Fundies Will Be Shitting Bricks

[Statler Waldorf]

---

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.

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!

You are not using "a priori" correctly.

My examples were completely valid. We are talking about unobserved events, and their probabilities of occurring. I say the probabilities of abiogenesis occurring are so small any statistician would just round it off to p = 0. Usually values smaller than 1 in 10^50 are rounded off to zero anyways. Or at least they were when I was taking statistics in university. Who knows, they may have changed that rule just to preserve abiogenesis.

---

---

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.

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).

---

Aww, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Nicely done.

People who actually understand physics and relativity realize that there is no issue with ASC.

Evidence? You mean you directly observed abiogenesis over 3 billion years ago? Wow, you are old. You guys need to get your stories straight, one atheist says there is no real evidence for abiogenesis, and then you come in here and say it's all based on evidence, huh?

---

---

A large universe with millions of planets allows sufficient permutations of conditions which can spawn life. But that aside. Even if you say that it is simply irrational to think that it happens on its own, I still do not understand the leap that god did it. Not just any god, your god.

---

Even if we are 100% wrong in our theories about how life began, which is doubtful, how is the worlds oldest hypothesis a better explanation? Did we not believe a god hurled lightning bolts down at us until we discovered static discharges in the atmosphere? Did we not once speculate that raindrops were once distraught goddesses weeping over lost lovers before we understood the process? One deity or another was always directly responsible for whatever phenomenon we could not explain until someone did. If we were wrong about those assumptions based on our ignorance, isnt it safe to assume that we are wrong in our original assumption that some supreme being is directly responsible for life

---

Sciences inability to explain the natural origins of life is not my only reason for believing in the God of the Bible, so I am not sure why you act like I made a "leap". It just helps to confirm my reasoning for believing in Him.

Just because it is the oldest hypothesis in no way means it's wrong, that's fallacious thinking. You are also trying to suggest that mechanism disproves agency. Newton had a greater appreciation for God after he formulated his gravitational theories because the mechanism God used was so much more brilliant than he had originally thought.

[reverendjeremiah]

LMFAO..Waldorf pointing out fallacies when he bases his entire world view on falacies.

How about that great strawman in the sky that you worship?

*hint* Not all strawmen have to be negative.

[Statler Waldorf]

LMFAO..Waldorf pointing out fallacies when he bases his entire world view on falacies.

How about that great strawman in the sky that you worship?

*hint* Not all strawmen have to be negative.

First of all, even if my world-view were fallacious that by no means I am not allowed to point out fallacious arguments. Secondly, please back up your talk and show me how the reformed Christian world-view is logically fallacious. Please point out the actual logical fallacies by name. Thank you.

[Gawdzilla]

LOL, belief in the Great Sky Fairy isn't fallacious?

[Statler Waldorf]

LOL, belief in the Great Sky Fairy isn't fallacious?

Actually no, if someone actually believed that it would not in itself be a fallacy. Misrepresenting the beliefs of Christianity to try amd further your argument IS a fallacy though (Straw man fallacy).

[SleepingDemon]

Don't theists ever tire of this god of the gaps nonsense? At which point will gods hand in the universe be completely removed? The discovery of life elsewhere? Scientists creating life from molecules in a lab? This position is always retreating. First god throws lightning bolts, then god simply uses static in the atmosphere as his method for creating lightning. Stinks of desperation honestly. You can argue that our existence proves god's existence, to which my rebuttal is that our existence proves abiogenesis, however unlikely, happens on its own. When we discover life elsewhere in the galaxy, and we will, that will be twice that abiogenesis has happened without the aid of magic. Answer something for me, why would a supernatural being use natural processes to operate the universe? It seems to me if everything was magically created by a superbeing, at least one process would operate by pixiedust or angel farts. But it doesnt. Everything operates by natural cyclic processes. There is nothing unexplainable. I will bet my very life that when scientists discover how life began, an apologist like you is going to claim that method as god's method for creation. It is a sad attempt to keep an archaic and adolescent construct relevant.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Don't theists ever tire of this god of the gaps nonsense? At which point will gods hand in the universe be completely removed? The discovery of life elsewhere? Scientists creating life from molecules in a lab? This position is always retreating. First god throws lightning bolts, then god simply uses static in the atmosphere as his method for creating lightning. Stinks of desperation honestly. You can argue that our existence proves god's existence, to which my rebuttal is that our existence proves abiogenesis, however unlikely, happens on its own. When we discover life elsewhere in the galaxy, and we will, that will be twice that abiogenesis has happened without the aid of magic. Answer something for me, why would a supernatural being use natural processes to operate the universe? It seems to me if everything was magically created by a superbeing, at least one process would operate by pixiedust or angel farts. But it doesnt. Everything operates by natural cyclic processes. There is nothing unexplainable. I will bet my very life that when scientists discover how life began, an apologist like you is going to claim that method as god's method for creation. It is a sad attempt to keep an archaic and adolescent construct relevant.

---

Well I would never use our mere existence as "proof" of God's existence because I know that is affirming the consequent which of course is a violation of formal logic. So you shouldn't use life's existence as proof of abiogenesis either.
I think we define natural laws differently. I look at natural laws as the manner in which God upholds His creation in a uniform and predictable manner. Science actually has trouble defining natural laws and explaining how they are manifested. Science also has trouble deciding whether natural laws existed prior to space and time and helped to give rise to space and time or if they are a result of space and time's interaction.
Abiogenesis is a form of origins science, so scientists can never demonstrate how life began, they can formulate ideas, but even if they could create life in the lab this in no way means that it is the way life began on earth (affirming the consequent again).
You know, you have mentioned the "god of the gaps" argument several times now. I agree with you, one form of the God of the gaps argument should not be used. This is to explain the gaps that get smaller as we learn more (your lightning example, even though I don’t think Christians ever thought God was "throwing" lightning bolts). The God of the gaps argument that is completely valid is the one that deals with the gaps that get bigger the more we learn. You yourself used an argument in this form in the "13 Questions" thread when you said you knew the "I Love You" written in the sand was man-made. You know this because you know that natural processes cannot create the information encoded in this message, only a mind could. Well many people use this same argument to infer God's role and existence in the creation of the information within life. So you used a valid form of the argument, but it was the same "gaps" argument many Creationists use.

[Gawdzilla]

LOL, belief in the Great Sky Fairy isn't fallacious?

Actually no, if someone actually believed that it would not in itself be a fallacy. Misrepresenting the beliefs of Christianity to try amd further your argument IS a fallacy though (Straw man fallacy).

Explain what I misrepresented?

[Zen Badger]

---

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.

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).

---

Aww, the no true Scotsman fallacy. Nicely done.

People who actually understand physics and relativity realize that there is no issue with ASC.

Evidence? You mean you directly observed abiogenesis over 3 billion years ago? Wow, you are old. You guys need to get your stories straight, one atheist says there is no real evidence for abiogenesis, and then you come in here and say it's all based on evidence, huh?

---

This is not a "no true scotsman", the cretinists are not scientists.

For the simple reason that they start with the premise that the bible is true and bend the evidence to fit that premise. That does not fit ANY definition of real science.

"People who actually understand physics and relativity realize that there is no issue with ASC."

Really? name them then.

Where did I mention abiogenesis?

I was referring to to evidence for your god( of which there is none)

As to abiogenesis, although it is the preferred hypothesis there is nothing to say that it is the case.

But research continues, although a cretinist "scientist" would just give up and say "goddidit"

On the same vein since we have been unable to sustain a fusion reaction in the laboratory mean that stars don't actually work that way?
And does that mean goddidit?

BTW it is entirely possible that the universe had an intelligent first cause.

We don't know, and probably never will.

But that intelligent cause started the universe 13-14 billion years ago and isn't the god of your bible.

And I'll bet you don't address that idea.

[SleepingDemon]

Actually I was referring to Zeus. You didnt address the question, you just spouted off what you thought. Abiogenesis is provable, as is any science. If say we find it occurring on another planet. That will be proof. Now as for the question about "I love you" in the sand, that is a human phrase, and a human method for showing human sentiments. Whom else would it be. I can prove humans exist, you cannot prove god exists. So how can anyone possibly claim that the attributes of creation are attributes only of god, that it could be nothing else? They cant. So that is a bad analogy. How can you claim that natural laws demonstrate anything in regards to god while being unable to adequately demonstrate the existence of god? Your logic is as follows. I believe in god. Abiogenesis is impossible, god did it. Oh, gravity? Science doesnt know everything about gravity, because god use gravity to maintain order. But you never demonstrated how god fit into this. If all things in the universe operate by natural processes, where exactly is god required? Abiogenesis? Because we don't know yet? You have no previous examples to confirm those statistics, we have only explored a handful of planets remotely. For all we know the universe has life abundant. Claims of the improbability of abiogenesis is based upon what exactly? Our vast experience in goldilocks zone planets? Furthermore why in this case do you defer to experts? When you so boldly claim they are wrong in evolution?