Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[jem]

Quote from as678:

This is a matter of biology, not physics.

Given the size of the universe and the tiny amount of matter that is within, it may seem impossible for life to form. Gravity, however, allows matter to form clusters thereby allowing for self replicating molecules. Self replicating molecules by nature their very nature will begin to mutate and very slowly, over hundreds of thousands of generations you get complex self replicating organisms.

Humans are only the product of the giant chemical reaction that is the universe that began X billion years ago.

yes- it seems that is what some of the scientists are saying... but if there was only one universe it would not form into the universe we have based on chance.... its why hawking and the other top guys are pitching the almost infinite universe -- multiverse conjecture.

 

[Ricter]

I still would like to know, if there are indeed objective reasons for Man choosing the scientific worldview over the others, where those reasons are located. Sub-atomic level? Atomic? Molecular? Or... ?

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

Wrong. Like STUpid, you need to understand the wager before making a fool of yourself. Pascal's wager was specifically devised to apply to a Christian God. So it's not the wager that fails, it's your understanding and application that fail.

Christian God or not , it fails for reasons already given.
No rational response, now to Pascal's wager as well as Russell's Teapot . That clearly points toward you who is not understanding them not everyone else.

Just like Ricter, all you guys really have in the end is a snide remark.
You're merely more obnoxious about it.

 

[stu]

Quote from Martinghoul:

No, not at all... With all due respect, you're barking up the wrong tree here.

I am not suggesting that wanting "insurance" is a good reason to have faith. I just find the argument interesting, even though I am not at all a man of faith myself.

I realize from your earlier posts you are not supporting religious faith.

I agree the argument is interesting, but it’s very weak. Pascal discovered some amazing things perhaps that’s why his Wager got some momentum , but it just doesn’t bear scrutiny.

The Christian God is a nasty piece of work so its quite possible it would get very pissed with anyone, especially perhaps those who like to call themselves agnostic, who would buy Pascal’s 'insurance' .

Even if one accepts a possibility of a God, certainly in terms of the Wager, it’s just a likely it will treat people harshly for blindly accepting the existence of it by blind faith.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Christian God or not , it fails for reasons already given.
No rational response, now to Pascal's wager as well as Russell's Teapot . That clearly points toward you who is not understanding them not everyone else.

Just like Ricter, all you guys really have in the end is a snide remark.
You're merely more obnoxious about it.

You started today's tone with your choice adjectives re "meta". If you dish it out, take it.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

I still would like to know, if there are indeed objective reasons for Man choosing the scientific worldview over the others, where those reasons are located. Sub-atomic level? Atomic? Molecular? Or... ?

you raise a good question... but if enough man have a high enough I.Q. is not the scientific world view inevitable.


on a philosophical side note...

are not the two competing world views in life

I am here to serve and love God vs... I am here to be God or be the God of myself?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

you raise a good question... but if enough man have a high enough I.Q. is not the scientific world view inevitable.


on a philosophical side note...

are not the two competing world views in life

I am here to serve and love God vs... I am here to be God or be the God of myself?

Before I answer your first question, I need to know who is making the IQ tests?

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

You started today's tone with your choice adjectives re "meta". If you dish it out, take it.

I put a smiley after it.
Don't be so touchy.

If you make categorical assertions from the dubious use of a word like *meta*, you should expect some fairly vigorous responses.
There is a reasonable argument for meta-data. You have not made one for what would be a supernatural meta-level.

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

you keep asserting illogical crap.
you are being a clown.
These are nobel prize winners... some atheist... trying to explain current science to you... and you refuse to listen.

No, you're just throwing quotes that agree with your point of at me. Nothing more, nothing less. And now childishly calling me names. Really??

I read your quotes. I disagree. Deal with it.

So once again... I ask you to explain how your chaos theory explains the origin of the universe and how it exists today..
and you give me sound bites about randomness. That is the same thing I read in books in the early 90s when I was researching the markets. You are living in the 80s... learn some current science.

I did but your only response is to reject my reasoning out of hand as a "sound bite". What's funny is, you're the one copy and pasting quotes which are essentially "sound bites". At least I'm constructing my own arguments. You just keep referring to scientists and your perception that they all believe in a fine-tuned universe, which by the way, they don't. If anything is fine-tuning the universe, it's evolution and physics.

What you are not getting

There is a difference between not understanding your argument and not agreeing it. Just because someone doesn't agree with your argument (which I'm sure you think is so well-thought out, that everyone just has to agree with you, doesn't mean they don't understand it. So if you could please, cut the "you don't get it" bullshit.

is that most if not all scientists now accept that

I doubt most scientists believe that and honestly, I find it disingenuous for you claim such a thing. I know of plenty of scientists who believe the complete opposite, yet you keep claiming the scientific community are all of a sudden closet creationists or something. (The quotes I post below show your perception of what "most if not all scientists now accept" is naive at best and a flat out lie at worst.

given our current understandings there is no chance random processes could have created this universe if there is only one. No matter how many coin flips you got there was no way this universe would have happened.

There is very likely an infinite number of universes, so given that, you'd be wrong.

When you actually do the research... you will find out about string theory and the multiverse argument to explain the existence of the fine tunings. [/B]

It looks to me like you're the one who needs to do some research.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

I put a smiley after it.

No, you didn't.

Have another look at your first post here today.