Thread: That's it, I'm done

What people who use odds to 'prove' the unlikeliness of everything just happening fail to realize is just how large the universe is. We do not know if it even has an end. That means infinite possibilities...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

It's a counterpoint against the use of wild probabilities, because using probabilities in such ways is somewhat fallacious. Despite the odds, Evolution has happened, whether you acknowledge the mountains of evidence for it or not.

Just to link to a recent find: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...n-the-lab.html

The problem of justifying God through the gaps of knowledge in Science is that when Science figures out the answer for some particular gaps, does that constitute an attack on God? I mean, it's also rather pathetic to have to justify a deity's existence solely on what we don't know, because eventually, as Science has done, it has turned what we don't know to what we do know. It's just a matter of time and progress for Science.

Also, no attempt to falsify my Longcat analogy?

Hay, check this out...

Originally Posted by The Wonderful Wiki of Peds

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

I underlined the important stuff...

Look. Science is based on observation of events... not observation of the byproducts of effects. Sure, there may be tons of evidence that points to certain conclusions, but any hypothesis based on these signs will never, by the scientific method (joo liek scienec rite?), be a legitimate, un-questionable, rock-solid physical law. The fact is, since we cannot recreate creation, we cannot test it, and we cannot repeat it, and we cannot make any theories that permanently define it. Unless you can create an entire fucking universe in a lab multiple times, you just can't prove evolution. You just can't do it. Cannot divide by zero.

Therefore, evolution is not the only valid explanation for the creation of the universe.

Even if evolution did occur, perhaps this process was set into action by a higher being. Think of that?

The fact is, what happens in the past, stays in the past, and we can only conjecture. Anything could have happened. Hell... the universe could've been the result of me and your mom porking it in our past lives. Hey, it could've been...

My argument is that a universe with so much order and so much complexity and so much beauty was most probably created by some intelligent being. No, science doesn't have a picture of this being actually making the universe, so we don't know for certain if there even IS a higher being capable of such feats - and one may not exist for all we know - but intuitively, you KNOW the idea of an intelligent creator makes perfect sense.

Please be sure you understand, I don't think evolution doesn't make sense, nor do I think that it's irrelevant, false, or otherwise... I simply think it's improbable and is not the only possible explanation of our origins.

If you think evolution is the only choice - or if you think some God is the only choice, you're seriously so fucking closed-minded it's not even funny.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

In what sense is our universe orderly? Shit is smashing into other shit or just blowing up all the time. On earth, nature continuously breaks itself, overcompensates, breaks differently, and compensates for that, with species dying off, diverging, overrunning one another, joining symbiotically and changing territories. Even our own institutions--our economies, our diplomacy--which we know for a fact were made by intelligent beings, frequently outstrip our attempts to bring them to order, collapsing, exploding or thriving in unpredicted ways.

Such perfection, accidental or otherwise, is highly, highly, highly delusional.

Look at your hands. They both have four fingers and a thumb. Each digit has it's own set of bones and muscles that mirrors the other hand. All the amino acids are properly folded into proteins that constitute your skin, fingernails, bone marrow, blood, tissue, muscles, and nerves. Not only are your hands perfectly ordered, but look at how they look so similar to everyone elses! Sure, there are differences, your fingers are longer, someone elses are shorter, your dad's hands are bigger, I have smaller fingernails, but they all work the same way, and they work wonderfully at that!

If that's not order, I don't know what is.

Social disorder and behavioral changes are a different thing entirely... I'm talking about natural, physical order and complexity.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

Anyone else get tired of these numbers people (usually creationists) pull out of their asses? "It's like 100 quarters in a row being all heads up". Where do you get these numbers? Seriously?

The chances of there being an invisible sky-daddy is the same chance of finding five ducks who quack out their asses and have purple testicles. This is a 3^ -(100 * 5) chance (do ducks even have testicles?). This is a decimal with 500 zeroes following a three. So as you can see, the anthropic principle and multiverse theory along with abiogenesis and evolution have a better probability.

Are you shitting on my tits...

That was the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. I made up the number as an analogy, an analogy that actually underestimates the complexity of life. What you did was mock my legitimate statement and sound like a total douche-bag.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

What people who use odds to 'prove' the unlikeliness of everything just happening fail to realize is just how large the universe is. We do not know if it even has an end. That means infinite possibilities...

So now it's infinitely impossible for life to randomly occur. Nice.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Hay, check this out...

I underlined the important stuff...

Look. Science is based on observation of events... not observation of the byproducts of effects. Sure, there may be tons of evidence that points to certain conclusions, but any hypothesis based on these signs will never, by the scientific method (joo liek scienec rite?), be a legitimate, un-questionable, rock-solid physical law. The fact is, since we cannot recreate creation, we cannot test it, and we cannot repeat it, and we cannot make any theories that permanently define it. Unless you can create an entire fucking universe in a lab multiple times, you just can't prove evolution. You just can't do it. Cannot divide by zero.

I gave a link about Scientists being able to not only observe a major evolutionary shift in bacteria, but were able to repeat that evolutionary shift over and over again. You know, this link? Kinda goes against what you said there.

And actually, you can prove what happened by looking at the byproducts of events. How do you think the whole court system works? One can still convict a criminal without even seeing him commit the crime, for it is done on data collected at the crime scene which points out possible suspects and how the crime itself happened.

For example, we've only known about Pluto's existence for what, 78 years, yet Scientists say that it's orbit takes about 248 years to complete. So we've not actually observed Pluto complete a whole orbit around the sun, so how do we know it is actually in an orbit?

We have the maths and physics to show for it. The observations made on Pluto's orbit (from what we've gathered) all follow the laws of gravity and has shown to be an orbit around the sun through the maths available to us. Are you to say that we can't ever know if Pluto is in an orbit around the sun?

Originally Posted by bcomp

Therefore, evolution is not the only valid explanation for the creation of the universe.

Even if evolution did occur, perhaps this process was set into action by a higher being. Think of that?

If you apply Occam's Razor to that, then it is just a case of evolution (in the case of the diversification of life) occurring. You can leave out the question of deities and their involvement aside because it has little meaning in Science.

And yes, evolution is not the only valid theory, there's also the big bang theory, quantum physics, etc. All of them deal with different areas of the universe around us. Evolution does not cover the origin/beginning of the universe. Immediately, I can see you have little in the knowledge of science with this.

Originally Posted by bcomp

The fact is, what happens in the past, stays in the past, and we can only conjecture. Anything could have happened. Hell... the universe could've been the result of me and your mom porking it in our past lives. Hey, it could've been...

Fossil record, genetics, and science in general would disagree with that. Hell all the starlight we see and observe are all past events, because light from these stars have taken so long to actually reach us. Again, you are being completely ignorant of science here.

Originally Posted by bcomp

My argument is that a universe with so much order and so much complexity and so much beauty was most probably created by some intelligent being. No, science doesn't have a picture of this being actually making the universe, so we don't know for certain if there even IS a higher being capable of such feats - and one may not exist for all we know - but intuitively, you KNOW the idea of an intelligent creator makes perfect sense.

First of all, can you prove the existence of the designer? Secondly, such a designer would have to be more complex than the universe and us in order to design us, so how did this complexity arise? Who created the creator? Much more simple and makes more sense if you take Occam's Razor to that and shave the whole god part out.

And no, I don't intuitively think a designer exists. Why should there be one? I'll ask you to quit projecting on me there.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Please be sure you understand, I don't think evolution doesn't make sense, nor do I think that it's irrelevant, false, or otherwise... I simply think it's improbable and is not the only possible explanation of our origins.

If you think evolution is the only choice - or if you think some God is the only choice, you're seriously so fucking closed-minded it's not even funny.

Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not the origins. For that, look up Abiogenesis.

Also, close-minded? Now what the hell happened to the sensible person I was talking with in the 'problem of heaven' thread?

You do not understand science and all the work that has been done in this field. Calling me close-minded because I accept the evidence for these theories is just downright ignorant and stupid. I'm not talking about choices, I am talking about facts that can be substantiated. There is little choice in the matter of things. It either is false... or not false. Evidence points out whether an idea is one or the other. If the hypothesis is correct, it gets worked on until becomes accepted as a theory (which is the ultimate distinction in science).

So if you really want a choice in the matter when in Science, then you must seek to show all these theories to be wrong. But even if you do prove them wrong, you still have to prove your own hypothesises to be correct.

Now go watch/read the links I provided. There is no excuse to remain ignorant of the subject just because you want to feel the comfort of some sky-daddy.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

Really - Faith is belief without evidence, so no, I do not have faith in science.

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

Define "faith".

Trust/Belief/Confidence in something.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You don't put faith in Science

According to its proper definition, yes you do. Everybody has faith in something, the only question is in what.

For those who ignore God, often ignore what faith means in its context. Many make the false assumption, by saying "god doesn't exist" therefore "faith means to believe in something which doesn't exist (or has no "evidence")". This is confusion.

Originally Posted by really

According to its proper definition, yes you do. Everybody has faith in something, the only question is in what.

For those who ignore God, often ignore what faith means in its context. Many make the false assumption, by saying "god doesn't exist" therefore "faith means to believe in something which doesn't exist (or has no "evidence")". This is confusion.

Lack of evidence means I can disregard the assertion "God exists" because there is nothing to back up the claim in the form of objective evidence. This is scepticism, not faith.

Atheism is merely a position one takes on the question/context of "Does a God exist?". If you say yes, you are a theist, if you say anything else apart from yes, then you are an atheist. Because Atheism is a "lack of belief in deities". What atheists individually assert from that is dependent on the person.

An atheist may believe in all sorts of other things, they just do not include the notions of a deity in what they do believe, and many atheists seek justifications for these beliefs. They tend to not accept unsubstantiated assertions.

This is not confusion, nor is it faith. It is scepticism. Deal with it.

Look at your hands. They both have four fingers and a thumb. Each digit has it's own set of bones and muscles that mirrors the other hand. All the amino acids are properly folded into proteins that constitute your skin, fingernails, bone marrow, blood, tissue, muscles, and nerves. Not only are your hands perfectly ordered, but look at how they look so similar to everyone elses! Sure, there are differences, your fingers are longer, someone elses are shorter, your dad's hands are bigger, I have smaller fingernails, but they all work the same way, and they work wonderfully at that!

If that's not order, I don't know what is.

I would think an 'orderly' hand might have fingers of uniform length, or at least symmetrical arrangement, with perhaps an additional thumb and a bit more strength, and either no fingernails or non-growing ones. This perfect design would then be repeated flawlessly and uniformly in every individual. Instead we have fingers of all different lengths arranged in a pattern strikingly similar to organs of balance and support: to all appearances, a modified foot. Many aspects of the form are arbitrary and vary widely according to heredity, both within our species and across simian lines. Hand forms fall mostly within a functional range, of course--we and our hands would not persist otherwise--but they are far from perfect and give every appearance of having developed organically in call-and-response with their environment, and no appearance whatsoever of design.

I'm using this example to illustrate that your impression of design is an opinion, and not arrived at indepently on the basis of facts, but arising from the assumption that there is a designer. Like every attempt so far to throw a sciencey shelac over Genesis, it's circular reasoning and fails to account for the full body of evidence--because it doesn't derive from that evidence in the first place, but from conclusions formed before the evidence was gathered.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Are you shitting on my tits...

That was the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. I made up the number as an analogy, an analogy that actually underestimates the complexity of life. What you did was mock my legitimate statement and sound like a total douche-bag.

Thanks.

If that was the dumbest thing you've ever read then you obviously didn't read the link in the first post.

Second, YOU have no idea what the probability of the universe being ordered is, therefore your analogy doesn't have any grounds. My point is creationists pull false analogies out of their asses and say "See! The universe being created by accident is even less of a chance than this!" which is exactly what you did. Give me a link to a scientific peer-reviewed paper that shows that the probability of the universe being as ordered as it is, is less of chance than 1000 quarters being faced up.

And speaking of stupidest things ever heard:

Originally Posted by bcomp

My good sir, to believe that such an intricate universe did not spring from some higher order, but rather randomly formed against nigh infinite odds requires a great amount of faith, regardless of what you call it. (Btw, Dicitionary.com says "faith" is "belief that is not based on proof"... and there is no conclusive proof or evidence that a higher being does not exist.)

I believe that there is some sort of god, but I do not believe that he had any direct influence in our planet's development. Evolution seems to fit quite well with everything we have. We have had billions of years for everything we now see around us, and yes, it is astonishing, but that's life. And human beings are far from perfect, humans are actually a relatively new species on earth. I think some of our organs like the appendix, and tonsils kind of point to the fact that we've been evolving just like everything else.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

I believe that there is some sort of god, but I do not believe that he had any direct influence in our planet's development. Evolution seems to fit quite well with everything we have. We have had billions of years for everything we now see around us, and yes, it is astonishing, but that's life. And human beings are far from perfect, humans are actually a relatively new species on earth. I think some of our organs like the appendix, and tonsils kind of point to the fact that we've been evolving just like everything else.

Don't forget about male mammals having nipples. Males don't really need them, so why are they present? A 'design' flaw in itself.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I would think an 'orderly' hand might have fingers of uniform length, or at least symmetrical arrangement, with perhaps an additional thumb and a bit more strength, and either no fingernails or non-growing ones. This perfect design would then be repeated flawlessly and uniformly in every individual. Instead we have fingers of all different lengths arranged in a pattern strikingly similar to organs of balance and support: to all appearances, a modified foot. Many aspects of the form are arbitrary and vary widely according to heredity, both within our species and across simian lines. Hand forms fall mostly within a functional range, of course--we and our hands would not persist otherwise--but they are far from perfect and give every appearance of having developed organically in call-and-response with their environment, and no appearance whatsoever of design.

I'm using this example to illustrate that your impression of design is an opinion, and not arrived at indepently on the basis of facts, but arising from the assumption that there is a designer. Like every attempt so far to throw a sciencey shelac over Genesis, it's circular reasoning and fails to account for the full body of evidence--because it doesn't derive from that evidence in the first place, but from conclusions formed before the evidence was gathered.

Nice post.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I gave a link about Scientists being able to not only observe a major evolutionary shift in bacteria, but were able to repeat that evolutionary shift over and over again.

But this is only one event on a microscopic level. My point is that we cannot reproduce the creation of universe and the subsequent evolution leading to the emergence of humans. Unless maybe you can find a link of some scientist holding a big bang or something...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And actually, you can prove what happened by looking at the byproducts of events. How do you think the whole court system works? One can still convict a criminal without even seeing him commit the crime, for it is done on data collected at the crime scene which points out possible suspects and how the crime itself happened.

Innocent people get convicted all the time, dude. The evidence often points to the actual criminal, but sometimes it doesn't, like when someone is framed. That's my point...

Originally Posted by bluefinger

For example, we've only known about Pluto's existence for what, 78 years, yet Scientists say that it's orbit takes about 248 years to complete. So we've not actually observed Pluto complete a whole orbit around the sun, so how do we know it is actually in an orbit?

We have the maths and physics to show for it. The observations made on Pluto's orbit (from what we've gathered) all follow the laws of gravity and has shown to be an orbit around the sun through the maths available to us. Are you to say that we can't ever know if Pluto is in an orbit around the sun?

Pluto exists presently and we can test it, just like we can determine the speed of a car and how far it will go in X seconds. We also know a lot about how planets orbit because we've seen how our earth orbits. But hell... Pluto might take longer to orbit than 248 years, we don't know. There might be a gravitational anomaly in it's orbit.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

If you apply Occam's Razor to that, then it is just a case of evolution (in the case of the diversification of life) occurring. You can leave out the question of deities and their involvement aside because it has little meaning in Science.

Science has little meaning in describing creation.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And yes, evolution is not the only valid theory, there's also the big bang theory, quantum physics, etc. All of them deal with different areas of the universe around us. Evolution does not cover the origin/beginning of the universe. Immediately, I can see you have little in the knowledge of science with this.

I mean the accidental creation of the universe and the subsequent evolution.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Fossil record, genetics, and science in general would disagree with that. Hell all the starlight we see and observe are all past events, because light from these stars have taken so long to actually reach us. Again, you are being completely ignorant of science here.

Science give you a best guess.

I'll respond to the rest later.

One thing I learnt from the ID thread, is that it is ultimately futile to argue against IDiots.

I have presented links already to videos on the subject, and if you want, you can google up TalkOrigins and many other websites to fill you in on what Science knows currently.

Make of it what you will. Also, Taosaur made an excellent post, so I suggest you aim at that.

Toodles...

Dude. I watched the clips. They're very interesting, yes, and they're all very convincing and whatnot. I'm just asking you to question the relevance of applying science to something that cannot be observed. Please... I think its a reasonable request. I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you because I'm forcing you to believe anything... I just wish you'd not be so closed to theistic ideas. To be truly reasonable, you have to respect both sides of an issue.

Originally Posted by Bluefinger

Now what the hell happened to the sensible person I was talking with in the 'problem of heaven' thread?

Funny, just because I'm not agreeing with you I'm suddenly not "sensible?" It's possible for two sensible people to have different opinions, you know. I really wish you wouldn't so flippantly dismiss me...

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I would think an 'orderly' hand might have fingers of uniform length, or at least symmetrical arrangement, with perhaps an additional thumb and a bit more strength, and either no fingernails or non-growing ones. This perfect design would then be repeated flawlessly and uniformly in every individual. Instead we have fingers of all different lengths arranged in a pattern strikingly similar to organs of balance and support: to all appearances, a modified foot. Many aspects of the form are arbitrary and vary widely according to heredity, both within our species and across simian lines. Hand forms fall mostly within a functional range, of course--we and our hands would not persist otherwise--but they are far from perfect and give every appearance of having developed organically in call-and-response with their environment, and no appearance whatsoever of design.

I'm using this example to illustrate that your impression of design is an opinion, and not arrived at indepently on the basis of facts, but arising from the assumption that there is a designer. Like every attempt so far to throw a sciencey shelac over Genesis, it's circular reasoning and fails to account for the full body of evidence--because it doesn't derive from that evidence in the first place, but from conclusions formed before the evidence was gathered.

For that first part, I think you're talking more about variety than order. Sure, there's variety in designs... why else would there be so many different styles of cars? I'm just saying that in order for hands to work, there needs to be a certain amount of order, order most likely wouldn't have sprung from random chance (after all most things go from a state of order to disorder... entropy and whatnot.) When you look at a car, sure all cars are different and they're basically function-orientented, but when you look at a car, you accept that there is a certain organization in the workings of the car (like how the pistons all have to fire correctly and the oil has to be filled up and how the fan belts all have to be attached.) You know what I mean?

My impression of design isn't necessarily as arbitrary as you think. With the car... let's say you're a tribal person, but a very shrewd tribal kind of guy, and you come to a city for the first time ever and see - gasp - a car! You disassemble the car and look all over it for finger prints, smudge marks, signatures, or notes that explain what made the car. Even if you didn't notice the Honda logos all over the car, you'd probably assume that some person or group of people made the car. Just try to think about it from a limited point of view that hasn't seen a car being made, if that makes any sense...

I'm saying that I feel it's safe to add "intelligent design" to the list of possible origins of the universe, because I think it's safe to believe that something with such complexity that works so well was intentionally made to do so.

I realize that the universe is different from a car or a hand... but I think the same principles apply (sort of how a small reproduction of evolution suggests that it could have been a universal phenomenon.)

Originally Posted by bcomp

Dude. I watched the clips. They're very interesting, yes, and they're all very convincing and whatnot. I'm just asking you to question the relevance of applying science to something that cannot be observed. Please... I think its a reasonable request. I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you because I'm forcing you to believe anything... I just wish you'd not be so closed to theistic ideas. To be truly reasonable, you have to respect both sides of an issue.

Ummm... we have observed Evolution countless of times though. Polyploidy
in plants often can give rise to whole new species of plants quite quickly, something that has been shown to be the case several times.

Go onto www.talkorigins.org and read up the wealth of information on evolution. The evidence is overwhelmingly there, whether you acknowledge it or not.

And I don't have to respect people's ideas. Just I as don't really respect a person's idea on magic pixies living in his garden, I don't respect the idea of Intelligent Design. I don't have to, as not all ideas are created equal. If something cannot be substantiated or is not falsifiable, then it is most likely bullshit.

Now WHERE is the evidence for Intelligent Design? Where is the proof for the existence of an intelligent designer? If you can't provide the evidence to support your claim, then I can assume that you are talking out of your ass. It is NOT unreasonable to demand justification/proof for your claims, even with theistic beliefs. So meet the burden of proof and maybe, just maybe, I'll take you more seriously.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Funny, just because I'm not agreeing with you I'm suddenly not "sensible?" It's possible for two sensible people to have different opinions, you know. I really wish you wouldn't so flippantly dismiss me...

Or perhaps because you are resorting to completely falacious premises for your argument? Not very sensible and logical... or even reasonable. Unless you can communicate your idea without having to rely on fallacious premises/conclusions/etc, then you are not at all sensible.

Originally Posted by bcomp

For that first part, I think you're talking more about variety than order. Sure, there's variety in designs... why else would there be so many different styles of cars? I'm just saying that in order for hands to work, there needs to be a certain amount of order, order most likely wouldn't have sprung from random chance (after all most things go from a state of order to disorder... entropy and whatnot.) When you look at a car, sure all cars are different and they're basically function-orientented, but when you look at a car, you accept that there is a certain organization in the workings of the car (like how the pistons all have to fire correctly and the oil has to be filled up and how the fan belts all have to be attached.) You know what I mean?

Crom! Not another "Entropy disproves evolution" person. Inanimate objects cannot be compared to animate ones, for the very reason that inanimate objects cannot reproduce/self-replicate! I think someone's been watching too much Ray Comfort...

Also, how do you explain this then:

Originally Posted by bcomp

I'm saying that I feel it's safe to add "intelligent design" to the list of possible origins of the universe, because I think it's safe to believe that something with such complexity that works so well was intentionally made to do so.

I realize that the universe is different from a car or a hand... but I think the same principles apply (sort of how a small reproduction of evolution suggests that it could have been a universal phenomenon.)

Intelligent Design, where is the proof for it? Unless you can show us how everything can not work without interference from a 'designer', then you have as much credibility as Astrology.

Originally Posted by bcomp

For that first part, I think you're talking more about variety than order. Sure, there's variety in designs... why else would there be so many different styles of cars? I'm just saying that in order for hands to work, there needs to be a certain amount of order, order most likely wouldn't have sprung from random chance (after all most things go from a state of order to disorder... entropy and whatnot.) When you look at a car, sure all cars are different and they're basically function-orientented, but when you look at a car, you accept that there is a certain organization in the workings of the car (like how the pistons all have to fire correctly and the oil has to be filled up and how the fan belts all have to be attached.) You know what I mean?

I see where you're coming from, but you're rather proving my point by ignoring the bulk of my argument to focus on variety alone. To approach a human being, or the whole universe, as a designed, ordered system, you have to discard the majority of the data, and your order of operations is backwards from the start. You're starting with an explanation that you're unwilling to drop or change, and then scanning known facts for affirmation. Under the assumption that God made the world, you're conjecturing about how a made world must work, while ignoring the actual properties of existence. It's the same way of thinking by which medieval cosmologists determined that the sky must be a set of nested domes. While you are welcome to persist in this pattern of thought, it handicaps you considerably in understanding or responding to arguments based on unbiased observation.

Your shrewd tribesman probably would recognize a car as a made object, because as such it is qualitatively different from forms in nature.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

One thing I learnt from the ID thread, is that it is ultimately futile to argue against IDiots.

Amen to that.

I'm usually a very tolerant and patient person. I stop being so when I meet those who filter all possible evidence to arrive at a particular conclusion instead of the other way around.

There may have been intelligent design involved with the origin of the universe. But it's pretty obvious to me that humans and all other life on earth has evolved into what we see now. Our hands work so well because we've had millions of years of evolution making them work so well. We didn't just randomly sprout a complete set of working hands. I don't disagree with intelligent design, until it goes to far.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

There may have been intelligent design involved with the origin of the universe. But it's pretty obvious to me that humans and all other life on earth has evolved into what we see now. Our hands work so well because we've had millions of years of evolution making them work so well. We didn't just randomly sprout a complete set of working hands. I don't disagree with intelligent design, until it goes to far.

Just to inform, in Science, random events are not unpredictable occurrences. They are statistical events which can be predicted with suitable models. For example, radioactive decay. Whilst the process of a radioactive particle undergoing decay is random, we can still predict the occurrence of these random events over time, like so:


Also, evolution is something that occurs over time, and over many incremental changes. Again, look into fossil records and early tetrapods, and you'll see some early tetrapods had 8-10 digits on each limb. In Science, random events are statistical occurrences that are predictable using various models (depending on what you are trying to model), and thus are not quite similar to the popular conception of the word random.

Just an FYI.

That just proves we didn't randomly sprout a complete set of working hands even more! Although there are some outliers in every data set, some could call them random points of data as they don't fit the trend. Perhaps my use of the word random is too liberal.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

That just proves we didn't randomly sprout a complete set of working hands even more!

It's more of an incremental set of developments from random mutations that were selected for by Natural Selection. Basically, any beneficial mutations allow the organism with such mutations to breed more successfully, or have a greater chance to reproduce, and thus be able to propagate the new genes in the population.

Evolution, by the way it operates, is actually a very deterministic system, contrary to what a lot of IDiots try to paint it.

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

Anyone else get tired of these numbers people (usually creationists) pull out of their asses? "It's like 100 quarters in a row being all heads up". Where do you get these numbers? Seriously?

The chances of there being an invisible sky-daddy is the same chance of finding five ducks who quack out their asses and have purple testicles. This is a 3^ -(100 * 5) chance (do ducks even have testicles?). This is a decimal with 500 zeroes following a three. So as you can see, the anthropic principle and multiverse theory along with abiogenesis and evolution have a better probability.

Ducks do quack out their asses. They are called farts.