allow me to illustrate it this way..... what are the chances of me throwing up into the air,bricks,mortar,windows,doors,planks of wood,water pipes,gas pipes,stairs,cement,tiles,wallpaper etc.and all of them falling into place perfectly and in working order to form a house. the notion is ludicrous. you have to admit there is a designer, a mind behind the construction. you cant say that "well give it a couple of million billion years and the house will be made" it simply wont.
Originally posted by dale21what chance you got of tossing up nothing and getting an intelligent designer?
allow me to illustrate it this way..... what are the chances of me throwing up into the air,bricks,mortar,windows,doors,planks of wood,water pipes,gas pipes,stairs,cement,tiles,wallpaper etc.and all of them falling into place perfectly and in working order to form a house. the notion is ludicrous. you have to admit there is a designer, a mind behind the const ...[text shortened]... t "well give it a couple of million billion years and the house will be made" it simply wont.
Originally posted by dale21dale,
allow me to illustrate it this way..... what are the chances of me throwing up into the air,bricks,mortar,windows,doors,planks of wood,water pipes,gas pipes,stairs,cement,tiles,wallpaper etc.and all of them falling into place perfectly and in working order to form a house. the notion is ludicrous. you have to admit there is a designer, a mind behind the const ...[text shortened]... t "well give it a couple of million billion years and the house will be made" it simply wont.
Here are two reasons why this analogy is flawed.
1) As frogstomp pointed out. Scientist do not generally claim that the forces behind the emergence of the basic building blocks of life are purely random. Instead there are natural forces that make the probability of the event much more likely. The problem here is that you are assuming that every possible event has the same probability of occuring. If this is not true, then your analogy is inappropriate.
2) Even if it was randomness, the analogy would fail because of its ad hoc nature. A priori the probability of any particular way in which the housing materials come to rest is very unprobable. One can always go back and say, "Look how all of these things fell just so. How incredibly unlikely was that!"
1 edit
Originally posted by dale21Did I not read just a page ago that comparing mechanical and biological evolution was an apples-to-oranges proposition?
allow me to illustrate it this way..... what are the chances of me throwing up into the air,bricks,mortar,windows,doors,planks of wood,water pipes,gas pipes,stairs,cement,tiles,wallpaper etc.and all of them falling into place perfectly and i ...[text shortened]... illion billion years and the house will be made" it simply wont.
Even still, how do you KNOW that in a "couple of million, billion" years these materials that were tossed down on the ground wouldn't form themselves into a cohesive structure? Will you be able to test that hypothesis? Probably not. But, a million billion years from now, someone might be able to look at the house and deduce that the materials from which it was constructed *may have* fallen into place.
Originally posted by telerionI did forget to mention dale21's stuff tossed in the air would certainly form a pile. which is what appeals to incredulity usually do form.
dale,
Here are two reasons why this analogy is flawed.
1) As frogstomp pointed out. Scientist do not generally claim that the forces behind the emergence of the basic building blocks of life are purely random. Instead there are natural forces that make the probability of the event much more likely. The problem here is that you are assuming that e ...[text shortened]... back and say, "Look how all of these things fell just so. How incredibly unlikely was that!"
Woman : " I DO know how to put 2 and 2 together,,, and it always comes out to 4"
Nick Charles " unless its 22 " Daschel Hammett
Originally posted by David Cthats where scientists have a back up plan when it comes to evolution. they put so many millions of years into the equation its untestable. are we all forgetting that evolution is a THEORY and will always remain as such. even darwin himself at the end of his life said that all his studies were pointless and he no longer believed it himself.
Did I not read just a page ago that comparing mechanical and biological evolution was an apples-to-oranges proposition?
Even still, how do you KNOW that in a "couple of million, billion" years these materials that were tossed down on the ground wouldn't form themselves into a cohesive structure? Will you be able to test that hypothesis? Probably not. B ...[text shortened]... house and deduce that the materials from which it was constructed *may have* fallen into place.i
i agree that the house illustration was a bit vague, but the incredible accuracy of the earth and the known universe is mind blowingly precise. far more complicated than and construction. to say it all came about by chance is being ignorant to the beauty and complexity.
Originally posted by dale21
but the incredible accuracy of the earth and the known universe is mind blowingly precise
By whose standards? Actually, it seems quite sloppy to me. Lots of room for improvement.
Originally posted by dale21
to say it all came about by chance is being ignorant to the beauty and complexity.
Not at all. Frost patterns happen randomly. They are beautiful and complex. Chaos is like that, you know.
Does your rejection of the TOE and embracement of ID strengthen or weaken your Christian ideals?
Originally posted by dale21We get kids in here all the time, whose knowlege of the universe comes from the crackpot creation science sites, have heard it all before.
thats where scientists have a back up plan when it comes to evolution. they put so many millions of years into the equation its untestable. are we all forgetting that evolution is a THEORY and will always remain as such. even darwin himself at the end of his life said that all his studies were pointless and he no longer believed it himself.
i agree that the ...[text shortened]... onstruction. to say it all came about by chance is being ignorant to the beauty and complexity.
1 ) only a theory
2 ) Darwin recanted
3 ) random this and random that
and more of the same old distortions and prevarications
get a grip kiddo . God don't need His existence relying on that simplistist view of the universe .
Originally posted by David Cif its so sloppy and inaccurate how do they plan space missions to jupiters moons and so much further years in advance and accurate within seconds in order not to hit planets and use gravitational pull etc. what was there b4 the big bang, what caused it. can you get something out of nothing, material from nonexistenceOriginally posted by dale21
but the incredible accuracy of the earth and the known universe is mind blowingly precise
By whose standards? Actually, it seems quite sloppy to me. Lots of room for improvement.
[quote]Originally posted by dale21
[i]to say it all came about by chance is being ignorant to the beauty and co ...[text shortened]... Does your rejection of the TOE and embracement of ID strengthen or weaken your Christian ideals?
Originally posted by dale21Slow down, Dale. You are all over the place. Are you arguing that the engineers at NASA and JPL are evidence of creation as described in the bible? Seems odd. You go on to ask what existed before the Big Bang, and then what caused the Big Bang. And finally, you're looking for proof of abiogenesis.
if its so sloppy and inaccurate how do they plan space missions to jupiters moons and so much further years in advance and accurate within seconds in order not to hit planets and use gravitational pull etc. what was there b4 the big bang, what caused it. can you get something out of nothing, material from nonexistence
That's a lot to tackle, and would require someone smarter than me.
Originally posted by David Cha ha. true enuf. im saying that the brains at nasa are able to plan journeys into space accurately due to the order of the universe. its not sloppy. i ll slow down abit
Slow down, Dale. You are all over the place. Are you arguing that the engineers at NASA and JPL are evidence of creation as described in the bible? Seems odd. You go on to ask what existed before the Big Bang, and then what caused the Big Bang. And finally, you're looking for proof of abiogenesis.
That's a lot to tackle, and would require someone smarter than me.
Originally posted by dale21If the fact that scientists can do cool stuff is evidence of the lack of sloppiness in the universe, then the fact that there are some things they can't do should be evidence of a certain amount of sloppiness. For example, no scientist can reduce entropy in the universe.
ha ha. true enuf. im saying that the brains at nasa are able to plan journeys into space accurately due to the order of the universe. its not sloppy. i ll slow down abit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungok maybe i wasnt clear enuf. the universe is in such an order that these missions can be planned
If the fact that scientists can do cool stuff is evidence of the lack of sloppiness in the universe, then the fact that there are some things they can't do should be evidence of a certain amount of sloppiness. For example, no scientist can reduce entropy in the universe.
thats where scientists have a back up plan when it comes to evolution. they put so many millions of years into the equation its untestable. are we all forgetting that evolution is a THEORY and will always remain as such. even darwin himself at the end of his life said that all his studies were pointless and he no longer believed it himself.
It's unfortunate that some creationists lack the integrity to desist with this lie. Instead, they spread the lie to kids, who believe them, and then come onto RHP and naively use it.
they put so many millions of years into the equation its untestable.
The millions of years hypothesis are testable. If our many independent methods of determining the age of the earth were to return figures in the 6000 years range, then evolution would be discredited.
they put so many millions of years into the equation its untestable.
It is a theory. Comparable theories are the following: gravitational theory, atomic theory, disease theory, quantum theory. What's lends credibility to all of the theories is the tremendous amount of empirical evidence supporting them.
"Theory" should be contrasted with "hypothesis." A hypothesis is a supposition that has yet to attain the standard of theory.
to say it all came about by chance is being ignorant to the beauty and complexity.
Chance? Yes. Total unconditional randomness? No. I would counter that not constraining the processes a priori to be the work of some one's personal anthropomorphism is being even more aware of the beauty and complexity.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by telerionWould you like to point out any theory used to calculate the age of the earth that is not based on assumptions?
[b]thats where scientists have a back up plan when it comes to evolution. they put so many millions of years into the equation its untestable. are we all forgetting that evolution is a THEORY and will always remain as such. even darwin himself at the end of his life said that all his studies were pointless and he no longer believed it himself.
It's ...[text shortened]... of some one's personal anthropomorphism is being even more aware of the beauty and complexity.[/b]