The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism

Thomas Nagel said, "It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

 

Finding species that haven't changed much isn't that hard to do.

We have sharks, crocodiles, and all sorts of other flora and fauna that haven't changed much in an incredibly long period of time.

Suggesting this refutes evolution is nonsense.

 

We have an old saying about believers where I come from, sammy ... Blind faith is for SUCKERS...

 

Christopher Hitchens once described himself not as an atheist, but as an "antitheist" in an article titled "Nothing Sacred: Journalist and Provocateur Christopher Hitchens Picks a Fight with God." http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Atheism/people_choose_not_to_believe.htm

 

According to Distinguished British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle, the number of trial assemblies of amino acids needed to give rise to the enzymes required for life, and their discovery by random shuffling, turns out to be less than 1 in 1 x 10 to the 40,000 power.34. Just to give you an idea of how astronomical this number is, one trillion is only 10 to the twelfth power.

 

Calling something a "law" does not mean it is valid.

And, the idea that YOU know enough about evolution to reject it is nonsense. You haven't even been able to understand how it works.

As for probability, you have NO IDEA what the odds might be. Odds can only be calculated when the process is understood.

 

Fossils illustrating the gradual origin of humans, horses, rhinos, whales, seacows, birds, tetrapods, etc,and various major Cambrian phyla have been discovered since Darwin’s time and are well-known to scientists.

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no "law of biogenesis" saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Abiogenesis is not a form of spontaneous generation, as it does not say that fully-formed lifeforms arose from inorganic materials;it simply states that the precursors to modern life arose from self-replicating organic molecules.

Arguments based on probability, statistics or information theory by creationists have serious fallacies:

1. They presume that a given biomolecule came into existence “at random” via an all-at-once chance assemblage of atoms. But this is not the scientific hypothesis of how they formed; instead, numerous published studies, covering many biomolecules, indicate that these biomolecules were the result of a long series of intermediate steps over the eons, each useful in a previous biological context. Thus such arguments are fundamentally flawed from the beginning.
2. They apply faulty mathematical reasoning, such as by ignoring the fact that a very wide range of biomolecules could perform a similar function to the given biomolecule. Thus the odds they provide against the formation of the given biomolecule are greatly exaggerated.
3. They ignore the fact that biological evolution is fundamentally not a purely “random” process — mutations may be random, but natural selection is far from random.
4. They ignore reams of evidence from the natural world that evolution can and often does produce highly improbable structures and features.
5. Some writers attempt to invoke advanced mathematical concepts (e.g., information theory), but derive highly questionable results and misapply these results in ways that render the conclusions invalid in an evolutionary biology context.
6. The creationist hypothesis of separate creation for each species does not resolve any probability paradoxes; instead it enormously magnifies them.

 

Once again, without knowing the process it's nonsense to state that the odds are known.

Beyond that, let's remember that there are a billion trillion stars and some percent have planets that could sustain life.

Multiply that by 13 billion years and you have one HELL of a lot of lab time!

 

It's tiring to watch you search for quotes that you agree with - when you don't even know the context of the quote or what the individual actually believes.

 

It is estimated that there are only 10 to the 80th power electrons in the entire universe! So 10 to the 40,000 power of anything is almost impossible even to imagine. Mathematicians say that any event in which the chances are beyond one in 10 to the 50th power is impossible-it is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place.

Recall that Hoyle said the probability of an enzyme arising spontaneously was less than one in 10 to the 40,000 power-which is an incredibly lesser probability than the 1 in 10 to the 50th power that makes an event impossible.

Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of a living organism known is one chance in ten to the 340,000,000 power.

And the famous astronomer and evolutionist Carl Sagan estimated that the chance of life evolving on any single planet, including Earth, is one chance in ten to the 2,000,000,000 power. Do you realize how huge that number is? It would take 6,000 books with 300 pages each just to write this number out. So if ever anything were impossible, spontaneous generation would have to be it.

 

Yeah!! Suuuuuuuure!

I thought Trump WAS the second coming?

 

The point here is that we don't understand the process. There are a few candidates. There are scientists working on it. But, there isn't an answer at this point.

And, calculating the odds of a process we don't understand is nonsense.

Also, it doesn't matter what planet it happens on. It could be any planet in the universe. Why would we care what planet it was on?

 

According to the Law of Probability, then, the odds of life arising from non-life are far beyond the realm of possibility. And that's just for a single molecule to come to life. How would you explain the complexity of life forms, or the formation of the extremely detailed DNA code?

Human DNA, for example, contains three billion pieces of information-literally tens of thousands of pages worth. Did that information develop and evolve one page at a time?

How could undirected, random chance have created complex information such as this? It boggles the mind to think about it. It certainly does not indicate chance, but rather design.

If you lined up a computer, a robot, a 747 jet, and a lowly worm, which one would a scientist say is the most intricately designed of those four?

 

People choose to be atheists because they want to be their own god. Atheism means without God. There is so much evidence in creation that God exists that it's absurd to deny it. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Atheism/people_choose_not_to_believe.htm

 

Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, who argues that evolution could never have given rise to the intricate structures of life, has identified something he calls "irreducible complexity."

This refers to an organism which is so complex that it could not have come together piece by piece and still function; all the parts must have come about at once in order to have any function at all. Behe explains:

By "irreducibly complex" I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherin the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. http://www.reviewevolution.com/irreducibleComplexity.php

 

Evolution doesn't work serially like that. There can be numerous changes going on at the same time.

Over the last 20K years, humans developed blue eyes, the capability to digest milk as adults, and we lost a volume of brain about the size of a tennis ball. At the same time, scientists believe our brains significantly increased in complexity, leaving us smarter AND with brains that take a lot less energy to maintain.

We're really slow at evolving, obviously - far slower than bacteria, and many other life forms. But, the point here is that you can't line up evolutionary change and decide that it goes one page at a time.

 

Wow did you ever get THAT wrong!

Like people of most religions, you really think you have all the answers - without even asking the questions!!

 

This is a dead argument.

The proposed cases just haven't held up under scrutiny.

 

Michael Behe said An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064695

 

dupe

 

There are countless stars in the universe and we are here on earth. It can't be a coincidence.

 

How could undirected, random chance have created complex information such as this? It boggles the mind to think about it. It certainly does not indicate chance, but rather design.

 

Michael Behe also said

https://www.gotquestions.org/irreducible-complexity.html

 

You thought a mere mortal human being woukd be the 2nd coming?