One of many problems with Evolution

[chang50]

Evolution disproves fundamentalist biblically-literal christianity, but that's a different story I guess...

Indeed,the lunatic fringe.

[crispybits]

Accountable: required to make an account of your actions. At the moment, you are on a public forum trying to convince people that life was not ordained, there is no God and therefore no afterlife to be held accountable in. If you succeed in your objective, to turn people from God, then you will be asked to account for that.

Saying there is no God before God would not get you very far. Therefore you would be forced to state, that there is God and you have willfully taken a man of God and turned that person against God. God may then wonder what gave you the right to decide there was a God or not. You can say, well there was no evidence of God. God might ask, were you not alive and didn't your scientific principles you followed instead make life an unlikelihood? And you will be forced to say that you had your own reasons for choosing to follow an unlikely event for an assured one. And God will say that you choose death over life.

Jesus gives you the choice to make that account before you get there. He's your advocate and can strike whatever evidence the prosecution has from being presented against you.

Nearly missed this post because I was laughing too hard about probabilities....

The underlined bit is the bit that means there is no accountability. Jesus remove all the evidence. The just punishment I would have received in a perfectly just system has been waived because I said "I'm sorry" (and meant it) to the right person.

Perfect justice and perfect mercy are not possible in the same system. Perfect justice means that everyone pays exactly according to their actions. Perfect mercy means that you can be forgiven for anything. Either it's one or the other. Either it doesn't matter if you repent to Jesus or not, you will be judged by your actions, in which case why bother with Jesus at all? Or it's that if you repent to Jesus God will show mercy and grant full forgiveness, in which case there is no accountability. Christianity and accountability are mutually exclusive...

Edit - just to be clear, I'm not saying that the scientific view of reality grants any form of guaranteed accountabilty, it doesn't. Just that it is dishonest to claim that this is a weakness of the scientific position without acknowledging it is just as much a weakness of the religious position you promote.

[shickingbrits]

If an alcoholic can't state that their alcoholism isn't a problem they cannot attempt to make amends. If they state it and proceed, then they intended to create further problems. If you can't state that your intentions could harm others, you will not stop. If you do understand and proceed anyway, then you deserve what is to come. Such is justice.

[shickingbrits]

You do realize that you are suggesting that evolution disproves God and by extension the possibility that life was created by God, or do you somehow fail to understand yourself?

Crispybits,

They say anger comes before acceptance. Prepare to feel blessed.

I've spoken to dozens of atheists on the net and can't remembder one suggesting evolution disproves God for the good reason it is a ridiculous claim,borne out by the fact most Christians accept evolution,including the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

has the Pope then decided to believe a bronze age goat-herders story or not?

[shickingbrits]

Yep, add quantum uncertainty and the sheer complexity of the universe into that and any half-way intelligent person will quickly understand that them making any statement of the sort "there is a 1 in X probability that the universe would turn out like THIS instead of THAT" (when talking about states the universe itself can hold as compared to... other imaginable universes?) is just proving themslves to be a complete idiot...

Keep the insults coming. Those who believe in a theory regardless of the probability of the theory aren't critical thinkers.

[chang50]

If an alcoholic can't state that their alcoholism isn't a problem they cannot attempt to make amends. If they state it and proceed, then they intended to create further problems. If you can't state that your intentions could harm others, you will not stop. If you do understand and proceed anyway, then you deserve what is to come. Such is justice.

Can someone translate please,I've read this 3 times and it makes less sense every time?

[chang50]

You do realize that you are suggesting that evolution disproves God and by extension the possibility that life was created by God, or do you somehow fail to understand yourself?

Crispybits,

They say anger comes before acceptance. Prepare to feel blessed.

I've spoken to dozens of atheists on the net and can't remembder one suggesting evolution disproves God for the good reason it is a ridiculous claim,borne out by the fact most Christians accept evolution,including the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

has the Pope then decided to believe a bronze age goat-herders story or not?

We're hardly in agreement about everything,so yes he believes the story.And bears do shit in the woods.

[crispybits]

And if the alcoholic realises it's a problem and repents and God dismisses all the liver damage, then they are no longer accountable. In a system with accountability, every alcoholic would suffer the consequences of that liver damage. Now replace "alcoholic" with "sinner" and "liver damage" with "punishment" and you get the exact point I was making before.

For the third(?) time now I'm not talking about false repentance, I'm talking about genuine repentance and the completely immoral loophole in the fucked up moral system that calls itself christianity

[crispybits]

Yep, add quantum uncertainty and the sheer complexity of the universe into that and any half-way intelligent person will quickly understand that them making any statement of the sort "there is a 1 in X probability that the universe would turn out like THIS instead of THAT" (when talking about states the universe itself can hold as compared to... other imaginable universes?) is just proving themslves to be a complete idiot...

Keep the insults coming. Those who believe in a theory regardless of the probability of the theory aren't critical thinkers.

And those who don't even understand the words they are using, have it demonstrated to them, and continue to mis-use those words to try and make their points aren't thinkers at all. Thank you for making the distinction so easy to make

[chang50]

Yep, add quantum uncertainty and the sheer complexity of the universe into that and any half-way intelligent person will quickly understand that them making any statement of the sort "there is a 1 in X probability that the universe would turn out like THIS instead of THAT" (when talking about states the universe itself can hold as compared to... other imaginable universes?) is just proving themslves to be a complete idiot...

Keep the insults coming. Those who believe in a theory regardless of the probability of the theory aren't critical thinkers.

So what precisely are the odds for your beliefs?

[crispybits]

Well chang50, why don't we apply the same logic to working out the probability of God as they apply to working out the probability of evolution being true?

So, for evolution, they take the fact that atoms exist (100%) and multiply it by the chance that two atoms combine in a certain way (X%) multiply it by the number of molecules needed to make a modern DNA cell (X^n%) and that's how they get their answer of one in trillions (seriously it is, I've read the articles and sites where they explain the calculation)

So, if we take the fact that no supernatural elements have ever been proved to exist (0%) and multiply it by any number of other different factors, which for technicl reasons are far too numerous to go into.... I wonder what result we should expect?

[shickingbrits]

Here's the bet:

A. I be a decent person and treat others as I wish to be treated and live a decent existence.

B. Or I can trash whoever I want and throw support behind those who trash whoever they want and perhaps live a decent existence.

If I haven bet on A, then I face non-existence or heaven. If I choose B, then I face non-existence or hell.

Since I'm not too inclined to trash whoever I want, or throw my support behind those who trash whoever they want, including perhaps me who supports them and since A guarantees me a decent existence and continued existence, then I choose A.

[crispybits]

And that's good and I commend you for it. What exactly does it have to do with God or evolution though? Both God or evolution could be proved or disproved tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference to your basic human desire to play nicely with others and contribute positively to society.

(by the way, if I hold a ridiculously idiotic false belief I want people to come along and present the evidence against that then call me a ridiculous idiot for continuing to hold it if I don't change my mind to align with reality - they would be doing me a favour by doing so)

[chang50]

Here's the bet:

A. I be a decent person and treat others as I wish to be treated and live a decent existence.

B. Or I can trash whoever I want and throw support behind those who trash whoever they want and perhaps live a decent existence.

If I haven bet on A, then I face non-existence or heaven. If I choose B, then I face non-existence or hell.

Since I'm not too inclined to trash whoever I want, or throw my support behind those who trash whoever they want, including perhaps me who supports them and since A guarantees me a decent existence and continued existence, then I choose A.

Is that a variation on that piece of hucksterism known as Pascal's Wager?Didn't take long to sink that low.

[crispybits]

Also, if you really want to treat others as you want to be treated, and if you value true beliefs over false beliefs (I'll assume that as you didn't specify), then by willfully ignoring and trying to turn people away from solid scientific facts backed up by massive amounts of evidence and to believe in a lie you are trashing those who spent their lives dedicated to the honest study of how the universe really works. Turns out you'd be in camp B.

[shickingbrits]

Probability of God given the one observable universe:

Given that we have one observable universe the chance that life was designed exists. Given that life exist, the chance that it doesn't exist is 0. Given that we don't have other observable universes, the chance that life exist there is 0. Therefore, based on all observable data, life exist in a universe. If life exists within a universe there must be something within the universe that predestines life to exist in it. If a universe is predestined to bring forth life, then the universe may be considered to be God, the creator.

Something brought forth the universe from nothing. Something can not be made from nothing. So something existed prior to our universe and that something had the ability to bring forth life within it. Each action has an equal and opposite reaction. What action brought forth the universe? Not a random action, since a random action has a minuscule chance of bringing forth a life sustaining universe. Therefore it was an ordered action. Whatever created an ordered action whose equal and opposite reaction was a universe with life in it therefore is God.

[tzor]

Indeed,the lunatic fringe.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily call them "lunatic." In fact, I don't think it has anything to do with the moon in any way, shape, or form.

[crispybits]

So the chance of anything happening in a data set you don't have access to is zero? Care to explain how you get to that ridiculous assertion?

Also, please describe how you determined that "something brought forth the universe from nothing". Given that our best science can only produce observations going back to a fraction of a second after the universe began, it seems unlikely to me that you have any way of determining anything about the state of reality before that (there was nothing) or that anything had to "bring it forth"...

Edit - on the first point, given that I now get to declare the probability of everything for which I have no way of collecting data zero, I can now declare that the probability of anything existing in the supernatural realm is zero. By your own logic I just disproved God. "Kaboom! Pow! Lights Out! Party's Over!" (to quote a creationist movie)

[shickingbrits]

Solid scientific fact. You can't even tell me the probability of life being generated randomly. Or express the magnitude of its randomness. You are asking people to jump on the board an idea without understanding the risk. Go sell your goods to people who want them.

I haven't insulted you or used fallacies against you. I wished to be spoken to with logic and respect. I have treated you equally.

[shickingbrits]

So the chance of anything happening in a data set you don't have access to is zero? Care to explain how you get to that ridiculous assertion?

Also, please describe how you determined that "something brought forth the universe from nothing". Given that our best science can only produce observations going back to a fraction of a second after the universe began, it seems unlikely to me that you have any way of determining anything about the state of reality before that (there was nothing) or that anything had to "bring it forth"...

I thought you claimed scientific understanding. Sorry about that.

You see a hypothesis begins with an observation. When something is unobservable it's hard to test it.

[oVo]

Imagine trying to explain something for the very first time, that is not visible to the naked eye like a virus or bacteria, and attempting to make the point that it can kill you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Those bronze age herders had the same intellectual capacities that we do. Their myths were based on the best information they had available. Their theories were modern at their time.

You are just rejecting one myth for another. You are shunning a myth that has allowed for a civilization that has spanned thousands of years for one which rejects civilization. What are the principles of evolution that its adherents must follow? What mandates are decried in "survival of the fittest"?

A true evolutionist will be a racist, a eugenist, an elitist. The virtues that have lead to our greatest institutions become our faults and our sins become idolized.

Instead of rejoicing in life and thankful for it, you struggle through its minefield. Your neighbour is your competitor and your family a burden. You are expounding feudalism guised as science.

It takes a change in morality to make that jump. Evolution is just a science. It doesn't dictate what you should do to other beings; that's the normative aspect. Science is positive analysis; it explains what is, not what you should

[shickingbrits]

You would have dead bodies. And if you didn't, those bacteria or virus aren't deadly. Therefore it would indeed be very hard to explain. You woul;d therefore need to ignore the probability and wax rhetorical.

[tzor]

I love the argument of the "probability" of evolution.

Have anyone of you ever read "Death from the Skies!: The Science Behind the End of the World" [Philip Plait Ph.D.]? The universe itself has so many ways to flat out stop evolution in its tracks in a flash that just trying to predict the probability is a lot like that old Star Trek episode where Kirk and Spock seemingly defy all the odds to get to the center of a Klingon base to realize that someone else was stacking the deck all the time.

This isn't talked about directly in evolution, but a lot of evolution occurred after extinction events. Some of them were external, but some were caused by the organisms themselves. (The introduction of plants nearly wiped out all anaerobic lifeforms on the planet and only a few survive in the deepest parts of the oceans.) All of these things have to be considered.

Even Vogons ... strike that ... especially Vogons.

[shickingbrits]

It takes a leap in morality. I leap in logic would suffice. If it's logical to believe that you and others sprang from randomness and are headed towards oblivion, it would place your own existence before the morality of the acts needed to sustain it.