itt: evolution and trolling

[milosh]

Double post, but I think Milosh needs to read this, then we can peace out.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

that's all i got.

There are three things about this example that cannot apply here.

The first is that I am trying prove something or make you all feel stupid for doubting it. I am not; if it seems this way, I assure you I only insist on the consideration of its possibility.

The second is that a floating teapot in the middle of space proves nothing. Such a theory is nonsensical and pointless as its existence brings no further meaning to our existence. I will admit that my belief in God stems from more than just my disbelief in common scientific theories; it derives not only from physics, math, and biology but also from philosophy and psychology. It does not appear as a proven fact to me, and it takes a level of faith to believe in. If it is true, it always will.

The third is that I am somehow basing my beliefs on "ancient books" or "sacred truth" taught to me. This is the conclusion I have arrived at on my own personal beliefs, though with much assistance from those who came before me(For example, Charles Darwin).

[milosh]

it does not matter what number come up with because you dont exist. 1 ejaculation has around 100 million semen it it. The chance of exactly you being born is 1:100 million. Lets go 1000 generations back and assume everyone only had sex once. Your chance of being borne is reduced dramatically to lousy 1:10^8000. Even if sex did only take one second with 10^17 seconds elapsed in this Universe you can not be borne yet.

OH SNAP!

Guess what would have happened if one of the other 100 million semen got to the egg instead of me. You're right! A human baby that isn't me would have been born. You are starting to give me a headache.

[Money]

god i hate religious freaks, find something real to believe in plz

[Jerome Scuggs]

Guess what would have happened if one of the other 100 million semen got to the egg instead of me. You're right! A human baby that isn't me would have been born. You are starting to give me a headache.

i think you're giving yourself a headache if you don't see his point

[milosh]

i think you're giving yourself a headache if you don't see his point

The factor being observed is order. If you tried to calculate the probability for any atom in the universe being where it is the chances are staggering. The point though is not in existence or position; the point is in order. 100 million semen all create a baby no matter which one reaches the egg. All of the outcomes of that improbable situation are ordered.

[Jerome Scuggs]

The factor being observed is order. If you tried to calculate the probability for any atom in the universe being where it is the chances are staggering. The point though is not in existence or position; the point is in order. 100 million semen all create a baby no matter which one reaches the egg. All of the outcomes of that improbable situation are ordered.

what justifies your assumption that the universe is "orderly"? to you it might seem orderly but that's not a good enough reason. what objective standard of "order" do you use here?

edit: to clarify, your example doesn't prove "order". you can apply the term to the example, but the example didn't beget the term.

[milosh]

what justifies your assumption that the universe is "orderly"? to you it might seem orderly but that's not a good enough reason. what objective standard of "order" do you use here?

This is a whole new discussion in itself. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...1/gen01870.htm

[Twerp]

If you tried to calculate the probability for any atom in the universe being where it is the chances are staggering.

There's a reason for that...

[Jerome Scuggs]

This is a whole new discussion in itself. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...1/gen01870.htm

I didn't find anything on this webpage supporting your assumption.

[DankNuggets]

it does not matter what number come up with because you dont exist. 1 ejaculation has around 100 million semen it it. The chance of exactly you being born is 1:100 million. Lets go 1000 generations back and assume everyone only had sex once. Your chance of being borne is reduced dramatically to lousy 1:10^8000. Even if sex did only take one second with 10^17 seconds elapsed in this Universe you can not be borne yet.

OH SNAP!

i think you're giving yourself a headache if you don't see his point

Milosh's headache is inevitable when Fluffz keeps using the same analogy THAT DOESN'T APPLY


Reason why it doesn't apply:

Like milosh said, while it is a 1/million chance for YOU to exist, it is more of a 1/1 chance that a person will exist

There's a 1/million (way undershooting for parallel construction) chance that life has come to exist through spontaneous means because, AS FAR AS SCIENCE is concerned, there was only 1 path for life to follow. Saying that life would form from any other "continuous chemical reaction" is preposterous. I think it's fair to say this since there's no evidence that life started many different times in many different ways.

So tell me, what is the probability of life forming Fluffz? 1:1 ? then why isn't life everywhere ? you're starting at the endpoint in your construction, something that we haven't done, although we've been accused of it. The answer is that the probabillity is so small, coupled with the fact that we haven't found "life" outside of earth, that the probability of life coming from random events approaches zero. Probability is always asymtotic in this case, meaning that there will always exist a possibility of the other, something YOU're obviously not willing to except. Rephrased: i will except the infinitessibly small probability of spontaneous life, you won't except the +/- small probability of external factors in the form of an uknown being.

In the end, using the idea of 'intelligent designer' is just a cop out. It's a way to just give up the search for any further answers because everything has already been answered. It's the way the Western world was for 1000 years before the renaissance, and a way that assures ignorance. There have been so many myths that were once held as truth that have been revealed to be false over the years. If we just keep a static idea of 'no it can't happen, therefore someone made it end of story' then we shall never overcome our ignorance.

And hey, if in the end we can prove without a doubt that an intelligent designer made everything, then I think science would accept that too and if i'm around then, I would too because... that's how science works.

The use is definitely not a cop out. how many people are going to dedicate their lives to finding the answer? are you? if not, then you're copping out too, by either believing in the current theories, or by saying that you don't know. Because in the end, it's more of saying that you don't know than concretely saying that god made this god made that. It's more than saying that because we're not attempting to explain the physical processes by which a "designer" made life, but to say that that's a possibility, and until science can find a reasonable answer, it's what we'll believe.

It doesn't assure ignorance. That is I'm assuming you don't believe everyone who believes in a higher power is ignorant. Because if you do, you are an arrogant fuck, and think of most of the world as ignorant. I'm sure many more intelligent people believe in a higher power. It's never been suggested that anyone should discontinue the search for the truth about our arrival or the advent of life. Never has anyone on this forum suggested that you should just take it as "god made it." Yeah for 1000 years people were in the dark, but then the Renaissance came. Surely you aren't suggesting it came about because people stopped believing in God? There's absolutely nothing to suggest that you can't believe in creation while at the same time earnestly trying to defraud it by scientific means. This is where you are becoming ignorant to assume that because someone believes in god, they aren't just as willing as YOU are to change there beliefs if presented with concrete scientific evidence.

[DankNuggets]

what justifies your assumption that the universe is "orderly"? to you it might seem orderly but that's not a good enough reason. what objective standard of "order" do you use here?

edit: to clarify, your example doesn't prove "order". you can apply the term to the example, but the example didn't beget the term.

well i'm assuming he's talking about the Entropy of the universe, where more ordered and stable things, tend to become more chaotic and less ordered. Life is in direct opposition of this physical law of the universe.

[milosh]

I didn't find anything on this webpage supporting your assumption.

Oh, it wasn't meant to be in support of my assumption; The purpose for me linking to it was to show that inquiry about the existence of order goes into a completely new philosophical discussion.

[Money]

[Money]

[Summa]

first things first, I am pissed that I am so late on this thread.

2nd) simply put this is the theory of evolution for all those who really don't seem to understand: life does what it has to to continue and survive, it adapts for the betterment of itself. that is it, no god, no creation, no nothing (and kolar is right, you cannot validate something that is "divine" or metaphysical with something that keeps itself concerned with strictly the tangible world

3rd) as far as I know and I greatly doubt that I can be disproven, but the laws of existence state that something cannot come about from nothing. does this validate god? thats your call. but if it does validate god, what created him, because he "exists", so something had to put him there. and then what created what created god? (continues into infinity)

There is a necessary inference between the literal and figurative. Many believe that Revelation is completely factual; I however do not. The occurrence of a world-wide flood is possible. I'm not quoting this source as an end-all means for fact vs. fiction, but for probability reasons.

question: why was it considered literal for people 2000 yrs ago, but today it is figurative? that sounds like a solid religion to me!

; I am speaking towards the mere fact that it is a certain way and that the particular way it is is incredible. It has order, beauty, and is intricately in motion.. ...I'm asking is how could the heart, lungs, brain, liver, kidneys, spleen, gall bladder, small intestine, large intestine, skin, ears, nose,

Have you ever thought that the beautiful and incredible design is also the most efficient and beneficial for the continuation of life? And as for all of those body parts and organs developing, I would say they developed @ some point because they were necessary for life's survival and the reason we havent dropped the useless parts is because life hasn't seen the necessity to or they havent become a detriment yet

and btw, epinephrine did a great job explaining scientific stances kudos , plus he is right milosh, if something has a 1:10000 chance to happen every yr, it could still happen in the 1st yr, and then the next event has a 1:100000000 chance of happening every yr it could happen in the 2nd yr (thats a ton of yrs eliminated right there) and how many planets are there out there, and we are the only known one with intelligent life @ this point, i'd say this planet hit the jackpot.

and as for all of these calculations i really doubt any of them hold water, i mean we have miscalculated the mass of the universe how many times? i sincerely doubt we have the ability to look into the past, freeze frame it, calculate everything, and then provide an accurate statistic (and dont say that they can even ballpark it because they miscalculated the mass of the universe by 40% in scientist's most recent failure, YAY STATISTICS!)

a fun quote to leave you all with: "Faith is that faculty of the mind which allows us to believe in things that we know to be untrue" - Dracula - Bram Stoker