Scholar: 'Jesus Tomb' makers mistaken

[Missileman]

Matter maybe, but we are talking about organized, complex systems. Like molecules, planets, and living organisms.

Its like walking down the street and finding 1000 coins balanced on their sides. From your perspective, that could happen by chance. I would say that somebody set up the coins that way.

One only needs to look at a single snowflake to observe spontaneous complexity. As for your example, if among several trillion coins I came upon a 1,000 on their edge, I'd certainly call it chance.

By the way, still waiting for this "physical evidence" you claim to be able to throw in the faces of atheists...are you ever going to get around to it?

[Nuc]

So in your estimation, what are the odds in regards to chance/creation?

Whether the universe was created or not is not measurable by numbers or percentages. Is it? That's something you believe or don't believe. Even if you think it's unlikely a believer would bet on the 1% chance that it happened that way.

[Nuc]

I'd say that the odds of the latter or the Christian God creating everything are identical...that is one of the qualities of 50/50. It works just like true or false, off or on, or black and white.

Perhaps you might explain why the odds between chance and creation should be anything other than 50/50.

There are numerous creation myths (or beliefs or whichever term you prefer) whereas chance is an objective reality. Therefore chance would be more likely than any one of those creation myths on a percentage basis. Which still wouldn't dissuade anybody who believes in any particular creation story.

[glockmail]

One only needs to look at a single snowflake to observe spontaneous complexity. As for your example, if among several trillion coins I came upon a 1,000 on their edge, I'd certainly call it chance.

By the way, still waiting for this "physical evidence" you claim to be able to throw in the faces of atheists...are you ever going to get around to it?

The snowflake cystal is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator. Along with a few hundred thousand others rolled into a ball by a well designed creature, it has landed on your face.

[Gunny]

The snowflake cystal is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator. Along with a few hundred thousand others rolled into a ball by a well designed creature, it has landed on your face.

Really? Then perhaps your college education can explain why each snowflake is different under a microscope? Hardly the result of a preprogrammed sequence.

[Missileman]

The snowflake cystal is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator. Along with a few hundred thousand others rolled into a ball by a well designed creature, it has landed on your face.

If every snowflake were identical, your design argument would hold water.

Another couple generations of crickets have come and gone, and you STILL haven't put forth a single piece of physical evidence. If you don't really have any, just say so.

[Gunny]

There are numerous creation myths (or beliefs or whichever term you prefer) whereas chance is an objective reality. Therefore chance would be more likely than any one of those creation myths on a percentage basis. Which still wouldn't dissuade anybody who believes in any particular creation story.

I disagree. I find a creator FAR more likely than mere happenstance. Nowhere even close to the previously mentioned 50/50.

I don't see that my belief has anything to do with it; rather, a logical conclusion. Where exactly does "happenstance" begin? The "Big Bang?"

A scientific theory that defies scientific law. Something is created from nothing. This is of course followed by just the right amount of energy and matter combining ot form life, conveniently located on a planet that just happens to be the perfect distance from the sun to support said life. And this spark of life goes from microscopic proportions to populating an entire planet with life in all its forms.

That's about as Sci-Fi B movie as it gets, IMO.

[glockmail]

Really? Then perhaps your college education can explain why each snowflake is different under a microscope? Hardly the result of a preprogrammed sequence.

The exact arrangement of the molecules is dependent on random atmospheric variables.

[Missileman]

The exact arrangement of the molecules is dependent on random atmospheric variables.

Don't look now, but I think you just described spontaneous complexity.

[glockmail]

.....

Another couple generations of crickets have come and gone, and you STILL haven't put forth a single piece of physical evidence. If you don't really have any, just say so.

For a clue, re-read post 16. So what are the odds that the Earth and your surroundings were created by chance?

[Gunny]

The exact arrangement of the molecules is dependent on random atmospheric variables.

Did you just try to explain "pre-programmed sequence" with the word "random?"

[glockmail]

Don't look now, but I think you just described spontaneous complexity.

More proof of intelligent design.

[glockmail]

Did you just try to explain "pre-programmed sequence" with the word "random?"

A random number generator cannot be programmed?

[glockmail]

So Gunny, are you an atheist?

[Gunny]

A random number generator cannot be programmed?

Which would support snow being a preprogrammed sequence based on certain atmospheric conditions. But it does NOT support this statement where you say the snowflake crystal ...

The snowflake cystal is performing a pre-programmed sequence designed by its creator.