PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
This is not a tactic to attempt to prove out a creationist theory, it is often an effort to undermine evolution and the big bang theory. A participant in a debate would do this to show that it takes a certain amount of faith in science to believe that evolution and the big bang occured. Most likely their next gambit would be to say, you must have faith in your theory, just as I must have faith in what you see as improbable.
The point on which this particular gambit has some punch is in that even though the evolutionist or atheist debater would state that it takes no faith to back up their beliefs due to impericle evidence, studies, research, etc. ; their opponent could turn around and say..."did you conduct the studies? how do you know they didn't make it all up?" By this, they "prove" that even atheism requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief.
Can you tell ive done too many debates? Hell I could probably play out both sides in my head. :P
While it is absolutely and painstakingly clear that the whole point of the Creationist movement is to do nothing more than denounce evolution in an attempt to let the absent-minded fall into the trap of their false dichotomy, this was just a response to those that just, without any reference to creationism, try to use improbability as an assault on evolution and the big bang.
One cannot claim something (or disclaim something) on some basis and not apply that same logic to the rest of their decisions and beliefs. To do so is intellectually dishonest (not that I believe many creationists are intellectuals or honest to begin with).
Faith is only applicable when, no one, anywhere, at any time, has done studies and research and recorded the results allowing others to find out using the same methods. Science hold steady and stern in this methodology, whereas faith allows one to rest solely on a book or a pastor's word without evidence or proof being a necessary requirement.
Trying to use the words faith and reasonable conclusions interchangably makes for a big mess and doesn't allow intellectual discussion/advancement due to either side claiming semantic disagreement and the biggest issue involved.
While i have been thrown the improbability question many times, the improbability of many things that occur in nature and in our lives many times shows that no matter how improbable, it does happen. Just like life in our solar system occurs (we are evidence of this) the probabilty of life in another solar system is particularly small, even improbable if you look at the big picture...which is something our minds aren't that good at looking at. As per Dawkins, if you take how many solar systems that are in our galaxy...about 10 billion and realize so far, 1 in a 10 billion chance there is life, no matter how improbable there is that possiblity. Then if you wish to apply that to the universe to determine the possiblity of other life forms, say 10 billion galaxies each with 10 billion solar systems, the number is huge, and the probabilty for life seems very much improbable. yet we can still say there is 1 in 10 billion chance in each galaxy that life exists.....that number is exteremly small when you consider the magnitude of the universe.....but we are evidence that it does happen. Improbabilty doesn't mean impossible, just very very low possiblity.
I'm not entirely certain, but I think probably my Christian friend would say, "But you're assuming the conclusion here. We can't use ourselves as an example against the improbability of it."
Of course, since the idea of God is irrational as Todangst and jackal eyes have shown (though jackal does it in this forum, not Todangst's), I believe it not only likely but better than 1 in a billion chance for life to have been created. This also comes from the experiments of Urey and Miller (Miller? I forget if that's who it was), as well as others closer to today. Once they started doing that stuff, I was stunned and amazed. I was also much happier. The same Christian friend once asked me, "Wouldn't you RATHER there be a God like the Christian God?" He was trying to use that as an argument for believing. I didn't get a chance to respond to him because he wouldn't shut up, but I would say to him if I had a chance, "No. That God is petty and vengeful. He is even a liar. I do not want that God to exist. I would rather be in control of my life."
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
I agree the odds are probably higher than 1 in 10 billion, but again that is just using one possiblity that was used by dawkins, and realizing that our minds usually are not adapted at dealing with big numbers or big odds that easily. As for your friend using that we can't use ourselves as a conclusion, i would use any life form on earth (we was used as a collective, not just human), since so far this is the only known form of life in this universe that WE know of. Now life really depends on what you mean, i would say intelligent like, not human like but sentient, any form of mammals/fish/avian/reptile/insect. But even if the Odds are 1 in 10 billion, there is a far higher probabilty of life than what many (but not all) theists claim which is none outside of earth.