Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Speedwell]

Hey hey u

Thank you for bringing this to my attention however im still unrepentant. Lets get into something.

Why is it important to you that evolution must be true? Why benefit is it to you?

Cheers

You're off on the wrong foot with is. It's not important to anyone that it be true rather than false. It's only a scientific theory, accepted as a provisional explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. It will continue to be accepted until contrary evidence comes along. In the meantime it is a plausible explanation with real-world practical applications and there is no real reason not to be going on with it.

 

[pitabread]

Lets get into something.

No, let's not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You and your friends are becoming motivated.

You don't know any of my friends, or our motivations.

Ps im making sure to upvote all of you. I know how much you evolutionists need validation and from each other hehe

It's likely to be disruptive for people browsing the forum who might reasonably expect 'Winner' posts to reflect particularly interesting posts. So it will probably be seen as rather selfish.

 

[loveofourlord]

Hey hey u

Thank you for bringing this to my attention however im still unrepentant. Lets get into something.

Why is it important to you that evolution must be true? Why benefit is it to you?

Cheers

to believe more true things then false things I would say, we probably care about it less if there weren't people like yourself to ferverently trying to get it removed from schools or such. It's kinda a silly question.

 

[loveofourlord]

Hey hey

Would you call it egregious?

So you dont want me to reply to that previous post re infinite space?

Ps im looking for a challenge. So far in 3-4years being here i have not found one.

given your level of argument here....I just have to say, "So says the pigeon."

 

[the iconoclast]

given your level of argument here....I just have to say, "So says the pigeon."

Hey hey

Cool.

 

[the iconoclast]

to believe more true things then false things I would say, we probably care about it less if there weren't people like yourself to ferverently trying to get it removed from schools or such. It's kinda a silly question.

Hey hey

Well lucky you don't have to answer it. I thought our conversation was over?

Cheers

 

[loveofourlord]

Hey hey

Cool.

I may still if there is a reason too, but having finally got to meet the pigeon atheists always talk about I had to say something :>

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.

So why accept science in the one case (of fine tuning, Goldilocks etc etc etc), and reject it in the other ( of evolution)?

Does science undermine science?

Is it not tendentious of you as a theist - I mean, why don't you claim that evolution undermines the Goldilocks and fine tuning ideas?

 

[the iconoclast]

I may still if there is a reason too, but having finally got to meet the pigeon atheists always talk about I had to say something :>

Hey hey brother

What reason do you need?
Im the pigeon atheists talk to you about?
How does it feel finally meeting this pigeon?

Cheers

 

[loveofourlord]

Hey hey brother

What reason do you need?
Im the pigeon atheists talk to you about?
How does it feel finally meeting this pigeon?

Cheers

you know the pigeon that it's like playing chess with?

 

[the iconoclast]

you know the pigeon that it's like playing chess with?

Hey hey brother
Atheists play chess with pigeons?

 

[Speedwell]

Hey hey brother
Atheists play chess with pigeons?

Not if they can avoid it.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @46AND2, @Speedwell, @FrumiousBandersnatch. Taking my time in replying to you all.

It'll get it done soon.

Hey @pitabread. If you change your mind, im the first in line. Im still free, take a chance on me. Gonna do my very best and it ain't no lie. If you put me to the test, If you let me try.

 

[the iconoclast]

This can be done quite easily, depending on your interpretation of Genesis.

Hey hey

I like Matthew Henry's concordance and follow mainstream interpretation for Genesis. So lets see how easily its done, dont run on me. You and i will discuss.

You believe that God does not lie. This leads me to three conclusions:

Yep. Thats what the Word of God says.

1. Much or all of Genesis is meant as metaphor, and not to be taken literally. It's not a lie, it's basically a parable.

Ahhhh... so Genesis is not to be taken seriously and its a parable. How did you come to this conclusion and how can i trust that you are correct that the whole of genesis is a metaphor?

If it is a metaphor ie a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

What thing is regarded as representative or symbolic of something else?

A moral lesson rather than an account of actual events. In this case, there is no conflict with biologic evolution.

What moral lesson are we to learn here?

2. Genesis was not written by God, but by men.

Genesis is the inspired word of God written down by Men. What you think about my reply?

There can still be a God of Abraham, but Genesis was a fanciful tale that just didn't get the facts right. Again, no conflict with biologic evolution.

How is Genesis a fanciful tale and why should i listen to you?

3. Genesis should be taken literally, and biologic evolution can't be reconciled with it. This is your current situation, based on your particular interpretation.

What particular interpretation do i have?

There's no point asking for a detailed explanation of how they could work together, because they can't.

Hey brother @Speedwell and brother @loveofourlord. Yttrium suggests theistic evolution is improbable.

God could not have created life through biologic evolution by definition. Evolution takes place after life comes into existence. Evolution is change in frequency of alleles in a population over time. You need a population of organisms for this to happen.

Wow!!! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. My dear im not going to stop you from assuming anything re my knowledge on evolution or anything for that matter.

So why/how can i trust that evolution is a change in frequency of alleles in a population over time?

Of course, if an all-powerful God exists, then God could certainly have developed humans by means of evolution, after creating the first form of life in some manner.

So theistic evolution is possible its just not probable?

Is it possible that an allpowerful God exists?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

You're off on the wrong foot with is. It's not important to anyone that it be true rather than false.

Hey hey brother. I like you and hope all is well. Stay strong in the Lord and endure till the end.

So if its not important to you that its true - it being a supposition - why did ypi change your info to other religion due to creationism?

It's only a scientific theory, accepted as a provisional explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Well if its only that, why does it matter to you, that you should agree with it?

If its only that, why are you focused on it and debating for its acceptance?

Why do you defend it?

If its not beneficial and important to you, what value is it to you?

You have an opinion. You have that opinion because it is the right opinion. If it was wrong you wouldnt have it, therefore being right is beneficial to being wrong is it not?

Being correct in your opinion is important to you, is it not?

It will continue to be accepted until contrary evidence comes along.

It is believed because there is no other alternative. Either life is due to intelligent design or through a process that denies the Artist his signature.

Evolution is believed because of appeals to intelligence and appeals to authority.

I put my trust in God, you put your trust in the wisdom of men which is follish to God but you are lucky. All we have to do is accept Christ as salvation, a belief in evolution is trivial to salvation.

Sciencism, freudian trust and marxist leanings are antiquated. It is time to question things. We creationists have lived with evolution for over 100 years and there have been new discoveries.

In the meantime it is a plausible explanation with real-world practical applications and there is no real reason not to be going on with it.

What type of appeal is this?

What real world pratical applications do you speak of and how do these things guarantee something which is 'only a scientific theory'?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

If space is infinite and its contents are also infinite, every possible arrangement of the contents of some particular volume will occur an infinite number of times. This doesn't mean everything conceivable will happen; only what is possible according to the rules or laws that govern the arrangement of the contents.

Hey hey my dear

You see this statement i made re infinite space was tailored to get a response out of @46AND2. I threw something to see how it stuck and it stuck on you way more than it did to him. Heads up i dont believe the universe is infinite - you boys really arent ready for me.

You suggest that the universe is governed by rules and laws which it cannot deviate from? How can i be certain on this?

You suggesting that an unlimited universe is only unlimited in volume not in probability. How can you confirm this?

So if the God of Abraham is possible because some extent of space exists, i.e. it is dependent on space (as suggested by your hypothetical), we might expect, all else being equal, an infinite space to contain an infinite number of Gods of Abraham - unless, of course, the God of Abraham is an obligate singleton; in that case, an infinite space would not be necessary but would guarantee that the God of Abraham existed.

Now that we have this argument, where do we go from here? What do we do next?

If the existence of the God of Abraham is not dependent on the existence of some extent of space, then the question seems incoherent.

Why should the existance of God be dependent on the existence of some extent of space?

If God created the universe, why would he be bound by it?

Isnt that like a bricklayer building a house and then bricked himself in?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

No. I literally fulfilled your requirements, which were:


"Show me how the the Theory of Evolution is compatible with concept of The God of Abraham as Creator?"

Hey hey

If you say so.

Perhaps you should have put more thought into your response to my original question.

Nah. I chose to word it this way and i rarely ever dive in without contemplation.

If god can do anything he wants, he can create nature in which humans are formed through evolution. Boom. Compatible. Simple as that. Don't blame me for your substandard response to my question.

This subject matter comes up later and I will see how you reply to it.

So does this mean - your opinion of the matter - the Theory of Evolution is compatible with concept of The God of Abraham as Creator?

You suggest God can do anything so boom, compatible?

Yes or no?

It is not my fault you set the bar so low.

I disagree and still stand by my conclusions regarding your effort but lets see how this discussion progresses

See? As I told you. What you REALLY meant was: how is evolution compatible with your interpretation of the Bible.

Sorry my dear, i do not see. I purposely left out where in Scripture those verses can be found , to make sure you read them.

That was actual scripture and not my own spin. What you think now?

1. How do you know god cannot lie?

A lie is an intentionally false statement. I have not found anything in the word of God that i would consider dishonest.

I have a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. Granted He has not specifically told me He does not lie but i put my trust in Him and what has been revealed to us through His Word - and His promise.

I received the Spirit by following His Word and having faith in Him to do What He says he will do. I got a result in what God said was the truth.

Lies are proven false when a lie is uncovered. Do you believe that God had lied or does lie?

Also what do you think about my reply?

Isn't "I can't lie" exactly what a liar would tell you?

I do not think so. It seems You may be implying that because humans lie therefore so would a God who created them. This logic is unsound.

Lets look at the statement 'i cant murder'. Is that exactly what a murderer would say?

This is irrelevant, anyway, since we are not talking about whether god lied or not.

This subject matter re if God lies is relevant to your question in post 353.

46and2 - "Unless you don't agree that your god could have done anything he wanted?"

So i responded by saying "Your and my God CAN do anything He wants but the next question is what does He do and what does He not do."

What do you think about this response ie what God does and what he does not do?

You are assuming that your interpretation (which differs from that of many other Christians) of what he said on the matter (if anything) is correct.

Show me how the scripture i supplied differs from many other Christians?

I believ the word of God is correct? Why should i not? What have you got to offer me?

So the question is not whether god lied or not, but whether or not you can demonstrate what he did or did not do.

To demonstrate what He did or did not do, i show examples of it from the Scripture. What do you think here?

Finally, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world.

In the beginning was the world. What has evolution got to do with then?

Evolution deals with how life has changed over time. It has nothing to do with how the world was created.

Evolution theorizes that life changes over time through Common descent, genetic mutation and variations in the gene pool.

Are you suggesting that the world was created but evolution is only restricted to life on earth and nothing outside of it?

If you would really like to address my question, you can offer what kind of evolutionary evidence might cause you to reconsider your interpretation of the Bible?

I got one for you and it involves Common descent. What is the ancestor for a pig and a human? How do you prove this transition period?

Ps i follow the mainstream interpretation of scripture and am a Pentecostal. I have some opinions but mostly follow the traditional scope.

1. On the contrary, I have put a lot of thought and investigation into the subject over the years.

What investigation have you done?

2. I don't believe that god exists.

How did you come to this conclusion? What investigation have tou done to reach such a conclusion?

However, if I were to become convinced that he does, it would only convince me that both he and evolution are true.

Have you ever witnessed an evolutionary process or element?

I made the statement that (paraphrasing) according to your presumed theology, god has the power to create the world however he sees fit. If this is so, then it is obviously possible for him to create a world in which humans arise through evolution.

You still seem to ignore the concept of what God does and what He does not do. Just because something can be done does not make it so.

I could put a knife in an active power source. Just because i can does not mean i do.

What do you think?

Is there any part of that paragraph which you disagree with? If not, then I have shown you how evolution is compatible with the god you believe in.

So your arguement is; because God can do anything, it means there is no limit to what He will do and anything is permissible.

Where in Scripture can you confirm this or is this an assumption you have and not based on what the Word of god says?

You then told me that this is not enough to convince you, despite the fact that you said this was what I had to do. Now you are requesting more.

The only argument you have given me so far is an assumption built on your own perception. God can do anything.

We havent explored what He can do and what He chooses to do.

What you think?

Why do you ignore this valid point, anyways it comes up again in this next section.

That is moving the goal post.

Goal post moving means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage.

All i have done so far is comment on your lack of good argument and effort. I have not given my self any advantage or changed the goal - being 'how is evolution compatible with the notion God the Creator'.

You say it is possible because evolution is aboit the process of life changing from one thing to another.

So far a conclusion has been reached. You believe that since God can do what ever He pleases - no matter what it is and there are no limitations to what God may choose to do - he could create life through evolution.

What you think?

Is there any part of that paragraph which you disagree with? If not, then I have shown you how evolution is compatible with the god you believe in.

Kinda but first You seem to ignore my counter point to this. Lets go again and please be so kind as to address it.

Important point- Your and my God CAN do anything He wants but the next question is what does He do and what does He not do.

What do you think?

God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

So that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.

God can do what he pleases but in doing so, He does not lie. Just because He can do and act in any manner - He pleases and they are most likely infinite - there is certainty in the way He acts and what He has done.

I can practically do what I want - with limits of what's practical. In theory - I could go out and take all your possessions. I could wait for my friend to leave his house, get his spare keys and take his possessions. I choose not too.

What do you think here?

 

[the iconoclast]

I say you complained when I suggested that what you really meant with your question was for me to show you how evolution is compatible with your interpretation of the Bible. And now you are demonstrating that I was correct.

The action of explaining the meaning of something. So you are suggesting that i have my own explanation that it is not consistent with scripture?


You have made this charge, i want you to prove it. Show me how i have my own interpretation that contradicts or is adverse to scripture?


Cant wait!!

Your question did not require much effort. Instead of blaming me for my response, perhaps consider that your question was shallow, instead.

Lets consider it. How is my question shallow?

Your question was not stimulating. It was trivially simple. It also, despite your claims, did not address my question.

I disagree bit you are starting to get motivated my dear - even though your initial effort was slight. We will get you to perform - judging by how long thid post is.


Lets see how much thought you put into your next reply. I want to see what you got, so far you have given me an assumption that God will and can do anything. You havent back this reference up yet with scripture to show me.


What you think?

And I gave you what you claimed was what you needed. Only now, that isn't good enough anymore.

Well lets see what you do in your next post, so far i still holding on to my position re your effort. Change my impression and put in some work.

Your belief about what god said or did is not evidence, it is a claim.

Show me how what i did was a claim and not sufficient evidence? What is missing?


Ps 1 word or 1 sentence will not suffice. Im not the same as others. I expect an atheist to be systematic and methodical. If you dont want to put the effort in then this discussion will become boring to me and will make me suspect of your investigation.

Where did I ever suggest that I was trying to convince you of anything?

If your not trying to convince me then what do you hope to achieve from our discussion?

I simply asked you what evidence, if any, would you accept for evolution. If you would finally like to answer that question,

Well surprise, i got one. I got more but lets leave those for another time. Lets see what you think?

consider the bolded question I presented above.

I considered it. Now please do not ignore anything i have presented you or it may seem suspect.

And please don't give me any complaint about me moving the goal post. It is the same question, since any evidence for evolution that you might accept (the original wording)

I agree, dont worry im playing ball my dear.

would necessarily cause you to reconsider your interpretation of the Bible.

Why do you want me to reconsider?

Great, then answer my question.

Think I did. Please let me know otherwise.

I don't need you to stimulate me.

You do my dear. You need another pov to be systematic and methodical.

I just would like you to think about what would it take for you to consider that you could be wrong.

Wrong about what?

What scientific finding, if anything, could cause you to think that Christians who accept evolution might be right in their interpretation?

Well now the wording has changed and we go back a step. I need you to show me who the concept of God the Creator is compatible with evolution.


No goals have been changed.


Your argument - God can do anything. I will see how you back up this statement with scripture.

Is evolution intentional or meaningless?

I made the statement asking you first, so this reply becomes redundant. Your reply seems to be my question to you.


Heads up lets say i dont know


Please correct me is evolution intentional or meaningless?

Is that your question? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Evolution isthe process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


So is this process intentional, random or meaningless? If neither what dictates this process?


How does evolution problem solve?


A process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. Is this series of actions random, intentional or meaningless. How do you define the process?

However, evolution is not random.

So evolution is not random. Why do you believe it is not random?


If not random how do you define the process?

No, it isn't. That is but one hypothesis.

The concept of space being infinite is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.


Why do you conclude that space is not infinite?

When did I ever say it was impossible?

U didnt, im just herding you in.


Your position. It is possible because God can do anything. We will see how you answered the previous sections that relate here

I clearly have no way to support that claim, so I wouldn't make it.

Excellant, we will consider infinite space as a supposition and any arguments that relate to it mute.

However, I do have a counter question: God is believed to be infinite.

It is believed that we can consider His infinity in that He is not limited to either space or time.

What possible meaning could a human lifespan have to an infinite being? Not only is that lifetime a speck to infinity, it is infinitely small and inconsequential to infinity. It is infinitely more insignificant than a nano-second is to you.

What point are you trying to make that my lifespan being inconsequential to infinity?

Even your Bible says that anything is possible with God. If that is true, how can it NOT be possible?

Lets see how your answer my section re what God does and what He does not do. Heads up. Ive got you to admit that theistic evolution is possible.


Supposedly even MY Bible says that it may happen but, it would seem you believe that is not certain or probable.


How do you know such a thing is not probable or certain? What argument do you have?

NO. I asked you what evidence you would accept.

Well so far you have 2 things.


1. Show me how the notion of God as Creator is compatible with evolution?


You say its not compatible but it is possible - because God can do anything. Ill wait for you to respond to the relative sections and we will examine this aspect of our discussion.


2. Involves Common descent. What is the ancestor for a pig and a human? How do you prove this transition period?


And because you want it so much ill throw in another one, just for fun


3. The giraffe!!!!!


The giraffe has a a long neck, huge heart to pump blood up that long neck and flaps on its spine. These flaps prevent pressure built when the giraffe bends over.


A. Show me the evidence for the transition of the giraffe and show me its ancestor?


B. Explain using - evolutionary thought - how flaps in the neck of a giraffe were not an intended solution to a problem?


C. Show me the common ancestor of the girafee and man? And why not, give me evidence for the common ancestor between a chimp and a human?


Ive got more evidences i would like you to examine but you want something and i dont want this discussion to get too full on yet.


My advise dont treat this like any usual conversation. Im calling you out, lets get into it.

I did this so that I would not poke blindly around through the massive evidence for evolution, only to have you handwave it away.

Of course you did. I wouldnt bring out your big guns tills later either. I haven't brought out my yet my dear.

It is not my job to answer my question for you.

What is your job here?

You give me what kind of evidence you would require to make you consider that you might be wrong about evolution.

Well, convenient that i have done so and given you something extra for homework.

Consistently evasive of my original question. Yes.

Nah. You just dont appreciate the socratic method. The greeks of his time werent impressed by him either.


Im going to get you to think about things that you would not usually ponder.

I don't believe in god.

While we are here i only think its fair for you to tell me what evidence re God you would accept? If i have already asked you please indulge me again.

That's my point of view. Why would I speculate on what a being I don't believe exists can or cannot do?

Ahhh, Hard and soft atheistism. This position being hard atheism.


Lucky for you, i have already tackled this b4.


Check this out


I have an idea. An idea being a thought or suggestion. This idea i have - there is a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. I get this idea from the Bible.

I believe this entity is real, approachable and if i follow the formula prescribed using faith, i can have a personal relationship with It.

Form a theory or conjecture about this entity without firm evidence. - speculate.

What is your first move?


Cheers. Dude im looking forward to this discussion.

Take your time, impress me and be a slight more prolific. I believe in you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You suggest that the universe is governed by rules and laws which it cannot deviate from? How can i be certain on this?

How can you be certain of anything?

The meaning of rules & laws is that they define what can happen (the rules and laws we derive from observation are likely only approximations). It's possible that the rules and laws of the universe may vary over time and space. Without those rules or laws, there would be no observables to discuss.

You suggesting that an unlimited universe is only unlimited in volume not in probability. How can you confirm this?

I don't know what you mean by the implication of 'unlimited probability', it sounds oxymoronic. What can happen is logically limited to what is possible.

Now that we have this argument, where do we go from here? What do we do next?

I just gave my view on your hypotheticals; it's up to you what you do with it.

Why should the existance of God be dependent on the existence of some extent of space?

I have no idea - that was the implication of your hypothetical scenario and question:

"The belief is space is infinite. If space is infinite then we have infinite possibilities, no matter how unlikely. 10 to The power of a trillion is still a speck to infinity. A trillion to the power of trillion is still a speck against infinity.

Why is it impossible for the God of Abraham to exist when we consider this?"​

The question implies that the existence of the God of Abraham could be one of the 'infinite possibilities' of infinite space.

If God created the universe, why would he be bound by it?

Isnt that like a bricklayer building a house and then bricked himself in?

I can't answer for the supposed activities of an ill-defined mythical entity. Painters have been known to paint themselves into corners, I wouldn't be surprised if bricklayers have done the equivalent.