News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Where there is order, there is intelligence.

(Intelligence was necessary to create the order.)

A fine example of this is symmetry.

It is simply mathematically impossible for genetic errors to produce the exact format of ligaments in the feet, legs, hands, arms, not to mention a second eyeball with a second optic nerve, with a second set of optic muscle identical to the first.

To believe this kind of symmetry came from "evolutionary processes" is a practice of faith beyond anything the world has ever seen. To believe the world is flat is far more reasonable.

Hello Russ, still trying to stir up the discussions with wild assertions?

Can you please demonstrate the math?

Including your assumptions for all the things you don't know.

You, of course, realize that math can only model reality, not force it to behave in any particular manner, don't you?

What this means in a nutshell, is that if your model does not tell you what actually happens, then the model is wrong.

Enjoy.

The math is so clearly self evident, that if you cannot see the improbability here, I cannot help you.

Furthermore, I did demonstrate the math in previous posts, but no evolutionist was willing to touch it.

The truth is, error-based processes do not create highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].


Evolution is nothing more than a social control. If you believe in it, you are the controlled.

Thanks Russ.

In other words you don't have a clue where to start with demonstrating this math.

Let's calculate the probability of some random occurrences:

I have two dice, and I throw them several times.

What is the probability that I throw a 7?

Take your time.

Enjoy.

As I said, I have explained this to you before on this very forum.


The math is so clearly self evident, that if you cannot see the improbability here, I cannot help you.

Furthermore, I did demonstrate the math in previous posts, but no evolutionist was willing to touch it.

The truth is, error-based processes do not create highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].


Evolution is nothing more than a social control. If you believe in it, you are the controlled.

Since there are thousands of posts here, it would be nice if you would point to where you showed the probability calculations.


Is this the type of answer that you would give your child if he didn't understand his algebra homework? The least you could do is realize that everyone is not in the same league with you, either mathematically or logically.

And that would be where...exactly?

I suppose this had something to do with the math behind the improbability of producing symetrical self-replicating machines using an error inserting process...but I just don't see it.

This also seems a bit out of kilter for the topic at hand, but I don't have the steel trap logic that you wield so gracefully. Maybe you could make it another thread so we could discuss it in depth and I could understand how controlled I must be.

Thanks Russ,

Actually you have not explained it to me, however that is immaterial (because it is still wrong - we'll get to that if you ever do post the math).

I also notice that you totally completely utterly failed to use your self-evident math to calculate the probability of my throwing a 7 with my two dice.

Is there a problem?

Or is your frequent use of "if you cannot see the (insert random claim of choice), I cannot help you" just a mantra you use to (a) sound like you know something while (b) avoiding showing that you don't know something?

So let's see some math: calculate the probability that I will throw a 7 with my two dice.

Enjoy.

If any of you really believe that the mathematics behind evolution is probable to happen, you are truly blind. I mean that with all due respect.

Any reasonable person knows that the chance of error-mutation creating highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines is astronomically low; virtually impossible.

Nevertheless, it's your faith. If you wish to prove it, then you show the math.

Hi Russ

Any reasonable person knows that the chance of error-mutation creating highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines is astronomically low; virtually impossible.

I agree whole heartedly with this statement Russ. You have hit the nail right on the head. The only problem I have is that I thought we were talking about the theory of evolution. Wasn’t that what we were discussing? Mutation is a vital element but it is just one part. If you wish to talk about cars discussing gudgeon pin’s doesn’t get you very far does it. So how about, in the future, we talk about ToE rather than this cut down straw man which ignores some of the most vital ingredients of the theory. You are aware that Natural selection is a vital component of ToE aren’t you? If not, as your statements in this thread suggest then it’s understandable that you don’t believe ToE could work, without Natural Selection it couldn’t, I agree.

Nevertheless, it's your faith. If you wish to prove it, then you show the math.

I have no faith in ToE, I accept it because the evidence supports it. Before we get into the maths I think we need to get back to basics. Once you understand the vital components of the theory then you can start to appreciate the maths so lets get back to ToE 101.

You need to understand at least the following.

Inheritance
Mutation in all it’s forms
Natural Selection

There are many more ingredients but lets’ start simple. Are you happy that you really understand each of these components of evolution? I’m not asking if you believe in all of this just if you understand what is meant by each of these terms in an evolutionary sense.

If you are happy that you really understand what each of these terms mean and how they fit into an evolutionary framework we’ll move on Russ.

In Reason.

Russell

Even if the odds astronomically low, it would have to happen at some point in time...and it would happen eventually unless the universe is only a very short lived phenomenon and came to an end before this hypothetical event could occur.

If there is any chance at all it could occur...eventually it would occur.

Even chance hasn't got a chance without having meaning/substance existing in the first place. RAZD talks about dice, but the dice he talks about already exists, including the numbers on it.

Try rolling a dice without a number code that doesn't mean anything. The only reason he talks about rolling a 7, is because the numbers that add up to it mean something.

Everything that evolution talks about, even the stuff meddled with in labs by scientists already exists with information. I wonder what scientists could do with chance in a laboratory without it?

Hi Bex

Even chance hasn't got a chance without having meaning/substance existing in the first place.

Substance must exist for chance to have a chance true enough but ‘meaning’!! No! You are confabulating unlike terms here. No meaning is necessary for evolution to occur. Information, raw information, the sort created by matter coalescing out of disorder as a universe expands and cools is all that’s required to enable evolution.

RAZD talks about dice, but the dice he talks about already exists, including the numbers on it.

Try rolling a dice without a number code that doesn't mean anything. The only reason he talks about rolling a 7, is because the numbers that add up to it mean something.

What meaning do the numbers on the dice have without humans? The figures are still there but what do they mean? Just variations in the coloured surface of an oddly shaped bit of matter without us. Meaning is assigned by intelligent beings but the universe and life goes on without intelligent beings, ToE works without intelligent input or meaning though it appears fully capable of creating intelligent beings who can then assign meanings to things around them.

Everything that evolution talks about, even the stuff meddled with in labs by scientists already exists with information. I wonder what scientists could do with chance in a laboratory without it?

Without it there would be no scientist, matter and information must already exist. Meaning is another question, meaning is not required for evolution to occur. Meaning only becomes important once intelligent beings have arisen capable of assigning meaning to things or creating meaning within their own minds which is, in the end, the only place that meaning really ever exists.

All the best Bex.

In Reason

Russell

Hi Bex,

Are you sure? or are you assuming information that you don't know for sure?

I have two dice

(how many sides on each di?)
(what markings are on the faces?)

I throw them several times

(how many times?)
(what do they land on?)
(does anything affect how they land?)

This is a very simple example, but it is completely impossible to calculate the odds of throwing a 7 because you don't know the answers to those questions.

To calculate the odds you have to know all the answers, and thus the problem with calculating "probabilities of life, etc" is that to do it properly you need to know all the answers. You would have to already know how life and molecules etc etc form.

This is why all the calculations by all the creationists and IDologists are completely bogus.

It's very simple.

Enjoy.

Hi Russell,



Hang on, if no meaning is required, then where did information come from in the first place....out of thin air? Did it think itself into existence and then into an ordered code...or did the ordered code evolve as time went on? Somehow shuffling itself until it hit the jackpot? And what is the point of information if there is no meaning? Since information has order to produce anything of meaning/form and we see this in the genetic code and the incredible outcome in the world around us. No computer is of any point unless it has a programme and for a programme, it requires a programmer. The programme doesn't magically come together on its own given chance and random processes. No matter how many times you roll an imaginary dice.

Where did the matter that created information, get it's information from? What is this matter you speak of and what is contained within it that is capable of bringing forth anything, let alone what we observe around us....Whether it took thousands or billions of years still doesn't answer the question.

I assume you can tell us all about this matter and what it contained in order to prove it capable of producing life. And within that life, the ability replicate, procreate and evolve over billions of years into the vast varieties and complex machines we are and observe around us.



Exactly and did the dice roll itself? Already it requires an outside force to start the ball rolling so to speak. Meaning is most definitely assigned by intelligent beings and we are assigned by an even more intelligent being (force). How can you be certain anything you think or say has any point or meaning to it if your origins are in chance? And ultimately, if you came from chance and are heading for a future as worm food, I hardly see why you'd be worried either way. Since your beginning and end have no point....according to your beliefs anyway. How is this in yours or anybody's best interest? Or do you feel that evolution will oneday go beyond such boundaries and you wish to contribute to the future of your fellow human beings, just in case there is a way of delaying their ultimate end as worm food?.... well if/when that day ever comes, sadly you won't know about it. But the worm might.

Hi RAZD,



Where did the dice come from and why are you throwing it? Can it not make itself and throw itself?




So, in order to make such calculations, you've admitted one would need to know ALL the answers.....yet on the next hand you're stating that all the calculations by ALL the creationists and IDologists are completely bogus...

Need I point out the error of this statement and it's absolute contradiction to anybody?

Actually, your weak analogy fails. If we know there are more than one hundred sides on each die, and we know the numbers vary by at least 1 per side, we can confidently say the odds of throwing a 7 are less than one in 10, for example.

You always try to hide evolutionism in what we don't know. But you didn't invent the strategy.
Life forms from life. No big secret.

And men of science do have a lot of knowledge about which atoms combine to form which molecules, which molecules break up, and stuff like that.
Simple indeed, evolutionism is. Mask incredulity behind bogus arguments, and continue believing in the impossible.

Have to wonder about the calculations made by RNA-worlders. They reject other abiogenesis scenarios based upon what? Flawed understanding? And what can be said for their counterparts, the evolutionists who reject the RNA-world story? Are they equally clueless?

This is simply not true and demonstrates how evolution confuses people who don't discern how "chance" accumulates.

Let me demonstrate as concisely as I can.

In order for a beneficial mutation to occur, a certain number has to be rolled on an enormous roulette wheel with millions of numbers—not just once—but time after time.

Remember, you can't have one hand and then simply expect to have all of the necessary mutations form a second hand in perfect symmetry. This is clearly absurd.

Remember, a hand is not just a hand. It is muscles, ligaments, bone, cartridge, nerves, arteries/veins, and much more in intricate design.

This intricate concert of symmetry requires mutation after mutation after mutation, not just in perfect form and proportion, but in the right order.

Now, pile on that the problem of irreducible complexity. There is no way all the steps—even if they could occur—would be beneficial. No chance.

Furthermore, the probability of the sequence of events happening in the right order depletes chance to beyond absurdity.

Then, you have to hope that no destructive mutations take place during the development of some useful part that would destroy it's form, and we all agree that harmful mutations are far, far more abundant than beneficial ones.

Evolution is a mathematical absurdity. You really need to open your eyes and see the big, pink elephant in the room.


"... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179

Thanks Bex,

Let me rephrase that:

All calculations made by people where they don't know all the possibilities cannot properly represent all the possibilities -- by definition. That means that any claims that they represent reality (include all the possibilities) are bogus. You can make assumptions, but then your calculations are only as good as your assumptions, and when reality differs from your calculations (ie show a possibility that was not included in the calculations) then that just shows that the assumptions are false.

I made them, and I'm throwing them out there as an example of how you cannot calculate probabilities without knowing all the possibilities.

Calculations are not reality. Hope that helps.

Enjoy.

Hi Russ

You are correct that mutations could not create an arm, not a chance, well just a very small one but too small to be worthy of consideration.

But then who ever suggested that they could?

Not me.

Not ToE.

What you say would be perfectly reasonable if it weren’t for the fact that you have forgotten or don’t understand what ToE actually says. Mutation provides raw material for Natural Selection to work on. If you take just one part of any theory you’ll find that it doesn’t work, you have to look at the whole picture not cherry pick to build a straw man. Not that you have to build this particular straw man, YEC’s have been presenting it to a gullible public for many years, it’s a sad indightment on your education system that people can’t see through this transparent rubbish.

Lets look at reality and see how improbable evolution really is.

That giant roulette wheel has four numbers on it and it is biased such that more than 99.999% of the time it will turn up the same number as is currently in the DNA.

In order for a beneficial mutation to occur, a certain number has to be rolled on an enormous roulette wheel with millions of numbers—not just once—but time after time.

Well the roulette wheel has four numbers on it and more than 99.999% of the time it turns up the number that is already in the DNA of the parent.

Remember, you can't have one hand and then simply expect to have all of the necessary mutations form a second hand in perfect symmetry. This is clearly absurd.

Though of course this is exactly what happens, we don’t carry DNA for a left hand and a mirror image in DNA for a right hand we carry DNA for a hand and DNA to mirror it left and right. Nature is much smarter than you, it understands how to create mirror images.

Remember, a hand is not just a hand. It is muscles, ligaments, bone, cartridge, nerves, arteries/veins, and much more in intricate design.

Absolutely though of course we see far simpler designs than humans possess working in the real world. Simpler designs are still useful and each increment from the simplest to the modern complex form is useful at least I am unaware of any step in that process that is not useful. That’s all that evolution needs to produce some amazing things. The fossil record documents this and we observed it in the lab in bacterial experiments. Those experiments I explained earlier that you keep ignoring involved the bacteria doing the equivalent of inventing an second stomach which operates on a completely different metabolic system. Not an arm but then bacteria don’t have arms and stomachs are complex enough to demonstrate the power of evolution.

This intricate concert of symmetry requires mutation after mutation after mutation, not just in perfect form and proportion, but in the right order.

Again you ignore or are ignorant of what ToE says. Natural selection will weed out the organisms which get a step wrong. Not that the exact order of the changes is particularly critical. There are some critical paths involved but many are not and natural selection easily deals with the unfit missteps.

Now, pile on that the problem of irreducible complexity. There is no way all the steps—even if they could occur—would be beneficial. No chance.

You’ll have to show me some step in this process that is irreducibly complex. Can you think of one. You’ll be the first if you can but please give it a try. It’s easy to say that there are impossible steps, harder by far to actually find one. Can you do it Russ or is this all hot air and misunderstandings or outright lies?

Furthermore, the probability of the sequence of events happening in the right order depletes chance to beyond absurdity.

Well it would if there was no such thing as natural selection. But you can’t just ignore natural selection. You do know what natural selection is don’t you Russ? Please tell me are you ignorant (no chrime there we are all born that way) or are you a liar? Ignorance we can cure, I’m happy to help there. So which is it?

Then, you have to hope that no destructive mutations take place during the development of some useful part that would destroy it's form, and we all agree that harmful mutations are far, far more abundant than beneficial ones.

Again this is not an issue when you understand that Natural Selection really exists. The missteps will be weeded out and the beneficial mutations will make it into the next generation. Natural selection has a ratcheting effect, a cumulative effect on beneficial mutations no matter how small. You need to understand this to understand ToE.

Evolution is a mathematical absurdity. You really need to open your eyes and see the big, pink elephant in the room.

I agree that you should look at the whole picture, you can’t ignore Natural Selection if you are going to talk about ToE. Are you ignorant of what ToE says or are you a purposeful liar Russ? It’s a pointless waste to have to continually explain the same errors in our posts over and over again Russ. If you don’t know how ToE works ask, we can help. If you do know how it works and purposeful misrepresent it then that’s another problem and I don’t know what we should do about that. It doesn’t say much for your integrity. So which is it Russ, do you actually understand ToE?

In Reason

Russell


—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179

And of course we have to have another miss cited and out of context quotation to close off Russ’s latest missive.

Contrary to the citation the above ‘paragraph’ is made up of sentences from Chapter 6 and Chapter 9 or Origins. These self challenging statements are a feature of Charles Darwin’s writings. Time and again he raises the concerns that he believes others will have with his ideas then goes on in detail to explain why the concerns are unfounded. The same is true of the above quotes where Darwin spends two full chapters explaining in detail why the challenges he raises are not in fact the problems that a naive view of the theory would make them out to be. If you want to read the quotes in context including the detailed rebuttals that were in the original text 150 years ago here are the links.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

You clearly are doing nothing more than attempting to confuse the issue.

People who cannot see that the mathematical probabilities of symmetry occurring through evolutionary processes is absurd, cannot be helped.

A person in this state is holding on so fanatically to their faith that they are unwilling to see what stands just in front of their very eyes.


"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

—Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.

Pardon me Russ, but you appear to be repeating this statement over and over in about three different threads while ignoring what people are saying to you about it. Do you honestly think that if you hammer it hard enough, someone will decide to believe it? (And despite having provided zero evidence anywhere for the assertion?)

It's a self-evident truth. If people need proof, let them study. I have.



Probably more.



The responses have all avoided the subject. It's too hard to counter.





"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, —Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."

—Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

I did enjoy it. You created an anology in an attempt to prove "chance not creation" is responsible, whilst admitting the dice you're throwing required a creator to bring it into existence.

What have you proven? That your idea of chance continues to prove that creative forces are behind everything, including the ideas you come up with in an attempt to "prove" there isn't any.

Thanks Russ,

And yet, curiously, you still have provided no calculations to show the truth of your assertion.

Do you remember your manifesto Russ? You know, where you state that the person who lies instead of debates honestly often ends up resorting to ad hominem attacks on other people instead of debating the topic/s and dealing with the issue/s.

Have a go: I'm throwing two dice several times, so what is the probability that I'll throw a 7?

This is a matter of just two objects joining together to produce a single result, surely it is much much simpler than your probability calculations, and should be a piece of cake.

Do you understand that your failure to make this calculation demonstrates that you cannot do the larger calculation either?

Now, I would venture to guess that you never did the calculation in the first place, but read it somewhere, and it sounded good to you, so you've copied it, and pretended that it is your own calculation instead of telling us who and where it came from.

The simple truth could be as simple as this, and that it sounded good to you because you don't know how to do the calculation, so you don't know how to judge whether it is correct or not.

Enjoy.

Hi Bex,

Are you saying I can control what result happens for every throw? That there is no random toss?

Well then, you should be able to calculate the odds that I would throw a 7. There is no random chance involved according to your conclusion.

Enjoy.

Hi RAZD,

You missed the point of my post. I haven't had to sit here and prove anything, because it's playing out eachtime you attempt to ignore the essential beginnings. You're talking about the results, but ignoring the start and substance. Whatever results you come up with require creative existence in the first place. This is something that you are unable to get past regardless of whatever analogies you come up with next. Everything you're stating keeps going back to existence and information.



Again you missed the entire point. Calculation/guesses/chance still require existing substance and information. What exactly is the REAL dice here that you are discussing that exists by chance, sorts information (by chance)(that it got from chance), into order by chance, to bring forth life and manages to hit the jackpot all by itself with the outcome of laws, order, incredible variety, complex machines, mathematical genius and precision.....

See, no matter what analogy you toy with, start/existence and information are unavoidable and not something you can side step.

Thanks Bex,

Then you also do not need and fake probability calculations based on false assumptions to prove your point.

What you are saying is that there are no random happenings, no free will, everything is determined.

This determinism would also mean that life arising from chemical reactions would also be inevitable without needing creationism to explain it.

Thus it does not, cannot, differentiate between one hypothesis and another. My (Deist) God can be just as responsible as your (or anyone else's) God.

Enjoy.

Good luck, Bex.

The boy can be pretty stubborn about refusing to get the point.

Thanks RAZD,

Still missing the point and now putting words in my mouth. Am I surprised? Is anybody? What are the calculations I have faked? I haven't made any, since I'm well aware that all things arise FROM something, which is logical/observable/repeatable. Yet this is what you seem to be avoiding. Either you have an imaginery dice, or you face reality that you have a created dice. It isn't really going to help solve any analogies, if you continue to to ignore the starting point.

Chemical reactions occur because the chemicals themselves exist....the first problem. However, going further... Where did the chemicals come from? What chemicals were there at that time, and in what combination and how? in order to be responsible for the starting point of the life you claim evolved? If you know this, then it should be repeatable/observable/testable. If you don't know this, then you haven't got any scientific proof to claim it did. Either way, you still have the problem of explaining the existance of those materials/chemicals - which you still can't quite escape.

At any rate, thanks for your last resort admission RAZD. Next time you take a contemptuous potshot or have a giggle over the idea of God, I'll remember your quote and have a giggle of my own. You attributing all this to a mindless act (your god) and me attributing it to an act from power/intellect/knowledge (my God).

I think he is referring to Russ's posts where Russ asserts that probability calculations rule out evolution yet Russ never supplies the calculations nor a link to them.
Not really. Since RAZD is a deist, he can quite well agree that everything came from God making the first thing.
God makes the initial small thing that the universe expands out of.
He allows it to expand.
He allows it to cool and hydrogen to form
He allows stars to coalesce from the hydrogen.
He allows the stars to create heavier elements within them.
He allows the stars to explode.
....
...
He allows the chemicals in the oceans of Earth to form self replicating complex molecules.
He allows life to form.
He allows life to evolve.

From my point of view, I could even concede that God made all those things happen right up to forming the initial chemicals in the oceans with His own hands. This is analogous to the creation of the dice.

So, we have dice made by God. What is the probability that in rolling the dice we will get a 7? This is the calculation that RAZD is referring to.

So, we have chemicals and an ocean made by God. What is the probability that life will form from those chemicals? This is the calculation that Russ seems to be referring to. I am not sure though since Russ won't go any further than saying that the probability is effectively impossible.

This is confusing. What did RAZD say that was contemptuous of you?
Why do you assume that RAZD's version of God is mindless?

Hi Linear,



Could be, but he was quoting me and replying to my specific comments. If he meant someone else on here regarding false calculations, then he needs to state this or address them personally, rather than directing it straight at me as though I gave any (which I didn't).

I had given no calculations about the dice analogy because he needed to answer to me where the "dice" came from. Instead, he tripped and said "I made it". This is the point of my posts. I'm not interested in playing "chance" games with imaginary dice as a way of proving the universe did the same. Because the comparison is ridiculous, when you consider what is required for all these things to come together, work together, start and be sustained. It's miraculous, not an "impressive way it just happened to turn out".

He still can't get past how the dice got there and where it came from. He just wants to keep throwing it and ignoring the fact. If you believe God did it Linear, why would you buy into the "dice throwing analogy"? Do you think God threw a dice with nature and continued to do so, relying instead on nature to come up with the jackpot? Or do you consider that He knew exacty what He was doing because He is God? That all things were lined up specifically for all things to come together and work. Whether you believe in evolution or not, it's hard to believe that you would consider a chance reliant God.



How can anybody possibly believe in a God that relies on chance, if they believe that He created at all? A dice throwing God? You believe in a God that throw dice with nature? I believe in a God that has power over nature and all the elements. Is He not of infinite wisdom? infinite power? Infinite foresight? Infinite and unlimited ability? Without His power and authority, how can any of these things come into existence, let alone sort themselves by chance?

Did he just trust His luck and that perhaps chance will take care of it for Him, since He's obviously not capable of getting it right the first time? Sorry, I don't buy it and if I did, I'd have trouble with the biblical word also. It also doesn't correspond with the God of the bible.



It's not confusing at all. He has given statements in the past that have shown contempt and amusement of anybody who has the idea that "God did it". Which includes yourself. He did not specifically mention the Christian God, he simply mentioned the "god did it" excuse/explanation, which he arrogantly swept to oneside as though it was a bogus excuse used by people who cannot accept 'reality'.

He's done this before in more than one past post and I'm surprised you missed them! So it's rather hypocritical of him to mention any idea of a god/deity now, simply because he's backed into a rather uncomfortable corner. Yet in other posts, a mindless chance random event is really what he wishes to attribute it all to and if you don't believe me, read his posts again. They speak for themselves.

So no, my response to him was apt. He has made fun of the idea of a God being responsible, then why should I not return the compliment on the random chance event that takes God's place? Or do you find that offensive, but RAZD's statements and contempt acceptable?

Thanks Bex,

Russ's calculations are the bogus ones, the fakes, the hoaxes. I did not say they had to be your calculation, just that with your position nobody should need fake calculations.

And chemical reactions do not occur in random ways, instead they only occur within certain patterns and parameters. Any calculation that assumes random chemical reactions is thus bogus, false, fake and a hoax.

Curiously we still have not seen any math from Russ or anyone else to support the contention, all we have are bogus analogies with roulette wheels, analogies that still do not deal with the fact that the argument is likely based entirely on false assumptions.

You created the argument, and if it isn't going the way you designed it then there must be something false in your created {A} means no random {B} argument.

You also miss the point that I agree with you, since I also start with a created universe. Mine created the conditions under which life arose and by which it evolves. By your argument these are not random results but designed ones.

But I don't take contemptuous potshots or giggles over the idea of god, you are either mistaking me for someone else, mistaking someone's false comments about me as truth, or you are mistaking my contempt for the lies of people like CTD and Hovind as contempt for their faith. CTD's misuse of math and his being wrong have nothing to do with his belief in god but everything to do with his obdurate denial of reality and his overweening pride.

See, now you're doing it. When did I say it was a mindless act of my god? This is extremely insulting. Shall we compare how well our gods did their job?

Mine has not had to "fix" his creation ... not once (or twice, or three times ...), so I would call that a very mindful, complete, intelligent design. Would you agree?

My god does not need people to make fake videos full of lies, pretend falsehoods are true, and lie about reality.

My god allows people to understand the truth from the objective evidence of reality, asking only that the intelligence given to you be applied with open minded skepticism.

Do you still think this is mindless?

Enjoy.

Sorry, Bex.

LinearAq has the jist of it.

Why are you so contemptuous of other beliefs. I thought one of the talking points of creationism and IDology was to allow people to look at alternative explanations for how things are the way they are.

What is free will?

So he can design a universe that starts with an inflation from the seed of his mind, and not need to do any fixing or adjusting.

But what if this is boring - why do something when you KNOW how it will come out? Can you play chess with yourself and get excited about the game? What if you introduce just enough chaos into the system that the flap of a butterfly wing in costa rica can cause a hurricane in japan? What if the last directive is "surprise me" ... ?

Yes it is bogus. It does not explain how he did it. How things happen is what we study in science. The excuse that "god did it" just explains why it happened ... at best. Some people try to use it as a "how" explanation, but it doesn't tell you how.

Nope. What I objected to was using an excuse instead of dealing with the issue. How did the Grand Canyon form? God did it. Okay ... now that we have established that ... did he do it by creating a world wide flood or by creating a world that undergoes geological changes over geological time frames?

The latter is what the evidence says is how the Grand Canyon formed. Capice?

"God did it" will explain why life formed, but it will not explain how life formed, how those molecules came together according to the laws of chemisty ... (who's laws?) ...

Enjoy.

RAZD: But what if this is boring - why do something when you KNOW how it will come out? Can you play chess with yourself and get excited about the game? What if you introduce just enough chaos into the system that the flap of a butterfly wing in costa rica can cause a hurricane in japan? What if the last directive is "surprise me" ... ?

Jeanie: You've let me down here RAZD.....

Hey Jeanie,

Sorry to disappoint.

Are you saying that an all powerful etc etc etc god is incapable of designing a system where he can predict a general trend result but cannot predict a precise result?

Can a god create another god that is his equal? His better?

There are many interesting philosophical questions eh?

Enjoy.

Hi RAZD,



Whatever calculations you discuss with Russ or CTD, were not with myself. Please in future, address those particular arguments with the people making them. It makes it a lot easier.



The indepth studies, mathematically and chemically are not my field. I would require time and study to be able to start a more informed debate with you. My arguments are coming from a layperson's position, but also from observation and faith too. Surely a layperson can also ask questions and argue from a standpoint of design? Since your arguments here do not necessarily cancel that either. I simply don't believe or agree that in random chance having a role in this.



I didn't design the argument. I asked you to consider the dice itself, which moved your argument into an area you evidentally didn't want to go.

Interesting that you believe in a created universe RAZD. I must say, that has really surprised me.....

So you feel that the source of that power that you have admitted here is responsible for giving the beginnings of the universe? If it created the conditions, it would also have required the materials for the conditions do anything with. Can any conditions bring forth non existence into existence? So the raw materials at the very least were required. In fact, we cannot really fathom what must have been required for such wonders, as we are always learning more and are limited in our understanding. How do you explain the animation of life itself? The breathe of life, by a process, rather than reflecting the author/animator/artist's genius? I admire the creation around me and at times am in awe of it and can't help but think of the genius behind it.


RAZD, this has NOTHING to do with CTD, or your debates and issues with him. I clearly recall you using contemptuous, though short statements regarding the "god did it" explanation (as I remember you referred to it) towards creationists. Perhaps this means I have the unfortunate task of having to hunt a needle in a haystack to retrieve them? It's times like this where one wishes they had saved such comments. If on the off chance I happen to be mistaken, then I apologise to you. However, it keeps ringing back to me that you said this more than once on here and I cannot remember Linda, Pwcca, or Linear or anybody else stating it but yourself.




Well, I said that to you because I understood from the past that my postion was a joke to you (believing that a designer was responsible). I may have misjudged you? But don't you think something is missing when you make a sudden, rather profound statement like this, yet the material in your posts have never reflected this to me or even hinted at such? The fruits of a person's beliefs would not be lost in the material of their posts and yours seem to have done this. Now, I don't expect them to be full of religious sentiment, but I would have expected "something". You sure fooled me!

It seems that the god you believe in, sounds pretty similar to mine...so I'm confused by the list. Though the God I believe in, is not made in our image and doesn't conform to human ideals, rather He is what He is. He's not a playdough God, though often people do try to put words in His mouth or say all kinds of things that misportray Him.

God does not need, nor want false videos or books to be made, nor propogated and the idea that He would endorse such a thing (as you've insinuated) is completely contradictory to the nature of God and makes a mockery of Him and believers. Since lying is a sin and one in which God despises. So may I ask you to please quit mispresenting Him because you're trying to hit back at creationists on here? Even those who proclaim to be on His side of the fence will not please Him if they are being deceptive either (just as much as the ones on your side of the fence doing the same wouldn't). I hardly think that you are in a position to pretend He WOULD rely on or wish for that. Again, this is arrogant and incorrect.

The God I believe in, doesn't require rolling a dice in nature, hoping to hit the jackpot. He doesn't require or rely on a process to effect the outcome He desires, because He's outside of it and has complete authority over nature and the elements (He made them). He spoke and it was. He had authority over His creation, He isn't controlled by it. He is also (Thankfully) not limited by the limits many of His creatures attempt to set on Him. Nor altered by such judgements RAZD, whether you assign a certain weakness or personality to Him or not. Does He simply trust His luck with nature? Or is He an authority over it? Depends I guess what people believe about the nature of God.

AS for the rest of your statements? How could I not agree? A God given brain/intellect and gifts should be used and to not do so, to my mind is in a sense, quite sinful. Study/science is not feared by our God, since He is responsible for it! Since the bible tells us that the evidence is there "so they are without excuse". The limitations or falsehoods of anybody also do not change the reality of God. In fact, us humans have a great deal of trouble understanding Him.

Your god is better than my God? Well for me? that is impossible. Since I believe in ONE true God, not many gods/deities all competing with one-another. So for me, when you speak of this power/force/god, I consider that perhaps we are speaking of the same One? And would such a God be affected by the trival "mine is better than yours" debates? Probably not in the way we imagine!

At any rate RAZD. I did not set out to falsey accuse you. I sincerely have the memory of you stating what i said you had stated, however without the quote? I must give the person the benefit of the doubt and apologise to you if I have been incorrect.

Cheers!

Hey Jeanie,

Quote:You've let me down here RAZD.....

Sorry to disappoint.

Are you saying that an all powerful etc etc etc god is incapable of designing a system where he can predict a general trend result but cannot predict a precise result?

Can a god create another god that is his equal? His better?

There are many interesting philosophical questions eh?

Enjoy.

Jeanie: RAZD, I just read a site on Deism so understand now more how you see things at least pertaining to that...if you are a serious deist which, by what you say, does indicate. It isn't that which disappointed me, it was the conception of God which you threw out about God using us like chess pieces in a game. IMO, your viewpoint is limited in that you leave our purpose here out of the equation. We are not an experiment..... But we are here to have a chance to prove ourselves. Those of us who do believe in the Bible and or revealed religion are, to me, trying to stay true to who we were in the spirit world. We are trying to, in other words, listen to our spirits which remember part of the plan we were taught in our pre-earth lives. Everyone on this earth chose to go along with Jesus Christ's plan instead of lucifer's in the pre-existence. I'm the only Mormon on here, so I take it further, but also in my opinion, those who are limiting God (even in the sense you think) ARE run somewhat by fear. But "my" God is not playing games with lives. I believe in free agency and that certain things are allowed to play themselves out....but not to the extent you think. And God's plan was not a roll of the dice with things he knew would/could evolve. It was deliberate. He caused it to happen as he willed and commanded it to because the elements obey him.

RAZD: Mine has not had to "fix" his creation ... not once (or twice, or three times ...), so I would call that a very mindful, complete, intelligent design.

Jeanie: Actually even these events are deliberate and serve a purpose. The earth was baptized when the flood ocurred. Not sure what other event you are referring to, but it will also be cleansed by fire before the millenial reign when Jesus Christ will rule and reign for 1000 years and satan will be bound. That is also representative of the earth itself receiving the holy ghost in a way....or the earth's sanctification. The earth will, after the millenium, again receive its paradiasical glory....

The God you believe in already knows the outcome of the dice roll, but He may roll the dice all the same.
He rolls the dice by allowing you to determine where your very soul will reside in eternity. He doesn't make Himself visible to everyone nor does He manipulate things so everyone will believe in His existence. We are told we are the pinacle of His creation, in His image yet He does less to turn us to the right belief than you do to your child to guide them to right behavior. Would you allow your 2-year-old to run out into a busy street? Probably not...but God allows us to effectively do just that.

The Bible says He loves us more than we love ourselves yet He allows us to choose hell. Wouldn't you call that rolling the dice?

Also, I think you have it wrong in your thinking that RAZD believes your God wants people to lie for Him. RAZD said that to point out that the people putting out the false information/videos are not actually serving your God...even if they think they are.

Thanks Jeanie, and Bex.

No, the point is that we do not know the mind of god, cannot know the mind of god (or we would be gods).

Yet that sounds like an experiment to me, treating people as game pieces between two factions that are part of the same design.

That also does not mean that it is a game. It's just another way of looking at things. Different words have different overtones, like musical notes, that can be harmonious or disharmonious in different situations.

The word evolution - just the word - is enough to set off disharmonious feelings in some creationists, yet it is part of the supreme harmony of nature to a naturalist.

Russ and CTD have introduced the concept of games by talking about probabilities and roulette wheels. My example of dice is much more realistic because there are whole areas that are unknown: is there some factor that makes the dice land one side up no matter how many times it is tossed? It could be in the design of the dice, or it could be in the way the environment that the dice lands in is designed. It is also easy to "fix" roulette wheels so that they always end up on the same number, no matter how many spins you use.

Name any probability you want, from 0 < p < 1, and I can design the dice to replicate it. Does that mean that the dice represent reality? Not when you can have an infinite variety of dice and no way of telling which is representative of reality.

Likewise the calculation of probability deals with many unknowns, and any result is based on assumption. By changing those assumptions one can change the calculated result in much the same way that the dice can be made to fit the probability.

For instance, we can calculate the probability of throwing 100 normal six sided balanced dice with the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on them onto a flat smooth surface, such that each di has an equal probability of landing on a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 (thus ruling out random interference and bias in the tosses).

How many throws will it take for them to all be 6's?

Well if we assume that they are always thrown all together, the probability of one toss being all 6's is 1 in 6^100 = 6.533x10^77 so on average it would take 6.533x10^77 tosses (although it could happen on the first toss or not happen for twice that many tosses).

However, if we assume that 6's are selected and kept after each toss while tossing the remainders, then on the first toss we will likely have 100/6 = 16.7 ... 16 or 17 with 6's (on average, we'll round down so that this results in a larger number of tosses). On the second toss we will likely have (100-16)/6 = 14 with 6's, on the third toss we will likely have (100-16-14)/6 = 11 with 6's, ... and after nineteen tosses we are down to 5 dice that have not yet landed on a six. The likelyhood of getting a 6 on the next toss is 5/6, or just less than 1, so if we continue to round down for our selection process

Now just to throw some random non-selection into the picture we can say these 5 have to be tossed until they all land on 6's. The probability of this is 1 in 6^5 = 1/7776, or 7776 tosses on average. This plus 19 = 7795 tosses. so in less than 8,000 tosses we have accomplished the same result as the first example where it took 6.533x10^77.

If we don't round down, but assume we can use fractional dice to represent the remainder we end up with 1 di after 27 throws, and we can assume a maximum of 6 throws to get a 6: the result is 33 throws.

Rather a remarkable difference, caused by just a little selection.

Obviously with this range of possible results for calculating probability with just two different assumptions, it should be clear that any calculation where assumptions are used can be vastly different depending on the assumptions alone. I don't even need to discuss how the math can be wrong.

So you believe god is using "loaded" dice? We can use the same argument for evolution, that it is not a random process, but one that is "loaded" by selection. And we can make the same argument for abiogenesis, that the formation of life from chemicals is "loaded" by the chemicals being naturally available and the laws of chemistry on how molecules combine non-randomly.

Free will means there are random choices that can be made.

We know that there are random cause and effect system - ones that have different results at different times from the same inputs.

We know that there are chaotic systems, where small changes in initial conditions can result in large and unpredictable results.

According to Bex, and I agree, if these things exist in reality, then they are part of the design of reality.

Well, I take a larger view. I think god became the universe, and during the inflation period set the natural laws in process that would govern the behavior of energy and matter (oneness and duality) and the interplay between intelligence/spirit against the rise of entropy (another oneness and duality). That at the end of time, when entropic death of the universe occurs, that god will be reformed, reborn, from the ever increasing spirit. All the different faiths are just alternate paths to the same end. Abiogenesis and evolution are just ways for life to evolve and raise intelligence\spirit. At the bottom of the mountain there are many paths, at the top only one. Don't mistake the path for the top?

Curiously this gets back to my earlier questions: can a god make another god? can a god make a better god? I think the answer is yes, what is yours?

Enjoy.

Hey LinearAq,

Anyone who feels that their belief justifies lying does not believe in truth. It is not god but the person who is false.

Likewise the evidence of reality, is there to test beliefs, to sort out valid beliefs from false ones.

The evidence shows that the earth is not flat: belief (hindu, fec, whatever) that the earth is flat is false, not god.

The evidence shows that the earth is not the center of the universe around which all revolves: belief (the church prosecuting Galileo) in a geo-centric earth is false, not god.

The evidence shows that the earth is 4.55 billion years old (or 20% older with CTD math, but we can be conservative and say at least 4.55 billion years old): belief (yec, yej, yem, etc) that the earth is young is false: not god.

The evidence shows that life on earth is 3.5 billion years old ((or 20% older with CTD math, but we can be conservative and say at least 3.5 billion years old): belief (whoever) that life is not that old is false, not god.

The evidence shows that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and the diversity caused by reproductive isolation of populations - is an on-going fact of life: belief that this contradicts god is false, not god.

The evidence left in fossils and rocks that life has evolved from early single cell life to multicellular life to intelligent environment manipulating life: belief that this contradicts god is false, not god.

People that disagree with the evidence and say and repeat falsehoods instead of dealing honestly with the evidence ...
They are lost on the mountain. Whether they tell falsehoods about the Grand Canyon or misuse math is irrelevant to the fact that they are not dealing with reality.

That's the way I see it.

Enjoy.

Linear:
The God you believe in already knows the outcome of the dice roll, but He may roll the dice all the same.

Jeanie: This allows for freedom of choice. Sure, His perspective is beyond our understanding because he is an eternal being. We are, too, (eternal), actually, but these bodies and minds are not. He can see things in time including the future because its all present with him. Tricky to understand....

Linear: He rolls the dice by allowing you to determine where your very soul will reside in eternity.

Jeanie: Yep, he does. He leaves it up to us. lucifer's idea was that he would get us all back and force us to believe. Would you have it that way?

Linear: He doesn't make Himself visible to everyone nor does He manipulate things so everyone will believe in His existence.

Jeanie: God will reveal himself to anyone who seeks him out. He WANTS us to know him, the true and living God. In saying that, I'm referring to Jesus Christ even though I believe our Father in Heaven and He are distinct beings. But God the Father has also appeared a few times in the history of the earth. Since Christ's time, though, he has only appeared or been heard to introduce Jesus as His son. He is not going to reveal him to someone who is pretty much daring him, however. He gives people what they can handle in my opinion.

Linear: We are told we are the pinacle of His creation, in His image yet He does less to turn us to the right belief than you do to your child to guide them to right behavior. Would you allow your 2-year-old to run out into a busy street? Probably not...but God allows us to effectively do just that.

Jeanie: I have to admit, there have been times in my life I have thought that if God were as portrayed by some Christian religions, I would want no part. Example: My father died an alcoholic at 38 years old. He lost his father when he was only 9 and his mother when he was 11. He was raised the rest of that time by older siblings (he was youngest of 11) who pretty much treated him as a nuisance. They signed him up (or agreed to let him) in the Army when he was 17. By the time he was 19 he was dealing with things in Korea that only those who have been in combat can comprehend. In fact, he was in the famous Pork Chop Hill battle and earned 2 bronze stars for going behind enemy lines to try to get help when they were surrounded. When he died he was a fireman. He was a hero. But he was also an alcoholic. My sister and brother had both been mad at him before he died. No one expected it. He was only 38.... He had a massive coronary occlusion right at home. We lived across the street from the hospital (small town) but when the orderlies ran over and tried to save him he was too far gone. I was standing in the doorway at 12 watching it all. My mother and I during this period had made the conscious decision to forgive him..... I was younger. I don't hold myself above my siblings for that because they were typical teenagers and I wasn't quite there yet with the adolscent attitude. I was still as sweet as I look in the picture : ) However.... lol. Anyway, I entered those years with no help. No guidance. My mom worked the 2 pm to 10 pm shift. So I understand your point. When my dad died, my sister actually believed he was going to burn in hell because he had not been saved before dying. Does this sound fair to you? It didn't to me. My dad was a good man. Since then my sister has become a little more "progressive" and has realized it is not her place to judge or condemn or decide how my dad will be judged. We parted ways for years due to that disagreement and the fact that I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is the only church that has all the answers, though. All the puzzle pieces fit. My experience with other churches was very similar to the song by Mott the Hoople, (a British band - one of the bass players, I think, (Mick Ralphs) was also in Bad Company a GREAT band), "Hymn for the Dudes." Please forgive the corn, but its a great song from the Vietnam era. Vietnam is, actually, a bit before my time, but it was over the year my dad died or right after. I did grow up with it. My husband had a draft card, too, but never went cause he was the sole surviving son. Allow me to quote:

God ain't jive
For I can see his love
As it runs, alive
One by one
through fields of rusted wire
the war has just begun

Oh - cross over shame
like the wise dove
who cares not for fame
just for shy love
and rejoice, for the king
ain't lost his throne, oh, no
He's still here,
You are not alone.

Correct your heads
For theres a new song rising
High above the waves
Go write your time
Go sing it on the streets
Go tell the world that you go brave

Oh my, sweet instant Christian
You're such a...sly clown
too many questions, no replies, now
Uh rejoice, for the King aint lost his throne
oh no - he's still here - and you are not alone

Got an idea, go tell the superstar
all his hairs are turning gray
star spangled fear
as all the people disappear
the limelight fades away
cause if you think you are a star
for so long, they'll come from near and far
and you'll forget just who you are
You ain't the nazz
You're just a buzz, some kind of temporary

AWESOME GUITAR SOLO

CROSS OVER SHAME LIKE THE WHITE DOVE
WHO CARES NOT FOR FAME
JUST FOR SHY LOVE
OH MY - MY SWEET INSTANT CHRISTIAN
YOU ARE SUCH A SLY CLOWN
TOO MANY QUESTIONS
NO REPLIES NOW
AND REJOICE FOR THE KING AIN'T LOST HIS THRONE
HE'S STILL HERE
YOU ARE NOT ALONE
YOU ARE NOT ALONE

Sorry, got kind of passionate there : ) LOL (You tube them....can't find Hymn for the Dudes, but love them). My husband is an old rocker.... He's had all manner of experiences in the music business of which I've experienced only a taste. I kind of helped him transition from that life.... He's as good as Jeff Beck...or any of the greats, actually. He's known as a great within some circles or by anyone who knew him then. He was in the big time. He's actually better than ever. Its a shame, but probably saved his life getting out of that business. Still frustrating for him, though... He's SO GOOD. (I miss him right now, he's touring in FL).

Sorry, got off on a tangent. Linear, I meant to say that even though, yes, we are allowed to make some serious boo boos and get hurt, there is always a way back. And I believe from God's perspective (which is eternal) things that seem so profoundly traumatic here on earth are not as devastating as they may seem. We can repent from mistakes and when things do happen to us - like trauma or even the consequences of sin outside our control, no one will be denied any opportunities and the hurts will be healed. We have to allow for that, obviously, though.

RAZD: dice....

Jeanie: What are you talking about? Sorry, but I can't follow your reasoning with all the game stuff. : ) I'd have to copy your whole post to try to reply, but don't get your point. You do throw in a lot of intellectual tap dancing, it seems.

RAZD: Well, I take a larger view. I think god became the universe, and during the inflation period set the natural laws in process that would govern the behavior of energy and matter (oneness and duality) and the interplay between intelligence/spirit against the rise of entropy (another oneness and duality). That at the end of time, when entropic death of the universe occurs, that god will be reformed, reborn, from the ever increasing spirit. All the different faiths are just alternate paths to the same end. Abiogenesis and evolution are just ways for life to evolve and raise intelligence\spirit. At the bottom of the mountain there are many paths, at the top only one. Don't mistake the path for the top?

Jeanie: I see God as a literal being with an immortal body who's image we are created in. And he has been seen to know this. He DOES reveal himself and we can know his mind...to a degree at least.

RAZD: Curiously this gets back to my earlier questions: can a god make another god?

Jeanie: Well, technically that is what we as humans are capable of becoming. Not in this life, but the choices we make determine whether we will have that opportunity for eternal progression in the eternities (after this earth is changed when the judgment comes and our test is over and everyone is resurrected). In a way what you are saying is making sense but sounds more like the pre-mortal life which I barely understand cause I don't remember it with my finite mind cause this body/mind was not there. Only my spirit was.

RAZD: can a god make a better god? I think the answer is yes, what is yours?

Jeanie: We can progress to become like Him...like I said, certainly not in this life. He will always be our God, though. In our eternal family....He will always be our Father and Jesus Christ our Savior and God.




RAZD:

Hi Linear,



Sorry linear, this makes little sense. To give free will and allow for a choice is not rolling a dice. Do you think we roll a dice to see if we should be good or bad? Or do you think we make a decision with the God given mind/intellect/conscience/knowledge? Rolling a dice and relying on the outcome of that/chance to decide for me cannot even be compared with using my mind/reason and faith.

I don't believe God rolls any "dice", but I do believe that He allows for situations to develop according to decisions we have made, OR others have made. That outcome maybe a very tough lesson and suffering for those who deserve it, or a grave suffering for those who do not. Perhaps we are talking about the same thing, but using an analogy neither of agree upon? God doesn't abandon any of His creatures and is always with us, but life is a test of faith and often a tough journey for most of us. One only has to look at the life of Christ. An example of everybody, even those suffering the worst afflictions that there is hope in Him and the ressurrection.

And aside from the dice analogy/chance, I agree with your post. To allow choice is not rolling a dice. For us to choose either Heaven or Hell is not God rolling a dice and allowing the dice to choose or us to rely on chance to decide our "destiny". Our minds are not dice, our souls are not dice. They were intentionally and wonderfully made! It comes down to an intentional decision on our part that decides our destiny, not a chance roll of a dice. And I cannot imagine why you would assume a God that would do this? Why would He die a cruel death on a cross as a sacrifice for us, if it was all about dice and chance? This invitation requires an intentional decision to decide for Christ or against Him. No chance involved here.

And that is what God has given to each one of His creatures. It is a great pity that evil entered the world to test us and tempt us, but God hasn't simply left it to a game of dice. He has given us an instruction manual, a conscience, a mind and faith (should we ask for it) and the ability to pray and trust and walk the walk (whether our lives are short, or long). The Holy Spirit is involved in each one of our lives and the intercession of God occurs daily, perhaps without notice, though at times it's clear. There are miraculous occurances and interventions and so-called coincidences Linear that have and do occur. This is what makes our God a personal God, instead of a god that sits back indifferently and plays with dice and watches us do the same. THe dice decides then eh? Not us?

If that's the case, then why bother making a decision for God, since chance decides. Sorry, but I don't roll any dice in regards to my life with God. I make decisions and those decisions will affect my state in eternity. Whether I choose to sin, or choose to reject it again is up to me. No dice involved there.

Perhaps saying that God is relying on chance is overstating it a bit. Since God is omniscient, He knew the decisions that nonbelievers would make. With that knowledge, He made them anyway, to be sent to Hell. OK.

Perhaps, but if God is not relying on chance then he is purposely making people to fuel the lake of fire.
He knows exactly what level of evidence will convince each person of His existence and the need to follow Christ, but He doesn't produce that evidence for those people when He could easily do so.
The Bible says that God wants all to come to Him and it also states that most will not.
If God is not allowing chance to work in this most crucial of decisions then He must want people to burn in Hell despite what the Bible says are His desires.

How is it a test of the faith of a Muslim to allow him to continue believing in Islam? Testing of faith only occurs after a conversion.

Requiring a decision without providing evidence of the choices is still making the person guess that one decision is better than another.

You write as if it was a surprise to God that "evil entered the world".

On second thought, you're right! God doesn't take chances with our souls, their eternal destiny is decided when He forms them at our conception. I'm just glad He wanted mine to go to heaven. Now I don't have to feel sorry for all those people that don't make it...it was God's will.


Ok

"For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?"
(Romans 11:21-24)




God gives freewill, but He indeed knows the outcome.

The decisions we make are being observed by the "heavenly host", and in effect, God is justifying Himself in their eyes by showing them how deranged we are and how merciful He is.

The important thing for us is to make the right decision. Just because God knows what it will be does not make Him evil.



A muslum continues to believe in a false man-made religion. It is his responsibility to see the errors and illogic in that world-view (same applied to evolution) and then have the faith to make a personal change.

When we were all children, we all believed things that were false at one time or another. It's our responsibility to change toward truth.

If we are not exposed to truth, God may judge us according to our conscience (this is debatable). This is why a judgement is necessary, because a myriad of conditions exists that put each person into diverse situations.

If we all had equal access and exposure to the same information, there would be no need for judgement. The separation of goats from sheep would be a pretty black and white operation.

But God is fair and just and merciful, and if we really desire truth, we will find it. The problem with most people is that they say they desire truth, but inwardly, they really don't.



Their eternal destiny is not decided. It is known by God. The person makes the decision. There is a big difference.

Hi Bex

Hang on, if no meaning is required, then where did information come from in the first place....out of thin air?

You have to be very careful when you talk about this not to confabulate meaning and information. Information is just ordered matter/energy, put three atoms together in a particular arrangement and you have information in its raw form and we know how this forms by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) in an expanding universe.

Meaning on the other hand is assigned by minds to the information in the universe. Without minds there is no meaning but there is still information unless you subscribe to the view that the tree falling unobserved in the forest makes no sound.

Did it think itself into existence and then into an ordered code

See that’s where confabulating meaning and information will get you. Thinking is about minds and there is no evidence that there were minds in the early universe. If you can slip minds in there without anyone noticing you can suggest that the universe must have been created as minds are necessary but we have no reason to believe that minds are necessary. Order and information are necessary but not minds. Minds are necessary for us to have this discussion but they came much later than the universe and life as far as we can tell.

...or did the ordered code evolve as time went on? Somehow shuffling itself until it hit the jackpot?

As far as we can tell that’s about it. The simplest self replicators are very simple indeed so the odds aren’t very long. And let’s not forget, if we take the gambolling analogy a bit further, that there were literally hundreds of trillions of gamblers playing millions of games per second. The earth is a very big place with lots of chemicals reacting so one of them was bound to ‘hit the jackpot’ given only a little time. The fossil evidence shows that it happened very quickly on earth and probably happened more than once as the earth was sterilized after life first arose by stellar impacts more than once.

And what is the point of information if there is no meaning?

Does it have to have a point? Does information cese to exist if we are not observing it? Are we back to the silent tree falls in the forest Bex?

No computer is of any point unless it has a programme and for a programme, it requires a programmer. The programme doesn't magically come together on its own given chance and random processes. No matter how many times you roll an imaginary dice.

Actually we have computers that can program themselves using evolutionary algorithms. They are very efficient at it too. Many of the programs they produce are smaller and faster than human programmers could achieve. It’s a fascinating field.

But of course we are not talking about computers are we. Life does not require a programmer, the environment programs life. Those organisms who can do those who can’t die exactly the same way that those computer programs I mentioned above work. Self replication is all that is required and the rest is up to evolution. Random chance plays a part the natural selection, which is a lawful process, is the real driver of evolutionary change. Dispite Russ T’s ignoring it Natural Selection has been observed, it does exist and it does work. Once replication exists ‘benficial’ changes accumulate and ‘detrimental’ ones are removed from the environment just as ToE suggests.

Where did the matter that created information, get it's information from?

2LoT in an expanding universe as I explained earlier.

What is this matter you speak of and what is contained within it that is capable of bringing forth anything, let alone what we observe around us....Whether it took thousands or billions of years still doesn't answer the question.

No it doesn’t, we need the laws of quantum physics, physics, chemistry and a few other fields to explain how matter arose then how order arose and how stars formed and how the matter that makes up this planet was formed. Then we get to abiogenesis which is not well understood. While we have yet to find any insurmountable obstacles for this to occure we have not worked out the details of how it could so it’s an open question. We do know that simple self replicators exist, simple enough that they don’t use DNA machinner as all modern living organsms do, simple enough to reproduce in an organic soup, replicators consisting of only a scant 30 or so bases and who knows if this is the simplest self replicator possible. Time may tell. Before life comes into existence it’s all about chemistry which is a very well understood and lawful field. Once life arose we need ToE to explain how life progresses to get us to where we are today.

Exactly and did the dice roll itself? Already it requires an outside force to start the ball rolling so to speak.

You didn’t answer the question. In the absence of minds what meaning do the numbers on a dice have? I would suggest that it is only through minds that meaning arises. Order and information exist independent of minds but meaning does not. That is the confabulation that is causing many of these misunderstandings.

Given that the universe contains a total of zero energy (negative gravitational energy appears to exactly balance the positive energy held in the matter and energy we can detect in the universe) no outside force is required to start it going.

Meaning is most definitely assigned by intelligent beings and we are assigned by an even more intelligent being (force). How can you be certain anything you think or say has any point or meaning to it if your origins are in chance?

Running off with the sophists are we? I don’t know with certainty that there is any meaning to anything that I think or say but the world I perceive behaves as if there is meaning to it so I may as well go with the flow and act as if there is.

And ultimately, if you came from chance and are heading for a future as worm food, I hardly see why you'd be worried either way.

Am worried? I wasn’t aware of that.

Since your beginning and end have no point....according to your beliefs anyway. How is this in yours or anybody's best interest?

I believe that the truth is an end unto itself. It is a goal worth achieving for the very sake of finding the truth.

Or do you feel that evolution will oneday go beyond such boundaries and you wish to contribute to the future of your fellow human beings, just in case there is a way of delaying their ultimate end as worm food?....

Hey that’s a worthy goal and one that my wife contributes more to than I. She works in medical research.

All the best Bex

Russell

Hi Russ

People who cannot see that the mathematical probabilities of symmetry occurring through evolutionary processes is absurd, cannot be helped.

Or, more probably I would suggest, they actually understand a little basic genetics and they know that evolution does not independently generate symmetrical body parts by two separate pieces of DNA. Maybe they understand how the HOX complex and it’s like works to mirror the one piece of genetic code into two like body parts mirror images of each other. Had that possibility occurred to you Russ? I’m sure sniping at people’s ignorance is fun but it would probably work better if you understood what it was you were talking about Russ.

Of course it’s also interesting to observe the instances of Convergent evolution which shows that nature is in fact capable of generating like parts in fact entire, virtually identical yet unrelated organisms have evolved by this means not just symmetrical parts on one organism. Even if you can’t understand or accept this Russ it has been observed in nature. How does that old saying go “Nature is cleverer that you think”.

In Reason

Russell

Can you tell me, Linear, which of your arguments wouldn't be right at home on an atheist hate site?

Can you tell me how it is not hypocritical and misleading to give folks the impression you advocate a God you actually despise? Calling oneself a "christian" does have certain connotations, you know.

Perhaps this is a residual label from EvC. For those who aren't familiar, they have a section which is reseved in words only for "religious people" to discuss things in peace. They have a rule or two against harassment and misinterpretation of scripture being posted by "outsiders". So in order to circumvent those (unenforced) "rules", every atheist, devil-worshipper, and his brother claims to be a "christian" over there.

At least that was the case in the past. I don't participate there any more. I've never figured out for certain whether that feature was designed legit, or simply set up to promote molism from the get-go.

Hi Bex

I think you are missing one crucial point that Darwin himself made, it doesn’t matter if god created the universe and even the first life, evolution happens. It’s irrelevant to the truth of ToE where the universe came from once life exists it follows the rules that Darwin et al discovered. If god created the universe yesterday evolution will occur from now on, if god created the universe 13 and a bit billion years ago in a huge flash of energy which lead to the creation of earth and finally to simple life on earth the evolution will follow on from there. The beginning is not relevant because the theory is true (in the scientific sense) for all of the time after life arose on this rock. To demand that ToE explains the origin of life or the universe is as relvant as demanding that a plumber knows the entire history of plumbing before he can unblock your drains. It’s interesting sure but it’s not relevant to the discussion at hand. He can still unblock your drains without that knowledge just as ToE can explain who live evolves without knowing where it came from.

And you are right that all of this requires substance and information but 2LoT and the big bang theory explain the appearance of energy and substance, even the ratios of both, that we will find in our universe without gods input. It would be nice to know more about the details of all of these things than we do today but what we know is still worth knowing and it will lead us to better knowledge in the future, if the past is any guide, with research and hard work on our part.

In Reason

Russell

Hi Bex

The indepth studies, mathematically and chemically are not my field.

That makes it really hard then to discuss this stuff with you rationally. Chemistry is a very well understood field that combines random and non random elements in very well defined mathematical ways and this is what underlies the field of abiogenesis. It’s not just random numbers as Russ would have you believe but a very lawful combination of random and non random elements much as ToE is a combination of random and lawful parts that make up the full picture of how life behaves.

My arguments are coming from a layperson's position, but also from observation and faith too.

Fair enough. We each have to work from what we already know. I would suggest that faith is an obstacle to true understanding here, it leads you to write of some really well established science without really understanding it but that’s your choice.

Surely a layperson can also ask questions and argue from a standpoint of design?

Yes you can argue from that standpoint but maybe you have to take people’s words for it a bit when they point out that your position flies in the face of good science. This is the case for Russ’s position on probability as just one example. He fails totally to understand what ToE says or he is purposefully ignoring some of it to make his complaints sound reasonable. They are not even slightly reasonable.

Since your arguments here do not necessarily cancel that either. I simply don't believe or agree that in random chance having a role in this.

Then I have to suggest that you really do need to do some research on how ToE works, on what we actually know about evolution in the wild and in the lab. We know beyond all doubt that random elements play a part in evolution and that they along with natural selection build new information into organisms. No matter how much some here deny it this is beyond all reasonable doubt. Now no one can say that god does not play a part here, maybe he set things going, maybe he gives that randomness a push at times, who knows, but there’s no evidence to support either idea while we directly observe random events in DNA adding information and adding to the design of new features of organisms.

Can any conditions bring forth non existence into existence?

Now this is a fascinating question. Common sense says that this is impossible doesn’t it but common sense says that much of quantum physics is impossible. How, for instance, can a particle travel along one single path once through an apparatus yet know of the state of two or more pathways through the machine? This makes no common sense yet this is how quantum particles behave. Another really counter intuitive prediction of quantum physics was that a true vacuum was impossible. That if you created a space that contained nothing at all it would be filled with vacuum energy and particles. Sounds really weird doesn’t it yet it has been experimentally verified in a series of experiments which explored the cassimere effect. What this shows is that if you were to remove all matter and energy from the universe such as would exist if there were no universe it would immediately be filled with a spontaneously formed foam of random matter and energy. This foam would cool as the universe expanded under the pressure of the foam itself and it would coalesce into something that looks an awful lot like the ancient universe that we can detect with our most powerful instruments.

I too admire the life around me, the complexity, the amazing intricacy of the designs I see there, it is truly awe inspiring but, as one famous person once said, “is it not sufficient to realize that the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it.”

All the best Bex

Russell

CTD, your post in no way addresses Linera AQ's actual question. Do you think it's OK for people to question their religion, or must they blindly accept what they are told?

If God is omniscient, he would have known everything that was going to happen. He knew what Adam and Eve would do. He knew what people who came after them would do, for example the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the entire population in Noah's time. He knew there would be people on the earth before and after Christianity who would not accept a Christian god. So why create all of these people in order to kill some of them, and send all of them to hell?

How do you come to terms with this as a Christian?

How I come to terms with bogus anti-God arguments you may observe quite readily, I should think. I've been posting here quite a while now.

What's molism...the worship of moles?

Let us assume you are not understanding the context of the post I wrote. I was pointing out to Bex that if God is not leaving anything to chance (ie...allowing free will is leaving the decision about your soul's final residence to chance) then that puts God in the position of purposely making most people just to send them to Hell. I don't believe that is what He is doing at all, so He must be allowing chance to work.

I didn't call God evil.

In the slim chance that you might be purposely misreading what I wrote in order to hurl still another insult, then I guess I should point out that your behavior is not unexpected.

yes we do know how you handle arguments that you perceive as "anti-God" (lack of reading comprehension not withstanding). You hurl insults and call people Satanists, atheists and evil.
You are especially strident in your judgment of others when you are being asked to support some of your particularly lame criticisms of the TOE (not that you have had any that rise above that level).
The only thing that surprises me about your behavior is that you don't put your insults and self-righteous baloney in all caps.

Linear. I believe God is allowing us to use our free will by making choices. So I think it's about "choice" , rather than chance. Nobody goes to hell by chance, they go there by choice. Otherwise one makes God either a liar, or an evil doer. This I would think is pretty blasphemous wouldn't you? Sorry to employ the word here, but I can't think of how much worse it can get to be honest.

We make a choice for salvation or to reject it. The invitation to us is there because we have a mind to think, a faith to exercise and a heart to accept. I don't see how chance has much to do with it. Nobody winds up in Heaven by chance. They get their by the saving blood of Christ (which was also not done by chance). And by battling through life's temptations and obeying God's law.

I think the word "chance" sounds like God really just leaves everything to chance, rather than people making an intentional decision....I'm not sure I'm understanding your use of the word to be honest. It just doesn't make sense to me in this regard. I make a choice to read the bible too. I don't leave the bible to open by chance. I don't rely on chance. I make an intentional decision for these things.

I've already been through this. Seriously, I'm just repeating myself and probably getting nowhere. It's late, there are a lot of posts on this forum to read and try and answer and there is only one of me. Linear, you are free to believe what you wish. I can't change what you decide to think about God. all I know is, God doesn't want anybody in Hell and would not have died a cruel death on a cross for "chance". He died for you and for me and everybody. The worst sinner has a right to the saving blood of Christ as much as anybody. He/she only has to come to Christ, repent and accept that invitation and follow Him.....

Not much to ask eh?

Maybe. If choosing to accept Christ requires a belief in a literal Genesis despite the scientific evidence that refutes it, then it may be too much.

Chance or choice...maybe our opinions are closer than we think. I believe that God gives us a choice and takes the chance that we will choose wisely.

Up early again, I see.

I don't believe that the world around me refutes it at all. We differ on this issue big time (not that you didnt'notice). For me Linear, it has confirmed it....otherwise, i sincerely believe I may have lost my faith. And had that faith been bogus, then no loss eh? But that faith is alive and I've had more than enough personal experience with both the demonic, and instances of God....and bitter suffering. Lots of feelings of abandonment and disallusionment also. A long journey, but I guess that's what helps form us and hopefully mould us along the way. Chipping off a few edges too.

I believe too that GOd gives us a choice and He takes that chance that we will hopefully open our hearts to Him. He works on us everyday. Each day I believe is a gift and a chance to come to Him. We do not know when that time will be cut off...Remember, the bible tells us that Hell was not for us, but for the Devil and his angels...so nobody was actually born to go there.

Yep, up early again Should be in bed, but caught your post and was tempted to respond. The rest of them can wait. Too involved and for now and I'm too tired.

Linear: Maybe. If choosing to accept Christ requires a belief in a literal Genesis despite the scientific evidence that refutes it, then it may be too much.

Jeanie: Linear, sometimes you just have to let some things that don't make sense to you go till the Lord sheds more light on the subject. Personally its kind of a sad thought to actually think the heavens are closed and that God can't reveal anymore.... Even among my own faith, though, there are differences with viewpoints on this because we don't have the whole story. Some Mormons, even, think the world is young, some old....etc. It really doesn't affect our salvation one way or the other because no one knows for sure how it all happened at this point. But we believe it will be revealed. I wouldn't reject God on that issue. You have to take a leap of faith, sometimes, and let him in and let some things we just don't know for sure go for the time being....

From my point of view, it doesn't matter how the first humans wound up here. We are here. We have to have a relationship with our God and relationships with each other. Christ heals the relationship with our God which we had broken with our sin. The teachings of Christ show us how to have upright and healthy relationships with each other.

My issue with the "acceptance of things I don't understand" is that I do understand a fair amount of the science that shows the literal interpretation of Genesis to be in error. I cannot suspend belief once belief has occurred. At least, not without convincing evidence to the contrary. None has been provide so far, and I have been looking a long time.

Linear: My issue with the "acceptance of things I don't understand" is that I do understand a fair amount of the science that shows the literal interpretation of Genesis to be in error. I cannot suspend belief once belief has occurred. At least, not without convincing evidence to the contrary. None has been provide so far, and I have been looking a long time.

Jeanie: I know you don't accept Mormonism, but what I'm trying to say is actually that the Biblical account is not quite complete. I know some on here won't like that, and that's ok....but we have scripture that adds more to the picture than just the account in Genesis. I do not know how to account for some things either still, though, and we don't have all the answers at this time. But I am setting it aside till I find out the whole story some day. For the time being, though, it doesn't matter to me either. You don't have to accept Genesis as all literal or have a problem with it being a contradiction with true science. It will all be resolved... That is my point. God IS science in a way.

I perceive your arguments as identical with Russell2's, and many others who try to persuade people to disobey God. I perceive them as entirely different from and opposed to those made by Christians. These perceptions are involuntary and unavoidable.

The questions that Linear AQ and I have asked you are legitimate philosophical ones. I was asking them when I was still a Christian. I asked you if you feel it's OK for someone to question their faith but you will not even answer that.

You do not answer difficult questions, you avoid them and direct your frustrations outward by insulting people. If this is how you want to live it is of course your choice, but it doesn't appear to be a way of finding either truth or happiness.

You do not see my answers, and we both know why.

I am not familiar with any definition of 'information' which would plug into R2's statements and result in truth. He asked me to provide a definition, and I said he should, as he's the one using the term.

It hasn't been all too long, but I see he's prioritized the task of cranking out anti-God propaganda over responding to my request. And that being the case, based on past observations, he's likely to devote a good deal of time to it. I can't blame him in this case. Jeanie's most eager, and such an audience must be hard to find.

Reviewing, I found this:
Looks like RAZD is rubbing off on someone. We all know all Laws of Thermodynamics are the bane of evolutionism, most especially the second.

But the asserted definition fails. The more "orderly" the matter, the less likely it is to contain information. Consider distilled water, or a solid brick. They're as orderly as can be. Do they contain as much information as even a first grade reading primer?

Neither will such examples fit the narrow constraints of his scheme for claiming reduced entropy, because they don't expand as he needs them to. Entropy always increases unless a mechanism is in place to reduce it locally in exchange for increasing it elsewhere. The known mechanisms that can accomplish this are life and created tools.

He mentions arrangement, and this is the key to information storage and interpretation. But arrangement alone is not information either. Does the moon say "Ooooooooo"? It has circular craters, and circles are o's, after all. (But I maintain the moon is numbered. The slash through the zero is optional. )
More distraction. It would be difficult to get it so wrong by accident; one needs to know what's right in order to accomplish this.

Sound isn't information. Sound is a means of conveying information. Just as paper and ink are not information, but can be used to convey it.

Without meaning, there is no information worth discussing; no information that can accomplish anything.

Most importantly, the genetic code contains meaningful information. (That's why it's called a 'code'.) If, AS STATED, a mind is required to assign meaning, the meaningful information in DNA requires a creator.

(I anticipate it's about time for you-know-who to accuse me of taking this quote out-of-context.)
LOL! Some of this propaganda's pretty weak.

Put some man-made replicators in a vat & come back next week. Next century. Next billion years. According to the laws of chemistry, they won't evolve. Even the folks who make them & get the headlines as evoheros acknowledge this. They have faith that they'll someday discover the magic replicator that will pull it off, but not just any replicator will do. Far, far from it.

Don't you wish!

I could just see it:

All hail the deceitful! All hail the cowardly! How can we serve you, O Great Mole?

Do you mean to say no belief is worthy of contempt, no matter how silly?

Do you mean to say allowing folks to have and discuss beliefs requires one to always pretend they're not silly? Even when they're trying to peddle them?

Do you mean to say a silly belief not held by anyone, but merely advanced hypothetically in the process of making a silly argument should be treated as if it weren't silly?
What if Bex isn't interested in imagining up a new god?

After all, she did say "I'm not interested in playing 'chance' games with imaginary dice as a way of proving the universe did the same. Because the comparison is ridiculous, when you consider what is required for all these things to come together, work together, start and be sustained."

Which might give a disingenuous participant a motive to take the discussion in that direction, while continuing to omit to address her points...
So you shouldn't mind explaining how love evolved, in that case. Or how birds evolved the capacity to navigate precisely to places they've never been?

And unless you play the double standard game yet again, you condemn Darwin & the other evolutionists who said these things evolved because they're advantageous and never explained how.
"God did it" is an historically correct answer to many questions. It does explain how, to some extent. The answer to how the cake got on the table: Mother put it there. You can continue asking questions until the limit of the responder's knowledge (or patience, in some cases) is reached. How did she put it there? How did she obtain it?

You cannot demonstrate anything bogus about honestly answering a question to the best of one's ability. I would maintain that the intent to do so is itself bogus. Care to challenge my assertion?

I have never in all my days seen anyone claim "God did it" was any more of an explanation than it appears to be. I have seen attempt after attempt by evolutionists to cover up their inability to explain how love evolved by pouring out 2 hours' worth of words that all boil down to "evolution did it". If you attempt to tackle the question, I fully expect to see it once again.
The argument works just fine. The only potential flaw I find is that it went over someone's head. And so one could hypothetically contend that the flaw lies in the over-complex properties of the argument rather than some property of the head. Of course this is strictly an hypothetical scenario.

Donning the ID cap, eh? I missed it too. Congratulations on taking a step in the right direction. It'll be a shame to see you bounce right back when this phase of the discussion passes.

Shame you can't kick all the habits. Still misrepresenting Bex' argument, I see. I'd say "scroll up", but we all know that's too much trouble.

Anyhow, creating a die and rolling a die aren't the same thing. The die has to be created before it can be rolled. The result is a random outcome within designed parameters. It is not entirely random. It is not entirely predetermined.

I look forward to a good laugh when you try to obfuscate that.

Please point out one post where I even suggested that people disobey the God of the Bible. You can't because I never suggested it. Although, I'm not surprised by it, I continue to wonder why you think you need to misrepresent my writings and then use those misrepresentations to demean my character.

As for those perceptions being "involuntary and unavoidable", perhaps a little practice in self control on your part would prevent those "involuntary" perceptions of yours from spilling out into your posts like candy from a vending machine.

You know Christ and Paul both taught that believers should practice self control. In fact, it is one of the fruits of the Spirit. You know, Christians should walk in the Spirit...and all that goes with it.

Hey, just trying to help....iron sharpening iron.

'Cause they're not in your posts?

I couldn't find it at dictionary.com so I thought I would ask the person who made up the word. I guess you aren't going to release that definition to the public.

At first, I thought you meant "Molinism" which is "the theological doctrine, formulated by Luis Molina, that the consent of the human will is necessary for divine grace to be effective."

I then realized that it didn't really apply to your post.

Nice thing about English is that it still allows one to construct words by adding suffixes. Can't be as creative as German, but there's freedom.

Of course the process of figuring out an unfamiliar term in a given context does require on to retain the context in memory for what? 1/2 to 3 or 4 seconds? Maybe Jeanie can help you with this obstacle. I have no direct experience or training, so I'm not qualified.

Now I know I could just "give Linear the fish"; but it's far better if someone can "teach him how to fish" for himself.

Still think you have all the answers eh CTD?



We interupt your denial of reality to bring you this brief message:

No, that explains why it is on the table. Did she use magic to put it there, have a servant move it there, or did she assemble it there from other parts moved to the table by means unknown? How is not explained.

Strangely with the "god did it" answer you can't get any further than finding the cake on the table.

Now you can resume ranting against reality.

Enjoy.

Chocolate cake sounds good right now.

everyone needs to keep up with their bodies need for vitamin chocolate ...

LOL

Thanks for demonstrating once again how low you're willing to stoop in order to support evohype. Trying to confuse us about the meaning of two such elementary words is pretty lame.

Saying "mother put the cake on the table" is quite clearly an answer to "How did the cake get on the table?" It eliminates all other means, so it's fairly specific.

And remember the motive, folks. RAZD is only publishing this obviously false garbage as justification for putting down creationists.

For his next trick CTD will show the details of how "mother" actually managed to get the "cake" on the table.

He said it explained how after all.

(even ignoring his change from mom-did-it to mom-put-it-there, as we understand he has some trouble with strict analogies and often confuses meanings)

The answer to Why is the cake on the table? Mom put it there.

THe answer to How did the cake get on the table?
_______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________
(blank for CTD to fill in, I think I left enough room)

Enjoy.

But asking "how" endlessly, that's what?

I game I won't play when I can see it coming, that's what.

Neither will I omit to note that you still have no explanation for how love evolved.

Hi CTD

<snip> ad hom

Looks like RAZD is rubbing off on someone. We all know all Laws of Thermodynamics are the bane of evolutionism, most especially the second.

I guess there are some who don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics and so see them today as a challenge to ToE but there’s not many left. Given the YEC straw man that you present even biological reproduction is impossible under 2LoT but reproduction does occur and so does evolution. The fact that we observe evolution to occur destroyes this argument before we actually get into understanding why it is a foolish argument. When you get into the guts of it you will realize that it is built on a very clever deception, 2LoT predicts an increase in order in a closed system but of course the earth is not a closed system, energy flows in and out all the time and in such an environment 2LoT predicts that work will be done, work such as reproducing, work such as evolving new organisms. It’s a very basic premise of 2LoT and has been there since the law was first formulated.

But the asserted definition fails. The more "orderly" the matter, the less likely it is to contain information. Consider distilled water, or a solid brick. They're as orderly as can be. Do they contain as much information as even a first grade reading primer?

You’re getting closer to understanding this CTD but you miss a few details that will fully explain how information arose. Distilled water contains very little information but it is more ordered than a plasma of hydrogen nuclei but cool that and you get hydrogen, then stars, then heavy elements, then planets and water each a bit more ordered and containing a bit more information that the previous. Take that water a little further and cool it which is what happens as entropy drops per unit of space and it solidifies into ice. Ice is a substrate with the ability to hold information (actually distilled water can too but it’s easier to imagine it with ice so I’ll use that as an example). So we’ve gone from the early universe which was, according to the theory and all the evidence, too hot to contain matter or stable information at all to a universe which contained only the simplest of matter, hydrogen and helium neuclei, to today’s universe in which heavier elements exist. Elements capable of forming bonds and so order and so of holding stable information. Without any intelligent input these elements will connect together following the laws of chemistry. So what do we have at the end of that process. We have planets, stars, rocks, oceans, asteroids.

What do you call the distance from the sun to mercury?

Is that not information?

What do you call the distance between mineral grains in the rocks of Mercury?

Is that not information?

If not what is information?

Now this is meaningless information, like all information in the absence of a mind but it is information and it is exactly what evolution uses to shape organisms, they are shaped by their environments to be ‘fit’ and this information, the size, shape, temperature, brightness, and chemical composition of their surroundings (and much more) is the source of information that evolution uses to shape them.

Neither will such examples fit the narrow constraints of his scheme for claiming reduced entropy, because they don't expand as he needs them to. Entropy always increases unless a mechanism is in place to reduce it locally in exchange for increasing it elsewhere. The known mechanisms that can accomplish this are life and created tools.

The second law of thermodynamics says in closed systems entropy will always increase but entropy will reduce locally in open systems. If this were not true snowflakes (as just one example) would not exist but they do. In an expanding universe the entropy for a given area of space decreases as the universe spreads out and cools just as snow flakes form as the air gives off its heat and its entropy reduces. Is it not obvious that a snowflake contains more information than water vapour? You could write your name on a snowflake (OK tricky but not impossible) but try doing so on water vapour. Such ordered matter both contains raw information in it’s structure but it also contains the ability to store further information in reaction to what it ‘experiences’. If two snowflakes collide information about that collision is stored in the scars they carry away from the incident. It’s not very interesting information maybe but who said that information had to be interesting. It is still information even if boring.

Most importantly, the genetic code contains meaningful information. (That's why it's called a 'code'.) If, AS STATED, a mind is required to assign meaning, the meaningful information in DNA requires a creator.

So meaning is simply information that can accomplish something? The trajectory of a comet that will one day crash into a planet we can’t even detect has meaning then is that your thesis. This information forms the crux of the events that will occur, it determines the fate of that planet just as the DNA sequences in our gene’s determine how, in a purely mechanistic sense, our proteins will be formed. It reduces meaning to facts and figures regardless of minds which is not my definition of meaning but it is my definition of information. Maybe all we have here is a difference of definition.

DNA carries bases in a sequence that will drive a machine to blindly run through a process of connecting RNA bases together without understanding of the process. If the DNA were purely random the machine would still transcribe it into RNA and from there into Proteins. If they ‘worked’ in a fitness sense evolutionary forces would select for them regardless of any meaning they may or may not contain, it’s a purely mechanistic scenario.

Put some man-made replicators in a vat & come back next week. Next century. Next billion years. According to the laws of chemistry, they won't evolve.

Are you really suggesting that our replicators are perfect? That’s the only way that this statement could be true. Any variations within the products of these replicators will drive their evolution.


Competition, Cooperation, and Mutation: Improving a Synthetic Replicator by Light Irradiation
J.-I. HONG, Q. FENG, V. ROTELLO, and J. REBEK, JR. (14 February 1992)
Science 255 (5046), 848-850. [DOI: 10.1126/science.255.5046.848]

That article was quite old but then so is your complaint. It was, long ago, disproved by experiments as this article points out. There have been many more such experiments since 1992 many more experiments showing that synthetic replicators both chemical and in computers can evolve while we watch.

In reason

Russell