1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Obama and the Virtues of Inaction

Dobermite Wrote: Oct 29, 2014 6:45 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why Hugh Hewitt is syndicating Steve Chapman at Townhall? The guy is a flaming leftist and Obama apologist, so what the hell is he doing here?
"The Catholics probably think that the world won't hate them as much if they attempt to give props to the aberrant worldly teaching. They are wrong." == BINGO!! Thats why I left the Catholic church, for exactly that reason. If you cannot boldly stand up for Christendom without pandering to the world in some pathetic attempt to win the worlds approval, then deal me out.
LIKE THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
This Pope is behaving like a useful idiot and its very disappointing. Why run interference for evolution now, at a time when more and more people are exposing Darwinian evolution for the fraud that it is. We have really smart people out there, brilliant scientists and mathematicians like Chuck Missler and David Berlinski, who are completely laying to waste the fraud that is Darwinian evolution, people who are consistently smoking the evolutionists in debates, to the point where the evolutionists are starting to hide from them and carefully choosing uneducated pastors to debate instead, and this Pope picks NOW!! to run interference for evolution? This man is turning into a disaster.
Indeed, and libertarians are their enablers.
This is a great column, and this was a great response. Both are dead on the money.
IOW's Dean, what you are proposing, whatever hypotheses you are proposing for the universe and/or life, you are proposing a miracle. Thats the bottom line my friend, there is no hypotheses, scientific or otherwise, that does not require the belief in miracles. The only difference between me and you is that I have the humility to admit it, and my hypotheses has a Creator who operates outside of time & space, who can bend or suspend the laws of physics, who is not bound by the laws of science and for whom no statistical anomaly is impossible. Granted its hard to explain such an entity with a mind that knows only the physical world, but such an entity makes it a lot easier to understand the never-ending series of miracles that account for the universe and everything in it, including us. You, on the other hand, have a creation myth without a creator. Your miracles just randomly occur. Which is okay, you are free to believe that if you wish, but don't suggest that what you are proposing is mathematically sound because it isn't. You are proposing miracles my friend, and so am I, but I admit it and I at least have a logical explanation for it. You can argue that a belief in God is illogical, and we can do that philosophical dance all day and night, but as for the origin of the universe and life, I at least have someone or some thing that is capable of performing miracles in my story.
You know what Dean, I'm feeling especially generous today so I'm going to give you a head start, I'm going to give you the mathematical odds that the first cell arrived by chance and accident, of course acknowledging that we have never seen a cell come from anything other than another cell. We see cells die. Like entropy, we see them mutate and die, but we have never seen a cell just "become" and the same is true for a DNA strand, the incredibly sophisticated, four bit (our PC's are two bit), three dimensional digital coding for life, any kind of life, and the odds against just one strand of DNA coding existing is 48 Octillion to 1, thats 48 with 48 zeros behind it , but I digress, what about the first cell, what are the odds of the first cell coming into existence? Approximately 10 to the 39970 to 1, and to put that in context, in math we know that 10 to the 50th Power to 1 is a mathematical impossibility. For further context, if you were to hit the lottery every day for the next ten thousand years, you would not even come close to that number (10 to the 39970 to 1). That said, having given you a little head start, you can now feel free to explain the mathematically sound hypotheses for the universe and everything in it. And again, just for the sake of confirmation, I would appreciate it if you can provide the math. It doesn't have to be perfect, just close enough so we can get some idea of how mathematically sound the hypotheses it. Okay, fire away :-)
Dean197 Wrote: "There are several mathematically sound hypotheses for the origin of our universe waiting for experimental evidence to back one of them up (or a new idea)." == Like what? Name one "mathematically sound" hypotheses that explains the universe and everything in it? And if you don't mind, give me the statistical math just to verify that its "mathematically sound." Not that I don't trust you, but just to confirm.
Berlinksi Unplugged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740
1 - 10 Next