Faith fails to protect idiot from snake bites.

[The Black Swordsman]

There is a book by the geologist Peter Ward and the astronomer Donald E. Brownlee called Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. They make the suggestion that life is so low in probability, so difficult to attain that it would actually be a reasonable conclusion to think that there is life only here on earth in this entire universe. This is a bold statement considering there are about 10^23 stars in the visible universe. Additionally I remember reading a paper published from Nature in 2010 (can't find it now) that stated that the probably that life came to be here on earth multiple times is almost zero and everything containing DNA had like a 99.99999% chance of originating from the same life source according to different statistical analysis (like Bayesian analysis which is what we commonly used in our lab).

The argument atheists have that the universe is not fine tuned is this " HA! Life only came up here on earth, how is that fine tuned? The sun is gonna blow up in a couple billion years, and there is no life anywhere else, how is this universe fine tuned"

That argument is simply neglecting to answer the question of why the universe is fine tuned to allow life on this planet. Just because saturn and uranus aren't fine tuned to contain life doesn't mean that the earth is not. Additionally, if life just magically appeared on a bunch of planets and moons atheists would say "aha! life isn't so rare, see!" This is much like the "universe is eternal there is no need for god" which turned to "oops the universe was created just like abrahamic religions said, still no need for god if I cover my ears with my hands and scream 'there is no god, there is no god' over and over again."

Both chimps and humans share about 97% DNA together. However it is also true that a pool of mud contains the same material as a human brain. Both a watermelon and a jellyfish are made up of over 90% water but are very different things. Humans are the only animals that know that their time is limited on this earth, that can see far into the past and far into the future. The human evolved to be hunter gatherers. There is no reason we should be able to learn that the world is round, the speed of light, and Einsteins field equations.

The three big questions that have been around since 2000 years ago are still around now. Science hasn't answered them. They are "why do we exist rather then not exist? What is the purpose of our life? What happens when we die?" The answers to those three questions are still "don't know, don't know, and don't know." Even Richard Dawkins admits that when it comes to the purpose of life and we rebel against our genes that work against a Darwinian process. Every time you use contraceptive you are doing this. When it comes to what happens after we die. Atheists like SiroMar say nothingness. The same that happens when you turn off a computer. There is no reason to believe that there is an afterlife. SiroMar is the caveman 10,000 years ago who did not believe in the outside world outside of 2 miles from where he was born because he had no reason to.

 

[PearlWatson]

It's no more accepted on faith than gravity.

No one has observed a single celled organism accidentally come into being, nor have they observed that randomly mutate its way into all the life forms on earth, so yes Darwin's creation myth is accepted on faith.

 

[One Brow]

No one has observed a single celled organism accidentally come into being, nor have they observed that randomly mutate its way into all the life forms on earth, so yes Darwin's creation myth is accepted on faith.

Since the Theory of Evolution doesn't teach either of those things, observing either phenomenon would disprove evolution.

 

[One Brow]

... that stated that the probably that life came to be here on earth multiple times is almost zero and everything containing DNA had like a 99.99999% chance ...

To accurately calculate such a probability, you would have to show every feature being discussed is independent of every subset of the set fo all the other features. Given the 20+ mechanisms of evolution alone, that means showing the independence of more than a million pairs of relationships. Each one would requires several experiments to confirm the independance of it. I don't think any book has ever completed that particular task. The result would be larger than an Encyclopedia.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

To accurately calculate such a probability, you would have to show every feature being discussed is independent of every subset of the set fo all the other features. Given the 20+ mechanisms of evolution alone, that means showing the independence of more than a million pairs of relationships. Each one would requires several experiments to confirm the independance of it. I don't think any book has ever completed that particular task. The result would be larger than an Encyclopedia.

I have found the paper. "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry" by Douglas L. Theobald. You take multiple organisms from all domains of life. If it is known that a cat and a dog is related to each other, is it really necessary to include both? Sure you want to add many organisms but every single one? Keep in mind it is published in Nature which is the highest respected science journal by far, the one coming closest is Science. I'm not appealing to authority but I suggest you to read the paper and tell me what they did wrong with it if you disagree. I know you won't understand anything it says unless you have a high level of expertise in evolutionary biology and statistics but I suggest you stop talking about things you know little about then.

 

[PearlWatson]

There is a book by the geologist Peter Ward and the astronomer Donald E. Brownlee called Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. They make the suggestion that life is so low in probability, so difficult to attain that it would actually be a reasonable conclusion to think that there is life only here on earth in this entire universe.

Francis Crick (got the Nobel prize for his codiscovery of DNA) went the opposite way. After saying "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd,"
he hypothesized that highly intelligent extraterrestrials sent living cells to earth on an unmanned spaceship.

 

[colton]

I don't understand how a Mormon reconciles "created in God's image" with "a series of random mutations"

I think Mormons fairly easily believe in God's hand behind seeming randomness. For example, if I flip a coin to decide which route to take home today, and end up running across someone in serious need of help because of the route I took, I would very likely believe that God put me in a position that I could be of service to the individual needing help. And I think that nearly all Mormons would see things the same way. So it's really not much of a stretch to believe in God's hand being behind a series of seemingly random mutations.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Francis Crick (got the Nobel prize for his codiscovery of DNA) went the opposite way. After saying "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd,"
he hypothesized that highly intelligent extraterrestrials sent living cells to earth on an unmanned spaceship.

In all actuality that is what the Galton/Darwin/Huxley/Wedgewood British interbreeding scammers that were responsible for the promulgation of the theory of evolution into the mainstream believed as well. It's a common secret society belief. They give the public this evolution nonsense so they can control your brain and in turn don't even believe it themselves.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think Mormons fairly easily believe in God's hand behind seeming randomness. For example, if I flip a coin to decide which route to take home today, and end up running across someone in serious need of help because of the route I took, I would very likely believe that God put me in a position that I could be of service to the individual needing help. And I think that nearly all Mormons would see things the same way. So it's really not much of a stretch to believe in God's hand being behind a series of seemingly random mutations.

So you really don't believe that the mechanism of change is random, but you do believe humans originated from ape like creatures?

Darwinism is fairly reliant on actual randomness, where there appears to be none. It ain't even a case of "seemingly random."

So I would say you really believe in Intelligent Design theory especially with your inclusion of "God's hand."

 

[colton]

So you really don't believe that the mechanism of change is random, but you do believe humans originated from ape like creatures?

Darwinism is fairly reliant on actual randomness, where there appears to be none. It ain't even a case of "seemingly random."

So I would say you really believe in Intelligent Design theory especially with your inclusion of "God's hand."

I guess that's fine if that's what you believe about what I believe, but I would say that anyone who believes in the omniscience/omnipotence of God doesn't believe in true randomness. Think about it.

But why do you say that Darwinism is reliant on actual randomness? I think there's no way to tell between true randomness and divinely-guided randomness.

 

[Gameface]

If it is "divinely-guided randomness" then it only seems random, but in fact is not random.

 

[colton]

If it is "divinely-guided randomness" then it only seems random, but in fact is not random.

I'm not sure where exactly you're jumping into the conversation, but why is "true randomness" as opposed to "divinely-guided randomness" needed in evolutionary processes? And for that matter, how can "true randomness" even exist (whatever that might mean) if there is an omniscient and omnipotent God?