Incredulity complex and Evolution

a reply to: chr0naut

These ideas are also compatable with almost any other faith, and with a lack of faith. Thus bring deity, deities, or divine pasta into it, with out evidence, is premature.


The point remains that Creationists try to say evolution is wrong, as it does not explain how life started.

I am one who does not follow Christian "ethics" or "morals", and I don't argue against what you are implying. Neither do scientists who are atheistic.

Its a nice apologetic argument you have going there

originally posted by: dfnj2015

Love your avatar. That scene in the movie was over the top funny!

One of my favorite actors, and I flew nukes for about 6 years around the world and my crew would watch that movie many times before we went out...lol

originally posted by: DustybudzZ

And that they are just realizing that evolution "dose not" discredit God at all.
And that God created evolution himself when he created the world.

If it was intelligent design then God would need someway, unless it was a magic trick of snapping his fingers. I never understood that logic as God would have created the universe and the laws of the universe why not just use what he created? It's not like 14 billion years would mean anything to him if it was all planned out.

originally posted by: TheLead
I don't doubt there being a possibility of an entity setting it in motion, but to say in a seemingly infinite universe that us being here means there has to be a god is just ridiculous. In an infinite scenario if the variable potential is there the 'perfect' mixture for life is inevitable. I also dont undertsand why we minimize what the potential for life is based on our relative understanding.

But surely in an infinitity of possible universes there may arise an intellect so overwhelmingly capable that can span, and control, all possible universes and thereby ensure its continued existence. With no boundaries physically and no boundaries in time, such a being is the ONLY reasonable outcome of truly infinite multiverses as it would eliminate every threat to its existence and supremacy in ALL universes.

Also, in this particular universe, the likelihood of order, complexity and interrelationship that we find our selves in, is vanishingly small and, since nothing in physics and mathematics can bridge between universes (they are closed from each other), calling upon the possibilities inherent in a disconnected multiverse is lacking in intellectual honesty in describing what has happened here.

The idea of this organization, of this closed set of objects and situations, from the action of random forces, is mathematically and physically impossible.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

So there was nothing then a big explosion and then science says there was everything?

If nothing else, you're extremely consistent in your broken record strawman routine.

As has been explained to you ad infinitum, you're the only one who makes that particular claim. No physicists do and it's nowhere in any literature pertaining to the Big Bang Theory.

It must be easier for you to engage in your sanctimonious tirades though when you choose to wallow in the mire of your own willful ignorance, mocking science that you haven't bothered to learn the most fundamental facts about.

Please...don't let me interrupt you! You do a fine job of making others who agree with you look like fools too.

So can you apply your logic to my scepticism re your belief in your WOO

You wouldn't know logic if you stuffed dollar bills into its G-String while it gave you a lap dance

I cant fathom the ignorance of atheist fundamentalists and their utter incompetence to apply any logic and pass it off as science

Of course you can't fathom ignorance. If you could, you would then be aware that you are completely clueless regarding your rants. Sort of like using the BBT as a point of reference in a thread about Evolution. Well played!!

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DustybudzZ
a reply to: TheLead

Just because you use a bunch of big words all put together that you think people wont understand dose mot mean it actually makes any since....

How do you know its "inevitable"?

Mathematics. If you have a very improbable event but there are enough tries eventually the improbable will happen.

There could have been trillions of bubbles over billions of years before cellular life came into existence by a random sequence of events.

Firstly, the limitations for life to arise on Earth are not infinite. They are finite.

We haven't had enough time or chances for the required random probabalistic actions to be the source of the world we can observe. This world is extremely improbable.

Also, you seem to have the wrong idea of how probability works. If a six sided dice has a one in six chance of coming up with a number 1, and you have rolled it five times without success, it does not mean that the sixth roll must neccesarily be a number 1. You still have a one in six probability of getting a number one on EVERY single roll. Of course, as you roll more times, the statistical average of the results will more closely approximate one in six but in actuality, this does not mean that you can rely on a result as occurring. The one in six result will only become exact as you approach an infinite numbers of rolls.

So, if something is one chance in a billion, and you do it nearly infinite numbers of times, your probability comes closer to being exactly one chance in a billion, averaged over all the results. The actual probability does not change or become more probable.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

These ideas are also compatable with almost any other faith, and with a lack of faith. Thus bring deity, deities, or divine pasta into it, with out evidence, is premature.

The point remains that Creationists try to say evolution is wrong, as it does not explain how life started.

I am one who does not follow Christian "ethics" or "morals", and I don't argue against what you are implying. Neither do scientists who are atheistic.

Its a nice apologetic argument you have going there

Thank you about the apologetic argument.



I believe that the OP ended his piece suggesting theistic evolution was, or should be, the predominant Christian standpoint.

Yes, there are Creationists who decry evolution as being contrary to the Bible, as there are believers in a flat earth who similarly try and use the Bible as some sort of argument. Basically these are 'fringe dwellers' who, I would suggest, know little of either science or the Bible.



But there are many scientists who could point out theoretical problems with strongly held beliefs which themselves are fundamental to modern scientific descriptions of the universe but are entirely unscientific (such as the superluminal expansion of the universe or the creation of a universeal mass singularity from quantum fluctuation).

a reply to: TheLead

how long has mainstream science thought the universe was infinite? i have heard several theories but none saying the universe is infinite. i mean, if its only billions of years old how can it be infinite?

a reply to: chr0naut

Christians would have to totally drop Creation as it's told in the bible in order to switch to Evolution though.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Evolution. It says "God created..." and even a day for when he did it. Not that God made simple micro organisms or even simple things that evolved. He made Fish and Birds etc...

They were just made, complete and ready to go.

a reply to: chr0naut

All those things you describe are of no import in this discussion however. Because they are not theories and barely hypotheses.

a reply to: mOjOm

I think the problem is I've yet to meet a Creationist who was not a biblical literalist! I mean those muppets are up there with the NeoPagans I know who are fluffy to the point of being a fire hazard They assume the Three Fold Law is not a nice allegory, but you really will get Karmic Inflation for being Chaotic Naughty in life ....

originally posted by: chr0naut

But surely in an infinitity of possible universes there may arise an intellect so overwhelmingly capable that can span, and control, all possible universes and thereby ensure its continued existence. With no boundaries physically and no boundaries in time, such a being is the ONLY reasonable outcome of truly infinite multiverses as it would eliminate every threat to its existence and supremacy in ALL universes.

No way that such a being is the "Only Reasonable outcome." IMO of course. But I'd love to see you try and justify such a claim somehow.

a reply to: mOjOm

Why do people who make the argument for God, ignore that the equal but opposite possibility is that there is a chance there is no deity. OR many. Logical honesty would consider it ....oh right.....

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Incredulity
[noun]
Being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Skeptical of an assertion.

Claims made by creationists (and proponents of intelligent design) as proof of god often focus on the seemingly unlikely fundamental constants that govern the laws of physics: the so-called fine-tuned universe. The basic claim is that god created the universe in such a way as to ensure an environment suitable for life. In other words, these same creationists accept that there are constants in the universe that are measurable by mankind.

By the same token, many of the same creationists have no difficulty accepting other scientific principles and observations which have led to the technological breakthroughs we see and use on a daily basis.

However, when it comes to evolution, there seems to be a ‘head-in-the-sand’ denial that the laws and principles of nature could possibly apply in this case. Unfortunately many creationist websites exacerbate this with a systematic (and immoral) misrepresentation of what Modern Evolutionary Synthesis actually says. Heck - if my understanding of evolution came from creationist literature I wouldn’t accept it either!

So, my question is: Are your doubts about evolution…
A) based on your unwillingness to believe the evidence?
B) based on an inability to believe it (perhaps because of misrepresentations/lack of understanding)?

The reason I ask is because there seems to be a simply solution, as adopted by all major religions (even the lumbering giant that is the catholic church), namely theistic evolution - that evolution was set in motion by, and directed by, god, using natural laws (as created by god) to achieve this end.

So there was nothing then a big explosion and then science says there was everything?
So can you apply your logic to my scepticism re your belief in your WOO

I cant fathom the ignorance of atheist fundamentalists and their utter incompetence to apply any logic and pass it off as science

That's a simple explanation of how the universe began, not how EVERYTHING began. You are missing the point of what the big bang represents. It's a singularity, meaning at some point in time everything became one, back to it's original state whether it was a small dot, or a massive hurricane of atoms. It's a simple explanation of everything in the universe working in harmony, and a simple explanation to an extremely complex question.

Well thats great
But its about belief, not science
Belief in big bang
Belief in abiogenesis
Belief in evolution

Thats a LOT of belief you want me to manufacture from nothing, no scientific evidence at all
Faith is not science, lets not do a PV and pretend we are science and science is a pretend thing we can manipulate because our ego needs to be bolstered by imaginairy friends

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

So there was nothing then a big explosion and then science says there was everything?

If nothing else, you're extremely consistent in your broken record strawman routine.

As has been explained to you ad infinitum, you're the only one who makes that particular claim. No physicists do and it's nowhere in any literature pertaining to the Big Bang Theory.

It must be easier for you to engage in your sanctimonious tirades though when you choose to wallow in the mire of your own willful ignorance, mocking science that you haven't bothered to learn the most fundamental facts about.

Please...don't let me interrupt you! You do a fine job of making others who agree with you look like fools too.

So can you apply your logic to my scepticism re your belief in your WOO

You wouldn't know logic if you stuffed dollar bills into its G-String while it gave you a lap dance

I cant fathom the ignorance of atheist fundamentalists and their utter incompetence to apply any logic and pass it off as science

Of course you can't fathom ignorance. If you could, you would then be aware that you are completely clueless regarding your rants. Sort of like using the BBT as a point of reference in a thread about Evolution. Well played!!

Have a lollipop PV
Go play in the park

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

Christians would have to totally drop Creation as it's told in the bible in order to switch to Evolution though.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Evolution. It says "God created..." and even a day for when he did it. Not that God made simple micro organisms or even simple things that evolved. He made Fish and Birds etc...

They were just made, complete and ready to go.

But thats just silly
Beyond silly
Many christians believe in evolution

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: chr0naut

Christians would have to totally drop Creation as it's told in the bible in order to switch to Evolution though.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Evolution. It says "God created..." and even a day for when he did it. Not that God made simple micro organisms or even simple things that evolved. He made Fish and Birds etc...

They were just made, complete and ready to go.

Why would we have to drop the Biblical creation?

Surely God could have created "complete and ready to go" organisms and via evolution and other processes, those initial life forms must neccesarily have adapted to fill all the various and dynamic ecological niches that occurred.

You see, you seem to be ascribing a direction to evolution, from 'simple' (and thereby 'more ancient') organisms to more complex 'higher organisms' as per the branches of phylogenetic tree.

Yet evolution knows no direction (according to science). We know that organisms can loose unneccesary traits in their struggle for survival. The fossil record is clear on that.

a reply to: Noinden

I believe there is a good chance for that actually. Even the bible talks about "No other Gods before me" implying other gods.

Or that if they eat of the tree of life (after eating of the tree of knowledge) they will become like "US".

Hmmmm....

a reply to: Raggedyman

No you state that it is about belief. At no time have you demonstrated that. You repeatedly have refused to engage in the science, and default to quoting fallacious arguments. Like this one.

Evoloution, is not a matter of belief. Unlike your religion, or mine for that matter. My Paganism is a faith based thing, as is your Christianity. Science is facts.

a reply to: mOjOm

Indeed. It at one point implies Jehovah is a deity with a fragile ego. He must have had some bad relationships in the past (Satan?) and puts unreasonable demands on his minions

Students of comparitive mythology will know the Semetic faiths had many gods at one time.

I'm not advocating polytheism, just that it is just as likely as monotheism being the answer. But so is "there is nothing".