Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[sandy whitelinger]

But how do you know it ends there?

Doesn't bother me too much.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Have a link to the proof?

I'd like to see it, because I wonder how it compares
to Douglas Adams's proof of God's non-existence.

 

[Father Heathen]

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

The concept of god and the theory of evolution are not mutually exclusive. It may conflict with the bible, but belief in the bible is not prerequisite for belief in god.

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.

That's abiogenesis not evolution, and your analogy is a false equivalency.

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.

Go back to school, kid.

 

[blü 2]

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

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say "God" here? In particular, what test can we apply to candidates to check whether they're God or not?

Or are you referring to an imaginary God?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

How do you base probability on nothing?

Anyways, Louis Pastuer from the 1800s?

I think a science has advanced a little bit since then.

 

[columbus]

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

Personally, I believe in God.

What I don't believe in is people claiming to speak for God.
Tom

 

[Phantasman]

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.

There is no proof of creation or evolution. It's just a theory on each side. And I find trying to rely on either a moot point, since neither can travel to the origin. Both are based on what one desires to have faith in.

 

[Valjean]

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

This is ridiculous. What's the probability for God? What's your explanation for His existence? At least we have an observable creation. We don't have an observable God. He is an entirely invented "explanation."
As for probability, everything is near infinitely improbable. A particular knot on a particular tree in a particular place in a particular time on a particular planet -- everything is statistically near impossible, but the knot's there, and ordinary, explainable mechanisms can account for it.

We are atheists for the same reason you're an a-Thorist, an a-Kzintist, or an a- leprechaunist -- no evidence.

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

Life didn't suddenly spring into existence. No-one's claiming this. Life developed gradually, through many small steps; many components of life being created by ordinary chemistry, self replicating molecules and structures appearing, all by natural, reproducible mechanisms.
There were many stages of "lifelike" between a chemical soup and a bacterium.

 

[Phantasman]

Personally, I believe in God.

What I don't believe in is people claiming to speak for God.
Tom

Yep. Key word "people".

 

[Phantasman]

Life didn't suddenly spring into existence. No-one's claiming this. Life developed gradually, through many small steps; many components of life being created by ordinary chemistry, self replicating molecules and structures appearing, all by natural, reproducible mechanisms. There were many stages of "lifelike" between a chemical soup and a bacterium.

And you KNOW this how?

 

[idav]

There is no proof of creation or evolution. It's just a theory on each side. And I find trying to rely on either a moot point, since neither can travel to the origin. Both are based on what one desires to have faith in.

Science doesn’t have to rely on faith or what people desire to be true. People for the most part don’t want evolution to be true far as I can tell, but the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Sapiens]

There is no proof of creation or evolution. It's just a theory on each side. And I find trying to rely on either a moot point, since neither can travel to the origin. Both are based on what one desires to have faith in.

Yes, but the definitions of the word "theory" is radically different in each of the two cases. I submit that you either need to go back to school or that you are being knowingly disingenuous.

 

[Valjean]

And you KNOW this how?

LOL -- To use your own argument, because the probability of something so complex springing into existence de novo is so much lower than a series of small steps; steps that are easily observable in Nature and in the lab.
It is more reasonable to posit known, observable, reproducible mechanisms than to posit magic. Magic is entirely unsupportable.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

You realize I hope @questfortruth that debunking evolution wouldn't prove creation true, or atheism false. There were atheists in this world long before evolution was ever a spark in Darwin's mind. Mind-only atheism is probably an accurate label we could affix to certain ancient philosophical systems like Carvaka or Cyrenianism.

The mind-only method as I'm labeling it for this discussion, is essentially the proposition that mind impressions are objective and truthful. Because seemingly the mind's subjective nature isn't so great that it fundamentally altars impressions made from contact between objects.

Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology is a modern resurgence of such thought.

 

[Valjean]

There is no proof of creation or evolution. It's just a theory on each side. And I find trying to rely on either a moot point, since neither can travel to the origin. Both are based on what one desires to have faith in.

There's no proof that germs cause disease or that the Earth circles the Sun, either. These are also "just theories," but there's a great deal of evidence supporting them.
There is zero evidence for creationism. It's basically an argument from incredulity.

Science abhors faith, and scientists don't "desire" any particular theory. They desire the truth. They start with the evidence and follow where it leads. Scientific method involves actively trying to disprove one's theorums.

You're making the mistake of equating science with religion or creationism, which start with a fixed belief and try to find support for it. Religious doctrine is usually not falsifiable, when it is, religion does not test it. If it's demonstrated false, religion denies the demonstration.

This is exactly the opposite of science. They are not the same.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There is no proof of creation or evolution. It's just a theory on each side.

Yes, the former is a theory based on conjecture and faith, the latter is a theory that utilizes the scientific method.

One historically has a better track record for substantiation. I'll let the reader decide which.

 

[Phantasman]

Science doesn’t have to rely on faith or what people desire to be true. People for the most part don’t want evolution to be true far as I can tell, but the evidence is overwhelming.

Are black holes based on facts? End of the Universe, fact? Theory is based on faith of what is seen, not experienced. Does the God particle exist? Once the Higgs boson is discovered, what then? The makeup of atomic structure? Even the Large Hadron collider will never figure out the smallest of all particles. Just as man will never map the entire Universe through circumnavigation. The mind can conceive much more than it has the ability prove, or disprove. It's limitations are only limited by it's "physical" structure.

This is what makes the spiritual much more believable to me. It is conceived as eternal and limitless. And the mind can equate it, even in it's limited knowledge and decaying shell.

 

[Phantasman]

There's no proof that germs cause disease or that the Earth circles the Sun, either. These are also "just theories," but there's a great deal of evidence supporting them.
There is zero evidence for creationism. It's basically an argument from incredulity.

Science abhors faith, and scientists don't "desire" any particular theory. They desire the truth. They start with the evidence and follow where it leads. Scientific method involves actively trying to disprove one's theorums.

You're making the mistake of equating science with religion or creationism, which start with a fixed belief and try to find support for it. Religious doctrine is usually not falsifiable, when it is, religion does not test it. If it's demonstrated false, religion denies the demonstration.

This is exactly the opposite of science. They are not the same.

There are many scientists that believe spiritual faith (many Christian). Not because they fail to prove it, but because they can not disprove it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are black holes based on facts? End of the Universe, fact?

I think you're confusing the terms 'fact' and 'evidence.' Yes, black holes exist and the knowledge of their existence is based on evidence.

Theory is based on faith of what is seen, not experienced.

No. Theory, as it relates to evolution, is based on evidence, not faith. It utilizes the scientific method which consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

scientific method - Google Search

 

[idav]

Are black holes based on facts? End of the Universe, fact? Theory is based on faith of what is seen, not experienced. Does the God particle exist? Once the Higgs boson is discovered, what then? The makeup of atomic structure? Even the Large Hadron collider will never figure out the smallest of all particles. Just as man will never map the entire Universe through circumnavigation. The mind can conceive much more than it has the ability prove, or disprove. It's limitations are only limited by it's "physical" structure.

This is what makes the spiritual much more believable to me. It is conceived as eternal and limitless. And the mind can equate it, even in it's limited knowledge and decaying shell.

Quite frankly Einstein has been more prophetic than, well prophets. Yes black holes are based on observable facts that have been tested and confirmed for a hundred years. Yes the Higgs boson is as discovered with through experimentation and the standard model is pretty much fact anymore. A theory is not just a wild guess or Einstein wouldn’t still be winning arguments to this day.