Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Sir Hamilton]

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

It's mind-blowing, I get that, but those are some highly pessimistic calculations.

What odds, do you think, are there of your god being formed? Introducing a more complex first-cause just creates a more profound paradox if we're to apply your logic consistently. If life is so complex it needs a creator, then the same must also be true for your god, in fact, even more so, since he's presumably more complex, indicating that he was even more intelligently-designed.

To say that your god is eternal or self-generating, but nature cannot be, is the fallacy of special pleading.

Edit: You plagiarized this post! You copy and pasted this from Post #7 at this message board. We can Google your posts to see where you copy it from. This is terrible!

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourse ... 4493441/1/

We believe that God has always been. So it is better to assume that the first cause was what? Nothingness? Eternal matter? You just don't seem to want to accept that you don't know. I ask again...what is the origin of the universe? of life? of man? Declare to me if you know.

I don't know, but I don't need to. Remember, I'm a skeptic debunking your specific religious claims. I don't make any claims about what, if anything, created life and the universe. I do, however, possess sufficient knowledge on how the universe formed and life evolved, which you can challenge me on.

It's a special pleading fallacy to insist everything needs a creator except for your particular god, a logical deduction you can't possibly make. It's also a rather typical argument from ignorance fallacy to insist that because we don't know, and I can't tell you, that your god must have done it.

How do you know there aren't multiple gods? How do you know god isn't dead? How do you know your god is the one true god? I certainly don't. You're making the claims. Please avoid making yet another fallacy, which is shifting the burden of evidence, to your opponent who is not making a claim.

But here is a claim I don't mind making: Evolution is reality. It happens. Fact.

I also don't mind making the claim that the Earth is old and the universe even older. Also, facts.

Thank you for admitting that you don't know...if only others on here could do that. You claim you don't know but then you claim you can tell me how the universe formed and how life has evolved...which is it? And yes I would like to hear how this universe was formed and how life has evolved. Yes I make the claim and I also have stated that I can't make you come to the same conclusions that I have as to what the evidence presents. Disregarding divine revelation which all true Christians have we can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. You think yours is the best I think mine is the best. It is called opinion...and everybody got one. Oh I know I know you are going to say yours is the best because you rely on so called "experts" but these "experts" are nothing more than fallible humans with their own biases and opinions.

[Sir Hamilton]

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

It's mind-blowing, I get that, but those are some highly pessimistic calculations.

What odds, do you think, are there of your god being formed? Introducing a more complex first-cause just creates a more profound paradox if we're to apply your logic consistently. If life is so complex it needs a creator, then the same must also be true for your god, in fact, even more so, since he's presumably more complex, indicating that he was even more intelligently-designed.

To say that your god is eternal or self-generating, but nature cannot be, is the fallacy of special pleading.

Edit: You plagiarized this post! You copy and pasted this from Post #7 at this message board. We can Google your posts to see where you copy it from. This is terrible!

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourse ... 4493441/1/

We believe that God has always been. So it is better to assume that the first cause was what? Nothingness? Eternal matter? You just don't seem to want to accept that you don't know. I ask again...what is the origin of the universe? of life? of man? Declare to me if you know.

Humans evolved from apes, and are in fact, still apes. I don't know what created the universe and life, if anything, but I don't need to, because I don't make any claims about it.

It's a special pleading fallacy to insist everything needs a creator except for your particular god, a logical deduction you can't possibly make.

It's also a rather typical argument from ignorance fallacy to insist that because we don't know, and I can't tell you, that your god must have done it.

And I say humans were created by God....so what now?

[Goat]

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/hugh- ... -universe/ here is an excellent site for you to study and learn more about scientific support for ID. Enjoy....can't wait to hear you "expert" trashing of this science.

Hugh Ross??? Really?? Mark Perkha deals with his misunderstanding of
thermodynamics, which is involved in his 'orgin of the universe' nonsense
here

And further analysis of Hugh Ross can be found here

[Danmark]

Humans evolved from apes, and are in fact, still apes. I don't know what created the universe and life, if anything, but I don't need to, because I don't make any claims about it.

It's a special pleading fallacy to insist everything needs a creator except for your particular god, a logical deduction you can't possibly make.

It's also a rather typical argument from ignorance fallacy to insist that because we don't know, and I can't tell you, that your god must have done it.

Tho' I agree with your criticism, I believe it is more accurate to say man did not evolve from apes, but that apes and man had a common ancestor.

Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... cat02.html

But this is probably something of an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
gives a much more detailed explanation, including this:

There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.[67] The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins but, in each case, the claims have been contested. It is also possible that one or more of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes.
The question of the relationship between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved.

[scourge99]

Humans evolved from apes, and are in fact, still apes. I don't know what created the universe and life, if anything, but I don't need to, because I don't make any claims about it.

It's a special pleading fallacy to insist everything needs a creator except for your particular god, a logical deduction you can't possibly make.

It's also a rather typical argument from ignorance fallacy to insist that because we don't know, and I can't tell you, that your god must have done it.

Tho' I agree with your criticism, I believe it is more accurate to say man did not evolve from apes, but that apes and man had a common ancestor.

Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... cat02.html

But this is probably something of an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
gives a much more detailed explanation, including this:

There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.[67] The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins but, in each case, the claims have been contested. It is also possible that one or more of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes.
The question of the relationship between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved.

Just to add: The Smithsonian has a great interactive webpage about human evolution which explains the life of many species of "hominids" which are now extinct.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... nteractive

[Star]

Humans evolved from apes, and are in fact, still apes. I don't know what created the universe and life, if anything, but I don't need to, because I don't make any claims about it.

It's a special pleading fallacy to insist everything needs a creator except for your particular god, a logical deduction you can't possibly make.

It's also a rather typical argument from ignorance fallacy to insist that because we don't know, and I can't tell you, that your god must have done it.

Tho' I agree with your criticism, I believe it is more accurate to say man did not evolve from apes, but that apes and man had a common ancestor.

Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... cat02.html

But this is probably something of an oversimplification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
gives a much more detailed explanation, including this:

There is little fossil evidence for the divergence of the gorilla, chimpanzee and hominin lineages.[67] The earliest fossils that have been proposed as members of the hominin lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis dating from 7 million years ago, Orrorin tugenensis dating from 5.7 million years ago and Ardipithecus kadabba dating to 5.6 million years ago. Each of these have been argued to be a bipedal ancestor of later hominins but, in each case, the claims have been contested. It is also possible that one or more of these species are ancestors of another branch of African apes, or that they represent a shared ancestor between hominins and other apes.
The question of the relationship between these early fossil species and the hominin lineage is still to be resolved.

All the proposed fossils are primitive apes of the family Hominidae (which are colloquially referred to today as apes). The controversy is when exactly the tribe Hominini splits from the rest of the Hominidae family.

For instance, look at the taxonomy for Sahelanthropus tchadensis...

Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae - APE
Tribe: Hominini? (Notice the question mark)
Genus: Sahelanthropus
Species: S. tchadensis

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

The taxonomy for chimps...

Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae- APE
Tribe: Panini
Genus: Pan
Species: Pan troglodytes, troglodytes, & paniscus

And the taxonomy for humans...

Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae - APE STILL
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. sapiens sapiens

Conclusion: Humans are apes, and like all modern apes, we descended from older now-extinct apes.

[Joab]

Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).

So what if you plagiarized a list of names from a tabloid? I bet none of those scientists even published anything for peer-review, anyway. I've checked my online database of my accredited university, which has a subscription to pretty much every journal, and found no religious fables masquerading as real science.

Can you name one piece of work? Just one, by one creationist scientist? Don't tell me it's my homework, like you had the nerve to do to Goat. This is your homework, I assure you. You have come to debate woefully unprepared and we've already helped you out more than we're obligated to.

Delgado, C. "Finding evolution in medicine", NIH Record 58 (15) 28 July 2006

Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God�, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

I could care less about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Their opinions mean nothing to me. What is this?? some kind of popularity contest?? It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

Are you here to debate or play games? "I don't care" isn't a valid counter-argument. If anything, it's incredulous and asinine.

I was trying to put into perspective for you just how abysmally small your list of scientists are. You can't avoid forming your own arguments in a debate because you think scientists agree without someone countering that a vast majority of the world's scientists actually don't.

The world's inhabitants aren't all experts, therefore, you are appealing to popularity, a fallacy. Also, you are committing a very similar fallacy, of appealing to the authority of your scientists, because you are not demonstrating a knowledge of their science in your arguments. You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

Where did you see me claim that 75% of the population are atheists?

Now declare your specific religious belief system and we may be able to continue the conversation.

Declare to me who these 75% are and I will declare to you my belief system.

Anybody who has a different belief system to you, which at a minimum must be at least 75% even if you are Catholic and comprise approx 25% of the population. That's who.

Your turn.

This just shows your lack of understanding or just your knee-jerk responses without thinking first. I was talking about atheism....you need to stay focused on the particular posts that you are replying to. Again I was referring to atheists versus theists. The % of people who are atheists are an extreme minority compared to those who are theists. Whether that theists worships Thor or Jesus they are still a theists....get it??? Now to answer your question....just look at me as a disciple of Jesus the Son of the Most High God.

So that makes you a minority of one. OK atheists rule. LOL

[Danmark]

All the proposed fossils are primitive apes of the family Hominidae (which are colloquially referred to today as apes). The controversy is when exactly the tribe Hominini splits from the rest of the Hominidae family.

For instance, look at the taxonomy for Sahelanthropus tchadensis...

Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae - APE
Tribe: Hominini? (Notice the question mark)
Genus: Sahelanthropus
Species: S. tchadensis

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

The taxonomy for chimps...

Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae- APE
Tribe: Panini
Genus: Pan
Species: Pan troglodytes, troglodytes, & paniscus

And the taxonomy for humans...

Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae - APE STILL
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. sapiens sapiens

Conclusion: Humans are apes, and like all modern apes, we descended from older now-extinct apes.

You're correct, but it is potentially misleading because "apes" is commonly used by most people to refer to living ape species.
I wouldn't bother with this again, except that calling humans 'apes' feeds into a common creationist objection to evolution, referred to here:

One of the most persistent myths, however, concerns the relationship of humans to great apes, a group of primates that includes the gorilla, orangutan and chimpanzee. Someone who believes the myth will say, "If evolution exists, then humans must be descended directly from apes. Apes must have changed, step by step, into humans." This same person will often follow up with this observation: "If apes 'turned into' humans, then apes should no longer exist." Although there are several ways to attack this assertion, the bottom-line rebuttal is simple -- humans didn't descend from apes. That's not to say humans and apes aren't related, but the relationship can't be traced backward along a direct line of descent, one form morphing into another. It must be traced along two independent lines, far back into time until the two lines merge.
The intersection of the two lines represents something special, what biologists refer to as a common ancestor. This apelike ancestor, which probably lived 5 to 11 million years ago in Africa, gave rise to two distinct lineages, one resulting in hominids -- humanlike species -- and the other resulting in the great ape species living today. Or, to use a family tree analogy, the common ancestor occupied a trunk, which then divided into two branches. Hominids developed along one branch, while the great ape species developed along another branch.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... m-apes.htm

The chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape makes it more clear:

The diagram shows the currently accepted evolutionary relationships of the Hominoidea, with the group traditionally called "apes" clearly marked by a bracket.
Hominoidea
Hominidae
Homininae
Hominini

humans (genus Homo), is clearly outside the "apes" bracket.

I agree that humans fall under the Hominodae and hominoidea roots (apes), but homo diverged from all living apes about 6 million years ago. As you say, we, homo sapiens, did not descend lineally from any living ape.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/education/ ... id_02.html

[no evidence no belief]

It's no strawman argument. It is an absolute truth. For all of the blustering and anti Christian efforts of the new atheism in the 21st century, or when cave men grunted their way through everyday life, there is the fact that the materialist posits that non thinking stuff created itself from that non existence and then became us.

I choose reality over madness and I choose God over emptiness filling itself with stuff.

Let's analyze this post.
You start with a gratuitous insult to atheists and a jibe at what you call 'the new atheism. Fine, an introductory insult or two that does not advance any argument.

Then begin your argument: 'non thinking stuff created itself and that became human.' This you call 'madness' and announce you choose God over 'emptiness filling itself with stuff.'

It appears to me you have claimed this label "God" for the creative force that somehow made 'stuff' from nothing. Where did this 'God' come from?

Has he simply always been? If so, why can't you say the same about the universe?

If 'God has no beginning and no end' why can't we say the 'universe' has no beginning and no end? Whether you name it 'God' or 'Universe' you are talking about the same process. Humans, 'thinking stuff' to use your expression are here. How did we get here? You say 'God made it happen.' The non theist says 'The universe made it happen' or "thinking beings" are a product of the universe.

Do you understand how putting a label "God" on this process adds nothing to the equation? It's just a name, just a label. Whatever you attribute to this 'God' who is beyond definition, one can attribute to the universe just as easily, but without any unnecessary and unsupported additions such as 'personal' or 'consciousness' or 'personality.'

I think I understand your point. It is just as easy for one to believe in an infinite universe or an infinite God...or god....or gods. Is that it? For me personally it is easier for me to believe in God since He and I "talk" to each other everyday. For someone who has never had any kind of divine revelation i can understand how they may tend to not believe in God or gods especially if they put their faith in science.

Ok. So you hear voices in your head. You were born in a Christian family and brought up to believe in Jesus. Hence you associate these voices in your head with that.

I think it's safe to say that if you had been born in a Muslim nation, you would associate those same voices with Allah, and if you were born a 12th century viking you would associate them with Odin.

If I claimed I believed that the universe was caused by a gigantic diamond-studded platinum magical eagle, and further claimed that I believed this on the basis of this eagle routinely talking to me inside my head, in what way would my statement be inferior to yours in terms of explanatory power or justification of veracity?

You just "talk" to imaginary entities, buddy. Millions of people do, and they get "truths" through these "talks" that are fundamentally incompatible with the "truths" you get. What are the implications of this fundamental incompatibility of the discoveries made by people who use the "talking to imaginary friends" method to discern the truth?

If one million people use a calculator to figure out what 575784 x 333627 is, they will all get the same answer. That's because using a calculator is a good method for figuring out mathematical truths.

If one million people sacrificed a goat to the Math Gods and waited for the answer to appear to them in a mystical dream to find out what 575784 x 333627 is, they would all get different answers. That's because sacrificing goats to the Math Gods is not a good method for figuring out mathematical truths.

Think it through, buddy

What ridiculous analogies.

On what basis do you say they are ridiculous?

Why are you such a hater of Christianity?

I am a hater of all belief lacking evidentiary support.

Ok so you don't believe there is a God or gods or whatever....so what? You can't prove that God doesn't exist.

I cannot prove that Zeus doesn't exist either. I cannot prove the non-existence of anything, if by "prove" you mean demonstrate with 100% certainty. At best I'm able to demonstrate 99.9999999999999999% certainty that Gods, angels, goblins, fairies and bigfoot don't exist.

You can't prove that people don't have divine revelations but it sure seems that you despise those who do make that claim.

You can't prove that Heaven's Gate cultists didn't teleport to the alien spaceship behind the comet by committing suicide. Yet, would you let a Heaven's Gate cultist babysit your children? Hey, have you PROVED the Heaven's Cultists wrong? If not, why do you despise them?

Your argument "unless you can absolutely prove that somebody's belief is 100% false, then you should respect that belief" is patently absurd. You don't abide by it yourself, and expect me to apply it to your beliefs specifically in an egregious attempt at special pleading.

And by the way, let's not forget that I cannot "prove" your mystic visions and voices in your head are not a pathway to truth, but I can sure provide an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence. Let me reiterate it:

The voices in the head of a person brought up Christian bring him to the conclusion that Christianity is true.

The voices in the head of a person brought up Muslim bring him to the conclusion that Islam is true.

The voices in the head of a person brought up Hindu bring him to the conclusion that Hinduism is true.

Clearly the "listening to the voices in your head" method, is not a method of discerning the truth, it's a method of convincing yourself of the beliefs you already held in absence of valid evidence.

So please tell us the origin of the universe, of life, of man?

The big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, respectively. Please note that these are incomplete answers waiting for additional evidence. We are very confident - based on extensive empirical evidence and the ability to predict future events - that the big bang happened, but we are not sure about what may have been the state of affairs before it. We are still working on that. Similarly, we don't know the exact mechanism of abiogenesis yet. Still working on it. Our understanding of evolution is pretty much complete, but there still are a few gaps in our knowledge of this as well. These are all temporary beliefs that I hold tentatively, until such a time as when better evidence for more comprehensive theories with wider explanatory power have been presented/discovered.

And enlighten us as to how you found out those answers.

Skeptical inquiry and careful analysis of the empirical evidence

Are you 100% sure that God does not exist?

Are you 100% sure that the "alien spaceship behind the comet which one reaches by committing suicide" doesn't exist? Are you 100% sure Batman doesn't exist?

What kind of argument is that, buddy? You can't be 100% sure of anything. That is NOT a good reason to believe everything.

[no evidence no belief]

Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet.

People do say that if you allow enough time, anything can happen. However, at best we have about 4.6 billion years to work with. If Sir Fred Hoyle's calculated probability was for a cell to form in say the next second then the probability of a cell forming in 4.6 billion years is still about 10 to the power of 39982 to 1. If it was for a microsecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39976 to 1. If it was for a picosecond, the probability would be 10 to the power of 39970 to 1.

There are approximately 10 to the power of 80 atoms in this universe.

It is also claimed that life came from another planet. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick recognised the problem of the extremely low probability that life could come from non-life on earth. He concluded that the earth was not old enough, and postulated that life may have come from another planet. Hence in order for us then to have a 1000 to 1 chance of life forming by itself, (and lets assume that an asteroid will definitely take the life to earth) there would need to be roughly 10 to the power of 38970 planets out there (fairly close to us) capable of supporting life.

It's mind-blowing, I get that, but those are some highly pessimistic calculations.

What odds, do you think, are there of your god being formed? Introducing a more complex first-cause just creates a more profound paradox if we're to apply your logic consistently. If life is so complex it needs a creator, then the same must also be true for your god, in fact, even more so, since he's presumably more complex, indicating that he was even more intelligently-designed.

To say that your god is eternal or self-generating, but nature cannot be, is the fallacy of special pleading.

Edit: You plagiarized this post! You copy and pasted this from Post #7 at this message board. We can Google your posts to see where you copy it from. This is terrible!

http://s1.zetaboards.com/Express_Yourse ... 4493441/1/

We believe that God has always been. So it is better to assume that the first cause was what? Nothingness? Eternal matter? You just don't seem to want to accept that you don't know. I ask again...what is the origin of the universe? of life? of man? Declare to me if you know.

I don't know, but I don't need to. Remember, I'm a skeptic debunking your specific religious claims. I don't make any claims about what, if anything, created life and the universe. I do, however, possess sufficient knowledge on how the universe formed and life evolved, which you can challenge me on.

It's a special pleading fallacy to insist everything needs a creator except for your particular god, a logical deduction you can't possibly make. It's also a rather typical argument from ignorance fallacy to insist that because we don't know, and I can't tell you, that your god must have done it.

How do you know there aren't multiple gods? How do you know god isn't dead? How do you know your god is the one true god? I certainly don't. You're making the claims. Please avoid making yet another fallacy, which is shifting the burden of evidence, to your opponent who is not making a claim.

But here is a claim I don't mind making: Evolution is reality. It happens. Fact.

I also don't mind making the claim that the Earth is old and the universe even older. Also, facts.

Thank you for admitting that you don't know...if only others on here could do that. You claim you don't know but then you claim you can tell me how the universe formed and how life has evolved...which is it? And yes I would like to hear how this universe was formed and how life has evolved. Yes I make the claim and I also have stated that I can't make you come to the same conclusions that I have as to what the evidence presents. Disregarding divine revelation which all true Christians have we can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. You think yours is the best I think mine is the best. It is called opinion...and everybody got one. Oh I know I know you are going to say yours is the best because you rely on so called "experts" but these "experts" are nothing more than fallible humans with their own biases and opinions.

We don't say that our opinions on medicine, biology, physics are better than yours because of experts. We say they are better than yours because based on our opinions we are able to land an unmanned vehicle on Mars, because based on our "opinions" we are able to perform heart transplants. We have FACTS to back up our opinions.

Look my friend, this thread asks for evidence, and you provide the voices in your head as evidence, just like the Muslim, the Hindu, the Scientologist, the crazy guy who thinks he's Napoleon, and the child with an imaginary friend would.

If the evidence for your claim is no stronger than the evidence for their claims, then your claim need not be treated as more valid than theirs.

Are we done here?