Your analogy might be a tad off. You are measuring the probability of Howard making shots based on multiple shots instead of just looking at each attempt individually (which is 50%). You are talking about the % of people getting a correct answer if given the same question. It does not matter if 90% got it right because each individual only has a 50% chance of getting it right (true or false). Replace the word fairies with god on this last statement and most atheist will agree with it. Your conclusions on the probability of a certain claim to be true or not does not affect the probability of you getting the correct answer - it is still 50%.
A couple of things... Origin of species is different than origin of life. Evolution has also moved on.
Honestly, if you don't grasp the difference between the origin of species and the origin of life then your level of understanding of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis, and basic biology is so low it's not sad. I'd be happy to give you a primer, if you'd like, or at least some links to read to improve your knowledge and understanding of these things. Notice I'm actually willing to provide insight if you wish, unlike others here who keep saying they wish they could discuss and educated, but then run away, all cowardly like. Such strange behavior.
I must be so confused I don't even realize it. I don't understand your point on historical authenticity that has relevance to god's existence. Forrest Gump is pretty historically authentic. The whole concept of gods is foolish to me honestly. Reminds me of childhood when your dad tells you to do something and you want to know why and he says because I said so. Oh because you said so! Okay.
"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances." "Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion." "Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good." - The Buddha
The title of this thread is "Do You Believe in God?" We are now discussing evolution, and, of course, everyone is an expert and knows everything about everything and more than willing to educate the "rest of us." Enjoy your "god" status while you can. 1. I will not engage in discussions where posters are hurling insults and calling names. I don't do that (although would really like to) and I won't accept it from others. I simply won't respond to such posts. If I think the behavior is especially childish and excessive, I will use the ignore function. I encourage those who I have on ignore to ignore me as well. Then we are both happy. 2. Once discussions move from general terms to microscopic points they are too time consuming and laborious. They are no longer fun. 3. Some of you want to argue minute details and I can cite sources just like you can cite sources. On the subject of evolution, there are thousands of them and no matter which ones I post you will find a counter argument. 4. So, here is my final word on the subject. I don't "believe" that life spontaneously generated anywhere in the universe or universes ever. Obviously organisms adapt to environments which is something we can observe. The last book I read on the subject of Creationism vs. Evolution was entitled "The Evolution of a Creationist" by Dr Jobe Martin a former professor at Baylor University. You can get a copy, read the 203 pages and then spend your time on this thread making fun of it. 5. You can get an online copy of Darwin's "The Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" at, ironically, The Talk Origins Archive. The link is below. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html Enjoy.
That is what I am saying. Religion and science shouldn't be conflated with each other. They are inherently different ways of understanding. If you read my response to other posters you will understand what I mean. We are rational (thinking) beings and science is one expression of that rationality. As rational beings though there are questions that are beyond empiricism yet science is a system based on empiricism. As such it is great at explaining the how the universe works but it doesn't explain the why of the Universe. For example scientifically we can determine that I came about as a result of a chain of causality going back to certain self-replicating proteins combined with other organic structures to form the first cells and then through a process of mutation with selective adaption eventually led to humans of which I am one. That is the how of my existence but it doesn't explain if there is any purpose or meaning to my existence. Those are questions that are beyond empiricism and inherently unscientific yet inherent to the human condition. The answer to those questions isn't a matter of an evidentiary argument producing a single answer but a matter of faith with multiple answers that ultimately are only relevant to any individual. As I said before it really is the question and not the answer that is inherent to our rationality. I am not sure what TENS is? Is it an acronym for something? You are showing what I mean by shallow interpretation because you are looking at it as trying to force a round peg into a square hole. Belief in God and the theory of Evolution are not in conflict because they are very different ways of thought and don't actually deal with the same issue. Proving the existence of God isn't a scientific question because there is no falsifiable experiment that can prove God. That is why Creationism and Intelligent Design fail as scientific theories because the central agent cannot be proven scientifically. That is a shallow view that is forcing the square peg of God into the round hole of science. Conversely though to say God isn't necessary because you can't find empirical proof is forcing the round peg of science into the square hole of religion. The existence or lack of God can neither be proven or disproven scientifically and is inherently a matter of faith. There is no conflict in saying that abiogenesis and Evolution are the how of the origin of life and speciation while saying God is the why. While related those are two separate issues that only conflict when viewing either extremely shallowly. Either substituting religion for science or science for religion.
I am sorry you feel that way and hope I haven't done anything to cause you offense that said this isn't some small point but actually a very important we are discussing and one that I believe frequently causes a lot of problems in this discussion. The issue of whether Evolution deals with the origin of life or just the differentiation of species isn't some minute detail but something that is very critical to understanding the theory. They are related issues but the origin of life is actual a far more complicated issue that is much more controversial than Evolution. Mutation, selective adaption, genetic drift are fairly well understood processes while how the first cell developed is not understood at all. That is why the distinction is critical. What frequently happens though in these type of discussions is that critics of Evolution often bring up issues like how come Evolution can't explain the origin of life, matter, the Universe and etc.. Technically that would make Evolution a theory of everything. It is a very important scientific theory but not a theory of everything. Honestly this is just petulant. If you have a source that you think is good why don't you discuss the subject matter of it instead of making a smart ass comment. Yes I have read some of it and from the preface and the introduction it is clear he is discussing why there are different species and not how life came about. Again that is a related question but context is critical. For example if I wrote a book called The Origin of the Rockets' 1995 Championship you would probably not expect it to explain how basketball, the NBA or even the Houston Rockets organization came about.
LMFAAOOOO he's already sprinting away mclawson: ARE YOU SERIOUS?????? Dr. Jobe Martin?????? The same douche bag that made this: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/R0Cq_sM3t0k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> You do know he's a dentist right? He's nothing but a douche bag creationist money making charlatan masquerading as some expert on evolutionary science and using his "Dr." of dentistry to make him appear like a credible expert and fool gullible idiots like you into buying his rubbish creationist propaganda. lmfaaoo at your sad attempt to pump up this dentist as some expert by using the word professor. LMFAAAO yes he's a professor alright, a professor at Baylor College of Dentistry.
solid, not all of us can be dentist experts on evolution so cut us some slack. You cite a dentist, I cite an evolutionary biologist. Advantage? Not the dentist. The overwhelming evidence in science is for evolution. Citing a couple of scientists or dentists that disagree doesn't make it any less overwhelming. There's a reason evolution is taught as science and creationism is not. And it seems clear that you really don't understand the difference between origins of life and origin of species. They're not the same things. Evolution doesn't explain orgin, it's not intended to explain it. Also, science isn't interested in belief, only in what you can test and prove.
If there is no God then please explain how bananas fit perfectly in the human hand and are designed with a perfect covering that protects the nourishing fruit from parasitic insects?
Apparently the cover wasn't necessary because it has been cut off for thousands of years without much of an issue.
You are so full of crap i dont even know where to begin....... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zSYosM2ZhzY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bWt8a1aMkZ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> What do you mean now what? Congratulations are in order. Japan is a modern, industrialized, first world nation with a huge economy. A round of applause indeed. What exactly is wrong with japan? The japanese are highly advanced technologically. The japanese have a huge economy. The japanese have very long life expectancy rates. They dont start wars with other countries anymore. What exactly is wrong with japan? LMFAAAAOOOOO WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?????? Im not exactly sure until i read this...... Now it all makes sense. Now i get why a previous poster called you the resident imperialist. What you are is a bored, rudderless, gullible idiot, with a longing to follow extreme cults, religion, and in essence delusions of grandeur. You miss the shogun/samurai days of Japan. You miss the Imperial Monarchy of Emperor Hirohito You want a national identity akin to muslim mujaheddins in pakistan and afghanistan. You long for some kind of movement, religion, cult, or military/national propaganda to follow in order to fill your empty boring life. Japan IS A MODERN, FIRST WORLD, CIVILIZED, ATHEIST, ECONOMICALLY SUCCESSFUL, PEACEFUL COUNTRY?????? BOOOOO!!!!!! Says Kojirou. I cant believe you are actually pissed that japan is a successful nation who doesnt believe in god. You want a national identity? What like indonesia and Islam? Like the philippines and cathlolicism? I guess you like common ethics like severe corruption that cripples the economy and ignorant ass backward moral policies like banning condoms. Because that's what you get with highly religious countries. You want a successful country? A more advanced developed country? BECOME MORE SECULAR. Funny how your mentality is completely ass backwards. I wish more asian countries would act like japan. Actually it is good. Its very good. If people around the world finally realized how God is not real and god is not great and there is no need for organized religion then maybe isrealis and palestinians can finally find peace, young muslim men would stop blowing themselves up, genocide in africa would stop, and countries deeply rooted in religion (yeaaay for religious ideal right kojirou???) can finally become economically successful nations and become first world countries. Its not a coincidence that the most religious countries are almost always poor, undeveloped, third world countries while the least religious are almost always successful, developed first world countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country What you fail to realize and understand is blindly following a religious ideal or political ideal is bad for a country. That's how arab intellectualism died and why countries like afghanistan are still somewhat stuck in the stone ages and that's how stalinism/statism killed millions of people in russia. In conclusion kojirou, You should get a girlfriend or a wife, have a family, have sons and daughters and give them a bright future so that you can have some purpose and guidance in life so you wouldnt long for imperial japan, shogunate japan, or look for a country to have some religious moral imperative like the middle east (see arab spring and failed iranian revolution).
CometsWin, please... All you can do is observe chance and randomness- without intervention. I never used the word 'design', intelligence is what it takes to run an experiment. That was my only point. I never said God explains complexity. Time does not equal intelligence. Why do wavelengths of visible light reflect in primary colors? Do you believe light evolved by chance? BTW the perception of color is a brain function as much as an eye cone function. Who has observed that developing in randomness? Running an experiment requires intelligence, they don't happen by randomness. Evidence requires only observation and validation. You may be confusing testing with experimentation. When something is validated by a test it is not considered experimentation. When I worked in a chemical lab we never experimented we validated.
TENS - Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (I had defined it earlier in my post). I largely agree with you. The difference between us is that you consider the religious way of understanding as complementary to the scientific way of understanding, while I think it only serves to mislead and confuse, and is no more than wishful thinking. If it only were so... While I would object to pretty much everything you wrote, this is the closest to my area of expertise. Do tell, what do you mean by this?
