# Whoops, it was an accident.



## stringmusic (Jan 12, 2011)

Cant take any credit for thinking this up, my brother-in-law wrote it down and I thought it would be a good thread even though we have alot of origin post in other threads. Just wanted to see some reaction to it.

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you overturn a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was overturned."


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Cant take any credit for thinking this up, my brother-in-law wrote it down and I thought it would be a good thread even though we have alot of origin post in other threads. Just wanted to see some reaction to it.
> 
> "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you overturn a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was overturned."



Let me get this straight;  God is in control of everything except for the things that He allows Himself not to be in control of. Is that right?

Furthermore, you don't really know when He has intervened and when He has "allowed" things to happen.  

I don't see the need for anyone to be in control yet things happen and have happened.   

In actuality, does it matter if you or I am right?  Is there any way to prove it?  

What we can say definitively is whether or not someone better off believing in talking donkeys or less so.

Why would you believe a book that said that God blew snot onto the dirt and people popped up?  Is there anything in your experience that would indicate that something like that could happen?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 12, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Let me get this straight;  God is in control of everything except for the things that He allows Himself not to be in control of. Is that right?
> 
> Furthermore, you don't really know when He has intervened and when He has "allowed" things to happen.
> 
> ...



Take out God and you have the theory of evolution! At least the bible explains where the snot came from!


----------



## Thanatos (Jan 12, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Cant take any credit for thinking this up, my brother-in-law wrote it down and I thought it would be a good thread even though we have alot of origin post in other threads. Just wanted to see some reaction to it.
> 
> "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you overturn a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was overturned."



This is getting at my point in my other post on this topic.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 12, 2011)

Rare or improbable events are proof of God. Is that the logic here?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Rare or improbable events are proof of God. Is that the logic here?



Change that improbable to impossible and you got you answer.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Let me get this straight;  God is in control of everything except for the things that He allows Himself not to be in control of. Is that right?


This thread is based on your position on origin, not mine.





> I don't see the need for anyone to be in control yet things happen and have happened.


So nothing is in control of this universe and all that happens in it?   



> In actuality, does it matter if you or I am right?  Is there any way to prove it?


Yes, there are extremely terrible consequences if you are wrong. No there is not 100% proof, thats why I have faith that what I believe is the truth.  



> What we can say definitively is whether or not someone better off believing in talking donkeys or less so.


If a talking donkey was the main theme of the Bible, you would be correct in your assumption, but the main theme in the Bible is Jesus Christ.



> Why would you believe a book that said that God blew snot onto the dirt and people popped up?  Is there anything in your experience that would indicate that something like that could happen?



Why would someone believe the OP? As the OP states, why do you believe what you hear or learn, its all just random events that got you here? Truth is not real if the OP is the way things happened.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Change that improbable to impossible and you got you answer.



Do that and you kill your own position.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Do that and you kill your own position.



Humanize God, and your exactly right. God is not bound to the impossible, my position is alive, thank you very much.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Humanize God, and your exactly right. God is not bound to the impossible, my position is alive, thank you very much.



You kill your position because you are assuming something to be impossible that most likely isn't.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You kill your position because you are assuming something to be impossible that most likely isn't.



I dont really know where your going with this, I'm not assuming anything, exept an evolutionary theory.  Do you have an argument to the OP?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

As I understand the OP, the odds that everything would happen so that we would be here are extremely slim, therefore it must have been the work of God. Is that right?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> As I understand the OP, the odds that everything would happen so that we would be here are extremely slim, therefore it must have been the work of God. Is that right?


Its not talking about any odds, its assuming the position of the big bang.


The first assumption


stringmusic said:


> "*If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision,* then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you overturn a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was overturned."


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

So because we evolved we can't know anything to be true?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> So because we evolved we can't know anything to be true?






stringmusic said:


> "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts are mere *accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?* I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you overturn a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was overturned."




If the big bang were true, and EVERYTHING is a by-product of random chance or an accident, then why would you have reason to believe anything were true?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

Sorry but I don't see what the one has to do with the other.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sorry but I don't see what the one has to do with the other.





stringmusic said:


> "*If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.* If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you overturn a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was overturned."



Its just stating if everything was an accident, then your thoughts are an accident so there is no truth. Also, notice the analogy at the end.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

You're ignoring the role of natural selection.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're ignoring the role of natural selection.



Whats natural about the accident? The OP is speaking of before natural selection, how did the natural get to the selecting? Also if everything is a by-product from the first accident is the selection process by nature an accident, that would make me and you an accident.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Whats natural about the accident? The OP is speaking of before natural selection, how did the natural get to the selecting? Also if everything is a by-product from the first accident is the selection process by nature an accident, that would make me and you an accident.



There are certain environmental conditions for life as we know it to be possible. Those conditions don't exist in most places in the universe which is what we would expect of slim odds. If only one in a million planets have the necessary conditions to support life then earth is one of those rare exceptions. Once the conditions are here and life gets a start then the process of natural selection can take over from there to evolve more complex creatures including intelligent life.

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


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Once the conditions are here and life gets a start



This the question in the OP, we are talking about the conditions and life being an accident.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

Then it's just a question of what are the odds of the conditions for life coming together in one place. Natural selection explains how intelligent life can evolve from more primitive life. Accident or not, it has nothing to do with intelligent life being able to comprehend the world around us.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Then it's just a question of what are the odds of the conditions for life coming together in one place. Natural selection explains how intelligent life can evolve from more primitive life. Accident or not, it has nothing to do with intelligent life being able to comprehend the world around us.



Which was it?


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 13, 2011)

It's not really known.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> It's not really known.



So I'm wrong if I go a step further than you and assert that God is the answer?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

My question for you string is what would you look for to determine if it was a random event(s) or not? If every other planet we know of is hostile to life does that tell you it is random that ours is? What if we find other planets that can support life?

You can assert anything, including God, just like anyone else can. How serious those assertions should be taken depends on the evidence you can provide to support them along with the track record of similar claims made in the past.


----------



## Inthegarge (Jan 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Then it's just a question of what are the odds of the conditions for life coming together in one place. Natural selection explains how intelligent life can evolve from more primitive life. Accident or not, it has nothing to do with intelligent life being able to comprehend the world around us.



Where did your reasoning skills come from ??  Natural selection doesn't explain intelligent life..... In fact you have no explaination for how we became rational thinking beings... At least creationist have an explaination... To believe that lesser forms of life can choose to become more complex form is idiotic.............I have yet to see an cell decide to be complex cell and then do it...


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 13, 2011)

It isn't necessarily that the organisms choose although that is possible, the environment can also act as selector by eliminating or favoring different characteristics.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So I'm wrong if I go a step further than you and assert that God is the answer?



It's certainly neither the logical nor rational conclusion.


----------



## Achilles Return (Jan 14, 2011)

Inthegarge said:


> Where did your reasoning skills come from ??  Natural selection doesn't explain intelligent life.....



Sure it does. 



> In fact you have no explaination for how we became rational thinking beings... At least creationist have an explaination...



"God did it!" Isn't an explanation, sorry.



> To believe that lesser forms of life can choose to become more complex form is idiotic.............I have yet to see an cell decide to be complex cell and then do it...



This only shows you don't really understand how natural selection works.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It isn't necessarily that the organisms choose although that is possible, the environment can also act as selector by eliminating or favoring different characteristics.



The environment was an accident, remember? How are we to know that the accidental environment is not making accidental selections? Also, how do people born with mental retardation life a long life? Why are they not selected out of the environment?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 15, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> It's certainly neither the logical nor rational conclusion.



What is the logical and rational conclusion?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 15, 2011)

> "God did it!" Isn't an explanation, sorry.


give me a better explanation.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The environment was an accident, remember? How are we to know that the accidental environment is not making accidental selections? Also, how do people born with mental retardation life a long life? Why are they not selected out of the environment?



Under normal circumstances they wouldn't have a long life. A mentally retarded wild animal doesn't last long. That's natural selection at work.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Under normal circumstances they wouldn't have a long life. A mentally retarded wild animal doesn't last long. That's natural selection at work.



Congenital defects are typically regarded as unattractive breeding collateral, particularly if they manifest in some kind of disfigurement.  

Natural selection again.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Under normal circumstances they wouldn't have a long life.


So the farther we get in medical innovations the less natural selection works?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Under normal circumstances they wouldn't have a long life. A mentally retarded wild animal doesn't last long. That's natural selection at work.



care to comment on the accidental selections that nature makes?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Congenital defects are typically regarded as unattractive breeding collateral, particularly if they manifest in some kind of disfigurement.
> 
> Natural selection again.



So natural selection hasn't had time to select out these "unattractive breeding collateral". Do we have less mental retarded people than 1,000 years ago?


BTW..... "natural selection" basically assumes that a person with mental retardation has no meaning, no value, life is not sacred for them, and can give nothing to society....... nice.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So natural selection hasn't had time to select out these "unattractive breeding collateral". Do we have less mental retarded people than 1,000 years ago?
> 
> 
> BTW..... "natural selection" basically assumes that a person with mental retardation has no meaning, no value, life is not sacred for them, and can give nothing to society....... nice.




Mutations are what drive evolution.   Do you remember when they taught evolution in High School?  

"Natural selection" isn't a person and therefore doesn't make judgments.  It's a natural process like Internal Combustion or Mitosis.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So the farther we get in medical innovations the less natural selection works?



It works just fine. In some ways we have weakened the gene pool because of medical advances.  I wear glasses and in the past might have fallen off a cliff or gotten eaten by a Sabre Tooth Tiger that I couldn't see.  Because of glasses, I was able to pass on my crappy eyesight. 

Viruses, on the other hand, have become stronger and more resilient because of our tampering.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 16, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So natural selection hasn't had time to select out these "unattractive breeding collateral". Do we have less mental retarded people than 1,000 years ago?



Don't know if we have less or more. But to the extent that medical technology helps people survive and reproduce who wouldn't have otherwise, their genetic traits are passed on. Common sense.




stringmusic said:


> BTW..... "natural selection" basically assumes that a person with mental retardation has no meaning, no value, life is not sacred for them, and can give nothing to society....... nice.



As ambush pointed out, you're talking about a natural process, not something with a brain that makes assumptions. The more you post the more evident it becomes that your thinking is guided not by what is but by what feels good to you.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Don't know if we have less or more. But to the extent that medical technology helps people survive and reproduce who wouldn't have otherwise, their genetic traits are passed on. Common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think Ambush and yourself are getting a little off track of the OP. This natural process that both keep posting about, IS THAT PROCESS AN ACCIDENT? AND ARE THE RESULTS OF THAT PROCESS ALSO AN ACCIDENT?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 16, 2011)

Depends on how you are defining accident.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Depends on how you are defining accident.



Definition of ACCIDENT
1a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2011)

lets rekindle this fire, it was fun.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2011)

How many "accidents" have to occur to get a piece of toast that has the picture of the Virgin Mary on it?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Mutations are what drive evolution.   Do you remember when they taught evolution in High School?
> 
> "Natural selection" isn't a person and therefore doesn't make judgments.  It's a *natural process *like Internal Combustion or Mitosis.



The natural process is an accident right? Therefor, the process is an accident, the equations that we, who are accidents, use to measure the process are accidental. Can you accept the answers from an accident to explain the origin of humanity?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 31, 2011)

My parents planned to have me, so since my birth was not an accident, does that make me more qualified to answer questions than those of you whose conception was an accident?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> My parents planned to have me, so since my birth was not an accident, does that make me more qualified to answer questions than those of you whose conception was an accident?



Did you read the OP?


----------



## atlashunter (Feb 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> My parents planned to have me, so since my birth was not an accident, does that make me more qualified to answer questions than those of you whose conception was an accident?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>



I started to take it as a joke as well, it is funny, I just didnt want to accidently offend him. I shoulda know better.


----------

