Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If scientists in a laboratory were to eventually succeed in creating a new form of life, perhaps by swishing around complex mixtures of natural chemicals under varying conditions of temperature and air pressure, would you then change your opinion?

 

This could occur in the near future.

 

"How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch
Built from the bottom up, synthetic cells and other creations are starting to come together and could soon test the boundaries of life."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x

Nope, i would not.

Actually the intelligence and the marvelous abilities of humans, are, imho, evidence that the intelligent design is indeed very intelligent.

[Skeptic7]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If scientists in a laboratory were to eventually succeed in creating a new form of life, perhaps by swishing around complex mixtures of natural chemicals under varying conditions of temperature and air pressure, would you then change your opinion?

 

This could occur in the near future.

 

"How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch
Built from the bottom up, synthetic cells and other creations are starting to come together and could soon test the boundaries of life."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x

Great stuff as usual, but you're barking up the 'hear no reason...see no reality...speak woo to me'...tree. ???????????? ????

[yodsak]

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/24/2019 at 6:05 PM, VincentRJ said:

Tell that to true Buddhists. Buddhism is all about controlling your emotions and desires. You always have a choice.
If I want to fast, for example, because I think it might have some health benefits, I will need to overcome the natural, hormonal, effects of hunger. I have a choice to exert my will, or give in. Most people seem unable to exert their will. They give in. I don't. But the choice always exists.

LOL. The feeling of being "in love" is a chemical response to a trigger such as pheromones.

As such it's not a voluntary sensation. Fasting is no equivalent as undertaken voluntarily, except in the sense that one can decide not to follow up the feeling of being "in love", as one does to suppress hunger and not eat.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/25/2019 at 2:21 AM, yodsak said:

??????????????

Animals ( and we are animals too ) were created by the creator and imbued with life force, or do you think it's all just a huge cosmic accident that life forms exist and we became "intelligent"? 

From nothing we came, and to nothing we return, our lives have no meaning, no importance, we are nothing? Somewhat dismal belief, surely?

I choose to believe that we are more than nothing, but that is only possible if I believe that we are part of something greater than us mere mortals.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Would I be correct in interpreting your comment as meaning, 'You don't believe in 'chance'?

 

It seems obvious and undeniable to me that much of what happens around us includes an element of chance, to the extent that we don't have a complete understanding and control of all the factors involved in a particular event, so reliable prediction becomes impossible in such circumstances.

 

An obvious example is the human reproductive system. Could your parents predict at the time of conception that you were going to be male? Do you believe it was God who decided you were going to be male? 

 

Whilst 'identical twins' are nearly identical because they both grow from the same female egg which has been fertilized by the same male sperm, which then splits into two, all eggs in the same female are not genetically identical and all sperm in the same male are not genetically identical.

 

Some of the male sperm will have an X chromosome, and some will have a Y chromosome. All of your mother's eggs will have an X chromosome. If the father's 'spermatozoon' with an X chromosome happens to fertilize the mother's egg, the child will be a girl. If a male sperm with a Y chromosome happens to fertilize the female egg, then the child will be a boy.

 

Do you think this doesn't happen by chance? The male ejaculates literally million of spermatozoons, each of them not only different in terms of the X or Y chromosome, but also in many other ways, which result in differences between brothers and sisters from the same parents, and sometimes, tragically, serious health disorders or deformities.

 

Following is an interesting article which explains the situation.

 

"The entire genomes of 91 human sperm from one man have been sequenced. The results provide a fascinating glimpse into naturally occurring genetic variation in one individual, and are the first to report the whole-genome sequence of a human gamete -- the only cells that become a child and through which parents pass on physical traits."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120719132855.htm
 

Are you saying that you think "God" has to care about which sex a child is born, rather than caring for all creation regardless of gender. It's not like "God" has a gender, is it?

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The feeling of being "in love" is a chemical response to a trigger such as pheromones.

As such it's not a voluntary sensation. Fasting is no equivalent as undertaken voluntarily, except in the sense that one can decide not to follow up the feeling of being "in love", as one does to suppress hunger and not eat.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. The feeling of being "in love" is a chemical response to a trigger such as pheromones.

As such it's not a voluntary sensation. Fasting is no equivalent as undertaken voluntarily, except in the sense that one can decide not to follow up the feeling of being "in love", as one does to suppress hunger and not eat.

That's what I meant. All our emotions and thoughts are related to chemical activities in the body and brain which are affected, or triggered, by what we perceive through the 5 senses, whether it's the charm and beautiful curves of a lady, or the succulent aroma and delicious appearance of a plate of food in a restaurant.

 

You usually have choices in how you respond to such emotions that result from such stimuli. However, there are exceptions of course when the body automatically responds to a sudden perception of danger in the interests of its own survival, such as jumping out of the way of a snake.

[CharlieH]

Notice

 

I and other Moderators do not have the time to wade through a topic of this size to clean out the objectionable historic content. It would be easier to just close it.

However, it's clearly a topic of interest, so let's just make it plain and clear from this point forward. 

Do not ridicule or mock others religious beliefs, there is nothing wrong with reasonable debate or difference of opinion, but do not make your comments personal or antagonistic as defined in forum rules 7 & 9.

 

If this type of behaviour is reported the offender will enjoy a  posting holiday.

Mutual respect please.

 

If you feel a member is behaving badly use the report function.

 

Thank you.

[Tagged]

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

??????????????

Animals ( and we are animals too ) were created by the creator and imbued with life force, or do you think it's all just a huge cosmic accident that life forms exist and we became "intelligent"? 

From nothing we came, and to nothing we return, our lives have no meaning, no importance, we are nothing? Somewhat dismal belief, surely?

I choose to believe that we are more than nothing, but that is only possible if I believe that we are part of something greater than us mere mortals.

Hard to swallow, our lifes have been for nothing else than the natural cycle of life from beginning to end? 

 

And as you say, you choose to belief, and belief is all we have. Nothing else

 

anyway, your dna lives on, so you have eternal life, if you have succeed to Repopulate, as the nature want you to do

[VincentRJ]

30 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you saying that you think "God" has to care about which sex a child is born, rather than caring for all creation regardless of gender. It's not like "God" has a gender, is it?

Caring is a human and animal trait. I have no knowledge of God whatsoever, as a real entity outside of the human imagination.

 

I was addressing the concept of 'chance'. Some people seem to think that it would be impossible for the first form of a self-reproducing molecule (life) to be created by chance in a so-called soupy sea, therefore an 'Intelligent Designer' is a better explanation.

 

I think such people are not aware of the enormous complexity and the enormous number of atoms and molecules in a such a soupy sea, which are continuously bouncing around, clashing into each other and forming new bonds. When such a situation continues for millions of years under continuously changing conditions of changing temperatures, alkalinity, volcanic eruptions on the sea floor, and so on, it's not surprising to me that some very complex bonds between chemicals could occur, which would be the foundations of life.

[yodsak]

49 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

??????????????

Animals ( and we are animals too ) were created by the creator and imbued with life

No scientific evidence of a creator, or a creator creating animals, or anything else.

  Plenty of peer reviewed evidence on evolution and natural selection.

 

I was answering the question  ''do animals believe in god'' not who created them. How can animals believe in man made gods? 

[canuckamuck]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Caring is a human and animal trait. I have no knowledge of God whatsoever, as a real entity outside of the human imagination.

 

I was addressing the concept of 'chance'. Some people seem to think that it would be impossible for the first form of a self-reproducing molecule (life) to be created by chance in a so-called soupy sea, therefore an 'Intelligent Designer' is a better explanation.

 

I think such people are not aware of the enormous complexity and the enormous number of atoms and molecules in a such a soupy sea, which are continuously bouncing around, clashing into each other and forming new bonds. When such a situation continues for millions of years under continuously changing conditions of changing temperatures, alkalinity, volcanic eruptions on the sea floor, and so on, it's not surprising to me that some very complex bonds between chemicals could occur, which would be the foundations of life.

 Or perhaps you are unaware of how incredibly unlikely it would be for even simple amino acids to form, and then miraculously be available in the right quantities to combine in to even a simple protein without first having the DNA and RNA to provide the instruction. And the composition of a cell requires multiple different proteins that are made from multiple and specific complex chains of Amino acids and they have to be put together in specific ways. And even if that was to occur, against all probability. All you would have then, would be a single cell that would quickly breakdown. Life from no life is an atheist fairy tale that they need so they can sleep at night.

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

 Or perhaps you are unaware of how incredibly unlikely it would be for even simple amino acids to form, and then miraculously be available in the right quantities to combine in to even a simple protein without first having the DNA and RNA to provide the instruction. And the composition of a cell requires multiple different proteins that are made from multiple and specific complex chains of Amino acids and they have to be put together in specific ways. And even if that was to occur, against all probability. All you would have then, would be a single cell that would quickly breakdown. Life from no life is an atheist fairy tale that they need so they can sleep at night.

 

Of course I'm aware of this, which is a major obstacle to the creation of a new form of life in the laboratory, from inanimate chemicals.
It's incredibly unlikely that any form of life would spontaneously arise in a bathtub of soupy chemicals in a laboratory during the lifetime of the scientists, even when the composition of chemicals and the temperature is regularly changed by the scientists to emulate the changes in nature that they imagined occurred..

 

But supposing one increases the size or number of the bathtubs by a few billion, and the time duration of the experiment by a few million, which more accurately represents what happened about 3.6 billion years ago. Don't you think that would increase the chances?
An analogy I've used before is gambling or winning a lottery. Consider a lottery with a massive number of tickets so that the chances of any particular person winning is 'one in a trillion'. I don't think any sensible person would bother buying a ticket. 

 

But supposing you were informed that your ticked details would apply simultaneously to a trillion, trillion other lotteries. Wouldn't you agree that your chances of winning would then be extremely high?

 

According to my understanding of the evolutionary history of our planet, it is likely that far more species have become extinct in the past than exist at present, although it's impossible to know the precise number. 

 

If one imagines several, very large soupy seas under changing conditions during a period of 500 million years or so, it seem quite plausible to me there would have been millions, and perhaps billions of occasions when complex molecules bonded by chance to form a primitive type of life which didn't quite make it because the RNA structure was not adequate and/or the environment was not ideally conducive for its propagation.

 

It's reasonable to suppose that the greatest number of extinctions ever, occurred during those first 500 million years or so, as simple prokaryote and eukaryote-type organisms failed to reproduce because their chemical structure was not quite right for continuing replication. Eventually, one of them, or more, won the lottery. But no money involved, of course. ????
 

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course I'm aware of this, which is a major obstacle to the creation of a new form of life in the laboratory, from inanimate chemicals.
It's incredibly unlikely that any form of life would spontaneously arise in a bathtub of soupy chemicals in a laboratory during the lifetime of the scientists, even when the composition of chemicals and the temperature is regularly changed by the scientists to emulate the changes in nature that they imagined occurred..

 

But supposing one increases the size or number of the bathtubs by a few billion, and the time duration of the experiment by a few million, which more accurately represents what happened about 3.6 billion years ago. Don't you think that would increase the chances?
An analogy I've used before is gambling or winning a lottery. Consider a lottery with a massive number of tickets so that the chances of any particular person winning is 'one in a trillion'. I don't think any sensible person would bother buying a ticket. 

 

But supposing you were informed that your ticked details would apply simultaneously to a trillion, trillion other lotteries. Wouldn't you agree that your chances of winning would then be extremely high?

 

According to my understanding of the evolutionary history of our planet, it is likely that far more species have become extinct in the past than exist at present, although it's impossible to know the precise number. 

 

If one imagines several, very large soupy seas under changing conditions during a period of 500 million years or so, it seem quite plausible to me there would have been millions, and perhaps billions of occasions when complex molecules bonded by chance to form a primitive type of life which didn't quite make it because the RNA structure was not adequate and/or the environment was not ideally conducive for its propagation.

 

It's reasonable to suppose that the greatest number of extinctions ever, occurred during those first 500 million years or so, as simple prokaryote and eukaryote-type organisms failed to reproduce because their chemical structure was not quite right for continuing replication. Eventually, one of them, or more, won the lottery. But no money involved, of course. ????
 

Hopefully you can look at your own post with an outside perspective for a moment. You are actually suggesting that odds of one in a trillion trillion, are good enough for you to be satisfied that life life did evolve from no life. Yet I am sure that you do not give the concept of the system being created, the same weight of optimism.

 

The extinction angle is also interesting. I do agree that there was a point in time that there were many times more total species around than exist today. How is it possible that life began so favorably to evolution that millions and millions of species originated and thrived? And now they are dying at such a rapid pace. And they have been dying off at that pace long before man was able to have much influence.

We currently see no indisputable evidence of new species developing, but at one point it must have been extremely common. Does that not suggest to you something created the conditions for life in a very specific way that enabled an explosion of evolution and beneficial mutation?

Both of these ideas point to creation, not to random chance.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Hopefully you can look at your own post with an outside perspective for a moment. You are actually suggesting that odds of one in a trillion trillion, are good enough for you to be satisfied that life life did evolve from no life. Yet I am sure that you do not give the concept of the system being created, the same weight of optimism.

 

I think you might have misunderstood the lottery analogy. The odds are not one in a trillion, trillion if you have a trillion, trillion tickets. 
Another way of looking at it is to consider if one ticket has a 'one in a trillion' chance of winning, what are the chances of an eventual win if a billion bets are made every second on the 'one in a trillion chance' lottery.

 

The extinction angle is also interesting. I do agree that there was a point in time that there were many times more total species around than exist today. How is it possible that life began so favorably to evolution that millions and millions of species originated and thrived? And now they are dying at such a rapid pace. And they have been dying off at that pace long before man was able to have much influence.

We currently see no indisputable evidence of new species developing, but at one point it must have been extremely common. Does that not suggest to you something created the conditions for life in a very specific way that enabled an explosion of evolution and beneficial mutation?
Both of these ideas point to creation, not to random chance.

 

The process of evolution is usually very gradual over millions of years, involving subtle changes from one generation to the next. Changes which are advantageous in a particular environment, allow the species to flourish as it gradually changes. Individual members of the same species who receive disadvantageous changes to their genome, through the random interaction of sperm and eggs, which all have slightly different characteristics, tend not to survive.

 

It's taken Homo Sapiens Sapiens about 6 million years to evolve from a bi-pedal, ape-like creature who no longer exists.
A species that has been separated into 2 or more groups in a different environment, will often evolve into different species over a significant period of time, whilst still maintaining some similar characteristics that might allow members of the different groups to mate and produce offspring if they meet. An example is the horse and donkey which produce a mule as their offspring, but Mules are infertile and can't reproduce.

 

However, it's not an either/or situation. Neanderthal Man could mate with early Homo Sapiens, and their offspring must have been fertile because current populations have a percentage of Neanderthal genes. This implies that Neanderthal was not a different species to us, but more correctly a sub-species.

 

A similar situation has been discovered in recent times, with regard to a new species of bird in the Galapagos islands.

 

"A study of Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean, has revealed direct genetic evidence that new species can arise in just two generations.
The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galapagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171124084320.htm

[UncleMhee]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

From nothing we came, and to nothing we return, our lives have no meaning, no importance, we are nothing? Somewhat dismal belief, surely?

I choose to believe that we are more than nothing, but that is only possible if I believe that we are part of something greater than us mere mortals.

Quite a convoluted argument you have going on there with youself because.....in truth; we did come from nothing and to nothing we will return. That statement is Fact!

Our lives have no meaning, no importance, we are nothing......if you have no self esteem; that will be the case, and cause of having dismal thoughts because of having no belief in yourself or your abilities. Another Fact!

 

The last part of your argument doesn't require you to choose to believe or kid yourself about anything (same thing BTW); because taking part in the much greater pantheon of life, ensures that we are; and is also Fact. At least until you're dead and fade to dust! 

Edited November 27, 2019 by UncleMhee

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, yodsak said:

No scientific evidence of a creator, or a creator creating animals, or anything else.

  Plenty of peer reviewed evidence on evolution and natural selection.

 

I was answering the question  ''do animals believe in god'' not who created them. How can animals believe in man made gods? 

If "God" required proof to believe in, faith would have no meaning.

Have you considered that "God" does not want us to "know" that he/she/it exists?

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, UncleMhee said:

Quite a convoluted argument you have going on there with youself because.....in truth; we did come from nothing and to nothing we will return. That statement is Fact!

Our lives have no meaning, no importance, we are nothing......if you have no self esteem; that will be the case, and cause of having dismal thoughts because of having no belief in yourself or your abilities. Another Fact!

 

The last part of your argument doesn't require you to choose to believe or kid yourself about anything (same thing BTW); because taking part in the much greater pantheon of life, ensures that we are; and is also Fact. At least until you're dead and fade to dust! 

I choose to believe that when my body dies my life force returns to the creator ( as with all living things ). Otherwise what is the point of living a life as a human? Better to just be a cow or something and not know anything.

[thaibeachlovers]

42 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

A study of Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean, has revealed direct genetic evidence that new species can arise in just two generations.
The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galapagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise."

It's not an either or situation. It's entirely possible to believe that a creator made the universe, and live evolved.

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you might have misunderstood the lottery analogy. The odds are not one in a trillion, trillion if you have a trillion, trillion tickets. 
Another way of looking at it is to consider if one ticket has a 'one in a trillion' chance of winning, what are the chances of an eventual win if a billion bets are made every second on the 'one in a trillion chance' lottery.

 

 

 

 

The process of evolution is usually very gradual over millions of years, involving subtle changes from one generation to the next. Changes which are advantageous in a particular environment, allow the species to flourish as it gradually changes. Individual members of the same species who receive disadvantageous changes to their genome, through the random interaction of sperm and eggs, which all have slightly different characteristics, tend not to survive.

 

It's taken Homo Sapiens Sapiens about 6 million years to evolve from a bi-pedal, ape-like creature who no longer exists.
A species that has been separated into 2 or more groups in a different environment, will often evolve into different species over a significant period of time, whilst still maintaining some similar characteristics that might allow members of the different groups to mate and produce offspring if they meet. An example is the horse and donkey which produce a mule as their offspring, but Mules are infertile and can't reproduce.

 

However, it's not an either/or situation. Neanderthal Man could mate with early Homo Sapiens, and their offspring must have been fertile because current populations have a percentage of Neanderthal genes. This implies that Neanderthal was not a different species to us, but more correctly a sub-species.

 

A similar situation has been discovered in recent times, with regard to a new species of bird in the Galapagos islands.

 

"A study of Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean, has revealed direct genetic evidence that new species can arise in just two generations.
The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galapagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171124084320.htm

The convenience of your lottery argument is that you can just keep adding zeros because of the vast unknown quantities. But just  adding zeros doesn't mean you are going to get a result eventually.

You have tried to qualify it now by deciding the trillion in one shot has billions of chances (which are just random numbers right?). But this is just like creating heaven in your mind, it can be anything you want it to be.

To say you believe life came from no life is just a statement of faith. You can give it whatever odds you like, but if you will take a bet at those odds, I want to play cards with you.

 

I also understand that evolution requires incredibly long time spans to occur. We do not have to quantify the time scale. We can see the net effect. Species are disappearing at a rapid rate. Evolution would have us believe that there was a point in time so favorable that many millions of distinct species developed. But since the tank was filled, so to speak, we have been burning out species rapidly, and we aren't slowing down. So even though we might gain a few new finches in Galapagos in the next 100 years. Some current estimates put us at losing 800 species a year, although it is likely much less than that. But even if it were one species a year. We would still be in a tremendous deficit. So what is wrong with evolution? Why did it start with vast diversity and now is running nearly in reverse.

Or was it that we started with a vast diversity and once something is gone it's gone? 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by canuckamuck

[CMNightRider]

The sin God hates most is doubt.  God is working even in your unbelief.  Don't let Satan deceive you.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

 

 

[Tagged]

5 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

The sin God hates most is doubt.  God is working even in your unbelief.  Don't let Satan deceive you.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

 

 

I cant believe bible qoutes is legal, so many of them is pure misleading and hate speaches of those who do not belie. Great toolbox by the way to catch people with lack of self estem

[Sunmaster]

Hate is a human emotion. God is Love and hates nothing and nobody.

Sunmaster 14:1

 

For God loves you unconditionally, but really dislikes getting misrepresented.

[Sunmaster]

One of the most interesting TED talks I've listened to:

 

Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor had an opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: One morning, she realized she was having a massive stroke. As it happened -- as she felt her brain functions slip away one by one, speech, movement, understanding -- she studied and remembered every moment. This is a powerful story about how our brains define us and connect us to the world and to one another.

 

 

[Skeptic7]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you might have misunderstood the lottery analogy. The odds are not one in a trillion, trillion if you have a trillion, trillion tickets. 
Another way of looking at it is to consider if one ticket has a 'one in a trillion' chance of winning, what are the chances of an eventual win if a billion bets are made every second on the 'one in a trillion chance' lottery.

 

 

 

 

The process of evolution is usually very gradual over millions of years, involving subtle changes from one generation to the next. Changes which are advantageous in a particular environment, allow the species to flourish as it gradually changes. Individual members of the same species who receive disadvantageous changes to their genome, through the random interaction of sperm and eggs, which all have slightly different characteristics, tend not to survive.

 

It's taken Homo Sapiens Sapiens about 6 million years to evolve from a bi-pedal, ape-like creature who no longer exists.
A species that has been separated into 2 or more groups in a different environment, will often evolve into different species over a significant period of time, whilst still maintaining some similar characteristics that might allow members of the different groups to mate and produce offspring if they meet. An example is the horse and donkey which produce a mule as their offspring, but Mules are infertile and can't reproduce.

 

However, it's not an either/or situation. Neanderthal Man could mate with early Homo Sapiens, and their offspring must have been fertile because current populations have a percentage of Neanderthal genes. This implies that Neanderthal was not a different species to us, but more correctly a sub-species.

 

A similar situation has been discovered in recent times, with regard to a new species of bird in the Galapagos islands.

 

"A study of Darwin's finches, which live on the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific Ocean, has revealed direct genetic evidence that new species can arise in just two generations.
The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galapagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171124084320.htm

Read The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner when it came out  25 years ago. It tells the facts of this amazing scientific observation in easy to comprehend and interesting way. The book won a Pulitzer Prize.

 

But the deniers here won't bother. They wouldn't want to waste time on reality and evidence. Sad but true. 

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The convenience of your lottery argument is that you can just keep adding zeros because of the vast unknown quantities. But just  adding zeros doesn't mean you are going to get a result eventually.

You have tried to qualify it now by deciding the trillion in one shot has billions of chances (which are just random numbers right?). But this is just like creating heaven in your mind, it can be anything you want it to be.

To say you believe life came from no life is just a statement of faith. You can give it whatever odds you like, but if you will take a bet at those odds, I want to play cards with you.

 

I think you still haven't understood my point. Whatever the odds, if you have the opportunity to continually keep on betting, then you will eventually win.
Consider a very simple form of betting, such as betting on heads or tails when a coin is spun in the air. Let's say you bet on heads. You have a 50% chance of winning. If you don't win the first time, but you keep betting on heads, you are bound to eventually win after 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 attempts, unless the coin has been deliberately doctored to fall tails up.

 

If the chances of winning are reduced, but the number of times a bet is made is increased proportionally, then one will eventually win. If the chances of winning are a 'trillionth of one percent', but one has the opportunity to bet a trillion, trillion times, then one will very likely win.
When trillions of trillions of molecules in huge volumes of soupy seas are continually colliding to form new bonds and more complex molecules, over a period of 500 millions years, that's equivalent to a person placing  trillions of bets on a particular outcome. The chances of getting a particular outcome, such as a self-replicating Prokaryote, seem reasonably high to me.

 

If you also take into consideration that there might be a trillion planets in the universe with similar conditions to planet Earth, then the chances of life forming on at least one of those planets is considerably increased.
This is not a belief, but a rational deduction.

 

I also understand that evolution requires incredibly long time spans to occur. We do not have to quantify the time scale. We can see the net effect. Species are disappearing at a rapid rate. Evolution would have us believe that there was a point in time so favorable that many millions of distinct species developed. But since the tank was filled, so to speak, we have been burning out species rapidly, and we aren't slowing down. So even though we might gain a few new finches in Galapagos in the next 100 years. Some current estimates put us at losing 800 species a year, although it is likely much less than that. But even if it were one species a year. We would still be in a tremendous deficit. So what is wrong with evolution? Why did it start with vast diversity and now is running nearly in reverse.

Or was it that we started with a vast diversity and once something is gone it's gone?

 

The actual numbers of species that have become extinct in the past are a very rough estimates. How could we possibly have exact information on this.

 

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
"More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described. In 2016, scientists reported that 1 trillion species are estimated to be on Earth currently with only one thousandth of one percent described."

 

Part of the problem and confusion is that most species of living organisms are out of our sight. We tend to focus on a relatively few prominent mammals that grab our attention, such as Koala Bears, Rhinos, Gorillas, Orangutans, Tigers, birds, and so on.

 

The total mass of living organisms hidden in the soil below our feet is far greater than the mass of living organisms above the ground. Included in this living biomass in the soil are plant and tree roots, and millions of species of micro-organisms, bacteria, ants, insects, worms, and so on.

 

I've read estimates that the total mass (not numbers) of just Earth Worms alone, in the soil, is several times the total mass of Human Beings above the soil, world-wide. That should help to get things into perspective when people complain that the human population in the world is unsustainable. ????

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Read The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner when it came out  25 years ago. It tells the facts of this amazing scientific observation in easy to comprehend and interesting way. The book won a Pulitzer Prize.

 

But the deniers here won't bother. They wouldn't want to waste time on reality and evidence. Sad but true. 

Interesting! I never read the book, and came across a reference to this study on the internet just recently. I've always been fascinated, and puzzled, how people can continue to believe in God in this modern age of scientific inquiry and amazing discoveries.

[canuckamuck]

21 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you still haven't understood my point. Whatever the odds, if you have the opportunity to continually keep on betting, then you will eventually win.
Consider a very simple form of betting, such as betting on heads or tails when a coin is spun in the air. Let's say you bet on heads. You have a 50% chance of winning. If you don't win the first time, but you keep betting on heads, you are bound to eventually win after 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 attempts, unless the coin has been deliberately doctored to fall tails up.

 

If the chances of winning are reduced, but the number of times a bet is made is increased proportionally, then one will eventually win. If the chances of winning are a 'trillionth of one percent', but one has the opportunity to bet a trillion, trillion times, then one will very likely win.
When trillions of trillions of molecules in huge volumes of soupy seas are continually colliding to form new bonds and more complex molecules, over a period of 500 millions years, that's equivalent to a person placing  trillions of bets on a particular outcome. The chances of getting a particular outcome, such as a self-replicating Prokaryote, seem reasonably high to me.

 

If you also take into consideration that there might be a trillion planets in the universe with similar conditions to planet Earth, then the chances of life forming on at least one of those planets is considerably increased.
This is not a belief, but a rational deduction.

 

 

 

 

The actual numbers of species that have become extinct in the past are a very rough estimates. How could we possibly have exact information on this.

 

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
"More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out. Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86 percent have not yet been described. In 2016, scientists reported that 1 trillion species are estimated to be on Earth currently with only one thousandth of one percent described."

 

Part of the problem and confusion is that most species of living organisms are out of our sight. We tend to focus on a relatively few prominent mammals that grab our attention, such as Koala Bears, Rhinos, Gorillas, Orangutans, Tigers, birds, and so on.

 

The total mass of living organisms hidden in the soil below our feet is far greater than the mass of living organisms above the ground. Included in this living biomass in the soil are plant and tree roots, and millions of species of micro-organisms, bacteria, ants, insects, worms, and so on.

 

I've read estimates that the total mass (not numbers) of just Earth Worms alone, in the soil, is several times the total mass of Human Beings above the soil, world-wide. That should help to get things into perspective when people complain that the human population in the world is unsustainable. ????

You keep assuming that if you have enough opportunities you can get every possible result. But this isn't a coin toss this is a fantastically complicated process, A process so difficult that our top scientists cannot do it in perfect laboratory conditions. But you seem to think if there where enough opportunities it will happen on its own without any intelligent interaction. That is either madness or blind faith. 

 

The second part of your answer just seems to be an exposition of how many species there are. It is not a rebuttal as to why evolution as a creative force has died.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by canuckamuck

[VincentRJ]

9 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

But you seem to think if there where enough opportunities it will happen on its own without any intelligent interaction. That is either madness or blind faith. 

 

Lots of things happen on their own without any intelligent intervention. Do you really believe that storms, lightning strikes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes, and so on, are are caused by God?

[canuckamuck]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Lots of things happen on their own without any intelligent intervention. Do you really believe that storms, lightning strikes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteorite strikes, and so on, are are caused by God?

All just physical reactions. Not at all the same sort of complexity.