Why are evolutionists convinced we are not created?

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by piles

 

You didn't respond to single counter point, you just repeated your original statement, which is full of false information and assumptions. Why do I even waste my time trying to explain things to you, when you aren't even willing to discuss your topic? You aren't stating facts, just repeating nonsense. Why post something up like this if you aren't even willing to discuss it?

edit on 31-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

likewise

i understood exactly what you are saying, and know for a fact that

if we were created then we are digital

there is simply no other way we could have been created, end of...

i read what you wrote, but I would really have to write about 20,000 words to explain it all to you, and I'm not prepared too.. which again is my fault for explaining this badly to you... however from the angle you looked at lets say consiousness, its perfectly possible to create consiousness using a computer, its a question of maths...

if you thought about it yourself you could work that out for yourself, and while i could type 20,000 words to get you to understand, i really canny be bothered i'm afraid..

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by piles

its mathematically more probable that we are a digital entity, than we got here from an explosion... figures don't lie

Ok, let's do the math.

We have a finitely complex universe vs an infinitely complex creator.

Therefore, it's infinitely more likely that the god/creator hypothesis is wrong.

without meaning to sound funny why do you say that the creator is infinitely complex? if your right i will re-do the sum, and if you don't reply i will google it..

The basis of your thinking is wrong. It's known as an argument of retrospective improbability.

Consider this: you're sitting on a beach when the wind picks up a grain of sand and blows it into your eye. The chances of 13.7 billion years worth of chemistry and physics creating the atoms which assembled into that particular grain of sand to blow into your eye are so small that we can effectively say they're zero. Should we therefore say it didn't happen? Of course not. Yet your argument is based on the fact that things are so complex now, they couldn't have happened without outside intervention.

reply to post by piles


right googled it, and it was similar to what i thought you meant, slightly different

copy and pasted

The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe. If it is valid to say "everything has a cause except God", it is more likely that everything has a cause except the Universe. If God doesn't need a cause because it is infinite, it is more likely that the natural Universe has existed forever and therefore doesn't need a cause.

I don't think this theory works with digital theory or bares in mind the fact we are digital, if we are digital it is more likely that the universe does have a cause, therefore this theorys not definately right..

although you could be right...

if you calculate the odds that we are a digital being, it is still more likely than we got to this very day from a creation.. surely you guys can at least work that out in your own heads ot accept thats fact (alternatively use a claculator)

Originally posted by BagBing
The basis of your thinking is wrong. It's known as an argument of retrospective improbability.

Consider this: you're sitting on a beach when the wind picks up a grain of sand and blows it into your eye. The chances of 13.7 billion years worth of chemistry and physics creating the atoms which assembled into that particular grain of sand to blow into your eye are so small that we can effectively say they're zero. Should we therefore say it didn't happen? Of course not. Yet your argument is based on the fact that things are so complex now, they couldn't have happened without outside intervention.

its more than possible that we got here from an explosion, and I'm not saying that its not possible. I agree things could have happened without outside intervention. I'm just saying its more likely that we are here because we were created, and if we were created that means we are digital, which is perfectly possible..

funnily enough i just read this post from an old thread

I hear a lot about people talking about how 'improbable' it is for evolution to be true, so let's take a look at something.

Get a standard deck of playing cards. Shuffle them.
Now deal yourself 5 cards.

The probability of the hand you just dealt yourself is 1/ (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48)%
OR
1 in 311,875,200

That's just the chance of getting a hand of any 5 cards, but it doesn't preclude it from happening.
Shuffle the cards back into the deck.
Now deal yourself another hand, it's also a 1 in 311,875,200 chance.
But now that you've dealt yourself TWO hands the chances that you would get them both in that sequence is 1 in 97,266,140,375,040,000
And so on for each and every other hand you're playing.
It gets exponentially worse when you're playing with multiple people.

So the chances of that happening are so exponentially small, so why does it happen? Well, all the other possible options have an equal chance of happening, do they not? And are people not playing with cards all over the world? Eventually someone is going to get ten hands in a row in the exact same way you were dealt ten cards.

And hence there's really no logic in saying that probability is the reason why evolution cannot be true. Something being improbable doesn't mean it is impossible, only that it is very unlikely that it will happen.





its piles again, i get the impression this is what you are saying, and i understand... i really do, this post makes your point very well.. however it is still more likely that we were created, than we evolved

'

Originally posted by piles

Originally posted by TsukiLunar

I'm not looking at us as a pre-determined end point when calculating the odds of us getting to this very day through evolution, however when calculating the odds of us getting to this very day through creation I am looking at us right now as a pre-determined end point

Ooooookay?

Well, what are the odds of a randomly thrown baseball hitting a specific spot on the ground?

58*98.265-88.25*1.6*100000/0.2568* 910.78!

1 in 59,903,706,567,167.7954

First off, your answer makes absolutely no sense no matter how you look at it. I gave no details of how it was thrown, where it was thrown, how fast it was thrown, or high it was thrown. It is now clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Secondly, it was an analogy that you completely missed the point of.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


third i copied and pasted it from my website

reply to post by piles

its piles again, i get the impression this is what you are saying, and i understand... i really do, this post makes your point very well.. however it is still more likely that we were created, than we evolved

You cannot measure such a thing so how can you say that is more likely?

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by piles

 

its piles again, i get the impression this is what you are saying, and i understand... i really do, this post makes your point very well.. however it is still more likely that we were created, than we evolved

You cannot measure such a thing so how can you say that is more likely?

can you asnwer me a couple of questions so i can try and understand where your at

do you accept that the only way it is possible for us to have been created is if we are digital?

do you accept that its possible you are digital?

So lets say over the next 10,000 years the atmosphere changes slowly, will we evolve slowly with the change..? And if we don't well would that be considered a bug in the programming that would end all life on earth,.?

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by piles

 

its piles again, i get the impression this is what you are saying, and i understand... i really do, this post makes your point very well.. however it is still more likely that we were created, than we evolved

You cannot measure such a thing so how can you say that is more likely?

its possible to create a universe such as this universe if we are a computer, and pretty easy to do (perfectly possible at that) so you yourself can at least see thats its possible that the universe is digital, right? (are we at least at that point)

reply to post by piles

its possible to create a universe such as this universe if we are a computer, and pretty easy to do (perfectly possible at that) so you yourself can at least see thats its possible that the universe is digital, right? (are we at least at that point)

Not really.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


So you take the most unlikely of the two scenarios and put your faith in that religion, the odds of the most basic chemical compound occurring by chance is like ten to the fiftieth power and for a string of dna to randomly occur is some crazy number like ten to the five hundred power.

I truly believe in God and creationism but if I did not then my only logical belief would be alien seeding of this planet . Evolution on the scale they sell os just a blatant lie and I find it compelling how many people buy into it.

reply to post by Noey777

I truly believe in God and creationism but if I did not then my only logical belief would be alien seeding of this planet . Evolution on the scale they sell os just a blatant lie and I find it compelling how many people buy into it.

How is it a "blatant lie"?

Originally posted by piles

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by piles

 

its piles again, i get the impression this is what you are saying, and i understand... i really do, this post makes your point very well.. however it is still more likely that we were created, than we evolved

You cannot measure such a thing so how can you say that is more likely?

can you asnwer me a couple of questions so i can try and understand where your at

do you accept that the only way it is possible for us to have been created is if we are digital?

do you accept that its possible you are digital?

Well are fingers and toes are digital , so you have it partly correct.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Math is the purest of all sciences and it is mathematically impossible for us to happen the way evolutionists sell their lie. We did not evolve from some primordial ooze billions of years ago , eventually becoming some basic microorganism to a fish to a small mammal to eventually a monkey that man . Sorry impossible.

Unfortunately the lie of organized religion has so perverted the truth of Gods word and how we came about little to no one buys their story. Nut if you rightly divide the word of God then the creation of the world and universe makes sense.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by piles

 

its possible to create a universe such as this universe if we are a computer, and pretty easy to do (perfectly possible at that) so you yourself can at least see thats its possible that the universe is digital, right? (are we at least at that point)

Not really.

so you can't accept that its possible we are digital?

the reason i need to know, is because to calculate your odds in which case it would be different..to mine, because in my odds i accepted the fact that its possible we are a 'digital being', and if you accept that fact (which is a fact) its more likely that we are digital..

reply to post by Noey777

Math is the purest of all sciences and it is mathematically impossible for us to happen the way evolutionists sell their lie. We did not evolve from some primordial ooze billions of years ago , eventually becoming some basic microorganism to a fish to a small mammal to eventually a monkey that man . Sorry impossible.

That is not how probability works. By your definition winning the lottery is impossible.

Unfortunately the lie of organized religion has so perverted the truth of Gods word and how we came about little to no one buys their story. Nut if you rightly divide the word of God then the creation of the world and universe makes sense.

Why would God be more possible?

reply to post by piles

so you can't accept that its possible we are digital? the reason i need to know, is because to calculate your odds in which case it would be different..to mine, because in my odds i accepted the fact that its possible we are a 'digital being', and if you accept that fact (which is a fact) its more likely that we are digital..

No matter what way i put it in you will just repeat yourself. So, whats the point?