Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?
test
The Sandbox - NationalThe Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.
I can assure you that Fred Hoyle didn't pull anything out of his ass. Hoyle was a prominent and highly respected astronomer and mathematician who gave name to the Big Bang theory developed by George Lemaitre. He was also an anti-thiest most of his life, much like Christopher Hitchens.
By "pulling it out of his ass", I mean that he probably made a shitload of generalizations and assumptions about what the environment was like 3 billion years ago. Which means there is a huge margin of error in his "40 zeros" number.
I don't even know how he could begin to estimate the probabilities.
By "pulling it out of his ass", I mean that he probably made a shitload of generalizations and assumptions about what the environment was like 3 billion years ago. Which means there is a huge margin of error in his "40 zeros" number.
I don't even know how he could begin to estimate the probabilities.
Seeing as how Hoyle was one of the pre-eminent mathematicians of his time I'd venture that he came as close to the truth as any human could get. But let's say he was off by a massive amout. So far off that the probability goes down to 1:x followed by 400 zeros instead of 40,000. Those trillions of random trials still pale in comparison to that #. A trillion only has 12 zeros behind it. I won't belabor the point any farther.
But it does remind me of something Bojulay said earlier. All of us here rely on some sort of faith as near as I can see. Even if you are a strict evolutionist with a belief in the big bang, unless you can do the math involved, you are taking it on faith that what Einstein et al said about physics and astronomy is the truth. So, pick your poison. Personally I've found a way to take a little of both. It's not for everyone but then I suppose that's why it's sometimes refered to as a "personal relationship" with god.
I think both Sagan and Asimov's quotes are excellent. They weren't overly influenced by evangelists in their Jewish homes. Like THIS guy, who has his shit together, but is desperately trying to get rid of it!
Yes, under the circumstances that they create life where it isn't derived from life in a simpler form.
The chain breaks at the formation of life. Show me where man creates life replicating its spontaneous occurrence absent God.
I was gonna let this go but since you're so determined to be a fuckstick....
There is no way that any thinking person could say that when some one, with knowledge and forethought, engineers conditions where none existed before, that are conducive to the formation of life, with the expectation of that very thing happening, could be even remotely considered random or spontaneous.
Dumbass!
That's like saying, "After I had sex with my wife, she spontaneously got pregnant."
I was gonna let this go but since you're so determined to be a fuckstick....
There is no way that any thinking person could say that when some one, with knowledge and forethought, engineers conditions where none existed before, that are conducive to the formation of life, with the expectation of that very thing happening, could be even remotely considered random or spontaneous.
Dumbass!
There are a couple of problems with that.
They aren't trying to engineer conditions that never existed before. In fact, they are trying to reproduce the possible conditions they believe DID exist before.
No one is saying the lab experiment is random or spontaneous. It is an attempt are replicating something that is believed to have happened. The original event was random. The replay is not.
They aren't trying to engineer conditions that never existed before. In fact, they are trying to reproduce the possible conditions they believe DID exist before.
No one is saying the lab experiment is random or spontaneous. It is an attempt are replicating something that is believed to have happened. The original event was random. The replay is not.
Well, certainly at some point, somewhere, the conditions necessary to create life existed. What I'm talking about is in the lab, or wherever the experiment occurs, those conditions did not exist until some one created them.
What I'm getting at is the idea that "The Creator" could have engineered those conditions to create life and our attempts to mimic that doesn't prove that those conditions exist anywhere else. They may or they may not. But if a scientist engineers the environnment to create life, he is it's creator.
Well, certainly at some point, somewhere, the conditions necessary to create life existed. What I'm talking about is in the lab, or wherever the experiment occurs, those conditions did not exist until some one created them.
What I'm getting at is the idea that "The Creator" could have engineered those conditions to create life and our attempts to mimic that doesn't prove that those conditions exist anywhere else. They may or they may not. But if a scientist engineers the environnment to create life, he is it's creator.
Dose anyone else besides me and Ducbutter see the pitiful irony in the scenario.
People who don't believe in a CREATOR trying to CREATE life in a lab
that they say somehow just spontaneously generated on it's own,
and they are not able to do it.
May be the greatest irony of all time.
They may be intelligent, but they seem to have all the wisdom
of a deer turning back into the headlights of the car.
And for arguments sake lets say that someday they are successful.
What will they have proven? That it takes a creator to create life.
