Things that make you believe in a God

[woot]

Statistical probability...

That guy is wrong.

But it's always good when people appreciate nature, even if they use it to draw strange supernatural conclusions.

[LiveCoug]

That guy is wrong.

But it's always good when people appreciate nature, even if they use it to draw strange supernatural conclusions.

[wally]

That guy is wrong.

But it's always good when people appreciate nature, even if they use it to draw strange supernatural conclusions.

It always good when the non-believing folk show up in a thread about faith in God. It shows that somewhere in their hearts, they still keep a place for him.

[old_gregg]

That guy is wrong.

But it's always good when people appreciate nature, even if they use it to draw strange supernatural conclusions.

you're an ass. go be an ass somewhere else.

[Maximus]

That guy is wrong.

But it's always good when people appreciate nature, even if they use it to draw strange supernatural conclusions.

how?

[woot]

Wow 4 in a row! I didn't mean to participate, but when I see false scientific claims thrown around I have to intervene just a bit.

For those interested, the reason that guy's wrong is because he seems to be responding to a question that nobody asks. He's saying that qualities that typify "living" organisms, which have had roughly 4 billion years to evolve, couldn't have arisen by accident. Since no one claims they did arise by accident, he has no point.

[creekster]

Wild Gibbons.

Preach brother!

[wally]

Wow 4 in a row! I didn't mean to participate, but when I see false scientific claims thrown around I have to intervene just a bit.

For those interested, the reason that guy's wrong is because he seems to be responding to a question that nobody asks. He's saying that qualities that typify "living" organisms, which have had roughly 4 billion years to evolve, couldn't have arisen by accident. Since no one claims they did arise by accident, he has no point.

4 in a row, but you have to admit that mine was the cleverest.

[LiveCoug]

4 in a row, but you have to admit that mine was the cleverest.

Nothing screams clever and not lazy like 2 eyerolls. I win!

[wally]

Nothing screams clever and not lazy like 2 eyerolls. I win!

You are not helping me believe in God by undermining me like this.

[Moliere]

Wow 4 in a row! I didn't mean to participate, but when I see false scientific claims thrown around I have to intervene just a bit.

For those interested, the reason that guy's wrong is because he seems to be responding to a question that nobody asks. He's saying that qualities that typify "living" organisms, which have had roughly 4 billion years to evolve, couldn't have arisen by accident. Since no one claims they did arise by accident, he has no point.

So he's right but only on a question that no smart person would ever pose?

[creekster]

Wow 4 in a row! I didn't mean to participate, but when I see false scientific claims thrown around I have to intervene just a bit.

For those interested, the reason that guy's wrong is because he seems to be responding to a question that nobody asks. He's saying that qualities that typify "living" organisms, which have had roughly 4 billion years to evolve, couldn't have arisen by accident. Since no one claims they did arise by accident, he has no point.

IS that really a fair assessment of what he says? I am not familiar wiht his wirting, but in the quoation offered he refers to the harmonized reactions, which is at once more specific and basic than your refernce to qualities of a living organism. Perhpas you know, but is he talking abotu the reacitons needed to give rise to the first 'living' molecule or is he talking about the existence of something like respiration and photosynthesis?

[creekster]

You are not helping me believe in God by undermining me like this.

Livecoug's qualtiies go more to God's sense of humor, I think.

[woot]

So he's right but only on a question that no smart person would ever pose?

Could be, but it would depend on how he's defining terms. Assuming he's employing the creationist tactic of calculating the odds of everything precisely as it is coming together, then he's right, in the same way that any of us could look out a window and calculate the odds of seeing that exact license plate number out of all the world-wide possibilities.

If he's using "accident" as a misnomer to describe natural processes in general, and "living organisms" as a stand-in for what the very first life may have been like, then he's talking about things we don't know enough about to assign percentages, but all the evidence so far points to him very probably being wrong.

[Paperback Writer]

stevie ray vaughan

I don't get Stevie Ray Vaughn. I saw him in concert because I owed a friend who I dragged to a Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers concert. My heard hurt after 20 minutes but my friend greatly enjoyed it. I guess "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Some folks don't get Bruce Springsteen. I think any problem lies with me in that I just didn't appreciate a musician that is revered by so many. And I feel bad in that I won't have another concert opportunity. Maybe I was just having a bad day as I enjoy his songs when they do come over the radio but not enough to purchase/download. What am I missing? Other than trying to hijack a thread about God.