Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Orange_Crush]

Bobby whispers to Sue, "Tom has a new car, pass it on".

Sue whispers to Fred, "Tom crashed his car, pass it on".

Fred whispers to Velma, "Tom got herpes, pass it on"

Velma whispers to Daphene, "Tim got hit by a car, pass it on".

Daphene tells Shaggy, "Jennifer got a new car and got herpes from the seat, pass it on".

Shaggy takes a loooooooooooooong toke and tells Scooby Doo, "Karl crashed his car and was ejected through the moon roof and ascended to heaven and he was lucky because he contracted herpes simplex C from Luther in Hollywood, pass it on".

Scooby Doo writes Bible.

Now substitute Sumerian legend and folk lore passed down through the ages, sprinkle in a mix of language barrier, being drunk off fermented dates, a teaspoon of truth, forgetfulness, and a dash of confusion and thats how the bible stories came to be. The bible is no different than someone telling you a story they heard from someone else. It will be similar but some aspects will have changed.

Your lack of inference and presupposition is appreciated.

:hi:

Wha? What is this mysterious number that naturally I should know?

We have about 10,000 manuscripts in Hebrew dating from about 300 BC. I my point was that the fact that they were translated as holy scriptures in ~360 BC is indicative that the Hebrew went back quite further, even if we haven't found them.

My whole point has been that you have been surmising a lot and passing it off as "fact".

 

[FLVOL_79]

You serious, Clark? You are saying that an infinite universe is expanding? You want to rethink that claim? To explain the expanding universe, they draw dots on a balloon and inflate it. Is that an "infinite" balloon-- as in no boundaries? How can something that is "infinite" expand?

Please do tell. It's the very expansion of the universe that has informed physicists that it is not infinite.

What if the balloon material never bursts? Oh damnit I am begging the question again. I guess I can just accept a popping balloon example as a perfectly acceptable definition of the universe and how it functions.

First: You are begging the question in building your probabilities. You are begging the question that life started on Earth by chance, naturally. You can't do that, and then list the number of other places that it obviously had to happen again. That's begging the question that it defeated probability and then did elsewhere.

Secondly, the probability given has been that it's basically impossible. So, you can't take an impossibility and then multiply (impossible*the size of the universe).

The scientific establishment recognize both of my points above, thus the proposal of a multi-verse and the abolition of probability in the first place.

I never said life started on Earth. I said it is on Earth. And the fact that it is here and according to basic math and probability there is a chance for it to be elsewhere. You are assuming that when I say there is a chance that I am actually saying it must be true. Whats that called again? Begging your pardon? No that isnt right. Begging THE pardon? No. hmm.

So my use of mathematical probabilities is incorrect yet your acceptance of a mathematical probability that goes against mine is correct.

 

[MercyPercy]

Now there's a statement from someone interested in the truth. Ad hominems. I guess when you can't intelligently discuss the subject, the alternative is to launch baseless attacks that have nothing to do with the argument and hope that you look clever.

How old do you think the earth is and how old is the earth according to the Bible?

 

[FLVOL_79]

Your lack of inference and presupposition is appreciated.

:hi:




We have about 10,000 manuscripts in Hebrew dating from about 300 BC. I my point was that the fact that they were translated as holy scriptures in ~360 BC is indicative that the Hebrew went back quite further, even if we haven't found them.

My whole point has been that you have been surmising a lot and passing it off as "fact".

So in a nutshell your argument's lynchpin is "we haven't found them yet to prove they are older"..

 

[FLVOL_79]

How old do you think the earth is and how old is the earth according to the Bible?

God years are different than man years. Accept it as cannon!!!!

I'm glad I don't know anyone personally who eats this **** up word for word.

 

[MercyPercy]

I wonder if orange crush will acknowledge that a large portion of Christian beliefs and rituals have evolved(couldn't help myself) from older pagan beliefs and rituals.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Bullshiz.

The sheer size of the universe dictates that it is a near certainty life has taken hold elsewhere, more than likely multiple places, even when placing ridiculously low probabilities on it. The magic of large numbers makes the math work.

It baffles me that you can claim origin of life as a "near certainty" in our limited universe...

I apologize. I'm still having a problem seeing where I have misrepresented what you said.

 

[FLVOL_79]

All this circular reasoning talk makes me wonder, isn't that what hope and faith are?

 

[Orange_Crush]

What if the balloon material never bursts? Oh damnit I am begging the question again. I guess I can just accept a popping balloon example as a perfectly acceptable definition of the universe and how it functions.

"Infinity" indicates no edge. If it is infinite, where is it expanding to? How can it expand? You seriously don't see the issue with the following statement:

"That infinitely large thing is getting bigger."

I never said life started on Earth. I said it is on Earth. And the fact that it is here and according to basic math and probability there is a chance for it to be elsewhere. You are assuming that when I say there is a chance that I am actually saying it must be true. Whats that called again? Begging your pardon? No that isnt right. Begging THE pardon? No. hmm.

Great. Correct my assumption. You missed completely what I was assuming, apparently. I was assuming that you were defending the probability of a natural beginning to life in our universe. That is the flaw in your argument. That is the question that has been begged. If you are not making a defense of the probability of the natural "creation" of life in our universe, we can end the topic now.

Thus, it has nothing to do whether you are assuming it did happen. We are discussing your argument per its probability.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So in a nutshell your argument's lynchpin is "we haven't found them yet to prove they are older"..

I've admitted freely that much of my beliefs are held by faith. I am not ashamed of that. I am pointing out that your opposing view is based on faith and assumption-- as opposed to "facts", as you asserted.

When I look for historical proof, I see archaeological evidence that reinforces the claims of the OT. When I ask you for "facts" and "evidence" to disprove my beliefs, I get Scooby Doo and unsupported assertions.

 

[rjd970]

I apologize. I'm still having a problem seeing where I have misrepresented what you said.

I was referring to the nonsense of posting a single paper and then saying this....

It baffles me that you can claim origin of life as a "near certainty" in our limited universe, while the authorities that you are so prone to appeal to would disagree.

Its absurd and stupid...trying to force me to go review an entire paper to see if you even know what you are talking about.

...then follow said referenced paper to refute me with...

I would obviously disagree with the author's thesis as well. However, the quoted peer review says nothing about the probability of natural abiogenesis in our universe. The fact that Hawking and Dawkins are both jumping on board indicates it's not just some nut-job out there.

So now Dawkins and Hawking know what they are talking about? And if you don't agree with the paper, what was the point of referencing it? I love how you use science and appeal to authority in only cases that purportedly support your case then spend inordinate amounts of time trying to shoot philosophical holes in the science and authorities that don't. This is a ridiculous circular game you play.

As far as the actual question of probabilities of life arising, go read the actual peer review by people that know what they are talking about. Even the author finally admits he is using "toy calculations".

 

[Orange_Crush]

I was referring to the nonsense of posting a single paper and then saying this....



Its absurd and stupid...trying to force me to go review an entire paper to see if you even know what you are talking about.

...then follow said referenced paper to refute me with...

So now Dawkins and Hawking know what they are talking about? And if you don't agree with the paper, what was the point of referencing it? I love how you use science and appeal to authority in only cases that purportedly support your case then spend inordinate amounts of time trying to shoot philosophical holes in the science and authorities that don't. This is a ridiculous circular game you play.

How is that absurd and stupid? I made the claim that the scientific community sees the problem with the probability of the natural creation of life in our universe. I supported it with a peer reviewed article, and references to other scientists who are supporting the proposition. Obviously I don't need to agree with the assertion to point out that the assertion exists.

I don't have to agree with Darwinian evolution to list the assertions that Darwinian evolution makes. Previously, I pointed out problems with the fossil record by stating the competing critiques made by Darwinists and Punctuated Equilibrium proponents. It's valid to list the assertions of people that you disagree with, to prove a point, while not agreeing with the assertions.

I am seriously confused by your offense on this matter.

As far as the actual question of probabilities of life arising, go read the actual peer review by people that know what they are talking about. Even the author finally admits he is using "toy calculations".

I've posted several quotes of the scientific establishment recognizing the probability problem. I needed something more than just your assertion that it is an almost given in our universe. I could go find more, and more, and more, and more, but I have a feeling we both know it won't be enough.

I really don't view this as an appeal to authority. Do you know what that is? It's a short-cut to dealing with a point. It is saying: "Look what those experts say, and just trust them." I actually said: "Look what those 'experts' said, and think about it for a second. Consider the implications."

 

[rjd970]

How is that absurd and stupid? I made the claim that the scientific community sees the problem with the probability of the natural creation of life in our universe. I supported it with a peer reviewed article, and references to other scientists who are supporting the proposition. Obviously I don't need to agree with the assertion to point out that the assertion exists.

I don't have to agree with Darwinian evolution to list the assertions that Darwinian evolution makes. Previously, I pointed out problems with the fossil record by stating the competing critiques made by Darwinists and Punctuated Equilibrium proponents. It's valid to list the assertions of people that you disagree with, to prove a point, while not agreeing with the assertions.

I am seriously confused by your offense on this matter.





I've posted several quotes of the scientific establishment recognizing the probability problem. I needed something more than just your assertion that it is an almost given in our universe. I could go find more, and more, and more, and more, but I have a feeling we both know it won't be enough.

I really don't view this as an appeal to authority. Do you know what that is? It's a short-cut to dealing with a point. It is saying: "Look what those experts say, and just trust them." I actually said: "Look what those 'experts' said, and think about it for a second. Consider the implications."

WTF? If dude is an 'expert' as you put it, then his probability explanation very well could be hogwash, no? What is this, twice now you have come full circle?

It's a cute little backtrack, but it should be abundantly evident to anyone reading you are only interested in interpreting existing science to fit your beliefs, then philosophically attack any science that refuted it.

I'm still confused if you agree with the article or not. If you don't, then not sure what you are using as evidence that it is a mathematical improbability that life couldn't have arisen by chance. Moreover, here we are, so it did in fact happen. And dude writing the paper postulating it was impossible given current science on cosmology gave an alternate explanation that explicitly refutes the idea of a designer.

You would be better off believing it is indeed mathematically possible and a designer specifically put the universe in motion with this possibility knowing after so much time the probability would indeed approach 1.0 anyway.

 

[Orange_Crush]

WTF? If dude is an 'expert' as you put it, then his probability explanation very well could be hogwash, no? What is this, twice now you have come full circle?

It's a cute little backtrack, but it should be abundantly evident to anyone reading you are only interested in interpreting existing science to fit your beliefs, then philosophically attack any science that refuted it.

What's cute is that you are posturing for the "audience".

What backtrack? I pointed out that naturalist scientists recognize a problem and propose non-scientific metaphysics to skirt it. How did you miss my meaning? I put those very words in several posts.

I'm still confused if you agree with the article or not. If you don't, then not sure what you are using as evidence that it is a mathematical improbability that life couldn't have arisen by chance. Moreover, here we are, so it did in fact happen. And dude writing the paper postulating it was impossible given current science on cosmology gave an alternate explanation that explicitly refutes the idea of a designer.

How can you be confused? I stated blatantly that I do not believe the metaphysical, non-scientific premise put forth. I find it interesting that, when faced with the probability problem, they are retreating to non-scientific, metaphysical constructs to skirt the issue. It was really that hard for you to see my point?

You would be better off believing it is indeed mathematically possible and a designer specifically put the universe in motion with this possibility knowing after so much time the probability would indeed approach 1.0 anyway.

I'm sorry. I'm having problems following your point. Faced with the problem of probability, a metaphysical construct has been proposed that rivals any creation myth. Not only that, by getting rid of probabilities (i.e. anything is possible in our supposed infinite universes), they have inserted miracles as a valid scientific assertion.

Where were you going again?

 

[FLVOL_79]

I've admitted freely that much of my beliefs are held by faith. I am not ashamed of that. I am pointing out that your opposing view is based on faith and assumption-- as opposed to "facts", as you asserted.

When I look for historical proof, I see archaeological evidence that reinforces the claims of the OT. When I ask you for "facts" and "evidence" to disprove my beliefs, I get Scooby Doo and unsupported assertions.

I gave you facts. Some of them are at the University of Pennsylvania. Sumerian tablets. Your retort is "we haven't found anything older".. I even gave you a simple example of how X can be equal to X but accidentally becomes equal to Y and eventually transforms into Z which is a common occurrence in human communication.



Do you believe in Santa Claus? And I don't mean Saint Nicholas I mean flying with reindeer and a sack with an infinite amount of presents Santa Claus.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I gave you facts. Some of them are at the University of Pennsylvania. Sumerian tablets. Your retort is "we haven't found anything older".. I even gave you a simple example of how X can be equal to X but accidentally becomes equal to Y and eventually transforms into Z which is a common occurrence in human communication.



Do you believe in Santa Claus? And I don't mean Saint Nicholas I mean flying with reindeer and a sack with an infinite amount of presents Santa Claus.

You have not shown that the OT accounts derived from those tablets-- just that there are tablets that exist which corroborate much of what the Bible says. You are making an inference. I pointed that out.

 

[rjd970]

What's cute is that you are posturing for the "audience".

What backtrack? I pointed out that naturalist scientists recognize a problem and propose non-scientific metaphysics to skirt it. How did you miss my meaning? I put those very words in several posts.



How can you be confused? I stated blatantly that I do not believe the metaphysical, non-scientific premise put forth. I find it interesting that, when faced with the probability problem, they are retreating to non-scientific, metaphysical constructs to skirt the issue. It was really that hard for you to see my point?



I'm sorry. I'm having problems following your point. Faced with the problem of probability, a metaphysical construct has been proposed that rivals any creation myth. Not only that, by getting rid of probabilities (i.e. anything is possible in our supposed infinite universes), they have inserted miracles as a valid scientific assertion.

Where were you going again?

I'm not posturing for anything. Either you believe the science literature and those writing or you don't. The answer seems to be yes and no depending on the hypothesis. If you don't believe in the metaphysical claims put forth, then why post an article where the probabilities used to justify it (ie it's impossible for life to happen) are suspect at best and flat wrong at worst?

A true appreciation for the size and age of the universe would make any probabilities, no matter how minute, reasonable. Believe that or not, I don't care, but save us references to experts and scientific papers that may refute it that you don't agree with anyway.

 

[Septic]

I've admitted freely that much of my beliefs are held by faith. I am not ashamed of that. I am pointing out that your opposing view is based on faith and assumption-- as opposed to "facts", as you asserted.

When I look for historical proof, I see archaeological evidence that reinforces the claims of the OT. When I ask you for "facts" and "evidence" to disprove my beliefs, I get Scooby Doo and unsupported assertions.

Just to be clear, you require us to provide scientific facts while you get to argue from a position of "feels" and then claim we're using <insert logical fallacy here>?

Word games aside, your whole position is derived from a bronze age story written about a guy most of the goat herding authors never knew. But please, continue to point out how the scientific community and evolution are unsupported assertions.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Just to be clear, you require us to provide scientific facts while you get to argue from a position of "feels" and then claim we're using <insert logical fallacy here>?

Word games aside, your whole position is derived from a bronze age story written about a guy most of the goat herding authors never knew. But please, continue to point out how the scientific community and evolution are unsupported assertions.

Conversations are fun when all admit we're operating from faith, huh?

He made truth statements that I asked him to defend. I would have taken less issue if he had made a faith statement as opposed to offering "facts" the conversation. I'm very frank in stating that I operate from a place of belief. I believe that it is a faith well founded, but faith none-the-less.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Just to be clear, you require us to provide scientific facts while you get to argue from a position of "feels" and then claim we're using <insert logical fallacy here>?

Word games aside, your whole position is derived from a bronze age story written about a guy most of the goat herding authors never knew. But please, continue to point out how the scientific community and evolution are unsupported assertions.

Exactly.

I assume Orange Crush believes in Santa Claus. The character is based in fact just like Jesus. There is no irrefutable evidence to suggest he doesnt fly around with radar avoiding reindeer and a sleigh with infinite presents just as I cannot say for a fact that Jesus is in fact not the son of god or that god did not create life. Dangit I did another illogical fallacy.

 

[Septic]

Exactly.

I assume Orange Crush believes in Santa Claus. The character is based in fact just like Jesus. There is no irrefutable evidence to suggest he doesnt fly around with radar avoiding reindeer and a sleigh with infinite presents just as I cannot say for a fact that Jesus is in fact not the son of god or that god did not create life. Dangit I did another illogical fallacy.

Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy and God. Gotta believe in them if you want to receive that sweet, sweet reward.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not posturing for anything. Either you believe the science literature and those writing or you don't. The answer seems to be yes and no depending on the hypothesis. If you don't believe in the metaphysical claims put forth, then why post an article where the probabilities used to justify it (ie it's impossible for life to happen) are suspect at best and flat wrong at worst?

Where did you gather that? Please provide a logical reason why I should accept that constraint from you. I can believe some statements from an individual and not believe others.

For instance, if I told you my name is Fred, then showed you my driver's license, you could believe that. If I told you that the flying spaghetti monster would attack tomorrow, you wouldn't need to believe that, even if my name is Fred.

Sometimes, your fallacious logic really confuses me.

Secondly, the reason that I posted the probabilities is because it is supported by arguments from both sides of the debate, and I am yet to see anything showing that the probability is anything but astoundingly low. If you have probability numbers that show that it is not astoundingly low, then this is the time to enter them in the debate. From the next paragraph, I must surmise that you don't have such numbers, and know they are very, very low. Instead, you multiply "impossible" by near infinity and call it "statistics".

Not really, you just make a faith statement.

A true appreciation for the size and age of the universe would make any probabilities, no matter how minute, reasonable. Believe that or not, I don't care, but save us references to experts and scientific papers that may refute it that you don't agree with anyway.

This last paragraph was a real beauty. It is nothing even roughly equivalent to a point. It was a statement of faith, phrased in such a way, so as to rebuff refutation.

Good day.

:hi:

 

[FLVOL_79]

Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy and God. Gotta believe in them if you want to receive that sweet, sweet reward.

I never knew that people actually took the Bible for literal fact and not as a metaphoric riddled parable. Hell as a child I knew better. To each their own, it's Amurica

 

[rjd970]

Where did you gather that? Please provide a logical reason why I should accept that constraint from you. I can believe some statements from an individual and not believe others.

For instance, if I told you my name is Fred, then showed you my driver's license, you could believe that. If I told you that the flying spaghetti monster would attack tomorrow, you wouldn't need to believe that, even if my name is Fred.

Sometimes, your fallacious logic really confuses me.

Secondly, the reason that I posted the probabilities is because it is supported by arguments from both sides of the debate, and I am yet to see anything showing that the probability is anything but astoundingly low. If you have probability numbers that show that it is not astoundingly low, then this is the time to enter them in the debate. From the next paragraph, I must surmise that you don't have such numbers, and know they are very, very low. Instead, you multiply "impossible" by near infinity and call it "statistics".

Not really, you just make a faith statement.



This last paragraph was a real beauty. It is nothing even roughly equivalent to a point. It was a statement of faith, phrased in such a way, so as to rebuff refutation.

Good day.

:hi:

And the size of the universe is astoundingly large. And there is more data to back up how large that number is as opposed to how small the probability of life is. Given a large enough solution space and anything is possible.

What we know, for an absolute fact, is it is indeed possible on some level for life to arise. Period.

Given the assumptions going into the actual calculation itself...arguing random, metaphysical, or supernatural origins is useless at this juncture. And if you believe it is supernatural, why you would want to argue the math/science is beyond me.

 

[FLVOL_79]

For instance, if I told you my name is Fred, then showed you my driver's license, you could believe that. If I told you that the flying spaghetti monster would attack tomorrow, you wouldn't need to believe that, even if my name is Fred.

So because someone can point to the sky and show you thousands of suns, many with their own planets, it doesn't mean the chance of life out there, amongst the octillion's of planets, could be true.

However someone can tell you a story about a person you have never met and that no living person has met or seen and you are cool with accepting that for fact..

Having faith is fine but it seems that being dismissive of probability and potential of anything else is, well, kind of like being a dick.