Thread: Gallup Poll: 4 in 10 believe man created by God 10,000 years ago

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Reasoning from these and other mathematical probability calculations, we can conclude that, without God the Creator, life's probability is zero.

Pretty funny.

Don't know why you're switching to Abiogenesis now but ok.

But where is there evidence that god did it?

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.
Reasoning from these and other mathematical probability calculations, we can conclude that, without God the Creator, life's probability is zero.

The amount of life on earth compared to the rest of the known universe is, as you say, "effectively zero," but it still exists. If you compare intelligent life on earth to all other life forms that have ever existed on earth, the number is also "effectively zero." My point is that when dealing with thing on the scale of the universe, the numbers are far beyond normal human understanding. Mathematical probability as it relates to our normal life just doesn't relate to the cosmic level.

Also, there is no evidence for god, yet there are mountains of evidence for evolution.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Pretty funny.

Don't know why you're switching to Abiogenesis now but ok.

But where is there evidence that god did it?

that was a point that I made in my original post that you don't have to believe in god to believe that where there's a design there's always a designer. that simple. And that is where religion picks up to decide who or what created or guided evolition

think of it this way....let's say we discovered a running fully functional Boeing 747 in the junkyard. Is it possible that a tornado blew all the parts together...sure....but what is more probable...that someone with intelligence designed and built it.

now religion tries to discover who was the designer of the Boeing. Anyone disagree that life is incalculably more complex and fine tuned than an airplane? It would then stand to reason that the builder would need to have far greater intelligence and skill.

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

now religion tries to discover who was the designer of the Boeing.

So you're saying that god can just always be, but that life cannot form spontaneously? If you're saying that because something exists that means something else had to create it, then why would a god be any different?

Originally Posted by commiecat

So you're saying that god can just always be, but that life cannot form spontaneously? If you're saying that because something exists that means something else had to create it, then why would a god be any different?

not if this "god" created time as we know it to begin with. But again...this lies in a Religious conversation about the nature and probability of a "god" and can we know this being. You can believe as you like whether the origins came from ET or god or whatever....what I was trying to convey is that regardless of discussions around a god it seems that an intelligent designer is highly more probable than random chance blowing together a Boeing 747.

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

not if this "god" created time as we know it to begin with. But again...this lies in a Religious conversation about the nature and probability of a "god" and can we know this being. You can believe as you like whether the origins came from ET or god or whatever....what I was trying to convey is that regardless of discussions around a god it seems that an intelligent designer is highly more probable than random chance blowing together a Boeing 747.

Random chance blew together atoms. Billions of years of evolution brought us to the Boeing bit. God also needed to be created by your watchmaker logic, and at some point you need to admit that things just happened by random chance.

The long-gone point of this thread is that the myth of creationism, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, does not belong in our schools under the arm of "science".

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

that was a point that I made in my original post that you don't have to believe in god to believe that where there's a design there's always a designer. that simple. And that is where religion picks up to decide who or what created or guided evolition

That's begging the question. There is no evidence of a designer.

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

think of it this way....let's say we discovered a running fully functional Boeing 747 in the junkyard. Is it possible that a tornado blew all the parts together...sure....but what is more probable...that someone with intelligence designed and built it.

That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

now religion tries to discover who was the designer of the Boeing. Anyone disagree that life is incalculably more complex and fine tuned than an airplane? It would then stand to reason that the builder would need to have far greater intelligence and skill.

Not when you have evolution. No designer is needed. A natural process explains it.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

That's begging the question. There is no evidence of a designer.



That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't work that way.



Not when you have evolution. No designer is needed. A natural process explains it.

Natural processes explain rock formations but do not explain Mount Rushmore.

My question to you guys is if you landed on Mars and found Mount Rushmore....how would you decide if it was due to natural erosion or blasted out by someone?

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

No question that there are some outlandish belief systems...but which is more probable...following taken from nodnc.com:
....

Very well, I read that. Apparently you can't count, but you can 'puke' (your own choice of words).
Incidentally I am not impressed by zeroese, since the author either doesn't understand how, or doesn't want to include the lapse of time, or why not time-space. After all we're talking about evolution, which is a process (i.e. there are at least two variables) and all that big copy&paste contains is a single variable.

BTW if that was in fact an attempt to meet my challenge, you did miss the second part - numbers about the probability of 'intelligent design'. As, I said it's all just counting.

Originally Posted by volleykinginnc

Natural processes explain rock formations but do not explain Mount Rushmore.

What about the Jesus toast - is that explained by natural or unnatural processes?