Why do Athiest sweep quotes like these under the rug?
"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."
- Ilya Prigogine (Chemist-Physicist)
Recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."
- Dr. Paul Davies
(noted author and Professor of Theoretical Physics at Adelaide University)"...
2007-07-03 17:27:25 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Why are creationists so intellectually dishonest? Especially since they claim to take the moral high ground in the name of Jesus.
Your quotes are completely out of context and misrepresent what both men think about evolution. In fact, neither disputes that evolution does and has occurred. If these are the standards of journalism used by the writers of the bible, it's no wonder atheists have trouble buying into it.
The paper by Ilya Prigogine from which you get your quote is in support of evolution. You can read about how this quote has been misused and the real story here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan03.html#Prigogine
Your Paul Davis quote is hardly a criticism of evolution. Here's another quote Paul Davis talking specifically against creationism:
Paul Davies writes: "No religion that bases its beliefs on demonstrably incorrect assumptions can expect to survive very long (God and the New Physics, 1983, p.3)"
2007-07-03 18:11:00 · answer #1 · answered by IGotsFacts! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because BOTH of these quotes are from scientists who are NOT involved in the subject at hand. Prigogine is a Chemist and Physicist who work was in the field of self generating inorganic molecules, Davies was a Phycisist whose work is in the area of Field theory in curved spacetime.
Both quotes, while having a superflous relevance to their respective areas of study are pure speculation involving areas of study in which THEY are NOT experts. Therefore their opiniions are just as valid or invalid as any other person's opinion. To put it in terms that you can understand: let's assume that you need brain surgery to remove a tumor from your head. Would you consult a proctologist to obtain his learned opinion or would you consult a Neurosurgeon? BOTH have medical degrees, so whats the difference? If you chose the Proctologist then I'd advise you to get your affairs in order and make sure that your will is up to date and your funeral details are completed, because you WILL need them.
Just because these two gentlemen are scientists does NOT mean that they are qualified to make aassertions about an area in which they are NOT trained.
Raji the Green Witch
2007-07-03 17:50:34 · answer #2 · answered by Raji the Green Witch 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Prigogine remark is factually erroneous; the product of small probabilities is small, but it is not zero. The Davies remark is irrelevant, as well as erroneous; it is an example of the anthropic argument, which incorporates a logical fallacy called post hoc.
2007-07-03 18:29:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
lol no doubt...
Ed is saying he's smarter than a two Nobel Prizes winner in chemistry LOL
"The statistical probability ... is zero" Ilya Prigogine
This is ridiculous on its face. If you believe it, you are not very smart. Who knows why he said something so ridiculous.
Yup they're smarter than a award winning chemist.
2007-07-03 17:46:44 · answer #4 · answered by NotIButHim 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called selective hearing. They are also selective in their readings to further their cause.
It's ridiculous to not see all the variables related to our existence, to not see that the ... would be generated by accident, is zero. Whoever doesn't see this is not very smart.
2007-07-03 17:32:32 · answer #5 · answered by Nep 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
> The statistical probability ... is zero
This is ridiculous on its face. If you believe it, you are not very smart. Who knows why he said something so ridiculous.
2007-07-03 17:32:42 · answer #6 · answered by Fred 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dear, the vast majority of scientists say there's no god.
what you're doing is called "selective" listening.
just like that selective quoting you like to do from your precious bible.
2007-07-03 17:30:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Amen! they accuse us of picking and chosing Bible quotes, but they do the same!
2007-07-03 17:32:45 · answer #8 · answered by Wikisidr 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as long as they are with the teachings of G-d, then OK.....if not it is just another false religion.
2007-07-03 17:31:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋