The Problem with Christians

[pocaracas]

You know, Esq.... his math may hold up.... but only if we consider the odds of a human being cropping up from a pile of dust in an instant.


And that, as he does point out.... does not happen!

[Esquilax]

You know, Esq.... his math may hold up.... but only if we consider the odds of a human being cropping up from a pile of dust in an instant.


And that, as he does point out.... does not happen!

I've said it before, I'll say it again: every argument against evolution relies on misunderstandings of what evolution even is. In this case, I don't even know what the guy is thinking of, like there's just thousands of proteins weaving themselves into a person from scratch, without countless generations of slowly escalating numbers of protein culminating in human DNA? So evolution is special creation, but god magic somehow isn't?

Ugh. The longer this guy talks, the less accurate his ideas turn out to be.

[AJW333]

Genesis 3 (King James Version)

9  And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10  And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

So god did know where Adam and was forced to call "Olly Olly Oxen Free" and had to query whether Adam had eaten of the forbidden tree.

Also there is;

Genesis 4 (King James Version)

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

(my bold)

Who is "US" ?

One God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[The Atheist]

Genesis 3 (King James Version)

9  And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10  And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

So god did know where Adam and was forced to call "Olly Olly Oxen Free" and had to query whether Adam had eaten of the forbidden tree.

Also there is;

Genesis 4 (King James Version)

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

(my bold)

Who is "US" ?

One God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The "Us" is actually a vestigial trait from when the Genesis story evolved from its polytheistic ancestors.

Ironic, huh?

[Esquilax]

One God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

What are the odds of one entity being three persons, do you think?

[abaris]

One God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So, my favorite subject. Go on and elaborate how that's supposed to work? Even theologians and priests start the wiggly dance when it comes to the actual explanation.

Also, tell me why Jesus' sacrifice isn't null and void, if he's the same god he adresses as father. Omnipotent, omniscient and eternal. Can't die by definition. Apart from the fact that he supposedly died for a sin, he himself as the father persona, invented.

And I'm sure, you also know when the trinity became dogma. I won't spoil it for you, since you're obviously the expert wanting to educate us all.

[IATIA]

They ate from the tree and did not die as god said they would and the serpent said they would not, so god is a fucking liar and the serpent told the truth.

[AJW333]

Which is why randomness isn't the only factor. You've had this explained to you nearly 10^18 times. I think you've demonstrated the worth of your science degree by now. You really should quit before you embarrass yourself further; hell, I think we're all embarrassed for you at this point.

From the Atheist in Chief Prof Richard Dawkins,

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all." http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

According to him, the process of natural selection is completely random. The survival of any given organism may be benefited by certain mutations to the DNA but this is in no way responsible for improving the odds that the next mutation will be beneficial. You still have to have an absurd number of successful mutations to get anywhere.

[abaris]

According to him, the process of natural selection is completely random. The survival of any given organism may be benefited by certain mutations to the DNA but this is in no way responsible for improving the odds that the next mutation will be beneficial. You still have to have an absurd number of successful mutations to get anywhere.

And? Your moot point is?

First, not everyone subscribes to Dawkins just because he's one of the atheist posterboys. Secondly, you - don't know, of course - that especially his earlier thesis are debated within the science community. To know that it would take some actual research, which you're not in the business of doing.

[ApeNotKillApe]

It's not random, it's non-random. Mutation rolls the dice time and time again over millions of years, eventually it will make a lucky roll.