Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.blasphemy,alt.catastrophism,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.heinlein,alt.fan.publius,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.folklore.urban,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.postmodern,alt.religion.christian,alt.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.lang,sci.skeptic,talk.abortion,talk.atheism,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!news.nap.net!news1!news
From: Gerry Rough <gerryr@skyenet.net>
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ts02-sb-30.skyenet.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: John William Chambless <chambles@whale.st.usm.edu>
Message-ID: <31DDE3E1.353F@skyenet.net>
Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: IQuest Internet, Inc.
References: <31BDB5B2.6E96@genesisnetwork.net> <4qat1h$1mc@igubu.saix.net> <4qb9v4$k3d@news.ox.ac.uk> <N.062196.145218.29@196-7-171-74.iafrica.com> <4rja67$sub@whale.st.usm.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 03:56:17 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I)
Lines: 82
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:57008 sci.skeptic:186903

John William Chambless wrote:
> 
> In article <N.062196.145218.29@196-7-171-74.iafrica.com>,
>  <rgoodwin@iafrica.com> wrote:
> >The arguement of evolution is like arguing about a puzzle.
> 
> >Try this at home:
> 
> >    *  Take a puzzle (with as many pieces as you can find, you'd really need a
> >puzzle with trillions and trillions of pieces but what you have will do for
> >now).
> >    *  Take the lid off the box.
> >    *  Tip it up onto the floor.
> >    *  Do this until the puzzle falls properly and makes up the picture
> >(preferably face up.)
> 
> The good old "randomly shuffled parts in a box" analogy. Created by people
> who either were ignorant of probability theory AND biology, or ignored it
> because it interfered with their "proof".
> 
> There are so many problems with this analogy that I know not where to start.
> 
> First , the puzzle analogy assumes a specific goal. There is a big
> difference between  the question of "did life evolve" and the question
> "will life evolve in this specific way, given these circumstances".
> 
> Many events seem unlikely when approached in this backward fashion.
> 
> Try this at home:
> 
> * Put 6 dice in a box. (To do it right, you'd need trillions
>     and trillions of dice, but then calculating  probabilities
>     gets rough)
> * Shake the box, then dump the dice out on a table
> * Make a note of what faces of the dice are showing (i.e.,
>     3-2-6-5-2-3)
> * Calculate the probability of that combination of faces being
>     the one showing.
> 
> You'll find that the probabilty is somewhat low, even though
> you have proof that the "unlikely" outcome has happened.
> 
> >look like they'll all fit together and make a picture (they might even all be
> >there), but what are the chances that they will all fit just so?  (
> 
> Have you read or studied anything about "chance" other than the tract
> that you got the silly puzzle analogy out of?
> 
> >And where did the puzzle come from in the first place?!?)
> 
> >But if someone sits down and puts the puzzle together,that's going to be a bit
> >more likely and a bit more successful and then there's someone to actually make
> >the puzzle too.
> 
> Okay. Where did the "someone" to make the puzzle and the "someone" to
> put the puzzle together come from? This is the crux of your argument.
> It boils down to "The universe couldn't have just happened, so there
> must be a God who made it. Where did he come from? Oh, he uh, well,
> uh, he just uh, happened."
> 
> >  But the universe
> >couldn't come about without God and we can't really live in it so it fits,
> >without God either.
> 
> Could you restate that last sentence? I can't make any sense out of it.
> 
> "...we can't really live in it so it fits, without God either".
> 
> Huh?
> 
> --
> * This is (no offense meant) just plain stupid. -- Peter Seebach

It is true that it is an absurdity to believe that God had no beginning. It is even more 
absurd to believe that the "soup" of evolution "just happened." Hence, the core issue 
of creation vs evolution is now defined. Now the issue becomes whether life can be 
traced infinitely backward. Since that is irrational, the only rational conclusion is 
that there must be a creator. Take your pick, babe. One defies the laws of the universe, 
the other is irrational.

			Gerry Rough

