God and science: The laws of probability

In other words, you are going to ignore all of the scientific evidence that abiogenesis is impossible.

It's not science and you display your deep ignorance when you try to call it that.
You want to believe in supernatural beings and insane magical fantasies.
Why can't you stop making a fool of yourself and just leave it at that?
 
Neither do you apparently,because you claim there is no God!
So it will read for you!
"? doesn't play dice with the universe"

It wasn't my quote, you fucking moron. I'm merely telling you that you don't have a fucking clue what EINSTEIN meant by it.
 
"God doesn't play dice with the universe"
Einstein
“The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.”

― Albert Einstein
Einstein

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.



I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)


I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. (Albert Einstein, The Human Side)

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)
 
So ya got nothin,thanks for playing!

lol

Just the opposite, Thumper. This is a you have:
“The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"...

(Return to top)
 
lol

Just the opposite, Thumper. This is a you have:
“The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"...

(Return to top)
Never read a word of the Bible till after my Epiphany which started at Midnight ,Nov.1 1975,when the Holy Spirit came upon me,and has continued to this very day.
 
If you want to blindly guess there is a god...do it.

If you want to blindly guess there are no gods...do it.

If you want to peddle your blind guesses as truths...stop pretending to be offended if someone calls you an asshole.

There is no way anyone can use logic, reason, math, or science to get to:

There is at least one god.

There are no gods.

It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

ALL THAT SHIT IS NOTHING BUT BLIND GUESSING!
 
Jeff Miller, Ph.D. explains why abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3726

I’d be embarrassed to publish such a shoddy piece of work. There is no evidence observed or referenced here just the opinion of others. His attack on macro evolution has two major flaws. One is he completely ignores the vast body of evidence supporting it. His second is his argument based on statistical probability is based on a logical fallacy. That is you cannot calculate the probability of an event occurring that has already occurred.

Looks like the work of a neophyte to me.
 
Back
Top