Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Jackalope]

We don't need to have observed an event to determine what is most likely to have happened.

Let's use the big bang as an example - clearly, no human being witnessed the event. What we can do is make observations, formulate a hypothesis, make predictions based on that hypothesis and see how our hypothesis fares against those predictions.

I'm not going to get into a detailed timeline of the scientific research that went into the big bang, it's covered elsewhere if you care to look. Wikipedia has a pretty good synopsis of the evidence, and it's fairly approachable to the layman.

The evidence we have fits the theory (and there's plenty of it). It's the best naturalistic explanation we have - and there is no competing theory (scientific or supernatural) that fits the evidence. The only real controversy in the scientific community is over some of the specifics. That's not to say that the model is 100% correct and proven. Science doesn't deal in certainties. It's entirely possible that we've got it wrong - but at this time, it is quite simply the best explanation that we have.

Anyone with a competing hypothesis is certainly free to put that hypothesis to the same level of scientific scrutiny that the big bang has been through and see how it stands up. No one has been able to do so to date.

There is simply no rational reason to invoke "goddidit" here.

[chi pan]

"Correct application of the scientific method is still no promise of accuracy btw. You can do everything right and still be wrong. Sad but true. The scientific method provides us with explanations that carry a decent amount of provisional certainty. That is to say "this is our explanation, until such a time as new information becomes available to us about either the subject at hand or our methods for determining the veracity of this explanation". One of the strengths of the whole enterprise actually."

agreed though you can use the scientific method to prove something wrong, you cannot use it to prove something right b/c you may do something else later that proves it wrong.

---

ok i've given up the point of reasoning so lets move on to numbers. i found a video that talks about how complicated a simple protien is and how it had to have been put together by someone who knows what they're doing using numbers, now everyone can understand numbers.
to sumerize it a little there are 20 different kinds of amino acids and 200 of them make a simple protien. that means these amino acids would have 10^260 (that's 10 to the power of 260) different combinations but only one is right. lets say "the average joe" is putting these together rather than nature since it would take nature longer to try out combinations even is it was possible. scientists theorize the universe to be about 20 billion years which is about 630,720,000,000,000,000 seconds. that means "the average joe" would have to try 1.585x10^243 combinations per second for 20 billion years to hit every combination. now it's possible he could hit the right one half way but that still hardly puts a dent in the numbers si it's impossible for the average joe to make a protien in 20 billion years and you think nature could do it? and that's not mentioning that those conditions that were suitable to make them didn't exist in space according to the theory, but on earth. anyways here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjQtqg3yy...re=related

and this is a source, not a testamony.

[Jackalope]

Somebody - please post thunderf00t's refutation of this nonsense. I can't remember which of his 37 "Why do people laugh at creationists?" videos it's in.

@chipan:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D

Enjoy.

[Erinome]

I laugh at creatards because they're stupid. I'm offended by them because their shitty myth distracts attention from the unequaled, splendorous beauty of the natural universe of which I stand in great, yet humble awe.

"Goddidit" isn't a valid answer, it's an excuse for ignorance that was originally intended to make up for ignorance.

[The Grand Nudger]

You gave up reasoning before you ever posted any of this. Sure, lets go with numbers. I'll even accept every one of the numbers your pastor or whatever garbage peddler you report to provided you with as fact.

20 billion years to hit the right combination you say? So it would take what, 10 candidate amino acids 2 billion years? 100 candidates .2b? 1,000 candidates .02b. Fuck what took so long? Oh that's right, this place is hostile and not at all designed to support life. You keep appoaching this from an angle which is irreconcilably tainted by your belief in creation. You've assumed a single acid molecule flipping a coin waiting for the right combination to become a creator. Try all amino acids constantly flipping coins, some hitting the jackpot and then being extinguished immediately. The "miracle" wasn't abiogenesis, it was survival. This assuming that the earth wasn't seeded, or any other of the innumerable theories regarding the origins of life on earth. You seem to ignore, or be blissfully unaware that there is more than one potential pathway for life. Your appeal to numbers is utter garbage. Even so, that something may be unbelievable improbably proves your goddidit proposition exactly how? If you spent as much time trying to make your own case as you spend criticizing the work of others where it contradicts your fairy tale you may have had more meat to work with by the time you posted here. Probably not though, since better men than you or I have tried and failed for centuries. There is a point where you have checked under so many rocks, went down so many rabbit holes and come out with nothing that you have to begin to wonder if there was ever anything to the question in the first place. That point had been reached for gods a long time ago, but we're stubborn and don't like to give up on a good narrative. What you have is not science, and will not be confirmed by science. It is a belief in the subjective meaning of a collection of stories which you were made familiar with due to the prevailing cultural traditions in your region or family. It is not a cosmology, it is not an explanation of our origins (or anything at all). It is not a factual accurate description of anything that exists beyond our own minds. Stop looking for science in fairy tales, it's embarrassing.

[Minimalist]

i found a video that talks about how complicated a simple protien is and how it had to have been put together by someone who knows what they're doing using numbers, now everyone can understand numbers.

It's the Argument from Personal Incredulity which in its simplest form - which you obviously require - means that because you are too fucking stupid to understand something you think that means it is impossible.

Leave the heavy thinking to those who can handle it, sonny. Go sit in a corner and read your fucking bible and try to stay out of everyone else's way.

[chi pan]

"20 billion years to hit the right combination you say? So it would take what, 10 candidate amino acids 2 billion years? "

no that's not what i said not even close. i said science estimates the universe to be 20 billion years so that's the maximum amount of time possible. if nature had this amount of time (which btw is not the case cuz this process had to be done on earth and the earth isn't even close to that old according to "science") they would have to do 1.585x10^243 combinations per second in order to get all the combinations. but you do have a point, this process could be happening all over in a trillion different places so lets apply that to my point. if instead of one average joe working on it, assume there are a trillion average joe's working on it and each of these average joe's were telepathically connected so that they can all try different combinations so they don't make repeat combinations that don't work. this woulld decrease the amount of time it would take by a trillion and it would still be impossible. if they had 20 billion years to do it, they would still have to do 1.585x10^231 combinations per second. the number is so big if you increased your chances by a google it would still be impossible for someone (or multiple someones) who don't know what they're doing to put it together correctly, yet alone some random acts of nature putting them together in a huge ocean filled with possibly trillions of amino acids. in an ocean it wouldn't seam likely these amino acids would ever come in contact yet alone make a chain. and even if it did happen that's just one protien and it needs to be done again for the next and protiens don't come together to make life. if you have a container of protien it's not gonna do anything. that can be proved easily, just take pure protien, put it in water, and let it sit for a year and see if it developed any. and according to the scientific method "it the experiment doesn't work, then it's wrong."


"Somebody - please post thunderf00t's refutation of this nonsense. I can't remember which of his 37 "Why do people laugh at creationists?" videos it's in"

well i must say i was intrigued by this as you did what others didn't and actually gave me a referance. good job. i watched all of these videos and i can conclude that 90% of these videos are him taking the stupidest people trying to argue against science to prove creation has no arguement. i'm not even exagurating, one of his favorate opponments is a teenager who posts youtube videos who clearly doesn't know anything about science. so if i argued with a teenager about evolution and proved him wrong, then would that prove creation has a better arguement? NO!! it's entirely misleading. as for his 8th video, i believe, about that arguement he claims that there is actual attractions that make the amino acids, in a sense, want to come together to form a chain just as hydrogen wants to combine with oxygen. he however fails to explains what that force is. is it an ionic force? no, none of the amino acids are ions. it's a peptide bond forming a linear polymer chain. hardly something simple to just "fall in place on it's own."

[Norfolk And Chance]

Do you even understand the numbers you are quoting, and who made that calculation?

PS your atrocious spelling makes me instantly dismiss you.

[Erinome]

PS your atrocious spelling makes me instantly dismiss you.

That's why I gave up!

too stupid to understand evolution + too stupid to use spell check= somebody get him a drool rag, and me a drink.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think a huge ocean is required to house trillions of amino acids? A single 8-ounce cup of water contains 7.9x10^24 molecules. This is why your numbers don't have anything to say about the improbability of abiogenesis. Again, that life is present here (and the form that life has taken) is unsurprising based upon the materials available on this planet. Survival is the surprising bit. When dealing with numbers so large (the amount of potential candidate molecules, the spans of time involved, etc) anything even remotely possible becomes an inevitability. You keep insinuating that we were impossibly lucky in that life arose here. That's a pretty narrow view of life. It's completely untrue on at least two accounts. The first I've just explained. Going further, 99% of everything that has ever lived is extinct. That 99% wasn't lucky at all, and any moment could be our last. Judging by numbers alone; since you seem to feel that they are so important in this discussion, one would expect our light to be extinguished every single day. Yet we remain, for now.

Ending the whole bit with a variant of the "if abiogensis/evolution is true then a monster should jump out of this jar of peanut butter right fucking now!" gambit? Unimpressive. You've been contributing to the "easy arguments against" portion very well. Look at you, doing a disservice to your god by boxing him in with ignorance. Still haven't seen you even attempt to make your own case.