Creation vs Evolution

[freefallife]

Texasdave, I would love to know where you get your information. First off, you are only counting life's successes. for each of what you call perfect alignments there were most likely billions that failed. Can't believe you brought the probability theories into this. Impossible for DOZENS of factors to line up? I have to very strongly disagree. Even more so when the alternative creationists offer is to believe an INFINITE amount of impossibility. What then is the probability of there being a creator? And what of his creator? And his? And his? I think you see where I'm going. I think that's the point in the bible I decided it was decidedly deceptive and false. The first line. Creationists argue the existence of ONE true god. Well, who created him? He can't possibly be the only one!! Anyway...back to the probability thing. Funny thing about trying to figure the probability of something is that you would have to first know how many opportunities there were for a given event to occur. Of course, this question begs...how many opportunities did life have to begin?? Kind of depends on how you measure it. In years? 1 in 13.7 billion(the scientific estimate of the age of the universe). That's an awful lot of chances. Scientists have estimated the probability at 1 in 10^2,000,000,000. And that's just the possibility of life beginning here on earth...just one planet revolving around a star that is one of COUNTLESS BILLIONS. Furthermore, if the universe is infinite as some believe, providing the event infinitely many chances to occur, then the occurance of the event is a virtual certanty. Here is where I like to point out that ANY event with a probability greater than 0, no matter how low, will be likely to happen if given enough opportunity, and sure to happen if opportunity is unlimited. And please, before you start using Borel's single law of chance against me, don't waste you're time. Just as creationists have misrepresented the second law of thermodynamics, so have they misrepresented Borel's law of chance. What Borel was stating was that events having a probability more than roughly 1 in 1050 never occur. (Borel 1965). I think what Borel had in mind was that such events cannot ever be rationally PREDICTED, because such events can and do happen. As an example, suppose that one were to program a computer to generate 100 random digits. There would be 10100 equally likely possible outcomes. The probability of any given outcome would thus be 1 in 10100. Applying the creationist "law of chance", we would have to conclude that any conceivable outcome, because it has a probability less than 1 in 1050, is literally impossible, having no chance of occurring and thus having a probability of 0. But clearly no event can have a probability of 1 in 10100 and a probability of 0. Unless you think 1/10100=0, which if you do, you need to go back to first grade. At any rate, I think I've adequatly shown that life has had an astronimicly(as you would put it) long time to succeed, putting the laws of chance in favor of evolution.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: texasdave String theory has NOT been shown to be mathmatically true. There is NO evidence of other universes.

Quote by: texasdave Creationism is a circumstantial case that is supported by mathmatics. The odds of the universe having dozens of factors that are precisely set and are required to support life by mere chance are astronomical. The odds of our solar system and own sun doing the same are astronomical still. The odds of our earth are astronomical doing the same is another huge improbability. Then life jumping from the inanimate to the animate. Then DNA etc. If there is no intelligent designer then these things just happened perfectly and orderly by pure chance. Mathmatically, the odds against that are so huge as to dismiss chance outright as impossibly absurd. Yes, the math overwhelmingly supports design over chance.

You saying this doesn't make it so. Support your math.

More creatoinist propoganda from someone who doesn't understand "odds" or knows the difference between chance and probability.

What you don't understand (it appears) is that there are only 4 basic atoms required to start life; carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen.

These elements are everywhere in space and on this planet. These elements are in DNA, the blue print to cellular structure. Comets contain all these elements, the sun creates all these elements and there are 100 to 200 BILLION stars just in our galaxy. A rough estimate of the stars in the "known universe" is 30 billion trillion (1,000,000,000,000 X 30,000,000,000 = 30000000000000000000000 ) So now we have all these stars producing the elements required for life. This is done by the birth and death of stars. Every hydrogen atom in your body is 13+billion years old. You are made from star dust. Water, a combination of elements, is prevelent through out the universe, there is no reason to assume that one combination of elements is less likely than any other combination.

As for String Theory being true mathamatically, you apparently didn't bother to read this. It's not a difficult read, it was written for the lay person to understand.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: texasdave Creationism is a circumstantial case that is supported by mathmatics. The odds of the universe having dozens of factors that are precisely set and are required to support life by mere chance are astronomical. The odds of our solar system and own sun doing the same are astronomical still. The odds of our earth are astronomical doing the same is another huge improbability. Then life jumping from the inanimate to the animate. Then DNA etc. If there is no intelligent designer then these things just happened perfectly and orderly by pure chance. Mathmatically, the odds against that are so huge as to dismiss chance outright as impossibly absurd. Yes, the math overwhelmingly supports design over chance.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but how is suggesting an improbable thing the answer to explaining an improbable situation? However improbable life is, god is at least as improbable if no many times more so.

[gallo]

Quote by: texasdave String theory has NOT been shown to be mathmatically true. There is NO evidence of other universes.

Actually, math isn't something that is "true" or "false." However, the math of string theory (and related theories) works. The equations have solutions. The problem is that presently there are many solutions (thus, related theories). But it is true that there is no empirical evidence of other universes, just as there is no evidence for the existance of a magical, all-powerful being. It is humorous that you wish to replace a situation that you claim is improbable with one that it not only more improbable, but irrational - by that I mean crazy.

[poser7]

This is just so I can sum up the whole big bang lie quickly, I don't want to post off topic for too long so I'll give one long post on the foolishness of this theory.

A scientific theory for the original energy source for the "Big Bang" is totally lacking. What event pulled the trigger to start the Big Bang? Did the universe reach a critical energy or critical mass level that started the event? The Big Bang Theory is far out. The ignition that supposedly started the Big Bang is devoid of science. There aren't any serious attempts to explain it because no explanation is possible. The original ignition did not happen because it was impossible

The universe has galaxies and clusters of galaxies everywhere. Some are close and some are far away. They are on every side of us. They seem to be distributed throughout the universe but in an uneven manner. Now, this isn't logical for a common point birth. There are actually grown men with advanced degrees that believe the entire cosmos was once concentrated in a pinpoint. This is pure nonsense.

The "Red Light Shift Theory" is in big trouble. it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory. The red light shift theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory. The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory. The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift. Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a red shift. The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler effect in sound waves. White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.

The idea that the speed of light is a constant is nebulous at best (a little humor there). In our small little world the speed of light appears to be constant only because we cannot measure the change over a large distance. This problem is analogous to saying the speed of a bullet fired from a gun is constant. It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel. However, the truth is revealed if you measure the velocity 1000 meters from the barrel. The air and gravity slow the bullet as predicted by the laws of science.
What about light? Light has mass and the bullet has mass. The fact that light has mass was proven and measured many years ago. Light is affected by gravity that is produced by other masses. Light bends as it travels past distant planets, stars and galaxies. Certainly the numerous masses in the universe can slow or accelerate the light by gravitational attraction. White light emitted by a stationary object will appear as redshift light if the velocity is slowed for any reason. So what made Dr. Hubble think that the light speed was not affected by gravitational fields in the universe? I suppose he didn't stop to consider all of the alternatives.
Light traveling through the universe is slowed or accelerated by the gravitational fields of stars and galaxies. Light conforms to the proven formula F = MA as discussed below. Cosmologists calculate that 90 percent of the mass in the universe cannot be seen. The visible stars and galaxies only comprise 10 percent of the mass of the universe. The black mass is there and has an effect on light passing nearby.
All stationary galaxies would appear to be traveling away from Earth in every direction if the light from those galaxies was slowed as it traveled through space. The light from a more distant stationary galaxy would be slowed more because of the greater distance from Earth. This is exactly what the red shift measurements show. A reduction in the speed of light as it travels through the cosmos is the scientific expectation that destroys the Big Bang Theory.
We also have the problem with antimatter. Scientists claim there is such a thing. How does it affect light? Where is the antimatter? The vacuum of interstellar space may not be a vacuum. It may contain plasma clouds of particles smaller than an electron that slow the speed of light. The science against the Redshift Theory is immense and the Big Bang Theory is in serious jeopardy.

The calculated acceleration of distance galaxies and galaxy clusters is a serious dilemma for the Big Bang Theory. What is the means of the propulsion? How could a galaxy accelerate through the universe? There are no theories because the concept is silly, but it is a conclusion that one must reach if the Redshift Theory is true. Obviously the Redshift Theory is wrong. A galaxy, such as M100 shown here, has no possible method to increase the speed of travel through the cosmos.
The surrounding mass from other galaxies, galaxy clusters, black matter, light and unknown particles would have the effect of slowing the expansion. Masses produce a gravitational field that pulls the masses together. They do not push away from each other. Scientists in the past expected to see the universe expanding at a slower rate, stopped or contracting at an accelerating rate. Expansion at an accelerating rate is impossible. The Redshift Theory is simply wrong.
Dr. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity said that the universe must be contracting. He thought the universe was static and introduced a cosmological constant as a correction factor. He later called the constant "my biggest blunder" after accepting the Redshift Theory that the universe is expanding. It now appears his biggest blunder was the acceptance of his first blunder. Dr. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does not support an accelerating expansion.

[freefallife]

ok...first off

A scientific theory for the original energy source for the "Big Bang" is totally lacking. What event pulled the trigger to start the Big Bang? Did the universe reach a critical energy or critical mass level that started the event? The Big Bang Theory is far out. The ignition that supposedly started the Big Bang is devoid of science. There aren't any serious attempts to explain it because no explanation is possible. The original ignition did not happen because it was impossible

The lack of evidence for any given theory is your argument here. Amazing, since it would be infinitesimly more difficult to explain the presence of an omnipotent being that magicly produced the universe. Less likely because now you have to try to explain where the creator came from. A little like trying to track down the power source of the big bang perhaps, but the creationist must then explain the origin of the creator's creator. Who willed God into existence?

Your arguments about the speed of light are rediculous. First off if you're going to copy-past plagurize, at least copy the whole thing.

There are no theories because the concept is silly, but it is a conclusion that one must reach if the Redshift Theory is true. Obviously the Redshift Theory is wrong. A galaxy, such as M100 shown here, has no possible method to increase the speed of travel through the cosmos.

The galaxy M100 shown here?? Shown where?? Try to use your own arguments, and if you chose to use someone elses, do the honor of giving the originator of those ideas credit.

Secondly, the speed of light is constant. All the evidence in the world shows that. It can be and has been measured.

Certainly the numerous masses in the universe can slow or accelerate the light by gravitational attraction.

This seems to be the base of your speed of light argument. That we are to believe that it once was travelling faster and slows to the point of being exactly 186,000 fps when it reaches earth. Well, good argument, if you stop thinking after the first sentance. Would it not be that the farther light travels, the more "friction" it would encounter?? It would resonably follow that light from more distant galaxies would reach earth considerably slower to light arriving from nearby galaxies. And yet, inexplicably to your argument, all light, reguardless of its origin reaches us at 186,000 fps. If you contend, therefor, that the light originating from more distant galaxies begins its travel at a far greater speed...as it would have to to travel farther and slow to the speed we know light to be, then I would challenge you to put forth even one shred of obervational evidence that this is even remotely true. It simply is not. The observation of pulsars throughout the galaxy is more than enough evidence here to show that the speed of light has never been observed to have traveled at any speed other than 186,000 fps. If it were true, and light was that easily affected, we would observe a vastly occilating night sky rather than the steady glow of distant stars. It would be impossible to predict what light ray A might encounter from a light source 170,000 light years away vs. the travel of light ray B one year later, as the galaxy is in constant movement.

It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel. However, the truth is revealed if you measure the velocity 1000 meters from the barrel. The air and gravity slow the bullet as predicted by the laws of science

This agument is rediculous. First off, the speed of a bullet even two meters from it origin is measurably different. The difference is considerably small, but different nontheless. Secondly, what has this got to do with the speed of light?? Comparing a bullet with a mass billions of times grater than that of light, and considering that it has a thick atmospere to conted with is really no comparison at all is it. That is akin to trying to figure why it does not revolve in orbit around you though your mass and therefore gravitational pull is greater. Rediculous.

[Bnet505]

Some think that a creator is necessary because they assume the universe is a creation. What about puddles of water? Those don't have a creator. What about sides of mountains, cloud etc? They are random events in nature so the Big Bang theory has some ground to back it.

[ItsDarts]

Poser,

That clearly wasn't an argument you come up with and it shows that you copy and pasted it. It is undoubedly from a creationist site that is either purposely lying to its readers or shows a complete lack of understanding about cosmology and astrophysics.

The entire argument holds no water and should either be removed from this thread for being off topic AND not being cited, or at the very least we request you post your source for that lame argument so we can review its credibility.

[Jack]

That clearly wasn't an argument you come up with and it shows that you copy and pasted it. It is undoubedly from a creationist site that is either purposely lying to its readers or shows a complete lack of understanding about cosmology and astrophysics.

Spot on, ItsDarts. Can't hide from Google. Does the following look familiar?

The "Red Light Shift Theory" is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory. The red light shift theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory. The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory. The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift. Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a red shift. The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler effect in sound waves. White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die. The idea that the speed of light is a constant is nebulous at best (a little humor there). In our small little world the speed of light appears to be constant only because we cannot measure the change over a large distance. This problem is analogous to saying the speed of a bullet fired from a gun is constant. It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel. However, the truth is revealed if you measure the velocity 1000 meters from the barrel. The air and gravity slow the bullet as predicted by the laws of science. What about light? Light has mass and the bullet has mass. The fact that light has mass was proven and measured many years ago. Light is affected by gravity that is produced by other masses. Light bends as it travels past distant planets, stars and galaxies. Certainly the numerous masses in the universe can slow or accelerate the light by gravitational attraction. White light emitted by a stationary object will appear as redshift light if the velocity is slowed for any reason. So what made Dr. Hubble think that the light speed was not affected by gravitational fields in the universe? I suppose he didn't stop to consider all of the alternatives. Light traveling through the universe is slowed or accelerated by the gravitational fields of stars and galaxies. Light conforms to the proven formula F = MA as discussed below. Cosmologists calculate that 90 percent of the mass in the universe cannot be seen. The visible stars and galaxies only comprise 10 percent of the mass of the universe. The black mass is there and has an effect on light passing nearby.

It's from this site, The Big Bang and Redshift Theories Have Many Big Flaws, Errors and Problems., which also posts such scientifically illiterate nonsense as, "The Big Bang and Redshift Theories are not scientific laws or laws of physics. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong." I believe that was the source of another post full of silliness.

See, if people would just cite their sources they could distance themselves from such obvious stupidity when it's exposed as such.

[freefallife]

Nice work, Isher. When I put an once of thought into it, it should have been expected. Creationists are not known to have original thoughts of their own.

[gallo]

Quote by: poser7 This is just so I can sum up the whole big bang lie quickly, I don't want to post off topic for too long so I'll give one long post on the foolishness of this theory.

How wonderful! You know more about the topic, without spending a single hour studying it, than thousands of people who make their living at such endeavors.

Quote by: poser7 A scientific theory for the original energy source for the "Big Bang" is totally lacking.

So what? As I mentioned before, 'before' the big bang is undefined.

Quote by: poser7 What event pulled the trigger to start the Big Bang?

I don't know. Your god? What event pulled the trigger on him?

Quote by: poser7 Did the universe reach a critical energy or critical mass level that started the event?

Again, the universe is the expansion of space/time. We have no knowledge of any events before time. Thus, the question is moot.

Quote by: poser7 The Big Bang Theory is far out.

Then try the myth that a magical being who had no beginning popped everything into existence from nothing. That's really far out.

Quote by: poser7 The ignition that supposedly started the Big Bang is devoid of science.

But science is unable to address questions about what went "before." Are you saying that your magical being is science?

Quote by: poser7 There aren't any serious attempts to explain it because no explanation is possible. The original ignition did not happen because it was impossible

Actually, there have been serious attempts to explain it. They haven't been more than speculation to this point. Was it in this thread that I asked you to comment on imaginary time?

Quote by: poser7 The universe has galaxies and clusters of galaxies everywhere. Some are close and some are far away. They are on every side of us. They seem to be distributed throughout the universe but in an uneven manner.

Actually, any unevenness in the universe in only apparent at smaller scales. At very large scales the universe is quite homogeneous. In fact, on of the major problems that has confronted the big bang theory has bee to account for the small scale fluctuations in the universe when the whole universe seems so uniform. Didn't you actually study this topic before you spoke?

Quote by: poser7 Now, this isn't logical for a common point birth. There are actually grown men with advanced degrees that believe the entire cosmos was once concentrated in a pinpoint. This is pure nonsense.

Actually, it is quite logical. The universe is observed to be expanding. If you reverse that expansion, you arrive at a single point - a singularity. The Pope declared this expansion from a singularity to be the moment of creation.

Quote by: poser7 The "Red Light Shift Theory" is in big trouble.

As is typical of scientific illiterates and students of Mr. Hovind, you don't seem to know a theory from an observation. Beyond that, there is no such thing as a "red light shift." Red shift is an observation, not a theory.

Quote by: poser7 it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory.

No it didn't. You display your ignorance.

Quote by: poser7 The red light shift theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory.

Don't be stupid. Several versions of the theory had been proposed long before the observation of red shifting of stellar objects was observed. By the way, it was red shifting of light, not red light shifting. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned what you were talking about before you made yourself look foolish.

Quote by: poser7 The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory.

But that's not the big bang theory. The redshift theory was that light from distant objects is red shifted, and the farther an object is from us, the more it it red shifted. The consequence is that the farther an object is from us, the faster is is moving away from us.

Quote by: poser7 The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift.

Again, you show your ignorance. Friedmann, Lemaître, and Gamow developed the theory long before Hubble offered observational evidence.

Quote by: poser7 Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a red shift.

No. Light reaching us from distant galaxies is red shifted. It is not red shifted when it is emitted.

Quote by: poser7 The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler effect in sound waves.

Indeed. And for light, it called red shifting or blue shifting.

Quote by: poser7 White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum.

Actually, it doesn't. It appears to us as white light. Only when one analyses the absorption lines in the spectrum is one able to determine red shift or blue shift.

Quote by: poser7 The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer.

Nope. Again, it is the absorption lines that are shifted.

Quote by: poser7 The concept is simple, perhaps too simple.

Indeed. It is so simple that you seem to have failed to understand.

Quote by: poser7 The Redshift Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous.

Yes, it is. Redshift doesn't mean that we are at the center, it only means that most stellar objects are moving away from us. That is also true for every point in an expanding universe.

Quote by: poser7 It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.

But that was a creationist, christian myth. Science, and certainly not the big ban theory, has never made such a claim. Please learn what you are talking about lest you make yourself look foolish.

Quote by: poser7 The idea that the speed of light is a constant is nebulous at best (a little humor there).

I fail to see the humor and I fail to see the point. What does this have to do with the discussion?

Quote by: poser7 In our small little world the speed of light appears to be constant only because we cannot measure the change over a large distance. This problem is analogous to saying the speed of a bullet fired from a gun is constant. It appears to be constant if you measure the bullet velocity one meter from the end of the barrel and measure it again two meters from the barrel. However, the truth is revealed if you measure the velocity 1000 meters from the barrel. The air and gravity slow the bullet as predicted by the laws of science.

But what about the speed of a bullet that was fired in a vacuum without gravity? Would it's speed be constant over vast distances?

Quote by: poser7 What about light? Light has mass and the bullet has mass.

Actually, no mass for light has ever been measured.

Quote by: poser7 The fact that light has mass was proven and measured many years ago.

Please cite the scientific literature.

Quote by: poser7 Light is affected by gravity that is produced by other masses. Light bends as it travels past distant planets, stars and galaxies.

How does that show that light has mass? You might want to look into the theory of relativity.

Quote by: poser7 Certainly the numerous masses in the universe can slow or accelerate the light by gravitational attraction. White light emitted by a stationary object will appear as redshift light if the velocity is slowed for any reason.

But that doesn't mean that light has mass.

Quote by: poser7 So what made Dr. Hubble think that the light speed was not affected by gravitational fields in the universe?

Actually, he made no such claim.

Quote by: poser7 I suppose he didn't stop to consider all of the alternatives.

Probably not. But on the other hand he was a pioneer and couldn't be expected to have every answer. However, more recent observations have shown Hubble to have been correct.
[quote=poser7;404826][snip]gibberish that I suspect is plagiarized, and isn't even relevant[/snip]what crap! Try to stay on topic. And try to explain what you understand, not something that you cop from Mr. Hovind or some idiotic creationist site.

Learn what you are talking about before you speak.

[Zhavric]

Since no one else pointed it out, I will:

Discussing the Big Bang in a thread about evolution is as appropriate as talking about physics in a thread about chocolate chip cookie recipes.

Evolution is the study of how life becomes other forms of life.

I'll state that again because it's lost on several members (one named very aptly): Evolution is the study of how life becomes other forms of life.

The Big Bang. How life spawned on earth to begin with. These things have zero to do with evolution.

That being said, looking back to the origin of the universe is like being a detective.

We've got a body on the floor of an apartment with a bullet hole in the head, blood everywhere and a bullet hole in the window. The evidence points to death by a gunshot from outside (this is equivalent to the Big Bang theory).

To slide Creationists into the argument... well, it would sound like this:

"Since there weren't any witnesses and we all know bullets don't travel through glass, it must have been Zeus the greek god of lightning who sent a lightning bolt through the window and into the guy's brain. Oh... uhm... Please ignore the bullet."

Point being, whatever problems or lack of support the Big Bang may have, it's several thousand times more probable than the ideas bronze age hippies invented in between selling their daughters into slavery and stoning gays to death. Seriously, however improbable our universe is, think about how much more improbable god is... or maybe you're just okay with tremendous cop outs?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Since no one else pointed it out, I will: Discussing the Big Bang in a thread about evolution is as appropriate as talking about physics in a thread about chocolate chip cookie recipes. Evolution is the study of how life becomes other forms of life. I'll state that again because it's lost on several members (one named very aptly): Evolution is the study of how life becomes other forms of life. The Big Bang. How life spawned on earth to begin with. These things have zero to do with evolution.

Agreed. They're entirely separate topics which are far too often lumped together as if debunking one would impact the other.

Point being, whatever problems or lack of support the Big Bang may have, it's several thousand times more probable than the ideas bronze age hippies invented in between selling their daughters into slavery and stoning gays to death. Seriously, however improbable our universe is, think about how much more improbable god is... or maybe you're just okay with tremendous cop outs?

This, however, I don't agree with, obviously, as we've discussed it many times.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim This, however, I don't agree with, obviously, as we've discussed it many times.

Yes. In you're untenable ill-conceived agnostic stance, god can be anything he needs to be in order to escape any logical problem. Intelligence evidences complexity for humans, but not for god. The ability to create complex things evidences complexity for humans, but god is still "simple". Down isn't the opposite of up.

It's an argument you've yet to even present with any support or honesty.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Yes. In you're untenable ill-conceived agnostic stance, god can be anything he needs to be in order to escape any logical problem. Intelligence evidences complexity for humans, but not for god. The ability to create complex things evidences complexity for humans, but god is still "simple". Down isn't the opposite of up. It's an argument you've yet to even present with any support or honesty.

We already disagree on those premises (or do we still agree, but you're just presenting what you THINK I believe in order to refute it?)

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim We already disagree on those premises (or do we still agree, but you're just presenting what you THINK I believe in order to refute it?)

Of course not. I'm presenting what you've presented. You hold an agnostic stance (as of today, apparently...) where in you maintain "god exists" and "god does not exist" cannot be proven which is false. God does not exist is proven.