I struggle with...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Let's try this again...Stephen Hawking was presented as evidence that I was asked for about probability.

Ok, that's your first mistake, Stephen Hawking's opinion does not count as evidence - for you to demonstrate your assertions have any merit you need to present the calculations to back them up.

Secondly, we can clearly see Hawking does not share your view, he says the chances are small, not impossible, he then goes on to say that those chances are increased due to the size of the universe. Did you not read the whole piece? He clearly states that "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions." do you really not understand that the point of his article is the opposite of what you are asserting?

I'll just remind you why this is an issue, you wrote....

"1. we know that there is a creator. The math alone tells us that the probability of a creator is infinitely greater than the assumption of spontaneous existence then we add the science and even previously we talked about famous scientists that believe in a creator for this very reason."

Well I don't know that there is a creator and I believe christians generally take the existence of God on faith, not imaginary mathematical calculations. What you have presented here is an empty assertion, however, when you actually demonstrate these "probabilities" maybe we can discuss them.

Now, I'm not sure how you think that evidence of probability translates into abiolgenesis but I guess that is just more evidence of the importance of reading for comprehension rather than reinventing for the purpose of one's own pride

So you provide a quote on the chances of abiogenesis from an article about the origin of life and have the audacity to question my reading comprehension and ask why I brought up abiogenesis? Do you actually know what that article was about?

lol I highlighted the part that I was using as evidence

I'll say this again as you seem to have difficulty in understanding.

The part you highlighted said "The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. " what does that mean do you think? Impossible or possible?

Good grief, he goes on to say "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."

Your probabilities argument is nothing unless you can provide the maths it's based on, and it's clear that you can't, please stop embarrassing yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ok, that's your first mistake, Stephen Hawking's opinion does not count as evidence - for you to demonstrate your assertions have any merit you need to present the calculations to back them up.
now, what did I just tell you? Seriously, repeating myself is getting old...I said that Hawkings backed up what I was telling you about the probability studies that I have examined but are hand waved by some like you because they aren't listening to the other side and what they see in the probability numbers...iows let me see if I can figure out a more elementary way of saying this....some people dismiss the evidence without understanding what someone is using the evidence to say...to that end, I presented Hawking who agrees with what I see and am saying about the probability numbers....iow's I am not using the probability numbers to suggest what some people purpose is being said, rather I am using them the same way Hawkings does and to present them alone to someone who is apparently just simply misunderstanding everything that is said would be opening the door for more misunderstanding rather than closing the door of misunderstanding and showing that others see the same thing I am seeing, in this case Hawking. I don't know, at this point I am out of ideas how to make it any clearer to you, if I figure out another way to say it I'll present it. It's not that hard of a concept, just because you don't understand anything I say doesn't mean it isn't coherent and clear...
Secondly, we can clearly see Hawking does not share your view, he says the chances are small, not impossible, he then goes on to say that those chances are increased due to the size of the universe. Did you not read the whole piece? He clearly states that "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions." do you really not understand that the point of his article is the opposite of what you are asserting?
scratching my head...I have no idea who you are responding to when you quote me...I NEVER SAID ANYTHING WAS IMPOSSIBLE....geesh, where are you even getting the idea of anything being impossible...see, your reading into what I said the idea of impossible which is not even hinted at in what I said much less anything else is why you can't understand me. You are so busy reading into it what is not there and thus reinventing it that you can't see what is clearly written when read for comprehension.

So, let's go back and say it once again...I see the same things in the probability studies and Hawking states here. What did he say that I highlighted? That the chances are small...that is what I said and what I agree with....anything else is off topic for this part of the discussion.

I believe in a creator because...1. I believe that the probability is greater that there is a creator than that there is not...notice NOTHING about impossible, only likelihood. 2. I believe in God because of the evidence He has shown me personally. and 3. a creator is consistent with the scientific evidence.

Now carefully read what I said and respond to it please, not some reinvention of what I said.
I'll just remind you why this is an issue, you wrote....

"1. we know that there is a creator. The math alone tells us that the probability of a creator is infinitely greater than the assumption of spontaneous existence then we add the science and even previously we talked about famous scientists that believe in a creator for this very reason."

Well I don't know that there is a creator and I believe christians generally take the existence of God on faith, not imaginary mathematical calculations. What you have presented here is an empty assertion, however, when you actually demonstrate these "probabilities" maybe we can discuss them.
put it in context of the rest of what I said...context is one of the rules for comprehension you are supposedly using.
So you provide a quote on the chances of abiogenesis from an article about the origin of life and have the audacity to question my reading comprehension and ask why I brought up abiogenesis? Do you actually know what that article was about?
as previously stated, I said many times over why the quote was used and what I highlighted that was important to the discussion...so the real question is why would you remove the context of the discussion and the clarifications as to what I was using it to say in order to make up some new argument you want to goad me into participating in?
I'll say this again as you seem to have difficulty in understanding.

The part you highlighted said "The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. " what does that mean do you think? Impossible or possible?
lol even scripture says everything is possible..I really don't know what you don't understand about probability....seriously I don't...probability just means the likelihood and nothing more, in fact, it assumes that either or is possible or it wouldn't be probability in the first place.
Good grief, he goes on to say "The early appearance of life on Earth suggests that there's a good chance of the spontaneous generation of life, in suitable conditions."
something science does NOT back up...ah well, the quote was to show what I was taking probability studies to say and nothing more as was clearly stated and clarified multiple times over. I assume that if you continue to ignore clarifications I could assume intentional misrepresentation...I'll have to check with the mods on that issue.
Your probabilities argument is nothing unless you can provide the maths it's based on, and it's clear that you can't, please stop embarrassing yourself.
lol you know the math and Hawking showed in the statement I highlighted how I see the probability study, your reinvention of what I said does not help you look innocent but rather confirms guilt in the case of communication...

Now, I know that if I just presented the math and showed you what I am saying you would have had the canned argument to present that "since it happened probability is meaningless" but since that is NOT what is being argued it would once again require you to reinvent what is being said in order to dismiss it without cause. So instead I showed that Hawking is using probability the same way I do, thus one cannot simply dismiss the math unless they are in opposition even with Hawking...I can find others that agree with what I really am saying about the math as well. It only requires a little listening to understand what is being said and there is no argument against what is really being said because it is not only common sense but readily agreed

You added this, so let me address it for some reason this posted doesn't want to load...I repeat:

1. Your probabilities argument is nothing unless you can provide the maths it's based on, and it's clear that you can't.[/quote] there are tons of math but presenting them takes us off topic if you can't understand what I am saying about them which obviously you can't since Hawking agrees with what I see in the math and you still insist it doesn't...iow's you trying to claim more about what I believe than I know which is to boast of what you cannot know and is a reinvention which seems to me to be intentional.
2. Hawking's essay in no way agrees with you.
I only highlighted the one comment and only claimed the one comment to agree with me...I don't know where you got the rest of this accusation since it is the opposite of what I claimed...ah well, apparently after all this time you still don't have a clue what I actually do believe and since I have written my position in lang. and wording that can be understood by anyone reading for comprehension on an elementary level could understand than I guess we are done...one way or another we are done if you can't read for comprehension which I wrote with elementary comprehension rules in mind and practice.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
lol and yet you are the one looking silly with all your reinventions of simple concepts that should never be controversial to start out with....now either respond to what I really am saying or don't respond to me again...last time I am asking for a simple bit of courteously on this thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,199.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
now, what did I just tell you? Seriously, repeating myself is getting old...I said that Hawkings backed up what I was telling you about the probability studies that I have examined but are hand waved by some like you because they aren't listening to the other side and what they see in the probability numbers.

How does it back up what you say? He says naturalistic origins for life are possible, he doesn't give any figures, he doesn't mention a "Creator". How am I hand waving, I have discussed it at length. Sure he says the probabilities are small, maybe they are maybe not, he also says they are increased dramatically when we consider the size of the universe. What he doesn't do is mention the probability of a creator, do you know why? Because it's an impossible thing to calculate, therefore your probability argument counts for nothing.... it's dismissed until you can tell me how you calculate such things.

something science does NOT back up...ah well, the quote was to show what I was taking probability studies to say and nothing more as was clearly stated and clarified multiple times over. I assume that if you continue to ignore clarifications I could assume intentional misrepresentation...I'll have to check with the mods on that issue.

LOL, you accept the parts you wrongly think agrees with you, but this bit, which disagrees with you is wrong, how intellectually honest of you. Is he your authority on the subject or not.

lol you know the math and Hawking showed in the statement I highlighted how I see the probability study, your reinvention of what I said does not help you look innocent but rather confirms guilt in the case of communication...

Now, I know that if I just presented the math and showed you what I am saying you would have had the canned argument to present that "since it happened probability is meaningless" but since that is NOT what is being argued it would once again require you to reinvent what is being said in order to dismiss it without cause. So instead I showed that Hawking is using probability the same way I do, thus one cannot simply dismiss the math unless they are in opposition even with Hawking...I can find others that agree with what I really am saying about the math as well. It only requires a little listening to understand what is being said and there is no argument against what is really being said because it is not only common sense but readily agreed

You know, you could show the math and prove me wrong.... it's starting to look like you were just making it up as you went along. I await clarification.

Sadly, I've got to go now, I haven't finished but it will have to wait. In the mean time I suggest you get your calculatior out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How does it back up what you say? He says naturalistic origins for life are possible, he doesn't give any figures, he mention a "Creator". How am I hand waving, I have discussed it at length. Sure he says the probabilities are small, maybe they are maybe not, he also says they are increased dramatically when we consider the size of the universe. What he doesn't do is mention the probability of a creator, do you know why? Because it's an impossible thing to calculate, therefore your probability argument counts for nothing.... it's dismissed until you can tell me how you calculate such things.
what did he say....the chances are small...that is all I am using probability numbers to say and if you were reading for comprehension you would understand this....so let's try one more time, I used our son as a guinea pig for comprehension...

The OP asks why I believe what I do...as to a creator, there are three reasons I believe in a creator...1. the probability of a creator is equal to or greater than spontaneous existence. 2. I believe in God because He has revealed Himself to me personally in such a way that I could not say no. and 3. the science that we have testifies to the possibility of a creator and does nothing to falsify a creator...now be careful here since you have difficulty understanding...I did NOT say it was the only possible, I did NOT say the evidence was conclusive...I said that the science backs up the other two which is good enough for me.

Now, my son who disagrees with my conclusion is able to understand what I said and agrees it answers the OP question and should not be controversial.
LOL, you accept the parts you wrongly think agrees with you, but this bit, which disagrees with you is wrong, how intellectually honest of you. Is he your authority on the subject or not.
huh? You are so far removed from addressing what I said I don't even know what you are trying to say here other than mocking me for your inability to read for comprehension.
You know, you could show the math and prove me wrong.... it's starting to look like you were just making it up as you went along. I await clarification.
I explained why I didn't show the math and it is a solid reason...do you really not understand Hawking when he said the chance was small....?
Sadly, I've got to go now, I haven't finished but it will have to wait. In the mean time I suggest you get your calculatior out.
lol I'm sure not but I think you should be done before you say anything else that would be considered inflammatory to what I really am telling you.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Getting back to the OP.

This simply isn't true, the scientific consensus, does not support the creation account in Genesis 1.

False, since it all depends on your interpretation of Genesis chapter one. The traditional religious interpretation of ancient men does NOT agree with Scripture, science, nor history....and that's exactly what God wanted until the last days of this Earth, since it assured that ONLY by Faith can one come to know God.

*** Evidence in the fossil record demonstrates that existence of plants on land did not precede aquatic life and that birds did not precede land animals. Your argument seems to be that science and in particular Paleontology is wrong. If that's the case then the statement I quoted above clearly isn't correct.

You have confused Adam's world/universe with the present heavens and earth. Adam's entire world/universe/biosphere was totally destroyed in the flood. 2Pet3:6 Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 in the flood while the Ark was floating upon Lake Van, Turkey in the mountains of Ararat, 11k years ago and History agrees. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

*** Simply asserting that our understanding of the fossil record is incorrect will not cut it I'm afraid, we have a pretty clear understanding of how life on Earth has developed and diversified and the fossil record shows exactly what we would expect to see.

The problem is not with our understanding of this Earth, but of the first world since that is where Adam was made with an intelligence like God's. Gen 3:22 Only God and Humans (descendants of Adam) have this superior intelligence which is above that of ANY other living creature. Evolution is nothing but descent with modifications within kinds. It CANNOT tell us HOW God's superior intelligence got inside the physical bodies of the sons of God (prehistoric people). God does in 1 verse:

Gen 6:4 There were (intellectual) giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric men) came in unto the daughters of men, (Heb-Adam) and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The children, exactly like the 7.4 Billion living Humans today, changed from beings who descended from water on the 5th Day Gen 1:21 into Humans, the descendants of Adam, through whom Humans INHERITED God's superior intelligence. It's the ONLY way to be Human. Prehistoric people were NOT Human but they could produce children with Adam's descendants (Humans).

*** If you can present any evidence whatsoever that birds did indeed precede land animals and that land plants preceded aquatic life you might have a point, it would be fair to say that in overturning modern scientific thought on the subject you'd likely earn more accolades than Darwin, Hawking or Einstein.

Easy, since Adam's firmament was made on the 2nd Day Gen 1:8. Adam's Earth was placed inside the firmament and had birds BEFORE birds appeared on Planet Earth. Remember that Adam's world was made BEFORE the big bang of our Cosmos and our small Earth did NOT appear until some 4.53 Billion years ago, which was some 9 Billion years, in man's time, AFTER the big bang. See how simple IF you know what the Supreme Intelligence of Creation told us thousands of years ago in Genesis. It's proof of God. God Bless you
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sadly, I've got to go now, I haven't finished but it will have to wait. In the mean time I suggest you get your calculatior out.
wait a moment...I keep forgetting that if you are responding to me than I can read your post for what it says in relation to my argument...so what you are saying here then is that you disagree with Hawking...you believe that the chance is NOT small as Hawking and I say but rather the chance is huge...please back up your claim and show any scientist or other public figure that agrees with you on this matter....thanks, I'll try to keep in mind that I can read your posts as if they are directed at what I say and not your reinvention of what I say.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
so given this discussion and how many evolutionists say they disagree with me when I say we need to look at the evidence and consider it for what it does and does not say, I am wondering if we can ask the evolutionists here the same question the OP asks the creationist? Why would you believe evolution over creation? No one has yet to explain that one to me in a way that makes sense and this thread confuses it even more since so many disagree with science, scientists, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
so given this discussion and how many evolutionists say they disagree with me when I say we need to look at the evidence and consider it for what it does and does not say, I am wondering if we can ask the evolutionists here the same question the OP asks the creationist? Why would you believe evolution over creation? No one has yet to explain that one to me in a way that makes sense and this thread confuses it even more since so many disagree with science, scientists, etc.

It's because you refuse to accept descent with modification within His and Their kinds, or as godless atheists, agnostics and scientists call it...evolution. IOW, they changed God's Truth into one which matched their godless view better. The problem is that they forgot about the Flood or as God calls it, His SNARE or trap in which He catches some arrogant, all knowing, uneducated mankind/unbelievers, in the last days before Jesus returns. It's too late for Darwinists since they are already caught. God Bless you
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's because you refuse to accept descent with modification within His and Their kinds, or as godless atheists, agnostics and scientists call it...evolution. IOW, they changed God's Truth into one which matched their godless view better. The problem is that they forgot about the Flood or as God calls it, His SNARE or trap in which He catches some arrogant, all knowing, uneducated mankind/unbelievers, in the last days before Jesus returns. It's too late for Darwinists since they are already caught. God Bless you
that is how most creationists see evolutionists and I am personally not agreeing or disagreeing with you what I want to know is what the evolutionists have to say as per trying to listen to both sides. But if they disagree with me when I say, look at and consider the science then there must be another reason and I would like to hear from them what that reason is so that I can understand where they are coming from.
 
Upvote 0

Motherofkittens

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2017
455
428
iowa
✟50,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
so given this discussion and how many evolutionists say they disagree with me when I say we need to look at the evidence and consider it for what it does and does not say, I am wondering if we can ask the evolutionists here the same question the OP asks the creationist? Why would you believe evolution over creation? No one has yet to explain that one to me in a way that makes sense and this thread confuses it even more since so many disagree with science, scientists, etc.
I accept evolution because of all the evidence.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I accept evolution because of all the evidence.
you would be the first on this thread, at least I think the first, all the others disagree with me when I say that we need to look at and consider the evidence....so...given that the evidence does NOT specify macro evolution, why do you believe in Macro evolution specifically?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Motherofkittens

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2017
455
428
iowa
✟50,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
you would be the first on this thread, at least I think the first, all the others disagree with me when I say that we need to look at and consider the evidence....so...given that the evidence does NOT specify macro evolution, why do you believe in Macro evolution specifically?
Again, because of the evidence. Macro evolution has been observed.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,814
2,508
63
Ohio
✟122,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again, because of the evidence. Macro evolution has been observed.
not by the given definition nor can it be observed as defined...micro evolution can but macro cannot...so I still don't get how you can claim evidence is why you believe something that has not nor can it be evidenced by our current science. Please specify....micro and macro seems to be the core difference between a large number of evolutionists and creationists...if you think it is evidenced please provide the evidence since it cannot be evidenced at this time.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
not by the given definition nor can it be observed as defined...micro evolution can but macro cannot...so I still don't get how you can claim evidence is why you believe something that has not nor can it be evidenced by our current science. Please specify....micro and macro seems to be the core difference between a large number of evolutionists and creationists...if you think it is evidenced please provide the evidence since it cannot be evidenced at this time.
The accepted definition of macro-evolution includes speciation. Speciation has been observed, therefore macro-evolution has been observed.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
I accept evolution because of all the evidence.

The evidence is clear if you understand the first chapter of Genesis. Notice the "Their" kinds and "His" kinds. His kinds are those temporary creatures which Jesus made from the dust of the ground. Gen 2:7 Their kinds or the kinds God the Trinity created Eternally, are those kinds made from the WATER on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after THEIR kind, and every winged fowl after HIS kind: and God saw that it was good.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
The accepted definition of macro-evolution includes speciation. Speciation has been observed, therefore macro-evolution has been observed.

Micro evolution is descent with modification within His and Their kinds. Macro evolution is Amoeba to Human evolution and it is the biggest satanic lie ever forced upon innocent little children in the Public Schools. God Bless you
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.