Civil Discussion About Religion

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It's just too much of a coincidence not to be from a higher design. The odds of all this being like this by coincidence is so astronomical I don't have enough space to place the odds. How can science honestly overcome those odds?

Ultimately, my continuing belief in the Lord comes down to this. The theroy of evolution as it pertains to creating life says that life was begun through occurences of astronomically small probabilities. Ridiculously astronomically small. Would never, ever be duplicated again. But merely because it's possible, it's become a haven for "nonbelievers" who think that the Bible was a work of fiction.

The scientific method DEMANDS that an experiment be recreatable for it to be truly scientific. Evolution will likely never be recreated because of the nature of the theroy (A bunch of completely random occurences coming together just perfectly). So why Evolution would ever be passed off as "Scientific" is beyond me.

The much more logical explination is Creation, that instead of any random fluctuations of dumb luck, that there in fact IS a supremely intelligent being. Once it can be proven that creatures can be supremely intelligent (that is to have limitless knowledge), the rest of the Creation theroy makes perfect sense.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ultimately, my continuing belief in the Lord comes down to this. The theroy of evolution as it pertains to creating life says that life was begun through occurences of astronomically small probabilities. Ridiculously astronomically small. Would never, ever be duplicated again. But merely because it's possible, it's become a haven for "nonbelievers" who think that the Bible was a work of fiction.

The scientific method DEMANDS that an experiment be recreatable for it to be truly scientific. Evolution will likely never be recreated because of the nature of the theroy (A bunch of completely random occurences coming together just perfectly). So why Evolution would ever be passed off as "Scientific" is beyond me.

The much more logical explination is Creation, that instead of any random fluctuations of dumb luck, that there in fact IS a supremely intelligent being.

Evolution is not random, it took billions of years.

Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.

Evolution is akin to the learning processes we go throughout our lives. We learn from our mistakes and make sure we pass on lessons learned (ala traits) and skills to our descendants. It's how we get smarter. It's how we will continue to get smarter.

Once it can be proven that creatures can be supremely intelligent (that is to have limitless knowledge), the rest of the Creation theory makes perfect sense.

Limitless implies infinite and you cannot define infinity. In essence what you have just said is that creation theory can never be proven.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by steveo395

Schneed, how could you believe in evolution if you have never seen it happen. It has never been observed anywhere, not in a lab or in nature. Isn't that the same reason why you don't believe in God? I know some species have slightly changed to their environment, but they have never been changed into a new species. How could you then believe it if it has never been seen?

Because there are fossil records that show a gradual development of ancestral apes to homo sapien man. Again, getting back to that incredibly dumbfounding analogy, you don't need to see the wind to know it's there.

I don't need to see cro magnun man to realize that he looks an awful lot like a cross between a man and a gorilla. The scientists have studied the fossils, and the overwhelming majority of them agree that humans in their present form came from apes. I mean how else can you explain why chimpanzees are so similar to humans?

Getting to Saden's point about me chilling the F out, lucky for him I'm pretty much coming to the end of the conversation, because pretty much everything that can be said has been said. I can totally dig someone's viewpoint on faith; if you have it, that's fine and it's very noble. Jsarno is a good guy to debate with and I appreciate his views, because while he's religious and I respect him for it, he also acknowledges the overwhelming probability that evolution is on the money. I can agree to disagree with any religious viewpoint. But when someone refuses to believe evolution is probably right? I'm sorry. I find that ignorant. It's like ignoring the work of gaggles of scientists. It's intellectually lazy, and frankly just plain stupid.

Evolution is not a belief. It is a theory. Theories have evidence to support them, even though they cannot be proven. There is such thing as being 99% sure a theory is correct. Not everything is 100% sure, and not everything is 0% sure. It's impossible to get to 100% sure on evolution, we don't have time machines. But scientists are 99% sure evolution is on the money; despite the fact that many of those scientists are religious. There's no reason that religious belief and the theory of evolution can't coexist. One is a theory, the other is a belief. They'll only conflict if you're one of those morons who believes every single thing in the Bible (book of Genesis) is true. Thankfully, there aren't many of those people left in the world. Progress is good.

I'm done on this topic. I part by saying religion is great. I don't believe in it, but if you do, good for you. Evolution however, is not a belief. It is a theory. And if you refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence in favor of it, then you truly are ignorant.

[Redskinhog1963]

god says he made man in his image.but he never said what that image was!
is'nt it plausable that after he created us in his image,we evolved out of his image to our current image???

[RobH4413]

My favorite argument for a "god" was the first cause argument. I've always loved it...

You woke up this morning because your alarm clock went off. Your alive because your parents had sex. Your parents are alive because their parents had sex.

Every cause has an effect, and if you trace every cause further and further back through time, to the big bang for instance, what happened before that?

What was the "First Cause" to set everything in motion.

It proves that reason itself is flawed, we live in a foward flowing "time" where every action has a re-action. The problem is that time cannot exist, it's a figment of our silly little brains, and an eternal entity is the logical explanation.

However I just proved that logic is flawed in itself... so now I proved that I can't prove anything, so that leaves me with catch 22 after catch 22. It's funny thinking we can actually know something... but the truth is... we can't "know" anything in the true sense of the word.

It's 2:00am. I'm going to bed.

[SmootSmack]

When in doubt, consult the Simpsons

YouTube - The Simpsons - Myth of Creation

YouTube - An Unbiased Comparison

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I also have the MBA in Finance. I also majored in math in college.

Masters or not, you're wrong.

Your previous post to this one had nothing to say about the content of my post...but I do agree with your assessment of evolution, and yes I am fully aware of how that happened. Just saying there is a bunch of holes. I think my whole point eluded you.

About this post...I am not...you'd know this if you tried my system. Funny how you're too afraid to even try. I gave you proof that it can work, and you ignored it. So yes, we are done with this subject because you're not willing to even look at the evidence.

ps- congrats on the MBA...I know it was the hardest thing I have done in my life, and I feel to do it you have to be a special person. Although I have to work twice as hard at school for some reason as others. That's why I feel it's an astronomical accomplishment.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

ps- congrats on the MBA...I know it was the hardest thing I have done in my life, and I feel to do it you have to be a special person. Although I have to work twice as hard at school for some reason as others. That's why I feel it's an astronomical accomplishment.

Matty and I are special too! So is JoeRedskin, but in a different kind of way. But I always thought the hardest part of the MBA was getting in.

Ok, back to the Evolution Revolution

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Just wondering, where is it that your work begins at 2:00 pm New Mexico time? That's an interesting finance job. Sales maybe?

Actually it started at 3:30pm...I closed last night. Check out my profile...I am a restaurant manager for Chilis. Closes go from 3:30pm to 1:00am ish, 2:00am on friday and saturday night. Opens go from 7:30am to 5:30pm ish. This is why you'll notice I have some very early posts (2am) and sporatic appearances on here cause I work all the damn time. I'm wanting to get out of the business and back to banking.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

My favorite argument for a "god" was the first cause argument. I've always loved it...

You woke up this morning because your alarm clock went off. Your alive because your parents had sex. Your parents are alive because their parents had sex.

Every cause has an effect, and if you trace every cause further and further back through time, to the big bang for instance, what happened before that?

What was the "First Cause" to set everything in motion.

It proves that reason itself is flawed, we live in a foward flowing "time" where every action has a re-action. The problem is that time cannot exist, it's a figment of our silly little brains, and an eternal entity is the logical explanation.

However I just proved that logic is flawed in itself... so now I proved that I can't prove anything, so that leaves me with catch 22 after catch 22. It's funny thinking we can actually know something... but the truth is... we can't "know" anything in the true sense of the word.

It's 2:00am. I'm going to bed.

This is a very good post. I often come to that conclusion and amuse myself by my conclusions. I have been round-abouts touching on this, but you summed it up well. Good post.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Matty and I are special too! So is JoeRedskin, but in a different kind of way. But I always thought the hardest part of the MBA was getting in.

Ok, back to the Evolution Revolution

What do you mean..."getting in"? It's not like being accepted into Doctorate program.

I'm not saying, everyone with an MBA is special, and if you don't, then you're not. I just feel it was such a huge accomplishment for me, that I hold a high value on it. I apologize if I made anyone seem insignificant or small by my comment. That was not my intent.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

What do you mean..."getting in"? It's not like being accepted into Doctorate program.

I'm not saying, everyone with an MBA is special, and if you don't, then you're not. I just feel it was such a huge accomplishment for me, that I hold a high value on it. I apologize if I made anyone seem insignificant or small by my comment. That was not my intent.

No I just meant applying to the different schools and getting accepted was the key. Once in, I felt like I didn't kill me to finish. Not like law school or med school where they kill you your first year to see what you're made of.

Either way, not really relevant to the overall topic of this thread. So I'll drop it.

[MTK]

I actually thought my undergrad was tougher to get through. Longer program, more tedious type of work/tests.

Grad school was a different challenge, mainly being time management with juggling a full time job. I felt that the profs treated you different, more like an equal and as a result the classes were much more enjoyable. I liked the emphasis on original thought vs. just memorizing and spitting back info like in undergrad.

[Schneed10]

My undergrad was a lot harder than grad school, as well. I think the professors tended to get on our asses a lot harder because they knew that if they didn't, we'd be back in our apartment playing beer pong all night. You're right, grad school professors didn't tend to push as hard.

Jsarno, there's just no way I can get through to you on your roulette system. I'll let these guys from the Wizard of Odds, with PhDs in statistics, do the explaining:

♠The Truth about Betting Systems - by The Wizard of Odds

The biggest gambling myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the "gambler's fallacy." Thousands of gamblers have devised betting systems that attempt to exploit the gambler's fallacy by betting the opposite way of recent outcomes. For example, waiting for three reds in roulette and then betting on black. Hucksters sell "guaranteed" get-rich-quick betting systems that are ultimately based on the gambler's fallacy. None of them work. If you don't believe me here is what some other sources say on the topic.

A common gamblers' fallacy called 'the doctrine of the maturity of the chances' (or 'Monte Carlo fallacy') falsely assumes that each play in a game of chance is not independent of the others and that a series of outcomes of one sort should be balanced in the short run by other possibilities. A number of 'systems' have been invented by gamblers based largely on this fallacy; casino operators are happy to encourage the use of such systems and to exploit any gambler's neglect of the strict rules of probability and independent plays. -- Encyclopedia Britannica (look under "gambling.")
No betting system can convert a subfair game into a profitable enterprise... -- Probability and Measure (page 94, second edition) by Patrick Billingsley

The number of 'guaranteed' betting systems, the proliferation of myths and fallacies concerning such systems, and the countless people believing, propagating, venerating, protecting, and swearing by such systems are legion. Betting systems constitute one of the oldest delusions of gambling history. Betting systems votaries are spiritually akin to the proponents of perpetual motion machines, butting their heads against the second law of thermodynamcis. -- The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic (page 53) by Richard A. Epstein

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

My undergrad was a lot harder than grad school, as well. I think the professors tended to get on our asses a lot harder because they knew that if they didn't, we'd be back in our apartment playing beer pong all night. You're right, grad school professors didn't tend to push as hard.

Jsarno, there's just no way I can get through to you on your roulette system. I'll let these guys from the Wizard of Odds, with PhDs in statistics, do the explaining:

♠The Truth about Betting Systems - by The Wizard of Odds

You wrote this on a previous thread:

No not directed at you, you are quality. We may butt heads, but I enjoy the discussions because you explain yourself, you consider opposing views, and you're civil.

I appreciate your comments.
All I ask is you check out the proof I laid before you. That's it. Do you really think it's not even possible to find a loop hole in something? Just check it out, and if you still think that I'm wrong, then so be it. At least then I can honor your opinion on the subject. You say I consider opposing views, which I do...so if this is something you look for in a poster, why not practice it.
(I have seen you practice this in other areas, so why not here?)