Hey you evolutionists...

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Well I look at it like this.
Darwin based most of his work off of an experiment done by Stanley Miller in the 1953

So, you were a biology major and are well versed in natural selection.....yet you don't even understand that the Origin of Species was published in 1859?

Miller attempted to recreate the beginning of the earths atmosphere, and create life. In several days a few amino acids were made. So it worked...
but then about 40 years later, scientists determined that the earths atmosphere didn't contain all the chemicals that Miller had used. They tried the experiment again, and nothing was able to be made.

if you want me to keep going i can....

Victor J. Stenger (I believe) points out that the Miller experiment was actually very helpful. It helps show that there are multiple ways to create amino acids naturally. It's not dependent upon one specific set of circumstances. There's more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak. Which actually damages the religious claim about the difficulty in such an act occurring.

I believe they've been able to create amino acids with conditions much more similar to earth's early atmospheric conditions.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

The bible never says that the earth is 6,000 years old.

The math is done by adding up the geneology stated in the bible.

The bible states that God made the earth in 7 days, which to us could be billions of years.

You can make anything fit into any belief system if you adjust the definitions so that they were consistent with your faith.

who is to bull headed to move his stance.

......

Yea, you've got facts, good, congrats. You can argue until you're blue in the face, its not going to change my opinion,

So, who here is bullheaded? Those following the evidence, or those who blindly believe in stark contradiction to that evidence?

I don't even know where I'm going with this. Guess i'm just sayin that i'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, i'm really trying to help people here.

You should start by trying to help yourself before you start worrying about others. Blind faith based on flawed logic, a lack of sound reasoning and no evidence or empirical support, that also supports poor morals and attempts to destroy and suppress knowledge isn't really helping anyone........

 

[snoopdan 5,000+ posts]

I thought Morgan Freeman was god //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[jujumantb 10+ year member]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/another_edition_of_stupid_crea.php

 

[jujumantb 10+ year member]

The math is done by adding up the geneology stated in the bible.


You can make anything fit into any belief system if you adjust the definitions so that they were consistent with your faith.

......

So, who here is bullheaded? Those following the evidence, or those who blindly believe in stark contradiction to that evidence?

You should start by trying to help yourself before you start worrying about others. Blind faith based on flawed logic, a lack of sound reasoning and no evidence or empirical support, that also supports poor morals and attempts to destroy and suppress knowledge isn't really helping anyone........

OH HAI SQUEAK

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

If God is all powerful, all knowing, and perfect in every way, why should we even thank him and pray to him? If he is already perfect, he wont be gaining anything.
Flip, do you believe in the Big Bang?

I think the big bang is highly possible, given what I have read about astrophysics.

Assumptions that can be confirmed or falsified, either directly or indirectly. Totally different type of assumption.
If Step A is making a false assumption, and Step B is building on the premise of Step A, and neither Step is testable or knowable (or logical), then it is utterly and completely a position of blind faith. That is what your position is.

But you do realize the basic premise of my position is a gamble. I am betting on a stance, not out of faith, but out of speculation. I hope to try to draw a distinction between faith, which requires a degree of conviction, versus speculation.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

But you do realize the basic premise of my position is a gamble. I am betting on a stance, not out of faith, but out of speculation. I hope to try to draw a distinction between faith, which requires a degree of conviction, versus speculation.

What?

You believe in god because there is a pay-off, but you say you`re speculating and have no conviction; how is that belief at all?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

It honestly reads to me like this:

"I don't really believe in god, but I tell people I do because I think god will like that if he exists."

I guess he heard through the grapevine that you believed in him, but luckily is not omniscient enough to know that you don't?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

What?
You believe in god because there is a pay-off, but you say you`re speculating and have no conviction; how is that belief at all?

I am betting that there is a God. My faith is in my ability to correctly forecast events. I never claimed it was the Christian God. That is much too specific.

 

[Alpine4life89 10+ year member]

I don't see how there can be a god though. Out of the 234324548 zillion light years of the universe, you don't think that there is a chance life could be created or planets could form to support life? If there is a god or creator, it has to have a creator, and so on. Why infinitely regress to find creators when you end up with the same conclusion? With this logic, even the first creator of creators had to come from nothing, so why can't the universe have done the same from a spec of dust or something?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

What events are you forecasting and how are you doing so. How have these forecasts told you that the best gamble is to feign belief in god. Or do you recognize that it is a very poor gamble with unknown odds (arguably as likely as any other quality you can assign to god).....

Your argument is getting increasingly non-sensical. Also, I never claimed that you do believe in an Abrahamic god; I just made a point of mentioning how choosing dogma would diminish the odds of winning Pascal`s wager in the traditional sense.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

At best, you are betting that god is omniscient enough to know that you`ve said you believe in god, but not omniscient enough to know that you`re only doing it to hedge your bets. Seems like a really, really dumb gamble to me.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I believe god wants me to destroy all humans.

Just hedging my bets.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

What events are you forecasting and how are you doing so. How have these forecasts told you that the best gamble is to feign belief in god. Or do you recognize that it is a very poor gamble with unknown odds (arguably as likely as any other quality you can assign to god).....
Your argument is getting increasingly non-sensical. Also, I never claimed that you do believe in an Abrahamic god; I just made a point of mentioning how choosing dogma would diminish the odds of winning Pascal`s wager in the traditional sense.

I don't understand this sentence.

At best, you are betting that god is omniscient enough to know that you`ve said you believe in god, but not omniscient enough to know that you`re only doing it to hedge your bets. Seems like a really, really dumb gamble to me.

Best believe I struggle with this as it is, as you say, non-sensical. What I am essentially trying to do is make Pascal's Wager work. I know it doesn't, you know it doesn't. I am doing a very piss-poor job of navigating gray areas to make it somewhat workable. The only way I can do this with any type of effectiveness is from the perspective of the speculator...but even then, as you mentioned, there are many inherent flaws.

The agument makes sense to me on an emotional (and I use that term loosely), but not on a quantitative level. I am not able to perform any of the calculations to even venture to develop a forecasting model. Essentially, it's a guess.

There is no way to know the optimal outcome

There is no way to know the number of possible outcomes

There is no way to measure the distance between optimal and sub-optimal outcomes. (such as, is there is a 2nd place? Is that acceptable?

etc.

There has to be a way to prove that believing in something has a higher payoff than believing in nothing. However, I am uncertain as to if my belief that "believing in something" actually has a real payoff is based on social pressures/propaganda/etc or elsewhere. If I can determine why I believe the first step, "why believing in something has a payoff", I think the rest will fall into place.

I hope this clarifies my position some.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I believe god wants me to destroy all humans.
Just hedging my bets.

Now this makes no sense