Civil Discussion About Religion

And I don't feel like hearing your crap that this is a christian website. It is made up of scientific facts.

It's not science, it's people's opinions. Mostly, they ask philosophical questions that support belief in god. I'm pretty sure some of the quotes they are using were taken out of context and used for the sole purpose of supporting creationism.

Just a note about the odds of life...

It's easy to present extreme odds of life as evidence of a creator. However, you must also apply the same logic in reverse.

Our sun sustains life on Earth. There are billions upon billions of stars in our galaxy -- each possibly capable of sustaining life in their own capacity. There are billions upon billions of galaxies in the universe. So, that is billions upon billions times billions upon billions of possible environments able to sustain life. What's a billion squared? I don't know, but it's a number so large we can't really comprehend it.

So, let's assume that the odds of life are around 100 billion to one (pretty liberal, I know). That would mean that for every 100 billion environments able to sustain life, there would be one of them which actually does sustain life -- and there are FAR more stars in the universe than 100 billion.

The point is: there are SO many stars in the universe, each possibly capable of sustaining life, that even if the odds of life are incredible, the colossal number of stars in the universe offset those odds significantly.

Very well said. The odds of an amino acid combining to form the early stages of life are indeed so astronomically tiny that you'd think it was impossible for it to happen.

But then you remember that our Earth has been around for billions of years (according to paleontological records), and you think well that sure does give the amino acids an awful lot of time to come around and finally beat the odds.

It's just like Powerball or Megamillions. The odds of winning are itsy bitsy. But if you played every week for billions of years, wouldn't yet expect to win at some point?

Just a note about the odds of life...

It's easy to present extreme odds of life as evidence of a creator. However, you must also apply the same logic in reverse.

Our sun sustains life on Earth. There are billions upon billions of stars in our galaxy -- each possibly capable of sustaining life in their own capacity. There are billions upon billions of galaxies in the universe. So, that is billions upon billions times billions upon billions of possible environments able to sustain life. What's a billion squared? I don't know, but it's a number so large we can't really comprehend it.

So, let's assume that the odds of life are around 100 billion to one (pretty liberal, I know). That would mean that for every 100 billion environments able to sustain life, there would be one of them which actually does sustain life -- and there are FAR more stars in the universe than 100 billion.

The point is: there are SO many stars in the universe, each possibly capable of sustaining life, that even if the odds of life are incredible, the colossal number of stars in the universe offset those odds significantly.

Non-interesting fact: Carl Sagan didn't actually use the phrase "billions and billions" - he just said "billions".

OK so here's what I did:

I started with 5 on 2nd 12, 5 on 3rd 12, 5 on red, and 5 on odd. From there, I watched what won and lost. If I won on something, I didn't bet it the next time and I doubled my money on the ones that I didn't win on. I kept doing this based on the patterns, and walked away when I got up. I also put a dollar straddling the 0 and 00 on occasion.

After 8 rolls, I got up by $50 and walked away.

Then I came back, and after 11 rolls I got up by $50 and walked away.

Then I came back, and after 14 rolls, I lost $120. It came up 00 on my very first roll, and I didn't have a $1 on it (because it was my first roll). Then 0 came up three rolls later, and again, since the green squares hadn't hit in a while, I didn't have $1 on it. So after losing $120, I figured the table was cold, so I got up and walked away.

I came back, and with my final 8 rolls, I lost $5.

Overall, I lost $25.

Well, I appreciate you looking into it. I had a feeling something like that would happen (the greens hitting). In my full version explanation, there is a way to avoid that, but it's very complex. Part of the system tells you to not bet if certain patterns appear (or lack in appearance), but it is not possible to do so on that website like it is in real life. After giving the basics a try, do you at least see how the system can work?
Again, I am pleased you gave it a shot, it shows your willingness to check out new things.

I just wanted to say that in this debate I believe that God and evolution do exsist or almost go hand in hand. It would be wrong to believe that God is all knowing, forgiving, and loving and the mastermind to life as we know it but He is incapable of designing a plan such as evolution...

Also, I just wanted to say that everyone says that they need scientific proof that either their is a God or that evolution did happen. Well, wasn't in science that tought us back in grade school, and I am sure everyone had to memorize it and write it down, that Pluto is a planet. Right, science tought us that. Only now we are being told that science is/was wrong...

Just food for thought...
(As I throw fuel on the flame...)

So based on your observations that everything IN our world has a beginning and an end, you BELIEVE that something had to have given a beginning to our world.

That's my point, that's your belief. Doesn't make it so.

And science does not tell us everything has a beginning. I'm not sure where you're getting that? Perhaps you could explain that one to me? One of the laws of thermodynamics is that matter cannot be created out of thin air or destroyed. You can separate it into tiny atoms, but you can't get rid of it. Likewise, you can't create it.

Well, part of my thoughts actually goes against the matter theory. Like, how can a star become a supernova, then explode, vaporizing most particals, and creating a black hole? Where does that matter go? Some matter can be destroyed into a gas form, which goes against the matter theory as well. Of course this hasn't been completely proven by science since humans have yet to get samples of an exploding stars.
There is a plant in Chicago that takes atoms and destroys them, converting the explosion process into energy. The matter itself is gone, but it does live on in the form of energy. So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter. I think at some point science will change it's mind on this theory. I could be wrong...but at the very least I see them adding stipulations to this theory.

About my beliefs...well, right back at you. Just because it is your belief, doesn't make it so. I am just saying look at what sceince and history has shown us. Everything has a start. You're using the thermodynamics theory as basis to say not everything has a beginning. But your eyes tell you other wise. I am 32 years old (on Monday), before that, I was a mere nothing..something my father created over time. I had a beginning. You had a beginning. Everyone on this planet had a beginning. That is the theory of life. So these theories can not co-exist if they are both taken extremely literally.
I think at this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Because as we break this down to exact point, I say it HAD to be made, you say it's possible that it was already here. That's pretty much a stalemate. So I'll be lingering around looking at other subject to speak of, but seems this particular subject is dead.
Look forward to future discussions...I'm sure our paths will meet again.

Well, I appreciate you looking into it. I had a feeling something like that would happen (the greens hitting). In my full version explanation, there is a way to avoid that, but it's very complex. Part of the system tells you to not bet if certain patterns appear (or lack in appearance), but it is not possible to do so on that website like it is in real life. After giving the basics a try, do you at least see how the system can work?
Again, I am pleased you gave it a shot, it shows your willingness to check out new things.

No, it cannot work over time. If you have won money doing this in the past, you are simply lucky. There is no such thing as a roulette system. The wheel does not have patterns. Each outcome is completely random. If a red came up last roll, the chances of a red coming up this roll are no different than last roll.

You gave me a system, I followed it to the letter, and I lost money. If it's really a good system, it would work every time, there would be no luck involved. It would simply work.

For giving your system a shot, I'd like for you to consider my point of view for a moment. You've been so intent on seeing me try your system, that I don't think you've given full consideration to my points.

The odds of roulette are relatively simple. You're a numbers guy, so you'll be able to follow me here:

Let's look at putting money on the outside bets: odd, even, red, or black. There are 18 spots on the wheel for each one of those that would represent a win. There are 38 total spots on the wheel. So the chances of winning on any one of those bets is 18/38 = 47.36%. Conversely, there is a 52.64% chance you will lose.

Now, if you do win, you get paid 1 to 1. If you bet $1 and win, you win $1. The math works like this: 47.36% chance of winning times $1, plus 52.64% chance of losing times -$1.

(47.36% x $1) + (52.64% x -$1)
($0.4736) + (-$0.5264)
= - $0.052

On average, for every $1 you put on an outside bet, you will lose 5 cents. 47% of the time you win a dollar. 53% of the time you lose a dollar. Overall, on average, that's a loss of 5 cents per dollar you bet.

Look at playing any of the 12s, say first 12. Your chance of winning is 12/38 = 31.58%. Your payoff is 2 to 1. So put a dollar down, you win $2 when you win:

(31.58% x $2) + (68.42% x -$1)
($0.6317) + (-$0.6842)
= - $0.052

Same thing, playing first, second, or third 12, you lose 5 cents per dollar you bet.

Now look at betting individual numbers, including whether you bet 0 or 00. Pick any number, put a dollar on it. Your payoff is 35 to 1. Your chances of winning are 1/38 = 2.63%.

(2.63% x $35) + (97.37% x $-1)
($0.9210) + (- $0.9737)
= - $0.052

No matter where you bet on the board, on average, you will lose 5 cents per dollar you bet.

You've had masters courses, and you can't get a masters without taking statistics courses. So these probabilities should not escape you. The flaw in your system lies in the assumption that the wheel has patterns. It does not. You've fallen hook line and sinker for The Gambler's Fallacy.

If you really thought it was foolproof, you'd quit your job managing that Chilis, and you'd be in Vegas raking in millions upon millions. It doesn't work. Your previous winnings have been due to one thing only: LUCK.

Non-interesting fact: Carl Sagan didn't actually use the phrase "billions and billions" - he just said "billions".

Interesting fact: TAFKAS, Lady Brave, and Carl Sagan all share a birthday

Well, part of my thoughts actually goes against the matter theory. Like, how can a star become a supernova, then explode, vaporizing most particals, and creating a black hole? Where does that matter go? Some matter can be destroyed into a gas form, which goes against the matter theory as well. Of course this hasn't been completely proven by science since humans have yet to get samples of an exploding stars.
There is a plant in Chicago that takes atoms and destroys them, converting the explosion process into energy. The matter itself is gone, but it does live on in the form of energy. So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter. I think at some point science will change it's mind on this theory. I could be wrong...but at the very least I see them adding stipulations to this theory.

All of this is 100% incorrect.

In a black hole, the structure of the star collapses, and all the matter gets sucked into a tiny space. All the atoms that were there before are still there, they're just compressed into a much smaller place.

With all that matter compressed into such a small place, the gravitational field becomes so strong that light (made up of charged particles) cannot even escape the black hole. So when you look at a black hole, it appears there is nothing there, but there is matter at the core. You just can't see it because the image of the matter cannot escape it's own gravitational field. If you don't believe me, hit up Wikipedia for black holes.

On "destroying matter into gas form", you obviously haven't had much chemistry background. When you have water, it is in liquid form. When you boil it, it turns to gaseous form, or water vapor. Boiling water does not cause the H2O molecules to disappear. All of the H2O molecules are still present in the air. That's how the humidity gets higher in the summer. Warmer air holds more water vapor. The matter does not get destroyed when it goes into gas form - it's still present - just in a different form.

When that plant in Chicago uses it's linear accelerator (aka atom smasher) to break atoms apart, it does not destroy the atom in the sense that the atom is now suddenly gone. It breaks the atom apart into it's particles, separating the protons and neutrons held in the nucleus from the electrons orbiting the nucleus. The separation of those particles causes a mass chain reaction as those particles attempt to latch onto other atoms nearby, causing an imbalance in their chemical charges, and releasing more particles, which then in turn latch onto other atoms nearby, and so on. The reaction happens nearly instantaneously, and if not controlled, causes a nuclear explosion. The process can be controlled by using uranium to collect the homeless charged particles displaced by the smashing of the first atom. When the uranium is done being used, it contains tons and tons of charged particles, which emit harmful radiation. This process was invented by Einstein and company in the Manhattan Project, and gave rise to the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The same process is now used in every nuclear power plant across the country, in a controlled environment, and is used to generate electricity. All this is to say, the atom may be broken apart, but the pieces of the atom are never eliminated, simply displaced.

Matter cannot be destroyed. It can change states (liquid, solid, gas), it can be broken down into simpler substances (digestion), and it can be broken into pieces (nuclear reactions). But the matter never vanishes.

So at this point, I am uncertain if it is impossible to destroy matter.

This statement flies in the face of the law of Thermodynamics, which has been PROVEN to be correct. Hence they call it the LAW of Thermodynamics, and not the THEORY of Thermodynamics.

Too many people need to brush up on scientific terms:

Law: Has been proven and has never been broken.
Theory: Has not been proven, but evidence supports it.
Belief: No evidence exists, you just think it's true anyway.