Spirituality
10 Feb 19
16 Feb 19
@proper-knob saidNone that I'm aware of. You look at the other video yet?
What ‘science leads’ to dinosaurs living on a boat floating on a flooded earth in the last few thousand years?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidThe numbers are only correct if he's correct about the biology.
I'm more confident with design and numbers. Which is what that second video was about. I'm not sure if you watched the second one someone in the field was going over the numbers.
[youtube]16ZF-9ZjPAU [/youtube]
16 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidYou don't think he is?
The numbers are only correct if he's correct about the biology.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidHe doesn't fill me with much confidence. Do you question the biology? Or do you just accept that its right?
You don't think he is?
16 Feb 19
1 edit
@stellspalfie saidI accept it, you disagree? Where and why?
He doesn't fill me with much confidence. Do you question the biology? Or do you just accept that its right?
You disagree with anything he said about the make up of a protein, from its make up or what that means as far the odds on putting it together?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidYou just accept it? No questions asked. You like what he's saying, so despite him not being a molecular biologist, or even just a biologist. You just take him at his word...………..interesting.
I accept it, you disagree? Where and why?
You disagree with anything he said about the make up of a protein, from its make up or what that means as far the odds on putting it together?
16 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidIf you have an issue with what was put forward give me your reasons why. If you want to just make this all about me, we can stop because you are only attempting to make this personal, and doing that isn't interesting its sad.
You just accept it? No questions asked. You like what he's saying, so despite him not being a molecular biologist, or even just a biologist. You just take him at his word...………..interesting.
16 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidSure, it's easy if you do a calculation after you posit a designer.
I have to assume you are speaking to ID and undirected processes. I think it is a slam dunk on designs side, random acts couldn’t do something this complex under perfect conditions let alone in the midst of a hostile environment!
But what were the odds of a god existing without a cause? If that is no more likely than an unguided big bang [etc.] then what good is the argument from probability in general?
16 Feb 19
2 edits
@bigdoggproblem saidI said earlier there were basically three positions of how the universe began, all things in it, with variations of each. I'm willing to look at others, but feel most if not all will all fall out into one of these three.
Sure, it's easy if you do a calculation after you posit a designer.
But what were the odds of a god existing without a cause? If that is no more likely than an unguided big bang [etc.] then what good is the argument from probability in general?
Everything from nothing.
Everything created by cause.
Everything always was.
If there are other reasons that do not fall into any of these please feel free to bring them into the discussion.
None of those if you are looking at something that has 1/20 chance from occurring randomly changes the odds of 1/20 no matter how things started. Now if someone simply moves things around we are no longer talking about a 1/20 chance it was done with intent. If something had a 1/20 chance of occurring randomly and it had to occur 150 times perfectly to occur, the numbers of it actually happening get smaller, and if there are more things required, the odds increase against it. Again none of this changes if its done randomly. See the last video for the details on life, dispute it if you think he is wrong on any point.
The question about if God exists without cause is a 1/2 either yes or no. If no then there is no God that always existed, if yes then God is.
16 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidYour own belief does not, to my mind, fit into any of the three categories you gave. I would classify it as: God always was; everything else was created by cause.
I said earlier there were basically three positions of how the universe began, all things in it, with variations of each. I'm willing to look at others, but feel most if not all will all fall out into one of these three.
Everything from nothing.
Everything created by cause.
Everything always was.
If there are other reasons that do not fall into any of these please fe ...[text shortened]... cause is a 1/2 either yes or no. If no then there is no God that always existed, if yes then God is.
I'm probably not going to watch the video, because I think the probability argument is not useful in determining origins. Probability is more useful before the fact; arguments such as this are after the fact; meaning, after the universe and its life exist.
It would be like saying a lottery winner couldn't possibly have won, simply because their odds were infinitesimal [say, one in several hundred million]. That fact is irrelevant after they actually win. The only probability left after the fact is the 100% probability that that person won.
16 Feb 19
@stellspalfie said
You just accept it? No questions asked. You like what he's saying, so despite him not being a molecular biologist, or even just a biologist. You just take him at his word...………..interesting.
A biologist.
16 Feb 19
1 edit
@bigdoggproblem saidA search for truth should be done by not just looking at those things that agree with us but possible things that can destroy what we believe. God is outside of the universe and is completely unaffected by anything in it, time, space, matter, energy none of these bind God, but God as the creator and maintainer of all things is in charge, as many of His followers like to call Him, He is the King of the universe.
Your own belief does not, to my mind, fit into any of the three categories you gave. I would classify it as: God always was; everything else was created by cause.
I'm probably not going to watch the video, because I think the probability argument is not useful in determining origins. Probability is more useful before the fact; arguments such as this are af ...[text shortened]... y win. The only probability left [i]after the fact is the 100% probability that that person won.
If God created the universe and declares we can know about Him by looking at it then we can assume there are things the universe can tell us about God from the smallest details to the largest, since He is all knowing, all powerful, and timeless there is nothing about the whole or any part He isn't giving His full attention to at any point.
Figuring out odds shows us the likelihood of natural processes doing something. If you have studied scripture Old or New Testaments you will see when God chooses to do something in our universe He always does it such a way that no one can claim natural processes, the very old having kids, born of a virgin, rising from the dead. Clues that the natural world cannot produce what many claim are events done by God though chance. The creation of time, space, matter and everything within the universe is either a material event that we can explain or not, the same with life.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Feb 19
@kellyjay saidIts a long video - does he discuss proteins at any point?
[youtube] te3aShKST1A [/youtube]
A biologist.
16 Feb 19
@stellspalfie saidHe covers a variety of topics and touches on them. A very high level over view is he is speaking on biology text books, touching on why people within biology and without it all share very similar views and how sometimes the textbooks avoid and stress things. It is a long video, it covers a book he wrote which I have.
Its a long video - does he discuss proteins at any point?
I am currently in my car waiting on my wife in a store so hopefully I get the name right so you can look at the reviews of those who like and dislike the book.
Icons of evolution