Science leads materialist atheist to reject atheism

covid-19v1 · Oct 18, 2021

The problem with the theory of evolution is it doesn't pass the mathematical probability test.

Given the supposed 4 billion years of earth's total lifespan, and the number of required but random lucky simultaneous mutations to happen at the right time to eventually come up with a complex living creature like a human being...you easily run out of time before you could even come up with a creature having sexual organs (as means of reproduction) and eyes.

ArmenianJohn · Oct 18, 2021

BobRyan said:
Why Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor Stopped Being a Materialist Atheist | Evolution News

There we find this statement

"Despite what a lot of materialist philosophers say, materialists often pretend that they are defenders of science, but when one looks with any kind of scrutiny at what modern science is telling us about nature, materialism is a completely inadequate framework to understand any of that. As just as a simple example, one of the basic principles of the materialist way of understanding nature is the concept of causal closure. What materialists say is that in nature, every physical effect has a physical cause … (00:08:38)."

So it always comes back to that - how much "talent" is there in rocks, dust, gas, sunlight... to eventually come up with a human brain that then understands the history of its own self as rocks,dust,gas, sunlight.... creates computers and sends probes into deep space.

== and to avoid some "spin doctoring" that others might want to add ===

My argument would be that -- it appears that the observations in nature that he was noticing - were opening his eyes to the science facts regarding the level of complexity involved in a human brain - and exposing the lack of explanatory power in material atheism to account for the level of complexity in the human brain that science was exposing

==============

Stanley Miller and life coming from a "lifeless rock" interview and context.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/...LoaVtAfamX8-1629298708-0-gqNtZGzNAeWjcnBszQMR

I appreciate the sentiment of the story that science played a role in leading a person to Christ, but I can't agree that science itself would lead a person to Christ, for a couple of reasons:

Christ (God) is a Supernatural being and while He has dominion over the physical science only looks at the physical/natural world. One can recognize in science evidence of God but science would and never could "prove" God because science doesn't deal with the supernatural at all. It's like saying that I learned the game of basketball by studying physics; no, I can understand aspects of the game of basketball by studying physics but I can only know the game of basketball by hearing the actual rules of the actual game of basketball.
The Word of God says that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. It doesn't teach us in God's Word that studying science or other natural-world studies would lead us to Christ. It comes by hearing and by the Holy Spirit and by the believer's choice to accept the Gospel. Science, philosophy, etc. can contribute to that but they cannot be what lead a person to Christ because God's Word is explicit about this.

Bradskii · Oct 18, 2021

BobRyan said:
Dawkins and Provine both claimed to have been raised in a Christian family -- do you claim they are not actually atheist because they were brought up in a Christian home?

If the point that I was making was obscure, complex, somewhat labyrnthine and needed further clarification then I'd try to help you out. But it wasn't, so I won't.

Bradskii · Oct 18, 2021

BobRyan said:
agreed. But I do have quite a bit of knowledge about it....

And two posts later you suggest that evolution is random. That's a pretty grim reminder to all that you haven't even got the basics right.

loveofourlord · Oct 18, 2021

covid-19v1 said:
The problem with the theory of evolution is it doesn't pass the mathematical probability test.

Given the supposed 4 billion years of earth's total lifespan, and the number of required but random lucky simultaneous mutations to happen at the right time to eventually come up with a complex living creature like a human being...you easily run out of time before you could even come up with a creature having sexual organs (as means of reproduction) and eyes.

if your going to talk about it least understand evolution. Mutations happens all the time and there was no requirements for the mutations that did happen to do so, if there was other mutations something else would have evolved.

GIven that most mutations are just changing what is already there. You have hundreds of mutations your parents didn't have.

Bradskii · Oct 18, 2021

covid-19v1 said:
The problem with the theory of evolution is it doesn't pass the mathematical probability test.

Given the supposed 4 billion years of earth's total lifespan, and the number of required but random lucky simultaneous mutations to happen at the right time to eventually come up with a complex living creature like a human being...you easily run out of time before you could even come up with a creature having sexual organs (as means of reproduction) and eyes.

'Supposed'? Get that cat back in the bag! But thanks for the clarification as to the purpose of sexual organs. Although it might prompt some embarrasing questions from some of our younger posters.

Pommer · Oct 18, 2021

covid-19v1 said:
The problem with the theory of evolution is it doesn't pass the mathematical probability test.

Given the supposed 4 billion years of earth's total lifespan, and the number of required but random lucky simultaneous mutations to happen at the right time to eventually come up with a complex living creature like a human being...you easily run out of time before you could even come up with a creature having sexual organs (as means of reproduction) and eyes.

What would a world where life sprang into existence look like if there wasn’t a “god” to have caused it?

Bradskii · Oct 18, 2021

Pommer said:
What would a world where life sprang into existence look like if there wasn’t a “god” to have caused it?

We wouldn't know. There'd be no eyes. And no sexual organs (for reproduction).

Estrid · Oct 18, 2021

covid-19v1 said:
The problem with the theory of evolution is it doesn't pass the mathematical probability test.

Given the supposed 4 billion years of earth's total lifespan, and the number of required but random lucky simultaneous mutations to happen at the right time to eventually come up with a complex living creature like a human being...you easily run out of time before you could even come up with a creature having sexual organs (as means of reproduction) and eyes.

Yup and its been mathematically demonstrated that
a bumblebee cant fly.

That "proof of evolution " with made up number is one of the many silly things that creationists tell themselves while ignoring all the data showing that it is what happened, and having no alternative idea with the faintest trace of a coherent alternste explanation.
.

Estrid · Oct 18, 2021

Bradskii said:
We wouldn't know. There'd be no eyes. And no sexual organs (for reproduction).

But it would have springs.

NxNW · Oct 18, 2021

BobRyan said:
What the atheist neurosurgeon was ruling out is like the "computer in the woods" scenario where a story teller comes along and claims "trees and rocks did it by random chance climbing all the way up mount improbable".

Nobody is making such a claim.

NxNW · Oct 18, 2021

covid-19v1 said:
The problem with the theory of evolution is it doesn't pass the mathematical probability test.

Given the supposed 4 billion years of earth's total lifespan, and the number of required but random lucky simultaneous mutations to happen at the right time to eventually come up with a complex living creature like a human being...you easily run out of time before you could even come up with a creature having sexual organs (as means of reproduction) and eyes.

Only if you don't understand the math and the fact that nobody is claiming human beings popped into existence. And the mutations don't have to be simultaneous.

Belk · Oct 18, 2021

covid-19v1 said:
The problem with the theory of evolution is it doesn't pass the mathematical probability test.

Given the supposed 4 billion years of earth's total lifespan, and the number of required but random lucky simultaneous mutations to happen at the right time to eventually come up with a complex living creature like a human being...you easily run out of time before you could even come up with a creature having sexual organs (as means of reproduction) and eyes.

Show your math please.

Yttrium · Oct 18, 2021

Belk said:
Show your math please.

Well, there's no point asking for the math, because probability doesn't work that way.

The probability is 1 that there would be some assortment of living things today. It didn't matter what that assortment would be.

Belk · Oct 18, 2021

Yttrium said:
Well, there's no point asking for the math, because probability doesn't work that way.

The probability is 1 that there would be some assortment of living things today. It didn't matter what that assortment would be.

Ah, but there is a point. The point being it will not be produced.

Estrid · Oct 18, 2021

Belk said:
Show your math please.

As if.

BobRyan · Oct 19, 2021

Bradskii said:
And two posts later you suggest that evolution is random.

I am not an evolutionist which means I don't believe in evolutionism at all. My claim is that it does not exist. So then no such thing as getting rocks,dust,gas and sunlight - to come up with a rabbit over time given enough time and random events - according to a long list of improbable story ideas. What Dawkins called "mount improbable".

===================

But this thread is about your side of the fence - an atheist neurosurgeon who based on his observations in nature concluded that the complexity of the human brain was not explained by "a lot of rocks and a lot of dust, a lot of gas, a lot of time" and a lot of random events -- "just so happens" and "just so" stories not withstanding.

BobRyan · Oct 19, 2021

covid-19v1 said:
The problem with the theory of evolution is it doesn't pass the mathematical probability test.

Given the supposed 4 billion years of earth's total lifespan, and the number of required but random lucky simultaneous mutations to happen at the right time to eventually come up with a complex living creature like a human being...you easily run out of time before you could even come up with a creature having sexual organs (as means of reproduction) and eyes.

If an event has less than 1X10^50 chance of happening then it will not happen in all of time in all of the universe.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-one-chance-in-10-50-can-never-happen

The cosmological constant is a fine tuning example of precision to the level of 1x10^120 - that alone is a "problem" for getting the atheist idea of evolution off the ground.

The cosmological constant (λ) is finely tuned for life.

Here are a few atheist scientists willing to admit to the problem

Yttrium · Oct 19, 2021

BobRyan said:
I am not an evolutionist which means I don't believe in evolutionism at all. My claim is that it does not exist. So then no such thing as getting rocks,dust,gas and sunlight - to come up with a rabbit over time given enough time and random events - according to a long list of improbable story ideas. What Dawkins called "mount improbable".

Good thing nobody follows your straw man version of "evolutionism".

I mean, sure, keep tilting at windmills, it can be fun I suppose. But it won't get you anywhere.

BobRyan · Oct 19, 2021

Yttrium said:
The probability is 1 that there would be some assortment of living things today. It didn't matter what that assortment would be.

Is that based on observation or prediction.

Given any container of rocks, dust, gas -- you predict it will always result in "some assortment of living things today"??

Science leads materialist atheist to reject atheism

Active Member

Politically Liberal Christian Fundamentalist

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Newbie

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Independent Centrist

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Independent Centrist

Junior Member

Similar threads