Now you are catching on! Just connect a few more dots...

Then i ask you Jeanniebean how can you prove that our roots did not come from adam

... and I'm still waiting for someone to disprove his Holiness the Aardvark-Unicorn!

In other words - making an arbitrary claim and implying that the failure of others to disprove lends credibility to the claim is seriously weak.

Yes, yes, all old news. Covered it in high school science classes, no less.






I'm surprised others appear to take your posts seriously. These comments suggest you don't know much about how evolution is imagined to have worked. If you do, with a little thought, you can resolve this non-issue on your own.




"Any closer"?? Why not actually provide a real range of tolerances, and cite a source for it?




Awesome! Are you shilling for the atheists? Periodic behavior implies deity? Sweet. This is a great example of how people come to see 'evidence' for a deity.




By "example", you meant "straw man".

Well Messagetrade, what are your empirical credentials? You haven't refuted or addressed my arguments. You have so much diverted them without providing (scientific) reasons why they are invalid. I take it you are an atheist. People take my posts seriously because I explain them in terms they can readily grasp, (with examples).

Well, my understanding of the scientific principles of evolution is that life evolved out of primordial ooze that "somehow spawned itself" and gradually, developed over time into more complex organisms. The intial (species) were one-celled organisms. Through time, circumstances, and environment, each of the present species progressed, advanced, and developed into what they are today. Needless to say under this theory, many diferent types of species died, mutated, etc.

As far as the "complexity" of life being discussed in high school, how can you assign random chance and serendipity to the formation/existence of complex living entities, our species included. If their commplexities transcend our "scientific knowledge", wouldn't that lend credibility towards creation and a higher power.

As far as the sun being an "ideal 93,000,000" away. My source of this is the "Universe" special on the History Channel. the tolerances they issued (preeminent scientists/astronomers) is 5 percent in either direction (closer or farther). You haven't said what your credentials are. But do you presume to know more than the preeminent scientists? That propostion is comical, (unless you have a Nobel prize tucked under your pillow).

Periodic behavior does not imply "random chance" BECAUSE IT REPLICATES ITSELF. If something somehow, spawns itself, there are mathematical probabilities against replication. The fact exists, that cosmic relationships exist that defy our understanding. I am speaking of orbital paths, occurrences, anamolies, etc. Youu fail to see that pure "random chance" would not lend itself to producing suh complex manifestations of life or geology.

Put that in your pipe "would be Nobel Prize" winner.

Just to give the naysayers a brief illustration on "random chance" and probability, I will include a brief sample. I think even the most ardent atheist would agree that there would have to be an infinite number of necessary mathematical probabilities necessary for the creation/perpetuation of species.

Here is just a sample with a few variables:

P (A) the probability of event A occurring

P (A') the probability that A does not occur

P (B/A) conditional probability of B, given A

P (A u B) probability that A and or B occur

P (A union B) probability that A and B occur

Could you imagine this sequence/relationship with billions of distinct variables?


Here, we are just talking about a few variables. In the atheist creed, there would have to be a random chance bonanza (infinite number of variables and potential outcomes) that somehow lend themselves TO REPLICATION. The evolution theory itself calls for mathematical probability, mutation, and random chances. Does that sound like a plausible concept in the real world?

This line right here sums it all up. The key word is imagined.

Forget about proving that God doesn't exist.

Can anyone prove to me that matter can form from nothing?
Can anyone prove that life can form from non-life?
Can anyone prove that a cingle-cell organism can form a multi-cellular creature?
Can anyone prove that a multi-cellular creature (most-likely asexually reproducing), can "evolve" into a sexually reproducing organism.
Can anyone prove that said asexually reproducing organism did it TWICE?!?!? (one male, one female)

There are several websites that calculate the odds of such events occuring, some agree, some don't. It basically suggests that I have a better chance of winning the lottery every day for the rest of my life.

His Holiness the Aardvark-Unicorn does exist the same way "your" evolution does. In your imagination....

These mathematical arguments against probabilities are utterly absurd nonsense. Any serious mathematician knows that before any probabilities can be constructed one must first know all the variables. However, no one has a clue how large the actual universe is, or how often life evolves within it. Without those numbers making statements about probabilities is meaningless.

Moreover, like Jeanniebean has so wisely pointed out, if there is an intelligent creator it is most likely us. This is what Eastern Mysticism is all about. Tat tvam asi. You should look into it.

It's far better than a sick demented Zeus-like jealous God who is appeased by blood sacrifices and has people stoning each other to death.

IMHO the Biblical picture of a God is so pathetic and sick that I could only feel sorry for any such deity. I most certainly wouldn't worship it. Such a "God" would be truly sick in serious ways.

If that was the only choice for a "Creator", then as far as I'm concerned we'd be far better off being random accidents actually.

However, like Jeanniebean, I'm intelligent enough to realize that there are far more possible explanation. It doesn't come down to either beliving in an egotistical jealous Zeus-like godhead of the Bible who is appeased by blood sacrifice, vesus atheism.

Thankfully, there's a whole rainbow of other possibilities. So any arguement that takes the form of the following is just plain sick:

"We can't explain the universe so we must believe the Bible!"

That's a very limited way of thinking right there, IMHO. It's not an either/or situation,.

You may as well say, "We can't explain the unvierse so we must believe in the Mood Goddess", or whatever. That makes every bit as much sense as your arguement.

There are many other possibilities for "intelligent design".

Moreover, just look at the Biblical picture? Does that appear to be intelligent to you? It most certainly does not appear to be intelligent to me. It's a story of a hoplessly desperate God who attempts to solve all his problems using violent means, right down to the Christian distortion of the mythology that has him sacrificing his own son as a blood sacrifice unto himself. How sick is that?

I don't see enough intelligence in that story to indicate that it could be of divine origin. It's all about solving problems via violent methods. That's just utterly stupid, IMHO.

If such a God even did exist all I could do is feel sorry for it, I most certainly wouldn't feel like worshiping such a sad entity. To believe that I was created by such a helpless idiot would be extremely depressing. I think I'd actually rather be an accident than to have been the creation of such a sick demented jealous egotistical deity. That would be the worst nightmare I can even imagine.

So let's all have a little faith that if there is an intelligent creator, it's actually INTELLIGENT and not one of the sick demented deities that these ancient Mediterranean mythologies suggest. That was just a very SICK culture and their mythology reflects their sick demented male-chauvinistic way of thinking. It's not even close to being 'divine'.

You have just made my point, there would have to be an infinite number of variables that would have to unfold in an exact manner (in order for the species/life form to reproduce itself and perpetuate. You and Massagetrade went to the same school of logic. Disagreeing and disputing are not synonymous with "refuting." It is easy to denigrate the concepts of other patrons without providing your own.

Athiests are so "high" on science over an all-knowing deity. But, the very science you adore points toward creation. I will give you a mathematical scenario with a limited number of variables, say 37. You go to Vegas and plop down $ 10 on the number (26). Your odds are 1 in 37 of winning. You win. You feel lucky, so you try again. A different number would mean the odds would be 1/37. The same number would also mean 1/37. In either situation, you have a limited, modest number of variables. Don't you think the variables concerning the formation/perpetuation of a species would be vast? You would have to take in the environmental factors, the circumstances/experiences of the creature in addition to random chance. If all of these things are an accident, a quirk of serendipity, you take me to Vegas and show me the system.

I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that fact that your 'so-called' mathematics is not mathematics at all, but merely an uneducated opinion.

I actaully suggested that I personally believe that the numbers we already see in the visible universe are quite suffcient to support evolution.

Evolution is a well observed fact. And I'm not just speaking about biological evolution, but rather the entire evolution of the whole universe.

Moreoever, you've totally evaded my the more important issues.

Your argument basically goes as follows: "I can't understand mathematics and evolution, therefore a God must exist".

Well fine. But then which God Myth are you going to choose?

As I've pointed out, the Biblical myth is pretty sick. So there's really no reason to chose it. Moreover, since you need to choose one on faith alone, why place your faith in the idea that you are at odd with God and require redemption?

If you're going to chose a God Myth on faith, why not choose a more positive God myth such as the Moon Goddess, or Wanka Tanka of the American Indians? Or even Eastern Mysticism if you can cope with the higher level of intellect required for that form of thought.

Also, I'm not an atheist. I actually believe in Eastern Mysticsm in its most fundamental concept. As far as I can see the entire evolution of the universe supports it perfectly. If we're going to choose a "God Myth" we may as well choose one that at least matches observation.

Whether you "Believe" in evolution or not is irrelavent. Observation clearly shows us that life existed before man. It also shows us that death and disease existed before man. Therefore the whole Biblical premise that mankind was responsible for bringing imperfection and death into the world is cleary false. Therefore the Bible is a lie no matter what. There's no getting around that one.

Ami Dolenz came from a Monkee.

Abra you are too hard on the God of the Bible. The bible after all are man-made stories and are one step removed from fairytales and aesop fables. Let me point out that if one believes in monotheism, there is only one God, and the one discussed in the Bible is it - even if the biblical descriptions are erroneous.



So, don't be so hard on God. It wasn't God's fault.

Well, you're right. I am hard on that particular mythology. It just seems to me that if we're going to put "faith" into something why would we want to place our "faith" in a story that has us all at odds with God and in dire need of repentance? I'd rather place my faith in mythologies that have us loving God.

Besides, I've already fallen in love with the Moon Goddess.

I do agree with Diligent on one point. Science does not point to complete happenstance. On the contrary science points very strongly to the evidence that information existed prior to the "Big Bang".

This is the cosmological picture today. It is believed that the vacuum of space contains information. In fact, Inflation Theory depends upon this notion, and Quantum Physics demands it.


So the popular ideas that science points to random chance and anything starting from nothing is simply a totally incorrect idea that science itself does not support.

However, just because information existed before the Big Bang does not mean that we should all run out and worship Zeus's butt.

And Yahweh (the Abrahamic God of the Bible) is nothing more than a glorified Zeus.

Besides, the very name "Yahweh" actually came from the Hewbew consonants YHVH which previously represented Earth, Air, Fire and Water. The whole mythology began as a form or witchcraft anyway. And that became the name of the God. So the Moon Goddess obviously gave birth to Yahweh, quite literally. Yahweh is the Son of the Moon Goddess.

There is no need to disprove a thing that has never been proved in the first place.

Many people go around saying and claiming many things about their God or the particular myth they belief in as if it were gospel. It is not my job, or anyone's job to "disprove" these unsupported unproven statements.

If you want to believe something, go ahead and believe it, but don't expect everyone else to. And don't annoy them by asking them to set you strait and jump through all kinds of ridiculous hoops to prove to you that you are wrong. We don't care. Believe whatever you wish.

This woman is so intelligent she defies random happenstance. She must necessarily be intimately connected with the primordial cosmic intelligence that preceeded the Big Bang.

Truly.

Actually, you don't know what my academic credentials are. So, you speak from ignorance. I did take statistics and probability courses to a substantial extent. I do understand the concept of indepenent variables. Those are precisely what you discount.

I don't know to what extent you know computer programming. But, in the olden days they had "flow charts" showing a desired pattern of commands, functions, logic, and results. So, each step along the path could and would lead to a new branch of outcomes (potential outcomes).

According to the evolution mantra, single-celled organisms spawned out of primordial ooze (through whatever means, chemical reaction, its own volition, biological process, etc.). They would have to have been asexual, for they were the progenitors of the species. Eventually, the organisms progressed, advanced, diverted in theiir course of development. Some developed wings, some developed tails. etc. Of course, some species died, while others mutated. Along the way, circumstances, environmental conditions, and random chance played a large and under this theory a substantial part in their creation/existence/proliferation/survival/mutation. Indeed, uunder this creed, everything is in flux and changing.

The problem with this theory is that they have never found a "smoking gun". By that, I mean a skeletal specimen of a hybrid creature in the evolution process. Now, they have observed living species that have traits of others. For example, there are fish who can propel themselves and live on dry land for several days. But, people are searching in vaiin for "Bigfoot", which might represet a ling between ape and homoo sapiens.

If you have data which will refute me and others, display it. Don't hit at it or around it. If you are so intellectual, you cann resolves this matter in a 5 minute bloog insertion.

By the way, the author of this post wanted someone to prove the existence of the Christian God/Jewish God. The discussion was not as to God's character or rationality.

Someone so opinionated and supposedly intellectual surely can't ignore mathematical unlikelihoods as those which exist in the evolution theory.