The Great Big Arguments #9: Infinity

Basic form of the argument:
For all we know, the universe is infinite. There might even be infinite universes. However small the chance of a god existing in any given way, place or universe, the infinite possibilities make it practically certain that a god is out there somewhere.

Answer by SmartLX:
This one crops up a great deal, but I have yet to see it formalised. A possible reason for this is that it doesn’t hold up very well when even basic mathematics are applied to it.

Firstly, the universe may not be infinite in whatever way matters. There may have been nothing of consequence before the Big Bang, or even no time so that “before” doesn’t even make sense. The multiverse may merely be a useful way of modelling the phenomena we see in the field of quantum mechanics, while not actually being real. Therefore the possibilities may not be infinite either, and a god may have only one chance to exist.

Secondly, the presence of an infinite element in a calculation does not automatically take the result to 100% or probability 1. The set of even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8…) is infinite but contains absolutely no odd numbers. You can calculate the digits in pi forever but they will never repeat themselves. The sum of an infinite set will be a finite number if each new number is a smaller percentage of the previous one, e.g. 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … = 2.

To speak more practically, if the multiverse is real there may well be things all universes have in common which preclude the existence of uncreated omnipotent beings. Super-advanced beings who have acquired godlike powers through evolution and technology over aeons, sure, possibly out there somewhere, but this supposition is an extrapolation of our own status and the technology we’ve developed so far, not a guess unrelated to anything we’ve ever seen before.

To make my answer as general as possible, there are any number of reasons why the probability of the existence of a god might be zero, making the number of different universes irrelevant. (Try to roll a 13 with two standard dice – you’d be there a while.) Even if it’s not zero, there are any number of reasons why a non-zero probability is not brute-forced to certainty by an infinite universe/multiverse. Infinite possibilities just mean there are things we can’t rule out, but I’ve never claimed to be certain that there are no gods.

16 thoughts on “The Great Big Arguments #9: Infinity”

  1. What do you mean, “however small”? There should be the same percentage of chance that God is as your belief in your multiple universe theory? You have no proof of multiple universes. And YOU, don’t have don’t as YOU, say proof for the existence for God. Although the fact that life does appear to be designed. The fact that life is, even though, most people do not know how life became, but life appears to be an anomaly that has to be accepted but, as much as a mystery at its being, maybe as much as God. And when you toss man into the mix, and our abilities, to do what we do, God should be the first explanation we should consider.
    I really do think that you are not be impartial, in your assessments when God is concerned. For what ever reason, you just don’t want there to be God.
    This is a shame because you really could be smart if you would just include Him in your considerations of what is and what is not.

    1. You haven’t even understood the argument for a god, let alone my rebuttal. The argument I’m paraphrasing uses the apparent existence of a multiverse as support for the existence of a god, unlike many others which deny it as a possible alternative to a god’s influence. It highlights the infinite number of places a god could be hiding.

      As for impartiality towards God, it does not make sense to posit God as the explanation for anything without first already knowing or at least believing that God exists. That’s easy for you since you believe already, but for an atheist a god entity is too exotic and unprecedented in our experience to simply hypothesise out of thin air for the purpose of explaining something else. It becomes a bigger question than whatever one was trying to answer in the first place.

    2. Gerald writes: [There should be the same percentage of chance that God is as your belief in your multiple universe theory?]

      Then there must also be the same percentage chance that leprechauns started the universe, right Gerald? According to you, if we can conceive of it then it should stand an equal chance of being considered. That’s what you are saying here. So Odin and Zeus and Osiris should receive equal consideration along with multiple universes and your slaver god being. Only….you don’t give other gods or leprechauns consideration, do you. You don’t consider them because you don’t believe in them. Quite the double standard on your part.

      So if you really don’t want to consider all possibilities with the “same percentage chance”, then how should we proceed? Perhaps the best thing to do is to consider each one according to their merits. What evidence is there for Odin, or Zeus, or Osiris, or leprechauns? None, which is exactly the same amount of evidence for your slavery god. Multi-universes? There is mathematical support for such things at least. So given what we have (mathematical support for multiple universes, nothing for creator beings), it’s only logical to explore the mulitverse concept. It’s illogical to think magical creatures have anything to do with anything…

      Gerald writes: [Although the fact that life does appear to be designed.]

      A fallacy you’ve often tried to claim on this website which has been repeatedly shown to be utter nonsense by myself and others for years now. You continued writing of that claim without being able to make one valid argument for it is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty on your part.

      Gerald writes: [And when you toss man into the mix, and our abilities, to do what we do, God should be the first explanation we should consider.]

      There’s no evidence for your slavery god, or any other god, or any other magical creature, or any such thing as a supernatural. There is actually ZERO reason to consider something that is unsupported speculation as an explanation for something known to exist (life). You want to credit a slavery god for life, then prove the slavery god exists…only you can’t ever do that, despite being asked for years to do so…

      Gerald writes: [I really do think that you are not be impartial, in your assessments when God is concerned. For what ever reason, you just don’t want there to be God.]

      You still don’t get it. It’s not what LX, or myself, or any atheist WANTS. What matters is the data and evidence that exists, and what is and isn’t supported by that evidence. There is no empirical support for gods and magic and supernatural what-not. None. Zero. Zilch. Instead we get directed to an ancient book written by people unknown over hundreds of years full of unresolvable conflicts. What atheists want is evidence for the claims of gods, and what we get is nothing useful or empirical…

  2. What do you mean, “however small”? There should be the same percentage of chance that God is as your belief in your multiple universe theory? You have no proof of multiple universes. And YOU, don’t have don’t as YOU, say proof for the existence for God. Although the fact that life does appear to be designed. The fact that life is, even though, most people do not know how life became, but life appears to be an anomaly that has to be accepted but, as much as a mystery at its being, maybe as much as God. And when you toss man into the mix, and our abilities, to do what we do, God should be the first explanation we should consider.
    I really do think that you are not be impartial, in your assessments when God is concerned. For what ever reason, you just don’t want there to be God.
    This is a shame because you really could be smart if you would just include Him in your considerations of what is and what is not.
    As a matter of fact since the “Big Bang” is not even a proven theory, then anything that concerns it, is already questionable.

    1. Gerald writes: [As a matter of fact since the “Big Bang” is not even a proven theory, then anything that concerns it, is already questionable.]

      How is it possible that you can be making the same ridiculous mistakes in your posts for YEARS now, after so many efforts to educate you?

      Scientific theories are not “proven”. Scientific theories explain all the facts in existence regarding a particular topic. The Big Bang Theory explains all the facts we currently know about the known universe, including things like gravity waves, cosmic microwave background, expansion of the universe, etc. A theory is the best explanation of FACTS.

      If you want to pray for something, maybe you should pray for help to get that through your thick skull…

      1. You say I don’t understand. I’m afraid that it is you who doesn’t understand. God can not be argued to make Him God. He is as much as a fact of life as life is. Even more so, because He made life.

        My statement was not that multi universe did or did not support the argument for God. My argument was that it is so hypocritical, when you can allow for one but not the other. And it is not just that. You are so insistent that could not be a God. And even worse even though you don’t believe that God is, you go out of your way to try to convince others that He isn’t. And when I’m saying you, I’m actually referring to all who are doing so.
        Just who are the ones with the dogged belief that “all we need is time”?
        And yet God is left out of your possibilities.
        Who are the ones that say, “It could have happened at least once”. But deny that God could be the Once.
        The question right now at least is not whether someone believes or not in God. It is the giving of possibilities for the answer we are seeking to the question being asked.
        And life in all of its eccentricities is the one most important to use in a question, since we have asked it for so long only to come up short time and time again.
        Wouldn’t it be logical, that when all other possibilities have been ruled out that the one that remains should be given more thought?
        Well, so many scientists and others have ruled out one of three logical possibilities. One, life came from somewhere else, and then evolved. Two, life appeared from nothing and evolved. Three, God created life as it was to be.
        One is highly improbable. Two, has been ruled out by science, but is now trying to be “Frankensteined”, back to life. But there still is the fact that it was ruled out.
        To dampen your hopes even more, is the fact that what the early idea of evolution was and under the covers, is still whispered to be, is not seen in life today. No matter what you or any other evolutionist says, life shows that all kinds of types of organisms, reproduce what resembles them.
        This is supported by all the living fossils, from plants, protozoans, pollen, and more complex organisms. Then the viable tissue encased within supposedly millions of year old fossils. If you stop ignoring the obvious, evolution is going down the drain.

        And Tim, yes theories are proven or thrown out using science. Maybe that is why you just refuse to let go of the theory of evolution. Because you don’t understand the purpose of science. It rules out the not true, making room for what is. And evolution has not been proven anything else but false.
        Because if life could only have been created, then all life was, I repeat, WAS, created as full grown organisms. Ready to perform the purposes for which they were all created. Even Humans.

        (http://www.overcomeproblems.com/transitional.htm)

        “Quotes About Life Fully Formed In The Fossil Record
        “All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves” Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar’s More Difficulties, p. 94
        “The evidence of Geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation” Geologist, Joseph Le Conte
        “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”
        Charles Robert Darwin,
        The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1st edition reprint. Avenel Books

        “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils). In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed.”
        Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Mentioned in one of his regular columns in Natural History Magazine (1977) and also in The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182

        “different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated — we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much — We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins’ time” Dr. David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Field Museum Natural History Bulletin 50:22- 29
        “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them” Dr. David B. Kitts, Paleontologist
        “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition” Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M. Stanley
        “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.”
        Bowler, ‘Evolution: The History of an Idea’, 1984, p. 187″

        Please note these quotes aren’t just from every day people. They held positions of respect.
        And so as Paul Harvey used to say. “And now you know the rest of the story”. The true story.

  3. I don’t like you, Gerald, in fact, I very much dislike you.
    I wanted you to know that you have made me your foe.

    1. Ha. Ha. Wait. You are not serious right. Well. Whether you are or not, doesn’t change the fact that God loves you and me. And that His goal is that we both would become brothers in Christ. I don’t know if you hate God more than you hate me. But He won’t change His mind. He still loves you. That is one of the attributes of God. His love is untiring.

      1. Or his goal is to have us become slaves. After all, he has all kinds of rules on how to treat slaves. He also doesn’t want us to wear mixed fabrics, or get haircuts. Let’s just be glad we aren’t Canaanites. Your god ordered all of them killed, and their cattle and sheep and camels and donkeys too…

  4. Let’s just replace the word “god” in the argument by the two words “multicolored unicorn”.
    Looks like, a “multicolored unicorn” just like “god” MUST exist out there in some universe. Just like god.

    All the best finding either …

  5. Gerald, I am amazed at your laziness. You will post any slop you can find on the internet, without bothering to check it for accuracy or relevancy.

    The problems of searching creationist websites and copying and pasting their contents into your posts has been explained to you, in great detail, over the years. Sadly, you are incapable of learning. If you had any interest at all in changing your ignorant ways you wouldn’t have foisted such garbage on us again. Alas, you did, and in order to protect the reading public I will explain why your post is imbecilic.

    Gerald writes: [God can not be argued to make Him God.]

    Let’s start with this gem. What is this supposed to even mean? Put another name in there, like Gerald. “Gerald can not be argued to make Gerald Gerald”. What kind of sentence is that? We all make grammatical mistakes when we write our posts in here, but this is beyond comprehension to me.

    Gerald writes: [He is as much as a fact of life as life is. Even more so, because He made life.]

    This is nothing but your opinion. Your god is not a fact. There is no empirical data or evidence that such a creature is real. There is no philosophical or logical argument that validates the existence of such a being. Facts are things that are known to be true. Gods aren’t known to be true, so they can’t be called a fact.

    Gerald writes: [My statement was not that multi universe did or did not support the argument for God. My argument was that it is so hypocritical, when you can allow for one but not the other.]

    I’m sorry to note this, but your reading comprehension abilities are almost non-existent. I never stated that comparing multiverses to gods supported an argument for your god in my previous post. My statement was that there is more support for the concept of multiverses (from mathematics) than there is for the existence of gods/magic/supernatural claims (for which there is NONE). That’s why considering multiverses and not gods is not hypocritical. We consider those things MORE LIKELY first. Mathematically supported multiverses make more sense than baseless claims about creator beings and their magic.

    Those two things are not on equal footing Gerald. They don’t have the same level of support. They are not comparable in terms of evidence.

    Gerald writes: [And it is not just that. You are so insistent that could not be a God. And even worse even though you don’t believe that God is, you go out of your way to try to convince others that He isn’t. And when I’m saying you, I’m actually referring to all who are doing so.]

    All I ever do is ask you for evidence for the existence of gods, or magic, or the supernatural. You never provide any. Never. So why should I think such a being exists, Gerald? You’ve given me no valid data, you’ve provided no sound logical or philosophical argument, you shown me no theory that shows how the slavery god of the Bible could possibly be real. I don’t insist that your god doesn’t exist, I just insist that someone show me evidence or give me a sound rational argument that a god exists. And for years I’ve received nothing from you or any other creationist.

    What I try to do for people is show them how to think rationally and logically about the world. When doing that, it becomes quickly apparent that claims of gods/magic/supernatural aren’t rational or logical. I don’t have to convince anyone that gods are nonsense. The lack of support for the arguments made by theists does all the convincing…

    Gerald writes: [Just who are the ones with the dogged belief that “all we need is time”. Who are the ones that say, “It could have happened at least once”. But deny that God could be the Once.]

    This has been already explained to you more times than I can count, but for the sake of the readers we will go through it one more time.

    It is a fact that life exists. You can’t dispute that. It is a fact that all the molecules in the human body are possible under the laws of chemistry. You can’t dispute that. It is a fact that every single living thing is made up entirely, 100%, out of non living atoms. You can’t dispute that. It is a fact that lipids (the same stuff our cell walls are still currently made from) form chains of large molecules that are non-water permeable. You can’t dispute that. It is a fact that there are dozens of self replicating molecules in existence, including some that also happen to be RNA components. You can’t dispute that. It is a fact that life is possible under the laws of the universe. You can’t dispute that.

    Based on those facts, everything about living things is allowable and possible. Literally nothing else is needed in order for living things to exist.

    Yet you also want to include a god being even more complex than the entire universe, with no explanation for how it could exist, with no facts or data supporting it’s existence, as a necessary requirement for life to exist? Even though it is literally not a requirement for life, you want to add something that complex into the list of things needed for life. That’s just incredibly stupid, Gerald.

    The facts speak for themselves, and there are no facts for gods, just empty claims devoid of reason or evidence…

    Gerald writes: [The question right now at least is not whether someone believes or not in God. It is the giving of possibilities for the answer we are seeking to the question being asked.]

    And considering something that is baseless and devoid of any empirical data or evidence is silly when there are other possibilities that are supported by facts.

    Gerald writes: [Wouldn’t it be logical, that when all other possibilities have been ruled out that the one that remains should be given more thought?]

    Speculation unsupported by facts and data is not something that should be considered a possibility, Gerald. What reason is there to think a god being is possible? There isn’t any evidence for such a thing. Why should anyone use something like that as a starting point to answer a question? It’s stupid to start with a guess and try to get to the facts. What works over and over again is starting with the facts and figuring out what explanation explains them the best (which is how the scientific method works). When you do it that way, you don’t come to the conclusion that a god had anything to do with the appearance of life because there aren’t any facts that show gods are real.

    On top of that, you always start with your slavery god from the Bible when you do guess work. There are thousands of possible gods in human history, so you should be considering all them a possibility. You can’t exclude all the other gods just because you don’t believe in them. If you want gods to be considered, then start considering all them. But, of course, you don’t, because your bias shines through like a beacon in the night. You just want your favorite creator critter to be thought of, and to hell with the Hindus, eh?

    Gerald writes: [Well, so many scientists and others have ruled out one of three logical possibilities. One, life came from somewhere else, and then evolved. Two, life appeared from nothing and evolved. Three, God created life as it was to be.
    One is highly improbable. Two, has been ruled out by science, but is now trying to be “Frankensteined”, back to life. But there still is the fact that it was ruled out.]

    Please stop lying. You’ve been caught doing this before, and here again your attempt to bear false witness has been noted. Abiogenesis (life from non life in a natural way) has not been ruled out by science. You are a blatant liar. If you really think a handful of quotes from a few people means that abiogenesis “has been ruled out by science” then you have no clue how science works. This has all been explained to you, and yet you continue to try to make this fallacious claim. Remind me, is it OK for you to lie as long as you are promoting your god?

    Gerald writes: [To dampen your hopes even more, is the fact that what the early idea of evolution was and under the covers, is still whispered to be, is not seen in life today.]

    No kidding. You mean the theory of evolution has been tweaked over time to accurately reflect the growing body of evidence that supports it?

    That isn’t news Gerald. Although the basic foundation of Darwin’s theory is still intact, not everything he thought ended up being true. Everyone knows that. If you think that makes the theory of evolution invalid, you’d be wrong…again…

    Gerald writes: [No matter what you or any other evolutionist says, life shows that all kinds of types of organisms, reproduce what resembles them.]

    They don’t reproduce exactly. They reproduce something that is very similar to them. Small changes, Gerald. Just a little mutation here and there from one set of DNA to the next. And a lot of those changes never take hold in the entire species. But slowly over time, the changes add up. So when offspring very closely resemble their parents, that is no surprise. They are supposed to. So almost no change from one generation to the next, or a line of generations over a couple thousand years, is normal.

    Gerald writes: [This is supported by all the living fossils, from plants, protozoans, pollen, and more complex organisms.]

    And the dead fossils show the changes that have led up to the living fossils. Alligators, Coelacanth, dragon flies, and other “living fossils” have undergone plenty of change over time based on the fossil record. The fossil record (and genetics) also show the changes over time that have led up to present animals that have changed substantially. Hundreds of millions of years of change in some cases.

    Gerald writes: [Then the viable tissue encased within supposedly millions of year old fossils.]

    There is no such thing as “viable tissue” until it is soaked in an acidic bath that removes all the minerals from the collagen and allows it to be flexible again. (The bone and collagen from the first T Rex sample ever soaked in that acidic bath, by the way, has the same structures as collagen and bone in ostriches). It is indeed fossilized before it is freed into its previous form…

    Gerald writes: [If you stop ignoring the obvious, evolution is going down the drain.]

    If you stop getting your news from websites run by your creationist masters and actually read something about evolution (which you’ve been asked to do and never done), you’d quickly realize that evolution isn’t going anywhere. It’s a scientific theory that has been completely validated by a brand new and completely unrelated field of study (genetics). That kind of verification is rare and speaks of just how real evolution is.

    Gerald writes: [And Tim, yes theories are proven or thrown out using science. Maybe that is why you just refuse to let go of the theory of evolution. Because you don’t understand the purpose of science. It rules out the not true, making room for what is. And evolution has not been proven anything else but false.]

    Thanks for being wrong, Gerald. It’s good to know I can always point people to this website and have them read your posts as an example of how ignorance presents itself when someone is uninformed.

    Gerald writes: [Because if life could only have been created, then all life was, I repeat, WAS, created as full grown organisms. Ready to perform the purposes for which they were all created. Even Humans.]

    Sure it was, Gerald. Life doesn’t need anything besides the laws of chemistry and physics and the periodic table of the elements to exist, but you think it makes sense to add in an all powerful creating entity that is more complex than the entire universe. Only a theist would think it takes immense complexity to make something as simple as a bunch of replicating molecules…

    1. Dear reader: It is at this point in his post that our preacher Gerald copies and pastes a bunch of quote mines from the overcomeproblems.com website. As is Gerald’s usual MO, he posts a handful of quotes and thinks this somehow invalidates the millions of man hours and billions of facts that support the scientific theory of evolution. Did he fact check any of the stuff he posted? No, of course not. He never does. Let’s look at what he gave us…

      Max Westenhofer was not an evolutionist as the website claims. In 1926 he wrote “Evidence Opposed to the Darwinian Conceptions of the Origin of Species”, which is not something you’d expect from a so-called evolutionist. He graduated college in 1894 with a pathology degree. The man who used his quote, Douglas Dewar, wrote mostly about birds in India and didn’t have a college degree. He wrote two anti-evolution books in the 1930s that are so obscure that not even the Library of Congress has them. Both these guys died before genetics was a scientific field. Please note Gerald claims these people held “positions of respect”, as if their pre genetics 1800s college educations actually invalidate the entire theory of evolution.

      Joseph LeCoune died in 1901. At least he had a degree in natural sciences (geology was his focus). One interesting note is that he is a founder of the Sierra Club, so props to him for that. He also stated at one point in his life “sudden enfranchisement of the negro without qualification was the greatest political crime ever perpetrated by any people”. As a black man Gerald I thought you might want to know what this guy in his “position of respect” thought about that…

      Next we have a quote mine from Darwin himself, which is no longer relevant given the billions (with a b) of fossils found since his time which have shown exactly that which Darwin hadn’t yet found in the geological record.

      The Gould quote is from his hypothesis of punctuated evolution as opposed to gradual evolution. Gould fully believes that life evolved, but creationists routinely take this quote out of context to make it look like Gould is saying there is no support for evolution. Gould wrote in “Evolution as Fact and Theory”: “The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word “theory” to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that “scientific creationism” is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called “newspeak.”

      Raup wrote in the very same article: “Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works.”

      As I am about to run out of room, needless to say that Gerald has once again failed to produce quotes that actually mean anything, and many of them are taken out of context. Just like he always does.

    2. And yes I have offered evidence as proof for the existence for God. I asked you to look in the mirror and gaze upon one of the marvelous creations of God. You, and all of life. You choose to accept this evidence. Instead you, with no plausible reason, would rather assume that you magically came from a cesspool, or mud, or snail poop. Or some other ridiculous rant.
      It has been scientifically proven that life does not come from anything other than life. It has been observed that a cell can only have programming from another source of life. Like another cell. So life could not have come from nothing and it is way too complex to have just popped into existence all on its own. So therefore God, an intelligent and personal God, created all life.
      Now, you can rant all you want that my God is magical, but I’m afraid that your mud is just mud. And no one has ever seen mud produce life. Not even after it has been studied for hundreds of years. So your assumption of where life came from falls ways short of any proof.

  6. Tim I was referring to something that SmartLx. had posted not you. And if you don’t mind, just because something comes from a website that contradicts what you hold as true does not mean that the information is wrong. You need to remember that those scientists who are posting on these websites as you can see for yourself, are scientists who have gone to school as did the scientists that you hold in esteem. And there credentials have been earned as any those of any else. They simply look at the evidence and interpret it differently than your poor deluded scientific friends. And there are a lot of scientists who do not believe in evolution. You and your friends are in the minority.
    And we have not taken anything out of context about what Gould wrote. If you haven’t noticed the quote is direct. Not emblemished. Those who want to can see the quote for themselves.
    [
    What? you think that Creationists need to fix up or use smoke and mirrors to disprove evolution. We don’t need to. All anyone needs to do is look at the evidence and not at the “there is a mountain of evidence”, saying alone, and evolution is out on its ears. That is why the evolutionists are fighting so hard to prevent Creationism from being taught in school.
    And what is it with you. No one needs to have a degree to be able to recognize truth. All science is, is the ability to observe. And as I have stipulated before.
    All types of organisms for thousands of years have only produced its same type of organism. This has been observed for so many years that it is the only pattern that has been recorded. That is why evolution has been trounced in real life because it does not incorporate this fact into its theory. Instead fantasy and science fiction is what has been used to form illogical speculations.

    Now. let’s see if you agree with me on this. Has it been observed that any type of organism produce a different type of organism?

  7. Tim, you really have run out of things to fight with. What’s wrong, no more ammunition?
    It is clear that even a parent will push out an unruly child, before that child can make the rest of the family a disaster. We today do the same with individuals who refuse to live and not do harm.

    But God had a whole world to save. You know as well as I do, that upbringing makes an impression upon children. There have been children who would not do right. And God could not take a chance on letting them turn out to be a hindrance to His plan to save the world. And since God has no problem to resurrect anyone, this death was not permanent.
    And besides why would you start using as evidence, that which you say is a myth?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *