One of many problems with Evolution

[Gweeedo]

Here's a thought (sorry to barge in on your debate on Catholicism)

The 'word' has power, speaking has power, a single 'word' (let there be light) brought everything into existence.
There is power in a name (that which you have to speak).
That is why you are acquitted or condemned by what you speak (power in word).
Existence is Word.

You have no ''word'' in evolution; certainly you have no word in the beginning of evolution.
If there is 'word' at the end of evolution (end of time)...end of our time, where do you find 'word' in the beginning (beginning of time)?

I am saying this on the notion that eternity exists...time vs eternity.
Let us say that evolution is fact and at the end of 'time', all human souls that ever existed are set in eternity.
Now what do you have; souls that have no 'word'? souls that have 'word'???
Has time left any residual effects on eternity?
For sake of argument let say; yes...tis the 'word'; the only claim I know of 'word' being there (time, earth, existence, eternity) from the start is the word of God (souls that are left at the end of time...now in eternity).
Jesus is the 'word' of God, the old testament is the 'word' of god...the 'word' became flesh (Jesus)..that is why it is called, the living 'word'.

Evolution could be factual.
Regardless, in the end you have 'word', the 'word'..the living word (any other claims thus far of a living word).
Being that 'word' (the living word) is all that is left; all that matters, cuz it is the only thing that enters eternity...where are you (your soul, the breath of life) going to be if you know not the living word?
Believers of the Word (Jesus) are in the 'word' (in Christ Jesus).
We have nothing, all we have all we are ever going to have is Christ Jesus.

Well I gots to go smoke another doober (no, I gave that up years ago).
That is the picture I have when it comes to time VS eternity...and the 'word' being of power and considered the 'living word" for all eternity.
Hard to fathom.

[crispybits]

Another religious person that doesn't understand their own fairy tale. "Let there be light" didn't bring everything into existence...

Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

The heavens and the earth were there. The "surface of the deep" was already there. The waters were already there.

Why should we listen to any of you talking about science's theory: evolution, which you flagrantly misrepresent, when you can't even get your own creation story straight?

[crispybits]

And on the accountability thing. Jesus pays for your sins so you don't have to. God forgives you. There is nothing in the bible that says there's any price for this "gift" other than loving God and surrendering completely to his will. That is the precise opposite of accountability, and any christian who claims accountability as a reason why it "makes more sense" or whatever to believe is deluded.

[shickingbrits]

So all scientists view evolution the same? So all people who believe in evolution know it equally?

Here is your worst sin in action: trying to lead a believer in Jesus from him. Fortunately for you, you are unequal to the task.

Why is it that you are so obscure in your own beliefs?

In the beginning, there was a trillions upon trillions of chance to one that the big bang would bring forth life. That utterly random chance happened. Now believe it or you're stupid.

[Gweeedo]

Edit: That was in parenthesis it don't count


Here's a thought (sorry to barge in on your debate on Catholicism)

The 'word' has power, speaking has power, a single 'word' brought everything into existence.
There is power in a name (that which you have to speak).
That is why you are acquitted or condemned by what you speak (power in word).
Existence is Word.

You have no ''word'' in evolution; certainly you have no word in the beginning of evolution.
If there is 'word' at the end of evolution (end of time)...end of our time, where do you find 'word' in the beginning (beginning of time)?

I am saying this on the notion that eternity exists...time vs eternity.
Let us say that evolution is fact and at the end of 'time', all human souls that ever existed are set in eternity.
Now what do you have; souls that have no 'word'? souls that have 'word'???
Has time left any residual effects on eternity?
For sake of argument let say; yes...tis the 'word'; the only claim I know of 'word' being there (time, earth, existence, eternity) from the start is the word of God (souls that are left at the end of time...now in eternity).
Jesus is the 'word' of God, the old testament is the 'word' of god...the 'word' became flesh (Jesus)..that is why it is called, the living 'word'.

Evolution could be factual.
Regardless, in the end you have 'word', the 'word'..the living word (any other claims thus far of a living word).
Being that 'word' (the living word) is all that is left; all that matters, cuz it is the only thing that enters eternity...where are you (your soul, the breath of life) going to be if you know not the living word?
Believers of the Word (Jesus) are in the 'word' (in Christ Jesus).
We have nothing, all we have all we are ever going to have is Christ Jesus.

Well I gots to go smoke another doober (no, I gave that up years ago).
That is the picture(excluding evolution) I have when it comes to time VS eternity...and the 'word' being of power and considered the 'living word" for all eternity.
Hard to fathom.

Not my belief, just a picture of how the 'word' can be viewed with power.
No power (word) in Evolution/eternity?

[chang50]

So all scientists view evolution the same? So all people who believe in evolution know it equally?

Here is your worst sin in action: trying to lead a believer in Jesus from him. Fortunately for you, you are unequal to the task.

Why is it that you are so obscure in your own beliefs?

In the beginning, there was a trillions upon trillions of chance to one that the big bang would bring forth life. That utterly random chance happened. Now believe it or you're stupid.

Actually the chances were 1:1 because we only have evidence of the one time it did happen.There are no recorded cases of it not happening to make a comparison with.

[shickingbrits]

Crispybits,

You are sinning by trying to lead those who believe in Jesus from him. You don't realize you're sinning and persist in it. Once you have understood things better, you realize why that is a sin and therefore you ask forgiveness and do your best to sin no more. You have held yourself accountable and therefore are unburdened by it. Your soul may enter.

Or, you fail to understand better because you reveal in your sin. You carry it with you and when you die, the gates of heaven are too narrow to accommodate you and your burden and you are locked out.

[chang50]

Crispybits,

You are sinning by trying to lead those who believe in Jesus from him. You don't realize you're sinning and persist in it. Once you have understood things better, you realize why that is a sin and therefore you ask forgiveness and do your best to sin no more. You have held yourself accountable and therefore are unburdened by it. Your soul may enter.

Or, you fail to understand better because you reveal in your sin. You carry it with you and when you die, the gates of heaven are too narrow to accommodate you and your burden and you are locked out.

I sure hope I'm locked out too,I'm very fussy about the company I keep..

[crispybits]

I didnt say that. There are two ideas about how life happened and how it diversified. Science says we don't really know at the moment how it started but we have a few guesses which we're working on trying to prove or disprove. Evolution explains diversity. Religion says <insert holy book version here depending on the claimants religion>.

If you cannot describe your idea to me properly and accurately, I won't be taking you as an authority on your belief and I will think that you are not fit to represent that belief. I will also, by extension, think that if you cannot even understand the basics of your own belief it is less likely that you will be properly informed enough to critically assess opposing beliefs. I may be wrong on that point, but the only way to prove me so is to be reliably correct about what the opposing belief actually says and not doing what every single religious idiot on this thread and others have done (note not all religious people, just the idiots) and create strawmen and misrepresent theories saying things they do not actually say.

How do you know there was a trillions to one chance? Have you studied the mechanics of universe formation? To have any sort of probability calculation you have to have data. One out of one universe we have experienced has produced life. In my eyes that's a 100% probability. I won't claim it's actually a 100% probability because the sample size is inadequate for an honest assessment of that nature, but to claim any other probability is not only equally dishonest, but shows you don't have a fucking clue how basic probability (learned at about 8-12 years old in maths classes) works...

I'm hardly obscure in my beliefs here btw....

shicking brits - I still see no accountability there. Surely if that's the worst sin I should be punished. If I repent then there is no punishment for me, therefore I have never been held accountable. I do not think you know what the "accountability" word even means....

[shickingbrits]

If it were 1:1, then it would not be random, it would be by design. For evolution to exist, it could not be designed and therefore random, ie trillions and trillions to one.

[chang50]

If it were 1:1, then it would not be random, it would be by design. For evolution to exist, it could not be designed and therefore random, ie trillions and trillions to one.

You do realise evolution has zero to do with the creation of life?

[crispybits]

I never claimed it was ACTUALLY 100%, just that any honest claim of knowing the probability from a data set of 1 successful result has to come out at 100%, but that such a claim would be flawed for other reasons. Do you even read?

Edit - how many coin tosses would you need to statistically prove it's a 50/50 event? How many dice rolls before you statistically prove it's an equal one in 6 chance for each number? How many random numbers between 1 and 1000 would you need before you can statistically prove the random number generator is truly random? That's a 1 in 2, 1 in 6 and 1 in 1000. To make a claim about knowing a probability of trillions to one you need a data set that goes into trillions of trillions of trillions of universes...

[shickingbrits]

Accountable: required to make an account of your actions. At the moment, you are on a public forum trying to convince people that life was not ordained, there is no God and therefore no afterlife to be held accountable in. If you succeed in your objective, to turn people from God, then you will be asked to account for that.

Saying there is no God before God would not get you very far. Therefore you would be forced to state, that there is God and you have willfully taken a man of God and turned that person against God. God may then wonder what gave you the right to decide there was a God or not. You can say, well there was no evidence of God. God might ask, were you not alive and didn't your scientific principles you followed instead make life an unlikelihood? And you will be forced to say that you had your own reasons for choosing to follow an unlikely event for an assured one. And God will say that you choose death over life.

Jesus gives you the choice to make that account before you get there. He's your advocate and can strike whatever evidence the prosecution has from being presented against you.

[shickingbrits]

No Crispy you didn't claim it, Chang50 did. Should I now accuse you of not being able to read or say that since one of your theory's proponents made a mistake, it must be wrong?

If it were 1:1, then it would not be random, it would be by design. For evolution to exist, it could not be designed and therefore random, ie trillions and trillions to one.

You do realise evolution has zero to do with the creation of life?

You do realize you have just abandoned your previously stated position.

[tzor]

We are Speaking two different languages.

So, shall we disregard centuries of knowledge ('stories) and do away with God?
Should we all run with Evolution (stories) backed by half truths (evidence).

You keep using that word (stories). I'm not sure that you are using it consistently.

When we deal with the Bible and Evolution we are dealing with Genesis. This is a book that has been handed down to us that is thousands of years old, passed down orally at first and then written by various editors (which can be identified and labeled as such) with various points of view. The culture of the people who wrote this book is no longer with us. (And before you say there are still Jews living among us, we have no Jews who currently have to live among the cultures of ancient Egypt and Babylon, both of which significantly influenced the selection of stories that are found in the Book of Genesis.)

Evolution, on the other hand is not a story. We don't write that way today. Evolution doesn't even attempt to teach fundamental truths. It is science, the method of observation, hypothesis and experimentation.

That's one of the odd things about Genesis. If you really don't know the full context you can't really understand the text. Just take the example of the flood story. This story is a interesting variation on the flood story in the Gilgamesh tale. Note the word "variation" because all of the "differences" are theologically significant. They used the science of their day, the stories of the cultures around them and made them profound theological statements. Some people, however, want to treat this like an evolution textbook and as a result they loose out on all the significance of the story.

[chang50]

No Crispy, Chang50 did.

If it were 1:1, then it would not be random, it would be by design. For evolution to exist, it could not be designed and therefore random, ie trillions and trillions to one.

You do realise evolution has zero to do with the creation of life?

You do realize you have just abandoned your previously stated position.

It's common knowledge that the study of the creation of life is called abiogenesis,evolution comes after that.I emphatically have never said otherwise,but your capacity to misunderstand is epic so I have no doubt that is the case now.

[tzor]

Edit - how many coin tosses would you need to statistically prove it's a 50/50 event? How many dice rolls before you statistically prove it's an equal one in 6 chance for each number? How many random numbers between 1 and 1000 would you need before you can statistically prove the random number generator is truly random? That's a 1 in 2, 1 in 6 and 1 in 1000. To make a claim about knowing a probability of trillions to one you need a data set that goes into trillions of trillions of trillions of universes...

Decades ago I would have this answer in a heartbeat. I know there are people who constantly run these tests for gaming dice. It has to do with standard deviations and everything. Of course it is an academic exercise, for any given event any one of the options can happen. It is only in the collective long run that the actual percentages can be known. Probability simply collapses at the single event level.

[crispybits]

Also shickingbrits, when two people have made semantically identical statements, and you don't specify which one you're replying to, and you're WRONG in your reply anyway, then getting all prissy about other people not knowing who you're talking to precisely because you yourself didn't specify is a bit ridiculous

[crispybits]

Edit - how many coin tosses would you need to statistically prove it's a 50/50 event? How many dice rolls before you statistically prove it's an equal one in 6 chance for each number? How many random numbers between 1 and 1000 would you need before you can statistically prove the random number generator is truly random? That's a 1 in 2, 1 in 6 and 1 in 1000. To make a claim about knowing a probability of trillions to one you need a data set that goes into trillions of trillions of trillions of universes...

Decades ago I would have this answer in a heartbeat. I know there are people who constantly run these tests for gaming dice. It has to do with standard deviations and everything. Of course it is an academic exercise, for any given event any one of the options can happen. It is only in the collective long run that the actual percentages can be known. Probability simply collapses at the single event level.

Yeah it depends on things like what level of significance counts as "proof" and other such considerations. I never did like stats, always preferred mechanics and pure maths but I did it long enough to know the basics. I'd have to sit down with google for a while to refresh my memory about the actual mechanics of the calculation though...

[shickingbrits]

You do realize that you are suggesting that evolution disproves God and by extension the possibility that life was created by God, or do you somehow fail to understand yourself?

Crispybits,

They say anger comes before acceptance. Prepare to feel blessed.

[crispybits]

In some places they say "dayum boy you got a purty mouth!".

But carry on avoiding dealing with actual points raised and quote some meaningless platitudes if it makes you feel better

[tzor]

One of my best examples of a bad "die" was when I was working for the Multi-Player Games Network and I was running a role playing game on our forums. The forums used the basic Unix random function and the dice function was derived from that. Normal dice seemed normal, but when I started generating a number of four sided dice I spotted something rather strange.

12d4 = 1+2+3+4+1+2+3+4+1+2+3+4 = 30

Now this variation would not always start at 1, but the point was that technically the probability for any event was precisely correct, even though the predictability of the next event was also 100%.

(Naturally we got the code changed to use a more complex random number generator.)

This brings the subject to a far greater level because the general assumption of basic probability is to assume that the past event has no influence on the next event. That never happens in the real world, even though the influences might be extremely minute. It's the equivalent to going to a physics textbook that talks about "frictionless surfaces" and wondering why it takes so much energy to move your car at 70 MPH.

[crispybits]

Yep, add quantum uncertainty and the sheer complexity of the universe into that and any half-way intelligent person will quickly understand that them making any statement of the sort "there is a 1 in X probability that the universe would turn out like THIS instead of THAT" (when talking about states the universe itself can hold as compared to... other imaginable universes?) is just proving themslves to be a complete idiot...

[chang50]

You do realize that you are suggesting that evolution disproves God and by extension the possibility that life was created by God, or do you somehow fail to understand yourself?

Crispybits,

They say anger comes before acceptance. Prepare to feel blessed.

I've spoken to dozens of atheists on the net and can't remembder one suggesting evolution disproves God for the good reason it is a ridiculous claim,borne out by the fact most Christians accept evolution,including the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[crispybits]

Evolution disproves fundamentalist biblically-literal christianity, but that's a different story I guess...