Mere Chance?

[unicorn]

I find it interesting, that despite the evidence available for a Creator, people continue in denial. I want to know how it is explained away.

What follows are numerous articles discussing this idea (creationism/probability, evolution vs. creationism, etc.)...please see the Big Bang thread for even more evidence for a Creator.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/ ... creat.html

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2292

http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=315976

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050818hutchison.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

[Nyril]

I tend to reply to a post in the same spirit as it was given. As such, I feel this is enough a response for you.

You except me to read 7 links, I except you to read just 1, my response.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Here's a small piece of it near the start. Emphasis is mine.

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

Just the brief skimming I did leans my impression towards #4.

When you're willing to actually go through your articles and distill the salient points for me, I will be more than willing than to go through and discuss them with you. Until that time, you're just getting links to TO.

[QED]

I find it interesting, that despite the evidence available for a Creator, people continue in denial. I want to know how it is explained away.

The Debating Rules ask:
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate
You are asking far too broad a question which mostly seems to serve the purpose of allowing you to accuse others of "being in denial". Please bear this rule in mind when opening further debating topics.

The title you have chosen for this topic "Mere Chance?" suggests that you have not understood the principle of evolution which not only applies to living things but also has a role in the development of inorganic materials and systems on scales potentially as large as the entire universe. I'm still waiting to hear your reaction to the fact that the principle of evolution can be harnessed for engineering purposes. Understanding that "design" can pop-out of unintelligent systems is crucial to understanding why a creator is not necessarily the necessity that your references implies it is.

[unicorn]

Nyril:

I tend to reply to a post in the same spirit as it was given.

Funny, me too!

You except me to read 7 links...

Umm, yeah. This forum demands proof, doesn't it? I see, when it is given, it is ignored!

I except you to read just 1, my response.

Funny that you should respond to something you haven't even read! What is that called? Logic? Debate? Or maybe ignorance?

When you're willing to actually go through your articles and distill the salient points for me, I will be more willing than to go through and discuss them with you. Until that time...

I think you've said everything you can say...absolutely nothing.

8)

[unicorn]

QED:

3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate

I did: How is a Creator "explained away"?

You are asking far too broad a question...

That is an opinion.

The title you have chosen...suggests that you have not understood the principle of evolution...

Maybe it is you who doesn't understand it. Also, my thread is open to discussions not involving evolution. But, since you didn't read the articles, it can be concluded that you didn't even pay attention to the premise I presented for the thread.

I'm still waiting to hear your reaction to the fact that the principle of evolution can be harnessed for engineering purposes.

What? You must be referring to another thread? I don't know, I must have overlooked it. In keeping with the tradition here, do you have proof of this? But, wait, I think I can answer (as you guys have) without even reading your "proof": that involves microevolution, not macroevolution. Maybe you don't fully understand what evolution entails. That's where reading my articles might be helpful!

Understanding that "design" can pop-out of unintelligent systems...is not necessarily the necessity that your references implies it is.

Again, I'm sorry, but I must ask for "proof."

[Vladd44]

Again, I'm sorry, but I must ask for "proof.

I have to say, a christian talking about proof. Thank you unicorn, you made my day twice.

First to think of a theist using a name of a fictional animal (sorry you may need to be a godless non theist to appreciate that one). And now this.

As far as the first link, other than the assertion that But they were wrong.(non creationist). I see nothing more than speculation and someone who needs a better editor.

Anyone who thinks they can realistically postulate as to the odds of life forming or not should consider stepping back. Of course from the perspective of someone who believes a god did it would have the impossible situation of never being able to guess those odds for one simple reason. It has never happened. It has always been by design from your rationale.

The second link in its Why Big Bang = Jesus Christ was equally incredible. Other than the big bang being a possible explanation of Mary not knowing who jesus' father was, basing supposition on the obvious will not always reach the correct decision.

Being brief on the others, I hardly think a webpage decrying National Geographic is worthy of being considered some proof of an event none of us were around for. Neither is someone who insists on talking about "ape-men".

Antony Flew's conversion is hardly proof of anything other than what senility can do to ones ability to reason, in either page it is mentioned.

Your very bible would imply that belief is something that will lack proof. It is a short sighted venture for you to try to bring such proof. If there is some "thing" out there, how do you expect to define it with subjective reason? Or prove it with a finite perspective? Your basis must be faith, and faith by default denies proof.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If faith really is the substance of things hoped for but not yet seen, the moment it is seen, it would cease to be faith. Which could turn out to be a real problem for believers after all faith is the key isnt it?

[Cathar1950]

Long time Vladd44. Wow did you show up with a bang. lol
That is an interesting point about Christians demanding proof or giving it.
I am not a Paul fan. Yes I do think they did need a better editor for their "Bible" and God knows they have tried. It was nice that they were not to careful we might not have as much to see thru the propaganda.

[Nyril]

Umm, yeah. This forum demands proof, doesn't it? I see, when it is given, it is ignored!

Yes, but what you've essentially done is give us a link to google and tell us to do all the work ourselves. What you need to do is go through and summarize the information within each link, and cite the website as your proof. You can cut passages out and use those, whatever.

I except you to read just 1, my response.

Funny that you should respond to something you haven't even read! What is that called? Logic? Debate? Or maybe ignorance?

Believe it or not I looked through your links, I saw the same basic creationist ignorance that declares, "They disagree with me, look I have a kitten over here, thus evolution is wrong as Jesus is your savior." The kitten tends to be replaced with whatever sort of nonsense they want to push, and they run straight from there to their particular brand of religion.

Did you read my link?

When you're willing to actually go through your articles and distill the salient points for me, I will be more willing than to go through and discuss them with you. Until that time...

I think you've said everything you can say...absolutely nothing.

8)

You've yet to actually expend the effort do more than give me a link with regards to your end of this conversation, you've done less than nothing, that this would fall under the category of hypocrisy.

[bernee51]

I find it interesting, that despite the evidence available for a Creator, people continue in denial. I want to know how it is explained away.

What follows are numerous articles discussing this idea (creationism/probability, evolution vs. creationism, etc.)...please see the Big Bang thread for even more evidence for a Creator.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/ ... creat.html

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=2292

http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wirestory?id=315976

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050818hutchison.htm

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

This is getting totally boring. You have done it on other threads and you continue to do it. When are you going to understand the meaning of the word 'debate'?

Please put some arguments that can be responded to. Posting links to creationist garbage that most of us are familiar with anyway is a waste of time.

Why do you bother?

[Bugmaster]

I absolutely agree that a Creator is more probable than mere chance. However, a Creator is vastly less probable than star formation, fusion, planet formation, and evolution -- the processes which are not "mere chance" by any stretch of imagination.

So, unicorn's thesis is true, but not very interesting. I haven't read his links, I'll wait for him to summarize them.