Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[SalixIncendium]

Isn't it the same?

No.

Spontaneous generation submits that complex living organisms...well...spontaneously generated...in a singular event from decaying substances.

Abiogenesis describes a process in which life arises from non-living matter such as organic compounds through chemical reaction.


Some reading material...just for you:

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nobody has created God. Created god is not God, but is idol.

But, really, how do we even begin to fathom how big is big? We used to think the Earth was big, then we found it's small. Then we thought Jupiter and our solar system were large, but we learned they are barely more than specks of various elements. Even a galaxy is very tiny overall. What if what we conventionally call "god" is smaller piece of a larger whole?

Are all theists delusional lunatics then? Are you judgemental?

I did not imply they are. I often call them liars who only pretend to have answers where they actually have none, but I tend to save "delusional" for people who are actually delusional.

 

[ChristineM]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution.

Pasteur proven do such thing, he made a comment.

The science is irrefutable, but i see you didn't even try.

 

[sealchan]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

How did you determine this?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

A landfill is a recent invention by humans. What does this have to do with anything? Do you think that a landfill somehow approximates a pre-biotic soup that evolutionists think is the source of life?

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

I don't know anyone who says this.

 

[Milton Platt]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Is this a serious post? What does garbage, landfills, and the birth of a rhinoceros have to do with evolution?
You can't claim that "from lifeless only lifeless can come", then claim that god made life from lifeless.

What are the underlying assumptions and how did you compute that the chances of life without a god is negligible? Please share your calculations.......

You are sounding rather ignorant about now.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

The likelihood that a creator God participated in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be a theist?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Are all theists delusional lunatics then? Are you judgemental?

Since few theists can agree on who their God is, what their God can do, and what their God wants, it certainly gives the impression that they are delusional. Since you can't agree on what your God is, claiming that you all believe in God is meaningless.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Also, you do realize that if somehow evolution was 100% discredited that it would offer ZERO evidence that any kind of a God exists, right? The ToE is NOT a requirement for a lack of a belief in any gods. Even if the ToE didn't exist I would STILL require verifiable evidence that some God created everything or anything for that matter. Since theists are incapable of providing such evidence, I would remain an atheist.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, I'm glad we finally have this burning question settled.

I agree! Getting the thorny problem of evolution finally solved makes me glad I woke up this morning! Now I can get busy with something else, such as heavy drinking.

 

[Sunstone]

Louis Pasteur's experiments dispelled spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.

What? Do you mean to imply the issue of abiogenesis has NOT been decisively closed by the brilliant OP? But...but...how could that be?

 

[idav]

No.

Spontaneous generation submits that complex living organisms...well...spontaneously generated...in a singular event from decaying substances.

Abiogenesis describes a process in which life arises from non-living matter such as organic compounds through chemical reaction.


Some reading material...just for you:

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

There you go confusing everyone with facts!

 

[Sunstone]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Oh goodie! Yet another poorly informed thread on evolution! Please be so kind as to wake me up when you've finished.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

Using 'science' and 'proof' together like that hints of scientific ignorance.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So if a pregnant rhinoceros goes into labor while walking through an landfill, she cannot give birth there. Got it.

There's laws against that.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I've grown fond of asking "what if god has a god?" It's not only a stumper for fully convinced theists who have never pondered such a thing, it really reflects on how little we know about anything.

That doesn't bother me. Christianity has a hierarchy of Gods.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

According to Wikipedia the God in more or less serious teachings -- the Superior Being. Most High.

Wikipedia is a great theological text.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution is a fact. It has been observed. It's probability is 100%

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero).

The least likely thing conceivable to exist undesigned and uncreated would be an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent god. Any argument that begins with the implication that a cell is too complicated to exist without a creator fails by positing something even less likely as an explanation.

Why be an Atheist?

I have no choice. I am convinced that nothing should be believed without sufficient support, and there is insufficient support for all god claims. It would require a leap of faith to overcome that barrier, and I don't consider faith a path to truth. How can it be when any idea or its polar opposite can be believed by faith, even though at least one is incorrect. Applying reason to evidence is a better way of deciding what is true.

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

Incorrect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

Still incorrect. Pasteur made no such claim:

"No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves" - Pasteur

Show me where he said that abiogenesis on prebiotic earth over deep time is impossible. You can't because he never said any such thing.

And if he had, he would be making an unsupported claim that should be rejected on that basis.

If you want to argue scientific issues with the scientifically literate, you need to show an understanding of science and sound reasoning yourself. You make the errors we are familiar with from creationists. They never seem to understand what a scientific theory is, what scientists actually claim, what observable and reproducible refer to, the place of proof in science, that positing a god to explain a cell is not an argument for a god, that complexity is not an argument for intelligent design,that finding something hard to believe or noting that it is unexplained is an argument for God.

Are all theists delusional lunatics then?

All theists are faith based thinkers unless they are agnostic theists. I can accept the conclusion that there may be a god, that it pleases someone to think so, and that they find the belief harmless whether correct or not.

Once the theist begins speaking of things as fact that he couldn't know even were they true, he's lost the skeptical empiricist.

 

[Darkstorn]

Heh. There's exactly zero probability for questfortruth writing a coherent point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That doesn't bother me. Christianity has a hierarchy of Gods.

But how do you know it ends there?