# The problem of Humanity's existence by chance



## Thanatos (Jan 8, 2011)

I have used the example of a universe creating machine in past threads, but I will use it again here to try and prove my "opinion". 

Let us say there is a machine with 100,000 different knobs that control the laws of science as we know them. On each of those knobs there are 100,000 different settings. In order to have a planet able to sustain intelligent, carbon based life these dials have to be set very precise. A few variables that have to be near perfect are where and when our galaxy formed in our universe. Then you have to be exact on where our solar system formed in that galaxy. Next, you have to have the right type of star in place along with a planet that needs to be in a "Goldy Locks" zone within said star's habitable range (Not to mention the earth's mantle has to be made up of certain materials too. Thanks chance!). We will stop there in a very brief overview of what we need on a galactic level to even have a CHANCE of being in existence in this universe. 

So then you have the probability of life springing forth on this perfect planet. Think about all of the processes in science and nature that keeps humanity alive. Think about how well the different systems work together to balance each other out in order to create stability. Humans have no hand in the synergy between these processes. Science and nature come together to create and destroy the different assets it feeds off of to keep the planet moving forward. 

Now let's look at Humanity. We are the most advanced, superior animals supported on the planet. All of the advanced systems and process are working in unison to keep us dominate on our spec of dust in the universe. Let me get to my point. _Why are we the lone sentient decision makers on this "perfect" planet and why are we so fallible while the systems and process that keep us here are perfected to a degree that is almost incomprehensible?_

If I were more intelligent I would give you better and more numerous examples of the different processes and systems that keep humanity in existence to give further distance between how perfectly tuned our system is compared to our imperfect humanity . Anyhow, I look forward to your answers and responses.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 9, 2011)

Really? No one wants to call out logical fallacy or pick apart any part of this?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 9, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Really? No one wants to call out logical fallacy or pick apart any part of this?



This is a huge point at which the atheistic worldview breaks down, most probably dont have very sufficient answers for this. But I'm sure they are loading there brains with something.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2011)

We did this one before.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 10, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> We did this one before.



WE DID!?!?

Note this is not all about our existence being created by chance. It is part of the equation, but this is about the progression of the evolution of our humanity.


----------



## Madman (Jan 10, 2011)

The probabilty is zero!!!


For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1:20


----------



## pnome (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> WE DID!?!?
> 
> Note this is not all about our existence being created by chance. It is part of the equation, but this is about the progression of the evolution of our humanity.



Yes, we did.

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3628221&postcount=86


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

Madman said:


> The probabilty is zero!!!
> 
> 
> For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
> Romans 1:20



For since the creation of the world Poseidon’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> _Why are we the lone sentient decision makers on this "perfect" planet and why are we so fallible while the systems and process that keep us here are perfected to a degree that is almost incomprehensible?_



Magic?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> For since the creation of the world Poseidon’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



Really?? Do you have any scripture to back that up? Any anecdotal evidence, personal experience with Poseidon, anything that points to Poseidon not being part of a long abandoned, polytheistic Greek cult?

When a Christian supports his belief in this way, other Christians know what is meant because they have experienced similar things in their life. Quite frankly, your assertion seems less than a true reflection of your belief. Nevertheless, if you are sincere, prove it. I won't even ask for scientific proof. Just give us what you have on Ol' Salt Spray.

But before you do, just remember that just because Poseidon is mythological doesn't mean that the God of the Bible is myth. Bringing up Poseidon in no way strengthens your true position.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 10, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Magic?



Really? Does that answer satisfy you? I much prefer the supernatural actions of my Creator, Lord , and Savior.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Do you have any scripture to back that up? Any anecdotal evidence, personal experience with Poseidon, anything that points to Poseidon not being part of a long abandoned, polytheistic Greek cult?



Yep I just wrote the scripture. I talk to him and he answers me with a voice in my head. I have a personal relationship with him. He will reveal himself to you if you truly seek him out. If he doesn't, it's because you weren't sincerely seeking him. Plus just look around at nature! What more evidence could you possibly need? If Poseidon didn't put it here then how did it get here?




gtparts said:


> When a Christian supports his belief in this way, other Christians know what is meant because they have experienced similar things in their life. Quite frankly, your assertion seems less than a true reflection of your belief. Nevertheless, if you are sincere, prove it. I won't even ask for scientific proof. Just give us what you have on Ol' Salt Spray.



Pretty much the same for christians as for other believers reinforcing each others beliefs. It's kind of like people who have been abducted by aliens getting together and sharing their experiences. Not exactly a mystery that they can relate to each other better than others.

You're right, I'm not as bat doo-doo crazy as I made myself sound. Still it's fun to pretend on occasion just to see what it's like for believers.




gtparts said:


> But before you do, just remember that just because Poseidon is mythological doesn't mean that the God of the Bible is myth. Bringing up Poseidon in no way strengthens your true position.



Just because God is mythological doesn't mean Poseidon is too.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Really? Does that answer satisfy you? I much prefer the supernatural actions of my Creator, Lord , and Savior.



What an illustration of the mindset of believers. The primary concern is not whether the belief is true but how it makes you feel.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yep I just wrote the scripture. I talk to him and he answers me with a voice in my head. I have a personal relationship with him. He will reveal himself to you if you truly seek him out. If he doesn't, it's because you weren't sincerely seeking him. Plus just look around at nature! What more evidence could you possibly need? If Poseidon didn't put it here then how did it get here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





atlashunter said:


> What an illustration of the mindset of believers. The primary concern is not whether the belief is true but how it makes you feel.



Based on what I have seen in your posts, you have now lost all credibility. Forget about being consistent with others of your ilk, you absolutely contradict many of your own earlier posts. It is no wonder that you do not speak the truth, as you have no idea what truth and integrity are. It is abundantly clear who your "father" is.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

gtparts said:


> It is no wonder that you do not speak the truth, as you have no idea what truth and integrity are.



But I would if I told people the first woman on earth came from the rib bone of the first man and that the sun once stood still in the sky so one tribe could massacre another tribe, right?




gtparts said:


> It is abundantly clear who your "father" is.



Let me guess...


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> For since the creation of the world Poseidon’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.



Take a car and call it anything else you want... its still a car.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 10, 2011)

pnome said:


> Yes, we did.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3628221&postcount=86



I know we hashed part of this out many times. The reason I included some of that in this post was because it supported my reasoning on what I want us to talk about. 

Why did the perfect conditions, process, systems, etc. stop with us?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> But I would if I told people the first woman on earth came from the rib bone of the first man and that the sun once stood still in the sky so one tribe could massacre another tribe, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What you keep overlooking is that the truth does not depend on opinion or understanding, it doesn't even have to be logical. If the experts never come up with an explanation of what caused the dead birds to fall out of the sky in such high numbers last week in AR., it will not change the fact that they did. Give me some alternate explanation for how the absolute first and unique woman came into existence, and try to keep it as simple and concise as possible, so that 40,000,000 or more individual and unique events are not necessary for her to come into existence. The biblical explanation only requires one (1) unique event. That's all! 

And remember, if you plead for some outrageous number of unique events, you will be arguing for intelligent design.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I know we hashed part of this out many times. The reason I included some of that in this post was because it supported my reasoning on what I want us to talk about.
> 
> Why did the perfect conditions, process, systems, etc. stop with us?



What conditions and process are you referring to?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

She evolved. Is that simple and concise enough for you? And you don't need to use the term "intelligent design" here. It might sound more scientific than creationism to your brethren but we see it for what it is.


----------



## pnome (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Why did the perfect conditions, process, systems, etc. stop with us?



Who says they have?  And what will you say when the sun goes red giant in a few billion years?  Nothing, I would assume, since these "perfect conditions" would no longer be even close to perfect.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 10, 2011)

pnome said:


> Who says they have?  And what will you say when the sun goes red giant in a few billion years?  Nothing, I would assume, since these "perfect conditions" would no longer be even close to perfect.



They won't be here.  They will have been lifted into the sky on fiery chariots way before then and the rest of us will be stuck here wondering "Where the heck did the driver of that car go?".


----------



## pnome (Jan 10, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> They won't be here.



Oh right!  I forgot.


----------



## Ridge Walker (Jan 10, 2011)

If conditions were different then life would have either evolved differently or not at all. Makes sense to me.

RW


----------



## gtparts (Jan 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> She evolved. Is that simple and concise enough for you? And you don't need to use the term "intelligent design" here. It might sound more scientific than creationism to your brethren but we see it for what it is.



Concise, perhaps. Simple, not in your wildest dream. The process you advance requires a complex series of events, some of which would have had to occur simultaneously to be of any use to the organism's improved chances of survival. Not to mention that does not narrow the field to the first woman..... you know,.. the one individual that the genetic scientist tell us was the single source of all human DNA.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

May not be as simple as magic but it is certainly more in touch with reality.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What conditions and process are you referring to?



Did you read the OP?


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 10, 2011)

pnome said:


> Who says they have?  And what will you say when the sun goes red giant in a few billion years?  Nothing, I would assume, since these "perfect conditions" would no longer be even close to perfect.



We will be living on other planets by then...duh.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> We will be living on other planets by then...duh.




I vote for fiery chariot ride.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 10, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I vote for fiery chariot ride.



Ill come pick you up in  my spaceship to save you


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Ill come pick you up in  my spaceship to save you




Do I have to repent first?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> Did you read the OP?



Yep just want to make sure we are talking about the same things because I'm not aware of what processes have stopped.

Seems to me from your original post you're looking at the environment and thinking it was made for us.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Really? Does that answer satisfy you? I much prefer the supernatural actions of my Creator, Lord , and Savior.



Magic?

Sorry, I don't sacrifice the need for evidence to fit any kind of "preference".


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Concise, perhaps. Simple, not in your wildest dream. The process you advance requires a complex series of events, some of which would have had to occur simultaneously to be of any use to the organism's improved chances of survival. Not to mention that does not narrow the field to the first woman..... you know,.. the one individual that the genetic scientist tell us was the single source of all human DNA.



Yes it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

And her male counter-part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam


----------



## gtparts (Jan 11, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Magic?
> 
> Sorry, I don't sacrifice the need for evidence to fit any kind of "preference".



Let's be clear. Magic is the use of "slight of hand", misdirection, mechanical devices, smoke and pyrotechnics, and other methods of convincing an audience that the impossible is possible. The art involves fooling the eye to fool the mind. Its use is in most cases is intended to profitably provide entertainment. That it is sometimes used to entertain and provide diversion for the those who are sick and infirm, is another application of the craft. 

The supernatural reality of God, while sometimes mimicked for other purposes, does not include any of those elements. God does not seek to deceive mankind. He does not seek to entertain mankind. He has nothing to gain from a relationship with man. It is in this context that the Christian understands his own unworthiness and complete dependence on God. So, it would be greatly appreciated if you would drop the near constant reference to "magic". Your use of the term is only intended to be insulting. 

As to your comment about not needing to sacrifice evidence for preference, you have not provided evidence. It appears that you have no evidence or have failed to provide it. When you have that evidence, please post it for all the world to see. You will have accomplished what no other atheist or agnostic has ever done!

I walk by faith and have shown my faith by the life I now live in Christ.

You walk by evidence. Show us the evidence.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

Merriam-Webster Definition
1mag·ic
noun \Ëˆma-jik\
Definition of MAGIC
1
a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2
a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment
3
: the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> As to your comment about not needing to sacrifice evidence for preference, you have not provided evidence. It appears that you have no evidence or have failed to provide it. When you have that evidence, please post it for all the world to see. You will have accomplished what no other atheist or agnostic has ever done!
> 
> I walk by faith and have shown my faith by the life I now live in Christ.
> 
> You walk by evidence. Show us the evidence.



The evidence was provided. You ignored it.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 11, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
> 
> ...



Not simple and doesn't identify the individual female nor how this individual originated. If she was the offspring of her mother, then she is not the original and her mtDNA would be identical to her mother.... move backwards another generation. In fact, we could repeat that scenario all day long. At some point, you must surely realize that the lineage either recedes into the distant past eternally (not plausible due to the absolute "truth" of the Earth's formation according to science) OR at some point, this "mother of all humanity" is truly the origin, the original, with none preceding her. 

Science provides a framework for the instantaneous appearance of the first human woman.

 Surprise! Surprise! The Bible "painted" this first woman, in part, revealed her personality, and describes some details of her life experiences, more than 4000 years before science figured out we all came from one woman.

Science is rushing to catch up...... and making its fair share of mistakes in its haste. The obvious limitation is that science can only describe what it perceives through man's five senses. Some people reason that if it can't be acquired and measured by our five senses or some mechanical extension of those senses, it doesn't exist.

Now, that is narrow minded....." I have not been able to capture and measure God, and in my limited experience have not encountered God, therefore He does not exist." Positively brilliant reasoning.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

Where do you get "original" out of "most recent common ancestor". Yes there were others preceding her all the way back to the beginning of life.

Simple or complex is not only subjective but completely irrelevant to the discussion. The world does not care about your preferences for simplicity or complexity. It is as it is regardless of how you would like it to be.

To quote Francis Collins, "As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Scien...-Our-Scientific-Adventures.aspx#ixzz1Ak8tkDGT


----------



## gtparts (Jan 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The evidence was provided. You ignored it.



Which post was that? Yes, the one with the evidence.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

Achilles' post. You can also try googling human origins. The information is readily available if you are interested. Considering how you treated Achilles' post I doubt it would be worth anybody's time doing the searching and presenting for you.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> What you keep overlooking is that the truth does not depend on opinion or understanding, it doesn't even have to be logical. If the experts never come up with an explanation of what caused the dead birds to fall out of the sky in such high numbers last week in AR., it will not change the fact that they did. Give me some alternate explanation for how the absolute first and unique woman came into existence, and try to keep it as simple and concise as possible, so that 40,000,000 or more individual and unique events are not necessary for her to come into existence. The biblical explanation only requires one (1) unique event. That's all!
> 
> And remember, if you plead for some outrageous number of unique events, you will be arguing for intelligent design.





gtparts said:


> Concise, perhaps. Simple, not in your wildest dream. The process you advance requires a complex series of events, some of which would have had to occur simultaneously to be of any use to the organism's improved chances of survival. Not to mention that does not narrow the field to the first woman..... you know,.. the one individual that the genetic scientist tell us was the single source of all human DNA.





atlashunter said:


> Where do you get "original" out of "most recent common ancestor". Yes there were others preceding her all the way back to the beginning of life.
> 
> Simple or complex is not only subjective but completely irrelevant to the discussion. The world does not care about your preferences for simplicity or complexity. It is as it is regardless of how you would like it to be.
> 
> ...



You inserted the MRCA idea when you posted a link. Prior to that, I asked twice about THE INDIVIDUAL, THE WOMAN. The article you linked to does not resolve the issue of how one single woman who is the ancestor of all humans came into being. If everyone is genetically tied to this individual, then either she is the first female of the human race or the only direct descendant of the first human female who existed and survived to procreate. Any attempt to reach further into the past would be a waste of time, because  as we "know", mtDNA is replicated exactly in all offspring. The obvious conclusion is that there was a single female who had no mother, did not come into existence by the process of birth. At some point, she just was. Now, either she always existed or she was created.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Achilles' post. You can also try googling human origins. The information is readily available if you are interested. Considering how you treated Achilles' post I doubt it would be worth anybody's time doing the searching and presenting for you.



I take it you mean post #34? That's funny, because that is exactly the information I was asking about. If followed to it's logical conclusion, it completely contradicts evolution as being any part of human history. Human origin is rooted in the fact that humanity appeared as a result of one unique single female (and by logical extension, one man). Genetics, if it is true that mtDNA is exactly replicated, makes it impossible for some type of ape or other animal to alter that pattern. The mtDNA of the animal could only be consistent all the way through, mother to offspring through each successive generation. The mtDNA of a chimp would be identical to every preceding generation. The same would apply to humans. If that is true, and science says it is, then the origin of mankind has to begin with a single specimen, a human female. The same holds for Y-chromosomal Adam, a single human male. So, the articles put forth by A.R. are far closer to the Biblical creation story than the insurmountable problems associated with an evolutionary cause.

Bottom line, the accumulation of facts, that science supports, are getting ever closer to falling in line with Scripture.

Y'all have a nice day!


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> You inserted the MRCA idea when you posted a link. Prior to that, I asked twice about THE INDIVIDUAL, THE WOMAN. The article you linked to does not resolve the issue of how one single woman who is the ancestor of all humans came into being. If everyone is genetically tied to this individual, then either she is the first female of the human race or the only direct descendant of the first human female who existed and survived to procreate.



Achilles answered your question with a genetic linkage to a common maternal ancestor. She is a common ancestor to all of this. Concluding that she was the first female human or a descendant of the first female human is concluding too much. How do you know there was a "first" human female?




gtparts said:


> Any attempt to reach further into the past would be a waste of time, because  as we "know", mtDNA is replicated exactly in all offspring. The obvious conclusion is that there was a single female who had no mother, did not come into existence by the process of birth. At some point, she just was. Now, either she always existed or she was created.



Faulty premise, faulty conclusion. Surely you didn't think your understanding of this exceeds those geneticists who make their living doing this kind of work?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

gtparts said:


> If followed to it's logical conclusion, it completely contradicts evolution as being any part of human history. Human origin is rooted in the fact that humanity appeared as a result of one unique single female (and by logical extension, one man). Genetics, if it is true that mtDNA is exactly replicated, makes it impossible for some type of ape or other animal to alter that pattern. The mtDNA of the animal could only be consistent all the way through, mother to offspring through each successive generation. The mtDNA of a chimp would be identical to every preceding generation. The same would apply to humans. If that is true, and science says it is, then the origin of mankind has to begin with a single specimen, a human female. The same holds for Y-chromosomal Adam, a single human male. So, the articles put forth by A.R. are far closer to the Biblical creation story than the insurmountable problems associated with an evolutionary cause.
> 
> Bottom line, the accumulation of facts, that science supports, are getting ever closer to falling in line with Scripture.
> 
> Y'all have a nice day!



It's readily apparent you didn't read Achilles link. Scroll down to the common fallacies section if you can't read the whole thing.


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Do I have to repent first?



No, but I will teach you how to work the hyper drive in case i disappear...lol


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yep just want to make sure we are talking about the same things because I'm not aware of what processes have stopped.
> 
> Seems to me from your original post you're looking at the environment and thinking it was made for us.



It was made for all of this.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 11, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> It was made for all of this.



That is like finding a spot the size of a dime on the earth that held a certain life form that could live no where else on the planet and saying the milky way galaxy was created for that life form. When you consider the scale of the universe and everything in it, how long it preceded us, and how long it will be here after us, it seems to me we are an afterthought at best.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That is like finding a spot the size of a dime on the earth that held a certain life form that could live no where else on the planet and saying the milky way galaxy was created for that life form.


Your right, the particular life form that your speaking of on that dime size piece of earth got to that exact spot, that it could only life, by a complete random chance!!! Order from disorder, it makes total sense.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Achilles answered your question with a genetic linkage to a common maternal ancestor. She is a common ancestor to all of this. Concluding that she was the first female human or a descendant of the first female human is concluding too much. How do you know there was a "first" human female?



Duh??? Because if there was never a first, there could be no subsequent human females. Surely, you are not going to ask me to explain rudimentary human reproduction.

Sheep come from sheep.
Turtles come from turtles.
Humans come from humans. They don't come from non-humans.

Slick, you have a lot to learn.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 12, 2011)

If you create a gradient of generations from humans going back to our non-human ancestors the changes are very gradual. You may see little to no difference from one generation to the next. So where along that gradient do you pinpoint the "first" human. What makes it even more complex is we aren't looking at the changes in a single lineage but in an entire population.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 12, 2011)

gtparts said:


> The obvious conclusion is that there was a single female who had no mother, did not come into existence by the process of birth. At some point, she just was. Now, either she always existed or she was created.



This is a ridiculous conclusion completely unsupported by evolutionary biology. Absolute fiction, even.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 12, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> This is a ridiculous conclusion completely unsupported by evolutionary biology. Absolute fiction, even.



Did evolutionary biology have a starting point that was not human?


----------



## atlashunter (May 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Did evolutionary biology have a starting point that was not human?



Yes


----------



## Four (May 31, 2012)

Maybe this image will help clear up the "first human" point. Species are actually not very well defined scientifically, we categorize, but in terms of a strict definition of how to tell if two organisms are different species is actually pretty hard. So although we refer to ourselves as "human" our genetics are constantly changing, at some point we'll evolve and be considered a separate species from what was once referred to as human.


----------



## bullethead (May 31, 2012)

There you go using simple examples while providing great explanations again.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 31, 2012)

Thanatos said:


> I know we hashed part of this out many times. The reason I included some of that in this post was because it supported my reasoning on what I want us to talk about.
> 
> Why did the perfect conditions, process, systems, etc. stop with us?



I find your question interesting. And I hope I understand where you are coming from with it.

I assume it is from the OP's specific question  Quote [Why are we the lone sentient decision makers on this "perfect" planet and why are we so fallible while the systems and process that keep us here are perfected to a degree that is almost incomprehensible?] end quote.

It seems to me that what you call perfect conditions is true only if you find the pradetor or its competitive instinct as perfect. This perfect condition still exists today in nature ( living things) and in man. In humans who are animals and predators however the perfect system was checked because at some point the perfect animal called man aquired emotions and language and a realization that the perfect system was in fact quite judged violent by most humans. At the basic level Oxygen is simply very corrosive and there is a lot a iron on/in the earth and in our blood.

And for emotions and language and eventually reasoning the "perfect system" was judged not so perfect for man but just fine for the rest of the animal kingdom.This was because folk could now share their reasoning. For example, take food and security, it was judged a better and  more dependable system to domesticate wild cattle, instead of spearing  wild buffalo calfs  in the middle of a plain in the middle of a herd--even if you had half your relatives with you! 

It is also this ability of language, emotion and reason that can sense a creator at any point in the system--or not. (Hence "believers", "libertarians" and "non-believers".) In the beginning has little meaning if one has no language, no emotion and no reasoning and  your term perfect conditions even less.

The instinct to kill (including the killing of other human beings) and to control a territory in man is very strong. The tree of death is for us  an ancient calling.  Yet, we are told there is for us a far older calling: The tree of life. The source is a Spirit revealed by the communications of ancient leaders and prophets. Folk with an uncommon robust cognitive ability and fit emotional make-ups ( uncommon) and Arrons with good communication skills if they did not possess it themselves.

Take Isaiah for example...he is  ( they are)  a beautifully rounded man. He writes a prose that is also poetry. He is emotionally without peer.  He is rationally a model for all mankind.


----------



## Asath (Jun 3, 2012)

"Simple, not in your wildest dream. The process you advance requires a complex series of events, . . . "

Why, yes it does.  What with not being Democrats and all, most rational folks don't put forward the contention that complicated things are best understood through magical intuition, enforced by loud assertion.

The alternative explanation (the SIMPLE one) involves actually HAVING the wildest dream, and spending a lifetime believing that it was real.  You see, in order for a GOD to exist a far more complex set of conditions and circumstances would need to obtain, and an explanation of THAT would need to define in quite exact terms exactly HOW something came about that was endowed with the ability to simply wink an entire universe into existence.

One cannot seriously propose that BECAUSE the universe is complex, something tremendously Simple must have created it.  

This becomes the ultimate in complexity -- Did GOD create GOD, and endow itself with the described, and endlessly revised abilities?  Was GOD created by yet a Greater GOD, with even Greater abilities?  Is GOD just a much more highly evolved life form somewhere, who was able to CREATE our universe, much like an 8th-Grade Science Fair exhibit, and then toy with it for entertainment?  And if so, when we breed dogs or create ridiculously complex microscopic structures in laboratories, do they consider US to be THEIR God?

What, exactly, is Simple about the idea of GOD?  Is it only that it relieves the uneducated from the responsibility to further their education and understanding?


----------

