10,000,000 perfect hands of bridge
Is this even possible? Sounds pretty impressive, I'll give him that.
Maybe we ought to just give chance a chance? I mean, chance is not the enemy is it?
Can't we all just get along?
Really, can't all the incredible specified complexity of life actually be explained by chance? Or 'natural selection' (another name for chance)? I love that one, by the way. It's like when Amway people stopped saying Amway and started saying they were talking about an "International marketing opportunity."
Um, you mean, "Amway"?
Well, yeah.
Ok.
Anyway, the answer is the same one I gave you for time...NO.
It's true, that Atheists (no surprise) and Theists (a little surprise) alike have calculated the probability that life could arise by chance from non-living chemicals. Both groups have done the math, it's just that one (hint: the one my friend, Larry is in) can't quite bring themselves to the inevitable conclusion.
For example, Michael Behe has said (if you don't know who he is than you probably shouldn't be in this battle of wits in the first place) that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert 3 times in a row.
Oh, and one protein molecule is not life. Just thought I'd throw that in.
To get life you would need to get about 200 of those protein molecules together!
Again, that probability is virtually zero.
But I believe it actually IS zero.
Why? Because "chance" is not a cause any more than natural selection is a "cause."
Chance is a word we use to describe mathematical possibilities. It has no power. It has no mind. Chance is nothing. It's what rocks dream about.
Let me end this rather simple discussion with something that is often brought up in relation to 'chance.' -- the flipping of a coin.
If someone flips a coin, what is the 'chance' it will come up heads? Fifty percent we say. Well, yes, but what causes it to come up heads?
Is it 'chance?'
No, the primary cause is an intelligent being who decided to flip the coin and apply so much force in doing so. Secondary causes such as the wind and gravity also impact the result. Heck, if we knew all those variables it might even be possible to calculate how the toss would turn out beforehand. But since we do not know those variables--now watch this--we use the word, "chance" to cover our ignorance.
In writing this response to Barefoot I am in essence calling his bluff. Unlike most, I believe we should not simply allow atheists to cover their ignorance with the word, "chance" or its only slightly more impressive cousin, "natural selection."
And all this is hardly even worth discussing from my point of view because it is, in essence, getting in the car for a ride before the engine has been invented.
Seriously, because we have been discussing probability and relative probability of life occurring and evolving into what we see today without solving the number one problem atheists and macro evolutionists face--HOW DO WE GET LIFE FROM NON LIVING CHEMICALS?!
It's the slam dunk, touchdown, game over problem for them and they know it. No fallacy argument here--just the plain simple truth. No one has ever done it and I believe (apart from God) they never will. That's why I was simply floored that there were actually commenters on Barefoot's blog talking about the latest quack who says he's "days away" from the most incredible breakthrough in the history of mankind!
They've been throwing this out there a few times a year for forever. Please, don't give me, Bozo the South Korean, human cloning clown, give me life from nothing or shut up about it. Support from the mystery scientist in the mystery back room with the mystery breakthrough that never happens, is gibberish!
Readers: Don't you see the magnitude of this problem for the macro daddy-mac evolutionist? If they don't have an explanation for the first life, then what's the point of speaking about new life forms or probability of life in Captain Kirk's parallel universe? The process of macro evolution, if it's possible at all, can't even begin unless there's preexisting life.
Game over.
7 comments:
In writing this response to Barefoot I am in essence calling his bluff.
I'd show my cards, but I have absolutely no idea what game you're playing here.
A few comments from the peanut gallery.
I choose who to follow. what to follow, what to believe and what not to believe.
I was a former Jew, become atheist, wanderer for 45 years. It was empty. I grew up in the middle of the summer of love in San Francisco. Trust me, every one at the megaphone or microphone was making sense. I fell for their scientific-dope-smokin’-LSD trippin’ , BS excuses for “Do what you want” “It ain’t no bodies business but your own” “If it moves… hump it” spiritual expression “Love-in’s”.
It was the beginning of a massive, world wide “High” speed train wreck. We’re still seeing the aimless bodies wandering, searching for love in all the wrong places.
Here’s what I have come to find out about what makes God, God;
God has certain attributes, certain things that make God, God. A quality or characteristic of His very nature.
One of them is His simplicity. Having or composed of only one thing, element or part. Another word is “Simple”
All of creation has 3 elements;
Time
Space
Matter
Whenever you have space and matter, you have time. (Don’t fall asleep just yet)
The Greek language uses the words “Ex nihilo” or “Out of nothing.”
Ex nihilo or creation, means God created time as well. If God is beyond (before) time, anything that is outside of time is “Simple”. Therefore God is simple.
Space requires time – time requires space – matter requires both. They all require each other. Einstein found that you cannot have matter with out space or time. I wonder who or what gave him the ability to figure that out???)
Therefore, get this… If God is beyond time, then He is beyond space & matter as well.
“Something” or “Someone” is before time, matter or space.
That is what makes God, God.
“I’ve lost all faith in being an Atheist”
Wow…my fingers are sore
Barefoot said: Perusing Pastor Rob's latest rant, imagine my surprise when, after the conflation between biogenesis and evolution and incoherent babbling about chance and causality, I stumble upon an actual point: "[T]he number one problem atheists and macro evolutionists face [is] HOW DO WE GET LIFE FROM NON LIVING CHEMICALS?!"
And he said: ..."It's a property our minds ascribe to aggregations of matter that do particular things, things like move around, reproduce, use energy in a particular way, etc." <-- This has to be humor, right? Or at least a movement from the scientific, as you say, to the philosophical. Life is a little bit more of a problem than to simply say our minds just give the term "life" to animated matter."
What Follows Is My Response:
Hey Barefoot, couple funny lines in your post about Animism -- "imagine my surprise when, after the conflation between biogenesis and evolution and incoherent babbling about chance and causality, I stumble upon an actual point" <-- See, you're funny when you want to be.
However, as they say, every joke has a grain of seriousness in it so Iran some of our dialogs past my 10 year old and he seemed to find all kinds of actual points. He just kept asking why you answered some and ignored others.
Funny lines continued..."It's a property our minds ascribe to aggregations of matter that do particular things, things like move around, reproduce, use energy in a particular way, etc." <-- This has to be humor, right? Or at least a movement from the scientific, as you say, to the philosophical. Life is a little bit more of a problem than to simply say our minds just give the term "life" to animated matter.
But, ok, I'll go with that simplistic statement and rephrase the problem.
Why can't evolutionists just animate matter?!
Jay, I think you smoked a little too much of whatever was going around.
Time is a FUNCTION of matter. Without matter, you don't have any conception of a thing called time.
That does not prove either that any god exists or that a god exists outside of time/space/matter.
Nor do scientists agree that there was once "nothing" out of which "something" was created. "Something" may just as well be the normal state of the universe as "nothing".
You don't need faith to be an atheist. Just intellectual honesty.
And if you prefer imagining that a god exists because it is more comforting than a universe with no god, then go right ahead. Just know what you're about.
Jay,
Ex nihilo or creation, means God created time as well. If God is beyond (before) time, anything that is outside of time is “Simple”. Therefore God is simple.
This is hilarious reasoning.
How would this be different from saying:
If God is beyond (before) time, anything that is outside of time is “Complex”. Therefore God is complex.
Why should being outside of time (meaninless in its own right) equate to simplicity?
Why can't evolutionists just animate matter?!
Good Grief.
Imagine it is the year 1800 and a scientist proposes that flying to the moon is possible. In fact, he is convinced of it. He has done his homework and realises that the pull of the earth's gravity could be overcome with suffient propulsion and that once far enough from the earth the lack of gravity would allow a hypothecial machine to fly all the way to the moon with realtively little fuel.
I'm sure ridicule would follow along with the derisive and vacuous question
'Why don't you just build that machine?'
Are you suggesting that scientists today have reached the pinnicle of what is possible? If they can't do it today, they won't be able to do it tomorrow...
Ridiculous.
Ansel;
Dude...let's make this really easy...
Matter - Stuff
Time - Always
you said "Time is a FUNCTION of matter. Without matter, you don't have any conception of a thing called time.
According to your statement, There has always been stuff.
Always goes back much before stuff. It doesn't work. But scientists/atheists will never accept that because it leads to the question "who created always" and you know the answer is God.
Have a great day with your stuff. I'll pray for you.
oh yea, you're wrong on #2... I didn't smoke anything. I didn't fall for it.
Post a Comment