New thought about Pascal's Wager

[ecco]

I already adressed this but 11 states have implimented something called "teach the controversy"

I would love to "teach the controversy":

Good morning class. Today we are going to begin our class on evolution vs Intelligent Design.
On the left side of my desk I have the KJV bible.
On the right side of my desk I have a stack of text books on biology, archeology, physics and ten other science subjects.
Let's begin with the evidence for ID. {At this time, I open the KJV to Genesis and read it out loud to the class}
There, we are now finished with ID.
Now open your biology books to page 1 and let's get started.​

 

[ecco]

Why not with all? What is causing problem? Why are you humiliating my intellect in front of atheists?!

He is not doing that.

 

[createdtoworship]

It should be easy for you to be sure. Just look it up yourself instead of making claims with no support.

But, even if you are right...

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf02325/

if any employed individual with a science or engineering degree is counted as part of the S&E workforce, then there were more than 10 million scientists and engineers working in the U.S. in 1999.​

700 / 10,000,000 = .00007 = .007%

Over 13,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project

The Clergy Letter Project is a project that maintains statements in support of the teaching ofevolution and collects signatures in support of letters from AmericanChristian, Jewish,Unitarian Universalist, and Buddhist clergy. The letters make reference to points raised byintelligent design proponents. There are four separate letters: A Christian Clergy Letter, aRabbi Letter, a Unitarian Universalist Clergy Letter and a Buddhist Clergy Letter. As of August 12, 2013, there were 12,878 signatures from Christian clergy, 503 signatures from Jewish rabbis, 273 signatures from Unitarian Universalist clergy and 23 signatures from Buddhist clergy.[1]​

well I would look up hard science versus soft science.

thats a start.

then we can crunch numbers on how many you got.

 

[createdtoworship]

I would love to "teach the controversy":

Good morning class. Today we are going to begin our class on evolution vs Intelligent Design.
On the left side of my desk I have the KJV bible.
On the right side of my desk I have a stack of text books on biology, archeology, physics and ten other science subjects.
Let's begin with the evidence for ID. {At this time, I open the KJV to Genesis and read it out loud to the class}
There, we are now finished with ID.
Now open your biology books to page 1 and let's get started.​

you don't understand that teach the controversy is not even biblical creationism, totally separate.

so you need to get your facts straight if you are to be hold authoritative tones here.

besides even if ID was Biblical creationism, and used the KJV for example, it's no more a matter of faith than believing we evolved from rocks?

thats even more faith than parting the red sea.

at least the red sea was quantifiable and local, millions of organisms evolving from rocks on an individual basis is totally ridiculous.

even if you want to play the card that only one needed to cross that barrier.

you have a rock in one hand, and a living thing in another.

they are not the same.

on miller urey's experiment, and simply produced simplistic protein, no DNA no complex protein.

it's like a bunch of lego's with no directions.

thats not all of a sudden alive?

 

[ecco]

The arguments (and evidences) are not proofs. Do you agree? But they are proofs.

The arguments are not proofs - but they are proofs

to any sentence like "2+2=4" the demoniacal atheists say: "nonsense", "your logic fails"

I am an atheist, I would not say "nonsense" to a sentence like "2+2=4", I guess I'm just not a "demoniacal atheist".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

so believing we evolved from a rock is better than the KJV?

lol

try again.

besides you don't understand that teach the controversy is not even biblical creationism, totally separate.

so you need to get your facts straight if you are to be hold authoritative tones here.

Yeah, your tone is so authoritative.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yeah, your tone is so authoritative.

says the person with no contribution

 

[Archaeopteryx]

says the person with no contribution

How could I hope to match your contribution? Pretending that evolution means we "evolved from a rock"? How could I match that? That's authoritative!

 

[asherahSamaria]

besides even if ID was Biblical creationism, and used the KJV for example, it's no more a matter of faith than believing we evolved from rocks?

Do you know what a "straw man argument" means?

you have a rock in one hand, and a living thing in another.

they are not the same.

on miller urey's experiment, and simply produced simplistic protein, no DNA no complex protein.

it's like a bunch of lego's with no directions.

thats not all of a sudden alive?

Do you understand that evolution does not address abiogenesis?

 

[ecco]

so believing we evolved from a rock is better than the KJV?

lol

try again.

Please do continue to show your utter lack of knowledge of evolution by making statements like that. Even the people at AIG know better than to make patently stupid arguments.

besides you don't understand that teach the controversy is not even biblical creationism, totally separate.

so you need to get your facts straight if you are to be hold authoritative tones here.

Oh, that's right. The "Designer" in ID is a supernatural entity but not necessarily the supernatural entity of the KJV.

Let's use this version of Intelligent Design

Lakota Sioux Creation Myth - Wind Cave Story

“In the beginning, prior to the creation of the Earth, the gods resided in an undifferentiated celestial domain and humans lived in an indescribably subterranean world devoid of culture.
<snip>
When they arrive, they discover that Inktomi has deceived them: buffalo are scarce, the weather has turned bad, and they find themselves starving. Unable to return to their home, but armed with a new knowledge about the world, they survive to become the founders of the Seven Fireplaces.”​

 

[createdtoworship]

How could I hope to match your contribution? Pretending that evolution means we "evolved from a rock"? How could I match that? That's authoritative!

so what existed prior to chemical evolution then?

biological evolution happened after life sprung out the river,

but what about before?

what spells were cast to make first life?

it's like a witch brewing over a cauldron, in time for all hallows eve.

it's just smoke and ashes.

no real power.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

so what existed prior to chemical evolution then?

biological evolution happened after life sprung out the river,

but what about before?

what spells were cast to make first life?

it's like a witch brewing over a cauldron, in time for all hallows eve.

it's just smoke and ashes.

no real power.

You tell me what magic spell was involved.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you know what a "straw man argument" means?





Do you understand that evolution does not address abiogenesis?

do you know that evolution is more than biological yes?

it can be stellar, chemical among other things.

just because you don't have answers doesn't mean that the chemicals didn't evolve and make themselves legs.

with spells and all sorts of other faith to make it happen.

but wait it's science because it has federal grants,

I forgot.

 

[createdtoworship]

You tell me what magic spell was involved.

I believe all primordial soup theory is based on the miller urey experiment which I believe created some

primitive amino acids. However there are many sources as to the fact that this experiment is overrated

and by and large "old news"

here are some of the more obvious problems with the primordial soup theory and the miller urey

experiment:

• law of mass action: in a watery environment a water molecule will break up a protein into amino
  
  acids, and will break up a DNA into respective nucleotides. not the other way around. So this law of
  
  mass action proves evolution cannot happen on a chemical level as evolutionary laws of abiogenesis and
  
  laws of primordial soup theories suggest.
  
• water is a solvent of course it breaks things down. That’s not the interesting part. lets start with
  
  endothermic reactions, do you know what they are? They are reactions that bond elements. Like when
  
  you drop a red die in water, you don't expect to see a little drop still in the water, it bonds to it.
  
  Nucleotides don't bond well other nucleotides to make DNA, but they do bond well with the toxic
  
  elements produced in the miller urey experiment. So no primordial soup will suffice because the
  
  nucleotides will bond to the toxins and be wiped out. They need an endothermic reaction which does
  
  not come cheaply, as it requires much needed energy (that would not be there in a primitive soup).
  
• not to mention the fact that proteins are made of 100% left handed amino acids. Miller Urey
  
  produced 50/50. So no proteins evolved in miller urey.
  
• nucleotides are made of 100% right handed nucleotides. Miller urey produced none, but if possible it
  
  would have produced 50/50. So another limitation of primitive soup theory.
  
• ammonia and methane: in 70's scientist realized: but ammonia would only last a few thousand years
  
  due to ultra violet radiation. And Methane would produce 10 meters of oil due to ultra violet radiation.
  
  so no methane, and no ammonia after a few thousand years. so there would be no necessary chemicals
  
  in early biospheres to evolve any life out of primitive soup without the chemicals necessary to reproduce
  
  miller urey. Other than this: miller urey no studies have been shown to produce abiogenesis or
  
  chemical evolution
  
• “If you take a living cell and put in into the test tube with the perfect environment and poke it so that
  
  all the stuff comes out, you cannot make a living cell again. You can’t put humpty dumpty back together
  
  again.”- Jonathan Wells PhD in molecular and cellular biology from UC Berkley. What wells is saying is
  
  that even though everything is there, and even though the environment is perfect, you simply cannot
  
  create life from it as miller-urey had hoped.
  

chemical evolution, fails. Evolution as a concept fails as well.

(now back on topic, as we are straying a bit)

 

[asherahSamaria]

do you know that evolution is more than biological yes?

it can be stellar, chemical among other things.

just because you don't have answers doesn't mean that the chemicals didn't evolve and make themselves legs.

with spells and all sorts of other faith to make it happen.

but wait it's science because it has federal grants,

I forgot.

why would I care about federal grants in the US?

Do you know what a strawman argument is? If not you need to look it up and then stop making them. You're not really doing your self any favours by continually making them.

 

[KCfromNC]

well you can come up with whatever rule you wish, however you must also apply it to both sides,

for example how can naturalism be falsified?

By having the supernatural show up in any place other than believers' imaginations. So far, no luck, but keep on trying.

 

[KCfromNC]

Number 1 above is true. Pascal is saying that reason cannot prove that God exists beyond all doubt.

That's an unreasonable standard for belief of lack thereof.

Number 4 is true. A good case could be made showing how Christianity has brought more good into this world than Atheism.

Which says nothing about what the wager is about - betting on a particular God because you want an eternal afterlife to be real.

Also, number 2 is either false or undecidable. You have to assume a whole lot to pretend that the odds of the Christian god existing are 50-50.

 

[KCfromNC]

I would love to "teach the controversy":

Good morning class. Today we are going to begin our class on evolution vs Intelligent Design.
On the left side of my desk I have the KJV bible.
On the right side of my desk I have a stack of text books on biology, archeology, physics and ten other science subjects.
Let's begin with the evidence for ID. {At this time, I open the KJV to Genesis and read it out loud to the class}
There, we are now finished with ID.
Now open your biology books to page 1 and let's get started.​

Wonder if someone could teach that ID is simply a political movement created by a bunch of lawyers and lobbyists to try and get religion taught in schools after the honest approach has lost in court so many times? That's the controversy and now the kids have been taught it and they can move on to discussing actual science.

 

[KCfromNC]

you don't understand that teach the controversy is not even biblical creationism, totally separate.

Yep, that's the correct talking point from the lobbyists trying to make this happen. But for some reason, their story changed when under oath. I guess when there's an actual penalty for lying they're smart enough to tell the truth - ID is just creationism with the god part lightly hidden in hopes of sneaking it past the courts.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

The arguments are not proofs - but they are proofs...
I am an atheist, I would not say "nonsense" to a sentence like "2+2=4", I guess I'm just not a "demoniacal atheist".

1) "not proofs, but proofs" is PARADOX of Christians, who have once dealt with atheists. This paradox is making them the new atheists with some lapse of time. Why otherwise your kind is so trendy?!
2) Let us check: God am, because we are. You: "nonsense, give me evidence".