that people "blindly believe in math" if they can't explain something from trigonometry or calculus.  It also shows that you don't actually understand how evolution works - you might have read the words, but they don't make sense to you, or you wouldn't have to try to demand "step-by-step proofs" to begin with.

Your argument from ignorance claim has been a bit overused.  I am NOT saying that because you don't know exactly how something happened, then it must be untrue or that "God dunnit".  That's a clever little thing that evolutionists do to make Creationists look stupid.  BUT, that's ALL evolution has!  Nobody can answer the question, "HOW did it evolve and WHY?"  Now that creates quite the problem, shouldn't it?  If it's such a fact and proven, then you'd expect a rational explaination to the questions I've posed.

Nowhere has evolution been witnessed or observed.  Nowhere have we seen a monkey grow into a man.  And with the millions of examples of "tough" questions about extremely extraordinary species and life forms that can't be explained, HOW is evolution such a good idea? 

Without a God, it's the ONLY explanation, and not a very believable one at that.  Sound like a 4th grader wrote that?  Thanks...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 17, 2012, 10:30:09 AM
rockv12, how did your god create everything? Nobody knows. That creates quite a problem, doesn't it?

Think about why my statement above makes no sense and you'll see why yours doesn't either.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 10:31:41 AM

Religion produces no knew information to the world but rehash old stories and bullshit claims.  I'll stick witht the group that finds new information about our reality and doens't act like they have all the answers when clearly they know absolutely nothing about anyting....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 10:33:15 AM
Also, while you argue about the existence of a god for last few hours/days, more than 50,000 people died of starvation.  I wonder why and what reasonable explanation will explain this human tragedy.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 10:42:11 AM
What you people don't understand about evolution is that it doesn't happen overnight like magic gods.  It happens over the course of millions and millions of years.

But do you know what I find interesting even in short period of time.  If I work out with heavy weights and barbells my muscles 'adapt' and change to reflect this environmental change I put on it and grow and get bigger than the common man; as long as I consume enough protein and food intake.  I even developed calluses on my hands from touching and lifting heavyweight ( do you wonder why this is or do you think this is just mere coincidence?)

And to prove my point, why don't you put on really small and tight shoes and see if you develope pains and calluses on your feet caused by this change and see if your body 'adapts' in a very short period of time.

Now tack on a few millions years and a few more environmental changes and mutations....  Oh well, it's easier for you believe that magic is real.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 10:56:03 AM


Just fyi... If you look at olympic records and times they are broken almost every time.  The fastest runner/swimmer 50 years ago is no longer the fastest today.  It's almost as if there are 'incremental' body changes that produce 'better' more 'effiencient' humans.  Makes you wonder what the best 1 mile run will be a million years from now.

Do you think it will be faster or slower than today's time and why?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 17, 2012, 12:05:28 PM
DVZ3, that could have all been one post.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 12:09:38 PM

^^^ OK, it 'could' have..... but it wasn't.... is that a problem....?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 12:13:11 PM
What other thoughts would you like me to combine to suite your need and/or style of thinking Pony!?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 17, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
DVZ3, that could have all been one post.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 12:18:16 PM
Quote
Religion produces no knew information to the world but rehash old stories and bullshit claims.  I'll stick witht the group that finds new information about our reality and doens't act like they have all the answers when clearly they know absolutely nothing about anyting....
Also, while you argue about the existence of a god for last few hours/days, more than 50,000 people died of starvation.  I wonder why and what

What you people don't understand about evolution is that it doesn't happen overnight like magic gods.  It happens over the course of millions and millions of years.

But do you know what I find interesting even in short period of time.  If I work out with heavy weights and barbells my muscles 'adapt' and change to reflect this environmental change I put on it and grow and get bigger than the common man; as long as I consume enough protein and food intake.  I even developed calluses on my hands from touching and lifting heavyweight ( do you wonder why this is or do you think this is just mere coincidence?)



And to prove my point, why don't you put on really small and tight shoes and see if you develope pains and calluses on your feet caused by this change and see if your body 'adapts' in a very short period of time.

Now tack on a few millions years and a few more environmental changes and mutations....  Oh well, it's easier for you believe that magic is real.

Just fyi... If you look at Olympic records and times they are broken almost every time.  The fastest runner/swimmer 50 years ago is no longer the fastest today.  It's almost as if there are 'incremental' body changes that produce 'better' more 'effiencient' humans.  Makes you wonder what the best 1 mile run will be a million years from now.

Do you think it will be faster or slower than today's time and why?

(http://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad138/dvanzile/Pony_01.png)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 17, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Yes. Whenever reasonably possible, the staff would like all members to pack replies such as yours into the fewest amount of posts as possible.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 12:31:53 PM


^^^ I suppose "The Lord of the Rings" 1, 2 and 3 could've been combined into 1 Epic movie as well..... Where were you with your insight oh mighty one...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 17, 2012, 01:11:37 PM
Your argument from ignorance claim has been a bit overused.  I am NOT saying that because you don't know exactly how something happened, then it must be untrue or that "God dunnit".  That's a clever little thing that evolutionists do to make Creationists look stupid.

But you ARE saying that if we don't know everything about something, that goddidit.  You ARE arguing for ignorance.  You're not saying "if we examine the evidence, we can see that..."  Instead, you're saying that "evolution can't explain everything, therefore, goddidit"

Let's say for the moment, that evolution is proved false.  Would that be reason to claim "goddidit"?  No, it wouldn't.  Because even in that case, it would still be a god of the gaps argument.  It would still show a lack of research, a lack of examining the evidence, a lack of testability, a lack of falsifiability, etc.  It's still poor thinking all around.


Quote
BUT, that's ALL evolution has!  Nobody can answer the question, "HOW did it evolve and WHY?"  Now that creates quite the problem, shouldn't it?  If it's such a fact and proven, then you'd expect a rational explaination to the questions I've posed.

Nowhere has evolution been witnessed or observed.  Nowhere have we seen a monkey grow into a man.  And with the millions of examples of "tough" questions about extremely extraordinary species and life forms that can't be explained, HOW is evolution such a good idea? 

I said this before, but........ KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!  Evolution does NOT say "monkeys grow into man".  If you have such crazy ideas about evolution, then it's no wonder you think it's BS.  Seriously, read a book by a creditable expert on the subject.  Don't read something from a creationist, read from someone that knows what the subject actually is.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 01:18:42 PM
Really... -1 for being honest.... I've posted way more informative shit than just to have even the amount I do.... Fuck you guys and your "I'm an anministrator".......  I could debate you in my sleep....

Yea " Lucifer" I'm asking it for it because why!?.... Because my posts and thoughts were spread out between 3!?   WHAT THE FUCK!?  And this is supposed to be the reasonable forum......
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 17, 2012, 01:22:13 PM

I said this before, but........ KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!  Evolution does NOT say "monkeys grow into man".  If you have such crazy ideas about evolution, then it's no wonder you think it's BS.  Seriously, read a book by a creditable expert on the subject.  Don't read something from a creationist, read from someone that knows what the subject actually is.

What is going on in here?  We didn't evolve from apes?  What evolutionary theory do you go by? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 17, 2012, 01:22:35 PM
Yea " Lucifer"

What's with the quotes?

I'm asking or it because why!?.... Because my posts and thoughts were spread out between 3!?   WHAT THE FUCK!?  And this is supposed to be the reasonable forum......

No, it's because an administrator was speaking in an "administrator voice", warning you about something you did wrong, and you mocked him (presumably for doing so). It was unnecessarily rude and stupid.

inb4"retaliation"
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 01:24:47 PM

Tough.... Tough I didn't have all my three posts/thoughts at the same time..... Tough the FUCKING admins can't read minds but pretend too.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 17, 2012, 01:25:23 PM
What you people don't understand about evolution is that it doesn't happen overnight like magic gods.  It happens over the course of millions and millions of years.

But do you know what I find interesting even in short period of time.  If I work out with heavy weights and barbells my muscles 'adapt' and change to reflect this environmental change I put on it and grow and get bigger than the common man; as long as I consume enough protein and food intake.  I even developed calluses on my hands from touching and lifting heavyweight ( do you wonder why this is or do you think this is just mere coincidence?)

And to prove my point, why don't you put on really small and tight shoes and see if you develope pains and calluses on your feet caused by this change and see if your body 'adapts' in a very short period of time.

Now tack on a few millions years and a few more environmental changes and mutations....  Oh well, it's easier for you believe that magic is real.

Problem number one with the above.....  Adapting is different than transforming.  Lifting weights at the gym will not transform you into the Incredible Hulk.  Problem number two....  the earth is NOT millions of years old. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 01:27:23 PM
Whatever makes you feel comfortable with beliveing in nonsense....

The moon has thousands of asteroid hits on it but yet we know that these only happen once in every 1 to 2 thousand years..... If the moon has hundreds of asteroid hits of evidence then how is it only 6000 years old again!?

It goes back to your sarcastically asked question about math and multiplication...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 17, 2012, 01:29:29 PM
Tough.... Tough I didn't have all my three posts/thoughts at the same time..... Tough the FUCKING admins can't read minds but pretend too.

Tough you can't even read what's written.
I said it's not about what you did wrong, but the fact that you mocked an administrator for warning you about what you did wrong.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 17, 2012, 01:30:10 PM
rockv12, how did your god create everything? Nobody knows. That creates quite a problem, doesn't it?

Think about why my statement above makes no sense and you'll see why yours doesn't either.

Very good, we are getting somewhere.  There are things we CAN'T fathom.  We MUST go off of  faith.  Blind faith that something/somehow/sometime came about...and we CAN'T explain it.  Therefore, we have NO idea how to explain eternal existence.  BUT we do have the observable....the complexity....the order....the perfection in our world to observe.  And with the logic that we DO have, we can see that it's simply too remarkable to explain through science.  So with that we go to option number two.  Something is out there that we can't figure out....hmmm....God?  Well, that's definitly an option since we are shooting in the dark anyway for a reason here.  Now with God, we have other proofs of His existence.....  The BIBLE.  Maybe that's what we should really be looking at here.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 01:31:06 PM
Tough.... Tough I didn't have all my three posts/thoughts at the same time..... Tough the FUCKING admins can't read minds but pretend too.

Tough you can't even read what's written.
I said it's not about what you did wrong, but the fact that you mocked an administrator for warning you about what you did wrong.

Grow up...

I am saying I honestly didn't see what I did wrong.  Multiple thouthts that were multiple posts.....   SORRREeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!       Excuse me while the REAL ADULTS DEBATE THE ISSUES while others........ like yourself made mine now seem insignificant over FUCKING NOTHING..... DONE!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Emily on March 17, 2012, 01:31:31 PM
  the earth is NOT millions of years old.

You're right. It's not millions of years old. It's actually billions of years old.

How old do you think the earth is?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 17, 2012, 01:32:46 PM
Very good, we are getting somewhere.  There are things we CAN'T fathom.  We MUST go off of  faith.  Blind faith that something/somehow/sometime came about...and we CAN'T explain it.  Therefore, we have NO idea how to explain eternal existence.  BUT we do have the observable....the complexity....the order....the perfection in our world to observe.  And with the logic that we DO have, we can see that it's simply too remarkable to explain through science.  So with that we go to option number two.  Something is out there that we can't figure out....hmmm....God?  Well, that's definitly an option since we are shooting in the dark anyway for a reason here.  Now with God, we have other proofs of His existence.....  The BIBLE.  Maybe that's what we should really be looking at here.

Sorry, no. Since you can't explain it, it's not true. That's your logic and I'm sticking by it. Try again.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 01:37:30 PM

^^^ Sorry Lucifer, I'm with him..... You've presented nothing to change my mind....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 17, 2012, 01:38:58 PM
^^^ Sorry Lucifer, I'm with him..... You've presented nothing to change my mind....

I'm just using his logic against him. Not even I agree with myself on the justification for rejecting his deity's existence.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 01:41:27 PM

How can anyone with the name 'Lucifer' or any other of the idiodic names for demons and devils think that the 'others' will take us seriously!?   I want to post all kinds of links to this forum but with names like 'Lucifer' and other STUUUUUUPID seeminly evil names are defeating the purpose for other 'innoccent' christians coming on this forum and taking us seriously....


THANKS A LOT DEVIL...... - Don
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 17, 2012, 01:49:56 PM
Your argument from ignorance claim has been a bit overused.  I am NOT saying that because you don't know exactly how something happened, then it must be untrue or that "God dunnit".  That's a clever little thing that evolutionists do to make Creationists look stupid.
Do you even read what you write before you post it?  You are indeed saying that "evolutionists" seemingly can't answer questions like "how did X organism evolve into Y organism" and "why do organisms evolve", and using that as an excuse to reject the whole business.  That is a textbook argument from ignorance.  If it's overused, it's because creationists "question" evolution based on "I don't know how this works, and your answers don't work for me, therefore it must be wrong" all the time, ignoring the fact that their "questions" are based on false premises.

Quote from: rockv12
BUT, that's ALL evolution has!
Case in point to what I said above.

Quote from: rockv12
Nobody can answer the question, "HOW did it evolve and WHY?"
"How did it evolve" is based on the false premise that the only acceptable "proof" for evolution is a perfect chain linking a predecessor species to a successor species, including every single step in between, or else it's not proved.  "Why did it evolve" is based on the equally false premise that an organism had to have a "reason" to evolve, like a person has a reason to choose one car over another.  Both, as far as I can tell, are based more off of the idea of Pokemon evolution than anything that exists in reality.

Quote from: rockv12
Now that creates quite the problem, shouldn't it?  If it's such a fact and proven, then you'd expect a rational explaination to the questions I've posed.
Nope, no problem.  You see, both questions have been legitimately answered, it's only your misconception about what the questions mean that causes problems for you.  "How did it evolve" is explained by the processes of heritability, mutation, and natural selection; the short version is that a mutation which affects a heritable trait will be passed down to offspring, detrimental traits will usually prevent survival and thus block the trait from being passed down and advantageous traits will usually enhance survival and allow the trait to be passed down.  "Why did it evolve" is because, simply, mutations happen, and if they are detrimental, the organisms will tend to not survive, whereas if they are beneficial, the organisms will tend to survive at a higher rate.

Quote from: rockv12
Nowhere has evolution been witnessed or observed.
You are either misinformed or lying.  Evolution is witnessed and observed by scientists performing experiments, such as the one where a strain of E.coli gained the ability to metabolize citric acid.  That's an evolutionary change which has been observed.  Of course, creationists like to claim that this is just "microevolution", but the fact is that if you have enough small changes happen over time, they add up to a large change eventually.

Quote from: rockv12
Nowhere have we seen a monkey grow into a man.
This is what I meant by Pokemon evolution.  Nobody who actually understands evolution will ever try to argue that you'll see a monkey grow into a human.

Quote from: rockv12
And with the millions of examples of "tough" questions about extremely extraordinary species and life forms that can't be explained, HOW is evolution such a good idea?
Millions of examples, huh?  This kind of claim is patently ludicrous.  It's exactly the kind of exaggeration that creationists love to engage in, nitpicking to the nth degree to pretend that they're asking real questions.  You sit here and go, "oh, yeah, explain the middle ear!  Explain the inner ear!" etc, and act like those are in any way relevant questions, as if evolution has to give specific examples for anything and everything that you can call to mind or else it's "not very believable".

Quote from: rockv12
Without a God, it's the ONLY explanation, and not a very believable one at that.
Just because you, in your ignorance, don't find it believable because you're constantly making mountains out of pebbles, doesn't mean squat.

Quote from: rockv12
Sound like a 4th grader wrote that?  Thanks...
No, but I never suggested you were a 4th grader.  It's possible for an adult to be ignorant about a subject, especially when they pretend they actually know yet throw up nonsensical questions which show that they don't really understand at all.

If you're going to claim that you understand evolution, you have to be able to demonstrate that you do.  Saying, "I understand it, now let's stay focused on all these nitpicked questions I want you to answer" doesn't fly.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Emily on March 17, 2012, 01:51:48 PM

How can anyone with the name 'Lucifer' or any other of the idiodic names for demons and devils think that the 'others' will take us seriously!?   I want to post all kinds of links to this forum but with names like 'Lucifer' and other STUUUUUUPID seeminly evil names are defeating the purpose for other 'innoccent' christians coming on this forum and taking us seriously....

If someone doesn't want to join a forum because of the username of a poster then they probably don't deserve to use the internet in the first place. You seriously think a username is enough to discourage someone from joining here? If that's the case then that person probably wouldn't fit in here anyways, and I'd go so far as to say that person needs to get thicker skin.

 We're all big girls and boys here, aren't we?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 01:59:23 PM
You obviously think way too much of christians then I do today.  I'm actually being honest, I would've posted a lot more links but there were too many of the "christian" taboo names to post to my "christian" thesits....


But I congratulate you in defending something that is "unreasonable" much like christians do.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 17, 2012, 02:12:40 PM
^^^ I suppose "The Lord of the Rings" 1, 2 and 3 could've been combined into 1 Epic movie as well..... Where were you with your insight oh mighty one...
You posted four posts within 25 minutes of each other.  Two of those posts were single sentences, none of them were very long.  So...how exactly does this compare to the Lord of the Rings movies again?

Seriously, that was a bad example to use, and that is largely why you're getting criticized now.  To make matters worse, your recent posts are not making things any better for yourself.  The next comment you made was basically you pitching a fit because you got a smite, and now you're harping on usernames.  You don't like ones like Lucifer?  Fine, bring them up in their own topic.  But bringing them up here, with the person who smote you, looks more you're whining than bringing up a legitimate topic.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 02:14:03 PM

OK.... I'm obviously outnumberd#'d by you guys.... Have a good one...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 17, 2012, 02:16:22 PM

Problem number one with the above.....  Adapting is different than transforming.  Lifting weights at the gym will not transform you into the Incredible Hulk.  Problem number two....  the earth is NOT millions of years old.
:laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:
 &)

Here it finally came out, your trump card. Game over.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 02:17:25 PM
^^^ I suppose "The Lord of the Rings" 1, 2 and 3 could've been combined into 1 Epic movie as well..... Where were you with your insight oh mighty one...
You posted four posts within 25 minutes of each other.  Two of those posts were single sentences, none of them were very long.  So...how exactly does this compare to the Lord of the Rings movies again?

Seriously, that was a bad example to use, and that is largely why you're getting criticized now.

And FUCK YOU... How about retorting to my original thesis verse something that doesn't add up to to a sperm's whale ejaculate!?....


Oh well, I can talk about the sperm's whale ejaculate if you want to, that's just not what I was after....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 17, 2012, 02:18:26 PM

Tough.... Tough I didn't have all my three posts/thoughts at the same time..... Tough the FUCKING admins can't read minds but pretend too.

It was four posts.

Also, your little meltdown is off-topic, so go start a new thread about your issue while the relevant mods determine the appropriate consequence.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 17, 2012, 02:18:38 PM
What is going on in here?  We didn't evolve from apes?  What evolutionary theory do you go by?

Humans and apes share a common ancestor.  That's something you should know if you've actually read up on the theory of evolution.  You seem to think that 'evolution' has a monkey giving birth to a human.  It doesn't state that at all.

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee-human_last_common_ancestor
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 17, 2012, 02:21:10 PM

Problem number one with the above.....  Adapting is different than transforming.  Lifting weights at the gym will not transform you into the Incredible Hulk.  Problem number two....  the earth is NOT millions of years old.
:laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:  :laugh:
 &)

Here it finally came out, your trump card. Game over.

To be fair, as Emily pointed out, he's right. The Earth is not millions of years old. IIRC it's 4.5 billion years old.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 02:23:41 PM

^^^ 4.6 to 4.7 millions..... stop spreading lies or I'll report you to admins....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Asmoday on March 17, 2012, 02:26:00 PM
You obviously think way too much of christians then I do today.  I'm actually being honest, I would've posted a lot more links but there were too many of the "christian" taboo names to post to my "christian" thesits....


But I congratulate you in defending something that is "unreasonable" much like christians do.

Are we now supposed to self-censor us to not step on on a feeble Christian's toes concerning things that might or might not poke them the wrong way? While we're at it, how about also removing all names referencing atheism? After all, more than enough Christians already get offended (especially the "innocent" ones who already get their panties in a twist over mythological names) over the mere mentioning of atheism.

What about the forum title? Do you honestly think that someone who already stops reading because of a mythological user name would not already get offended over the title? One look at the mailbag shows this particular kind of Christians see the mere title of the forum as blasphemous.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 17, 2012, 02:26:34 PM
The moon has thousands of asteroid hits on it but yet we know that these only happen once in every 1 to 2 thousand years..... If the moon has hundreds of asteroid hits of evidence then how is it only 6000 years old again!?

Ya, big time. Like you, I am also dumbfounded by how theists can ignore such evidence as the moon stuff. I even sarted a thread about it. The only theist to respond, a creatard, said some stuff about the earth's atmosphere, then never returned.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 17, 2012, 02:28:12 PM
^^^ 4.6 to 4.7 millions..... stop spreading lies or I'll report you to admins....
You're off by about three orders of magnitude there.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 02:30:04 PM

I apologize for lashing out on the forum here due to a couple of misinterpreted posts.  And I appreciate everyone else for pointing out my 'orders of mag' flaws with any sort of seriousness...


Don Van Zile III
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DVZ3 on March 17, 2012, 02:36:31 PM

And I'm done here for a while I guess.... I can see what 'like minded people' can do as a force.... and it's not pretty regardless of the direction you're on...............
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Frank on March 17, 2012, 04:10:13 PM


Very good, we are getting somewhere.  There are things we CAN'T fathom.  We MUST go off of  faith.  Blind faith that something/somehow/sometime came about...and we CAN'T explain it.  Therefore, we have NO idea how to explain eternal existence.  BUT we do have the observable....the complexity....the order....the perfection in our world to observe.  And with the logic that we DO have, we can see that it's simply too remarkable to explain through science.  So with that we go to option number two.  Something is out there that we can't figure out....hmmm....God?  Well, that's definitly an option since we are shooting in the dark anyway for a reason here.  Now with God, we have other proofs of His existence.....  The BIBLE.  Maybe that's what we should really be looking at here.

I hope you were homeschooled because it would be a terrible waste of taxpayers money to think after all those years of education this was all they got for their cash.

It's like they paid for this

(http://topnews.net.nz/data/Rolls-Royce646.jpg)

but got this

(http://www.motoring.co.uk/images/newsImages/80d2ad18-bad4-11dd-9330-001ec9bb95bb.jpg)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 17, 2012, 05:42:08 PM
Very good, we are getting somewhere.  There are things we CAN'T fathom.  We MUST go off of  faith.  Blind faith that something/somehow/sometime came about...and we CAN'T explain it.  Therefore, we have NO idea how to explain eternal existence.  BUT we do have the observable....the complexity....the order....the perfection in our world to observe.  And with the logic that we DO have, we can see that it's simply too remarkable to explain through science.  So with that we go to option number two.  Something is out there that we can't figure out....hmmm....God?  Well, that's definitly an option since we are shooting in the dark anyway for a reason here.  Now with God, we have other proofs of His existence.....  The BIBLE.  Maybe that's what we should really be looking at here.

Sorry, no. Since you can't explain it, it's not true. That's your logic and I'm sticking by it. Try again.

Finally, someone made me shut up a bit.  Good one.  But, by my logic, if it can't be proven, IT CAN'T BE PROVEN.  That's my logic.  I can't prove God by looking at creation.  Nobody can prove anything by stating the unknown.  I CAN prove that we don't know, therefore CAN'T say creation didn't happen.  We MUST look at other things.  Probability for sticking to "science", OR looking at other options.  There is more than just creation to point to a God.  Look at supernatural phenomenon.  Now you must believe in "spirits/ghosts", and the paranormal, right?  If there is a spirit world, then there is something out there that we DON'T understand!  Now if there's a spirit world, there may be a God.  I believe there is and that He along with Satan have a lot of power.  Satan, being the evil influence in the world, based on Scripture.  You discount demonic possession as being some insanity?  I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall.  I've seen the name of Jesus drive out a demon....  I've heard God and seen Him work.  I've experienced the supernatural in my life as well as many other people.  It's real.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 17, 2012, 05:46:38 PM
The supernatural is impossible and has not been proven.
Keep trying.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 17, 2012, 06:12:04 PM
The supernatural is impossible and has not been proven.
Keep trying.

Your name is Lucifer.  You must have some sort of belief in him.  So, the supernatural is impossible?  Why?  Maybe someday science will tell us how it works.  I mean we are still learning and all.  Aren't we?  I'd go into the many stories I have that can prove the supernatural world and God's presence, but would it help?  Do I have some sort of mental, psychotic disorder?  I didn't think I did...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Frank on March 17, 2012, 08:10:44 PM
  I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall.  I've seen the name of Jesus drive out a demon....  I've heard God and seen Him work.  I've experienced the supernatural in my life as well as many other people.  It's real.


Just as long as you don't try stabbing these little girls with scissors.

Maybe you could tell us what this demon looked like. Did you get any pictures you could post? Although if I was a betting man I'd put my money on the demon being an invisible figment of your vivid imagination along with the rest of your unlikely stories.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 17, 2012, 08:21:12 PM
I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall.  I've seen the name of Jesus drive out a demon....  I've heard God and seen Him work.  I've experienced the supernatural in my life as well as many other people.  It's real.

Uh, The Exorcist was a, um, movie...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Cyberia on March 17, 2012, 08:26:54 PM
Now with God, we have other proofs of His existence.....  The BIBLE.  Maybe that's what we should really be looking at here.

The bible proves god, like Moby Dick proves giant white whales existed.

FAIL.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 17, 2012, 09:30:59 PM
Off-topic posts have been split and moved to a more appropriate venue.  
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 17, 2012, 10:53:18 PM
Very good, we are getting somewhere.  There are things we CAN'T fathom.  We MUST go off of  faith.  Blind faith that something/somehow/sometime came about...and we CAN'T explain it.  Therefore, we have NO idea how to explain eternal existence.  BUT we do have the observable....the complexity....the order....the perfection in our world to observe.  And with the logic that we DO have, we can see that it's simply too remarkable to explain through science.  So with that we go to option number two.  Something is out there that we can't figure out....hmmm....God?  Well, that's definitly an option since we are shooting in the dark anyway for a reason here.  Now with God, we have other proofs of His existence.....  The BIBLE.  Maybe that's what we should really be looking at here.
So, the fact that we don't understand something at the moment means we must go off of faith?  No, I don't think so.  That is an argument from incredulity, "god of the gaps".  Namely, the lack of an explanation means that the only answer is "faith".  The part you are missing is that there is no reason to expect that there will never be an explanation, or that we do not already have a partial explanation, like we do with evolution.  We have had things we could not explain before, that we can explain now.  For example, people once thought lightning was too remarkable to explain except through supernatural means, yet now we understand that it is completely natural.  So why should anyone expect that other things believed to be supernatural, other things not understood do not have a natural explanation instead?

Also, the Bible is not proof of God's existence.  The Bible was written by humans, and many of the stories in it, which I suspect you believe are true, are in fact adapted from earlier stories taken from older religions.  For example, Gilgamesh's flood story precedes Noah's flood story by quite a bit, and Osiris was betrayed and killed, then resurrected, long before Jesus.  Certainly, some of the details are different, but enough of the core details are the same to show that these stories in the Bible are not particularly original.  And even leaving that aside, the argument itself makes little sense.  "We can't know something, so we have to have faith, but hey, the Bible has proofs, so let's discuss that."  Sciences like evolution have far more proof in favor of them than the Bible, because the Bible was written by people who didn't really know any better and were just trying to get an idea of how the world worked.  Fine for them, but we should no more assume that those stories have relevance today than we should assume that a bronze or iron-tipped spear is a good hunting implement.

Your name is Lucifer.  You must have some sort of belief in him.  So, the supernatural is impossible?  Why?  Maybe someday science will tell us how it works.  I mean we are still learning and all.  Aren't we?  I'd go into the many stories I have that can prove the supernatural world and God's presence, but would it help?  Do I have some sort of mental, psychotic disorder?  I didn't think I did...
This makes no sense at all.  He picked the name Lucifer for his forum name, therefore he must have some belief in the supernatural being named in the Bible?  How about not.  As for the supernatural, if science could tell us how the supernatural worked, it would no longer be supernatural, because we would understand it.  In other words, defining something as "supernatural" is just shorthand for "I don't understand how this works, therefore it must not be natural".

Finally, someone made me shut up a bit.  Good one.  But, by my logic, if it can't be proven, IT CAN'T BE PROVEN.  That's my logic.  I can't prove God by looking at creation.  Nobody can prove anything by stating the unknown.  I CAN prove that we don't know, therefore CAN'T say creation didn't happen.  We MUST look at other things.  Probability for sticking to "science", OR looking at other options.  There is more than just creation to point to a God.  Look at supernatural phenomenon.  Now you must believe in "spirits/ghosts", and the paranormal, right?  If there is a spirit world, then there is something out there that we DON'T understand!  Now if there's a spirit world, there may be a God.  I believe there is and that He along with Satan have a lot of power.  Satan, being the evil influence in the world, based on Scripture.  You discount demonic possession as being some insanity?  I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall.  I've seen the name of Jesus drive out a demon....  I've heard God and seen Him work.  I've experienced the supernatural in my life as well as many other people.  It's real.
By your logic, if it can't be proven, it can't be proven?  Yeeaaahhhh.  First off, you can't assume that because something isn't provable now, that it never will be provable.  Second, leaving that aside, science isn't about "proving" things, it's about explaining them as best we can based on the evidence we can uncover.  While you are correct that nobody can definitively prove that some being was not involved with the beginning of the universe, it isn't a reasonable presumption unless we find evidence to that effect.  It's like if your coffee cup vanished off of the dining room table, saying you couldn't prove that a ghost didn't take it instead of you moving it to some other room and forgetting, or someone else taking it instead.

And who are you to say I "must believe" in anything at all?  I've never seen a ghost.  I've never seen a demon possession.  I've never seen a spirit.  I've never seen anything paranormal.  If I did see any of those things, I would not simply assume that they had to be ghosts, or demons, or spirits, or the paranormal.  I would try to figure out what exactly was going on, the same way as people worked to figure out how other things in the natural world works.  So why should I assume that such a thing as a "spirit world" exists, without real evidence in favor of it?  Simply because you say it might, or you believe it does?  The fact that you believe in something doesn't make it real.  Reality exists on its own terms, and no others.  You can convince yourself something is real if you believe hard enough in it, but it won't actually make it real.  But if something is real, you will have evidence of it that stands up to independent and rigorous scrutiny.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 18, 2012, 02:55:46 AM
Your name is Lucifer.  You must have some sort of belief in him.

Lucifer is a title used to refer to three mythical beings: Babylonian (IIRC) king, a regular angel and Jesus. I don't believe in any of them. I use it as my username for personal reasons.

So, the supernatural is impossible?  Why?  Maybe someday science will tell us how it works.

If it were possible to explain, it would be natural. See the contradiction there?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 18, 2012, 03:38:34 AM
Very good, we are getting somewhere.  There are things we CAN'T fathom.  We MUST go off of  faith.  Blind faith that something/somehow/sometime came about...and we CAN'T explain it.  Therefore, we have NO idea how to explain eternal existence.  BUT we do have the observable....the complexity....the order....the perfection in our world to observe.  And with the logic that we DO have, we can see that it's simply too remarkable to explain through science.  So with that we go to option number two.  Something is out there that we can't figure out....hmmm....God?  Well, that's definitly an option since we are shooting in the dark anyway for a reason here.  Now with God, we have other proofs of His existence.....  The BIBLE.  Maybe that's what we should really be looking at here.
Sorry, no. Since you can't explain it, it's not true. That's your logic and I'm sticking by it. Try again.

Finally, someone made me shut up a bit.  Good one.  But, by my logic, if it can't be proven, IT CAN'T BE PROVEN.  That's my logic.  I can't prove God by looking at creation.  Nobody can prove anything by stating the unknown.  I CAN prove that we don't know, therefore CAN'T say creation didn't happen.  We MUST look at other things.  Probability for sticking to "science", OR looking at other options.  There is more than just creation to point to a God.  Look at supernatural phenomenon.  Now you must believe in "spirits/ghosts", and the paranormal, right?  If there is a spirit world, then there is something out there that we DON'T understand!  Now if there's a spirit world, there may be a God.  I believe there is and that He along with Satan have a lot of power.  Satan, being the evil influence in the world, based on Scripture.  You discount demonic possession as being some insanity?  I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall.  I've seen the name of Jesus drive out a demon....  I've heard God and seen Him work.  I've experienced the supernatural in my life as well as many other people.  It's real.
Do you believe that god has a lot of power, or that he is all-powerful? If, like most xians (and I suspect as much), its the latter, do you not see the inherent contradiction in the existence of an all-powerful god and the existence of satan? If god is truly omnipotent he: (a) created and gave power to this evil being called satan, (b) allows satan to exist, and (c) is complicit in all of satan's actions. Would you stand by and do nothing if a child were being raped or murdered right in front of you, even if you had the means to easily stop it? This is essentially the scenario taking place every time something bad/evil happens in the world, according to your belief. How do you reconcile this to a being worthy of praise and worship?

And it is not imperative for one to believe in "spirits/ghosts" or the paranormal, either. I used to date a girl who insisted her apartment was haunted because the light in her room would flicker intermittently, especially (she claimed) when she was thinking of a particular recently deceased relative. Turns out the only thing required to drive that ghost away was to tighten the bulb in her lamp.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 18, 2012, 06:28:51 AM
I used to date a girl who insisted her apartment was haunted because the light in her room would flicker intermittently, especially (she claimed) when she was thinking of a particular recently deceased relative. Turns out the only thing required to drive that ghost away was to tighten the bulb in her lamp.
Sounds like a pretty dim bulb herself bloke... ;)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Emily on March 18, 2012, 06:40:59 AM
I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall

Interesting. Sure, you have seen it, so it must be real then, huh? Not everything we see is what is truly is. That being, if you've seen  "demon possessed" girls throw grown men against a wall doesn't mean that girls were demon possessed. There would be another, more realistic, explanation also. For example: the girls could've been on the drug PCP. Or, these men they threw against the wall could've been trapped under a car and the girl's fight or flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response) response could have been triggered. I don't know. What you saw seems pretty vague based on what you posted. To just rule that these girls were demonically possessed is a bit premature.

 Oh, a little girl tossed a man 50 feet. How?

(the only) Answer: Demonic possession.

That just sounds stupid. I'm sure if multiple cases like what you experienced happened it would make Dateline or something. And I am sure (or at least hoping) that if these girls actually did do this they'd be receiving some sort of medical evaluation as to how they did this. And well, until the medical reports specifically claim 'DEMONIC POSSESSION" I don't believe your story (and I will admin that even with the diagnosis of demonic possession I won't believe the medical studies)

This reminds me. What these girls did would be battery in regards to law. Did these grown men press charges on these girls? Are the girls sitting in juvie for being "demonically possessed". Where are these little girls now? In our day and age the police report would be on the Internet I'd be interested in reading it. That is if what you say actually happened.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 18, 2012, 07:13:34 AM
I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall.

No you haven't.  At best, you've seen "little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall"[1], and you cannot explain why, so you attribute it to "demons".

I've seen the name of Jesus drive out a demon

No you haven't.  At best, you've seen behavior change at the mention of the word "jesus".  There are other, more likely explanations than "demons".

....  I've heard God and seen Him work. 

No you haven't.  You've had coincidences you would prefer to explain with "god", because that is your cultural background and it makes you feel more important and special.
 1. and even that I highly doubt
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 18, 2012, 07:30:56 AM
You discount demonic possession as being some insanity?

Demonic possession is an attempt at a medical diagnosis made by an untrained superstitious idiot. 

I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall. 

Pick them up?  Like... into the air over her head?  And throw them into a wall?  I'd like to see that. 

Or is it possible that he was in a compromised position, she pushed, he stumbled backwards and hit the wall?  I had a 5 year old run into me once when I wasn't looking and when I went to step back, I tripped and fell over a tree root.  My wrist was sore for weeks because I used my hand to break my fall. 

I've seen the name of Jesus drive out a demon....

Here is a good Islamic page that says how to exorcise and how reading from the Quran can drive out the black magic and demons.

http://islamicexorcism.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/simple-guide-for-islamic-exorcism/

Here is a good Hindu video showing a Hindu exorcism. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3vFTiPCH2g

Here is a quote from the following page...  http://www.medindia.net/news/lifestyleandwellness/Exorcism-Driving-Out-the-Devil-42550-1.htm

Quote
Religion and Exorcism

Demonic possession and exorcism, along with a strong belief that dead spirits are capable of harming the living, have a long history in various cultures around the world. In ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Hindu cultures, shamans or priest healers entered into a trance to identify the “mischief-making spirit" and to elicit from it the way to end the victim’s torment. Jewish folklore and Kabbalah teachings mention a malevolent spirit dybbuk—the soul of a dead person that re-enters a living person to carry out its unfinished agenda and is usually exorcised to leave the body through the toe. Muslims believe in a Jinn—an evil spirit that invades a human at the behest of Satan to cause illness, pain, and evil thoughts. Particular passages from the Quran are read out to expel the Jinn.

It seems Jesus isn't the only one who can drive out the demons.  I think this is pretty basic evidence that no form of deity is at work here, but just improper management of people with some psychological problems (that may even have been caused by the religious belief in the first place, given that they respond to religious incantations).  Unless, of course, you think exorcisms in other religions are valid, reasonable evidence of the existence of other gods? 

The diagnosis of demonic possession was invented by people who didn't understand what was causing some people to act differently.  It's still propagated today by people who really believe that stupid shit, even though we know a lot more about how the brain works.

Exorcisms are dangerous things.  They can kill people... 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/23/australia-exorcism-killing-trial_n_1167369.html 
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2011/12/21/bolivia-arrests-suspects-in-exorcism-killing/
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Exorcism-killing-6-granted-bail-20111124
http://www.rickross.com/reference/exorcism/exorcism5.html

When are people like you going to grow up and face the fact that there is no such thing as demonic possession.  It's all psychological.  I mean come on!  Demonic possession?  How do you expect us to take that seriously?   

I've heard God and seen Him work.  I've experienced the supernatural in my life as well as many other people.  It's real.

No, you haven't.  It's fake.  Totally fake. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 18, 2012, 07:48:07 AM
My wife and I had an argument once. She was on the phone with her religious brother when I said, "I'm gonna give you hell." (She had burned up our car motor because she didn't want to get her hands dirty).

Her brother thot he heard, "I'm gonna send you to hell" and had her come over to his house. He and his wife convinced her that I was demonically possessed, and forced me to agree to see a "counselor" before she would come home. It was Ken Olson, former Pastor and former psychologist and author of multiple books (Can It Wait Until Thursday, When you Get to the End of Your Rope-Tie a Knot and Hang On).   

He had been defrocked for his secular views as a psychologist, and lost his license to practice psychology for performing exorcisms. He had retired from writing and lived in the neighborhood offering his "services" for free out of his home.

Forced with the decision to loose my wife and son or see an exorcist, I choose to see Ken. I knew of him from reading his books decades earlier. My mom had his books which were part of the self-help movement in the late 60's early 70's.

I spent a few sessions with him as he attempted to cast out my demons. So beore my last visit to see him I stuffed myself to the gills with all I could eat. I was so full, I could barely keep all the food down. At the session, I let him pray and annoint me and then I writhed and groaned and began to speak in tongues. The grand finale? I barfed all over him and his furniture, desk and carpet.

He made a call, and my wife and I had one more session with him and that was it. Years later, I explained what happened to my wife, amd we had a good laugh!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 18, 2012, 08:19:53 AM
....divinely played  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kymer on March 18, 2012, 11:58:25 AM
Layman question : What's the evidence that the big bang happened? Most people just accept this as fact without knowing the reasons. It would be useful if someone could briefly explain it. Thanks.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 18, 2012, 12:15:47 PM
The two pieces of evidence which are the most telling are the expansion of the universe (evident by the distinct redshift that all stellar objects excepting our closest neighbor galaxies have, and the further away, the more redshifted), and the cosmic microwave background radiation (the "leftovers" of the Big Bang), which is literally present everywhere.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kymer on March 18, 2012, 12:22:32 PM
To put it in simple terms, you mean that scientists think the universe is expanding because the colour of light coming from stars and galaxies indicate that they've been moving in a particular direction, and also because you can hear a noise that sounds like an expansion? Is that correct?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 18, 2012, 12:26:10 PM
Layman question : What's the evidence that the big bang happened? Most people just accept this as fact without knowing the reasons. It would be useful if someone could briefly explain it. Thanks.

Well, we're here.  :)

In all honesty, if you want an overview, the Wikipedia article, though sort of long, sums it up nicely. Read that and then ask questions. That way we don't have to be teachers in subjects outside our own areas of expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)

If you want something with fewer footnotes, try this site. It seems to cover the basics well.

http://big-bang-theory.com/ (http://big-bang-theory.com/)

I could read those sites myself and write a book report for you, but the local theists have been asking us to do similar things all week long and frankly I'm tired. Hope this helps.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 18, 2012, 12:26:36 PM
Layman question : What's the evidence that the big bang happened? Most people just accept this as fact without knowing the reasons. It would be useful if someone could briefly explain it. Thanks.

The universe seems to have stucture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Galactic_evolution_and_distribution
you have to take their word on the changes, movement, unless you want to do the math.

Time also seems to be needed, for things to have ended up as they are.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kymer on March 18, 2012, 12:32:25 PM
This is from your link :

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

How can we be certain?

Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

How does a galaxy moving away from us indicate an expansion from a cetral point? Could it just be that it is simply moving away from us?

Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

How does the presence of heat exclude everything but a big bang?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 18, 2012, 12:48:13 PM
Quote
How does a galaxy moving away from us indicate an expansion from a cetral point? Could it just be that it is simply moving away from us?

You need to read some books* I skip them. But there is no central point.

Sorry, big bang is not one of my things. Rocks, chemicals, plants animals interest me.

*short explanation
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 18, 2012, 12:51:55 PM
This is from your link :

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

How can we be certain?

Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

How does a galaxy moving away from us indicate an expansion from a cetral point? Could it just be that it is simply moving away from us?

Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

How does the presence of heat exclude everything but a big bang?

You really need to read our quoting tutorial, otherwise you'll drive us all crazy. Normally I would quote you in context but it's not worth trying to clean up your stuff first. So I'll pull them out separately. Anyway, here's the tutorial

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,4259.0.html (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,4259.0.html)

You asked
Quote
"How can we be certain"


About how we know the universe had a beginning.

We can't. We're pretty darned sure, because it is the explanation that makes the most sense and explains the most phenomena. It might have some glaring errors or be just plain wrong. But we haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Also, the theory only goes back to the beginning of what we know as the universe. It does not exclude the existence of anything prior to 14.7 billion years ago, and does not exclude the possibility of other universes or other complicating facts that we know nothing about. What we call the universe may well be part of a larger existence for which we have no clues. Maybe next week.

Then you asked:
Quote
"How does a galaxy moving away from us indicate an expansion from a cetral point? Could it just be that it is simply moving away from us?"

Well, astronomers have found that no matter where you stand in the universe, it looks like it is radiating away from that point. The same math that so accurately predicts so many other phenomena about the big bang tells us this too. Given that we can't go to another galaxy and confirm this, I'll go with what they've figured out. The math involved is over my grade level.

Finally, you ask:
Quote
How does the presence of heat exclude everything but a big bang?

Because the big bang theory is the only one that anyone has come up with that explains the heat. If someone can come up with an alternative explanation, they are welcome to do so.

The big bang theory was developed first. It predicted the heat. The heat was found when we finally had instruments that could detect it. Had the heat not been found, the theory would have been out the window. Until someone comes up with an alternate explanation that matches the math and the observations, we're stuck with this one.

Again, please figure out how to quote correctly. It makes our work easier.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 18, 2012, 01:35:44 PM
To put it in simple terms, you mean that scientists think the universe is expanding because the colour of light coming from stars and galaxies indicate that they've been moving in a particular direction, and also because you can hear a noise that sounds like an expansion? Is that correct?

If you really think you came to the right place for answers, could you start a thread in the science section, please? This topic was put here in error.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 18, 2012, 02:57:37 PM
To put it in simple terms, you mean that scientists think the universe is expanding because the colour of light coming from stars and galaxies indicate that they've been moving in a particular direction, and also because you can hear a noise that sounds like an expansion? Is that correct?
No, that's incorrect.  Let me explain.  Redshift and blueshift are references to the Doppler effect.  It's exactly the same as how if you are standing at a train station, a train that is approaching you will have a higher (and shorter) pitch to its whistle, whereas a train that is receding from you will have a lower (and longer) pitch to its whistle.  This is because the motion of the train adds or subtracts energy from the sound waves produced by its whistle.  Redshift and blueshift work exactly the same way; if an object's light is shifted blue, it is approaching, whereas if its light is shifted red, it is receding.

In answer to your follow-up question, the thing is that every galaxy, in every direction, is receding, except for our very closest neighbors.  And the further away they are, the faster they seem to be receding.  One conclusion might be that we're at the center and everything else was propelled away from us, but that conclusion is wrong.  This is because we have actually seen the redshift increase since we started measuring it, indicating that something is accelerating the expansion of the universe.  This is explained by the idea of the space between galaxies expanding, rather than those galaxies moving at different speeds in relation to each other.

As for microwaves, they are not sounds.  Microwaves refer to a a particular length of the electromagnetic wave spectrum between infrared and radio.  In essence, they are a form of energy, the "leftovers" of the energy that was bound into matter when atoms started to form.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kymer on March 18, 2012, 04:02:06 PM
Way, way, way too much quoted text. Please only quote the smallest amount possible that you need to respond to. I've seen that you need to pay attention to this in other threads also. If you just want to acknowledge a person, you can also just say "Jake, thanks for the post ..."

Thanks.


I was quoting from the link, not from here. Thanks for your reply.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Cyberia on March 18, 2012, 06:18:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence

There are least six independent lines of evidence:

Hubble's law and the expansion of space
Cosmic microwave background radiation
Abundance of primordial elements
Galactic evolution and distribution
Primordial gas clouds
Ages of the oldest stars
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kymer on March 18, 2012, 06:51:52 PM
Could you elaborate a little bit on each of those?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 18, 2012, 07:15:40 PM
Could you elaborate a little bit on each of those?

Come on mate
with all due respect and not intending any aggressive attitude
  the link is right there and you are asking someone to take the time to educate you when in fact if you are really interested you'd be educating yourself.

Please understand that one of the artifacts of this forum is the relentless visiting of theists arguing everything/anything from ignorance[1].

That artifact requires us (before we can even begin to have a constructive conversation with said theists about a specific topic) to educate said theist in said topic so they can at least attempt to engage from a position of at least passing accuracy.

If you are really interested, do the work. :)

 1. not all by any means ...but enough
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 18, 2012, 07:20:03 PM
Come on mate
with all due respect and not intending any aggressive attitude
  the link is right there and you are asking someone to take the time to educate you when in fact if you are really interested you'd be educating yourself.


Agreed.

What do you believe?
What do you think about gods?
What do you think about atheists, or theists, or some other idea you hold dear?

It's time to stop asking questions and start answering a few.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 18, 2012, 07:20:43 PM
Could you elaborate a little bit on each of those?

The more you look into these things, the harder it becomes to visualize. Look into youtube and see what they have on each of those topics.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 18, 2012, 07:21:55 PM
Could you elaborate a little bit on each of those?

I'd love to.

www.Google.com (http://www.Google.com)

You're welcome.


Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 19, 2012, 05:52:03 AM
Look at supernatural phenomenon.  Now you must believe in "spirits/ghosts", and the paranormal, right?  If there is a spirit world, then there is something out there that we DON'T understand! 

Nor have we ever seen this happen, therefore it is NOT proven.

Rocky.  I've not seen anything supernatural happen.  I've not seen ghosts, not heard spirits, not seen anything paranormal happen.  So - according to you - it it not proven.

So I can ignore it, right?  Or do you have any way at all that I can see this "paranormal" for myself?

Still waiting for you to answer my question about Great Danes and Chihuahuas, by the way.....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kymer on March 19, 2012, 07:10:30 AM
Sure I'll look into it some time.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 19, 2012, 07:35:07 AM
Could you elaborate a little bit on each of those?
I'd love to.
www.Google.com (http://www.Google.com)
You're welcome.

The more user friendly way to do it is like this http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Primordial+gas+clouds
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Hubble%27s+law+and+the+expansion+of+space

and so on...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 23, 2012, 12:19:43 PM
I've seen demon possessed little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall.

No you haven't.  At best, you've seen "little girls pick up grown men and throw them against the wall"[1], and you cannot explain why, so you attribute it to "demons".

I've seen the name of Jesus drive out a demon

No you haven't.  At best, you've seen behavior change at the mention of the word "jesus".  There are other, more likely explanations than "demons".

....  I've heard God and seen Him work. 

No you haven't.  You've had coincidences you would prefer to explain with "god", because that is your cultural background and it makes you feel more important and special.
 1. and even that I highly doubt

Gosh, I don't think anything would be good enough for you to believe in a God.  If God Himself walked into your room at night and talked to you in plain English, you'd attibute it to something else other than God.  So what could be done to prove demon possession to you?  Absolutely nothing?  You'd NEVER believe it?  Awful lot of coincidences out there...don't ya think?  If I asked God, "God make the brakes on my car stop sqeaking, and then they did immediately, would that be a coincidence?  How many coincidences does it take to make a certainty? 

God works differently than He did in the Old Testament.  After Christ's death on the cross and resurrection, He uses the Holy Spirit to communicate with us.  We no longer have God speaking to us from the sky, like he used to.  But we have many proofs of His existence if you would simply open your eyes and mind to the possibility. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 23, 2012, 12:25:17 PM

Demonic possession is an attempt at a medical diagnosis made by an untrained superstitious idiot. 

When are people like you going to grow up and face the fact that there is no such thing as demonic possession.  It's all psychological.  I mean come on!  Demonic possession?  How do you expect us to take that seriously?   


Psychological?  You are sure of this?  Have you proven this?  Someone above mentioned that there must or may be an alternate universe that we don't understand or know about yet.  That's believable to you?  But not supernatural, demonic possession?  You can't say in one sentence, "Oh, there must be an alternate universe to help explain how the universe was created prior to 14 billion years ago, we'll figure it out someday, but we don't know how it's possible at the moment"....and in another sentence, say, "Demonic possession!  You're a fool!  That's ridiculous to believe in that because it's not provable!".   Seems like anything is possible.  If science can help explain how a little girl of 95 lbs. threw a football player up against the wall with one arm and was "cured" through prayer and Jesus' name, after her parents sold her soul to Satan when she was a child, then go right ahead and prove it.  Good luck...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 23, 2012, 12:28:19 PM
The two pieces of evidence which are the most telling are the expansion of the universe (evident by the distinct redshift that all stellar objects excepting our closest neighbor galaxies have, and the further away, the more redshifted), and the cosmic microwave background radiation (the "leftovers" of the Big Bang), which is literally present everywhere.

God and science can co-exist.  God created science.  Just because it appears that things are expanding means nothing.  It's science working.  God created the laws of science, they must work for things to operate.  But to use that as proof that God doesn't exist, is not a good argument.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 23, 2012, 12:46:15 PM
Rockv,  your post to screwtape is an excuse by a lot of Christians, that they decide for themselves that an atheist will take “nothing” as evidence for their god.  You make claims that you’ve see such things but funny how such things are never filmed by anyone, never witnessed by anyone who isn’t already desperate for evidence on why they should keep believing, etc.  Similar claims are being made by other religions too and I’m guessing you don’t believe that a Hindu guru or an Muslim mullah or a Wiccan priestess can drive out demons do you?  If you don’t, why not? 

If you could pray to your god for your brakes to stop squeaking, and it happened you’d be all sure it was your god.  And you’d forget or excuse every time your prayers fail.  Suddenly when they fail, oooh it’s that God wanted me to have something else or that god said no or that god said wait if you remembered them at all.  Now, you want to claim a certainty, that *all* of your prayers come true, then show us.  Pray that the children in Somalia have enough to eat right now.  Pray that these young men and women are healed of their amputations so they may live the lives they imagined for themselves: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/americas/Haitian-Soccer-Amputees-Assist-Wounded-US-Soldiers-132302533.html  If you can't make these things happen by your prayers, why should I believe you that anything happens when you pray? 

If you god exists, and is as you claim, omniscient, omnipotent, etc, then it will know exactly what it would take to make me believe in it.  In that it hasn’t yet, what’s your excuse now?

And ah, the usual claim that magically your god has decided to change its modus operandi. Why how convenient for lying Christians who have to excuse why it does *nothing*!  What I find even funnier is that your fellow Christians keep insisting that your god indeed does talk from the sky, that it does miracles. Tsk, who is the True Christian now, rockv?  You have provide no evidence at all for your god.  I do have an open mind but it is not like a $5 whore, open to anything that comes along.   I need evidence, rockv, and you have failed repeatedly in your claims of having such evidence. 

AS for demonic possession being “real”, that’s just more lies.  Humans used to think that getting sick was caused by supernatural forces, but they didn’t know any better and now we have science and we do.  Influenza isn’t caused by spirits, or “bad air” or “God’s will”, it’s caused by things we can counter.  Same with mental illness.  People who are schizophrenic, manic-depressive, paranoid, etc were all thought to be “possessed” and not surprisingly that was found to be wrong too once we started to investigate the brain with science.  Science has shown that psychosomatic illnesses exist and how they can be treated.  Your religion’s claims of exorcism are just like every religions and since you all think each other wrong, there is no reason to think that there is anything supernatural going on.  It’s just humans being humans.  And you can’t even show your nonsense about the little girl even happened (I do love how it shows that free will is bs when your god is concerned though and that your god is utterly inept).  It’s just one more story. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 23, 2012, 12:59:36 PM
Rocky:
Quote
Gosh, I don't think anything would be good enough for you to believe in a God.  If God Himself walked into your room at night and talked to you in plain English, you'd attibute it to something else other than God.  So what could be done to prove demon possession to you?  Absolutely nothing?  You'd NEVER believe it? 
Well, first I would have to have an explanation of what god is. Do you have one? Then I need a reason to believe that god exists? Do you have one? Then we could try to answer about god walking into a room to talk to me.

I'd have to know what a demon is first.  I'd have to  be convinced one exists. Then we can talk about demon possession, what that would mean and how to detect it?

ADDED:
I see you gave up on probable causes and evolution.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 23, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
Gosh, I don't think anything would be good enough for you to believe in a God.  If God Himself walked into your room at night and talked to you in plain English, you'd attibute it to something else other than God.  So what could be done to prove demon possession to you?  Absolutely nothing?  You'd NEVER believe it? 

Once again, we have a christian lying and making a strawman.  I thought the bible said something against lying.

I can think of plenty of things that would change our minds and get us thinking that god exists.  The problem is; the "evidence" you're presenting are either terrible or can be easily explained by some other means.

Instead of anecdotal claims, why not unambiguous and repeatable claims.  Things like:

-A talking bible.  By this, I mean that a bible can levitate and talk of its own accord.  The bible should also be willing to let us examine it to make sure no trickery is involved.
-Pray for an amputee, and the amputee's limbs regenerates.
-Pray to fly, then sprout wings.  Or pray to fly like Superman does, and then you're able to do so.
-Pray that an elephant sprout wings, and then it does so



Quote
If I asked God, "God make the brakes on my car stop sqeaking, and then they did immediately, would that be a coincidence?  How many coincidences does it take to make a certainty? 


Now that's a shitty excuse for an answered prayer.  There's at least a dozen possible reason why your brakes could be sqeaking and then stops.  None of them requires your god's involvment.


Quote
God works differently than He did in the Old Testament.  After Christ's death on the cross and resurrection, He uses the Holy Spirit to communicate with us.  We no longer have God speaking to us from the sky, like he used to.  But we have many proofs of His existence if you would simply open your eyes and mind to the possibility.

This is really just another way of saying that the world operates exactly as though no gods exists.  Instead of god very plainly presenting himself to us, you have to make excuses for why he does nothing.  It explains why so-called miracles are trivial and anecdotal.  Before, god would do all sorts of impressive stuff.  Now, he's reduced to fixing your sqeaking brakes.

I know the econamy been rough lately, but daaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn...  :blank:
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 23, 2012, 01:05:38 PM
Psychological?  You are sure of this?  Have you proven this?

There is ample evidence of this.  Yes.  Considering you can take certain drugs that make you experience similar things.  Considering you can eat certain fungus's and get similar experiences. 

There is no evidence of demons except for people claiming it because they don't know any better. 

Someone above mentioned that there must or may be an alternate universe that we don't understand or know about yet. 

Must or may?  Nice try.  There may be an alternate universe, but must?  No. Not must. 

That's believable to you? 

It's possible, but so are a zillion other things. 

But not supernatural, demonic possession?

Ridiculous. 

You can't say in one sentence, "Oh, there must be an alternate universe to help explain how the universe was created prior to 14 billion years ago, we'll figure it out someday, but we don't know how it's possible at the moment"....and in another sentence, say, "Demonic possession!  You're a fool!  That's ridiculous to believe in that because it's not provable!". 

Ok then, I won't.  I'll just say the second part. 

Seems like anything is possible. 

If you'd like to get technical, then I will say this.  The theory of demonic possession as a causative factor for some of the mental disturbances we see in humanity is equally as possible as little tiny aliens probing our brains with jars of peanut butter.   

If science can help explain how a little girl of 95 lbs. threw a football player up against the wall with one arm and was "cured" through prayer and Jesus' name, after her parents sold her soul to Satan when she was a child, then go right ahead and prove it.  Good luck...

LOL!  Sold her soul to Satan!  Good one! 

I told you how a 95 lb girl could use one arm to 'throw' a football player into the wall.  A small push to someone who is in an off balance position is all it takes to floor them.  Trust me, I've done it and seen it done.  It's not hard. 

And correlation does not imply causation rockv.  You say she was 'cured' in Jesus name, but how do you know that?  What else were they doing?  Did she simply calm down because she was tired?  Did Jesus come down and lay a hand on her or something?  Do you know that people in other cultures who practice exorcisms in other religions are 'cured' without a single mention of Jesus?  Wouldn't that lead you to believe that it was just a psychological phenomena inherent to the human species?  No, no.  You go ahead and ignore that one.  It MUST be Jesus.  LOL!  Ridiculous. 

And I sold my soul to Satan a few years back too.  Didn't get shit for it because Satan isn't real either. 

I don't have to prove anything rockv.  I'm not the one saying the only possible answer is demonic possession.  All I have to do is come up with a plausible alternate (natural) scenario and the lack of evidence you bring to the table is your undoing. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 23, 2012, 02:57:51 PM
The two pieces of evidence which are the most telling are the expansion of the universe (evident by the distinct redshift that all stellar objects excepting our closest neighbor galaxies have, and the further away, the more redshifted), and the cosmic microwave background radiation (the "leftovers" of the Big Bang), which is literally present everywhere.
God and science can co-exist.  God created science.  Just because it appears that things are expanding means nothing.  It's science working.  God created the laws of science, they must work for things to operate.  But to use that as proof that God doesn't exist, is not a good argument.
I'm guessing you didn't even really understand what I was talking about, since I was responding to a question by kymer[1] about evidence for the Big Bang happening.  I didn't even mention God, let alone claim that that evidence "proved" anything.  So this is a strawman.

But as long as you raised that point, what's your evidence that God created science, and that God created the laws of science?  It's true that neither the expansion of the universe nor the CMBR "disprove God" (not that they were brought up because of God in the first place).  Your lack of any evidence that can't be attributed solely to the collective imagination of human beings is much more telling, so I'm giving you the opportunity to provide some real evidence that can be tested and verified.
 1. who has since stated that he was trolling here
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 23, 2012, 04:41:11 PM
I'm going to claim that the laws are the same, God or not. Even if god put together atoms, they are the same as if big bang did it.

Prove me wrong. I do not buy fine tuning. There are entire books about it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 23, 2012, 04:47:13 PM
The two pieces of evidence which are the most telling are the expansion of the universe (evident by the distinct redshift that all stellar objects excepting our closest neighbor galaxies have, and the further away, the more redshifted), and the cosmic microwave background radiation (the "leftovers" of the Big Bang), which is literally present everywhere.
God and science can co-exist.  God created science.  Just because it appears that things are expanding means nothing.  It's science working.  God created the laws of science, they must work for things to operate.  But to use that as proof that God doesn't exist, is not a good argument.
I'm guessing you didn't even really understand what I was talking about, since I was responding to a question by kymer[1] about evidence for the Big Bang happening.  I didn't even mention God, let alone claim that that evidence "proved" anything.  So this is a strawman.

But as long as you raised that point, what's your evidence that God created science, and that God created the laws of science?  It's true that neither the expansion of the universe nor the CMBR "disprove God" (not that they were brought up because of God in the first place).  Your lack of any evidence that can't be attributed solely to the collective imagination of human beings is much more telling, so I'm giving you the opportunity to provide some real evidence that can be tested and verified.
 1. who has since stated that he was trolling here

Evidence that God created science?  Biblical accuracy and historical accuracy prove the Bible's infallibility.  But since you asked, and it's the evolution thread here, isn't it obvious?  Such order and complexity and perfection in life and our physical world should make one go, "Hmmm?"  Design needs a designer.  I don't know what world that this fact doesn't apply...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Alzael on March 23, 2012, 04:50:49 PM
Evidence that God created science?  Biblical accuracy and historical accuracy prove the Bible's infallibility.

Circular argument.

  But since you asked, and it's the evolution thread here, isn't it obvious?  Such order and complexity and perfection in life and our physical world should make one go, "Hmmm?"  Design needs a designer.  I don't know what world that this fact doesn't apply...
 

Argument from Ignorance.

No evidence for anything, just statements that prove nothing more than an inability to think logically or critically.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Asmoday on March 23, 2012, 06:23:37 PM
Evidence that God created science?  Biblical accuracy and historical accuracy prove the Bible's infallibility.
Ah, you mean biblical accuracy like bats being birds, insects having four legs and young goats having the coloration of the wooden poles the parent goats mate in front of?

How about historical accuracy? Like the fact that there never was a global flood? Like the fact that there never was an exodus of Israelites from Egypt? Like the fact that the kingdom of David (as described in the bible) did not exist? Like the fact that at the time Jericho was supposedly destroyed by the Israelites the city had already been in ruins for quite some time? Like the fact that at the supposed time of Jesus' birth there simply was no city of Nazareth at the place the bible says it was?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 23, 2012, 07:08:17 PM
Evidence that God created science?  Biblical accuracy and historical accuracy prove the Bible's infallibility.
I would ask if you were joking, but I'm quite well aware that far too many Christians blindly believe in the Bible's so-called "accuracy" with no evidence whatsoever.  The "God-breathed" verse is meaningless babble which has been used to deceive Christians like you for almost two thousand years, and there is nothing else in the Bible which vouches for its accuracy.  And while I don't deny that certain parts of the Bible have historical relevance, that does not mean that they are accurate.

Quote from: rockv12
But since you asked, and it's the evolution thread here, isn't it obvious?  Such order and complexity and perfection in life and our physical world should make one go, "Hmmm?"  Design needs a designer.  I don't know what world that this fact doesn't apply...
"Perfection".  You do realize that neither life, nor the physical world, is anything even remotely close to "perfect", and never was to begin with?  And neither order nor complexity must be designed, therefore neither need a designer.

In short, none of the evidence you've provided is appropriate.  If you wish to prove that God created science, you must find something in science which unquestionably shows God's hand at work.  Saying, "it's ordered, it's complex" doesn't qualify because the way the universe is ordered and the complexity it shows are both much more easily explained by chaos theory than by the hand of a deity.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 25, 2012, 12:27:23 AM

"Perfection".  You do realize that neither life, nor the physical world, is anything even remotely close to "perfect", and never was to begin with?  And neither order nor complexity must be designed, therefore neither need a designer.

In short, none of the evidence you've provided is appropriate.  If you wish to prove that God created science, you must find something in science which unquestionably shows God's hand at work.  Saying, "it's ordered, it's complex" doesn't qualify because the way the universe is ordered and the complexity it shows are both much more easily explained by chaos theory than by the hand of a deity.

If you can't hold a newborn baby and be blown away, then I don't know what else to say....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 25, 2012, 12:30:30 AM
Evidence that God created science?  Biblical accuracy and historical accuracy prove the Bible's infallibility.

Circular argument.

  But since you asked, and it's the evolution thread here, isn't it obvious?  Such order and complexity and perfection in life and our physical world should make one go, "Hmmm?"  Design needs a designer.  I don't know what world that this fact doesn't apply...
 

Argument from Ignorance.

No evidence for anything, just statements that prove nothing more than an inability to think logically or critically.

Saying it's an "argument from ignorance" does NOT make it an untrue argument.  "We don't know who killed Mr. John Q. Public, so we know that it must be nobody."  Is that an argument from ignorance? 

But we have TONS of evidence!  That's the point!  Evidence all around us that something greater than chance and science could create!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Azdgari on March 25, 2012, 12:39:51 AM
If you can't hold a newborn baby and be blown away, then I don't know what else to say....

Relevance?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 25, 2012, 12:43:33 AM

Saying it's an "argument from ignorance" does NOT make it an untrue argument.  "We don't know who killed Mr. John Q. Public, so we know that it must be nobody."  Is that an argument from ignorance? 

Your argument refute itself.  Your statement is that John Q. has been "killed", meaning there is sufficient evidence to think he did not die from natural causes, accidental poisoning, or suicide.  For someone to be "killed", that requires another person or animal to do the deed.

Quote
But we have TONS of evidence!  That's the point!  Evidence all around us that something greater than chance and science could create!

So what is the "tons of evidence"?  I hear this all the time, but theists never present them.

Can you actually provide this supposed evidence?  It need to avoid:

-Appeal to ignorant
-Appeal to incredulously
-God of the gaps.
-Appeal to emotion

If you can avoid all of those, then maybe you'll have something worth considering.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 25, 2012, 12:46:41 AM
If you can't hold a newborn baby and be blown away, then I don't know what else to say....

Your emotional appeal may fly with your friends and other religious whack jobs, but every atheist on this website knows that if you're resorting to argumentation like this, you're losing the battle badly.  There is nothing to this at all.  jaimehlers made a solid argument and you had nothing to go on but your emotions.  Next time something like this happens, you should  just say, 'you're right and I'm wrong'.  At least that would be taking it like a man. 

But we have TONS of evidence!  That's the point!  Evidence all around us that something greater than chance and science could create!


No, we don't rockv.  And the difference lies in our knowledge base.  You see, when you start to understand the way science works, and that all the things around you were created by natural forces, all the evidence you think you have that something greater plays a role in our universe begins to disappear.  For example: I like to use lightning.  In the past, people used to think lightning was exactly what you say... evidence that something greater created it.  But when you look at lightning and find that it is nothing more than natural forces at work, you realize that something greater doesn't have to be at play.  Now, once you understand that, you should know that this same process happens with millions and millions of other things too. 

The more you know about how things REALLY work, the less you see everything around you as evidence that something greater is afoot.  It's really that simple.  If you had that understanding, you'd probably never again say that there is evidence for something greater. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 25, 2012, 01:02:09 AM
If you can't hold a newborn baby and be blown away, then I don't know what else to say....

Your emotional appeal may fly with your friends and other religious whack jobs, but every atheist on this website knows that if you're resorting to argumentation like this, you're losing the battle badly.  There is nothing to this at all.  jaimehlers made a solid argument and you had nothing to go on but your emotions.  Next time something like this happens, you should  just say, 'you're right and I'm wrong'.  At least that would be taking it like a man. 

But we have TONS of evidence!  That's the point!  Evidence all around us that something greater than chance and science could create!


No, we don't rockv.  And the difference lies in our knowledge base.  You see, when you start to understand the way science works, and that all the things around you were created by natural forces, all the evidence you think you have that something greater plays a role in our universe begins to disappear.  For example: I like to use lightning.  In the past, people used to think lightning was exactly what you say... evidence that something greater created it.  But when you look at lightning and find that it is nothing more than natural forces at work, you realize that something greater doesn't have to be at play.  Now, once you understand that, you should know that this same process happens with millions and millions of other things too. 

The more you know about how things REALLY work, the less you see everything around you as evidence that something greater is afoot.  It's really that simple.  If you had that understanding, you'd probably never again say that there is evidence for something greater.

And nobody can explain how sexual reproduction evolved...

And nobody can explain how natural forces created everything around us....   Hmmmm...  I've asked time and time again for some answers how things evolved and guess what?  Nobody can answer these questions.  I understand how science works and there are so many questions without answers you must ask yourself "how possible is this?".   

Now explain to me how sexual reproduction evolved....  I mean if holding a newborn baby is about as thrilling as receiving the TV Guide in the mail, then go ahead, explain it. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 25, 2012, 01:18:20 AM
Quote
And nobody can explain how sexual reproduction evolved...

And nobody can explain how natural forces created everything around us....   Hmmmm...  I've asked time and time again for some answers how things evolved and guess what?  Nobody can answer these questions.  I understand how science works and there are so many questions without answers you must ask yourself "how possible is this?".   

Now explain to me how sexual reproduction evolved....  I mean if holding a newborn baby is about as thrilling as receiving the TV Guide in the mail, then go ahead, explain it. 


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+of+sexual+reproduction


But of course, if no one can explain, that must mean a magic man done it, right?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 25, 2012, 02:47:22 AM
...after her parents sold her soul to Satan when she was a child...

Damn, dude, did they at least get a receipt?

I'm hesitant to ask this due to the convoluted mess of hooey that is sure to follow, but please tell me:
     a. How does a parent determine that the time has come to sell their child's soul to the devil?
     b. Did they try to sell it to god first and he wasn't interested?
     c. How does such a transaction take place? Does satan negotiate? What's the going rate on kid's souls these days?
     d. How is it that such an agreement can be easily (linebacker tossing aside) reversed by a simple exorcism?
     e. Why would your god ever allow anyone to sell an innocent child's soul? I guess a person should be able to sell his own soul, but how does anyone ever have the right to bargain with someone else's?

These questions (though valid) are mostly in jest, but I am absolutely serious about the last one. Why does your god allow parents to sell their children's souls?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 25, 2012, 02:59:49 AM
Saying it's an "argument from ignorance" does NOT make it an untrue argument.  "We don't know who killed Mr. John Q. Public, so we know that it must be nobody."  Is that an argument from ignorance?

No, it is an example from ignorance. Assuming Mr. Public was actually murdered, a rational person would say, "We don't know who killed him, but we know it must be somebody." A rational person would not say, "We don't know who killed him, therefore it must have been demons."
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: monkeymind on March 25, 2012, 06:58:26 AM
Rocky:
Quote
Gosh, I don't think anything would be good enough for you to believe in a God.  If God Himself walked into your room at night and talked to you in plain English, you'd attibute it to something else other than God.
Gosh, you're right!
Gods and demons don't make sense. They are neither reasonable or rational.
If you are saying you have seen demons, I would have to have a rational explanation before even considering a claim like this.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 25, 2012, 07:04:50 AM
And nobody can explain how natural forces created everything around us....   

Yes, we can.  We absolutely can.  There are still some things for which we can't YET, but the vast, vast majority of things are currently explainable in natural terms.  What do you want to know about?  How planets form?  How stars form?  Black holes?  Weather patterns?  What?   

Hmmmm...  I've asked time and time again for some answers how things evolved and guess what?  Nobody can answer these questions. 

You're inability to grasp the simplicity and beauty of evolution is nothing more than your own ignorance.  There are millions and millions of people who accept evolution, including millions of Christians just like you.  The only reasons people have to deny evolution is an ignorance of the process or because it doesn't fit with their religious world view.  You've got both. 

We can answer questions about evolution.  Those answers are out there for you to learn.  It's one of the most well supported theories in all of science.  This is why we accept it.  Not because we need something in order to reject your world view, or because we hate God, or because science has some sort of anti-religious agenda, but because it actually works extremely well at explaining how the facts of our world fit together naturally and has never been falsified (even though it could, unlike the god theory).   

I understand how science works and there are so many questions without answers you must ask yourself "how possible is this?".   

There may always be questions that remain unanswered, but you fail to recognize just how many questions HAVE been answered.  That's what the difference is between the way you approach these questions and the way we approach them.  There HAVE been answers.  Literally millions of them.  More than enough to understand that god isn't necessary to explain anything anymore. 

Now explain to me how sexual reproduction evolved....  I mean if holding a newborn baby is about as thrilling as receiving the TV Guide in the mail, then go ahead, explain it.

Aaron provided you with a link.  That's pretty much all I would do as well. 

I don't understand the relevance of your emotional appeal with holding babies.  What are you trying to prove with that?  We evolved to love our children.  Every social species did.  If we didn't, then our species would have babies and abandon them immediately, thus ensuring the demise of all humans.   Simply put, if we didn't evolve a genetic propensity to care for our young, we would no longer be here to explain it to you.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 25, 2012, 07:17:15 AM

And nobody can explain how sexual reproduction evolved...

And nobody can explain how natural forces created everything around us....   Hmmmm...  I've asked time and time again for some answers how things evolved and guess what?  Nobody can answer these questions.  I understand how science works and there are so many questions without answers you must ask yourself "how possible is this?".   

Now explain to me how sexual reproduction evolved....  I mean if holding a newborn baby is about as thrilling as receiving the TV Guide in the mail, then go ahead, explain it.
We've explained all those things. You can look them up yourself as well. But I guess you do not read the posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni on March 25, 2012, 07:22:29 AM
And nobody can explain how natural forces created everything around us....   Hmmmm...  I've asked time and time again for some answers how things evolved and guess what?  Nobody can answer these questions.  I understand how science works and there are so many questions without answers you must ask yourself "how possible is this".

You appear to be presupposing that if science cannot explain something, it must mean that a supernatural force is at work.  (Actually, what you're really saying is that if science cannot explain something, it must mean that Jesus died for our sins; however, very few theists are willing to admit that that's what they're saying because they know how ridiculous it sounds.)

Case in point: the sun's energy output.

The amount of energy generated by the sun was accurately calculated some centuries ago.  Science checked and rechecked its calculations, sure that there must be an error somewhere, because there was no natural phenomenon known at the time that could possibly generate that much energy.  If, for example, the sun were a solid lump of coal, it would burn itself out completely in just a few thousand years.  This had everyone stumped for a very long time.

Had we been having this discussion back then, you would have undoubtedly jumped up and down screaming that this meant that a supernatural explanation was the only one possible, just as you're doing now with the evolution of sexual reproduction.  Only thing is, dagnabbit... the sun's super-powerful energy output does have a natural explanation.  Science just didn't know what it was for a long time because fusion wasn't discovered until the early 20th century.

You might want to keep this kind of thing in mind when you're using a "god of the gaps" argument, even if you're not willing to admit that it's a logical fallacy.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 25, 2012, 09:20:45 AM
And nobody can explain how natural forces created everything around us....   Hmmmm...  I've asked time and time again for some answers how things evolved and guess what?  Nobody can answer these questions.  I understand how science works and there are so many questions without answers you must ask yourself "how possible is this".

You appear to be presupposing that if science cannot explain something, it must mean that a supernatural force is at work.  (Actually, what you're really saying is that if science cannot explain something, it must mean that Jesus died for our sins; however, very few theists are willing to admit that that's what they're saying because they know how ridiculous it sounds.)

Case in point: the sun's energy output.

The amount of energy generated by the sun was accurately calculated some centuries ago.  Science checked and rechecked its calculations, sure that there must be an error somewhere, because there was no natural phenomenon known at the time that could possibly generate that much energy.  If, for example, the sun were a solid lump of coal, it would burn itself out completely in just a few thousand years.  This had everyone stumped for a very long time.

Had we been having this discussion back then, you would have undoubtedly jumped up and down screaming that this meant that a supernatural explanation was the only one possible, just as you're doing now with the evolution of sexual reproduction.  Only thing is, dagnabbit... the sun's super-powerful energy output does have a natural explanation.  Science just didn't know what it was for a long time because fusion wasn't discovered until the early 20th century.

You might want to keep this kind of thing in mind when you're using a "god of the gaps" argument, even if you're not willing to admit that it's a logical fallacy.

Jumping up and down screaming that the only logical answer is that the supernatural must be at work?  I understand that some things we are still learning about, geez.  But that's NOT the point.  You just said yourself, and made the point, that we CAN'T jump to conclusions and assume that something must be impossible because we don't seem to have the evidence.  So why do you assume there is NO God?

Now again, if evolution is so easy to understand, and fact (not theory), then explain how sexual reproduction evolved.  After that, you can tackle the countless other examples of life that have NO explanation for evolution.  Then you can explain to me how the Big Bang occurred. Then you can explain how everything came to be into existence.  I mean, I need proof to believe in evolution.  Prove it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni on March 25, 2012, 09:25:24 AM
So why do you assume there is NO God?

Why do you assume there is NO Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Quote
Now again, if evolution is so easy to understand, and fact (not theory), then explain how sexual reproduction evolved.

As the lawyers say in the police procedurals: "Objection, your honor.  Asked and answered."

You've been given links to the information on this matter.  Go read them.

Quote
After that, you can tackle the countless other examples of life that have NO explanation for evolution.  Then you can explain to me how the Big Bang occurred. Then you can explain how everything came to be into existence.

Didn't I just warn you about the "god of the gaps"?

Quote
I mean, I need proof to believe in evolution.  Prove it.

Do you also need proof to believe in gravity?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 25, 2012, 09:28:33 AM
I mean, I need proof to believe in evolution.  Prove it.

Proofs are for mathematics. What you should be asking for is evidence, not proof, and there are mountains of it available. The overwhelming evidence points to evolution being true.

By the way - I just sent you a PM regarding nested quotes. Please heed it
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 25, 2012, 09:37:56 AM
If you can't hold a newborn baby and be blown away, then I don't know what else to say....
Blown away by what, precisely?  Like most people, I find babies to be emotionally stirring, but that doesn't mean I think that some god personally fashions each and every infant creature.  As you apparently do.  So this is another argument from ignorance.

Saying it's an "argument from ignorance" does NOT make it an untrue argument.  "We don't know who killed Mr. John Q. Public, so we know that it must be nobody."  Is that an argument from ignorance?
Why yes, it is.  It's basically saying, "we don't know the circumstances of his death, therefore nobody killed him".  And while it isn't technically "untrue", because the argument might potentially be correct, it's no better than a shot in the dark.  Yeah, sure, you might hit something with that shot, but most likely you'll just waste your ammo.  Same thing with arguments from ignorance.  If they end up being correct, it's by accident, and we can do better than that.

Quote from: rockv12
But we have TONS of evidence!  That's the point!  Evidence all around us that something greater than chance and science could create!
Yet you can't actually elaborate on any of that evidence, can you?  That is to say, you can't point to any particular thing and prove that it was made by a god.  You have to claim that it's too "complex", or that the evidence is "obvious", or whatever other rationales you come up with.  That's why it's an argument from ignorance; that's why nobody here is willing to give credence to what you're asserting.

And nobody can explain how sexual reproduction evolved...
Actually, it's already been explained.  What is sex but the exchange of genetic information between individuals?  But instead of changing the organisms themselves, the genetic information forms a new organism.  Once you understand that, the rest falls into place, because all forms of sexual reproduction are just variations on that general theme.

Quote from: rockv12
And nobody can explain how natural forces created everything around us....   Hmmmm...  I've asked time and time again for some answers how things evolved and guess what?  Nobody can answer these questions.  I understand how science works and there are so many questions without answers you must ask yourself "how possible is this?".
No, you don't really understand how science works.  You've proved this over and over again through the way you act, the fact that you haven't actually bothered to try to show that you understand it.  There's no shame in admitting that you don't really know something all that well, unless you bluster and pretend that you do when it's obvious you don't.  It isn't that nobody's answered your questions, it's that you literally aren't competent to judge the accuracy of those answers.  Therefore, you don't trust those answers and claim that they aren't answers at all.

Quote from: rockv12
Now explain to me how sexual reproduction evolved....  I mean if holding a newborn baby is about as thrilling as receiving the TV Guide in the mail, then go ahead, explain it.
The fact that I understand the biological forces which cause humans to be thrilled when holding or seeing a newborn baby, the fact that I understand the biological forces which caused that newborn baby to grow from that clump of undifferentiated cells, doesn't make any of that less awe-inspiring.  Knowing the actual reason why is far more impressive than simply thinking of babies as gifts from God.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 25, 2012, 09:38:19 AM
Jumping up and down screaming that the only logical answer is that the supernatural must be at work?  I understand that some things we are still learning about, geez.  But that's NOT the point.  You just said yourself, and made the point, that we CAN'T jump to conclusions and assume that something must be impossible because we don't seem to have the evidence.  So why do you assume there is NO God?

We assume that there is no god because there are no evidence for such a thing.  Assuming there is a god would be an example of jumping to conclusion.  You claim there is evidence, but thus far, you have failed to provide it.  Thus far, all I've seen from you are argument from ignorant, incredulously, emotional appeal, and god of the gaps mentality.  For your "evidence" to be worth considering, it needs to avoid all of those.  Can you do that?


Quote
Now again, if evolution is so easy to understand, and fact (not theory),

Something tells me that you don't know what the word theory means in this context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories


Quote
then explain how sexual reproduction evolved.

We've already did, and provided links.  You're just pretending that none of this is explainable.

Of course, just in case you missed it...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+of+sexual+reproduction


Quote
After that, you can tackle the countless other examples of life that have NO explanation for evolution. 


I'm not sure what this is asking.  Did you mean "there are life forms that evolution cannot explain"?  If so, what are examples of such?


Quote
Then you can explain to me how the Big Bang occurred.  Then you can explain how everything came to be into existence.  I mean, I need proof to believe in evolution.  Prove it.

Why the big topic shift?  The big bang has nothing to do with evolution.

If you're so stingy about evolution and the big bang, then why don't you apply that towards your god?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ungod on March 25, 2012, 10:14:04 AM
Now again, if evolution is so easy to understand, and fact (not theory), then explain how sexual reproduction evolved.

Russel's flying teapot, in orbit between Saturn and Jupiter, willed it to evolve. Prove I'm wrong.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 25, 2012, 07:03:14 PM

We assume that there is no god because there are no evidence for such a thing.  Assuming there is a god would be an example of jumping to conclusion.  You claim there is evidence, but thus far, you have failed to provide it.  Thus far, all I've seen from you are argument from ignorant, incredulously, emotional appeal, and god of the gaps mentality.  For your "evidence" to be worth considering, it needs to avoid all of those.  Can you do that?


I would think evidence for a God would be in what we see.  We DO see life.  We see the eye, the brain, the sexual organs, we see DNA, we see such marvelous structures that it is mind-blowing how they work! 

What we DON'T see are animals turning into other animals and evolving.  NEVER have we seen that. 

So what's more plausible to believe in?  That it evolved?  ZERO evidence, since we have NOT seen it happen, OR believe that something created the order and complexity that we see? 

With this "designer" or "creator", whatever/whoever it may be, we might see other proofs of it's existence.  Now shall we look at the Bible for that second part to my belief?  The life and death of Jesus Christ prove God's existence along with creation.

You gave a link for how sexual reproduction evolved.  It was a link for a google search.  Gee, really?  There's links for everything on the internet.  I asked that you explain how it evolved.  Step by step.  NOBODY has been able to do that in here.  NOBODY wants to talk about it, but they refer to how simple evolution is.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 25, 2012, 07:04:29 PM
I would think evidence for a God would be in what we see.

And that is evidenced of a god claim how?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni on March 25, 2012, 07:23:34 PM
I would think evidence for a God would be in what we see.  We DO see life.  We see the eye, the brain, the sexual organs, we see DNA, we see such marvelous structures that it is mind-blowing how they work!

Argument from incredulity.

Quote
What we DON'T see are animals turning into other animals and evolving.  NEVER have we seen that.

Some observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Quote
So what's more plausible to believe in?  That it evolved?  ZERO evidence, since we have NOT seen it happen, OR believe that something created the order and complexity that we see?

Argument from incredulity.  Argument from ignorance.  Misinformation.

Quote
With this "designer" or "creator", whatever/whoever it may be, we might see other proofs of it's existence.

Then again, we might not.  And we don't.

Quote
Now shall we look at the Bible for that second part to my belief?

We don't need to do that, we're already well aware that you're a Christian.

Quote
The life and death of Jesus Christ prove God's existence along with creation.

The scriptures are not evidence of anything.  The scriptures are the claim that require evidence.

Quote
You gave a link for how sexual reproduction evolved.  It was a link for a google search.  Gee, really?  There's links for everything on the internet.

You asked for an explanation of how sexual reproduction evolved.  You were given the information that you asked for.  Also, when someone uses the "lmgtfy.com" link, they are "hinting" at you that you are asking a question that you could have answered yourself with very little effort.

Quote
I asked that you explain how it evolved.  Step by step.  NOBODY has been able to do that in here.  NOBODY wants to talk about it, but they refer to how simple evolution is.

Are you saying that you will only accept a step-by-step explanation of how evolution works if someone takes the time to write it out themselves in their own words?  And if so, why?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 25, 2012, 07:39:09 PM
He is trying to trick you folks with this step by step business.

You can list every dna change required, thenhe will say "that's impossible, that is a one in a gazillion chance according to.."
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 25, 2012, 09:18:49 PM
I would think evidence for a God would be in what we see.  We DO see life.  We see the eye, the brain, the sexual organs, we see DNA, we see such marvelous structures that it is mind-blowing how they work! 

Arguing from incredulity, invoking the god of the gaps.

If this is your idea of evidence, then you've failed miserably.


Quote
What we DON'T see are animals turning into other animals and evolving.  NEVER have we seen that. 


You've just demostrated that you have no idea what you're talking about.  I don't know how often I said this, but... do your research!

For starters, Pokemon was a cartoon from Japan meant to entertain.  It is not a documentary, nor was it intended to be seen as such.


Quote
So what's more plausible to believe in?  That it evolved?  ZERO evidence, since we have NOT seen it happen, OR believe that something created the order and complexity that we see? 


Arguing from incredulity, invoking the god of the gaps.



Quote
With this "designer" or "creator", whatever/whoever it may be, we might see other proofs of it's existence.  Now shall we look at the Bible for that second part to my belief?  The life and death of Jesus Christ prove God's existence along with creation.

Circular logic.  The bible is not proof that the events written in it actually happened.


Quote
You gave a link for how sexual reproduction evolved.  It was a link for a google search.  Gee, really?  There's links for everything on the internet.  I asked that you explain how it evolved.  Step by step.  NOBODY has been able to do that in here.  NOBODY wants to talk about it, but they refer to how simple evolution is.

Yes, well, I'm not an expert in the subject.  That's why I provided links, so you can read up on the subject by those that are experts on the subject.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 25, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
I would think evidence for a God would be in what we see.  We DO see life.  We see the eye, the brain, the sexual organs, we see DNA, we see such marvelous structures that it is mind-blowing how they work!
It isn't mind-blowing, though.  Impressive and awe-inspiring I will certainly grant, but mind-blowing suggests that it is so amazing that it is impossible to understand or even attempt to understand, and that isn't true.

Quote from: rockv12
What we DON'T see are animals turning into other animals and evolving.  NEVER have we seen that.
Okay, stop right there.  That's your biggest problem right there.  Your proof for evolution is seeing an animal change into another animal or something along those lines.  I referred to this as "Pokemon evolution" earlier, and as far as I can tell that's still an accurate descriptor.  The thing is, evolution doesn't work like that.  You won't ever see a cat turn into a dog, or a monkey turn into a human.  To be honest, if we did actually see things like that, it would go a long way towards discrediting evolution.

What you will see is changes that breed true, and those changes spreading through a population, and as more changes accumulate, the population as a whole changing over time, until it's changed enough to be a different species (basically, if they can breed together, and if their offspring can breed together, they're not a distinct species.  And by time, I mean thousands of generations before the changes add up enough.  The whole of recorded history amounts to a paltry 300 human generations, and most people didn't keep particularly good records 6,000 years ago.

Quote from: rockv12
So what's more plausible to believe in?  That it evolved?  ZERO evidence, since we have NOT seen it happen, OR believe that something created the order and complexity that we see?
This is a false dichotomy.  You're saying that we either have to actually see an organism change into another one (your definition of evolution, which is part of why I keep saying that you don't understand it), or we might as well believe that something created life as we see it today.  The problem is that your definition of evidence is too threadbare to be useful for anything.  Using that definition, you could let criminals by the prison-full go free because nobody actually saw them commit the crime.  Yet, we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal committed a crime because we have their fingerprints, or their DNA, or property of theirs, or other things besides someone seeing them commit the crime.  We have similar evidence for evolution (radiometric dating, the fossil record, DNA, etc), which the relevant scientists are at least as sure about as a forensics expert investigating a crime scene is.

Quote from: rockv12
With this "designer" or "creator", whatever/whoever it may be, we might see other proofs of it's existence.  Now shall we look at the Bible for that second part to my belief?  The life and death of Jesus Christ prove God's existence along with creation.
No, we shall not look at the Bible, because it is internally contradictory, inaccurate in many respects, and inexpertly copied and translated by amateurs (when it wasn't transmitted by oral traditions instead) until hundreds of years after the events written in it.  It really doesn't prove anything in and of itself; it certainly does not stand as a proof of God's existence, or even of Jesus's, anymore than the Harry Potter series stands as proof of Dumbledore's existence.

Quote from: rockv12
You gave a link for how sexual reproduction evolved.  It was a link for a google search.  Gee, really?  There's links for everything on the internet.  I asked that you explain how it evolved.  Step by step.  NOBODY has been able to do that in here.  NOBODY wants to talk about it, but they refer to how simple evolution is.
The reason it links to a google search is so that you can do your own research.  As in, you can look through the information provided on those websites for yourself instead of taking other people's word for it.  You can certainly choose to disregard those sites and act like nobody wants to actually talk about it, but it won't prove anything if you don't even look at them.  Like it or not, we're not here to hold your hand and explain everything about evolution to you.  You're an adult, and it's your responsibility to be educated enough to be able to discuss topics like this without having to demand step-by-step explanations of how something worked, especially since you aren't asking because of a genuine desire to learn about it, but rather so that you can nitpick it to death in order to support your own beliefs that "God did it" instead.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 25, 2012, 10:02:37 PM
It's evidence because when you find something that has a design, it usually means it was designed.  Order doesn't come from disorder...we know this.  Don't you just sit back sometimes and look at everything around you?  Don't you wonder how we evolved the ability to memorize languages, how we evolved to walking upright, how we have 5 fingers to type with, how we evolved ears to hear, how we evolved a nervous system, a brain, a digestive system, a larynx to speak and sing beautiful songs,  smell to smell,  taste to taste our food, sexual organs to reproduce,  digestive systems, how we evolved that a baby grows in a woman's womb,....on and on and on...?  Isn't this evidence for a designer?  The Big Bang to now....wow, that takes an imagination far beyond looking at the obvious....a design required a designer. 

I don't care about what evolutionists have crafted as an answer for the evolution of life.  They have NO proof that that's how it happened.  Fossils prove nothing.  They show many different kinds of life forms, that's it.  Just because a wing is an extremity similar to an arm, does NOT mean that we evolved.  I don't see how it's NOT just mind-blowing whenever you watch a Science or Nature channel.  Look at a colony of ants or a beehive!  Look at the hummingbird fly!  Look at a spider spin a web!  It's crazy!  Seems like everyone brushes it off as just simple luck that it all evolved....  Just think about it...

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Azdgari on March 25, 2012, 10:16:00 PM
Rockv12, what does an undesigned object look like?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Quesi on March 25, 2012, 10:30:06 PM
You know Rocky, I'm a glass-half full type too.  I love to feel genuine awe at the world and the humanity around me. 

And there is much to be in awe of.

But the glass-half empty folks see reality too.

  this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire,—why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.  [1]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is usually a glass-half full type.  But here, he finds a few flaws in that perfect design that you and I perfer to focus on. 

http://youtu.be/oEl9kVl6KPc

If God is responsible for the beautiful stuff, he is responsible for the screw ups too.  And there sure are a lot of screw ups. 
 1. Hamlet
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 26, 2012, 03:51:56 AM
What we DON'T see are animals turning into other animals and evolving.  NEVER have we seen that. 

Still waiting for you to answer my question about Great Danes and Chihuahuas, by the way.....

Was a Great Dane ALWAYS a Great Dane, Rocky?  Why are you avoiding this simple question?  All it requires from you is a yes or no......
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Historicity on March 26, 2012, 05:15:49 AM
Order doesn't come from disorder...we know this.
Success breeds success.  That's how natural selection makes order come from disorder.

Who is the "we" to which you refer?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Brakeman on March 26, 2012, 06:07:32 AM
Order doesn't come from disorder...we know this.
Success breeds success.  That's how natural selection makes order come from disorder.

Who is the "we" to which you refer?

I think he's referring to first millennia middle eastern goat herders. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 26, 2012, 06:22:24 AM
Rock, is there anything new to add? We have holding babies, first cause, all the standard arguments, mythical Jesus. The thread started with Big Bang.  All you have done is repeat designer endlessly, with no evidence.

Google emergent properties. Complexity arises. The earth has a constant source of energy. Organisms use this to run chemical reactions. We have a fossil record. You have legend and faith.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: naemhni on March 26, 2012, 06:38:22 AM
It's evidence because when you find something that has a design, it usually means it was designed.

The way you can tell something is designed is that you have something not designed to compare it to.[1]  You are saying that you can tell the universe was designed, so I can only assume that you have compared it to an undesigned universe.  Please show us this universe as well, so that we can also make the comparison and draw our own conclusions.

Quote
Order doesn't come from disorder...we know I believe this.

Fixed that for you.

Quote
Don't you wonder how we evolved the ability to memorize languages, how we evolved to walking upright, how we have 5 fingers to type with, how we evolved ears to hear, how we evolved a nervous system, a brain, a digestive system, a larynx to speak and sing beautiful songs,  smell to smell,  taste to taste our food, sexual organs to reproduce,  digestive systems, how we evolved that a baby grows in a woman's womb,....on and on and on...?

Argument from incredulity again, but the bold face is especially amusing.  Have you ever heard Voltaire's statement that nature put our noses right where they are so that there would be a place for our eyeglasses to sit?

Evolution didn't produce four fingers and two thumbs on two hands so that we would be able to use a keyboard.  It's the other way around: keyboards were designed the way they were designed so that human hands would be able to use them.  Had evolution produced us with four hands each having ten fingers, keyboards would undoubtedly be very different.  Maybe we wouldn't even have keyboards at all, for that matter.

Quote
Isn't this evidence for a designer?

No.

Quote
The Big Bang to now....wow, that takes an imagination far beyond looking at the obvious....a design required a designer.

Begging the question: you are assuming that the universe was designed.

Quote
I don't care about what evolutionists have crafted as an answer for the evolution of life.

If you don't care what evolution says, then why do you keep asking to have it explained to you?

Quote
They have NO proof that that's how it happened.  Fossils prove nothing.  They show many different kinds of life forms, that's it.

This simply goes to show how little you know about evolutionary theory.  Fossil evidence is not needed to support evolutionary theory at all.

Quote
Just because a wing is an extremity similar to an arm, does NOT mean that we evolved.

This is so silly I'm not even sure how to respond to it.

Quote
I don't see how it's NOT just mind-blowing whenever you watch a Science or Nature channel.  Look at a colony of ants or a beehive!  Look at the hummingbird fly!  Look at a spider spin a web!  It's crazy!

Indeed, all these things are quite marvelous and astonishing.  But in the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?"  Especially when there's no evidence that the fairies exist, I might add.

Quote
Seems like everyone brushes it off as just simple luck that it all evolved....

Not luck.  A combination of chance and natural selection.  There's a difference.  (A big one.)

Quote
Just think about it...

Physician, heal thyself.
 1. To take the most widely used example, you know that a watch was man-made because you have a whole universe of things that are not man-made for comparison.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Fiji on March 26, 2012, 06:55:36 AM
Order doesn't come from disorder...we know this. 

Liquid water ... great big puddle of H2O in an awful state of disorder, freely floating about all over the place.
Substract heat and what do you get? Neatly ordered ice crystals. Order from disorder ... and you can observe it in your very own fridge!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 26, 2012, 09:06:01 AM
couple pages behind, but a reply nonetheless

Gosh, I don't think anything would be good enough for you to believe in a God...

Golly gee, you didn't really address my points.  I point out you are a gullible rube making errors in your reasoning and you attack my skepticism.  You'd think that when someone does you such a service as to point out where your thinking has gone haywire you would, you know, be grateful and thank them.  But no.  Not rockv12.  He dodges the issue and attacks you. 

Do you care about reality?  Because if you do, you have to be willing to change your mind.  Each of us has a model of reality in our heads that is imperfect.  We are all in some ways wrong about how we think the universe works. So if we care about reality, we have to change our model from time to time when it does not match reality.  Can you do that?

How about we talk about what would count as evidence for a god?  How would someone know it was in fact God (capital G) and not some extremely technologically advanced being, or a supernatural and powerful being that is not God (capital G)?

Tell me explicitly how someone would would tell the difference. You might start of with defining God (capital G).

If I asked God, "God make the brakes on my car stop sqeaking, and then they did immediately, would that be a coincidence?

Are you saying you are willing to put that to a test?  We are talking double blind, statistically significant. 

God works differently than He did in the Old Testament. After Christ's death on the cross and resurrection, He uses the Holy Spirit to communicate with us. 

Oh, right.  Rats.  God is completely different now. Only communicates invisibly and in a way that is utterly undetectable and impossible to differentiate from mental illness.  Way to go god. 

...if you would simply open your eyes and mind to the possibility.

I've been there.  I used to believe.  It is all bullshit.



God created science.

Please explain what you think science is.  Give us your definition of science.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 26, 2012, 09:17:23 AM
It's evidence because when you find something that has a design, it usually means it was designed. 

By what qualification is design identified from non-design?

Quote
Order doesn't come from disorder...we know this.

By what definition do you treat order vs the lack of order?

Where do tidal forces come from?  Snow flakes? Crystals? Fire?

Do you know what self organization as it relates to thermodynamics is?  How do you explain that?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 26, 2012, 09:35:15 AM
It's evidence because when you find something that has a design, it usually means it was designed.  Order doesn't come from disorder...we know this.  Don't you just sit back sometimes and look at everything around you?  Don't you wonder how we evolved the ability to memorize languages, how we evolved to walking upright, how we have 5 fingers to type with, how we evolved ears to hear, how we evolved a nervous system, a brain, a digestive system, a larynx to speak and sing beautiful songs,  smell to smell,  taste to taste our food, sexual organs to reproduce,  digestive systems, how we evolved that a baby grows in a woman's womb,....on and on and on...?  Isn't this evidence for a designer?  The Big Bang to now....wow, that takes an imagination far beyond looking at the obvious....a design required a designer.
So, now it only "usually" means it was designed?  And no, by the way, you can't tell just by looking that something was designed.  People are not very good at discerning a real pattern from a random arrangement that just happens to look patterned.  By the way, it's easy to show that you can order something disordered with something as simple as a box of cereal[1].  You have noticed, I hope, that the smaller pieces of cereal all end up at the bottom, right?  In other words, the cereal is ordered, with the larger pieces at the top, and the smaller pieces at the bottom, because the smaller pieces can fit through spaces that the larger ones cannot.  Nobody designed cereal to act that way; nobody meticulously ordered the smaller pieces so that they would be at the bottom.  Yet, every box of cereal you will ever buy is going to be ordered in a similar manner, despite the fact that nobody ever bothers to sort cereal pieces as they go in boxes.

The fact is, yes, we do wonder why humans can learn languages, why we walk exclusively upright, why we have five fingers, etc.  However, we're much more interested in figuring out how all of those things came about.  You're coming at this from a fundamentally different direction; you're looking for a "designer" because you can't imagine how it could have happened without one, so you "look at the obvious" and don't bother to think any deeper than that.  The thing is, the "obvious" is also superficial.  So you end up with conclusions that are shallow, to say the least, and then you wonder why people criticize you about them.  Despite the fact that you meant the comment about the period from the Big Bang to now taking imagination sarcastically, the fact is that it takes imagination to be a scientist.  Not the kind of whimsical, childlike imagination that can come up with anything, no matter how ridiculous, but the kind of disciplined, self-critical imagination that is practically a prerequisite for being a scientist in the first place.

Quote from: rockv12
I don't care about what evolutionists have crafted as an answer for the evolution of life.  They have NO proof that that's how it happened.  Fossils prove nothing.  They show many different kinds of life forms, that's it.  Just because a wing is an extremity similar to an arm, does NOT mean that we evolved.  I don't see how it's NOT just mind-blowing whenever you watch a Science or Nature channel.  Look at a colony of ants or a beehive!  Look at the hummingbird fly!  Look at a spider spin a web!  It's crazy!  Seems like everyone brushes it off as just simple luck that it all evolved....  Just think about it...
Proofs are for mathematics.  If you're talking about science, you mean evidence.  And the fact is that all of those things that you deride because they don't "prove" anything still serve as good evidence in favor of evolution.  And as I said before, none of those things are mind-blowing, because mind-blowing implies that they cannot be explained...which is the answer of someone without much imagination, who looks at the obvious and assumes that it's just too incredible to be real without someone having put it together, who doesn't even have enough imagination to consider that this "designer" would necessarily not be limited to the very simplistic creation stories written in the Bible.

And no.  It's not "simple luck".  Chance played a part in it, but evolution does not rely on luck or chance.  It uses it when it happens, and otherwise just gets the job done.
 1. credit to Greybeard
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Brakeman on March 26, 2012, 04:57:50 PM
.. Don't you wonder how we evolved the ability to memorize languages, ..

I think you forgot to insert here how "god" created all the languages in one fell swoop when a bunch of BC cavemen built a tower so high it almost reached into heaven. So to stop them, god made them speak different languages other than their original. That is the history of how the different languages came into being.  Not any of that "Languages EVOLVED! from other languages crap" that the Darwinist devils preach.  I hear ya Rocky12! Show them the proof of the Babel Tower, that'll shut them up! Ask them why mankind can't build anything taller than 4 or 5 stories even to this day, or why birds can fly higher than the moon or stars.. Watch them squirm!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 26, 2012, 06:32:45 PM

And no.  It's not "simple luck".  Chance played a part in it, but evolution does not rely on luck or chance.  It uses it when it happens, and otherwise just gets the job done.

Chance played an enormous part in it.  Evolution does not rely on luck or chance?  How do you know this?  You've seen evolution happen?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 26, 2012, 06:35:18 PM
It's evidence because when you find something that has a design, it usually means it was designed.  Order doesn't come from disorder...we know this.  Don't you just sit back sometimes and look at everything around you?  Don't you wonder how we evolved the ability to memorize languages, how we evolved to walking upright, how we have 5 fingers to type with, how we evolved ears to hear, how we evolved a nervous system, a brain, a digestive system, a larynx to speak and sing beautiful songs,  smell to smell,  taste to taste our food, sexual organs to reproduce,  digestive systems, how we evolved that a baby grows in a woman's womb,....on and on and on...?  Isn't this evidence for a designer?  The Big Bang to now....wow, that takes an imagination far beyond looking at the obvious....a design required a designer.
So, now it only "usually" means it was designed?  And no, by the way, you can't tell just by looking that something was designed.  People are not very good at discerning a real pattern from a random arrangement that just happens to look patterned.  By the way, it's easy to show that you can order something disordered with something as simple as a box of cereal[1].  You have noticed, I hope, that the smaller pieces of cereal all end up at the bottom, right?  In other words, the cereal is ordered, with the larger pieces at the top, and the smaller pieces at the bottom, because the smaller pieces can fit through spaces that the larger ones cannot.  Nobody designed cereal to act that way; nobody meticulously ordered the smaller pieces so that they would be at the bottom.  Yet, every box of cereal you will ever buy is going to be ordered in a similar manner, despite the fact that nobody ever bothers to sort cereal pieces as they go in boxes.

 1. credit to Greybeard

Oh boy.  Cereal?  If you can't see order in this world, then this is pointless.  I'm at a loss.  I'm dumbfounded that you can't see the design in life.  There's no ORDER to anything?  There's no ORDER to even the most simple cell?  Wow.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 26, 2012, 07:28:07 PM
Chance played an enormous part in it.  Evolution does not rely on luck or chance?  How do you know this?  You've seen evolution happen?
The irony of you, who demands eyewitness reports for evolution, saying that chance definitely played an enormous part in evolution, is staggering.  And I'll say it again, it doesn't rely on luck or chance.  Evolution is basically species adapting to their environment and differentiating based on those environments, and while random chance (via mutation) plays an important part in the process, it is by no means relied upon.

Oh boy.  Cereal?  If you can't see order in this world, then this is pointless.  I'm at a loss.  I'm dumbfounded that you can't see the design in life.  There's no ORDER to anything?  There's no ORDER to even the most simple cell?  Wow.
You're at a loss because you're not thinking.  I brought up the cereal analogy to demonstrate that you can get order without anyone deliberately creating it, via an automatic sorting process like small pieces sifting down through the holes that large pieces cannot fit through.  Yet you seem to think that I'm saying there's no order, which is silly.  Of course there's ordered things in the universe.  But the ordering in no way needs to come about because of someone deliberately making it.  And my point that you can't tell just by looking that something was designed stands.  Lots of natural clouds have shapes that give the impression of being deliberately formed; my roommate saw a cloud a few weeks ago which looked like it had a fire-breathing dragon's head sticking out of it.  Yet nobody sculpted that cloud.

There are lots of things in the natural world that might look as if they were designed at first glance.  But once you look a little closer, it becomes much more evident that they really weren't.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 26, 2012, 07:59:25 PM
Oh boy.  Cereal?  If you can't see order in this world, then this is pointless.  I'm at a loss.  I'm dumbfounded that you can't see the design in life.  There's no ORDER to anything?  There's no ORDER to even the most simple cell?  Wow.
As before, complete lack of understanding of what life is, from molecules to plants to critters.

Watch the movie for the concept.
http://youtu.be/HnO_MKHG_Lo
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ungod on March 26, 2012, 08:55:06 PM
There are lots of things in the natural world that might look as if they were designed at first glance.  But once you look a little closer, it becomes much more evident that they really weren't.

Who could watch this and not immediately think "kind, loving Designer"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jMbeVeqqlQ&feature=fvwp&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jMbeVeqqlQ&feature=fvwp&NR=1)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 27, 2012, 12:16:37 AM
Tero,  Fish swimming in a school is hardly what I'm talking about.  You don't think the inner ear follows under a design of perfection to complete the auditory task that it has?  An explosion of gases blew a universe into existence, then Earth landed perfectly with the elements to sustain life, and we grew out of the mess?  That's the design I'm talking about....not fish swimming together....  It's far more complicated.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 27, 2012, 12:18:01 AM
Was a Great Dane ALWAYS a Great Dane, Rocky?  Why are you avoiding this simple question?  All it requires from you is a yes or no......

A Great Dane was always a dog.  It fits into the dog category, does it not?  Where have we seen a dog able to breed with anything other than a dog?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 27, 2012, 12:23:06 AM
Tero,  Fish swimming in a school is hardly what I'm talking about.  You don't think the inner ear follows under a design of perfection to complete the auditory task that it has?

The inner ear is perfect?

Are you fucking kidding me?  People are born with non-functional ears, hearing can be damaged by loud noises, and hearing loss is common among older people.  All of these things requires a hearing aid (assuming the the ear is not totally unfunctional) to compensate for.  If the design was so 'perfect', it would not need anything to 'fix' it.


Quote
An explosion of gases blew a universe into existence, then Earth landed perfectly with the elements to sustain life, and we grew out of the mess?  That's the design I'm talking about....not fish swimming together....  It's far more complicated.

Once again, you demostrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.  I'd suggust something about doing research, but it's clear by this point that you want to remain ignorant of how the world works.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 27, 2012, 05:33:05 AM
Was a Great Dane ALWAYS a Great Dane, Rocky?  Why are you avoiding this simple question?  All it requires from you is a yes or no......

A Great Dane was always a dog.  It fits into the dog category, does it not?  Where have we seen a dog able to breed with anything other than a dog?

That's not what I asked, but good try at dodging the question.  Was a Great Dane always precisely a Great Dane, was a Chihuahua always precisely a Chihuahua, or did they both change into their current forms from some kind of dog-like ancestor?

I want to know at what point you think the dividing line comes between creatures being able to change from one form into another.

While you're about it - and this is a serious question, so I'd appreciate a serious answer......you said "It fits into the dog category".....what exactly do you mean by that?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: magicmiles on March 27, 2012, 05:46:25 AM
Caveat: Science novice.

Does evidence of a common ancestor necessarily put a creator out of the picture? Why couldn't God create a vast array of species from the one source material?

( and I confess I haven't read all the posts in this thread )
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 27, 2012, 05:49:26 AM
Does evidence of a common ancestor necessarily put a creator out of the picture?

No. However, it does disprove every religion on Earth that claims its god is the creator of all things in their present state. That's almost every religion that exists, by the way, including yours.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: magicmiles on March 27, 2012, 05:55:37 AM
Genesis is an account of various species or 'kinds' being created. I don't see how that rules out changes in those species over time.

Changes in species is not controversial, after all. We can witness it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 27, 2012, 05:59:15 AM
Genesis is an account of various species or 'kinds' being created. I don't see how that rules out changes in those species over time.

Because those species were created exactly as they are now and 6000-10000 years ago?[1]

Changes in species is not controversial, after all. We can witness it.

Tell that to the anti-"evilution" crowd.
 1. According to the Bible, obviously. Reality begs to differ.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 27, 2012, 06:10:06 AM
Tero,  Fish swimming in a school is hardly what I'm talking about.  You don't think the inner ear follows under a design of perfection to complete the auditory task that it has?  An explosion of gases blew a universe into existence, then Earth landed perfectly with the elements to sustain life, and we grew out of the mess?  That's the design I'm talking about....not fish swimming together....  It's far more complicated.
Exactly! You now explained it, you won the lottery by getting born on the miracle planet.

Other than the ear being designed.  I already posted the links to that.

Optimized, tried and tested, yes. Not designed.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Fiji on March 27, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
Genesis is an account of various species or 'kinds' being created. I don't see how that rules out changes in those species over time.

It doesn't. If a god were to create various 'kinds' with DNA (or some similar carrier for the genetic code) then that life would go on to evolve and diversify.
This is however, a hypothetical world. The fossil record in that world would show all known species converging to a number of basic 'kinds' and stop there. In strata older than that creation moment, there would be nothing. Not simpler lifeforms, not plants, not bacteria ... nothing.
This, we don't see in our world. The way Ratzi the Pope deals with it, is by accepting evolution but positing that the very first life was created by his particular flavour of god and that that god picked (at random, presumably) a point in the evolution from ape to man to inject a soul.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 27, 2012, 06:59:20 AM
Genesis is an account of various species or 'kinds' being created. I don't see how that rules out changes in those species over time.

It don't.  But you then need to ask why on Earth a creator god would make things that would then change over time.  Didn't he make them properly back then?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Azdgari on March 27, 2012, 07:35:23 AM
There's also the "Genesis was 6-10k years ago" part, though, which does preclude much change.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 27, 2012, 09:00:16 AM

Exactly! You now explained it, you won the lottery by getting born on the miracle planet.

Other than the ear being designed.  I already posted the links to that.

Optimized, tried and tested, yes. Not designed.

You think it's simple luck, someone has to win, therefore odds mean nothing.  The fact is that it is impossible, therefore, we can't win the "lottery".  Prove how life springing up out of chaos that we can't explain how it got here is possible.  Then we can talk.

The middle ear evolved?  You posted links to how jawbones turned into the middle ear ossicles.  Just because there are answers and links on the internet to what evolutionists think happened doesn't make me go, "Oh...well...that's how it happened huh?  Now I see!".  Because the answers are so simplistic and imaginative.  NO proof.  Just because one living thing has a short "thing" and another living thing has a "long" thing, doesn't mean that the long one MUST have evolved from the short one.  This is basically how evolutionists look at "evidence".  Anything to make a half-ass theory sound semi-logical.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 27, 2012, 09:35:41 AM
You think it's simple luck, someone has to win, therefore odds mean nothing.  The fact is that it is impossible, therefore, we can't win the "lottery".  Prove how life springing up out of chaos that we can't explain how it got here is possible.  Then we can talk.
more ignorance and evidently intentionally stupidity.  What a pity, you have to keep lying so much, and supposedly your god hates liars.

Quote
The middle ear evolved?  You posted links to how jawbones turned into the middle ear ossicles.  Just because there are answers and links on the internet to what evolutionists think happened doesn't make me go, "Oh...well...that's how it happened huh?  Now I see!".  Because the answers are so simplistic and imaginative.  NO proof.  Just because one living thing has a short "thing" and another living thing has a "long" thing, doesn't mean that the long one MUST have evolved from the short one.  This is basically how evolutionists look at "evidence".  Anything to make a half-ass theory sound semi-logical.

wow, you are a willfully ignorant person, rockv and a liar.  That's so cute, seeing all that you have to support your claims are lies.  Amazing.  And the hypocrisy!  You couldn't be better at it.   You are shown evidence supporting evolutionary theory repeatedly, you are taught about what evolutionary theory really is, not your strawman version, and you still refuse to accept what you've been shown, even though the same science you benefit from everyday supports evolutionary theory.

It's a shame that all your religion is based on is lies, fear and greed.   It's a shame that you aren't even honest enough to refuse to use modern antibiotics, modern food animals and plants, computers, etc, since all of those depend on the science you claim doesn't work.   
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 27, 2012, 10:06:47 AM
You think it's simple luck, someone has to win, therefore odds mean nothing.  The fact is that it is impossible, therefore, we can't win the "lottery".  Prove how life springing up out of chaos that we can't explain how it got here is possible.  Then we can talk.

The middle ear evolved?  You posted links to how jawbones turned into the middle ear ossicles.  Just because there are answers and links on the internet to what evolutionists think happened doesn't make me go, "Oh...well...that's how it happened huh?  Now I see!".  Because the answers are so simplistic and imaginative.  NO proof.  Just because one living thing has a short "thing" and another living thing has a "long" thing, doesn't mean that the long one MUST have evolved from the short one.  This is basically how evolutionists look at "evidence".  Anything to make a half-ass theory sound semi-logical.
As opposed to you, who goes, "I can't figure out how it works, so it must have been magic!  God did it, all praise the Almighty Creator for miraculously making everything just as we need it and making all life as we know it absolutely perfect!"  This is the essence of your argument, you have made that abundantly clear.

Do you not understand how ridiculous it is for you, who has already admitted that you don't get how evolution works, to presume that you are competent to judge how accurate it is?  Especially as you keep clamoring for proof, failing to understand that science isn't about proof.  It's about evidence, and understanding the evidence, and figuring out ways that the evidence fits together, and excluding the ways which can be shown to not work.  Not pretending that somehow, everything that lives is perfect because it supports your belief in a Divine Creator.  Because, it isn't and it never will be.  Perfection - true perfection, with no flaws - simply doesn't exist in this universe.  What most people consider "perfection" is simply something where the flaws are too small to see.

You accuse scientists of coming up with simplistic and imaginative answers, yet your own belief is the essence of simplicity and imagination.  Because of this, you must manufacture ways to make science look even less convincing than your own beliefs, because otherwise those beliefs would look ridiculous in your own eyes.  It's true that scientists try to answer with fairly simple explanations, and it's also true that they have to imagine how the evidence might fit together, but the simple explanations fit the facts, rather than trying to make the facts fit them, and the imagination they must use is tempered and disciplined so that they do not come up with fanciful "explanations" that require contorting the evidence to fit them.  And if the explanations are shown to be wrong, then they correct them to be in line with the new evidence.

Have you ever admitted that you might be wrong about there being a creator?  Have you ever even seriously tried to consider it?  I suspect not.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 27, 2012, 11:25:28 AM
Just because there are answers and links on the internet to what evolutionists think happened doesn't make me go, "Oh...well...that's how it happened huh?  Now I see!". 

Your stupidity and obstinance does not invalidate evolution.  In fact, it kind of proves it.  Ever since people have banded together in scoieties and mostly eradicated our large predators, there has been no natural mechanism to weed out the stupid.  It used to be sabertooth tigers would eat people like you.  But they are extinct.  Now, idiots flourish.  See how it works? 

You have evolution to thank for your existence.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 27, 2012, 02:48:19 PM
You accuse scientists of coming up with simplistic and imaginative answers, yet your own belief is the essence of simplicity and imagination. 

This part especially, bears repeating. And for Rockv to fail to see this, or admit it to himself, indicates his failure to actually seek any truth.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 27, 2012, 04:44:27 PM
No luck was involved in evolving. Your personal luck was being the product of molecules and creatures doing their best on a friendly planet. The molecules in you randomly collected here, so there was a bit of luck. And your mommy and daddy mating and just of dad's missiles could make you. A winner! There are no losers in your family tree. Including critters with one bone un the middle ear.
You think it's simple luck, someone has to win, therefore odds mean nothing.  The fact is that it is impossible, therefore, we can't win the "lottery".  Prove how life springing up out of chaos that we can't explain how it got here is possible.  Then we can talk.

The middle ear evolved?  You posted links to how jawbones turned into the middle ear ossicles.  Just because there are answers and links on the internet to what evolutionists think happened doesn't make me go, "Oh...well...that's how it happened huh?  Now I see!".  Because the answers are so simplistic and imaginative.  NO proof.  Just because one living thing has a short "thing" and another living thing has a "long" thing, doesn't mean that the long one MUST have evolved from the short one.  This is basically how evolutionists look at "evidence".  Anything to make a half-ass theory sound semi-logical.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 27, 2012, 10:26:13 PM
No luck was involved in evolving. Your personal luck was being the product of molecules and creatures doing their best on a friendly planet. The molecules in you randomly collected here, so there was a bit of luck. And your mommy and daddy mating and just of dad's missiles could make you. A winner! There are no losers in your family tree. Including critters with one bone un the middle ear.
No luck was involved in evolving?  Please explain a bit better than the above...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 27, 2012, 10:33:41 PM
Have you ever admitted that you might be wrong about there being a creator?  Have you ever even seriously tried to consider it?  I suspect not.

Yet, in your post above, you offer no answers to my previous questions other than, "you just don't understand the science behind evolution."  But I get no answers to how the middle ear evolved or any of my other '"tough" questions.  Seems that it's all simple and easy to understand when you look at these simplistic, big steps in your evolutionary theory.

Wrong about a creator?  Of course I have given thought to it.  But I look at more than simply creation alone for evidence.  I look at Biblical accuracy, the life and death of Jesus and His resurrection, and I look at how God works in my life and my connection to Him.  Have you ever talked to a born-again Christian after being "saved"?  How do they respond?  Do you think it's simply a psychological change that makes them a different person?  Do you think that it's a warm fuzzy feeling that they get and their inner self makes them a better person?  Do you think that all the "miracles" and answers to prayer that are reported everyday are all coincidence?  Ask Geezer Butler of Black Sabbath if the devil is real.  There is a dark spiritual world that exists that is apparent!  It's far more than just creation vs. evolution.  I don't simply believe because Grandpa Jim told me that God exists.  I have reasons and NO blind faith.  Seems like evolution is WAY more blind faith than believing in God...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 27, 2012, 10:44:18 PM
Because drugged out metal icons are who we should trust to give accurate acounts of reality.  &)

This is the 2nd time in as many months that a theist has appealed to the authority of a member of Black Sabbath, a musical group of entertainers! If I find prominent atheist musicians, would you deconvert?

What do you mean "how" did the ear evolve? It evolved over eons, due to selective pressures and mutated genes, that's "how". Could you be more specific? What answer would sway you? What exact level of detail, what evidence do you seek?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 28, 2012, 01:05:12 AM
Yet, in your post above, you offer no answers to my previous questions other than, "you just don't understand the science behind evolution."  But I get no answers to how the middle ear evolved or any of my other '"tough" questions.  Seems that it's all simple and easy to understand when you look at these simplistic, big steps in your evolutionary theory.
I'm quite sure I've said that I'm not a biologist, let alone an evolutionary biologist.  You might as well be asking someone who knows something about computers to describe the exact sequence of machine language used to execute various commands on your computer, and if they can't, it's "blind faith".  But you don't have to know that sequence in order to know the computer works, nor do I have to know the exact path that various body structures evolved through to know that they did evolve.  It isn't a matter of blind faith, or faith at all, it's a matter of trusting someone's expertise and knowledge.

Quote from: rockv12
Wrong about a creator?  Of course I have given thought to it.  But I look at more than simply creation alone for evidence.  I look at Biblical accuracy, the life and death of Jesus and His resurrection, and I look at how God works in my life and my connection to Him.  Have you ever talked to a born-again Christian after being "saved"?  How do they respond?  Do you think it's simply a psychological change that makes them a different person?  Do you think that it's a warm fuzzy feeling that they get and their inner self makes them a better person?  Do you think that all the "miracles" and answers to prayer that are reported everyday are all coincidence?  Ask Geezer Butler of Black Sabbath if the devil is real.  There is a dark spiritual world that exists that is apparent!  It's far more than just creation vs. evolution.  I don't simply believe because Grandpa Jim told me that God exists.  I have reasons and NO blind faith.  Seems like evolution is WAY more blind faith than believing in God..
You say that you have no blind faith, yet you claim Biblical accuracy, based on a Bible that's been essentially rewritten and edited countless times; you claim the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, despite the complete dearth of any evidence besides the Bible; you claim how God works in your life despite the fact that this is completely subjective.  You cannot do anything that you could not have done anyway because of what you claim is God's presence.  Geezer Butler also cannot do anything special because of his belief in the devil's reality.

Yes, I do think it is a psychological change that they create for themselves that makes a person who has a religious experience different, whether it's a born-again Christian or a devil worshiper or whoever.  You may dismissively refer to it as a "warm fuzzy feeling", but a person's emotions and what they want to be real will affect their perception of what is real.  The thing they believe in doesn't have to actually exist in order to affect them.  And as for miracles and answered prayers, care to wager how many prayers aren't answered by miracles?  Nobody ever seems to worry about that.  Nobody counts when a miracle doesn't happen, nobody counts when there's no response to a prayer.  It's always God's will if something does happen, and God's will if something doesn't.  Which is mighty convenient for a belief system which has reasons but "no blind faith", as you put it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 28, 2012, 02:58:42 AM
I get no answers to how the middle ear evolved or any of my other '"tough" questions. 

Was a Great Dane always precisely a Great Dane, was a Chihuahua always precisely a Chihuahua, or did they both change into their current forms from some kind of dog-like ancestor?

Look at a bone in a Great Dane.  Then look at a bone in a Chihuahua.  Somewhat different, wouldn't you say?  Perhaps you would care to explain how one "kind" of dog turned into two so dramatically different creatures?  Or is it, perhaps, possible that tiny little changes, stacked one after the other, can lead to dramatically different results?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 28, 2012, 06:14:56 AM
No luck was involved in evolving. Your personal luck was being the product of molecules and creatures doing their best on a friendly planet. The molecules in you randomly collected here, so there was a bit of luck. And your mommy and daddy mating and just of dad's missiles could make you. A winner! There are no losers in your family tree. Including critters with one bone un the middle ear.
No luck was involved in evolving?  Please explain a bit better than the above...
I was on the phone that time. Of course you were extremely lucky to be your particular collection of molecules. You could have been an earth worm, or at best, chimpanzee. But your personal luck was the lottery grand prize in our solar system: human.

But evolution does not care about you, it needs no luck to produce organisms, only survival.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 28, 2012, 09:47:21 AM
Wrong about a creator?  Of course I have given thought to it.  But I look at more than simply creation alone for evidence.  I look at Biblical accuracy,
It isn't.

 
Quote
the life and death of Jesus and His resurrection,
no evidence for any of this.

Quote
and I look at how God works in my life and my connection to Him.
  all theists make the same claim.  does that make their gods just as real as yours? 

and rockv, again, you show you have no idea what evolutionary theory says or that you benefit from it everyday. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 10:43:53 AM

Look at a bone in a Great Dane.  Then look at a bone in a Chihuahua.  Somewhat different, wouldn't you say?  Perhaps you would care to explain how one "kind" of dog turned into two so dramatically different creatures?  Or is it, perhaps, possible that tiny little changes, stacked one after the other, can lead to dramatically different results?

Yea, a midget is a lot different than Arnold Schwarzeneggar.  They are both humans.  What's your point you're so desperately trying to make?  That evolution is true because we have different sized dogs? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 28, 2012, 10:48:21 AM
"Human" is the common name for our species. "Dog" is not a name for any species. You can call a being a dog, but its species is not "dog".
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Asmoday on March 28, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Yea, a midget is a lot different than Arnold Schwarzeneggar.  They are both humans.  What's your point you're so desperately trying to make?  That evolution is true because we have different sized dogs?
A Chihuahua is not a midget Great Dane. In the same way that a human midget is not some kind of distinct human breed.

Try again.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 02:34:02 PM
A Chihuahua is not a midget Great Dane. In the same way that a human midget is not some kind of distinct human breed.
Try again.
[/quote] 
This thread has gotten outta control.  What's your point?  Please, say more than simple questions, and act like "I gotcha!!" with every response.  How is evolution proven by using the above example????
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 28, 2012, 03:11:09 PM
This thread has gotten outta control. 

I agree.  for example:

Ask Geezer Butler of Black Sabbath if the devil is real. 


Before you demand more from the people here who understand evolution and have been generous enough to try to educate you, perhaps you could show some willingness to put a little more effort into your posts?

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
Before you demand more from the people here who understand evolution and have been generous enough to try to educate you, perhaps you could show some willingness to put a little more effort into your posts?

I wasn't asking anybody to contact Geezer Butler.  Just making a point that even non-Christians will tell you that there is a devil.

Nobody has educated me on anything...everytime I ask a difficult question, I get "Well, we can't understand every little thing about evolution, but we know the basics and that's enough for now".  ZERO education was received on how a hummingbird evolved or why.  Now if you want to accuse me of not putting effort into my posts, I suggest you do some effort and answer some of the "tougher" questions.  Where did we come from?  How did we get here?  You can't start in the middle of the story with evolution.  You have to answer the foundational question of "where did we come from?".  Nobody can do that, therefore evolution is missing a major little part to it's shoddy story. So where do you want to start?  The Big Bang/beginning of time...OR the hummingbird?  These are questions that should be answered if you want to prove that there is NO God, nor evidence for a God.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 28, 2012, 03:24:19 PM
I wasn't asking anybody to contact Geezer Butler.  Just making a point that even non-Christians will tell you that there is a devil.

No shit. Religions need a "worse guy" to make the "bad guy" seem like the "good guy". Now, if you get an atheist to say that there's a devil, you're dealing with what's known as a "liar".

Nobody has educated me on anything...everytime I ask a difficult question, I get "Well, we can't understand every little thing about evolution, but we know the basics and that's enough for now".

Liar. Your questions are neither difficult nor unanswered. What you're asking has been addressed several times. You want to know how every species on the planet evolved? Devote your life to biology and you will. You want proof of evolution? Read our posts.


By the way, why are you so afraid of looking at the evidence? Surely if your god is real, the evidence will show it. If the evidence doesn't prove evolution, then surely you can point out the flaws. What you're doing right now is being dishonest, which doesn't help your case.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Alzael on March 28, 2012, 03:27:09 PM
Saying it's an "argument from ignorance" does NOT make it an untrue argument. 

No, that's quite accurate. It does not necessarily make it untrue. It does, however, do nothing to make it more true. And, more to the point, it also serves to make the argument essentially useless. Going by the logic that you present, EVERY idea about how things happened is equally valid. If we accept your argument then every idea, no matter how unlikely or stupid, must also be considered viable. Also since your criteria for an idea being plausible is limited to nothing more than the fact that we don't know what really happened with absolute certainty (which is something that is impossible) then you have ruled out any chance of ever knowing which idea is the truth. This does not actually strength your position.

Looked at in the very best possible way, all this would do if it were accepted is bring every other idea down to your level. In other words it doesn't make your position any smarter, it just makes the other positions equally as idiotic. Also equally unprovable. It also doesn't address the relevant question of why you hold that particular belief. You have placed every other possibility on the same level as god, so why do you believe in god? Why not evolution? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? They are all equally plausible under your criteria.

The bottomline is, because your position is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, it has no value. At best it's just mental masterbation done for you own vicarious amusement. And while I note that you do seem to enjoy spewing all over the forum, there are places far better suited to such things on the internet. You're just making the floors sticky and leaving a pungent and distasteful mess on everyones shoes.


Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 28, 2012, 03:31:00 PM
A Chihuahua is not a midget Great Dane. In the same way that a human midget is not some kind of distinct human breed.
Try again.
 
This thread has gotten outta control.  What's your point?  Please, say more than simple questions, and act like "I gotcha!!" with every response.  How is evolution proven by using the above example????

Dog breeding is an excellent example of how evolution works.  The only difference between the processes is that human beings select the traits they want to breed for.  It's called 'artificial selection'.  Without human interference, it's called 'natural selection' and the traits that each individual possesses that help it survive are the ones that are 'bred' for, simply by the process of dying before they are old enough to reproduce and pass on the genetic material. 

It's very simple.  Imagine you had 100 golden retrievers out in cages in your back yard.  One day, you decide that in the future, all you want to keep are the dogs with the darkest coats.  In order to do that, what you might do is select 20 of the 100 dogs (10 male and 10 female) that had the darkest coats and breed them together.  This would produce offspring with the highest likelihood of darker coats.  Then you would breed only those with the dark coats again, and again, and again.  The other 80 dogs, however, have bright coats, so you do not choose to breed them before they eventually die.  This is evolution in action.  Small steps give you darker and darker coats.  The interesting thing is that you can do that with just about every characteristic a dog possesses.  Long nose, short legs, fetching capability, etc.  It's all been done, little by little.  The process by which that happens is called evolution via artificial selection. 

In natural selection, the process is the same, however instead of a human being selecting for dark coats, nature will decide whether or not a dark coat is advantageous simply by whether or not a dark coat gives the individual a survival advantage in their environment over others of its kind.  This is really not that hard a concept.  If the dog lives in the arctic versus the jungle, just imagine what advantages or disadvantages a dark coat might give.  Would it be harder to see?  Better insulation against the cold?  There are lots of possibilities. 

Honestly, I would like to know exactly where in that process the whole thing breaks down for you.  Don't keep looking at the big picture and saying 'oh, it can never happen, it can never explain everything!'.  That is an EMOTIONAL response.  Use your brain for a minute.  What part of that process do you not think is accurate?  Step by step.  Which one? 

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 03:33:56 PM

Liar. Your questions are neither difficult nor unanswered. What you're asking has been addressed several times. You want to know how every species on the planet evolved? Devote your life to biology and you will. You want proof of evolution? Read our posts.


Where did we come from?  How did the Big Bang begin?  That was answered?  Refer me to the answer or you can tell me in your own words.  Where and who answered how a hummingbird evolved?  If so, I apologize, but I didn't know we knew the answer to that....again, where is the answer?  It's ok if you don't know, but I want you to think about why we don't know.  WHY is it difficult to see the evidence in their evolution?  Howcome we can't get a good answer to some of these questions?  Look, I know you don't know how the hummingbird evolved....right?  Look online...nobody knows.  But WHY?  I think it's because the hummingbird is so freakin' advanced in structure and design, that NOBODY can fathom how evolution created such a creature.  Along with millions of other examples.  Evolution likes to look at monkeys and humans....  So can you tell me a rational idea for how the hummingbird evolved or how matter just poofed into existence to blow up?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 28, 2012, 03:39:10 PM
Nobody has educated me on anything...everytime I ask a difficult question, I get "Well, we can't understand every little thing about evolution, but we know the basics and that's enough for now".  ZERO education was received on how a hummingbird evolved or why.  Now if you want to accuse me of not putting effort into my posts, I suggest you do some effort and answer some of the "tougher" questions.  Where did we come from?  How did we get here?  You can't start in the middle of the story with evolution.  You have to answer the foundational question of "where did we come from?".  Nobody can do that, therefore evolution is missing a major little part to it's shoddy story. So where do you want to start?  The Big Bang/beginning of time...OR the hummingbird?  These are questions that should be answered if you want to prove that there is NO God, nor evidence for a God.

way to lie, move the goal posts, demonstate your willful ignorance, etc, rockv.   You have been asked for evidence for your god and have not provided any at all.  We have shown you evidence that evolutionary theory works and how it works.  It works for hummingbirds too.    *We* got here by evolution.  All of the evidence supports the BBT and nothing supports your religious myths. Nothing, not one scrap of evidence that you can show.   You can't even show your god exists and that some other god *didn't* create the universe.

At best you can say we don't know everything, and that gap shrinks every day.  Your poor little god, once the ruler of the universe, able to magic up anything and now poor thing has to fit inside of the cracks that creationists are desperate to find.  You need to invent lies to attack the science you refuse to understand.  Heck, you need to grudgingly acept the sciecence you do accept and you'd be quite a lovely heretic to Christians a hundred years ago or even other Christians now.   All so sadly contradicting each other and making me laugh at your antics that show that youre religion is just as ridiculous as the Greeks or the Norse.  And your own actions have made me sure that there is nohting special about Christianity at all. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 28, 2012, 03:40:10 PM
Where did we come from?

I don't know about you, but my parents had sex and I was born approximately nine months later.

How did the Big Bang begin?

A singularity of infinite mass and density started expanding.

That was answered?  Refer me to the answer or you can tell me in your own words.

Done.

Where and who answered how a hummingbird evolved?  If so, I apologize, but I didn't know we knew the answer to that....again, where is the answer?

Those are the ones that feed on nectar and float in midair, correct? If so, here's the short version:
You had these birds, right? They fed on lots of stuff - berries, seeds and shit like that. One or more adapted to stand still in midair, rather than fly around like a retard. It then discovered that nectar is pretty damned good.
The end.

It's ok if you don't know, but I want you to think about why we don't know.

I did think about why you don't know. Why are you scared of looking at the evidence, rockv12?

WHY is it difficult to see the evidence in their evolution?

Why is it difficult for you to see the evidence in their evolution? Same reason why it's difficult for someone with their eyes closed to see the paintings in my bedroom.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 03:42:19 PM
Honestly, I would like to know exactly where in that process the whole thing breaks down for you.  Don't keep looking at the big picture and saying 'oh, it can never happen, it can never explain everything!'.  That is an EMOTIONAL response.  Use your brain for a minute.  What part of that process do you not think is accurate?  Step by step.  Which one?

Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.  Do you really think that natural selection would turn a dog into a whale?  Slowly, it started wading around in the water for fun.  And the dogs with the thicker fur became more likely to survive because they liked to frolic in the sea.  The fur is thick now with all dogs.  The dog decides to move a bit further into the water to avoid the bear on the shore....all the long legged dogs could go further into the water!  Now we have long legged dogs and thick furry dogs!  One day a dog goes under!  He starts swimming underwater to escape the bear!  This guy gets away!  The brave dog that swam underwater...now he has a baby dog that has thick fur, long legs, and isn't afraid to go underwater to escape the bears on shore.  Now keep making little stories like this over and over and over and you will eventually get a whale swimming in the ocean.  Evolution via natural selection.  Got it.  Now do you think this is reasonable?  This scenario played out billions of times over?  Is that what you're saying?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 28, 2012, 03:43:56 PM
Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.

How do you think the different colored fur got there? Do you think it's all the exact same DNA that results in entirely different things?
Actually, don't answer that. I think I know what you're going to say.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 03:45:58 PM

Those are the ones that feed on nectar and float in midair, correct? If so, here's the short version:
You had these birds, right? They fed on lots of stuff - berries, seeds and shit like that. One or more adapted to stand still in midair, rather than fly around like a retard. It then discovered that nectar is pretty damned good.
The end.


I give up...I seriously give up.  That seems logical to you?  If that's how smart you are, then I'm wasting my time.  Go to church, God loves you, and Jesus died for your sins.  Best of luck to you. ....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 28, 2012, 03:47:19 PM
I give up...I seriously give up.  That seems logical to you?

Well, I did dumb it down a lot. You gotta fit your discourse to your audience, n'est-ce pa?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
I give up...I seriously give up.  That seems logical to you?

Well, I did dumb it down a lot. You gotta fit your discourse to your audience, n'est-ce pa?

thanks.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 28, 2012, 03:52:23 PM
thanks.

For calling you an idiot? I think you have some more people to thank...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Historicity on March 28, 2012, 03:56:18 PM
Those are the ones that feed on nectar and float in midair, correct? If so, here's the short version:
You had these birds, right? They fed on lots of stuff - berries, seeds and shit like that. One or more adapted to stand still in midair, rather than fly around like a retard. It then discovered that nectar is pretty damned good.
The end.
Well, that would only be true if birds already had some hovering ability.  Then they could evolve it further.  Do any birds other than hummingbirds have hovering ability?  Do they?  Huh? Huh?

I've seen birds like sparrows hover for a second or so, particularly in a fight.  So I say, yes.  And there's also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_flight)
Quote
Hovering
The ruby-throated Hummingbird can beat its wings 52 times a second

Hovering is used by several species of birds (and specialized in by one family). True hovering, which is generating lift through flapping alone rather than as a product of the bird's passage through the air, demands a lot of energy. This means that it is confined to smaller birds; the largest bird able to truly hover is the pied kingfisher, although larger birds can hover for short periods of time. Larger birds that hover for prolonged periods do so by flying into a headwind, allowing them to remain stationary relative to the ground (or water). Kestrels, terns and even hawks use this windhovering.

Most birds that hover have high aspect ratio wings that are suited to low speed flying. One major exception to this are the hummingbirds, which are the most accomplished hoverers of all the birds. Hummingbird flight is different from other bird flight in that the wing is extended throughout the whole stroke, the stroke being a symmetrical figure of eight, with the wing producing lift on both the up- and down-stroke. Some hummingbirds can beat their wings 52 times a second, though others do so less frequently.]Hovering
The ruby-throated Hummingbird can beat its wings 52 times a second

Hovering is used by several species of birds (and specialized in by one family). True hovering, which is generating lift through flapping alone rather than as a product of the bird's passage through the air, demands a lot of energy. This means that it is confined to smaller birds; the largest bird able to truly hover is the pied kingfisher, although larger birds can hover for short periods of time. Larger birds that hover for prolonged periods do so by flying into a headwind, allowing them to remain stationary relative to the ground (or water). Kestrels, terns and even hawks use this windhovering.

Most birds that hover have high aspect ratio wings that are suited to low speed flying. One major exception to this are the hummingbirds, which are the most accomplished hoverers of all the birds. Hummingbird flight is different from other bird flight in that the wing is extended throughout the whole stroke, the stroke being a symmetrical figure of eight, with the wing producing lift on both the up- and down-stroke. Some hummingbirds can beat their wings 52 times a second, though others do so less frequently.

I can't see why Rockv12 thinks this is such a gotcha.  I guess he never had a bird feeder.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 28, 2012, 04:06:42 PM
Honestly, I would like to know exactly where in that process the whole thing breaks down for you.  Don't keep looking at the big picture and saying 'oh, it can never happen, it can never explain everything!'.  That is an EMOTIONAL response.  Use your brain for a minute.  What part of that process do you not think is accurate?  Step by step.  Which one?

Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.  Do you really think that natural selection would turn a dog into a whale?  Slowly, it started wading around in the water for fun.  And the dogs with the thicker fur became more likely to survive because they liked to frolic in the sea.  The fur is thick now with all dogs.  The dog decides to move a bit further into the water to avoid the bear on the shore....all the long legged dogs could go further into the water!  Now we have long legged dogs and thick furry dogs!  One day a dog goes under!  He starts swimming underwater to escape the bear!  This guy gets away!  The brave dog that swam underwater...now he has a baby dog that has thick fur, long legs, and isn't afraid to go underwater to escape the bears on shore.  Now keep making little stories like this over and over and over and you will eventually get a whale swimming in the ocean.  Evolution via natural selection.  Got it.  Now do you think this is reasonable?  This scenario played out billions of times over?  Is that what you're saying?

I never have understood the propensity to make up crap and then claim it can't be true. And then to feel smug about it?  This is why we invented the word "nonsense".
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: JeffPT on March 28, 2012, 04:24:25 PM
Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.  Do you really think that natural selection would turn a dog into a whale?  Slowly, it started wading around in the water for fun.  And the dogs with the thicker fur became more likely to survive because they liked to frolic in the sea.  The fur is thick now with all dogs.  The dog decides to move a bit further into the water to avoid the bear on the shore....all the long legged dogs could go further into the water!  Now we have long legged dogs and thick furry dogs!  One day a dog goes under!  He starts swimming underwater to escape the bear!  This guy gets away!  The brave dog that swam underwater...now he has a baby dog that has thick fur, long legs, and isn't afraid to go underwater to escape the bears on shore.  Now keep making little stories like this over and over and over and you will eventually get a whale swimming in the ocean.  Evolution via natural selection.  Got it.  Now do you think this is reasonable?  This scenario played out billions of times over?  Is that what you're saying?

New information is integral to the process of evolution and I could easily explain to you how it happens.  The question I have for you, however, is could you put your emotions aside for just a few minutes and listen long enough to understand it?  Could you really sit there and take the time to read what I write to you and accept that maybe, yes, new information CAN be had that way?  I am not going to take the time to do it if you are unwilling to hear it out. 

In order to take the first step, however, I must ask you if you know what DNA is and how it works?  And if you really want to hear this, just answer this section of my response with a single yes, or a single no. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 28, 2012, 05:16:27 PM
New informatiom comes from erroneously duplicated bits of DNA that can be altered stepwise to a meaningful gene. At first that bit has no use. No harm either. Some info comes from viruses.

The stuff you don't know, Rock. It would fill books.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: shnozzola on March 28, 2012, 06:05:56 PM
Just because one living thing has a short "thing" and another living thing has a "long" thing, doesn't mean that the long one MUST have evolved from the short one. 

Hi Rockv12,
    Can I borrow your statement above?  Oh, and when your finished, can we talk to version 13?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 28, 2012, 06:49:09 PM
Where did we come from?  How did the Big Bang begin?  That was answered?  Refer me to the answer or you can tell me in your own words.  Where and who answered how a hummingbird evolved?  If so, I apologize, but I didn't know we knew the answer to that....again, where is the answer?  It's ok if you don't know, but I want you to think about why we don't know.  WHY is it difficult to see the evidence in their evolution?  Howcome we can't get a good answer to some of these questions?  Look, I know you don't know how the hummingbird evolved....right?  Look online...nobody knows.  But WHY?  I think it's because the hummingbird is so freakin' advanced in structure and design, that NOBODY can fathom how evolution created such a creature.  Along with millions of other examples.  Evolution likes to look at monkeys and humans....  So can you tell me a rational idea for how the hummingbird evolved or how matter just poofed into existence to blow up?
Quit making arguments out of incredulity.  They make you look and sound like an ignorant fool who is desperate to find any excuse to justify his belief system, and they thoroughly explode your claim that your beliefs are based on rational reasons and not blind faith.  Because if you had rational, evidence-based reasons, you would not have to ask all these nonsensical questions based off of incredulous ignorance.

After all your posts in this thread, you're still at square one.  You haven't disproved evolution in any way, shape, or form; you've demonstrated numerous times that you don't understand evolution at all, yet you presume that you're competent to judge it; you've shown that your own beliefs are based off of purely emotional reasons built from blind faith, despite your claims to the contrary; and your parting shot is "go to church, God loves you, and Jesus died for your sins".  Yes, this will work extremely well with a bunch of atheists who consider church to be a social activity at best, don't believe there are such things as gods, and consider Jesus to be a fictional character.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 28, 2012, 07:53:15 PM
I wasn't asking anybody to contact Geezer Butler.  Just making a point that even non-Christians will tell you that there is a devil.

Oh, well, there you have it.  If some washed up, pretend satanist agrees with you that there is a devil, by jesus, there must be a devil.

I have a hard time understanding why you would think the testimony of any musician regarding the existence of supernatural beings would be convincing.  Did you eat paint as a child?

Nobody has educated me on anything...

That is not their fault.  Sometimes the student is unteachable.  I do not see you being receptive or interested in learning.  Instead I see you working very hard to maintain your stupid beliefs.

everytime I ask a difficult question,

You haven't.  You have asked dumb questions predicated on your misunderstandings and lies told to you by other religious people. 

ZERO education was received

Again, I really see that as a problem with the student, not the teachers.

Now if you want to accuse me of not putting effort into my posts, I suggest you do some effort and answer some of the "tougher" questions. 

Because you have not learned anything from the basics.  Instead you ask pointless, loaded questions.  Why would I waste my time and effort?  Pearls before swine, as they say.

Where did we come from?  How did we get here? 

We came from primitive apes via evolution.

You can't start in the middle of the story with evolution.  You have to answer the foundational question of "where did we come from?".

Says you.  Unfortunately your say so means little. Mainly because your grasp of the facts is so poor.

These are questions that should be answered if you want to prove that there is NO God, nor evidence for a God.

Now you are shifting the goal posts.  The point was to explain evolution, not disprove god.  Evolution does not prove there is no god.  It just makes god unnecessary as an explanation for our existence.  Believing evolution is true does not mean you have to stop believing in god.  You can do both.  You just have to accept that genesis is not literally true in everything it says. There are lots of xians who believe in evolution and god.


Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 09:30:00 PM

Says you.  Unfortunately your say so means little. Mainly because your grasp of the facts is so poor.


You can't start in the middle.  To prove something as "proven", as you say evolution is, means that ALL elements must be proven.  We have just one little, itty bitty problem (well many IMHO)....that problem is that we have no answer and science can't explain how we got here.  Where did everything come from?   I can't teach world history by starting with the Middle Ages.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 09:32:49 PM
After all your posts in this thread, you're still at square one.  You haven't disproved evolution in any way, shape, or form; you've demonstrated numerous times that you don't understand evolution at all,

And yet, nobody can explain how the hummingbird evolved, among many other examples.  Round and round we go.  Why is it so hard to prove evolution?  Explain just one example of evolution....just one!  How did the inner ear/cochlea evolve?  Please explain, step by step...geez.  Help me out here....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 28, 2012, 09:35:56 PM
Wrong once again. It is absolutely the best way to work backwards.

You are assigning causes and purposes to inanimate humks of matter. Ot has no mission, no purpose.

It's natural to ask these questions in a people centered world.

I have the hummingbirds evolution in a book on bird evolution. You can buy it. I'm not typing it on an iPhone. The wrist is the key.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 28, 2012, 09:40:58 PM
The blind remain unwilling to see.

May I call him a fuckhead now? (No offense, rock. Inside joke.)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 09:42:35 PM
I can't see why Rockv12 thinks this is such a gotcha.  I guess he never had a bird feeder.

And because some birds appear to stay in one place for a moment proves how hummingbirds evolved?  So the birds that "hover" aren't cutting it?  They aren't surviving?  What's the point?  Why did evolution make them flap faster? 

Gosh, just the idea of wings evolving is absurd...we've discussed that.  Now I'm trying to get the point across that supersonic wings evolving is also absurd?  Does anybody have any reason in here?  Think about the steps and rationale involved in this notion!!  Think about why and when and how all this took place!!  Anybody?  Anybody think it's absurd?  Sorry, I'm getting a bit annoyed, but I've gotten NO reasonable theory or idea other than the above example?  Think about the moment, the time, that the bird that hovered a bit longer because of stronger wings evolved stronger wings and then stronger wings to hover a bit better.... Think about that!  It's absurd that it would evolve to the point of the extraordinary hummingbird!  And these examples are EVERYWHERE!!  Shall we look at the gecko?  Shall we look at the spider?  The ant?  The sloth?  The hibernating bear?  The honeybee?  The woodpecker?  The jellyfish?  Pick one and explain the evolution to me...go right ahead...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 09:43:30 PM
The blind remain unwilling to see.

May I call him a fuckhead now? (No offense, rock. Inside joke.)

I can take it.  We're online.  I know you wouldn't say that to my face....right?  lol.  I'm not the most pleasant debater either, but I don't call anyone names...come on!  lol.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 28, 2012, 09:50:11 PM
Nah, I wouldn't call you a fuckhead just yet ;-)

Willfully ignorant, yes. Intellectually dishonest, for sure.

But fuckhead? No way.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 28, 2012, 09:53:14 PM
Not that Rock will ever learn a thing, but for the rest of us. There is no fossil record of New  World humming birds. They are evolved from swifts.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1642/0004-8038(2003)120%5B0145:POETSA%5D2.0.CO%3B2?prevSearch=

The ancestors are well known.
Quote
The Early Eocene Primapus, found in England, is similar to both a primitive swift and the aegialornithids, which are in some aspects intermediate between swifts and owlet-nightjars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodiformes

Old world relatives
http://www.senckenberg.de/files/content/forschung/abteilung/terrzool/ornithologie/hummingbird_biologist.pdf

The swift connection is a vocal feature, a picture on this page
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n8/full/ncomms1448.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-201108
See Rock, you finally could learn something.

Cool stuff. But the bones will be hard to find.
Quote
Hummingbird bones are very small and so
preserved only under especially fortunate
circumstances. Have the tiny bones of these
birds been overlooked in Upper Oligocene
or early Miocene localities, or did they
indeed only occur in the Lower Oligocene?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 09:54:49 PM
Nah, I wouldn't call you a fuckhead just yet ;-)

Willfully ignorant, yes. Intellectually dishonest, for sure.

But fuckhead? No way.

The problem is that I think we are all a bit too smart for our own good.  Listen to us...we're arguing about birds and wings.  Let's talk politics...I bet that would be way better!!  lol.  Now Obama....don't get me started!  Just kidding. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 28, 2012, 09:58:38 PM
Tero, I never said that nobody has any articles or "research" on the topic.  But I found no answer in any of those links.  Can you point out the answer?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Historicity on March 28, 2012, 10:39:53 PM
Now I'm trying to get the point across that supersonic wings evolving is also absurd?  Does anybody have any reason in here?
Certainly you don't.  You're a combination of idiot and liar.

Hummingbirds don't have supersonic wings.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Aaron123 on March 29, 2012, 12:30:46 AM
I'm going to try a different approach here.

rockv12, do you believe in "mircoevolution", as many creationists do?

If so, why?

If not, then why not, and why do you feel you're correct, despite what other creationists say?

Finally, either way, what does "mircoevolution" means to you?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: DumpsterFire on March 29, 2012, 12:43:25 AM
OK rock, so your position in this debate, after nearly 500 posts and dozens if not hundreds of examples of the legitimacy of evolution, remains the exact same argument from ignorance/incredulity you proferred up on day one: I cannot understand this, therefore god. At this point it is obvious that you are utterly unwilling to accept anything as evidence against your original postulate. I am actually quite surprised that so many here have humored you for so long on the matter.

You have also repeatedly accused others of dodging your "difficult" questions, so in a turning of tables I wish to readdress a difficult question you conveniently chose to ignore regarding what I consider to be your most absurd post of this thread (italics mine):
 
If science can help explain how a little girl of 95 lbs. threw a football player up against the wall with one arm and was "cured" through prayer and Jesus' name, after her parents sold her soul to Satan when she was a child, then go right ahead and prove it.  Good luck...

Why does god allow parents to sell their children's souls? Answer the question.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Anfauglir on March 29, 2012, 04:31:52 AM
Natural selection is NOT evolution.  Traits and characteristics are not new information to the dog.  Evolution requires the creation of new information.  Do you really think that natural selection would turn a dog into a whale? ......

Right.  So perhaps now you will answer my question rather than dodging around it.

Was a Great Dane ALWAYS a Great Dane, and was a Chihuahua ALWAYS a Chihuahua?
Or did they both come from an ancestor that was somewhat dog-like?

I'm guessing that you will answer "no", and "yes" respectively, since we can quite easily prove how dog breeds have evolved.

So you will therefore agree that - over time, and with the right pressures - creatures can change quite dramatically, increasing or decreasing in size, fur length, cranial shape, and so on.  How some selection for particular traits can lead to genetic problems that other breeds don't have (e.g deafness in dalmations).  We've gone a long way towards Great Danes.....but suppose we keep ON breeding for height and size?  Eventually we'll get something about the same size and build as a pony.....

I asked you before what you meant by "dog" - something else you chose not to answer.  What is a "dog"?  What is a "pony"?  What is the difference?

Those AREN'T simple or obvious questions, those last three.


<<edit - got my respective answers the wrong way round!!>>
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 29, 2012, 06:05:30 AM
Tero, I never said that nobody has any articles or "research" on the topic.  But I found no answer in any of those links.  Can you point out the answer?
Things evolve. It is proven by DNA studies and field studies of animals in isolated areas where speciation occurs. Amphibians, fish in Lake Victoria. Read a book.

Lab scale evolution discussion
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20586.msg455386.html#msg455386
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 29, 2012, 06:07:23 AM
Tero, rockv12 is afraid of looking at the evidence. Deep down, he knows that the evidence is not in favor of his god's existence.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 29, 2012, 06:48:37 AM
I've known that from his first post. I just enjoy watching a presumably grown man act like a high schooler. Usually they have a list of baits from Answers in Genesis (bones in inner ear, wings, irreducibly complex organs) and they do not actually know any biology.

And his goal is to have the last word.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 29, 2012, 07:47:47 AM
You can't start in the middle. 

Says you.  Unfortunately your say so means little. Mainly because your grasp of the facts is so poor.

Yes, that was cut and pasted from my previous post.  Same situation.  Same response.  If you want different results, you need to do something different.

You can start in the middle.  In fact, when you start counting, you start in the middle.  0 is in the middle of - infinity and + infinity.[1]  When trying to make a vaccine we need not know absolutely everything about the virus or human physiology.  We just need to know how vaccines work. 

Do you know how to build a computer from the ground up?  I'm guessing you do not.  Yet you manage to post here.  You started not just in the middle, but near the end.

To prove something as "proven", as you say evolution is, means that ALL elements must be proven.

For the zillionth time, science does not PROVE things.  Science is a method for making a model of how things work.  Newton's law of gravity is a very good approximation, but it is only that.  Nobody here think evolution is proven.  Nobody here claims it is perfect.  But the only perso here who thinks it must be is you.  And that is because you do not understand what science is or what it is for.

This is the best method we have for understanding.  If you have a better idea, let's have it.

the problem is this:
1. You are ignorant.
2. You do not realize you are ignorant.  You think you know better.
3. You are unwilling to accept that you are ignorant and so hold on to your wrong ideas.

I would like you to respond to this^.

We have just one little, itty bitty problem (well many IMHO)....

IYHO?  You dare to claim humility?  You are anything but humble.  You are so arrogant as to think you know better than thousands of the smartest scientists who have ever lived.  You think you have found problems with evolution that people hundreds of times smarter than you have somehow overlooked. 

Humble?  Please.

I can't teach world history by starting with the Middle Ages.

Actually, you can and it is often done.  Here is the course list for the Penn State history program:
http://php.scripts.psu.edu/dept/history/undergraduatePrograms/courseList.php
Quote
001. (GH) THE WESTERN HERITAGE I (3)
A survey of the Western heritage from the ancient Mediterranean world to the dawn of modern Europe .

002. (GH) THE WESTERN HERITAGE II (3)
A survey of the Western heritage from the dawn of modern Europe in the seventeenth century to the present.

003 (GH) THE AMERICAN NATION: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ( 3) American history from discovery to the present, focusing on both racial, ethnic, and religious differences and shared traditions and ideals.

 
012. (GH) HISTORY OF PENNSYLVANIA (3)
Chronological and topical survey, emphasizing immigration of diverse ethnic groups and religious, political, economic, and social developments, including industrialization and urbanization.

020. (GH) AMERICAN CIVILIZATION TO 1877 (3)
A historical survey of the American experience from its colonial beginnings through the Civil War and Reconstruction.

021. (GH) AMERICAN CIVILIZATION SINCE 1877 (3)
A historical survey of the American experience from the emergence of urban-industrial society in the late nineteenth century to the present.


100. (GH)(CAMS) ANCIENT GREECE (3)
Greek world from the earliest Aegean cultures to the death of Alexander the Great and the beginnings of Hellenistic civilization.

(GH)(CAMS) THE ROMAN REPUBLIC AND EMPIRE (3)
History of the Roman Republic and Empire from the origins of Rome to the disintegration of the Empire.



107. (GH) (MEDVL) MEDIEVAL EUROPE (3)
Rise and development of the civilization of medieval Europe from the decline of Rome to 1500.

Hey, lookit that.  None of them start with the big bang.  And unless my eyes deceive me, course 107 is Medieval European History.  Aint that a bitch?  There are another 392 courses of history where they begin in the middle.

edit - added footnote 1
 1. in fact, you could say that about any number.  So, wherever you start counting, you are starting in the middle.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 29, 2012, 07:59:50 AM
Again, and again, and again, with the arguments from incredulity.  The thing that rockv12 doesn't get is that pointing out so-called "gotchas" in evolution will do nothing to benefit his own argument.  First off, we'll eventually figure out the "gotchas" even if we can't answer them right now, and second, even if evolution were somehow discredited by these gap arguments, it wouldn't make his "God did it" argument more likely.  Because, to put it bluntly, that argument rests on his belief that the Bible is accurate, but it can easily be shown that the Bible is much more inaccurate than accurate.  I don't just mean the kind of gaps he likes to point to in evolution, I mean actual inconsistencies and contradictions within itself which can't be explained away, just excused.

I don't deny that there are things we don't know about evolution, but what we do know about it is internally consistent.  That's why we have a theory of evolution in the first place, because what we have fits together and explains things effectively.  We don't have to overlook contradictions or inconsistencies, like the fact that insects were stated as having four legs, or the sun standing still in the sky, or the Earth having corners, or any of the other things that the Bible gets wrong.  And yet, rockv12 still thinks that Biblical accuracy is a good justification for his belief system.  Let me put it this way; if his belief were an arch, and it depended on Biblical accuracy, the arch would never have held up to begin with.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 29, 2012, 08:46:53 AM
Natural selection is NOT evolution. 
and more willful ignorance and evidence you again have no idea what evolutionary theory says.

Poor rockv, like so many Christian creationists, you have had to accept natural selection as a fact, something your predecessors would never do and they were "good Christians" just like you.  They would be sure that your acceptance of any science was unChristian and would consider you a heretic and going to hell.  Unfortunately for you, rockv, you are a classic example of the Christian who has resorted to the god of the gaps argument, still sure that some day your god will reveal itself.     
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 08:56:52 AM

You can start in the middle.  In fact, when you start counting, you start in the middle.  0 is in the middle of - infinity and + infinity.  When trying to make a vaccine we need not know absolutely everything about the virus or human physiology.  We just need to know how vaccines work. 


But I get the silly question, "Well, who created God???"  So I don't want to hear that anymore. 

You say science does not prove anything?  So, what does prove something?  How do you know evolution is proven?  I thought you used science? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 08:59:55 AM
Natural selection is NOT evolution. 
and more willful ignorance and evidence you again have no idea what evolutionary theory says.

Poor rockv, like so many Christian creationists, you have had to accept natural selection as a fact, something your predecessors would never do and they were "good Christians" just like you.  They would be sure that your acceptance of any science was unChristian and would consider you a heretic and going to hell.  Unfortunately for you, rockv, you are a classic example of the Christian who has resorted to the god of the gaps argument, still sure that some day your god will reveal itself.     

And all I get back is, "Rockv12, what an idiot".  And no answer or rebuttal to tell me how I'm wrong.  Seems like everyone likes to call me an idiot, but offer no reason or rhyme to why I'm wrong.  What Christians in the past didn't see differences in species? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 09:03:39 AM
Screwtape, you actually found all those links to history programs to prove me wrong?  Oh my gosh.  I was making a point!!  I didn't say there were no history classes that didn't cover the entire world/time of everything!  This is why I'm getting a bit upset.  Silly interpretations of what I say.  You didn't get my point at all about evolution needing a foundation? 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 29, 2012, 09:39:23 AM
Screwtape, you actually found all those links to history programs to prove me wrong?  Oh my gosh.  I was making a point!!  I didn't say there were no history classes that didn't cover the entire world/time of everything!  This is why I'm getting a bit upset.  Silly interpretations of what I say.  You didn't get my point at all about evolution needing a foundation?
I think you missed his point, actually.  Your whole argument, pretty much from your first post in this thread, has been that unless someone can provide a perfect answer to every question you might come up with about evolution, then evolution is a faith-based belief.  I suspect screwtape was throwing some of that back in your face with his analogy about how history is taught.  And he's right, to boot.  Your belief that you have to have a beginning and move forward with "proof" from there is based on the false answers given in the Bible, the ones made up by ignorant people who knew even less than you do about how the world really works.  But the fact is that we don't have to start from The Beginning and move forward, as you seem to think.  We can start from the present and move backwards.

And you know what the real irony is?  Only a made-up story has to start at the beginning to make sense.  If you're exploring something real, you can start anywhere and build from there.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: velkyn on March 29, 2012, 09:39:28 AM
And all I get back is, "Rockv12, what an idiot".  And no answer or rebuttal to tell me how I'm wrong.  Seems like everyone likes to call me an idiot, but offer no reason or rhyme to why I'm wrong.  What Christians in the past didn't see differences in species?

Because you have demonstrated that you are not interested in learning about anything you want to attack, and that you think that because you claim you haven't been shown all that you have asked for, no one will notice that this is a lie.  That is quite stupid, rockv.  Just because you try to close your eyes and claim something you don’t like isn’t there, doesn’t mean that is true at all.

Christians have, and still claim that there are no species, that there are only "kinds" and these kinds magically sprung from the ground.  They do not acknowledge that life has gone from simple forms to more complex forms.  I do find it amusing that even creationists can’t agree.  We have the AiG folks sure that their god did the “major structures” but want to accept natural selection.  Young earthers want to claim that the earth is only 6000 or so years old.  Old earth creationists want to go with a old earth since the evidence is overwhelming, but still want their god to have done “something”, anything from magically popping out animals or just giving a “soul” to the apes that where already here.  You can see the variety here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html  Theists can’t get their stories straight *again*. So much for thinking any of you have any “truth”.   

Now, to show you *again* that natural selection is indeed what underpins evolutionary theory, here we go: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml
Quote
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
  And it goes into a very nice example in the link.  This is evolution 101, rockv.  So you need to read it. 
Here’s a slightly more difficult version: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/selection/selection.html
and this is the summary of that page:
Quote
Darwin's theory of evolution fundamentally changed the direction of future scientific thought, though it was built on a growing body of thought that began to question prior ideas about the natural world.
The core of Darwin's theory is natural selection, a process that occurs over successive generations and is defined as the differential reproduction of genotypes.
Natural selection requires heritable variation in a given trait, and differential survival and reproduction associated with possession of that trait.
Examples of natural selection are well-documented, both by observation and through the fossil record.
Selection acts on the frequency of traits, and can take the form of stabilizing, directional, or diversifying selection.
You have been repeatedly told this, that natural selection is one of the prime agents in evolutionary theory, the theory that biological entities can diversify  , e.g. “change” because of how the environment they exist in selects for certain attributes. These attributes can come from mutations.  The best adapted entities pass along those beneficial traits to their offspring and this can result in two differing populations that can take advantage of differing environments.  If the difference is enough, they can be so different that they can no longer interbreed.   

Now, many creationists have done their best to try to change the definition of evolutionary theory so they can lie and claim it doesn’t work, by trying to split off natural selection from the term.  They do this because they know that natural selection has become too obvious for even them to ignore.  Even the liars at AiG know it is observable.  They try so pitifully to claim that there wasn’t enough “time” for this to have lead to the changes we see today and they claim that they know there wasn’t enough time because the bible said so. However, they cannot provide any evidence that there was only 6000 years for it to occur.  They ignore the problems with geology, with radioactive decay, etc. They claim that “We mentioned earlier that natural selection tends to delete information from the population.”  They of course don’t show any evidence this is the case.  Unfortunately for them, actual biologists can show that they are liars.  We can see new abilities come up in populations by natural selection.  Feathers are one main example, a change in scales so we have feathers which are insulating, which may have been appealing as displays, etc; so is the return of land mammals back to the sea, no information lost there and indeed no new information needed as the creationists at AiG would claim, just repurposing of the information already there. The mistakes that AiG and other creationists make is from their willful ignorance.  If you don’t know what you are attacking, then you make mistakes and reality takes its toll on your believability.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Dante on March 29, 2012, 09:52:30 AM
  You didn't get my point at all about evolution needing a foundation?

It does have a foundation.

Simpler organisms become more complex, over eons of generations, due to environmental pressures and genetic mutation. With more complexity comes more diversity.

You've been shown this repeatedly, but refuse to believe it, arguing from incredulity. It is the truth, whether you believe it or not. The truth doesn't give a shit about your feelings, nor mine.

I'll ask again; why do you suspect all these scientists are intentionally lying? Why do you suspect that all these scientists are out to disprove your god? To what end?

Why?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: caveat_imperator on March 29, 2012, 09:56:04 AM
And his goal is to have the last word.

And it eats away at his ego that he won't have it.

But I get the silly question, "Well, who created God???"  So I don't want to hear that anymore.

So that means from now on you're going to quit posting about your silly deity? Because that's the only way you'll never get that question.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 29, 2012, 10:50:40 AM
But I get the silly question, "Well, who created God???"

"we live by eating bread."
"where does the bread come from?"
"a baker"
"where did the baker come from?"
"That's a silly question.  I don't want to hear it anymore."

Why is it a silly question?  Because you cannot answer it?  Or is there another reason?


You say science does not prove anything?  So, what does prove something?

Nothing.  Proofs are for math & geometry.  Do you know what geometry is?  Have you heard of it in whatever bumfuck backwater you come from?  They are abstractions, ideas.  Science is empirical.  That means, you must make observations.  Geometry is not empirical because you will never observe a true circle or square.  Nothing actually exists that meets the equation x2+y2= 4 except as an abstract idea.

That is why proofs are meaningless outside of math.


How do you know evolution is proven?

It is not proven.  It is the best explanation we have, the best way to describe reality.  If a better one comes along, we use that one. 

Are you hamfistedly trying to say "I want evidence to convince me"?  If so, then you have to let go of the stupid, anti-science beliefs you currently have. You have to be willing to admit you could be wrong.  You have to be willing to change your mind.  I have found no evidence of that willingness.

I thought you used science?

Yes.  And you seem to still not updated your understanding of what science is.

I asked you specific questions in my last post.  You have not answered them.  Please do.


Screwtape, you actually found all those links to history programs to prove me wrong?  Oh my gosh.  I was making a point!!  I didn't say there were no history classes that didn't cover the entire world/time of everything!  This is why I'm getting a bit upset.  Silly interpretations of what I say.  You didn't get my point at all about evolution needing a foundation? 

One link.  You said you cannot start in the middle, cannot teach medieval history.  I showed you were wrong on both counts.  And if I missed your point, then understand that your communication skills suck as hard as your comprehension skills.

What foundation do you think evolution needs?  What does it lack?

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: screwtape on March 29, 2012, 10:56:09 AM
rock,

You have a bad habit of responding only to the most irrelevant and tangential points I made.  There are two points below to which I would like you to respond.

This
the problem is this:
1. You are ignorant.
2. You do not realize you are ignorant.  You think you know better.
3. You are unwilling to accept that you are ignorant and so hold on to your wrong ideas.


And this
IYHO?  You dare to claim humility?  You are anything but humble.  You are so arrogant as to think you know better than thousands of the smartest scientists who have ever lived.  You think you have found problems with evolution that people hundreds of times smarter than you have somehow overlooked. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 29, 2012, 10:59:02 AM
rockv12, why are you so scared of looking at the evidence?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 04:14:51 PM
rockv12, why are you so scared of looking at the evidence?
And the evidence is?  What haven't I looked at?  What's the one biggest piece of evidence for evolution for me to start with?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: One Above All on March 29, 2012, 04:16:54 PM
And the evidence is?  What haven't I looked at?  What's the one biggest piece of evidence for evolution for me to start with?

Try every piece of information that was posted in this thread for starters. Which you dismissed. If you really cared about being right, you'd look at the evidence.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 04:21:00 PM

And this
IYHO?  You dare to claim humility?  You are anything but humble.  You are so arrogant as to think you know better than thousands of the smartest scientists who have ever lived.  You think you have found problems with evolution that people hundreds of times smarter than you have somehow overlooked. 

I'm ignorant?  And nobody can answer MY questions? 

And there aren't smart scientists who believe in Creation or question evolution?  They have overlooked plenty.  If your mind is made up that there is NO God whatsoever, then, of course, the only thing would be evolution at this point to explain our existence.  That's a "good" guess, I suppose.  BUT why not even think of the possibility that there is a God or a designer?  Since we can't prove evolution or prove the Big Bang, then there is a lot of unanswered questions, isn't there?  So where is the proof of NO God...absolute proof? 

You see in one sentence you'll say, "Your delusional to believe in something that you can't see or explain."  And in the other sentence say, "We don't know how the Big Bang happened or how exactly the first life form emerged, but it HAS to have happened."  So don't call someone delusional or ignorant when you yourself have the EXACT same faith in believing in the unknown. 

I take that unknown and use a bit more reason than "science has to explain everything or else I don't believe it"!  Design equals a designer...that's the reason. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 04:22:26 PM
And the evidence is?  What haven't I looked at?  What's the one biggest piece of evidence for evolution for me to start with?

Try every piece of information that was posted in this thread for starters. Which you dismissed. If you really cared about being right, you'd look at the evidence.

The little articles that try to explain how the wing evolved, etc?  I refuted that evidence pretty well, why don't you look at MY evidence....the evidence within your very body?   Again, if you had one piece of evidence for me to look at to prove evolution, what would it be?  One.  There's got to be a good one.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 29, 2012, 04:24:01 PM
I refuted that evidence pretty well

A rejection from personal incredulity is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.

Why do you think dismissing something out of hand is a credible argument?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: caveat_imperator on March 29, 2012, 04:30:14 PM
I'm ignorant?

Yes.

And nobody can answer MY questions?

This belief that your questions have not been answered is not supported by the evidence.

And there aren't smart scientists who believe in Creation or question evolution?  They have overlooked plenty.

Well, they have to if they're going to believe such drek as creationism.

"We don't know how the Big Bang happened or how exactly the first life form emerged, but it HAS to the evidence we have shows us how it might have happened."

I've corrected your sentence in the bolded part. You're welcome.

Design equals a designer...

And the fact that you are unable to point out any design in nature equals no designer.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 29, 2012, 04:39:09 PM
The little articles that try to explain how the wing evolved, etc?  I refuted that evidence pretty well, why don't you look at MY evidence....the evidence within your very body?   Again, if you had one piece of evidence for me to look at to prove evolution, what would it be?  One.  There's got to be a good one.
You didn't actually refute a single thing, but you did do a whole lot of dismissing without cause (by asking more loaded questions, go figure).  You've showed, and showed, and showed that you're too ignorant about the subject to be able to consider it rationally.  This is the rough equivalent of someone who's never taken English class considering themselves qualified to correct someone's grammar.

Let me emphasize this.  You are less qualified to refute evolution than I am to work as an automobile mechanic, because I'm at least willing to admit that I don't know how to fix cars and thus can be taught how to.  You aren't even willing to admit that you're practically clueless about evolution when it's blatantly obvious to everyone else in the thread that you haven't even tried to learn what evolution actually is.

I fully expect you to ignore this, but I want to reiterate something screwtape said earlier.  Namely, evolution and God-belief aren't mutually exclusive.  There are lots of Christians who accept evolution as reality, because they're sensible enough to realize that the god they believe in could have worked through evolution rather than snapping his fingers to magically poof everything that ever lived into existence.  Religion doesn't determine reality, reality determines religion.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 29, 2012, 04:56:28 PM
Rocky, you have not presented evidence yet of a designer.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
Rocky, you have not presented evidence yet of a designer.

Do I need to?  If you can't see design in this world or living things then it's useless.  What would evidence for a designer look like to you?  It would look like a design to me.  Gee, where's a design?  Oh, my hands/fingers typing on the keyboard.  Design!  Oh, my eyes placed a few inches apart in front of my face to look forward at this screen.  Design!  Oh, my ears to capture sound and filter it into my tympanic membrane and amplify sound and transfer it to the cochlea where it transfers it into electronic signals to travel to the brain for interpretation!!! Wow...Design!!!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: caveat_imperator on March 29, 2012, 05:12:29 PM
Rocky, you have not presented evidence yet of a designer.

Do I need to?

Yes.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 29, 2012, 05:17:45 PM
I've been looking at this world in microscopic detail for 30 years, for pay. It's pretty cool as far as details go. Look up keratin, you have lots of it.

The molecular level is where the answers will be, including the first life.

I have not found a designer yet. Order, yes. Matter works that way.

Rock, What do you do for a living?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 05:23:19 PM

You didn't actually refute a single thing, but you did do a whole lot of dismissing without cause (by asking more loaded questions, go figure).  You've showed, and showed, and showed that you're too ignorant about the subject to be able to consider it rationally.  This is the rough equivalent of someone who's never taken English class considering themselves qualified to correct someone's grammar.


Dismissing absurdities?  Far-fetched theories of animals gliding off cliffs with wide arms?  Dismissing silly notions that a light-sensing cell aided anything to any degree?  Dismissed bizarre comparisons of hummingbirds evolving because of....oh, there was no answer to that one.  Too ignorant?  I love that excuse.  I'm simply pointing out flaws and exaggerations in the theory that everybody seems to ignore because there are NO answers to them..  It's easier to see evolution as simple and easy, but really think about how and why things would progress they way they have.  Order does not come from disorder.  That's a fact. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 05:24:51 PM
Rock, What do you do for a living?

I'm a garbage man.  No, I have a Masters of Science degree in Speech-Language Pathology and I work in the medical field.   If you must know.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 29, 2012, 05:25:49 PM
Dismissing absurdities? 

A rejection from personal incredulity is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.

Why do you think dismissing something out of hand is a credible argument?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 05:26:02 PM

Yes.

My examples "weren't" evidence of design?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 29, 2012, 05:27:05 PM
Do I need to? ... What would evidence for a designer look like to you? 

Some things I'd want -

Where are the prototype plans for the design?
Where is the materials list?
Where is the software source code?
What was used to create the design?
Why did the designer create the design - why did the designer need to create the design?

Finally -

Where is the designer?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 05:27:53 PM
Dismissing absurdities? 

A rejection from personal incredulity is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.

Why do you think dismissing something out of hand is a credible argument?

Because I dismissed ZERO proof of anything.  I questioned the rationale of the idea.  Upper extremities turning into perfect flight?  That's not absurd?  I asked for a step by step of how this happened, to try to get you to think about it, visualize the sequence of events that this played out.  And it still makes sense to you?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 05:28:56 PM

Some things I'd want -

Where are the prototype plans for the design?
Where is the materials list?
Where is the software source code?
What was used to create the design?
Why did the designer create the design - why did the designer need to create the design?

Finally -

Where is the designer?

The actual "design" isn't on your list?  Oh my...
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Ambassador Pony on March 29, 2012, 05:29:12 PM
You can destroy every argument she makes, point out every falsheood she has swallowed whole, but you cannot defeat her.

Ignorance persists. It is a constant of the universe, at least as long as humanity survives. I am in awe of it.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Alzael on March 29, 2012, 05:29:29 PM

My examples "weren't" evidence of design?

As was asked, what would something not designed look like? If you can't answer that then how would you know it was designed or not?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 29, 2012, 05:30:07 PM
The actual "design" isn't on your list?  Oh my...

Can you provide what I asked for?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 29, 2012, 05:30:50 PM
A rejection from personal incredulity is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.

Why do you think dismissing something out of hand is a credible argument?

Because I dismissed ZERO proof of anything.

Yes you did.

Quote
I questioned the rationale of the idea.  Upper extremities turning into perfect flight?

This is not questioning the rationale of an idea, this is an incredulous statement, delivered upon a loaded question that offers no qualification as to what you would find acceptable much less not acceptable.  Just like you offer no qualification capable of distinguishing design from not design.  You are just dismissing out of hand anything you wish based on how mockingly you can ask a pointless question.

So again:

A rejection from personal incredulity is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.

Why do you think dismissing something out of hand is a credible argument?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Azdgari on March 29, 2012, 05:33:14 PM
As was asked, what would something not designed look like? If you can't answer that then how would you know it was designed or not?

For reference, rockv12:

Rockv12, what does an undesigned object look like?

Is there anything in the universe that would qualify to you as undesigned?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 29, 2012, 05:34:12 PM
Order does not come from disorder.  That's a fact. 

Rocky, that is absurd. Is a drop of water ordered? What about a snowflake? Order arises from disorder constantly in nature, even in nonliving materials.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: caveat_imperator on March 29, 2012, 05:35:37 PM
A rejection from personal incredulity is not a refutation, it is a fallacy.

Why do you think dismissing something out of hand is a credible argument?

Because I dismissed ZERO proof of anything.

Yes you did.

rockv just walks into them, doesn't he? :laugh:
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 29, 2012, 05:39:37 PM
What isn't designed?

Rockv12 would say anything that doesn't perform an intended function isn't designed. Since all of god's creation - even a rock - performs it's intended function, it's all designed.

See how it works?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 05:48:31 PM
Order does not come from disorder.  That's a fact. 

Rocky, that is absurd. Is a drop of water ordered? What about a snowflake? Order arises from disorder constantly in nature, even in nonliving materials.

Order and purpose.  Of course, wind can blow sand dunes into a circular, orderly shape.  But order/design/purpose does NOT come from disorder.  Have we ever seen a snowflake produce anything purposefully and work towards a purpose? 

Actually a snowflake is a great example of God's design.  The manufacturer of snowflakes is designed..... the science behind it is the design!! 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 29, 2012, 05:59:49 PM
Rock, What do you do for a living?

I'm a garbage man.  No, I have a Masters of Science degree in Speech-Language Pathology and I work in the medical field.   If you must know.
Not completely unlikely. Many people in medicine do not know zoology or even biochemistry very well.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 29, 2012, 06:42:55 PM

Order and purpose.  Of course, wind can blow sand dunes into a circular, orderly shape.  But order/design/purpose does NOT come from disorder.  Have we ever seen a snowflake produce anything purposefully and work towards a purpose?

No one is claiming a snowflake acts in a purposeful manner. On the other hand, you have claimed that "order does not come from disorder". Water crystals (and a number of other things) clearly contradict this. Are you willing to admit you were wrong?
 

Quote
Actually a snowflake is a great example of God's design.  The manufacturer of snowflakes is designed..... the science behind it is the design!! 

Snowflakes are lovely, I agree. Do you have evidence of the principles that allow their formation being designed? If you don't, then it's just a cute idea.

Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 29, 2012, 06:58:08 PM
Because I dismissed ZERO proof of anything.  I questioned the rationale of the idea.  Upper extremities turning into perfect flight?  That's not absurd?  I asked for a step by step of how this happened, to try to get you to think about it, visualize the sequence of events that this played out.  And it still makes sense to you?

How many times do we have to tell you that the fact that you can't "picture" or "visualize" something well, that the flaw is in you, not in reality. And it's not even a flaw in you. It's a flaw in your mindset. It's just that you're asking the wrong questions, coming up with the wrong answers, and then telling us we're wrong because you can't do it.

Is everything I can't visualize therefore impossible? Is that the criteria I should be using?

The world of science is looking at a body of evidence so strong that we are unable to come to any other conclusion at this time. People are still out there looking both for corroborating evidence and for brand new stuff that might change the theories. Science doesn't give a flying f**k about proof. It cares about evidence and the direction that evidence takes the story.

If we have (as we do) fossils of ancient hippo like critters who live in the water a lot and some of those critters, as per the fossil record, move on to be what we now know as hippos, and others of that group start spending more time in the water and their legs start turning fin like and their nostrils start moving higher and higher on their head and we see both the similarities and the changes, what else are we supposed to think. Especially when the fossils we define as early are ALWAYS buried deeper in the rock than the ones we define as newer. Always as in every frickin' time. How does that line up with floods and short periods of time (a few thousand years at best) and everything everywhere (not counting the bible) that says the world has been around a lot longer than what you can successfully picture.

There are all kinds of things I can't picture. I can't imagine how a bolt of lightening can travel 25 miles sideways before it hits the ground. I can't picture how so much water can come out of one storm and cause flooding. I can't picture how deep the ocean is, nor how large. I can't picture how penguins can survive an Antarctic winter. So I guess all of them are impossible, because we have no proof any of those things have happened. It may well be that god just makes a new batch of penguins every year. Except science has sort of looked at all of these things, explained them, and shown each to be a real thing. So I accept that those things are real even though I can't picture them because picturing something is not the measure of it's truth.

Order and purpose.  Of course, wind can blow sand dunes into a circular, orderly shape.  But order/design/purpose does NOT come from disorder.  Have we ever seen a snowflake produce anything purposefully and work towards a purpose? 

Actually a snowflake is a great example of God's design.  The manufacturer of snowflakes is designed..... the science behind it is the design!! 

Purpose? Purpose is for religion. And just as false as the story religions tell. Evolution has no purpose. In hindsight, we can see all sorts of things going on in evolution, but it has no purpose. 

The current set of species are all a byproduct of the process, not the reason for it. Unless everything dies, evolution is going to slowly change the structure of most every living organism from what it was before. But not for a purpose. It just happens because that's the way the process works.

There was no purpose for birds developing wings. Flight was a byproduct of various changes that took place over time. Flight wasn't even mandatory. Many a flightless bird evolved, or devolved, because it didn't need flight to survive. The 12 foot tall Moa in New Zealand evolved to be huge because the environment in which it lived was condusive to being huge. No predators, lots of food, mild climate. Other much smaller flightless birds, like the kiwi, evolved there too. Again, no predators of any note and small birds are able to eat smaller grubs than 12 foot monsters. So there was a niche for them to inhabit too.

Most evolutionary changes did not work. Some worked for awhile, but when major changes in climate or other factors appeared, many species couldn't make it. And you keep forgetting about time. How long milliions and millions of years is. I can't picture it either, but we have so much evidence that such spans of time happened that it is easy to fit the changes of evolution into the picture.

Not the picture in our mind. The picture painted by scientists over the years who have studied all of this stuff dilligently. Do you actually think tens of thousands of people would dedicate their whole life to lies? Put together careers and create livelihoods that depend on the accuracy of science to continue existing? Can you picture that many people putting all their eggs in one basket of lies? I don't think so.

It's fine if you can't picture your life without god. Without jesus. But don't think that the same process that you use to convince yourself that one thing is true will also work to convince us that things that have evidence are not true. If all you have to show for your beliefs is one book full of words, while the world of science has evidence galore about anything it claims, you might give thought to picking another opponent. Perhaps one that can't smell the truth, or taste it. Your "picture" thing might work there.



Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Omen on March 29, 2012, 06:59:39 PM
Rock, are you on anti-psychotic medication?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 29, 2012, 08:22:35 PM
Do I need to?  If you can't see design in this world or living things then it's useless.
Yes.  And you have to be able to back it up, not just repeatedly say, "If you can't see design in X, then I don't know what to say."

Quote from: rockv12
What would evidence for a designer look like to you?  It would look like a design to me.
Since you seem to think you know best, perhaps you could define precisely what a design is.  Saying, "something looks like a design" doesn't cut it, and if you actually understood this, I wouldn't have to explain it to you.

Quote from: rockv12
Gee, where's a design?  Oh, my hands/fingers typing on the keyboard.  Design!  Oh, my eyes placed a few inches apart in front of my face to look forward at this screen.  Design!  Oh, my ears to capture sound and filter it into my tympanic membrane and amplify sound and transfer it to the cochlea where it transfers it into electronic signals to travel to the brain for interpretation!!! Wow...Design!!!
I've written computer programs and web pages.  I know what something intentionally designed looks like, and none of those things - not your hands typing on the keyboard, not your eyes seeing the monitor, not your ears hearing the sounds of you using the computer - appear to be designed to me.  Our hands weren't "designed" to type on a computer, humans designed keyboards so that our hands could use them effectively.  Our eyes weren't "designed" to look at a monitor, humans designed monitors so that our eyes could effectively interpret the information on them.  Our ears weren't "designed" to hear the sounds of a computer, the computer was designed to make sounds that our ears could make sense of.

The keyboard, the monitor, the speakers, all of those things were designed and can be shown to be designed in a way that is unambiguous and provable; they don't have extraneous functions that have nothing to do with the design, either.  You claim that humans were designed, yet you only point to something and say, "see, design!"  That isn't how you show that something was designed.  You show that something is designed by showing what it was designed to do, and showing that it is focused towards that purpose.  You can't show that with any life form, or with humans, or even with planets.  You can only present guesses based on ancient mythology, and that doesn't work.

Dismissing absurdities?
Exactly.  You're just dismissing things without thinking about them.  The fact that you call something an absurdity is nothing but an excuse to toss it aside without even giving it a second's thought.

Quote from: rockv12
Far-fetched theories of animals gliding off cliffs with wide arms?  Dismissing silly notions that a light-sensing cell aided anything to any degree?  Dismissed bizarre comparisons of hummingbirds evolving because of....oh, there was no answer to that one.
Again, and again, and again, you make the same mistake of allowing your preconceptions and your emotions to override your reason and your rational judgment.  I surely hope you do not try to do this in your job, especially if you do work in the medical field as you say.

Quote from: rockv12
Too ignorant?  I love that excuse.
I suspect it's because you're busy patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself for coming up with dismissals, and naturally you assume that if you think it's good, then why, it must be good and someone who doesn't agree must not be able to compare to your intellect.[1]  However, your arguments range from unconvincing to ludicrous, and demonstrate your inherent ignorance about this field.

Quote from: rockv12
I'm simply pointing out flaws and exaggerations in the theory that everybody seems to ignore because there are NO answers to them..  It's easier to see evolution as simple and easy, but really think about how and why things would progress they way they have.  Order does not come from disorder.  That's a fact.
I already disproved "order does not come from disorder".  Smaller flakes of cereal will sort themselves via gravity to the bottom of the cereal box, while the larger flakes will stay at the top.  As a result, you will end up with the box naturally ordering itself from the random arrangement of flakes as they were put into the box.  The fact that you thought (and probably still think) that this is absurd does not make it so, it simply shows that you are ignorant of the subject that you are busy decrying.  It's the same way with your arguments against evolution.  You point out things that the theory does not yet explain, and assume that they cannot be explained because nobody has one that satisfies you.  However, this is nothing more than your personal incredulity towards evolution at work, which is blatantly obvious no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
 1. Yes, this was sarcasm.  At this point I'm not sure you would even recognize it as such unless I pointed it out to you.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 08:40:55 PM

No one is claiming a snowflake acts in a purposeful manner. On the other hand, you have claimed that "order does not come from disorder". Water crystals (and a number of other things) clearly contradict this. Are you willing to admit you were wrong?
 

I know nobody is claiming that.  They were claiming that a snowflake comes from disorder, therefore, I am incorrect.  I am speaking of purposeful order, not shapes being formed in order.  Gravity can pull things onto the ground, thus they are in the same plain (orderly).  But something was made and manufactures the snowflake that is orderly....science.  Snowflakes didn't exist before all the elements were lined up properly to form them...It is NOT random.  So, no, I will not admit I'm wrong, cuz I'm not.

Now back to the point of order I was making.  Ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? 

What would cause life to spring up from elements floating around?  There is no natural selection/survival of the fittest with random particles floating around.  It falls to chance.  And purpose.  Now this is where you can't start in the middle with evolution.  You MUST first explain the foundation of things to begin to PROVE evolution as being true. 

Where did the things come from for the Big Bang?  Who knows?  They've always existed.  The same could be same for God.  We can't fathom such a thing.  Does it mean it's impossible?  No.  All it means is that we can't fathom it.  So why is belief in something that we can't explain irrational?  We ALL do it.  You do it...I do it.  So don't call me an idiot for believing in God, when you believe in the same type of unknown thing.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 29, 2012, 08:44:57 PM
cuz I'm not.

Well "cuz", are you going to answer my questions or exhibit more willful ignorance and inculcated delusion sprinkled with delusions of an invisible designer?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 08:45:06 PM

Yes.  And you have to be able to back it up, not just repeatedly say, "If you can't see design in X, then I don't know what to say."


Back up the evidence of design in the world?  I have to DO that?  What haven't I said?  Design is everywhere around us!!  You want an example?  The penis and the vagina.  There.  There's a great design!  The anus.  There's a great design.  Nice sphincter action right on our behind for us to squat.....happens really easily.  What if the anus was in front or on top?  It wouldn't work so nicely, would it?  What if the penis didn't get erect?  It wouldn't work so well, would it?  Anymore examples?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 08:46:19 PM
cuz I'm not.

Well "cuz", are you going to answer my questions or exhibit more willful ignorance and inculcated delusion sprinkled with delusions of an invisible designer?

What was the question?  Am I willing to admit I'm wrong?  I did answer that.  No.  Because I'm not.  Did you read what I wrote?  You were mistaking my point....
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 29, 2012, 08:47:55 PM
What was the question?

You mean you can't read the thread where I asked it already?

And you want us to think you are educated?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 08:51:19 PM
What was the question?

You mean you can't read the thread where I asked it already?

And you want us to think you are educated?

You know how many people are in here asking questions?  You're just one of the many that I'm responding to.  Be polite and re-state the question.  I'm not dodging it.  You don't have to be condescending.

What isn't designed?  I went up and missed your post...sorry.  What isn't designed?  ****after a few seconds of thought****  Ummm, I don't know.  It's all designed.  You don't see design in life?  Is a rock designed?  I suppose.  How is this relevant?  What's the point?  Since there are things that look "crappy", we can assume they are not designed?  So...what?  What are you getting at?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: kin hell on March 29, 2012, 08:52:19 PM

Yes.  And you have to be able to back it up, not just repeatedly say, "If you can't see design in X, then I don't know what to say."


Back up the evidence of design in the world?  I have to DO that?  What haven't I said?  Design is everywhere around us!!  You want an example?  The penis and the vagina.  There.  There's a great design!  The anus.  There's a great design.  Nice sphincter action right on our behind for us to squat.....happens really easily.  What if the anus was in front or on top?  It wouldn't work so nicely, would it?  What if the penis didn't get erect?  It wouldn't work so well, would it?  Anymore examples?

well obviously you are forgetting the clever design of the pointy end of turd.
Like everything you've mentioned it was designed.
It stops your anus from violently clacking shut after each defecation.

Much like your pointy head.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 29, 2012, 08:54:16 PM
You know how many people are in here asking questions?  You're just one of the many that I'm responding to.  Be polite and re-state the question.  I'm not dodging it.  You don't have to be condescending.

You know how much I have to do here on a daily basis? You're just one of the many that I'm responding to. Be polite and research my question. You don't have to be this lazy.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Alzael on March 29, 2012, 08:57:43 PM

Yes.  And you have to be able to back it up, not just repeatedly say, "If you can't see design in X, then I don't know what to say."


Back up the evidence of design in the world?  I have to DO that?  What haven't I said?  Design is everywhere around us!!

As was asked, what would something not designed look like? If you can't answer that then how would you know it was designed or not?

You want an example?  The penis and the vagina.  There.  There's a great design!  The anus.  There's a great design.  Nice sphincter action right on our behind for us to squat.....happens really easily.  What if the anus was in front or on top?  It wouldn't work so nicely, would it?  What if the penis didn't get erect?  It wouldn't work so well, would it?  Anymore examples?

Am I the only one who finds it oddly fitting that all of  Rockys evidence seems to have come from contemplating his asshole.?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 08:58:53 PM

well obviously you are forgetting the clever design of the pointy end of turd.
Like everything you've mentioned it was designed.
It stops your anus from violently clacking shut after each defecation.


My pointy head...thanks.  Good one.  We need a little 3rd grade humor once in a while in here.

So you agree that the anus appears to be a good design?  Can you explain the evolution behind it to me?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jetson on March 29, 2012, 09:00:02 PM
Alright, what's going on in here?  Who is this rocky character stirring up trouble?  Do I need to break out my Berkeley link?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 09:01:12 PM

As was asked, what would something not designed look like? If you can't answer that then how would you know it was designed or not?


No design?  How about a 1,000 piece puzzle dumped onto the floor?  Next to a completed puzzle.  Which would you say is designed? 

As in the natural world, nothing looks like a dumped out puzzle on the floor, now does it?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 09:02:28 PM
Alright, what's going on in here?  Who is this rocky character stirring up trouble?  Do I need to break out my Berkeley link?

Stirring up trouble?  lol.  I guess.  What's the Berkeley link?  I don't know whose doing the immature, name calling, but it ain't me!!
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: ParkingPlaces on March 29, 2012, 09:05:32 PM
My dear rockyv12

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

As one theist once said (and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't find it via Google). "For order to increase on this planet to drive evolution, there would have to be an external energy source."

At least you're not alone. He couldn't envision such a thing either. He was probably a vampire or something.

Edit: Added kind salutation to clarify who the f**k I was talking too.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: wright on March 29, 2012, 09:08:03 PM


I know nobody is claiming that.  They were claiming that a snowflake comes from disorder, therefore, I am incorrect.  I am speaking of purposeful order, not shapes being formed in order.  Gravity can pull things onto the ground, thus they are in the same plain (orderly).  But something was made and manufactures the snowflake that is orderly....science.  Snowflakes didn't exist before all the elements were lined up properly to form them...It is NOT random.  So, no, I will not admit I'm wrong, cuz I'm not.

Please explain exactly what you mean by the bolded section. All that is required for snowflakes to form is the right combination of water droplets, water vapor and temperature. These are not rare conditions and they are easily simulated and known to exist in nature.

Quote
Now back to the point of order I was making.  Ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? 

What would cause life to spring up from elements floating around?  There is no natural selection/survival of the fittest with random particles floating around.  It falls to chance.  And purpose.  Now this is where you can't start in the middle with evolution.  You MUST first explain the foundation of things to begin to PROVE evolution as being true.

Merely repeating this does not make it true. Evolution is independent of the origin of life. Evidence has been shown to you on this thread of the existence of evolution. What explanation do you have, backed up with evidence, that would prevent evolution from occurring if life were deliberately created? 

Quote
Where did the things come from for the Big Bang?  Who knows?  They've always existed.  The same could be same for God.  We can't fathom such a thing.  Does it mean it's impossible?  No.  All it means is that we can't fathom it.  So why is belief in something that we can't explain irrational?  We ALL do it.  You do it...I do it.  So don't call me an idiot for believing in God, when you believe in the same type of unknown thing.

You're being called ignorant because you believe without evidence. The full details of the origin of the universe, of life and the course of evolution are not known, nor likely will be for some time (if ever). Yet we have explanations (theories) that best fit the evidence of these things. So far, all those explanations and their supporting evidence do not show the intervention of a creator deity at any point.

Yet you believe in this creator without evidence. That I call ignorant. Even foolish.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 09:14:43 PM

You're being called ignorant because you believe without evidence. The full details of the origin of the universe, of life and the course of evolution are not known, nor likely will be for some time (if ever). Yet we have explanations (theories) that best fit the evidence of these things. So far, all those explanations and their supporting evidence do not show the intervention of a creator deity at any point.

Yet you believe in this creator without evidence. That I call ignorant. Even foolish.

Good, you agree that we just simply don't know.  But we believe!  You believe!  I believe!  We're believers!

I don't believe without evidence.  I've tried to explain how this notion of blind faith is NOT true.  Just because someone comes up to you and says, "Jesus died for your sins, believe in Him!", doesn't mean it's a good idea to just go, "Gee ok, that sounds great!".  I'd expect someone to have a bit more judgement than that. 

Evidence is everywhere!  I've said and shown that, but nobody wants to realize that creation is evidence.  That's the whole point!  It's simply too complicated and perfect to be chance.  And yes, chance.  Our planet landing where it did with the perfect elements to sustain life, is luck!  From an explosion?  Yes, luck. 

More evidence, again and again if I must, come from the Bible, prophecy, and the life and death of Jesus Christ and His resurrection.  Without the resurrection, the entire Bible is false.  Have you proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus didn't die and rise again?  If you have and concluded that it didn't happen, please share.  But again, it's NOT blind faith.  Look around you.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 29, 2012, 09:25:13 PM
Yes.  And you have to be able to back it up, not just repeatedly say, "If you can't see design in X, then I don't know what to say."
Back up the evidence of design in the world?  I have to DO that?  What haven't I said?  Design is everywhere around us!!  You want an example?  The penis and the vagina.  There.  There's a great design!  The anus.  There's a great design.  Nice sphincter action right on our behind for us to squat.....happens really easily.  What if the anus was in front or on top?  It wouldn't work so nicely, would it?  What if the penis didn't get erect?  It wouldn't work so well, would it?  Anymore examples?
You really aren't good at paying attention, are you?  First off, you cannot just point to something and say, "see, design!"  Which is what you're doing here, again.  You point to the penis and vagina (reproductive system) and the anus (elimination system) as examples of design.  Never mind the fact that you're yet again pointing to the obvious and pretending it's evidence of design[1], you're also making elementary mistakes.  For example, if the penis is designed for reproduction, why then it is also used for elimination?  This makes sense if you consider that the two systems evolved in tandem, but much less so if you assume someone designed it.  It would make far more sense from a design perspective to have the ureter/urethra in back, near the anus, for ease of eliminating waste, and not intermixed with the the reproductive organs.  You would also not have to have a mechanism to scour urine from the ureter so that the sperm can survive the trip.

This literally only scratches the surface of just how bad the design argument is.  Why not keep the testicles inside the body, where they're protected (and incidentally, so that the male doesn't risk incapacitation if they're injured?  Why have women go through a monthly fertility cycle in order to get pregnant?  Why do women have thousands of ova when at most, they're looking at a few hundred fertility cycles if they never give birth?  Seriously, I cannot see how this can be called a design (since the compromises are things you would expect from a system that evolved naturally, rather than one designed), let alone a perfect one.
 1. Seriously, the fact that there are males and females is design?  The fact that the anus contracts to expel waste is design?  You must do much better than this if you want to show real design.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 09:26:09 PM
Yet we have explanations (theories) that best fit the evidence of these things. So far, all those explanations and their supporting evidence do not show the intervention of a creator deity at any point.


Explanations are everywhere, it doesn't make them true.  So evolution IS a theory?  I never said it wasn't a good explanation if, indeed, a God was out of the question.  But why is a God out of the question?  You said yourself, we don't know or may never know.  Well, there you have it.  You left the impossible up to being possibly possible. 

I believe that the evidence DOES show the intervention of a deity.  Why?  Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why.  And yes, what other explanation to we have for the omnipresence of everything than a God, or something that we can't explain?  You admitted it, it's there, the unknown and unexplainable.  Therefore, we could call that unexplainable God.  The fact is we don't know!  That's my point!  And why not use God as that unknown?  We have many more things other than this to point to a God.... The Bible.   Maybe we should be talking about the "other" proof that I claim exists. 

I can see your point.  You're not dumb or stupid.  Nobody here is.  You're very smart and make some good points.  I think we all do.  That's why I like talking to athiests/evolutionists.  They are typically very smart people.  So thanks for the comments and questions, but lets keep it adult and mature. 
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: rockv12 on March 29, 2012, 09:29:17 PM

You really aren't good at paying attention, are you?  First off, you cannot just point to something and say, "see, design!"  Which is what you're doing here, again.  You point to the penis and vagina (reproductive system) and the anus (elimination system) as examples of design.  Never mind the fact that you're yet again pointing to the obvious and pretending it's evidence of design[1], you're also making elementary mistakes.  For example, if the penis is designed for reproduction, why then it is also used for elimination?  This makes sense if you consider that the two systems evolved in tandem, but much less so if you assume someone designed it.  It would make far more sense from a design perspective to have the ureter/urethra in back, near the anus, for ease of eliminating waste, and not intermixed with the the reproductive organs.  You would also not have to have a mechanism to scour urine from the ureter so that the sperm can survive the trip.

This literally only scratches the surface of just how bad the design argument is.  Why not keep the testicles inside the body, where they're protected (and incidentally, so that the male doesn't risk incapacitation if they're injured?  Why have women go through a monthly fertility cycle in order to get pregnant?  Why do women have thousands of ova when at most, they're looking at a few hundred fertility cycles if they never give birth?  Seriously, I cannot see how this can be called a design (since the compromises are things you would expect from a system that evolved naturally, rather than one designed), let alone a perfect one.
 1. Seriously, the fact that there are males and females is design?  The fact that the anus contracts to expel waste is design?  You must do much better than this if you want to show real design.

If you can't call that a design, I don't know what you would call a design?  Can you show a design example for me that pleases you?

Are you an expert on the topic?  Can you show how, scientifically, the testicles would be better suited deep inside?  You point it out as a fairly good point, I might add, but don't go far enough to prove that it is wayyyy better the other way around.  But with your point, it fails to prove that the prior is a bad design, or even a non-design.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: HAL on March 29, 2012, 09:33:09 PM
rockv12,

Where is the designer of all that you claim is designed?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: Tero on March 29, 2012, 09:38:52 PM
Quote
I believe that the evidence DOES show the intervention of a deity.  Why?  Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why. 
Good one. Let's see the math.
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jetson on March 29, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Stirring up trouble?  lol.  I guess.  What's the Berkeley link?  I don't know whose doing the immature, name calling, but it ain't me!!

I think I've said it a thousand times.  When you don't understand the theory of evolution, you have no right to use that ignorance to try to refute it.  You must first demonstrate a clear understanding of the theory, and then you are free to disagree and argue against it.  It is extremely clear that you have not taken the time to demonstrate a clear understanding of exactly what the theory states, and the mechanisms by which it is accomplished.

I know you won't spend much time on it, but here is the Berkeley link:  Evolution 101 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01)
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: sun_king on March 29, 2012, 09:42:55 PM
<snip>
Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why.  And yes, what other explanation to we have for the omnipresence of everything than a God, or something that we can't explain? 
<snip>

At what point does it become astronomically possible to form the god as you believe it? Since we dont resort to special pleading, return the courtesy.

Again, at what point does it become astronomically possible to form the god as mentioned in the Bible?
Title: Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
Post by: jaimehlers on March 29, 2012, 09:46:58 PM
I believe that the evidence DOES show the intervention of a deity.  Why?  Because it's astronomically impossible to form the life we see from an explosion in space, that's why.  And yes, what other explanation to we have for the omnipresence of everything than a God, or something that we can't explain?  You admitted it, it's there, the unknown and unexplainable.  Therefore, we could call that unexplainable God.  The fact is we don't know!  That's my point!  And why not use God as that unknown?  We have many more things other than this to point to a God.... The Bible.   Maybe we should be talking about the "other" proof that I claim exists.
I'll bet you don't really understand probability either.  Let me clue you in on something, rockv...if the odds are indeed astronomical as you claim, it's a good thing there's lots of places for life to have come about.  Billions of planets, just in this galaxy alone (given that there are hundreds of billions of stars, there are probably a lot more than a few billion planets, but I digress).  When you have billions of chances for life to come about just in one galaxy, then it hardly matters if the odds are "astronomical", because it's a statistical certainty that life will come about on at least some of those billions of planets.

Also, I need to clarify; the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion.  We aren't talking about a firework or a bomb here, not even a really big one, we're talking about something more akin to the sudden inflation of a balloon, filled with energy, which condensed into matter as time passed.  And also, the omnipresence of everything?  Are you kidding?  You do know that most of the universe is essentially empty, right?  For all that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies out there, there is so much empty space that the galaxies are like needles in a haystack, just easier to find.

And finally, you cannot simply suggest whatever idea sounds good to you if you want people to believe it.  You've already admitted that the only real evidence you have of God is the hearsay evidence in the Bible; the rest is based on the whim and fancy of your emotional investment in your religious belief, not on anything tangible and solid that you or anyone can actually prove.

If you can't call that a design, I don't know what you would call a design?  Can you show a design example for me that pleases you?
I already did.  Keyboards, monitors, mouses, speakers, computers themselves.  They're all designed for specific purposes, and it can be clearly demonstrated what those purposes are and that someone did design them.  Yet the best you can do is to point out things like the fact that the penis and vagina fit together as evidence of design.

Quote from: rockv12
Are you an expert on the topic?  Can you show how, scientifically, the testicles would be better suited deep inside?  You point it out as a fairly good point, I might add, but don't go far enough to prove that it is wayyy