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]

re Goat Post--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the other universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Yeah don't trust conclusions drawn by men, stick with the fables invented by ignorant men thousands of years ago.

So men who believe that there is a God and that this God created life are 'ignorant'? Instead of calling us 'ignorant' maybe you could be a little more civil and just agree to disagree

He is not calling you ignorant, he is calling the authors of the Bible ignorant.

Ignorance is a comparative measure. One can't be ignorant in the abstract. One is either ignorant of specific information, or one can be said to be ignorant when compared to somebody else who is more knowledgeable. By the latter definition, it's an indisputable fact that the authors of the Bible were ignorant when compared to anybody you've ever met in your life. Anybody who knows that disease is caused by germs, that the moon goes around the earth and the earth around the sun, that our solar system is one of billions in this galaxy which is one of billions in the universe, that has a high school knowledge of calculus or trigonometry, that can conceive of a typewriter or the use of gunpowder, etc, is a GENIUS AND A SCHOLAR compared to the simpletons who scribbled their absurd notions on sheep skin a few thousand years ago. That's just a fact. Any 12 year old today, even one educated in the US as opposed to Europe, could teach the most knowledgeable bronze age nomadic Jew so much stuff that the guy's head would explode.

because after all you have no evidence to prove that we are wrong.

Em, YES WE DO! We have OVERWHELMING evidence to demonstrate that you are wrong.

You believe in zombie invasions and talking donkeys and flying corpses. We have mountains of evidence that these things do not happen. Let me give you an example: THE LAW OF GRAVITY. This law constitutes evidence that corpses can't fly. If you disagree with the law of gravity, try jumping off of any elevated location and get back to me with your findings. NOTE: For the sake of safety, start by jumping from spots that are no more than a few feet off the ground. Safety first

I see that you enjoy belittling others beliefs with absurd analogies. If you would like to make progress in this debate maybe you could be a little more mature and civil. Flying zombies and flying corpses?? Quite an imagination you have....care to elaborate on what you mean?

[Sir Hamilton]

There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Actually there are relatively very few educated scientists who reject that life on earth evolved. Old Earth Creationists, like Hugh Ross, are a small minority among published creationists.

There are relatively few atheists compared to theists...does that make atheists wrong? Yes Hugh Ross is an Old Earth creationists and that is a minority among creation scientists. I tend to lean towards a Young Earth but that doesn't mean i disagree with everything Hugh Ross teaches.

[Peter]

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.

I believe in Leprechauns. Do you find that at all convincing?

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.

Generally, I try not to make assumptions, "better" or otherwise. We don't yet know the origin of the universe. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Why must every unanswered question be answered with "a god" did it? So far, every question answered by "a god" did it was wrong. You have noticed that haven't you?

[dianaiad]

I see that you enjoy belittling others beliefs with absurd analogies. If you would like to make progress in this debate maybe you could be a little more mature and civil. Flying zombies and flying corpses?? Quite an imagination you have....care to elaborate on what you mean?

Moderator Warning


You need to reword your posts to address the content of the post, not the writer of it. If you believe that someone has been uncivil, report it to the moderating team using the icon available to do so.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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.

I believe in Leprechauns. Do you find that at all convincing?

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.

Generally, I try not to make assumptions, "better" or otherwise. We don't yet know the origin of the universe. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Why must every unanswered question be answered with "a god" did it? So far, every question answered by "a god" did it was wrong. You have noticed that haven't you?

I do accept that you don't know the origin of the universe. As for me, because of my relationship with my heavenly Father i do know the origin of the universe. I never claimed that every unanswered question is something that god did.

[Goat]

I do accept that you don't know the origin of the universe. As for me, because of my relationship with my heavenly Father i do know the origin of the universe. I never claimed that every unanswered question is something that god did.

And how does that work? How can you know that you actually have a 'relationship with your heavenly father'?? Can you describe it, and show it's more than an emotional response you only interpret that way?

Let's see you demonstrate the accuracy and veracity of your claim.

[Star]

I do accept that you don't know the origin of the universe. As for me, because of my relationship with my heavenly Father i do know the origin of the universe. I never claimed that every unanswered question is something that god did.

Hindus think they know the origin of the universe, too. That doesn't make it right.

As as has already been pointed out to you, this point you keep making is an argument from ignorance.

You don't know the origin of the universe. Nobody does. The information is simply not available to us at this time. You only assume god did it, and of course not just any god, but your god. Even if that were true, it still doesn't tell us much.

How did he do it? Why? Are there others?

[Joab]

re Goat Post--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the other universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Yeah don't trust conclusions drawn by men, stick with the fables invented by ignorant men thousands of years ago.

So men who believe that there is a God and that this God created life are 'ignorant'? Instead of calling us 'ignorant' maybe you could be a little more civil and just agree to disagree

He is not calling you ignorant, he is calling the authors of the Bible ignorant.

Ignorance is a comparative measure. One can't be ignorant in the abstract. One is either ignorant of specific information, or one can be said to be ignorant when compared to somebody else who is more knowledgeable. By the latter definition, it's an indisputable fact that the authors of the Bible were ignorant when compared to anybody you've ever met in your life. Anybody who knows that disease is caused by germs, that the moon goes around the earth and the earth around the sun, that our solar system is one of billions in this galaxy which is one of billions in the universe, that has a high school knowledge of calculus or trigonometry, that can conceive of a typewriter or the use of gunpowder, etc, is a GENIUS AND A SCHOLAR compared to the simpletons who scribbled their absurd notions on sheep skin a few thousand years ago. That's just a fact. Any 12 year old today, even one educated in the US as opposed to Europe, could teach the most knowledgeable bronze age nomadic Jew so much stuff that the guy's head would explode.

because after all you have no evidence to prove that we are wrong.

Em, YES WE DO! We have OVERWHELMING evidence to demonstrate that you are wrong.

You believe in zombie invasions and talking donkeys and flying corpses. We have mountains of evidence that these things do not happen. Let me give you an example: THE LAW OF GRAVITY. This law constitutes evidence that corpses can't fly. If you disagree with the law of gravity, try jumping off of any elevated location and get back to me with your findings. NOTE: For the sake of safety, start by jumping from spots that are no more than a few feet off the ground. Safety first

I see that you enjoy belittling others beliefs with absurd analogies. If you would like to make progress in this debate maybe you could be a little more mature and civil. Flying zombies and flying corpses?? Quite an imagination you have....care to elaborate on what you mean?

Is it uncivil to refer to biblical stories now?

[Joab]

re Goat Post--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the other universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Yeah don't trust conclusions drawn by men, stick with the fables invented by ignorant men thousands of years ago.

So men who believe that there is a God and that this God created life are 'ignorant'? Instead of calling us 'ignorant' maybe you could be a little more civil and just agree to disagree because after all you have no evidence to prove that we are wrong.

I'm not really sure that you were responding to me but if so I didn't mention anything you said. I tend to find uncivility in the deliberate misrepresentation of my comments, but that's just me.

[Sir Hamilton]

I do accept that you don't know the origin of the universe. As for me, because of my relationship with my heavenly Father i do know the origin of the universe. I never claimed that every unanswered question is something that god did.

And how does that work? How can you know that you actually have a 'relationship with your heavenly father'?? Can you describe it, and show it's more than an emotional response you only interpret that way?

Let's see you demonstrate the accuracy and veracity of your claim.

I know because I talk with Him. I hear Him. I feel His presence. My relationship with my Father is as real to me as my relationship with my wife. I know that sounds strange to you...and I must confess a part of me finds it strange as well but it is an awesome experience.