Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 86
  1. #1
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982

    Imagine the odds of having no Creator...

    To build a living organism..basic terms. You start with amino acids. They come in 80 different types, but only 20 of them are found in living organisms. The trick then is to isolate only the correct amino acids. Then the right amino acids have to be linked together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. You have to put the right amino acids in the right way to ultimately get biological function. This wouldnt be too hard if there was a Creator purposefully selecting and assembling the amino acids one at a time. But remember this is chemical evolution. It would be unguided by any outside help. And there are a lot of other complicating factors to consider. For instance, other molecules tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other. now you have the problem of how to eliminate these extraneous molecules. then theres another complication: there are an equal number of amino acids that are right- and left-handed, but only left-handed ones work in living matter. (you dont need to understand what these are, just that only left handed ones work). Now youve got to get only these select ones to link together in the right sequence. and you also need the correct kind of chemical bonds, namely peptide bonds, in the correct places in order for protein to be able to fold in a specific three dimensional way, other wise it wont function. so 100 amino acids have to be put together in just the right manner to make a protein molecule, kinda like reaching into a bag of scrabble letters, pulling them out, and without using intelligence, basically blindfolded, set them out at random and getting a full sentence, or even a word, but they have to be square like dice so you can lay them out on any side and upside down and etc. and thats just the first step. creating one protein molecule doesnt mean youve created life..now you have to bring together a collection of protein molecules...about 200 of them, with just the right functions to get a living cell.

    NOW>>> In living systems, guidance thats needed to assemble everything comes from DNA, and DNA works hand in glove with RNA to direct the correct sequencing of amino acids. These are MUCH more complex. synthesis of DNA and RNA has never been successfully done except under highly implausible conditions without any resemblance of those of the early earth.

    If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would one chance in a 10 with 60 zeroes after it!

    Behe has said the probability of linking together just one hunder amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blind folded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the sahara desert, and doing it not just onec, but three different times.

    Sir frederick hoyle said it is about as likely as a tornado whirling through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Given an infinity of time, and an infinite number of chances, not only would it be probable, it would be a given that life would eventually exist. And thats exactly what we have.

  3. #3
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    You can use that excuse about anything. I could be in vegas playing poker, pull out 4 aces every time. And use the excuse that somewhere there is an infinite number of universes and on that universe, i pull out 4 aces every time. Hey look at this, im in that universe!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Excuse = Mathmatical Certainty ?

    Ok...

  5. #5
    3Vandoo's Avatar
    3Vandoo is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Bandit County
    Posts
    4,249
    math certainity = excuses = incertainity = BS = religion = extremist = no advancement = what we have now.

  6. #6
    indica's Avatar
    indica is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Doing something illegal
    Posts
    331
    **** i starded writing a long long input on this and just got tired by it...to
    h ell with it. Ill just say this im right and you are wrong

  7. #7
    Mr. Sparkle's Avatar
    Mr. Sparkle is offline Slinabolic Vet / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Lovin Alba's butt
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Given an infinity of time, and an infinite number of chances, not only would it be probable, it would be a given that life would eventually exist. And thats exactly what we have.
    So youre saying that the reason we exist is just due to a bunch of time, and coincidence?

    All of you scientific, and math people that like the numbers and proof and what not, the odds are just ridiculous...

  8. #8
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Why do we assume that the only kind of life possible is carbon based dna based life Just because we havent observed any other life so far. Remember how smal part of the universe the earth realy is.

    If there can be silica based life ect then the odds gets alot higher for life to appear randomly.

  9. #9
    BigBoi83's Avatar
    BigBoi83 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Given an infinity of time, and an infinite number of chances, not only would it be probable, it would be a given that life would eventually exist. And thats exactly what we have.
    isnt there an estimate as to how long the world has been around? it hasnt been around infintly

  10. #10
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Given an infinity of time, and an infinite number of chances, not only would it be probable, it would be a given that life would eventually exist. And thats exactly what we have.

    how can you assume that the chance of life will occur if the chance of proteins assembling initially on their own without any creator is zero???

    if the probability is zero, it will never happen...

    from the evidence, it looks as though the probability is actually zero... there has never been any proof to show that it would be higher than that.........

  11. #11
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Excuse = Mathmatical Certainty ?

    Ok...

    your assumption excludes mathmatical uncertainties.........

  12. #12
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Given an infinity of time, and an infinite number of chances, not only would it be probable, it would be a given that life would eventually exist. And thats exactly what we have.

    David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought.... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea...." But that entails that since past events are not just ideas in your mind but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

  13. #13
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by EatRite
    your assumption excludes mathmatical uncertainties.........

    Indeed.

    The indeterminacy of quantum physics prevents such predicable theorizing as one would normally get from Newtonian physics......the universe and all things associated with it is not just an algebra equation.

  14. #14
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBoi83
    isnt there an estimate as to how long the world has been around? it hasnt been around infintly

    Dont forget to take into account the gazillions of paralel dimensions that most probably(still not proven though) exists. Not a infinite amount but one for every possible outcome of every event from the begining of the universe. Imagine the amount that must be.

    Uncertanty(sp?) of quantum mechanics doesnt make probability calculations any less valid. I would think its the opposit cause they are the best real word proof that everything will happen given time even if the odds are slim(like quantum tunneling ect. Almost impossible odds but still happens billions of times every second).

  15. #15
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    gazillions of parallel dimensions that have no proof at all...yet you choose to believ in them over God when there is so much supporting evidence. lets use an anology. If the only time we see written information, be it paintings on a cave wall, or a book on amazon.com, is when there is intelligence behind it, wouldnt it be the same for nature? what is encoded in every DNA is purely and simply written information. we use 26 letter alphabet in english, dna uses a 4 letter chemical alphabet whose letters combine in various sequences to form words, sentences, and paragraphs. these comprise all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. they spell out in coded form the instructionsof how a cell makes proteins. it works just the way alphabetical letters sequences do in our language. now when we see written language, we can infer, based on our experience,that it has an intelligent cause. and we can legitimately use analogical reasoning to conclude that the remarkable information sequences in dna also had an intelligent cause. therefore this means life on earth came froma 'who' instead of a 'what'.

  16. #16
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    gazillions of parallel dimensions that have no proof at all...yet you choose to believ in them over God when there is so much supporting evidence. lets use an anology. If the only time we see written information, be it paintings on a cave wall, or a book on amazon.com, is when there is intelligence behind it, wouldnt it be the same for nature? what is encoded in every DNA is purely and simply written information. we use 26 letter alphabet in english, dna uses a 4 letter chemical alphabet whose letters combine in various sequences to form words, sentences, and paragraphs. these comprise all the instructions needed to guide the functioning of the cell. they spell out in coded form the instructionsof how a cell makes proteins. it works just the way alphabetical letters sequences do in our language. now when we see written language, we can infer, based on our experience,that it has an intelligent cause. and we can legitimately use analogical reasoning to conclude that the remarkable information sequences in dna also had an intelligent cause. therefore this means life on earth came froma 'who' instead of a 'what'.

    There are more indications of paralel dimensions then of a god. Right now they are building and experimenting with computers that use parallel dimensions when proccesing information. So according to most physicists they seem pretty sure they exist. When those computers are done we will have the proof

    But a good point about the written code. But the face on mars is a prime example on something that appears to be designed when its a completely random things. As far as I know it isnt IMPOSSIBLE for life to be a random incident. I dont know where my belifes are right now. Im not claiming its impossible for a god to have created life. Im just defending the scientific point of view

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by EatRite
    how can you assume that the chance of life will occur if the chance of proteins assembling initially on their own without any creator is zero???
    Where are you introducing this premise from? I'm not following.

    from the evidence, it looks as though the probability is actually zero... there has never been any proof to show that it would be higher than that.........
    Isn't the existence of the Earth and it's inhabitants proof that the probability is more than zero?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    it works just the way alphabetical letters sequences do in our language. now when we see written language, we can infer, based on our experience,that it has an intelligent cause. and we can legitimately use analogical reasoning to conclude that the remarkable information sequences in dna also had an intelligent cause. therefore this means life on earth came froma 'who' instead of a 'what'.
    By the way, if you're interested, you have just stated a centuries old argument.

    It's called the design argument and was first popularized in it's present-day form by St.Thomas Aquinas, as one of his five proofs, found in "Summa Theologica."

    It was also, incidentally, one of the many arguments Demolished by David Hume in his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion".

  19. #19
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Where are you introducing this premise from? I'm not following.



    Isn't the existence of the Earth and it's inhabitants proof that the probability is more than zero?

    ABSOULUTELY NOT... just because earth exists does not mean that the chances of life evolving on it's own is not zero hooker... ur smarter than that... if in fact a god did create the earth, then the chances may very well be zero...

    im introducing it from the fact that no evidence is given that life can begin without a higher power... there is no evidence or even explanation for how macroevolution turns one species into a nother with different sizes of dna strands and different characteristics, internal and external, so large that the species does not look like itself anymore... the chances are zero in my book until the explanation is given as to why they are not... I'm not saying that simply because you cant prove it means it didnt happen, i'm saying taht simply because you cant even give partial proof as to how these phenomenon occur.... thats why i'm saying the probability is zero... with that said, there is no chance that in an infinite universe with infinite opportunities in my book until you show me that there is a possibility of these.......

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    I don't accept the premise that the probability is zero. I don't see where that comes from.

    Even if evolution is 100% proven to be false, then there is still no proof of a Creator. Disproving Evolution does not prove God.

  21. #21
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    i did not say it proved a god hooker... i said that if you cant even show slight evidence that the prob. is higher than zero, it remains zero until these proofs are shown... i'm not saying that it isnt zero... i'm saying that you cant say it is more than zero without slight proof... until this proof is given it is zero....... and it hasn't been.... so dont count evolution as true until you can explain how it happens...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    It happens to be the most probable theory (which most Scientists accept), when I last checked...

  23. #23
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    so the probability of a god is less than zero is what yo uare telling me???

    some believe that, but i thought u werent biased at all???

    you cant give me one example of how humans are shown to have evolved or how life has been show to have the ability to assimilate on it's own without higher powers..... hooker if it was that easy to find there would be books and all sorts of info on these things simply because many people want to have this info. at their fingertips so that they can discredit creationism (such as yourself)... the problem is that the info does not exist... so you cant make a theory creditable because many people who are educated believe in it... educated under what sense? under our societies standard??? well lots of people under societies standard of educated thought the earth was flat... just because the people who you consider educated believe something does not mean you should credit it... i think bill oreilly would call you a "cool-aid person"

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by EatRite
    so the probability of a god is less than zero is what yo uare telling me???

    some believe that, but i thought u werent biased at all???

    No. I'm not saying that at all. But I still don't think I'm biased.

    hooker if it was that easy to find there would be books and all sorts of info on these things simply because many people want to have this info. at their fingertips so that they can discredit creationism (such as yourself)...
    Without higher powers?

    Creationism doesn't need to be discredited. It's not taught at any credible University.
    Try reading any biology or archeology textbook. You'll certainly find evolution presented as the most viable theory...there will be no mention (at all) of creationism.

    i think bill oreilly would call you a "cool-aid person"
    I don't watch TV, but I understand the reference...it's about cults, right? and followers? Ummm...

    Aren't you in a very large cult, yourself? One that practices genital mutilation (circumcision), believes in trans-substantiation (water into wine and wine into blood), and miracles? Don't you have to listen to some withered, dying, 80-something year old man? Sounds like one of us is in a cult...

    Ha ha...

  25. #25
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    It happens to be the most probable theory (which most Scientists accept), when I last checked...
    Its only so probable, despite that it is the most probable "theory" that is scientifically acceptable......evolution is missing a lot of evidence and many links, it requires the same amount of faith to accept that as probable as it does to believe that God created it all.

    I guess atheism is just a different kind of faith......
    Last edited by UrbanLegend; 03-06-2005 at 11:41 AM.

  26. #26
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    No. I'm not saying that at all. But I still don't think I'm biased.

    you dont "think you are biased"... doesnt sound very sure to me...



    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Without higher powers?
    yes... "without higher powers"........ what this means is that if somebody tries to prove that life can form on it's own... such as a scientist... and they assist in the formation of proteins to prove that proteins can form on their own... which has been done... this does not prove anything because i higher power... the scientist... aided in the formation....

    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Creationism doesn't need to be discredited.

    you are right, it doesnt need to be discredited (i'm not saying it is false), but people want to discredit it... wouldn't you love to have a study or multiple studies right now that prove that we can evolve into other species, or that life can form on it's own without any help??? i'm sure you would... but you don't, and many other people who say creationism is false would also love to have those studies, and they've tried to produce those studies with no avail...... there is no evidence that the chance of life forming on it's own is more than zero........


    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    It's not taught at any credible University.
    Try reading any biology or archeology textbook. You'll certainly find evolution presented as the most viable theory...there will be no mention (at all) of creationism.

    it isnt taught at any "credible" university because it is religious... evolutionism and creationism can both be true by the way... and just because it is taught at univiersities does not make it true hooker... you should know this with that philosophy degree of yours... the perception of the masses can definately be false... for example... you say that religion is false, well 200 years ago, 99% of america was religious... the perception of the american masses was that there was a god... according to you this would make it true??!??!??

    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    I don't watch TV, but I understand the reference...it's about cults, right? and followers? Ummm...

    Aren't you in a very large cult, yourself? One that practices genital mutilation (circumcision), believes in trans-substantiation (water into wine and wine into blood), and miracles? Don't you have to listen to some withered, dying, 80-something year old man? Sounds like one of us is in a cult...

    Ha ha...
    actually it doesnt mean you are in a cult... you should learn what it means before you post something that obsurd... it means that you blindly follow ideology of somebody or some people that may or may not be right... and following evolutionism without providing any proof to me as to how life initially occurs, or how a species mutates from one form to another is blindly following a ideology that may or may not be true..............

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by EatRite
    you dont "think you are biased"... doesnt sound very sure to me...

    Well...clearly, if I am...I can't see it.


    ....
    yes... "without higher powers"........ what this means is that if somebody tries to prove that life can form on it's own... such as a scientist... and they assist in the formation of proteins to prove that proteins can form on their own... which has been done... this does not prove anything because i higher power... the scientist... aided in the formation....
    I think the purpose of that experiment was to see if it was possible. Something akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be at work in any such experiment, of course. We can't have an experiment which shows that something is possible without a higher power (i.e. the scientist performing the experiment) at work.


    you are right, it doesnt need to be discredited (i'm not saying it is false), but people want to discredit it... there is no evidence that the chance of life forming on it's own is more than zero........
    What would be acceptable as evidence? I say that the life on Earth is evidence. Why isn't it?

    But once again, burden of proof comes into play. Nobody has to prove creationism false, because it has not been proven true, or even a viable theory.


    it isnt taught at any "credible" university because it is religious... evolutionism and creationism can both be true by the way...
    If it were a viable theory, it would be taught. Being religious isn't the reason why it isn't taught.
    I don't deny evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive, however.....it's not really an issue on the table right now.

    and just because it is taught at univiersities does not make it true hooker
    ...

    I never said that it did. I simply said that it was the most probable explanation, at present, and as such, is what is taught at the University level.

    actually it doesnt mean you are in a cult... you should learn what it means before you post something that obsurd... it means that you blindly follow ideology of somebody or some people that may or may not be right... blindly following a ideology that may or may not be true..............
    Kool-Aid Person is clearly a reference to the Jonestown Cult, who comitted suicide by ingesting Kool-Aid, at the behest of their leader. Hence the assumption I made wat that it had to do with being in a cult or having a cult-like-mind-set. BLindly following an ideology? Sounds like religion to me.

  28. #28
    BigBoi83's Avatar
    BigBoi83 is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    Its only so probable, despite that it is the most probable "theory" that is scientifically acceptable......evolution is missing a lot of evidence and many links, it requires the same amount of faith to accept that as probable as it does to believe that God created it all.

    I guess atheism is just a different kind of faith......
    good point

  29. #29
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    I think the purpose of that experiment was to see if it was possible. Something akin to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be at work in any such experiment, of course. We can't have an experiment which shows that something is possible without a higher power (i.e. the scientist performing the experiment) at work.
    the higher power can put all of the factors into play and let it sit... possicly shake it upa bit or do whatever would be considered natural... this has been tried and was not successful...


    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    What would be acceptable as evidence? I say that the life on Earth is evidence. Why isn't it?
    i thought u were more intelligent than this hooker... if you assume that evolution is the only possibility of life occuring than yes, we must have evolved... but hooker, this isnt the only option... to discredit every single possibility including the ones we dont know is rather ignorant... and by saying that our existance evidences evolution RATHER THAN ANY OTHER THEORY, IS discrediting every other theory because you are saying that the evidence automatically lies under evolution WITHOUT any proof... THIS PROVES YOUR BIAS... you are under the assumption that our existance can only be explained through evolution...

    would you concede that there could possibly be an option that as humans we cant even fathom, or we have not become that advanced scientifically in order to figure it out or scratch the surface of life???

    if so, you cant give the evidence to evolution becuase it could be evidence of something else... in order for you to say that life evidences evolution, you need to apply some proof that the evidence points to evolution... that is what the whole debate is about, it is about where does the evidence point, and without answering the questions: 1. how does life begin on it's own? 2. how did we begin? and 3. how does one species mutate into another?? and give evidence of this in nature, your theories are no more credible than creationism's theories...

    hooker, you are biased, just accept it or admit it... you support the evolutionist theory.....

    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    But once again, burden of proof comes into play. Nobody has to prove creationism false, because it has not been proven true, or even a viable theory..
    hooker you are making claims yourself that you have not proven to be true... the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim... you say this yourself... well you are saying that we evolved without any proof... if you are making the claim that we evolved, you owe ME some proof... so fork it over bro... i want the proof that we evolved from one speicies to another, i want proof that life can being without any assistance and i want proof OR EVEN A THEORY as to how we began from you... until you do this you are contradicting yourself and thinking very hypocritically...



    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    If it were a viable theory, it would be taught. Being religious isn't the reason why it isn't taught.
    I don't deny evolution and creationism aren't mutually exclusive, however.....it's not really an issue on the table right now.
    are all viable theories taught??? are all theories that are taught viable????




    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Kool-Aid Person is clearly a reference to the Jonestown Cult, who comitted suicide by ingesting Kool-Aid, at the behest of their leader. Hence the assumption I made wat that it had to do with being in a cult or having a cult-like-mind-set. .
    thats exactly what it refers to, however, it is not saying somebody is in a cult though... it is about somebody blindly following an ideology... just like you are blindly following the evolutionist ideology, not showing any proof of how it can happen, and discrediting theories that you are biased against...

    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    BLindly following an ideology? Sounds like religion to me.
    sounds like a bias to me
    Last edited by EatRite; 03-06-2005 at 06:10 PM.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by EatRite


    sounds like a bias to me
    I don't see why a bias is important. Heidegger was basically a Nazi, and spoke often for that party, but his work in philosophy is not considered "bad" or "tainted".

    The same goes for many people....I don't see why a bias I may or may not have is relevant to the arguments I put forth.

    I'll address your other comments when I have time...but honestly, the continued argumentum ad hominem is weak.

  31. #31
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    but honestly, the continued argumentum ad hominem is weak.

    i'm not attacking you... you are biased... your right, it doesnt matter that you are biased, but dont say you aren't biased...

    but since you are biased you cant assume that despite your bias your views are correct... you are saying that the burden of proof lies on creationism... well i'm not saying it is true... i'm saying it makes more sense to me... you are the one discounting it... that is fine... discount it... but if you discount it, based on the reasons you have given... that it is not valid because there is no proof... then you must also discount evolution because there is no proof of this either...

    you cant have your cake and eat it to hooker... either say they are both discredited because there is no proof of either, or say that either one may be true and that you are unsure... dont present your biased viewpoint in an educated all knowing truthful way... you may know about philosophy and enlish and a little about womens studies, but that doesnt mean that your viewpoints are superior to anybody elses... you are the one attacking religious believers in that you are saying that their views are to be discredited and yours are valid when you have no more proof than they do... if your proof is no more valid than theirs is, to say you are right is simply to say that you are superior to them and more knowing than they are... until you present proof of macro evolution, how life initially begins on it's own and how everything began initially you are at a stalemate with creationists... in other words your views are as invalid, discredited, or as useless as theirs are (to you)...

  32. #32
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    I don't see why a bias is important. Heidegger was basically a Nazi, and spoke often for that party, but his work in philosophy is not considered "bad" or "tainted".

    enough with the random philosophers... we all know that your philosophy knowledge is much greater than ours is... this example has no relevance or relation to this topic... i haven't studied him, so that example means nothing to me...

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    My doctor doesn't smoke. I thus assert that he is biased towards non-smoking. Hence his opinion that I shouldn't smoke is biased. What relevance does this have towards his various arguments that I shouldn't smoke (that it causes cancer, etc...)?

    None.

    Its not a very interesting point, or relevant in any way, to argue that someone has a bias, or is a hypocrite, or any other sort of argument against the person. So stop.

  34. #34
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Where are you introducing this premise from? I'm not following.



    Isn't the existence of the Earth and it's inhabitants proof that the probability is more than zero?



    -He is right if mathematicians are correct in stating that 1 chance in 10 to the 50 power is impossibe.
    -Only if you can prove God does not exist.

  35. #35
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    My doctor doesn't smoke. I thus assert that he is biased towards non-smoking. Hence his opinion that I shouldn't smoke is biased. What relevance does this have towards his various arguments that I shouldn't smoke (that it causes cancer, etc...)?

    None.

    Its not a very interesting point, or relevant in any way, to argue that someone has a bias, or is a hypocrite, or any other sort of argument against the person. So stop.

    hooker what you dont understand is that your bias is causing you to discount all other theories and accept your own... you have no proof that your view is any more proven than the others... the reason bias makes a difference is because your bias is causing you to blindly follow an ideology that hasn't been proven just like the rest of the ideologies that you so avidly portray as false...

    you are using our existance as proof of evolution because you are biased towards that theory... if yo uwere biased towards creation you would use it for that... i point out your bias because your bias is the only reason why you think that our existance is evidence of evolution... so yes, it does matter

  36. #36
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    -He is right if mathematicians are correct in stating that 1 chance in 10 to the 50 power is impossibe.
    -Only if you can prove God does not exist.

    reword taht... i cant tell who you're dissagreeing with there?!?!

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by EatRite
    hooker what you dont understand is that your bias is causing you to discount all other theories and accept your own... you have no proof that your view is any more proven than the others... the reason bias makes a difference is because your bias is causing you to blindly follow an ideology that hasn't been proven just like the rest of the ideologies that you so avidly portray as false...

    you are using our existance as proof of evolution because you are biased towards that theory... if yo uwere biased towards creation you would use it for that... i point out your bias because your bias is the only reason why you think that our existance is evidence of evolution... so yes, it does matter
    My bias is that I have accepted (as every credible university in the world has) several pravalent scientific theories. The theory of Relativity and the theory of Evolution are two such theories. My "bias" is that I accept the most sound theories possible. I ask once again, if Evolution is so unproven, why is it taught at every University in the United States? Everyone is wrong at every credible university? Or....?

    Also...I think an atheist (or Deist, or Agnostic...whichever you seem to think I am) loses nothing if God (Christian lets suppose) were proven to exist. A Christian loses much more (emotionally, psychically, etc...)if he were shown that God does not exist. Being atheist/agnostic/deist or whatever is a very small comitment, wheras one in your position (Christian) stands to lose more (everything?) if they are shown to be wrong. Hence...the religious bias is much more damaging due to the stronger emotional investment.

  38. #38
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    My bias is that I have accepted (as every credible university in the world has) several pravalent scientific theories. The theory of Relativity and the theory of Evolution are two such theories. My "bias" is that I accept the most sound theories possible. I ask once again, if Evolution is so unproven, why is it taught at every University in the United States? Everyone is wrong at every credible university? Or....?
    evolution is not taught as THE way life was created in colleges. Its given as a theory. Why is it in all colleges, because it is based on science.

  39. #39
    EatRite's Avatar
    EatRite is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    usa... and proud
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    My bias is that I have accepted (as every credible university in the world has) several pravalent scientific theories. The theory of Relativity and the theory of Evolution are two such theories. My "bias" is that I accept the most sound theories possible. I ask once again, if Evolution is so unproven, why is it taught at every University in the United States? Everyone is wrong at every credible university? Or....? .
    max2ext is right... it is taught as a theory... you are saying it is true...

    again i ask... which you will not answer...

    are all things taught at universities true??? and are all true things taught at univiersities???

    Quote Originally Posted by hooker
    Also...I think an atheist (or Deist, or Agnostic...whichever you seem to think I am) loses nothing if God (Christian lets suppose) were proven to exist. A Christian loses much more (emotionally, psychically, etc...)if he were shown that God does not exist. Being atheist/agnostic/deist or whatever is a very small comitment, wheras one in your position (Christian) stands to lose more (everything?) if they are shown to be wrong. Hence...the religious bias is much more damaging due to the stronger emotional investment.
    this has no relevance to this topic...



    hooker... you are argueing or believing that evolution is accepted as true when it is not... it is believed to be true... just like creationism... neither has more proof than the other does under your standards... you cant discount creationism because there is not sufficient proof (by your standards), and then refuse to discount evolutionary theories because there is also insufficient proof under your standards...

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by EatRite
    max2ext is right... it is taught as a theory... you are saying it is true...

    again i ask... which you will not answer...

    I hvae said several times that it (Evolution) is simply the best theory we have....not that it is 100% proven . In fact, by definition, as I said earlier, theories can not be proven...only disproven.

    are all things taught at universities true??? and are all true things taught at univiersities???
    I haven't said that at all. I said that they are the most probable or likely theories...the best we have so far, anyway.




    hooker... you are argueing or believing that evolution is accepted as true when it is not... it is believed to be true... just like creationism... neither has more proof than the other does under your standards... you cant discount creationism because there is not sufficient proof (by your standards), and then refuse to discount evolutionary theories because there is also insufficient proof under your standards...
    ONce again, I am saying Evolution is the best theory we have...as proof, I simply offer that it is the theory which is taught in Science Classes, and ergo has been subject to the scrutiny of the best minds science has to offer...and their resounding answer is clearly that it is the most probable theory.

    Creationism is in no way credible without faith...and Hence, is not a viable scientific theory. As proof, I offer that not one science textbook presents it as a viable theory.

    If both have equal proof (your words) then why is one accepted and taught everywhere...and the other isn't?

    Even funnier is that at Catholic Universities and Colleges, in their standard Biology and Archeology classes....Evolution is still offered as the best theory...not creationism.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •