|
Post by 4iner on Jul 29, 2010 22:56:06 GMT -5
ryan i think there is what to be said for calculating odds of evolution...assuming you don't buy into teh idea that microbes from wherever flew to earth and evolved...ambiogenesis alone is not only unlikely but would be an extremely lengthy process which would bite into a large chunk of 4.5 billion...add on to that all the evolutions necessary from where we started according to evolutionists, and today...it would be interesting if it were possible to calculate the number of generations from the beginni8ng of the world until today for the various species we see today in the world...the mutations necessary would probably not have happened in one generation... I lost you half way through this paragraph. Can you do some rephrasing? I believe in evolution by the way.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 29, 2010 22:59:55 GMT -5
which part?
|
|
|
Post by 4iner on Jul 29, 2010 23:09:06 GMT -5
Here's what it sounds to me like you're saying: -Ambiogenesis is unlikely, and would have taken an extremely long period of time. The evolution of species after that would also have taken a very long time. -Something about calculating the number of generations it took for an organism to evolve between the time evolution started to the modern day. ( ) -The mutations necessary would probably not have happened in one generation. ( no one is saying this...) Not completely sure if you believe in evolution or not.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 29, 2010 23:16:20 GMT -5
oh i dont, but i have heard some theories that almost make sense the first part you got right, you need quite a chain for a self replicating protein... as for part two, it would be pretty interesting to know the number of generations that have passes between the supposed start of teh evolutionary process for certain species until the end of that process part 3 i know they would not have happened...at least not according to teh standard view of evolution, according to some of teh more...interesting...ones beneficial mutations could happen in one generation
|
|
|
Post by low on Jul 30, 2010 0:08:06 GMT -5
@ Ryan I think you're treating atheism (specifically agnostic-atheism) as though it were gnostic-theism. I'm not saying there is no higher power, but rather that there isn't any compelling evidence I've seen that points to the conclusion of a higher power. Close-mindedness is a lack of openness to the possibility, not simply a lack of belief. bombmaniacStatics is a model of utility used to predict future outcomes or take measurements. When you select that particular outcome as indicative of a higher power, you're overreaching the boundaries statistics cover. As the video shows, there's a 1 in 1000 chance of 741 coming up on a random number generator. It doesn't mean anything if 741 is the number that came up. Now, if someone were to predict that the number 741 would come up and it did, that would be impressive, because then the stat of 1 in 1000 actually means something. The probability of 741 coming up was 1 in 1000, but the property that any number would come up was 1 in 1. But let's consider rolling a 6 sided die. If the number 5 showed up in 4 out of 10 rolls, it might be worth testing it more, wondering if maybe it had been weighted in favor of the number 5 showing up. As I said, stats are reliable for their predictive nature of future outcomes and taking useful measurements of reality, whether it's batting averages or data from the BLS. That said, an unlikely event happening isn't indicative of a higher power any more than the likely events happening most of the time are indicative of a lack of a higher power. Often, people will say that a prayer request for an unlikely event met is a miracle; an act of god; and yet the answer to a prayer not happening isn't often taken as a lack of a higher power (and furthermore is often met with "it's not god's plan"). This is just selecting, once again. What are the odds of a few events that are unlikely to occur with the constant stream of all things happening? That's why probability shouldn't be looked at after the event. The odds of an unlikely event happening is definitively unlikely, but the odds of an unlikely event ever happening is not, so using statistics to support a higher power is a non-sequitur.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 30, 2010 0:28:08 GMT -5
ive actually heard a very interesting atheist explanation for prayer and miracles
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 30, 2010 0:32:25 GMT -5
ive actually heard a very interesting atheist explanation for prayer and miracles It's a really complicated concept. Here's a link to explain it better: bit.ly/14cmQM
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 30, 2010 1:01:33 GMT -5
one i heard was difference, an explanation of how prayer (or rather intense concentration) could actually affect change
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 30, 2010 1:11:47 GMT -5
My point is not to disprove an atheist - that is not the point of this thread (why do people think it is?) My point was to prove that the idea of a god is not bull crap to sean. You guys really do need to keep focus on the point of these threads or you will lose sight of what is being debated.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 30, 2010 2:31:32 GMT -5
but...but...but...the peripheral discussions are so interesting...
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 30, 2010 12:48:25 GMT -5
one i heard was difference, an explanation of how prayer (or rather intense concentration) could actually affect change It's explained in a film called "the Secret" and it's a load of bull. It's all been debunked several hundred times and branded as a scam.
|
|
|
Post by low on Jul 30, 2010 12:54:39 GMT -5
one i heard was difference, an explanation of how prayer (or rather intense concentration) could actually affect change It's explained in a film called "the Secret" and it's a load of bull. It's all been debunked several hundred times and branded as a scam. The Chaser's War On Everything did a segment about The Secret. It's too hilarious to not post here. Don't worry, it's relevant!: P.S. Who here thinks "Don't worry, it's relevant!" should be a catchphrase on debating forums?
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 30, 2010 12:55:47 GMT -5
i vote YES!!! are we talking about the same idea alex?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 30, 2010 13:19:38 GMT -5
"Law" of attraction = bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 30, 2010 13:23:07 GMT -5
no...the idea heard something to do with the brain's mild electromagnetic charge being used as a kind of quantum measuring device...
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 30, 2010 13:40:38 GMT -5
no...the idea heard something to do with the brain's mild electromagnetic charge being used as a kind of quantum measuring device... Still bullshit. I don't think there's ANY evidence to suggest that. It's just wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 30, 2010 13:54:37 GMT -5
oh i know i just thought it was cool
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on Jul 30, 2010 14:04:12 GMT -5
...
|
|
|
Post by low on Jul 30, 2010 14:18:27 GMT -5
bombmaniac--which is an impossible claim for anyone to have made based on evidence, since we've only begun to tap into interpreting the meaning of electrochemical activity of the brain. I think the theory you're talking about is some combination of The Secret's "Law of Attraction" with a philosophy called "panpsychism," or the belief that consciousness is a building block of matter. I'm not well versed enough in metaphysical quantum-theories (all I can tell you is that they're often an inappropriate mixture of philosophy and science) to refute them, but I can link you to this video which covers that topic briefly (it starts panentheism around 3:50 and then gets specifically to panpsychism around 5:50) I can't say it's impossible (though I can say it's highly unlikely, since it goes way beyond the E&M-sensitivity of an EEG to have some interstellar object read the oscillations of every human being's brainwaves), but I can say that it isn't supported with material evidence other than the simple unprofound fact that our thoughts are electrochemical in nature.
|
|
|
Post by bgreen on Jul 30, 2010 15:24:57 GMT -5
@bgreed pascals wager essentially Thank god for google and wikipedia So basically this: WIKIQUOTE: Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. ENDQUOTE I guess that kinda is my philosophy...I've promised to myself before to never join any organized religion, but also to never go full-blown atheist. Let's just do our best in life. Good luck with your belief or disbelief or belief, Pogotribe. =D ;D p.s. that quote doesn't exactly hold true for the victims and soldiers of the Crusades, does it? they lost their lives...if they were wrong, they have eternal nothingness and wasted their lives when they could have lived for years more.
|
|