I just don't *want* to believe!

[pitabread]

we know the universe began. It was either started by something or one is left with there being no begining, matter etc is eternal or that it just came into being.
Which explanation is the more reasonable?

It's not about what is "reasonable", it's about what is supported by available evidence and can best explain the origin of our present universe.

And invoking an arbitrary supernatural being as responsible for the origin of the universe doesn't actually solve the problem, it just further complicates it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

These "astronomical odds" creationists trot out tend to be a gross misuse of probabilities.

How so? I can't wait to hear the answer to that.

The odds of something from nothing, for no particular reason, and then that something from nothing turning into so many things so intricut we can barely, if at all, understand them. Yea man, of course the odds of that happening, something that BTW, is something no one has ever seen happen, not once, are astronomical.

Pigs in flight is much more likely.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's not about what is "reasonable",

LOL! Stop it...please.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Show me the math.

It's a "reasonable" assumption, but, yeah, I know, as just mentioned...

It's not about what is "reasonable"

...........however, every single time someone tries to prove evolution, so much of it is admittedly based on what they feel is reasonable assumption. And yeah, I get it, it's ok for evolutionists to use reasonable assumption, but when it comes to someone who disagrees with them, they claim it's not about "reasonable".

 

[pitabread]

How so? I can't wait to hear the answer to that.

Generally for a few reasons:

1) Typically such probability calculations use underlying premises that nobody actually believes to be true in the first place. An example would be assuming the first cell just sprung into existence fully formed. Nobody actually thinks that is how the first cell formed, yet that doesn't stop plenty of creationists from calculating ridiculous probabilities based on that premise.

2) We don't necessarily have all the information of all the variables influencing the probability being calculated. For simple scenarios, dealing a hand of cards or rolling some dice, such variables can be known and reasonably calculated. For more complex scenarios, such as something involving millions of years of evolution there is no way to factor in all the possible variables in such a calculation.

3) A lot of times probability calculations are based on a specific outcome as opposed to consideration of the total probability space of viable outputs. Similar to point #2, this is where lack of information about the possible viable outcomes can result in a meaningless probability.

 

[pitabread]

...........however, every single time someone tries to prove evolution, so much of it is admittedly based on what they feel is reasonable assumption. And yeah, I get it, it's ok for evolutionists to use reasonable assumption, but when it comes to someone who disagrees with them, they claim it's not about "reasonable".

In the context of that discussion, I was taking the word "reasonable" to imply personal credulity. Personal credulity isn't particularly relevant when it comes to empirical data, however. What matters is what the empirical evidence supports.

Which, if you hadn't quote-mined my post, you might have already noticed in the continuation of that very sentence you quoted.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Generally for a few reasons:

1) Typically such probability calculations use underlying premises that nobody actually believes to be true in the first place. An example would be assuming the first cell just sprung into existence fully formed. Nobody actually thinks that is how the first cell formed, yet that doesn't stop plenty of creationists from calculating ridiculous probabilities based on that premise.

2) We don't necessarily have all the information of all the variables influencing the probability being calculated. For simple scenarios, dealing a hand of cards or rolling some dice, such variables can be known and reasonably calculated. For more complex scenarios, such as something involving millions of years of evolution there is no way to factor in all the possible variables in such a calculation.

3) A lot of times probability calculations are based on a specific outcome as opposed to consideration of the total probability space of viable outputs. Similar to point #2, this is where lack of information about the possible viable outcomes can result in a meaningless probability.

Nothing there.

In the context of that discussion, I was taking the word "reasonable" to imply personal credulity. Personal credulity isn't particularly relevant when it comes to empirical data, however.

Right. Just so happens that's not what you said then, but, of course, what you claim now. Besides, it all starts with one mans reasonable assumption, yet you now claim that is not important?

Darwin was one man, were his assumptions not important? And if it's a given that assumptions must be shared in order to be valid, then it's a given you were not talking "personal" assumption, and nothing in your post implies that you were. Your excuse, and attempt to wiggle free, does not stand the test....simple as that.

Please.

 

[pitabread]

Just so happens that's not what you said then, but, of course, what you claim now.

You're more than welcome to go back and read the full context of the discussion if you want. But if you're just going to quote-mine people to make an out-of-context point, I really don't have anything further to say.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You're more than welcome to go back and read the full context of the discussion if you want. But if you're just going to quote-mine people to make an out-of-context point, I really don't have anything further to say.



So... how goes your study of the scientific method?

Seems your scientific method includes some pretty low measures, something I expected from the onset of your bringing it up, and something you have, time and time again, and continue to prove out.

Nothing further to say? Of course not, can't say that I blame you.

 

[Jimmy D]

Nothing there.

What did he write that isn’t true? Can we take failure to come up with a meaningful response as a tacit admission that you are wrong? Or is it just that you’re out of your depth?

 

[redleghunter]

One could probably calculate astronomical odds for one's own birth yet here all of us are.

Indeed but all of us born have a very good idea how it happened.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Indeed but all of us born have a very good idea how it happened.

But that's not true for much of human history. Think of how long we went without understanding that fertilization occurred when a sperm merged with an ovum. Sure, we knew sex was key to people becoming pregnant, but that's about as far as it went in terms of understanding conception for thousands of years.

Rather than try to make up explanations, people must learn to acknowledge when something is simply unknown. If the Christian god (or any other deities) has some role in our universe, then we'll find it through research in due time. But if we assert that some such explanation is true without sufficient evidence to back it up, we'll deprive ourselves of the opportunity to understand the universe better. Just think of how much of an impact in human society it would make if people assumed that all diseases were caused by mushrooms and everyone collectively refused to investigate the matter.

Now, this isn't to suggest that people that jump the gun making conclusions are always wrong, but if they are right, isn't it all the more important to gather evidence for that position so that everyone can be assured that a conclusion is likely to be accurate?

 

[Nithavela]

Finally an honest thread in this forum.

 

[redleghunter]

But that's not true for much of human history. Think of how long we went without understanding that fertilization occurred when a sperm merged with an ovum. Sure, we knew sex was key to people becoming pregnant, but that's about as far as it went in terms of understanding conception for thousands of years.

The ancients I believe had a pretty good idea sperm was the seed. Just a cursory glance of the paleo Hebrew Moses was most likely exposed to shows this. Take a look at "nun" which translated is seed. Now how could they know that!

 

[PsychoSarah]

The ancients I believe had a pretty good idea sperm was the seed. Just a cursory glance of the paleo Hebrew Moses was most likely exposed to shows this. Take a look at "nun" which translated is seed. Now how could they know that!


View attachment 229139

-_- awareness of sperm, which is quite macroscopic, is not the same thing as being aware of sperm, which was discovered in 1677. I bet many an ancient man that could produce sperm with very low sperm counts was confused as to why their wife didn't get pregnant and made incorrect conclusions as to the reason.

XD that there is an ancient history of "pulling out" (mentioned even in the Bible) is quite amusing, but the fact that said story assumes that doing so would 100% prevent pregnancy is a good demonstration of the ignorance about the process of conception (since the bit of sperm that comes out before [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is sufficient to get a woman pregnant).

Furthermore, calling it "seed" is based on the ancient misconception that, basically, what the man contributed amounted to something akin to a seed, which just needed to be "planted" in a woman to grow. Obviously, sperm in a uterus doesn't form a baby by itself. I like how you got super focused on sperm, which is quite easy to see, and neglected to consider ova entirely.

 

[redleghunter]

-_- awareness of sperm, which is quite macroscopic, is not the same thing as being aware of sperm, which was discovered in 1677. I bet many an ancient man that could produce sperm with very low sperm counts was confused as to why their wife didn't get pregnant and made incorrect conclusions as to the reason.

XD that there is an ancient history of "pulling out" (mentioned even in the Bible) is quite amusing, but the fact that said story assumes that doing so would 100% prevent pregnancy is a good demonstration of the ignorance about the process of conception (since the bit of sperm that comes out before [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is sufficient to get a woman pregnant).

Furthermore, calling it "seed" is based on the ancient misconception that, basically, what the man contributed amounted to something akin to a seed, which just needed to be "planted" in a woman to grow. Obviously, sperm in a uterus doesn't form a baby by itself. I like how you got super focused on sperm, which is quite easy to see, and neglected to consider ova entirely.

No need to get into details. Was offering an interesting historical fact from an ancient version of Hebrew.

 

[redleghunter]

I like how you got super focused on sperm, which is quite easy to see, and neglected to consider ova entirely.

If you can identify ova on the chart please let me know.

I was pointing out "seed" because it's there for us to see clearly. No underlying agenda here. Just offering some interesting information.

If you want the perspective of Torah Sinai covenant Hebrews on fertility one only needs to read Exodus 23:25.

 

[Southernscotty]

1. Science doesn't prove anything.
2. How the Big Bang "a lie"? That doesn't even make sense.
3. Are you aware that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic priest?
4. There sure is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang when it's, as you put it, "a lie".

Nothing created nothing. Makes sense ???
I believe my God said create and bang it happened so that is my big bang theory

 

[Kenny'sID]

What did he write that isn’t true? Can we take failure to come up with a meaningful response as a tacit admission that you are wrong? Or is it just that you’re out of your depth?

No, it's just that you failed to consider it's not a matter of just what's true or not, I've little doubt some of it is, but does it do what is was supposed to, and I assume what was intended?

I've already answered that, you do as you like now that you're up to snuff on what's going on.

And yes, you can take it how you choose...gotta love freedom of thought.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No need to get into details. Was offering an interesting historical fact from an ancient version of Hebrew.

-_- your "interesting historical fact" was pretty obvious. I'd think it pretty strange if humanity didn't notice sperm fairly early on. It's not subtle. Plus, it distracts from my original point, in that people need to be willing to research, even if their personal beliefs make them fairly certain of a specific conclusion, because it hasn't served us well in the past to not investigate the universe. It was a warning about the consequences of asserting a conclusion without proper evidence.