The argument about sperm is a poor one and that was the whole point. You can't just say that because the a priori probability of something is small, it can't have happened.

Quote:This really just goes to show that unregenerate sinners will believe absolutely anything rather than admitting there is a God who owns them.

Didn't you know, all atheists really know that the abrahamic god exists, we're just angry with him and trying to hurt him by pretending to think that we don't believe in him...

S.W. So basically what you are saying is that even if modern science could replicate Earth's early conditions and show where simple organic compounds could come together to form more complex organic matter; it only proves that your God planned it that way from the beginning. Geez, and to think, this line of thought is why I left Christianity to begin with!

I am not claiming that it couldn’t have happened because of the low probability (the chemical impossibilities demonstrate it couldn’t happen well enough). I am saying it is completely reasonable to say it didn’t happen because the odds of it occurring ever are so ridiculous they require far more blind faith than I have to believe. You make these same rational judgments on a daily basis…
”Is DB Cooper still alive?” “I doubt it; the chances of him surviving and still being alive today are just too small.”
“Is Elvis still alive?” “I really doubt it, even though I personally never saw his dead body, the chances of him still being alive are just too remote.”
“Is the Loch Ness Monster real?” “I doubt it, the chances of an animal of that size living on the small amount of fish that inhabit the loch is just too small.”
“Did abiogenesis occur 3.5 billion years ago?” “No, even if it were chemically possible, the chances of it actually happening are far too remote (a statistical impossibility)”


No, you are actually just suppressing the truth in your heart. Romans 1.

Nope, not what I said at all. I said that even if science could achieve that impossible task, it would not prove God did it, but it also would not demonstrate that we do not need God anymore. It’s a category error, mechanism does not disprove agency. Christianity certainly doesn’t miss you.

(May 10, 2011 at 6:57 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

---

I am not claiming that it couldn’t have happened because of the low probability (the chemical impossibilities demonstrate it couldn’t happen well enough). I am saying it is completely reasonable to say it didn’t happen because the odds of it occurring ever are so ridiculous they require far more blind faith than I have to believe. You make these same rational judgments on a daily basis…
”Is DB Cooper still alive?” “I doubt it; the chances of him surviving and still being alive today are just too small.”
“Is Elvis still alive?” “I really doubt it, even though I personally never saw his dead body, the chances of him still being alive are just too remote.”
“Is the Loch Ness Monster real?” “I doubt it, the chances of an animal of that size living on the small amount of fish that inhabit the loch is just too small.”
“Did abiogenesis occur 3.5 billion years ago?” “No, even if it were chemically possible, the chances of it actually happening are far too remote (a statistical impossibility)”

---

And you completely missed the point. In none of those examples is a priori probability the relevant quantity to consider.

Quote:
No, you are actually just suppressing the truth in your heart. Romans 1.

Weird, I thought that if I'd be suppressing any truths, it would be in my brain. You learn something every day!

(May 9, 2011 at 9:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So are many theories developed by the Creation community.

You mean like anisotropic light propagation and all of the pathetic attempts to prove the
Great flood really happened?
Please don't try to equate cretinism with real science.

Quote:This really just goes to show that unregenerate sinners will believe absolutely anything rather than admitting there is a God who owns them.

Yes, like believing in EVIDENCE, always a surefire way to destroy faith in god(or gods).

Faith doesn't rely on EVIDENCE so, it typically has little effect on faith. It might cause some cognitive dissonance if faith and EVIDENCE contradict directly, but luckily I haven't run accross that problem yet.

(May 11, 2011 at 6:59 am)tackattack Wrote: Faith doesn't rely on EVIDENCE so, it typically has little effect on faith. It might cause some cognitive dissonance if faith and EVIDENCE contradict directly, but luckily I haven't run accross that problem yet.

It's rational vs. emotional. We'll forever be talking apples and oranges with them. The fun stuff begins when they try to make their emotional seem rational by cloaking it in "science". It's usually patently absurd, but their emotions blind them to that fact. They get a glow because they're scoring points for Heaven by slander, libel, calumny, or any other means available to them to refute the "evil" of evolution.

Everyone has a bias, and it's usually emotional by nature. I know of no one except a computer AI that can claim no bias, but that's usually been programmed with some bias. Slander, libel and calumny are specifically taught against in Christianity, unfortunately, peeople more ofthen than not, only use and see what they want to and what furthers their own intentions.

(May 11, 2011 at 8:25 am)tackattack Wrote: Everyone has a bias, and it's usually emotional by nature. I know of no one except a computer AI that can claim no bias, but that's usually been programmed with some bias. Slander, libel and calumny are specifically taught against in Christianity, unfortunately, peeople more ofthen than not, only use and see what they want to and what furthers their own intentions.

So that justifies them using it against a scientific process? Really?

I am not going to quote your entire post, ONLY the part that I would like you to further EXPLAIN. [QUOTE] "Even if abiogenesis could happen (which it can’t), or even if it did happen (which it didn’t) this would by no means disprove God’s existence because it could have just been the mechanism He used." So what you are saying, in a nutshell, is that even if science could replicate it, it doesn't change anything in your eyes. It only proves that this is the way your GOD planned/performed it. Please, correct me if I am taking this out of context.

You go on to state: [Quote] "I am not claiming that it couldn’t have happened because of the low probability (the chemical impossibilities demonstrate it couldn’t happen well enough). I am saying it is completely reasonable to say it didn’t happen because the odds of it occurring ever are so ridiculous they require far more blind faith than I have to believe." But this is exactly what your Bible teaches people; that your God performed an act of abiogenesis. "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7. Call me crazy, but doesn't THAT require blind faith?

S.W., I honestly try to read your posts and attempt to gain some insight from them. Try returning the favor and realize that much of what any religion requires is faith (blind or otherwise). Faith that, as you are well aware of, is something of a difficulty for many atheists. There are many, many people who take things at "face value" or on "blind faith", atheists and theists alike. I hold a skepitcal eye to everything, not just religion. And yes sir, that does include science too. And I feel, that if you held as much skepticism towards your own religion as you do towards science, I believe we all would have something to learn and benfit from.

[QOUTE] "Christianity certainly doesn’t miss you." I guess that statement proves you sure aren't here to convert any of us godless heathens! LOL! And, if that's how Jesus feels about it, please advise your "brothers & sisters" to quit soliciting my residence and leaving their propaganda on my vehicle!