Well, if they didn't exist I assumed one of the Admins or someone from Wikiproject:Evolution would have come along and smashed the articles apart.
I also link to Dawkins... when all else fails look to Dawkins I say!
[edit] I made some edits to that post to hopefully make it more useful, it wasn't meant to appear like a rebuttal to Alliance, just some info for people to kick around.
__________________
Last edited by Grand-Moff-Gav on Jan 14th, 2009 at 12:06 AM
I'll be more specifc. These are terms not used by the scientific community. The general population is considerable slower, because they have to be told by someone else what terms to use.
I wont lie, I've even heard the terms used by past professors of mine, much to my angst.
Though, I will point out this spectacular little section in the Macro article:
...it almost renders the article useless...
(For the Bio newbies, the Modern Synthesis is the modern Theory of Natural Selection which a whole bunch of added vitamins and minearls for complete theory health)
It's been 6,000 years and no life has ever been created by intelligent organisms. But life supposedly came into existence on it's own? All the right circumstances for life to exist just exist randomly for no purpose? (Have you ever wondered why things exist in the first place?) It is as though the universe exploded into existence for the purpose of supporting and sustaining complex life, and you think that just happened for no purpose? No reason? Just because?
Things of this magnitude don't just happen, they are created, produced, or designed.
There are too many favorable coincidences that exist in favor of supporting life for life to exist by chance. Stats show that it is impossible for life to exist as we know it by chance. It is as though the universe had a purpose: to arrange itself and all of its resources to support and sustain life because that is what all of the circumstances appear to show.
Clearly the universe wasn't "created" solely for the purpose of life to exist because from the observable universe, we on earth are the only known life.
Given that we know that the parameters that have allowed life on earth to exist are very slim (a slight difference in our orbit closer or further to or from the sun would mean no life on earth) then life is obviously a very rare occurence...but given the size of the universe then chances are there will be life elsewhere as the likelyhood of the same neccessary parameters existing increase with the size of the universe and the number of stars/planets etc.
I think the 1st truly defining test of religious belief will come when we encounter another intelligent species and see what their take on "God" is...
Until...religion is faith and belief and science is observation and verification...
as for your argument statistically...it's invalid given that the universe is supposedly infinite in size then the chances for life existing cannot be impossible seeing as all combinations of parameters neccessary for life are possible in an infinite universe.
funny you used math do refute his claim of finite by showing the infinity constant.. should use it in his thread where he used it to explain the probability of life being created being zero
See, surely if the current state of the universe, perhaps what you would consider just right for humans to thrive, did just happen by accident and such (which given enough time it eventually would without help) it is entirely likely that any evolved to our level species in that world would question whether or not things happened by accident and random chance or by design...
"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."
Time does not cash the check that impossibility has written.
--JesusIsAlive
Time seems to be the panacea, the mechanism, the answer that atheists run to to explain the impossible. No matter how much time elapses it is impossible to to win the lottery ten times consecutively in one lifetime. These are the same odds that atheists ignore with respect to life coming into existence by chance from an unplanned, undirected, unintelligent explosion. Yet the believer is treated like a mindless idiot for believing that God (Who is all-powerful and all-knowing) is responsible for the complexity that exists in the universe.
"Physicist and Nobel laureate Arno Penzias, contemplating our enigmatic universe, observes:
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."
Arno Penzias, Our Universe: Accident or Design (Wits 2050, S. Africa Starwatch, 1992), 42.
"A universe that contains a special place of habitation for complex, conscious life is so truly remarkable that it is, realistically speaking, impossible to believe it is the result of a series of cosmic accidents. To choose to believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for (a) the mathematical forms encoded in the laws of nature, (b) the precise specification of the nineteen universal constants and (c) the remarkable initial conditions required for star formation and the simplest living systems is to believe in a miracle by another name. Physicist Freeman J. Dyson of Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study seems to implicitly affirm theism when he say,"
"As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."
Freeman J. Dyson, cited in Barrow and Tipler, Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 318.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 13th, 2009 11:58 PM
Attachment: 
