Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I remember vaguely hearing William Lane Craig, saying that, evolution is so improbable that it needs a god to happen. Not sure where to go to find out more about this so I figure someone with a bit more science education would no more then me. I got my biology education in a catholic school so that is my excuse for ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 30, 2010 Super Moderator Share Posted January 30, 2010 A specific, pre-determined evolution is improbable. The process of evolution goes where it goes, without a plan or goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I remember vaguely hearing William Lane Craig, saying that, evolution is so improbable that it needs a god to happen. I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Ken Miller explains evolution better than I and he has a website with a lot of evolution material on it at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ . Miller is biology professor at Brown University and it was his testimony that convinced the court not to allow intelligent design into the classroom. Miller is also a Christian. I find it really ironic that a Christian convinced the court evolution is true and not just a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 A specific, pre-determined evolution is improbable. The process of evolution goes where it goes, without a plan or goal. Right. This is responsible for the diversity of species in general, but it is also the reason it took a very, very, very long time for hominids to appear in the first place. In fact, without a natural disaster 65 million years ago (3 thousand millions years after life started), we might not be here at all. Or to put it more succinctly, if evolution had been guided, it could have been a hell of a lot more efficient. And if it were "guided" by the same being the supposedly is omnipotent, the "poofing" in the OT would make more sense. Why use a process? Why the whole Rube Goldberg evolutionary mechanism with DNA and millions of years to do what any decent supreme being could do without breaking a sweat or requiring more than three thousand million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I remember vaguely hearing William Lane Craig, saying that, evolution is so improbable that it needs a god to happen. I agree Trouble is, that doesn't explain anything. It doesn't prove the point of any religion, or sect. It doesn't say whether God cares about humanity or not. Sure, a super-intelligence mapped out the direction of nature and evolution, and hey, guess what, he does not give a hoot about YOU or ME. And sure, let the Universe (as we know it) sit bubbling for 12 billion years before making humans. Yeah, this creator is just infatuated with us stinky little mammals. Course, after 12 billion years I guess I'd be ready to try anything weird as a project. Oh, and thanks for the twenty year lifespan that humans had (if they were lucky) for the first 100,000 years or so (homo sapiens) People take better care of their insects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I remember vaguely hearing William Lane Craig, saying that, evolution is so improbable that it needs a god to happen. Not sure where to go to find out more about this so I figure someone with a bit more science education would no more then me. I got my biology education in a catholic school so that is my excuse for ignorance. I think the probability that we share over 20 identical genetic ERVs with chimpanzees are lower. Let me rephrase that. We share 20 identical ERVs with chimpanzees. The only probable explanation is that we share a common ancestor. Any other explanation would be detrimental to Christian religion. For instance, is God purposely deceptive? Secondly, where the fuck does WLC get any supporting numbers to calculate the probability of an event we can't establish a baseline for? Probability can only be calculated if you have measurable events of "yes" and "no" (so to speak). Let me explain in other words, I throw a die 40,000 times, now I can calculate the probability. I measure the length of hair and count the number of citizens and get a probability of the hair length if you meet someone. But how do you get a probability of "X happened" unless you can count all the times when it did not happen? It's basically bullshitting on a high philosophical gobbledygook level. --- And another thing, unlikely is not the same as impossible. It is unlikely that I will win the lotto, but it is not impossible because there are usually at least one person of all the players who win each week. So in other words, even if the probability is 1 in a fantazillion, it doesn't make it impossible, and obviously (if you look around you) it did happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I remember vaguely hearing William Lane Craig, saying that, evolution is so improbable that it needs a god to happen. Not sure where to go to find out more about this so I figure someone with a bit more science education would no more then me. I got my biology education in a catholic school so that is my excuse for ignorance. The existence of a god is so improbable that it needs a god to happen which is so improbable that it needs a god to happen which is so...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 It's basically bullshitting on a high philosophical gobbledygook level. I think he may base that on all the specifics of the Earth's positioning, rotation, orbits, Big Bang. Exact amounts of needed chemicals for life to function, properties. Habitats, atmosphere. All the inter working proponents that enable life to function on Earth. Really Hans, evolution doesn't have the answer either, and is just as insubstantial in ways. Evolutionist simply say, this caused this to happen, and effected this, which effected this, which enabled this, which modified that. What happened before all that? Cosmic explosion placed everything in the right place to start all these complex structures that interlinked into what we now have as a circle of continual life functions on Earth. Really, it comes down to the beginning. Cosmic explosion or the creation story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Why should evolution receive the credit for such beauty. To me, that's like saying Michelangelo didn't really paint the Sistine Chapel, but evolution painted it. Does that make sense to anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I think he may base that on all the specifics of the Earth's positioning, rotation, orbits, Big Bang. Exact amounts of needed chemicals for life to function, properties. Habitats, atmosphere. All the inter working proponents that enable life to function on Earth. There are 70 sixtillions stars in the Universe (as of now). That is: 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. What are the chances that there are another planet with the exact same distance from the star? Let's say there are a planet only on 1% of the stars, that means 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars have a planet. Let's say the maximum distance from a star for a plant of our size is where Jupiter is, that's 483,780,000 miles. If we would evenly distribute planets at all possible distances from the sun up to the distance of Jupiter, it would mean that at least 14,469,386 star system with a planet exactly (to a mile) the same distance from the star. At this is calculating it at the extremes. There might be more planets per stars. We know the distance can vary quite a bit (since Earth's rotation round the sun is not a circle, I think it shifts about 5-10%). So this number was at the extreme (on purpose). The probability for the chemicals to exist might not be as low as they think. Different physical processes are part of this. For instance, the size and weight of atoms will affect things. And how can someone calculate the probability for Big Bang? I know what it is, it's 1 of 42. In other words, out of 42 Big Bangs, only one succeeds. I know, we tested this. *not*. No one can calculate a probability for Big Bang. That's just ridiculous. Really Hans, evolution doesn't have the answer either, and is just as insubstantial in ways. Evolutionist simply say, this caused this to happen, and effected this, which effected this, which enabled this, which modified that. What happened before all that? Cosmic explosion placed everything in the right place to start all these complex structures that interlinked into what we now have as a circle of continual life functions on Earth. I don't count on you to understand how it works. Really, it comes down to the beginning. Cosmic explosion or the creation story. It was not an explosion. The probability for the ERV to be identical between humans and chimpanzees by chance are lower than any supposed probability for evolution. If it's close to impossible to randomly mutate to what we are, then it is even more impossible to mutate the exact same code 22 times in two different species. Which means, either evolution has a higher probability than what reality points to, or God purposely created fake traces of relationships for the purpose to fool the scientists, which means God intentionally lied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Why should evolution receive the credit for such beauty. To me, that's like saying Michelangelo didn't really paint the Sistine Chapel, but evolution painted it. Does that make sense to anyone? No it doesn't, because all is interconnected. Nature is God. You're the one making up a fictitious God to replace the real Creator. You're the one giving the credit to a false God. Your God is imaginary, Nature is real. Give credit where credit is due. Besides, if you argue that a painting is made by a painter because we know so when we compare the painting to nature, does not lead to that the nature is also a painting. If nature was a painting then we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between real painting and nature and the argument would fall flat, since there wouldn't be a difference from where we could start the premise that a painting looks different than nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Why should evolution receive the credit for such beauty. To me, that's like saying Michelangelo didn't really paint the Sistine Chapel, but evolution painted it. Does that make sense to anyone? Just because something is beautiful doesn't mean that someone must have made it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I remember vaguely hearing William Lane Craig, saying that, evolution is so improbable that it needs a god to happen. Not sure where to go to find out more about this so I figure someone with a bit more science education would no more then me. I got my biology education in a catholic school so that is my excuse for ignorance. The Secret Life of Chaos should put that to rest for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 If it's close to impossible to randomly mutate to what we are, then it is even more impossible to mutate the exact same code 22 times in two different species. Which means, either evolution has a higher probability than what reality points to, or God purposely created fake traces of relationships for the purpose to fool the scientists, which means God intentionally lied. So, let me get this correct in my mind. One option is that God purposely placed the same code in another animal so that after 4 billion years it would fool scientists within the last 100 years into thinking that there is no God, no God, but evolution, that has been continuing for 4billion years, including the evolution of man, dinosaurs, Earth, etc.? I say neither. My favorite shrimp sauce's foundation is mayo, and then a butter, sugar, paprika, vinegar mixture mixed and melted together makes it my sauce. That doesn't mean my sauce is mayo, or that the mayo is my sauce. They are different yet use the same components. This goes back to the question of where is the rest? Evolution has some substantial evidences to show the jest of it, and apply that creditability to making other claims substantial that have no substantiations. Mostly in the physical sense of the evolution of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Your God is imaginary, Nature is real. Give credit where credit is due. Besides, if you argue that a painting is made by a painter because we know so when we compare the painting to nature, does not lead to that the nature is also a painting. If nature was a painting then we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between real painting and nature and the argument would fall flat, since there wouldn't be a difference from where we could start the premise that a painting looks different than nature. He's just as imaginary as love. Love is real, love is valued, sought after, but we can't touch it, use a science experiment to make it, or even make a chemical that would make someone fall in love. Is love imaginary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Your God is imaginary, Nature is real. Give credit where credit is due. Besides, if you argue that a painting is made by a painter because we know so when we compare the painting to nature, does not lead to that the nature is also a painting. If nature was a painting then we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between real painting and nature and the argument would fall flat, since there wouldn't be a difference from where we could start the premise that a painting looks different than nature. He's just as imaginary as love. Love is real, love is valued, sought after, but we can't touch it, use a science experiment to make it, or even make a chemical that would make someone fall in love. Is love imaginary? Love is an emotion. God is a reification of an emotion. See the difference? Let me try again. Love really is a physiological state. It is possible to use drugs to both cause and sustain this physiological state. It is also a conditioned response that relies on physiology. God OTOH is a concept. Ok, one last time. People can fall out of love. Love can cease to exist. Hate can replace love. Equating an emotion with a nonexistent being is flawed in the extreme, unless you are arguing that God can also cease to exist, or only exists in the same way that Puff the Magic Dragon exists for Little Johnny Paper. Now, if you're arguing that God is a thought, a belief, an emotion with nothing existing outside of the human mind, then you are close to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 So, let me get this correct in my mind. One option is that God purposely placed the same code in another animal so that after 4 billion years it would fool scientists within the last 100 years into thinking that there is no God, no God, but evolution, that has been continuing for 4billion years, including the evolution of man, dinosaurs, Earth, etc.? I say neither. My favorite shrimp sauce's foundation is mayo, and then a butter, sugar, paprika, vinegar mixture mixed and melted together makes it my sauce. That doesn't mean my sauce is mayo, or that the mayo is my sauce. They are different yet use the same components. This goes back to the question of where is the rest? Eh, you really don't get it do you. We do (factually true, evidence found through observation, real thing, reality) know that there are about 20 shared ERV between chimpanzees and humans. You can't say "neither" to it, because that's saying that truth is false. We do share those codes, and there are only three explanations to it: 1) We share a common ancestor (most likely according to Evolution) 2) The identical mutations happened by chance separately (less likely than evolution itself) 3) God made those faulty genes on purpose (yes, several of these ERVs are broken/faulty genes) You can't escape this problem. You can't decide to live in denial, but you can't escape the truth of the facts. Evolution has some substantial evidences to show the jest of it, and apply that creditability to making other claims substantial that have no substantiations. Mostly in the physical sense of the evolution of man. I don't follow. Are you saying that scientists are purposely lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Your God is imaginary, Nature is real. Give credit where credit is due. Besides, if you argue that a painting is made by a painter because we know so when we compare the painting to nature, does not lead to that the nature is also a painting. If nature was a painting then we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between real painting and nature and the argument would fall flat, since there wouldn't be a difference from where we could start the premise that a painting looks different than nature. He's just as imaginary as love. Not the same thing. They don't compare. Love is real, love is valued, sought after, but we can't touch it, use a science experiment to make it, or even make a chemical that would make someone fall in love. Not quite true. A couple of things: 1) certain drugs do make people fall in love easier (ecstasy do that to large extent) 2) certain genetic diseases makes the victim more lovable, hugging, trusting, and naive (can't remember the name of the defect, but it does exist) 3) there is some amoeba (I think it was) that can cause you to go completely crazy and fall in love with everyone. I can't remember what this one is called either, and I'm too lazy to look it up. It only does this if it infects your brain. Is love imaginary? And like Shyone explained, if love and God exist the same way, then there are different kinds of God, and God disappear if someone falls out of love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FourDogBrewing Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Now, if you're arguing that God is a thought, a belief, an emotion with nothing existing outside of the human mind, then you are close to the truth. Haha, I love this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 If it's close to impossible to randomly mutate to what we are, then it is even more impossible to mutate the exact same code 22 times in two different species. Which means, either evolution has a higher probability than what reality points to, or God purposely created fake traces of relationships for the purpose to fool the scientists, which means God intentionally lied. So, let me get this correct in my mind. One option is that God purposely placed the same code in another animal so that after 4 billion years it would fool scientists within the last 100 years into thinking that there is no God, no God, but evolution, that has been continuing for 4billion years, including the evolution of man, dinosaurs, Earth, etc.? I say neither. My favorite shrimp sauce's foundation is mayo, and then a butter, sugar, paprika, vinegar mixture mixed and melted together makes it my sauce. That doesn't mean my sauce is mayo, or that the mayo is my sauce. They are different yet use the same components. This goes back to the question of where is the rest? Evolution has some substantial evidences to show the jest of it, and apply that creditability to making other claims substantial that have no substantiations. Mostly in the physical sense of the evolution of man. You clearly don't understand what an ERV (endogenous retro-virus) is. An ERV is a virus that has infected an organism and has injected some of its DNA into some of the host's germline cells (cells that make sperm and eggs). That virus DNA is incorperated into the germline cells genome and if any of the sperm/eggs produced by that germline cell are used in reproduction the offspring are born with virus DNA in every cell in their body which would be passed to their children and their childrens-children etc. If two individuals have the same ERV in the same place in their genome it is a virtual certainty that they have a common ancestor who was infected with that virus. A FULL 8% OF THE HUMAN GENOME IS VIRUS DNA. And, as Hans pointed out, humans and chimps share about 20 virus DNA insertions. For that to happen, those viruses had to infect the common ancestor of both species. Their is a great*10^x grandparent that we share with chimps who was infected with these viruses. Now they didn't all come into the genome at the same time, some are older than others. But all humans and all chimps have them. Meaning that these ERV's are older than both species. Your analogy is flawed because ERV's are not ingrediants. They are contaminants, genetic parasites. If the mayo in your shrimp sauce and the mayo you put on your sandwich are found to be contaminated with 20 identical strains of E.coli it is reasonable to assume that they were manufactured in the same vate together where the contamination occured. Some of which was put into a jar to latter be your sandwich condiment and some was sent off to be made into your shrimp sauce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robto Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 I remember vaguely hearing William Lane Craig, saying that, evolution is so improbable that it needs a god to happen. Not sure where to go to find out more about this so I figure someone with a bit more science education would no more then me. I got my biology education in a catholic school so that is my excuse for ignorance. Actually, given an organism capable of reproducing itself, evolution is inevitable. Mistakes will always creep into the replication process, so some offspring will have different characteristics than others. Some of those differences will allow their owners to survive and reproduce better than their siblings. And some of their offspring will have slight differences that allow them to survive and reproduce better than their siblings, and so on. And that's all evolution is: some survive and reproduce, others don't, life evolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 You clearly don't understand what an ERV (endogenous retro-virus) is. An ERV is a virus that has infected an organism and has injected some of its DNA into some of the host's germline cells (cells that make sperm and eggs). That virus DNA is incorperated into the germline cells genome and if any of the sperm/eggs produced by that germline cell are used in reproduction the offspring are born with virus DNA in every cell in their body which would be passed to their children and their childrens-children etc. If two individuals have the same ERV in the same place in their genome it is a virtual certainty that they have a common ancestor who was infected with that virus. A FULL 8% OF THE HUMAN GENOME IS VIRUS DNA. And, as Hans pointed out, humans and chimps share about 20 virus DNA insertions. For that to happen, those viruses had to infect the common ancestor of both species. Their is a great*10^x grandparent that we share with chimps who was infected with these viruses. Now they didn't all come into the genome at the same time, some are older than others. But all humans and all chimps have them. Meaning that these ERV's are older than both species. Your analogy is flawed because ERV's are not ingrediants. They are contaminants, genetic parasites. If the mayo in your shrimp sauce and the mayo you put on your sandwich are found to be contaminated with 20 identical strains of E.coli it is reasonable to assume that they were manufactured in the same vate together where the contamination occured. Some of which was put into a jar to latter be your sandwich condiment and some was sent off to be made into your shrimp sauce. Thank you for explaining what an ERV is! Fascinating!! When William Lane Craig says something like evolution is so improbable that you need a god to believe in it, I can tell he is either lying or naively falling for some faulty statistical method because it is telling him what he wants to hear. There are SO many lines of evidence, SO many transitional fossils, SO much DNA evidence and such that independently corroborate the TOE. The only thing that is going to replace the current theory of evolution is a better theory of evolution that encompasses all the known and proven facts about the TOE today, yet serves to better explain other observed aspects of the biological history of the planet. With so many lines of evidence substantiating evolution and even predicting what we will find in the fossil record, we should know that any supposed probability has to be significantly, not just barely, higher than zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 I remember vaguely hearing William Lane Craig, saying that, evolution is so improbable that it needs a god to happen. Not sure where to go to find out more about this so I figure someone with a bit more science education would no more then me. I got my biology education in a catholic school so that is my excuse for ignorance. There is the counter question of: well, then were did God come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedah Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Turtles all the way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts