# Mars Curiosity forthcoming announcement...



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 28, 2012)

lol      Any of you atheists excited about the 'history making' news that NASA is going to announce about the Curiosity rover on Mars?   

I prophecy.....NOT LIFE....NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ALIVE or DEAD.       but I bet whatever it is the media will jump on it like it's the latest gospel truth!   

I read one woman's comment that she thought it probably found a fossil bone or something.   LMBO!!!    

Anyway...just curious as to what you thought they'd be announcing.


----------



## hummdaddy (Nov 28, 2012)

wish they would just come out with the contact the government has already made here on earth


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 28, 2012)

I vote:  "Inconclusive"


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 28, 2012)

I suppose it will be something to do with carbon or water.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (Nov 28, 2012)

Zombies


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 29, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I suppose it will be something to do with carbon or water.



They already know that water is there...maybe their first clue was the ice caps.  lol

Organic compounds and water.....add a few more lucky chemicals and we are practically at life!     

odds of life coming about by chance, as calculated by Dr Debinski..     1 in 10^250       

odds of winning yesterdays Powerball...   1 in 175 million  

odds of an amateur golfer hitting two holes-in-one on successive holes...     1 in 16 million


I agree, though.....probably just organic compounds...and you guys watch what the media does with the news and read their articles and look for the keyword 'life'....then smile and think  of that 1 in 10^250 number.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 29, 2012)

They found Marvin!!!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 29, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> They found Marvin!!!
> 
> View attachment 701746



There was suppose to be an Earth shattering kaboom.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> They already know that water is there...maybe their first clue was the ice caps.  lol
> 
> Organic compounds and water.....add a few more lucky chemicals and we are practically at life!
> 
> ...



Regardless of what they find, for the believers "god done it!"


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 29, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Regardless of what they find, for the believers "god done it!"



Makes sense, 'cause if he exists, he did.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Nov 29, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> There was suppose to be an Earth shattering kaboom.



Well, Nugefan and SarahFair both claim to have felt the earth shake at 3am this morning.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Makes sense, 'cause if he exists, he did.



I suppose that's so.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> They already know that water is there...maybe their first clue was the ice caps.  lol
> 
> Organic compounds and water.....add a few more lucky chemicals and we are practically at life!
> 
> ...



Maybe you and Doc Dabinski can figure out the odds of a God. 1 in..........???


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 29, 2012)

lol       Designer


If life coming about by chance is statistically impossible, what is the other choice?    

only two options that I'm aware of, and science is proving more and more that life doesn't come about by chance.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol       Designer
> 
> 
> If life coming about by chance is statistically impossible, what is the other choice?
> ...



Just like trying to prove "prayer"works; you can't lose.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 29, 2012)

True, Ambush.    And evolution....the theory that's impossible to disprove....all evidence, positive and negative, supports it.


----------



## lagrangedave (Nov 29, 2012)

I bet Methane (organic).


----------



## hunter rich (Nov 29, 2012)

So, what was this thread about?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 29, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> True, Ambush.    And evolution....the theory that's impossible to disprove....all evidence, positive and negative, supports it.



So what are we to do?  I guess people will go with what "feels right" or maybe something that fits with what they have experience with.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 29, 2012)

Methane wouldn't be something to get all excited about, as Europa (one of Jupiter's moons) is loaded with methane, and obviously from natural sources.

Still, my guess is organic compounds.   What they may term as "prebiotic"


----------



## littlewolf (Nov 29, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Well, Nugefan and SarahFair both claim to have felt the earth shake at 3am this morning.



Were they together???


----------



## hunter rich (Nov 29, 2012)

littlewolf said:


> Were they together???



Oh no you di-int?!?


----------



## David Parker (Nov 29, 2012)

Finding evidence of life on Mars would take more time than what the rovers have spent there.  It would require hella digging for starters, then radio/carbon dating stuff, etc.  Surveys that a rover isn't capable of doing.  So throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't make God real by default.  Yall can't be waiting for another LeBrea tar pit with skeletons frozen-in-time?!?!?!  Are yall waiting for another LeBrea tar pit with skeletons frozen-in-time?!?!?!  smdh


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 29, 2012)

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012...clare-life-on-mars-nasa-says/?intcmp=features

looks like NASA is starting to play down the hype.   

Anyway, it's interesting having the rover dig around there.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 29, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol       Designer
> 
> 
> If life coming about by chance is statistically impossible, what is the other choice?
> ...



If a God is the other option what are the odds that a God exists and it is your God that brought life to the planet? I'm serious. What are the numbers that any God could exist? 1 to the ..........???????


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance



> Many people, perhaps most, hate the idea that life might depend on chance processes. It is a human tendency to search for meaning, and what could be more meaningful than the belief that our lives have a greater purpose, that all life in fact is guided by a supreme intelligence which manifests itself even at the level of individual molecules?
> 
> Proponents of intelligent design believe that the components of life are so complex that they could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary process. To bolster their argument, they calculate the odds that a specific protein might assemble by chance in the prebiotic environment. The odds against such a chance assembly are so astronomically immense that a protein required for life to begin could not possibly have assembled by chance on the early Earth.  Therefore, the argument goes, life must have been designed.
> 
> ...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 30, 2012)

did you read the article, Bullet?    Pure, unscientific speculation, without any evidence.    He 'assumes' (like many) that since life HAD TO HAVE come about by chance, that there HAD TO BE some kind of protocell....but there is not any evidence for that, nor can they produce this imaginary "early cells (THAT) were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane".    You'd think if nature could produce these 'early cells' that filtered compounds that scientists could produce them now....and "shake them or cut them in half" so they could replicate.   

This article is all Bill Nye-ranting, without any evidence.   

If life did come about by chance (when this guy himself knows the odds of that are zilch) then, yes, there would have been some kind of protocell, but to date there is no evidence of this.    What we have in the Cambrian explosion is complexity, and no predecessors.  

This guy is grasping from an A Priori mindset....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> did you read the article, Bullet?    Pure, unscientific speculation, without any evidence.    He 'assumes' (like many) that since life HAD TO HAVE come about by chance, that there HAD TO BE some kind of protocell....but there is not any evidence for that, nor can they produce this imaginary "early cells (THAT) were just little bags of some kind of cell membrane".    You'd think if nature could produce these 'early cells' that filtered compounds that scientists could produce them now....and "shake them or cut them in half" so they could replicate.
> 
> This article is all Bill Nye-ranting, without any evidence.
> 
> ...



Speculation without Evidence is THE definition for a belief in a God. I would not be so quick to point your finger at their methods when you use the exact same methods to prove your God.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 30, 2012)

You're on the defense, Bullet.   Science is what is telling us how impossible and incredibly complex the simplest life is.   One of the leading Origin of Life researchers, Leslie Orgels, wrote a paper before he died on “The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth.”    This was a leading OOL research scientist, and as a leader in the field he understood the problems with life coming about by chance.   

The evidence points to design, no matter what you call the Designer.   God, aliens, etc.    If the odds of life coming about by chance are beyond reason, what is the other option?  (and stop trying to take this off on a Red Herring diversion)  If life couldn't have come about by chance then what how could it have originated?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

It is not a 50/50 choice. It is not that simple. It is not A or B.

You are giving us a choice that in itself has never been proven to exist so how can it be an option to be the solution?

What does science say the odds are of a being that has ALWAYS existed? Why are you using scientific procedure to give the odds of only one of your choices? For the two choices you are giving us please establish the odds of each happening and we can go from there.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 30, 2012)

I've found that, when debating the Origin of Life, or religion, that many use logic that they don't use in everyday life.   That's what you're doing here, Bullet.

If something didn't come about by chance, it was made.    it's black and white.     accept it...there is no gray area here.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Maybe you and Doc Dabinski can figure out the odds of a God. 1 in..........???



That would be 1 in 1...


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I've found that, when debating the Origin of Life, or religion, that many use logic that they don't use in everyday life.   That's what you're doing here, Bullet.
> 
> If something didn't come about by chance, it was made.    it's black and white.     accept it...there is no gray area here.



I take ALL available information and try to decide which choice is more likely based on that information. That is used every single day in every single aspect of every day life.

Since Chance is calculated at 1 in 10^250
and 
Odds of a God existing are not even possible to calculate
and
That same un-calculable and improbable God now created life has got to be 1 in 10^250 times worse than impossible.

That to me rules out a God.

Out of those two choices Chance vs God, chance has a whole lot better odds. 1 in 10^250 is better than 0.

Chance 1 in 10^250 vs Leprechauns 0. Chance stills has an edge and also rules out Leprechauns designing and creating the universe.


Now, if you have something better to offer as to who/what or how life was made and can provide some numbers that back it up I am all ears, as this is what truly interests me. But if you are going to give me two choices and provide stats for one and nothing for the other how can the two be compared??


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

Jeff Phillips said:


> That would be 1 in 1...


 
Alert the major networks, Jeff solved the equation.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I take ALL available information and try to decide which choice is more likely based on that information. That is used every single day in every single aspect of every day life.
> 
> Since Chance is calculated at 1 in 10^250
> and
> ...



You've got to stop assuming the other side of the chance coin is God, for a second.

The point Bandy is making is that out of the two choices, chance v made, the odds of chance are zero, so by deductive reasoning, things being made is a more likely scenario.

And no, matter is not eternal, as we have discussed that many times. So that takes the odds to "double zero" for things being made by chance, because chance cannot create matter, at best chance can shape matter and we know those odds.

No matter how you try to find a way around it, "something" created us and everything we see, you don't have to be in the front pew next Sunday to accept that fact.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Alert the major networks, Jeff solved the equation.



No news here, 100's of millions know the truth


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 30, 2012)

Lol    Bullet loves to bring up 'God'.   I'd prefer that you use 'designer', as that is all we have been discussing.   chance or design.   Why don't you argue the odds of space aliens creating life here?   

Logically, all I have to do is show that life could not have come about by chance.   (which odds and science have shown)   After that, we have to look at other options, whatever they are.    Only two choices that I am aware of, and debates are centered around only two choices throughout the media.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You've got to stop assuming the other side of the chance coin is God, for a second.
> 
> The point Bandy is making is that out of the two choices, chance v made, the odds of chance are zero, so by deductive reasoning, things being made is a more likely scenario.
> 
> ...



All i did was rule out God from those two choices. Now I am interested in what another choice of intelligent design would be.

maybe a 3rd choice....UN-intelligent design.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> UN-intelligent design. 3rd choice.




oxymoron?   lol


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Lol    Bullet loves to bring up 'God'.   I'd prefer that you use 'designer', as that is all we have been discussing.   chance or design.   Why don't you argue the odds of space aliens creating life here?
> 
> Logically, all I have to do is show that life could not have come about by chance.   (which odds and science have shown)   After that, we have to look at other options, whatever they are.    Only two choices that I am aware of, and debates are centered around only two choices throughout the media.



Why worship and give credit to your God for doing these things if he did not?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Logically, all I have to do is show that life could not have come about by chance.   (which odds and science have shown)   After that, we have to look at other options, whatever they are.    Only two choices that I am aware of, and debates are centered around only two choices throughout the media.



Lets say Chance is eliminated for  this discussion. What then do the odds and science point to? Specifically who/what is the designer?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 30, 2012)

How do you know He didn't?   Or that aliens didn't design life?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> What then do the odds and science point to?




design.   that's what I've been saying all along.   You keep using the word 'god'.    I never did.

designer


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> All i did was rule out God from those two choices. Now I am interested in what another choice of intelligent design would be.


If that's what you want to do Bullet. But I'll tell you, there ain't much reading on other legit theories out there.



> maybe a 3rd choice....UN-intelligent design.



You mean stupid design? I don't think that's how it happened.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> How do you know He didn't?   Or that aliens didn't design life?



I don't. Along with 10^250 possibilities. Give me some stats that narrow all those possibilities down.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> design.   that's what I've been saying all along.   You keep using the word 'god'.    I never did.
> 
> designer



Then why worship your God?


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Specifically who/what is the designer?



That then becomes a theological/philosophical issue and you're looking in the wrong place if you think science can answer that question.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then why worship your God?



There are steps in the process Bullet, we're still discussing the very first step.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If that's what you want to do Bullet. But I'll tell you, there ain't much reading on other legit theories out there.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean stupid design? I don't think that's how it happened.



You don't THINK that's how it happened..... why don't you accept that answer when someone else uses it?
Gotta watch more Nat Geo channel.


----------



## Four (Nov 30, 2012)

I think words like "creator" or "designer" imply consciousness & intelligence.

maybe Causer is a better one?

Uranium causes / creates lead over time... but its not exactly deity worthy.


----------



## Four (Nov 30, 2012)

Also, i love this stuff.. cosmology astrophysics, etc...

Just read this and was reminded about how cool this stuff is

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> There are steps in the process Bullet, we're still discussing the very first step.



In the first step there were two choices given. One was tossed out because of it being statistically impossible with a scientific equation of odds being given. No one has yet even attempted to genuinely use the same scientific equation to prove the second choice.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You don't THINK that's how it happened..... why don't you accept that answer when someone else uses it?
> Gotta watch more Nat Geo channel.



I intended my "I don't think" comment to be elementary.

Care to give us some more info on your "stupid design" theory?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I intended my "I don't think" comment to be elementary.
> 
> Care to give us some more info on your "stupid design" theory?



Not my theory at all, just throwing another possibility.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> In the first step there were two choices given. One was tossed out because of it being statistically impossible with a scientific equation of odds being given. No one has yet even attempted to genuinely use the same scientific equation to prove the second choice.



Ok here's the scientific/mathmatical/logical equation for the second choice.


 We have two choices A & B

Either A or B is true

A is false

Therefor, B is true.

We and everything around us is designed.

That good enough for you?


----------



## Four (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok here's the scientific/mathmatical/logical equation for the second choice.
> 
> 
> We have two choices A & B
> ...



Could be a false dichotomy... or the other choice could be statistically impossibler!


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2012)

Don't we have to prove (not theorize) life can be created by chance before we determine the odds of it happening?


----------



## Four (Nov 30, 2012)

another interesting thought..

If you believe in Deterministic universe, there is no such thing as chance at all!


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok here's the scientific/mathmatical/logical equation for the second choice.
> 
> 
> We have two choices A & B
> ...



NO. You have not proved the other to be true.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Don't we have to prove (not theorize) life can be created by chance before we determine the odds of it happening?



The same proof is required for each choice given.
Proof by Chance
Proof by Design
each in the same boat


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The same proof is required for each choice given.
> Proof by Chance
> Proof by Design
> each in the same boat



We know things can be designed.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> We know things can be designed.



We know things happen by chance.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> We know things happen by chance.



What form of creation are we discussing?


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Not my theory at all, just throwing another possibility.



Something with no intelligence cannot design, therefor, the theory is incorrect.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> What form of creation are we discussing?



I am thinking creation of life.
Science said creation by chance is impossible.
Science has not been able to create life from nothing.
Science cannot prove a creator.

so where does that leave us?


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

Four said:


> Could be a false dichotomy


But it's not, we know that things happened by chance, or things were created and designed.



> ... or the other choice could be statistically impossibler!


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

Four said:


> another interesting thought..
> 
> If you believe in Deterministic universe, there is no such thing as chance at all!



"Something"(with intelligence) has to do the determining.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Something with no intelligence cannot design, therefor, the theory is incorrect.



Try to find Alien Earths on National Geographic channel sometime.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> NO. You have not proved the other to be true.



Again, we can use deductive reasoning. 

Either A or B is true. A is false, therefor B is true.


----------



## Four (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> But it's not, we know that things happened by chance, or things were created and designed.



what about the chance of someone designing something?!

Also i don't think created implied design.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The same proof is required for each choice given.
> Proof by Chance
> Proof by Design
> each in the same boat



Chance is impossible, what are you left with?


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Try to find Alien Earths on National Geographic channel sometime.



Even if we were designed by aliens, they would be intelligent.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Again, we can use deductive reasoning.
> 
> Either A or B is true. A is false, therefor B is true.



A and B are both false possibly.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> A and B are both false possibly.



Then you're left with a zero possibility that matter exists. We know that matter does in fact exist, therefor, A or B has to be true. A is proven false, therefor B must be true.

This is simple logic, why are you fighting it so hard. Is it that hard for you to see a creator/designer?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Then you're left with a zero possibility that matter exists. We know that matter does in fact exist, therefor, A or B has to be true. A is proven false, therefor B must be true.
> 
> This is simple logic, why are you fighting it so hard. Is it that hard for you to see a creator/designer?



You are stuck on only two choices, I am not.

It is possible that unobserved natural laws exist which caused functional proteins and RNA/DNA molecules to form.


----------



## stringmusic (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You are stuck on only two choices, I am not.
> 
> It is possible that unobserved natural laws exist which caused functional proteins and RNA/DNA molecules to form.



Well, you've got about 0.000000000001% of the problem solved with that theory.

It would seem that those "unobserved natural laws" would in some way have to be pretty easily observed if it formed us, because we are here, there too those law *should* be here. 

Do you think it's possible that _super_natural laws exist that caused functional proteins and RNA/DNA molecules to form?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Well, you've got about 0.000000000001% of the problem solved with that theory.
> 
> It would seem that those "unobserved natural laws" would in some way have to be pretty easily observed if it formed us, because we are here, there too those law *should* be here.
> 
> Do you think it's possible that _super_natural laws exist that caused functional proteins and RNA/DNA molecules to form?



I am not a big supernatural believer.
There are 100 Billion Galaxies out there. Things might not be familiar to us and seem "supernatural" but are natural to the universe.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Well, you've got about 0.000000000001% of the problem solved with that theory.



I would love to see the math on how you figured that out


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> so where does that leave us?



I tend to look at our system, and wonder how it could fall into place.  I understand the theories, particularly abiogenesis (thanks to atlashunter), and I know they are making advances with that "collider" device in understanding origins.

But, dang man, it's a complicated universe out there, and natural laws dictate everything.  Everything that is depends on certain other things "having to be."   Gravity is a great example. Could the universe exist without it?  Is it by chance that "natural laws" exist?  If matter is infinite.......couldn't it just as easily never existed?

Seems a bit odd to think that all this complexity is just as easily a product of circumstance when one considers a creator.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I tend to look at our system, and wonder how it could fall into place.  I understand the theories, particularly abiogenesis (thanks to atlashunter), and I know they are making advances with that "collider" device in understanding origins.
> 
> But, dang man, it's a complicated universe out there, and natural laws dictate everything.  Everything that is depends on certain other things "having to be."   Gravity is a great example. Could the universe exist without it?  Is it by chance that "natural laws" exist?  If matter is infinite.......couldn't it just as easily never existed?
> 
> Seems a bit odd to think that all this complexity is just as easily a product of circumstance when one considers a creator.



A creator seems easier for you to digest because you have your own idea of what this creator is supposed to be like.  If you consider all the other possibilities of what he might be like he is no longer simple or elegant.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 30, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If you consider all the other possibilities of what he might be like he is no longer simple or elegant.



Let's say he is an evil god.....does that change anything?  Does is make our existence less complicated?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Even if we were designed by aliens, they would be intelligent.



Just a few examples of "intelligent" design..

http://baileybear.hubpages.com/hub/Evolution-Unintelligent-Design

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Evidence-for-Evolution--Unintelligent-Design-209350.html


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Let's say he is an evil god.....does that change anything?  Does is make our existence less complicated?



Then I defy him and deny his existence.

What it really comes down to for me is that I can't justify the leap it takes to say "every thing HAD to have a beginning EXCEPT....." and then furthermore assign some half-cocked notion of what that thing is.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 1, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Then I defy him and deny his existence.



And, that's your choice.



ambush80 said:


> What it really comes down to for me is that I can't justify the leap it takes to say "every thing HAD to have a beginning EXCEPT....." and then furthermore assign some half-cocked notion of what that thing is.



Again.....how much of everything depends on everything else to be here?  What if we had all of this infinite matter.....and no gravity?  Or.....what if carbon didn't exist?

Once we put existence by chance on a level playing field with creation, then we have to weigh the possibility of every element of the universe existing independent of the rest.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And, that's your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What if?   The only thing we know for certain is what we have....what is.  Who know how many permutations have "failed"?  

Zebras could have had purple stripes.  

The argument for how "perfectly designed" things are is always the same at its core whether discussing the orbit of the Earth or how bananas are "perfectly" suited for our human hands to hold (remember that video?).


----------



## TripleXBullies (Dec 1, 2012)

When did 1 in 10^250 become zero?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What if?   The only thing we know for certain is what we have....what is.  Who know how many permutations have "failed"?



Do we know of a set of natural laws wich did fail before the ones that worked to create everything?



ambush80 said:


> Zebras could have had purple stripes.



Only if they were hiding in purple stuff.....otherwise, they would have been selected out of the picture.



ambush80 said:


> The argument for how "perfectly designed" things are is always the same at its core whether discussing the orbit of the Earth or how bananas are "perfectly" suited for our human hands to hold (remember that video?).



I guess our hands could have evolved to hold a banana too.  But, I am talking about before that, before life.

Did non-life matter also evolve to work together to create life? By chance?


----------



## Four (Dec 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Did non-life matter also evolve to work together to create life? By chance?



I don't think inorganic matter can evolve, like by definition.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 3, 2012)

Just out. They found a canister with a chip with this in it:


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 3, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't think inorganic matter can evolve, like by definition.



Yet we give it credit for creating everything


----------



## Four (Dec 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yet we give it credit for creating everything



i don't understand. You're saying we give evolution credit for creating everything?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Do we know of a set of natural laws wich did fail before the ones that worked to create everything?



I don't know.  Thankfully there are people who keep looking.



JB0704 said:


> I guess our hands could have evolved to hold a banana too.  But, I am talking about before that, before life.



...evolved to hold a banana....I'm not sure which is odder, that proposition or the one from the video.  Before life, no one knows.



JB0704 said:


> Only if they were hiding in purple stuff.....otherwise, they would have been selected out of the picture.



And IF savannah grass were purple some would still call it part of god's plan.  That's my point.  No matter what the condition, one can find 'designer' if they want to. What if we had 3 arms?  "To god be the glory"?  



JB0704 said:


> Did non-life matter also evolve to work together to create life? By chance?



Is it impossible that it did?  That's the whole point, no?  Following the trail of breadcrumbs?  I like the 'odds' game but we don't have all the info and as long as there remains a possibility that it could have happened by chance then there's no need in my mind to make some kind of 'special plea' about an un-caused cause.  It seems premature and superstitious.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 3, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> Just out. They found a canister with a chip with this in it:


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 3, 2012)

Four said:


> i don't understand. You're saying we give evolution credit for creating everything?



Somehow, inorganic matter became organic, and worked with all the other natural laws of the universe to create everything by chance.

Ambush's suggestion was that there were natural laws that did not work, or how many permutations did not work.  This would have to go back to the beginning.  We can't simply draw a line at life and say "ok, now natural selection begins."


The discussion is about chance creating everything.  What are the odds that everything needed was already there?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What it really comes down to for me is that I can't justify the leap it takes to say "every thing HAD to have a beginning EXCEPT....."


Logic would dictate that everything did have a beginning, EXCEPT. As we have went over many times.



> and then furthermore assign some half-cocked notion of what that thing is.



"Half-cocked"??

Yea, God hasn't even really been looked into all that much, most folks just say "God did it" and they're done with thinking for the rest of their lives.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Thankfully there are people who keep looking.



Agreed.



ambush80 said:


> ...evolved to hold a banana....I'm not sure which is odder, that proposition or the one from the video.  Before life, no one knows.



Did the two evolve simultaneously independent of each other?  Probably???  I was just working with the example given.  



ambush80 said:


> And IF savannah grass were purple some would still call it part of god's plan.  That's my point.  No matter what the condition, one can find 'designer' if they want to. What if we had 3 arms?  "To god be the glory"?



And......the flip side is "to chance be the glory!!!"  

It's interesting how so many different pieces of the puzzle had to exist simultaneously to get the ball rolling....what are the "odds" of that?




ambush80 said:


> Is it impossible that it did?  That's the whole point, no?  Following the trail of breadcrumbs?  I like the 'odds' game but we don't have all the info and as long as there remains a possibility that it could have happened by chance then there's no need in my mind to make some kind of 'special plea' about an un-caused cause.  It seems premature and superstitious.



I think following the bread crumbs is a great idea, and scientific advancement is good for us all.   But, I am just discussing one option against the other.  If we give credibility to chance, don't we have to consider how many different elements had to exist by chance in order to interact and create the rest of us?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's amazing to be sure and all I can say is "WOW!"  but I don't think it's time to 'worship' yet.  That's what Wiccans do.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Logic would dictate that everything did have a beginning, EXCEPT. As we have went over many times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Mmm Hmm.  Look how many times intelligent people who have theological questions are told by other intelligent to "lay it at the foot of the cross" and "trust and obey".  

That kind of talk reeks of snake oil.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's amazing to be sure and all I can say is "WOW!"  but I don't think it's time to 'worship' yet.  That's what Wiccans do.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Mmm Hmm.  Look how many times intelligent people who have theological questions are told by other intelligent to "lay it at the foot of the cross" and "trust and obey".



If you will stop looking for what you want to see/hear, intelligent theological discussion is everywhere, ex. Ravi Zacherias, William Lane Craig and others.

There are times when we,("we" as in nobody, not even scientist), has the answer to certian questions, that is when Christians are to keep their faith in God and trust Him. It is being intellectualy honest with myself for me to keep my faith when I don't know the answer, because of everything else I believe about God.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If you will stop looking for what you want to see/hear, intelligent theological discussion is everywhere, ex. Ravi Zacherias, William Lane Craig and others.
> 
> There are times when we,("we" as in nobody, not even scientist), has the answer to certain questions, that is when Christians are to keep their faith in God and trust Him. It is being intellectually honest with myself for me to keep my faith when I don't know the answer, because of everything else I believe about God.



I want to see/hear what you claim to  have heard; as a skeptic.  I don't buy all that "you didn't REALLY give it a chance" nonsense.  

".....intellectually honest.... to keep my faith when I don't know the answer...."  Listen to yourself. 

Have you ever heard that guy Bobo from that show "Finding Bigfoot"? Now that's a believer.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> ".....intellectually honest.... to keep my faith when I don't know the answer...."  Listen to yourself.


I'm listening. I qualified my statement by saying that keeping my faith when I don't know the answer is prefaced by what I already believe about God. Is that not what you consider intellectual honesty?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm listening. I qualified my statement by saying that keeping my faith when I don't know the answer is prefaced by what I already believe about God. Is that not what you consider intellectual honesty?



This is exactly the same thing as 'wishful thinking'.  Exactly the same.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> This is exactly the same thing as 'wishful thinking'.  Exactly the same.



...or a belief system.

If we believe God created the universe, we can not know answers, and not fear them either.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> This is exactly the same thing as 'wishful thinking'.  Exactly the same.



What do you call it when you don't know the answer and science hasn't told you?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What do you call it when you don't know the answer and science hasn't told you?



Ignorance.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Ignorance.



Well, you keep being ingnorant, and I'll keep wishful thinking.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Well, you keep being ingnorant, and I'll keep wishful thinking.



The cure for ignorance is learning.  It's the same cure for wishful thinking.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The cure for ignorance is learning.  It's the same cure for wishful thinking.



Can you clarify what part is wishful thinking?

If I believe God created the universe, and I also enjoy learning, what am I missing?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The cure for ignorance is learning.  It's the same cure for wishful thinking.



Go learn human origin and then teach me.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Go learn human origin and then teach me.



Will forward links per request.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 4, 2012)

lol

modern humans interbred with Neanderthals.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Will forward links per request.



You know the answer!?! Let's hear it...


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You know the answer!?! Let's hear it...




...as I get them.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> ...as I get them.



So there is no cure......


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Can you clarify what part is wishful thinking?
> 
> If I believe God created the universe, and I also enjoy learning, what am I missing?



I guess we get to the un-caused cause again.  

Lets try another way to get at this matter.  What evidence leads you to believe in your god?  Will it stand up to scrutiny?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What evidence leads you to believe in your god?



"My" God.....nothing more than faith, and an old book .  "God" in general....existence.



ambush80 said:


> Will it stand up to scrutiny?



A God or "my" God?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 5, 2012)

this is probably a great place to introduce Jesus.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 5, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> this is probably a great place to introduce Jesus.



"....Panty hose and lingerie two floors up."


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Dec 5, 2012)

delusion's are a way a man can circumvent there intelligence....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 5, 2012)

it is 'delusions' and 'their'.           no comma


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 7, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> it is 'delusions' and 'their'.           no comma



Comma or apostrophe?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 7, 2012)

Touche!   lol     apostrophe!!!     I never claimed to be smart, though!  lol


----------

