666...the Devils Moving Average

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Are you telling me that after four decades of intense research in alaboratory controlled environment, that this is anything but a ultra low probability event?
More...
are you claiming man knows everything?!? 40 years is (pretty much) NOTHING!!

just because something seems difficult to explain with what we know now does not mean it IS a low probability event!!!

AGREE WITH ME HERE AND YOU WILL BE MOVING FORWARD!!!
 
Quote from Gordon Gekko:


are you claiming man knows everything?!?

just because something seems difficult to explain with what we know now does not mean it IS a low probability event!!!
More...

Following your logic, that man doesn't know everything, then man doesn't know if God exists or not, and therefore the existence of God cannot be categorized as a low probability event.

Just because the experience people have with God are difficult if not impossible to explain to those who have not had those experiences, doesn't make them less probable of being true and factual.

There is no scale to measure them.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:



Following your logic, that man doesn't know everything, then man doesn't know if God exists or not, and therefore the existence of God cannot be categorized as a low probability event.

Just because the experience people have with God are difficult if not impossible to explain to those who have not had those experiences, doesn't make them less probable of being true and factual.

There is no scale to measure them.
More...
as i have stated, i do not claim to know if a god(s) exists or not. however, i DO know that man-made explanations of "god" DO NOT ADD UP.
 
"If they had evolved the survival of the fittest would naturally eliminate these flaws."

Two problems with this statement:

1) Evolution does not REQUIRE that all flaws be naturally eliminated
by survival of the fittest. A "flaw" may not always cause the animals probability of survival to "drop" via survival of the fittest.

2) The animal with the flaw may simply not be far enough
down its evolutionary path to have "ditched" the flaw.
At any point in the evolutionary line, there WILL BE flaws
present which nature is currently "weeding" out.


In any case.... flaws are expected under the evolutionary trial
and error model. But a world chock full of flawed animals
and processes does NOT bode well for a super powerful
all knowing designer who cant even seem to RE-USE some
of his better designs across animals.


"they were created but were given flaws to limit overpopulation then the flaws would seem to keep cropping up which they do."


Hehehe... now your forced to theorize that god is making errors
on PURPOSE :D Something which you can't prove, and something
which makes the creationist argument seem even sillier.

Gee... why doesn't god simply design the animals to regulate
their birth rates, instead of doing something silly like building
in all kinds of cruel flaws which slowly kills them via horrible diseases, et all?? :D

Some animals CHANGE their sex in a single sex environment so
they can procreate. Seems like it would be pretty damn easy
to make animals turn off their sex drive in overcrowded conditions, huh?

Just another can of worms for creationist theory.
Just doesn't make any sense.

peace

axeman











Quote from Doubter:


______________________________________________

If they had evolved the survival of the fittest would naturally eliminate these flaws. If they were created but were given flaws to limit overpopulation then the flaws would seem to keep cropping up which they do.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

"If they had evolved the survival of the fittest would naturally eliminate these flaws."

Two problems with this statement:

1) Evolution does not REQUIRE that all flaws be naturally eliminated
by survival of the fittest. A "flaw" may not always cause the animals probability of survival to "drop" via survival of the fittest.

2) The animal with the flaw may simply not be far enough
down its evolutionary path to have "ditched" the flaw.
At any point in the evolutionary line, there WILL BE flaws
present which nature is currently "weeding" out.


In any case.... flaws are expected under the evolutionary trial
and error model. But a world chock full of flawed animals
and processes does NOT bode well for a super powerful
all knowing designer who cant even seem to RE-USE some
of his better designs across animals.


"they were created but were given flaws to limit overpopulation then the flaws would seem to keep cropping up which they do."


Hehehe... now your forced to theorize the god is making errors
on PURPOSE :D Something which you can't prove, and something
which makes the creationist argument seem even sillier.

Gee... why doesn't god simply design the animals to regulate
their birth rates, instead of doing something silly like building
in all kinds of cruel flaws which slowly kills them via horrible diseases, et all?? :D

Some animals CHANGE their sex in a single sex environment so
they can procreate. Seems like it would be pretty damn easy
to make animals turn off their sex drive in overcrowded conditions, huh?

Just another can of worms for creationist theory.
Just doesn't make any sense.

peace

axeman
More...
Doubter, axeman just OBLITERATED your argument. i mean, it's not even close!! :p
 
"Following your logic, that man doesn't know everything, then man doesn't know if God exists or not, and therefore the existence of God cannot be categorized as a low probability event."

To be more precise, the existence of god cannot be categorized AT ALL using probability.

Same goes for three headed unicorns.


Now I ask you, what kind of person believes in an
entity which has not been proven to exist, and who's
odds of existence cannot even be calculated???

My answer: an irrational one


peace

axeman



Quote from ARogueTrader:



Following your logic, that man doesn't know everything, then man doesn't know if God exists or not, and therefore the existence of God cannot be categorized as a low probability event.

Just because the experience people have with God are difficult if not impossible to explain to those who have not had those experiences, doesn't make them less probable of being true and factual.

There is no scale to measure them.
More...
 
A poor assumption to make on your part.

I was an ex-theist.

I was fooled.


Not anymore.



peace

axeman


Quote from ARogueTrader:



Unsupported by your own personal experiences to be sure.
More...
 
Hehe.... I guess your calling Longshot a fool then :p
The ONLY person on my ignore list on ET.


peace

axeman


Quote from Gordon Gekko:

axeman,

i must give you my highest compliments. you are truly a great thinker and anyone who denies this is a fool! :cool:
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top