Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[pitabread]

And--get this--he's arguing about the definitions of words.

 

[loveofourlord]

LOL, there's that tired old cop out, and so early into this.

I understand the numbers so again, roughly what were those odds I asked for?

Also, with the tornado/junkyard you were graciously given physical things to start with, so how does this all work ifyou don't have that head start? Seems to me the odds in favor would be nearly non existent compared to the odds of creation taking care of it all.

"Let's go build a house from Popsicle sticks, I'll create mine and you reserve a space and sit and wait.

Anything happening yet? You say you need just a little more time? WAIT! WAIT! oh, never mind."

I know it sound like I'm making fun, but to some of us, it's all just that silly to believe if we wait long enough life/the universe will start and change into what we have today. Honestly, I can't even wrap my mind around that and never could, yet some seem fine with it, meaning, to me anyway, something is way off.

....see you don't understand science, or chemistry, what part of abiogenesis requires creation ex nihilo? You can have a god create the world and then abiogenesis happens, you could have god create abiogenesis and evolution happened, your line of reasoning ignores all of this.

No your not making fun, your making fun of yourself, I'm sorry :> But I can't help but laugh at your level of understanding, your like a 5 year old telling a pilot you know how to fly because you once read a book about cars.

The numbers are meaningless, because it's CHEMISTRY you know that thing that happens on it's own and requires no outside agent to do, but maybe thats too hard for you.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL, there's that tired old cop out, and so early into this.

I understand the numbers so again, roughly what were those odds I asked for?

Also, with the tornado/junkyard you were graciously given physical things to start with, so how does this all work ifyou don't have that head start? Seems to me the odds in favor would be nearly non existent compared to the odds of creation taking care of it all.

"Let's go build a house from Popsicle sticks, I'll create mine and you reserve a space and sit and wait.

Anything happening yet? You say you need just a little more time? WAIT! WAIT! oh, never mind."

I know it sound like I'm making fun, but to some of us, it's all just that silly to believe if we wait long enough life/the universe will start and change into what we have today. Honestly, I can't even wrap my mind around that and never could, yet some seem fine with it, meaning, to me anyway, something is way off.

And our point is, you don't seem to know how we think it happened. That doesn't mean we're right and you're wrong, necessarily. But it's like this:

Kenny: "I think it happened according to A. You think it happened according to B, and B seems stupid to me."

Us: "No, we don't think it happened according to B, we think it happened according to C. You may think that C is stupid too but right now you don't know what it is.

 

[Kenny'sID]

....see you don't understand science, or chemistry, what part of abiogenesis requires creation ex nihilo?

There it is again, and it only happens when one is losing ground. .

You can have a god create the world and then abiogenesis happens, you could have god create abiogenesis and evolution happened, your line of reasoning ignores all of this.

There is nothing complicated about that so again the "you don't understand is simply due to the lack of a real argument from your side.

Can? could? Why would God even bother when he could just say I created them as they are today, just as he did? You are talking wild non sensible improbabilities and I'm talking logical likelihoods. There is simply no good reason to believe your can/could would ever turn to a "did". Had that been the case, why didn't god just say so, like he did with the truth?

 

[Speedwell]

There it is again, and it only happens when one is losing ground. .



There is nothing complicated about that so again the "you don't understand is simply due to the lack of a real argument from your side.

Can? could? Why would God even bother when he could just say I created them as they are today, just as he did? You are talking wild non sensible improbabilities and I'm talking logical likelihoods. There is simply no good reason to believe your can/could would ever turn to a "did". Had that been the case, why didn't god just say so, like he did with the truth?

So just to keep track, you're arguing the literal inerrancy of Genesis, not the existence of God, right?

 

[loveofourlord]

There it is again, and it only happens when one is losing ground. .



There is nothing complicated about that so again the "you don't understand is simply due to the lack of a real argument from your side.

Can? could? Why would God even bother when he could just say I created them as they are today, just as he did? You are talking wild non sensible improbabilities and I'm talking logical likelihoods. There is simply no good reason to believe your can/could would ever turn to a "did". Had that been the case, why didn't god just say so, like he did with the truth?

The problem is the evidence and science is on our side, so the choice is either accept that god did it in a way that allowed for evolution, or stop being a Christian, your sides arguments fail because you don't understand what your talking about.

And you can hate me saying that all you want, your own words speak for themselves. The fact that you think the infinite monkey argument is anything but laughable shows you don't understand chemistry or science of the subject, as nothing in that pratt has anything to do with science or evolution or even abiogenesis.

And your the one thats demanding god make everything as it is, without evolution, the evidence shows evolution, so the only two options are, god allowed evolution to happen, or he doesn't exist.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And our point is, you don't seem to know how we think it happened. That doesn't mean we're right and you're wrong, necessarily. But it's like this:

Kenny: "I think it happened according to A. You think it happened according to B, and B seems stupid to me."

Us: "No, we don't think it happened according to B, we think it happened according to C. You may think that C is stupid too but right now you don't know what it is.

Please...don't.

I've been here long enough to know what some think, and that people think different things. but I only defend one thing, so if yours isn't that, oh well.

You defend yours, and I'll do likewise.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The problem is the evidence and science is on our side, so the choice is either accept that god did it in a way that allowed for evolution, or stop being a Christian, your sides arguments fail because you don't understand what your talking about.

"Saying" the evidence is on your side only means you are saying it. I simply haven't seen it. Funny you believe the bible in that God exists but for Genesis you'd rather believe the World instead if the Bible, so you do that, I'm not going to.

 

[Speedwell]

Please...don't.

I've been here long enough to know what some think, and that people think different things. but I only defend one thing, so if yours isn't that, oh well.

You defend yours, and I'll do likewise.

That's fine, so long as you don't troll us with bogus arguments involving typing monkey or tornadoes in junkyards and the like--which have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis or evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So just to keep track, you're arguing the literal inerrancy of Genesis, not the existence of God, right?

Both, as necessary and both are needed here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's fine, so long as you don't troll us with bogus arguments involving typing monkey or tornadoes in junkyards and the like--which have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis or evolution.

Dude, please stop trying to police who I choose to debate with. Those were arguments with another poster if that's quit alright with you.

 

[Speedwell]

"Saying" the evidence is on your side only means you are saying it. I simply haven't seen it. Funny you believe the bible in that God exists but for Genesis you'd rather believe the World instead if the Bible, so you do that, I'm not going to.

It's not a question of "believing the world." Many of us believe that a literal reading of Genesis is shallow and theologically inadequate, based solely on the work itself, and wouldn't want anything to do with it even if there were no theory of evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's not a question of "believing the world." Many of us believe that a literal reading of Genesis is shallow and theologically inadequate, based solely on the work itself, and wouldn't want anything to do with it even if there were no theory of evolution.

My take on that has always been, If you feel any of the bible is inadequate, you may want to think twice about believing any of it.

 

[Speedwell]

My take on that has always been, If you feel any of the bible is inadequate, you may want to think twice about believing any of it.

That's why I don't want to burden it with inadequate interpretation. You can do as you like, but the accusation that those who disagree with you about how to read Genesis "don't believe the Bible" is a bald-faced lie.

 

[loveofourlord]

My take on that has always been, If you feel any of the bible is inadequate, you may want to think twice about believing any of it.

thats our difference, I'm not afraid of reality that I must ignore science. well of course you havn't seen any evidence, it's clear you've never seen a single thing about evolution or the science behind it. I don't accept the creationists arguments because they have 0 to do with what actual science says.

I've spent a while looking into evolution and how it works, the problem you guys have is, you rely too much on connecting evolution and abiogenesis things it's unrelated too, and trying to make it all seem random.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's why I don't want to burden it with inadequate interpretation.

Wait now, is the bible inadequate or is it others interpretation of it while your "opinion" on it is just fine?

 

[loveofourlord]

Wait now, is the bible inadequate or is it others interpretation of it while your "opinion" on it is just fine?

I would say that if reality is screaming one thing, and your interpetation of the bible says the opposite, it's likly you thats interpeting the bible wrong. Again at this point, it's either your interpetation of the bible, or the idea that god exists is wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

thats our difference, I'm not afraid of reality that I must ignore science. well of course you havn't seen any evidence, it's clear you've never seen a single thing about evolution or the science behind it. I don't accept the creationists arguments because they have 0 to do with what actual science says.

I'm all for reality, so show me where science make your case, along with the details.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I would say that if reality is screaming one thing, and your interpetation of the bible says the opposite, it's likly you thats interpeting the bible wrong.

Where does the bible indicate you are right? I'll be happy to show you scripture that backs my end up.

And again, what is it screaming...how do the screams back you up? I need details, not just talk.

 

[Speedwell]

Wait now, is the bible inadequate or is it others interpretation of it while your "opinion" on it is just fine?

I never said or even implied that the Bible is inadequate. It is the revealed Word of God, after all. You may interpret it any way you wish, but your interpretation of Genesis as accurate literal history is not necessarily better or true than anybody else's. It is not, and never has been normative for all Christians.