Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Hawking says that God is not needed

Expand Messages
  • johmsonmichael
    ... ok, so goats evolved into elephants, then any goats which didn t evolve into elephants, died off. SO, are elephants goats? or are goats classed as extinct?
    Message 1 of 1816 , Sep 23, 2010
      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "johmsonmichael" <johmsonmichael@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > >>>> Randy C:
      > > > >>>> OF COURSE IT IS INEFFICIENT!
      > > >
      > > > >>>> Evolution is based on random inputs.
      > > >
      > > > >>>> But at least evolution isn't anti-God as creationism
      > > > >>>> undeniably is!
      > > >
      > > > >>>> Imagine that there is an engineer whose designs fail
      > > > >>>> 99.99...% of the time! Such an engineer is utterly and
      > > > >>>> totally incompetent. I've been an engineer for more
      > > > >>>> than 40 years and seen many incompetent engineers.
      > > > >>>> But even the worst of them had a better success rate
      > > > >>>> than the God you are forced to believe in!
      > > >
      > > > >>>> Why do you hate God?
      > > >
      > > > >>>> Don't plan on a very pleasant after-life, at least if
      > > > >>>> the stories of God in the Old Testament are close to
      > > > >>>> reality.
      > > >
      > > > >>> johmsonmichael:
      > > > >>> my goodness you base your analogies on the silliest
      > > > >>> examples with absolutely no data backing it up.
      > > >
      > > > >> Randy C:
      > > > >> What are you talking about? The fossil record tells us
      > > > >> very clearly indeed that a very high percentage of all
      > > > >> species that once lived on Earth are now extinct.
      > > >
      > > > >> Look around. Do you see any dinosaurs? Do you see any
      > > > >> sabre-toothed tigers? If you look in the oceans, do you
      > > > >> see any trilobites?
      > > >
      > > > >> You don't, right?
      > > >
      > > > >> That's because they are all extinct.
      > > >
      > > > >> The exact percentage of extinct species can only be
      > > > >> estimated since many life forms didn't leave any fossil
      > > > >> evidence that we have discovered yet. But estimates
      > > > >> go as high as 99.9999% That would mean that only one
      > > > >> species per million that has existed on Earth is
      > > > >> still here.
      > > >
      > > > >> At the web site
      > > > >> http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=556
      > > > >> a biologist named Graeme Lloyd who works at the Natural
      > > > >> History Museum in London says that the percentage
      > > > >> 99.9999% may be actually LOW.
      > > >
      > > > >> So my claims are VERY well supported by facts.
      > > >
      > > > >> How could a truly competent "designer" do that?
      > > >
      > > > >> All of the ecological niches on Earth seem pretty well
      > > > >> balanced. So we have about the right number of species
      > > > >> right now. But if there is no evolution then the
      > > > >> "designer" over-designed by a factor of a million - or
      > > > >> possibly more!
      > > >
      > > > >> Such an engineer is necessarily totally incompetent.
      > > >
      > > > >> It is true that engineers will occasionally add redundancy
      > > > >> to their designs. But they do so in order to protect
      > > > >> components that are relatively unreliable. Many computers
      > > > >> that act as servers have redundant disk drives only
      > > > >> because disk drives have a relatively high failure rate
      > > > >> compared to other components.
      > > >
      > > > >> So if God added redundancy for the same reasons that humans
      > > > >> do, then God is not a good "designer" because the individual
      > > > >> components he "designed" are not reliable.
      > > >
      > > > >> Also it is rare if nonexistent for any engineer to implement
      > > > >> more than 3x redundancy. The idea of 1,000,000x redundancy
      > > > >> would be ludicrous.
      > > >
      > > > >>> Just tell me what the last 10 genetic changes are,
      > > > >>> caused by God, to back up that hes' a bad engineer.
      > > >
      > > > >> A competent God didn't cause ANY genetic changes.
      > > >
      > > > >> But a God who can only design one working creature in
      > > > >> a million is a bad engineer.
      > > >
      > > > >>> You must have such data to CLAIM he is a bad engineer.
      > > >
      > > > >> I have EXCELLENT data to back up my claims.
      > > >
      > > > >> You have NONE to back up yours.
      > > >
      > > > > johmsonmichael:
      > > > > Never have I met anyone who has so many contradictory
      > > > > beliefs in their head.
      > > >
      > > > Wow! You've NEVER looked in a mirror?
      > > >
      > > > Amazing.
      > > >
      > > > > First you insist that evolution is the reason that
      > > > > life is as it is today.
      > > >
      > > > ONLY because there is a mountain of evidence supporting
      > > > that claim.
      > > >
      > > > > You said that without doubt all land animals evolved
      > > > > from a fish.
      > > >
      > > > Absolutely.
      > > >
      > > > The fossil record completely supports that view.
      > > >
      > > > > So, over many millions of years, life has evolved on
      > > > > land in a micro and macro fashion producing the huge
      > > > > diversity we see today.
      > > >
      > > > You're starting to get it.
      > > >
      > > > > NOW, you are telling me that 99.99% of the land
      > > > > animals went extinct.
      > > >
      > > > Also very true.
      > > >
      > > > > One minute dinosaurs evolved into birds, now they
      > > > > went extinct.
      > > >
      > > > What are you talking about?
      > > >
      > > > Birds aren't extinct. I can see one outside my window
      > > > as I write this!
      > > >
      > > > > So tell me something which has caused a lot of
      > > > > confusion. From fossils that have been found, and
      > > > > obviously many haven't, how can you calculate that
      > > > > 99.99% of species have become extinct?
      > > >
      > > > It is an estimate. I said that before.
      > > >
      > > > Estimates vary from 99% to 99.9999%.
      > > >
      > > > We don't know for sure since we don't even know the
      > > > number of current species on Earth with certainty.
      > > > New ones are being found all of the time.
      > > >
      > > > We CERTAINLY don't know the number of species that
      > > > have existed for all of Earth's history since the
      > > > fossil record is so incomplete.
      > > >
      > > > But we can look at the fossils found in various
      > > > geological ages, look at the number of species
      > > > found that don't exist now, and do the same sort
      > > > of extrapolation that most people use when doing
      > > > estimates.
      > > >
      > > > What do you think that the number is?
      > > >
      > > > Do you see dinosaurs in your back yard?
      > > >
      > > > Do you see trilobites in your closest lake?
      > > >
      > > > If you do ANY study of paleontology you see that
      > > > the vast majority of fossils found represent species
      > > > that no longer exist. So even if we take that
      > > > formula we see that the percentage of organisms
      > > > that are extinct is HUGE.
      > > >
      > > > > This to me is a bit like travelling millions of
      > > > > years into the future, finding fossils of cats
      > > > > and dogs only, and saying "all life became extinct,
      > > > > 100%" simply because there are no cats and dogs
      > > > > millions of years down the line.
      > > >
      > > > What a silly analogy to make!
      > > >
      > > > HAVE YOU HEARD OF DINOSAURS?????
      > > >
      > > > HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ONE????
      > > >
      > > > Visit a museum some time and look at ALL of the
      > > > dinosaur fossils there.
      > > >
      > > > Every species that they represent is now exinct.
      > > >
      > > > What does that have to do with dogs and cats?
      > > >
      > > > Even creationists concede that more than 99% of all
      > > > species are now extinct.
      > > >
      > > > In the EXREMELY unlikely event that you actually had
      > > > a relevant argument, you would support it by EVIDENCE.
      > > >
      > > > You would present some supported opinion, including a
      > > > reference, showing that the percentage was, say, 10%.
      > > >
      > > > I presented one reference claiming that the percentage
      > > > of extinct species is GREATER than 99.9999%!
      > > >
      > > > You cannot present ANY references showing that it is
      > > > less.
      > > >
      > > > Instead all that you can do is simply point out that
      > > > these UNDENIABLE FACTS don't fit into your own little
      > > > delusional concept of reality.
      > > >
      > > > You can continue to deny reality or adapt to it.
      > > >
      > > > The choice is yours.
      > > >
      > > > > Yet life is there? so how could it all be extinct?
      > > >
      > > > Who said that it is "all extinct"?
      > > >
      > > > Instead only 99.9999% of all species who ever
      > > > lived on Earth are now extinct.
      > > >
      > > > Math problem for you:
      > > >
      > > > When does 99.9999% = 100%?
      > > >
      > > > NEVER!
      > > >
      > > > > Who works out these numbers? Surely it's a very
      > > > > rough guess at best.
      > > >
      > > > So maybe it is only 99.99%?
      > > >
      > > > Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
      > > >
      > > > > Now another problem. With such evidence to support
      > > > > macro evolution, as you claim, and you say there
      > > > > are a huge number of transitional fossils not yet
      > > > > found, how can you say if a species became extinct
      > > > > or whether it macro evolved?
      > > >
      > > > There is NO difference.
      > > >
      > > > Macro-evolution is the evolution of one population
      > > > into a different species. So the 99.9999% extinction
      > > > rate is NO problem for evolution.
      > > >
      > > > But...
      > > >
      > > > You have to accept macro-evolution to even make that
      > > > argument.
      > > >
      > > > Do you accept macro-evolution?
      > > >
      > > > > Obviously if you look through the layers of the Earths
      > > > > crust and see an abundance of one type of fossil, then
      > > > >a little further up there are none, this COULD indicate
      > > > > extinction.
      > > >
      > > > It DOES indicate extinction.
      > > >
      > > > > But that would suggest they only lived in that one
      > > > > area on the Earth and they could have thrived elsewhere
      > > > > and macro evolved, no?
      > > >
      > > > YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      > > >
      > > > But I know that macro-evolution is TRUE! That's why I
      > > > don't have a problem with the 99.9999% extinction rate.
      > > >
      > > > YOU do not believe in macro-evolution.
      > > >
      > > > Therefore YOUR argument argues against YOUR OWN beliefs!!!!
      > > >
      > > > > Unless the whole of the Earths crust is examined, how
      > > > > can anything be classed as accurate or evidence?
      > > >
      > > > Congratulations.
      > > >
      > > > YOU have just conceded that macro-evolution can explain
      > > > these extinction rates.
      > > >
      > > > I agree 100%!
      > > >
      > > > Macro-evolution DOES explain these extinction rates.
      > > >
      > > > You have no explanation.
      > > >
      > > > Right?
      > > >
      > > johmsonmichael:
      > > So to clarify one more thing. You seem to agree that
      > > if a goat macro evolves into an elephant, then the
      > > goat is classed as extinct?
      >
      > Randy C:
      > Of course not.
      >
      > Goats are classified as "extinct" under one and only one
      > circumstance - there are no more goats around.

      ok, so goats evolved into elephants, then any goats which didn't evolve into elephants, died off. SO, are elephants goats? or are goats classed as extinct?

      >
      > Whether or not they evolved into something else has
      > absolutely no relevance.
      >
      > My ancestors came over from Sweden. You could say that
      > my family "evolved" into Americans.
      >
      > But people still live in Sweden. So the Swedish are
      > NOT extinct.
      >
      > It most often happens that one species evolves into
      > another species that is better able to survive than
      > the parent species and the parent species then becomes
      > extinct. Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Birds are with
      > us but not dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are therefore extinct.
      >
      > But that's not necessarily the case. The coelacanth
      > is thought to be an ancestor of some of the first
      > amphibious animals. It has changed somewhat in many
      > millions of years. But you could argue that it never
      > went extinct.
      >
    • newsentry
      ... Can you provide a reference for this to help me understand its implications? ... Yes - I should have said at the instant of the BB.
      Message 1816 of 1816 , Sep 4, 2011
        --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Oldridge <doldridg@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > On 28/08/2011 3:37 PM, newsentry wrote:
        > > Dave,
        > >
        > > You sound like someone I can ask a question of:
        > >
        > > It seems to me that prior to the big bang it could be hypothesised (Paul Dirac original equation) that there was a sea of negative electron/positron energy and a positive sea of electron/positron energy. Could it be possible that due to probability and a negative well of energy formed and the positive sea of energy instantly tried to fill it.
        >
        > Uh, in pure GR, there is no 'prior to the big bang.' That is to say,
        > there is no defined time before t=0. Of course there may be some
        > entropic connection to a prior state, but that would entail some
        > exception to GR.
        > > That would cause an infinite amount of momentum energy at the point of the disturbance. Once the well is filled there is no "place" (for lack of a better word)to go this infinite electromagnetic momentum energy heated up at the point of the disurbance (singularity)and became our universe. I am not a phycisist so this just might be the craziest idea you have ever come across. But... Would it explain a singularity having infinite energy. The infinite energy would be the electromagnetic mommentum energy of empty space. The probability of this occuring would be next to nil but in a timeless virtual energy universe it might be possible???
        > >
        >
        > Actually, it might simply be that the amplitude of the shortest possible
        > wavelength of quantum fluctuation is cosmic!

        Can you provide a reference for this to help me understand its implications?
        >
        > While pure GR implies a singularity, that is probably wrong. However,
        > "before the big bang" in GR is about as meaningful as "north of the
        > north pole."

        Yes - I should have said 'at the instant' of the BB.
        >
        > --
        > Dave Oldridge
        > Skype: daveoldridge
        > Ham Radio: VA7CZ
        >
        > ----------
        >
        > Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.42 AVE 8.2.6.54 VDF 7.11.14.92
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.