Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Paraselene]

If odds are so far against the chance production of life by accident, why not consider an alternate.

Because the odds are not impossible.

[RDK]

If atoms have an intelligent reason to assemble themselves into useful things, it can only be since they are under intelligent control. Odds are great for stupid atoms to create nothing at all. They are just as likely to create as to un-create, a 50/50 proposition. I'll say they can just as quickly un-create anything they manage to create, certainly with no pro-life agenda.
I live in Reno,NV,USA. I am not interested in Biblical dogma which so many people espouse. I look at things simply, and show the flaws of goofy beliefs whenever I get the chance. You guys react to me the same way the church people do. This must be some new church service which hasn't worked out so well. Most of them don't like obvious answers either.

Your "obvious answers" are pre-ingrained answers and, as such, worthless.

Look at the Universe... Basque in the known ~92 Billion light years across... and how many places are known to harbor life...
Present your statistics only after you take into consideration how large the whole Universe is.... and also how large Avogadro's constant is, too.


How unlikely is it to get 1.000.000 1's when I cast 100 billion 6-sided dice?

[pocaracas]

If odds are so far against the chance production of life by accident, why not consider an alternate.

They may be against it happening at any particular time, but given millions of years and billions upon billions of particles... no matter how unlikely, it can happen and we are here, so it did happen.

I believe that animals change for a reason

That is why you fail.

[RDK]

When you are dealing with odds, you have to consider that you will be successful most of the time to produce any good results. Trouble is, you have every possibility of losing everything which you just accomplished. In order for evolution to work, you have to assume that your huge single gamble paid off, and now you can bet again with all your winnings. That's the fallacy. Evolution requires you to win and win , one loss and the animal dies and you have to start over. You would run out of animals with that gambling policy. You just can't stack success upon success by rolling the options. The actual fact is that animals are changing without the death sentence which must be enforced with happen-chance as a mechanism.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If odds are so far against the chance production of life by accident, why not consider an alternate.

Because the odds against the production of life by accident aren't all that great. In fact, they're 1:1. How do I know? I'm alive.

I have not tried to fill you with religious ideas at all, just trying to refute ideas which have no useful place in science.

Biology has no useful place in science?

I believe that animals change for a reason, to improve their useful life here on this planet.

What you believe is utterly beside the point. You have no supportive evidence for your belief in this matter.

If life is something beyond just a collection of physical parts, then we have to pursue that in a non-mechanical way.

I refer you to the ephors reply to Phillip II.

The rest of your post has been more than amply addressed by others.

Boru

[Bad Wolf]

I didn't think that I would get a happy response-I am challenging all of your previously valued beliefs.

Evolution is not a 'valued belief' of mine. If evolution is wrong, I want to know. I want to believe as many true things as possible. I don't think anyone get emotionally invested in a scientific theory to the point that they would just deny evidence against it. Only religion seems to do that.

[Rampant.A.I.]

If atoms have an intelligent reason to assemble themselves into useful things, it can only be since they are under intelligent control.

They don't, so you're just filling space with pointless arguments.

"I like children. They tell what they know and then stop."
- Mark Twain

[pocaracas]

When you are dealing with odds, you have to consider that you will be successful most of the time to produce any good results. Trouble is, you have every possibility of losing everything which you just accomplished. In order for evolution to work, you have to assume that your huge single gamble paid off, and now you can bet again with all your winnings. That's the fallacy. Evolution requires you to win and win , one loss and the animal dies and you have to start over. You would run out of animals with that gambling policy. You just can't stack success upon success by rolling the options. The actual fact is that animals are changing without the death sentence which must be enforced with happen-chance as a mechanism.

Still, you fail to grasp the enormity of the numbers we're dealing with, here.

You wouldn't have had just one single initial self replicating organic compound... you'd get... Avogadro's constant of them.

But you speak of animals... which just says you don't know anything, nor have you given it any honest thought...

[Cyberman]

If atoms have an intelligent reason to assemble themselves into useful things, it can only be since they are under intelligent control.

Here's today's word: chemistry.

[RDK]

Randomness just creates more randomness. It's kind of like watching the TV after all the broadcasters have signed off for the night. You see the TV snow which is just equal amounts of white and black bouncing around all over the screen. You can watch this for all eternity, and you never see one good program. You can increase the size of the screen but the randomness just gets greater.
If you see life around here, it's not because of random chance. You belief that through unproven methods of observation. You were told that this method makes sense, so, you believe it. The scientists have had to take a leap of faith in order to assume that we all came about by accident. You will not accept a single facet of an opposing viewpoint because you are close-minded. Don't get upset if I state the obvious.