Fallacies in Christianity

[Deleted member]

did he just try to justify murder whilst using circular logic to justify the original justification?

my head asplode

 

[yossarian22]

Thanks for that verse RDK.

As for your latter point, which your post really hinges on, I am going to say this again.

If there is no right or wrong, why shouldn't I kill you?

God has killed people. Killing is a sin. This means that either:

The latter premise is highly suspect as a universal rule. Is killing a man who is about to kill you a sin? The original phrasing is murder, but that is ultimately besides the point. Your argument views the 10 commandments as the source of morality, which everything can be judged by. That view is unsubstantiated. It is the rules that god judges us with. This objection does throw Christians in front of Euthyphro's dilemma, but that is a debate as old as Plato is.

Now tell me, what makes people imperfect? My understanding was that we are imperfect because... we sin.

And this is circular how?
Sin is a property of imperfect beings. Are you really suggesting that this is the only imperfection?

"One does not need a choice to be morally responsible for one's actions." What? You mean that I can be responsible for something I didn't choose to do? That's contradictory:

I phrased this poorly, but the principle remains the same. You don't need an alternative to be morally responsible. If you don't have an alternative, then you don't really have a choice. The latter kind of follows from the former, but I will admit that it is arguable depending on how you view choice.

I want Frank dead. My plan to kill him is to manipulate Bob to kill Frank. Unfortunately, Bob kills Frank before my plan comes to fruition.

Bob had no choice (no alternatives available) about killing Frank, but this scenario still leaves him responsible for his actions. The principle of alternate possibilities is not as universally accepted as it was 80 years ago. The actual argument is more complex, but this summary is good enough for our level of abstraction. This requires that you subscribe to Incompatibalism however. If you aren't one (unlikely), then there is no reason to debate at all.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

"5. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,"

First of all, this commandment says that God will punish children for what their parents did, which is terrible in itself. Secondly, it says that God is a jealous God, while one of the seven deadly sins is envy.

Now, the Commandments also say that you shall not commit murder, which is the unlawful killing of others. BUT if God lawfully killed entire cities, what is an example of an unlawful killing? If a man goes and kills another for no reason, is it unlawful? You would say it is, but how is that different from when God killed people? Because he's God? Circular. Logic. Is. Circular.

 

[snex]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up. God, yes, has killed people. Killing, however, is not necessarily murder, when the law is involved. God has killed because people have breached his laws. Merriam-Webster dictionary, "murder" definition 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. God has only killed directly for a breach of law. People naturally dying is a different matter- physical death happens because of the person's sin. Afterwards, people going to hell are those who have undergone physical death as a part of their fallen state and have not received Christ's sacrifice. If Christ's sacrifice is received, after the physical death of the fallen body, the person gets eternal life with God. God has not sinned by murdering anyone- all acts of killing committed by God were due to a just execution of his law.

what if god changed his mind tomorrow? what if god suddenly decided that all christians go to hell and all atheists go to heaven? since you seem to think that god can do anything he likes and its automatically good, he can do this.

imagine you died tomorrow and got to heaven, and god said you arent being let in. you protest that he promised you eternal life if you accepted jesus, and you did accept jesus. god replies that he simply lied to you.

what are you gonna do about it? argue that lying to you was immoral or unjust? by what standard was it immoral or unjust, if god is the source of morality and justice? if god lied to you, and god is the source of morality and justice, then lying to you was both moral and just.

 

[Batchfile]

what if god changed his mind tomorrow? what if god suddenly decided that all christians go to hell and all atheists go to heaven? since you seem to think that god can do anything he likes and its automatically good, he can do this.

imagine you died tomorrow and got to heaven, and god said you arent being let in. you protest that he promised you eternal life if you accepted jesus, and you did accept jesus. god replies that he simply lied to you.

what are you gonna do about it? argue that lying to you was immoral or unjust? by what standard was it immoral or unjust, if god is the source of morality and justice? if god lied to you, and god is the source of morality and justice, then lying to you was both moral and just.

Stop pulling radical 'ifs'. It seems that's the only arguement you ever use.

 

[snex]

Stop pulling radical 'ifs'. It seems that's the only arguement you ever use.

when the premise is "god can do whatever he wants" then they aint so radical.

how do you KNOW god isnt lying to you about his offer of salvation?

cuz he told you he wasnt?

but if hes lying, so what what he tells you?

these are the conclusions that come from the premises of YOUR stupid religion. if you dont like em, switch religions.

 

[marthanoob]

If there is no right or wrong, why shouldn't I kill you?

Good question. Because humans have minds and values of their own to lead their lives by.

It is arguable that religious organizations have created periods of increased stability, but they have also created periods of increased chaos.
You are suggesting that having no right or wrong invariably leads to chaos. Of course it does to a small extent, but secular organizations also have their own set of rights and wrongs stemming from human nature and mutual agreement.
These may not be as binding as religious morals but there is also more flexibility so that the individual can say that killing infidels may not be as right as it looks. There is room for revision. That is key, for as the human race evolves, so does its mindset, and so too do its morals.

 

[RDK]

Thanks for that verse RDK.

As for your latter point, which your post really hinges on, I am going to say this again.

If there is no right or wrong, why shouldn't I kill you?

Well, in the natural world, there is no "right" or "wrong". Ethics is an invention of man, and, ultimately, society. The majority decides what is "right" or "wrong".

As to why you shouldn't kill me, the reason for that action would be up to you. I wouldn't really want you to kill me because I desire to continue living. So other than because I think it's wrong to kill someone and it's generally considered wrong to kill someone in today's society, I can't really give an answer.

When asked these types of questions, I generally take this view on it: ethics isn't absolute. The rule I live by is basically "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I look at a certain action and decide whether I would want that done to me. That's our most basic "moral compass".

So let's take it a bit further: let's say you kill me, but since I'm a prominent mafia figure my family takes revenge and slaughters your family. All they did was adopt the same viewpoint you did: why not?

Stop pulling radical 'ifs'. It seems that's the only arguement you ever use.

Anyone else find this hysterical? I literally fell off my chair laughing.

 

[Deleted member]

Forgive me for going all Socrates on your ***, but in cases of abortion, wouldn't the golden rule be suicidal? Lol.

 

[RDK]

Not unless you consider the fetus to be an actual person, no.

 

[Deleted member]

That's my cue to re-rail the thread. **** that tangent.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Okay, I have a question for anybody willing to answer: How did the Dinasaurs die out? (This question is not relevant if you're an old world creationist). It is undeniable that Dinasaurs existed, and that they are not alive today. What would possibly kill the dinasaurs that didn't kill any other animals?

 

[Eor]

Homosexuals

 

[snex]

dinosaurs do exist today.

 

[DRaGZ]

Well that's the question Lombardi. If we had a clear idea of what happened, we wouldn't be wondering.

It could be as nonchalant as a global weather anomaly that made it impossible for cold-blooded dinosaurs to survive in, or it could be as crazy as aliens invading Earth, killing off all the dinosaurs, and then leaving after cleaning up all evidence because they got bored. Based on the evidence we have now, both are just as likely.

 

[cF=)]

What are these dinasaurs you're talking about?

 

[Deleted member]

john mccain

 

[RDK]

Well that's the question Lombardi. If we had a clear idea of what happened, we wouldn't be wondering.

It could be as nonchalant as a global weather anomaly that made it impossible for cold-blooded dinosaurs to survive in, or it could be as crazy as aliens invading Earth, killing off all the dinosaurs, and then leaving after cleaning up all evidence because they got bored. Based on the evidence we have now, both are just as likely.

The point is that things make much more sense under the modern scientific model. When you start accepting ridiculous Creationist ideas, you have to make up a bunch of **** to fill in the holes.

And everyone knows it was dirty capitalists that killed the dinosaurs. Christ, guys, get your history straight.

 

[marthanoob]

dinosaurs do exist today.

He means non-avian dinosaurs and you know it. lol...

 

[snex]

Well that's the question Lombardi. If we had a clear idea of what happened, we wouldn't be wondering.

It could be as nonchalant as a global weather anomaly that made it impossible for cold-blooded dinosaurs to survive in, or it could be as crazy as aliens invading Earth, killing off all the dinosaurs, and then leaving after cleaning up all evidence because they got bored. Based on the evidence we have now, both are just as likely.

dinosaurs are warm blooded.

 

[fkacyan]

Well that's the question Lombardi. If we had a clear idea of what happened, we wouldn't be wondering.

It could be as nonchalant as a global weather anomaly that made it impossible for cold-blooded dinosaurs to survive in, or it could be as crazy as aliens invading Earth, killing off all the dinosaurs, and then leaving after cleaning up all evidence because they got bored. Based on the evidence we have now, both are just as likely.

Actually, considering the amount of time and energy that would go into interstellar travel, aliens is pretty **** unlikely.

However, the sentient sharks with laser beams strapped to their heads is a completely different story.

 

[DRaGZ]

dinosaurs are warm blooded.

That's a theory. No one's really sure, but considering that they were reptilian, it's not a long-shot that they were mostly cold-blooded.

Actually, considering the amount of time and energy that would go into interstellar travel, aliens is pretty **** unlikely.

However, the sentient sharks with laser beams strapped to their heads is a completely different story.

You don't know what those aliens want man. And all sharks want is a nice warm meal, so they wouldn't have cared about cleaning up their own mess.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Considering there aren't any serious answers, I'd say that this is a pretty solid fallacy.

 

[Aesir]

That's a theory. No one's really sure, but considering that they were reptilian, it's not a long-shot that they were mostly cold-blooded..

Dinosaurs weren't all reptilian, that's a misconception they were in fact more closesly related to birds then reptiles.

Many modern day birds are actually dinosaurs believe it or not.

 

[Grandeza]

Aren't chickens descendants of Tyrannosaurus Rex's? I thought I heard that somewhere.

 

[snex]

dragz apparently doesnt know what a "theory" means to scientists. dinosaurs were warm blooded. they could not have survived otherwise.

and dinosaurs are reptilian, and birds are dinosaurs. dinosauria is a subgroup of reptilia, and aves is a subgroup of dinosauria.

 

[RDK]

The problem is that people assume dinosaurs must have been cold-blooded just because they're reptilian, which is completely false.

Basically, the evolutionary line starts under Reptilia and deviates into Diapsida (lizards, snakes), Archosaurs (crocs, gators), Ornithodira (pterosaurs), and finally Dinosauria.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmm...on the first post (as I do not really want to read through sixteen pages of posts), I don't know if you can use fallacies on the Bible or religion, as religion is founded on principles of faith. Therefore if you use science to break it down, I'm pretty sure that you will find some fallacies here and there, but they don't matter to a religious person because humans don't understand everything and they continue in faith, not knowledge, on what they believe in. Sooooo...I don't know if it's, say, appropriate to use fallacies to critique religion. It kinda sounds like using the Pythagorean theorem to solve a 30, 60, 90 triangle. I just don't really understand how these two subjects can critique each other effectively. They may have things in common, but they can't really mesh all that well. Does that make any sense at all?

On a side note...there's a lot of smart people in here. You learn a lot just by visiting these boards. Just goes to show you how terrible the stereotype is against ALL video game players that they are nerds who do nothing but play video games. Granted, a lot of us in here are probably still nerds in some aspect or another, but we do have lives.

 

[marthanoob]

Hmmm...on the first post (as I do not really want to read through sixteen pages of posts), I don't know if you can use fallacies on the Bible or religion, as religion is founded on principles of faith. Therefore if you use science to break it down, I'm pretty sure that you will find some fallacies here and there, but they don't matter to a religious person because humans don't understand everything and they continue in faith, not knowledge, on what they believe in. Sooooo...I don't know if it's, say, appropriate to use fallacies to critique religion. It kinda sounds like using the Pythagorean theorem to solve a 30, 60, 90 triangle. I just don't really understand how these two subjects can critique each other effectively. They may have things in common, but they can't really mesh all that well. Does that make any sense at all?

On a side note...there's a lot of smart people in here. You learn a lot just by visiting these boards. Just goes to show you how terrible the stereotype is against ALL video game players that they are nerds who do nothing but play video games. Granted, a lot of us in here are probably still nerds in some aspect or another, but we do have lives.

Your post confuses me. To answer your question, no.

It is perfectly plausible to use the Pythagorean theorem to solve a 30, 60, 90 triangle.
So you are saying logic does not apply to religion? I cannot begin to imagine the crazy conclusions you could get from that.
Neither do I understand why you would include a side note on a completely irrelevant topic. At least I lol'ed?

 

[GI Josh]

Your post confuses me. To answer your question, no.

It is perfectly plausible to use the Pythagorean theorem to solve a 30, 60, 90 triangle.
So you are saying logic does not apply to religion? I cannot begin to imagine the crazy conclusions you could get from that.
Neither do I understand why you would include a side note on a completely irrelevant topic. At least I lol'ed?

Of course logic has to do with religion. But it's never 100% logic. If you ever try to approach any religion with 100% logic in mind, tons and tons of things will not make sense.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Of course logic has to do with religion. But it's never 100% logic. If you ever try to approach any religion with 100% logic in mind, tons and tons of things will not make sense.

That should tell you something.

 

[Reaver197]

Hmmm...on the first post (as I do not really want to read through sixteen pages of posts), I don't know if you can use fallacies on the Bible or religion, as religion is founded on principles of faith. Therefore if you use science to break it down, I'm pretty sure that you will find some fallacies here and there, but they don't matter to a religious person because humans don't understand everything and they continue in faith, not knowledge, on what they believe in. Sooooo...I don't know if it's, say, appropriate to use fallacies to critique religion. It kinda sounds like using the Pythagorean theorem to solve a 30, 60, 90 triangle. I just don't really understand how these two subjects can critique each other effectively. They may have things in common, but they can't really mesh all that well. Does that make any sense at all?

Ah, the old "non-overlapping magisteria" argument. You're essentially saying that science and religion exist as completely separate and disparate fields which do not overlap at all, so that one cannot take the "rules" of one field and apply it to the other, if I'm not mistaken.

Not only is that a pretty hypocritical position to take (maybe not for you personally, but definitely for the religious community as whole), since I only have to point out creationists as a clear encroachment of religion on to what is rightly and provably scientific grounds. But, if you think about it hard enough, you can see that the claim that science and religion do not overlap is quite false.

Take, for example, the birthing process. A thoroughly biological and scientifically understood process. I hope you agree that biology and human physiology fall quite entirely within the realm of science, with all its logical and rational thinking. Yet, one of the current main tenants of Christianity (even though, funnily enough, it was not originally part of Christianity at all) was that Jesus was born from a virgin. Now, please tell me you see the glaring clash that occurs because of that. Scientific understanding is such that it is impossible for a female to spontaneously be able to generate an egg that suddenly has a full set of genes, and that develops into a baby. If such a thing were to actually occur, our fundamental understanding of human physiology and fetal development would have to be overhauled.

Now, there is also the case of the various "miracles" ostensibly performed through out the Bible. Noah's crossing of the Red Sea (which doubtfully ever happened, not only because of the fact there doesn't seem to be an evidence that the Jews were ever held as slaves in Egypt) in which he (or the ever elusive God) causes the water to part without any sort of physical means. Don't tell me that such a blatant disregard for even the most basic of laws of physics can't go unquestioned or unaccountable. Yet, that's precisely what happens, religion massively contradicts science, directly voiding physics.

Then there's also the claims of people coming back from the dead. Once again, physics and biology is completely ignored. A clear encroachment on scientific fact, yet religion brooks no invasion of its claims.

Also, let me pose the question of why should we not approach anything with logic and rationality? It seems to me the far more dangerous thing is to not think about things logically and rationally enough.

Also, lol at GI Josh, either logic applies to religion or it doesn't. There's no "oh, hey, we're only allowed to apply, uh, about 65% logic here". Just think about how absurd what you're saying is.

 

[pockyD]

Ah, the old "non-overlapping magisteria" argument. You're essentially saying that science and religion exist as completely separate and disparate fields which do not overlap at all, so that one cannot take the "rules" of one field and apply it to the other, if I'm not mistaken.

Not only is that a pretty hypocritical position to take (maybe not for you personally, but definitely for the religious community as whole), since I only have to point out creationists as a clear encroachment of religion on to what is rightly and provably scientific grounds. But, if you think about it hard enough, you can see that the claim that science and religion do not overlap is quite false.

Take, for example, the birthing process. A thoroughly biological and scientifically understood process. I hope you agree that biology and human physiology fall quite entirely within the realm of science, with all its logical and rational thinking. Yet, one of the current main tenants of Christianity (even though, funnily enough, it was not originally part of Christianity at all) was that Jesus was born from a virgin. Now, please tell me you see the glaring clash that occurs because of that. Scientific understanding is such that it is impossible for a female to spontaneously be able to generate an egg that suddenly has a full set of genes, and that develops into a baby. If such a thing were to actually occur, our fundamental understanding of human physiology and fetal development would have to be overhauled.

Now, there is also the case of the various "miracles" ostensibly performed through out the Bible. Noah's crossing of the Red Sea (which doubtfully ever happened, not only because of the fact there doesn't seem to be an evidence that the Jews were ever held as slaves in Egypt) in which he (or the ever elusive God) causes the water to part without any sort of physical means. Don't tell me that such a blatant disregard for even the most basic of laws of physics can't go unquestioned or unaccountable. Yet, that's precisely what happens, religion massively contradicts science, directly voiding physics.

Then there's also the claims of people coming back from the dead. Once again, physics and biology is completely ignored. A clear encroachment on scientific fact, yet religion brooks no invasion of its claims.

Also, let me pose the question of why should we not approach anything with logic and rationality? It seems to me the far more dangerous thing is to not think about things logically and rationally enough.

Also, lol at GI Josh, either logic applies to religion or it doesn't. There's no "oh, hey, we're only allowed to apply, uh, about 65% logic here". Just think about how absurd what you're saying is.

I think you are completely missing the point. The thing is, if one were to believe in an all-powerful being, then there's absolutely no reason not to assume he's capable of instigating a virgin birth, parting the red sea, etc. etc.

"Miracles are impossible" is kind of a pointless statement; isn't a miracle by definition something previously deemed impossible?

In the context of an omnipotent God, all things are possible... the question is, is the concept of such a being itself, in this case, as defined by the Christian bible, "logical"?

There is no way to truly prove that an omnipotent force does not exist... of course, this doesn't make it necessarily true that he DOES exist, but it certainly (in my mind) allows room for potential belief in such a force. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that one can (at least make an attempt to) disprove the notion of the God with the characteristics defined by the bible, which is the argument at hand

Edit: if your post was simply about religion and science not being disjoint, then ok, I'm sorry for reading too much into it. Yes, the things you said make sense and are relevant in that context

 

[MasterWarlord]

This is still relating to the topic, but I apologize for not joining the conversation directly.

My basic stance relating to believing in a god is quite simple. I want you to directly prove to me evoloution is true, which is the only way we can be here without a god.

There is far too little evidence for evoloution for it to truly even be considered a hypothesis, let alone a theory, much less a scientific law. Where are the fossils of the animals inbetween stages of evoloution?

And more importantly. . .The directly calculated odds of forming one cell (Which is incredbly complicated) are one in one with forty million zeros after it. I don't trust those odds when I still can't win the lottery. . .

Evoloutionists seem to just be shutting out the idea of God. They're perfectly accepting into believing aliens dropped a cell off here and started the evoloution cycle, but not God? Utterly ridiculous. Even highly respected evoloutions such as Richard Dawkins have said this.

Despite this, evoloution is being taught as a fact, no questions asked, and it's impossible to be a Christian scientist anymore. You mention your faith, you're more likely then not going to be targeted. Fun fun, wouldn't you agree?

 

[marthanoob]

Current hypothesis

My basic stance relating to believing in a god is quite simple. I want you to directly prove to me evoloution is true, which is the only way we can be here without a god.

There is far too little evidence for evoloution for it to truly even be considered a hypothesis, let alone a theory, much less a scientific law. Where are the fossils of the animals inbetween stages of evoloution?

There may be a lack of evidence in between for macroevolution, but the evidence of microevolution is overwhelming enough for macroevolution to be a distinct possibility.
And second, if you were to discard evolution, why would you assume God made us? How hard is it to say "I don't know."?

Evoloutionists seem to just be shutting out the idea of God. They're perfectly accepting into believing aliens dropped a cell off here and started the evoloution cycle, but not God? Utterly ridiculous. Even highly respected evoloutions such as Richard Dawkins have said this.

Evolutionists are scientists. Scientists use the scientific method to prove claims. God is unfalsifiable and untestable.
We aren't shutting down the idea of God. We are just calling it a fairy tale and ignoring it.
Source?

And more importantly. . .The directly calculated odds of forming one cell (Which is incredibly complicated) are one in one with forty million zeros after it. I don't trust those odds when I still can't win the lottery. . .

Evoloutionists seem to just be shutting out the idea of God. They're perfectly accepting into believing aliens dropped a cell off here and started the evoloution cycle, but not God? Utterly ridiculous. Even highly respected evoloutions such as Richard Dawkins have said this.

Um...source?
You most likely won't win the lottery because you won't live for four and a half billion years.
Current hypothesis.

 

[MasterWarlord]

I apologize that I can't get you the exact source on that figure, but the odds are still ridiculously slim, however you look at it. Each time you try the lottery you aren't any more likely to succeed then the last. You'll never win the lottery no matter how many times you try. A single cell is insanely complicated, no matter how many times you splatter chemicals together they have to be utterly perfect to be a working cell. No exceptions.

Why do I say a God over simply saying I don't know? Because the cell and the world as a whole scream that there was an intelligent designer. Everything's so perfectly made to of come about by chance. The earth's position relating to the sun is one of many, many examples. If we were any closer to it or farther away, the planet would be too hot/cold to support life.

 

[marthanoob]

I apologize that I can't get you the exact source on that figure, but the odds are still ridiculously slim, however you look at it. Each time you try the lottery you aren't any more likely to succeed then the last. You'll never win the lottery no matter how many times you try. A single cell is insanely complicated, no matter how many times you splatter chemicals together they have to be utterly perfect to be a working cell. No exceptions.

But there is always a 1 over that ridiculously high number. You also must understand that the universe is a place of extremes relative to our limited viewpoint. When you are given a probability, there is always a possibility.

Why do I say a God over simply saying I don't know? Because the cell and the world as a whole scream that there was an intelligent designer. Everything's so perfectly made to of come about by chance. The earth's position relating to the sun is one of many, many examples. If we were any closer to it or farther away, the planet would be too hot/cold to support life.

No. We developed adapting to the Earth's temperature. The Earth did not develop to suit our needs.
The rest of your paragraph is opinion.

 

[MasterWarlord]

But there is always a 1 over that ridiculously high number. You also must understand that the universe is a place of extremes relative to our limited viewpoint. When you are given a probability, there is always a possibility.

I don't care if there's a possibility. . .How did that get us anywhere? Of course there's a possibility, it's that ridiculously slim one I keep bringing up. How can you prove to me that slim possibility actually happened?

No. We developed adapting to the Earth's temperature. The Earth did not develop to suit our needs. The rest of your paragraph is opinion.

That it is opinion, but really now, how else are we to believe we were created if it wasn't a random occurence? The only other option is God. . .Unless you want to use aliens as a scapegoat. If you believe that aliens could've started the process, why couldn't God? God's no more far fetched then aliens. . .And even then those aliens would've had to of evolved themselves, and then you're back to square one.

 

[cman]

I apologize that I can't get you the exact source on that figure, but the odds are still ridiculously slim, however you look at it. Each time you try the lottery you aren't any more likely to succeed then the last. You'll never win the lottery no matter how many times you try. A single cell is insanely complicated, no matter how many times you splatter chemicals together they have to be utterly perfect to be a working cell. No exceptions.

I do love how you say "No exceptions" when you have absolutely no idea if that is true or not.

Anyway, science disagrees with you.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

In that study, a scientist replicated many times the evolutionary shift of e coli to a species that can metabolise citrate (characteristic of what e coli cannot do). He froze the populations every few thousand generations, then went back to previous generations to see if they would all develop the ability in separate paths.

Each time, the bacteria colony developed the ability. This could suggest a few things. The first is that it may not be very unlikely at all for many things to happen in sequence. Another possibility is that once one condition is met, the others are bound to fall into place eventually (in a very colloquial way of saying it).

You could say that this only applies to already living organisms, but it is quite possible that certain combinations of chemicals naturally bond. Basically, you have nowhere near the knowledge needed to say that any of this is unlikely.

Also, remember, cells do not need to materalize as the complete and specialized cells we think of in order to function. An example would be viruses.

 

[AltF4]

Ah! Welcome to the debate hall, everyone. I see we've restarted an old religion topic. I'll share with you what I can for the moment:



1) Be careful about claiming that god is above "the laws of logic". Logic by its very nature is universal. IE: It applies to everything. No exceptions. Period.

There is no such thing as something or someone being "above" or "separate from" logic. Everything is bound by it. When you assert that god can break the laws of logic, you are asserting that the laws of logic are wrong. I hope I don't need to inform you as to just what kind of road that leads you down.

2) Evolution is a fact. Get over it. Species change over time, this can be observed directly. IE: You can literally watch it happen. When species change over time, it's called evolution, and it happens.

Now the "theory" of evolution is not whether it occurs or not (because it does) but rather how and by what mechanisms it happens.



MasterWizard:

You seem overly zealous for a "proof" of something which is quite clearly out of the scope of this thread and website. There are thousands of people who have many PhD's and have devoted their entire lives to the study of evolution.

If you want evidence, look it up. It's all there. It really is. Try google.


But your "real" problem does NOT appear to be with evolution at all! But rather abiogenesis. This is the incredibly small chance that you seem to think is so problematic. It's not:

The anthropic principle.

We are here. Thus abiogenesis is possible! No matter how unlikely it may or may not be, it did happen so what does it matter what the odds were? Very smart people are already working on a precise explanation as to HOW it happened. But don't come in here saying it didn't! That's absurd.

I