Is God real post your thoughts!

[assassin_696]

Why does there has to be a cause to big bang? I think it's as logical, if not even more, that there is no "maker" at all. Or no beginning therefore. The ultimate answer just could be that the time has no beginning. It always has been and always will. Does flower have a maker? No. It just is.

 

Of course it has a maker - the bulb or the seed that it grew from, the rain it gained water from, and the soil it drew nutrition from. Everything that exists must have been created by something(s) before it. The universe is surely no exception to that rule, and that's the one fallacy science is unable to explain so far: How do you create something from nothing?

 

 

 

My logical answer would be this: There must have been something there before the Big Bang. In which case, what caused that?

 

 

 

Why should the state of non-existence be the default setting? We have not one single example in nature of "nothingness", so why must there be a time before the Universe to cause it? Does nothingness even make sense as anything but a philosophical consideration?

[NorthernHero]

No, what Northern hero said was a load of crap,It didn't even make sense! (How in the hell do you create nothingness?

 

Ok, random troll guy. I never said anything about creating nothingness. Read me again. This time more carefully.

 

 

 

Why does there has to be a cause to big bang? I think it's as logical, if not even more, that there is no "maker" at all. Or no beginning therefore. The ultimate answer just could be that the time has no beginning. It always has been and always will. Does flower have a maker? No. It just is.

 

Of course it has a maker - the bulb or the seed that it grew from, the rain it gained water from, and the soil it drew nutrition from. Everything that exists must have been created by something(s) before it. The universe is surely no exception to that rule, and that's the one fallacy science is unable to explain so far: How do you create something from nothing?

 

 

 

My logical answer would be this: There must have been something there before the Big Bang. In which case, what caused that?

 

Ofcourse there has to be something before big bang. Thats what I just said. It's logical that there is no beginning, or "the ultimate maker".

 

Think about the flower example I gave. Lets consider that "the maker" of flower is seed. Now what is the maker of seed. Flower. Thats correrct. It's circular. It has no beginning. It just goes round and round and round. Why should universe be any different from the flower?

 

 

 

Does nothingness even make sense as anything but a philosophical consideration?

 

Hell no. Nothingness is illogical as [bleep].

[snowager286]

 

Ok, random troll guy. I never said anything about creating nothingness. Read me again. This time more carefully.

 

 

 

 

Fine I will admit that I misread your sentence, but, it was somewhat ambiguously worded. In light of that I realize what you meant to say and I understand how you managed to get upset at the other person. However, I would like to point that he might have also misinterpreted your statement. On a more annoyed note, why one earth did you say you wanted a civil discourse if you planned on becoming uncivil? You could clearly tell that I had misinterpreted your post and that I was being rude because I thought what you said was utter nonsense. Despite this, I did not truly respond in a kind manner,etc etc. You get the point? It was a misunderstanding.

 

 

 

 

Ofcourse there has to be something before big bang. Thats what I just said. It's logical that there is no beginning, or "the ultimate maker".

 

 

 

Hold on, are you trying to tell me that it is logical for something to exist for no reason? That It is logical for everything but the universe to have a beginning and an end? It seems somewhat silly to me. Although it is not beyond comprehension I would like to think that if science is the sole source of truth about our universe, then it would at least be able to explain why the universe even exists.

[Moad14]

It is logical for everything but the universe to have a beginning and an end? It seems somewhat silly to me.

No kidding.

 

 

 

If you want to approach it from that angle, NorthernHero, where did the cycle begin? At some point the flower is planted, so who/what "planted" our universe?

[NorthernHero]

[hide=]

 

Fine I will admit that I misread your sentence, but, it was somewhat ambiguously worded. In light of that I realize what you meant to say and I understand how you managed to get upset at the other person. However, I would like to point that he might have also misinterpreted your statement. On a more annoyed note, why one earth did you say you wanted a civil discourse if you planned on becoming uncivil? You could clearly tell that I had misinterpreted your post and that I was being rude because I thought what you said was utter nonsense. Despite this, I did not truly respond in a kind manner,etc etc. You get the point? It was a misunderstanding.

 

 

I had no plans to get uncivil. But you going with the "load of crap" after I asked ginger to be more polite made me think you as "a random troll guy" like I said. ;)

 

K good it was a misunderstanding. And I misunderstandet you too. It's all good, no worries mate. Now back on topic! :mrgreen:[/hide]

 

 

 

Hold on, are you trying to tell me that it is logical for something to exist for no reason? That It is logical for everything but the universe to have a beginning and an end? It seems somewhat silly to me. Although it is not beyond comprehension I would like to think that if science is the sole source of truth about our universe, then it would at least be able to explain why the universe even exists.

 

Yes! Exactly that is my point. It exists with no reason. Is it logical? Well, let me ask is it logical that there is nothingness? Is it logical that universe a has beginning and an end. That it is a 'flash' between two eternal nothingnes'ses?

 

 

 

Yes, everything has a beginning and an end but none of those beginnings and ends are 'real'. For example a tree. It has a beginning. It also has an end when it's chopped down. But it's not really an end. Let's say the tree, after being chopped down is used to make a furniture for example. Now the tree didin't really end. It still exists in the furniture and so on. You get the picture?

 

 

 

I'm saying that everything exists with no reason. The only real reason of things are themselves. Universe exists because it exists. Just for the heck of it.

 

What is the reason of music? The reason of music is music. Simply put, but true.

 

Ofcourse, you could argue that reason of music is to make money, tell a story, attract the opposive sex, or make you feel relaxed. But those are only superficial reasons. What is the real reason when it has no things attached into it. When the music is good and the listener is right. The reason of music in the deepest level, is only itself, music.

 

 

 

If you want to approach it from that angle, NorthernHero, where did the cycle begin? At some point the flower is planted, so who/what "planted" our universe?

 

Nobody planted it. If there is a planter to universe, it cannot be anything else than the universe itself! :lol: It's illogical imo, to expect that there is something 'outside' the universe. If universe is considered to be 'all that there is', there can't be anything else, it simply is all. So yeah, universe planted itself.

[snowager286]

I get what your saying. But, everything else seems to have a reasonable explanation as to why it happened. We've found a source for everything.except for one thing, the universe and it's base components. We've found a reason for why most things are the way they are. Why should we think that the universe is somehow exempt from this? Why shouldn't the universe have an explicit reason to have these base components?

[tryto]

I get what your saying. But, everything else seems to have a reasonable explanation as to why it happened. We've found a source for everything.except for one thing, the universe and it's base components. We've found a reason for why most things are the way they are. Why should we think that the universe is somehow exempt from this? Why shouldn't the universe have an explicit reason to have these base components?

 

 

 

Well, if you agree that everything has to have a cause for it. Then you claim that the universe had to have been created by something. It then follows that everything needs to be caused, so that cause needs to have a cause. Then that cause needs a cause, ad infinitum.

 

It's just infinite regression.

 

 

 

If you argue that God isn't a part of this phenomenon, and doesn't need a cause, then that's special pleading, and destroys your argument that everything needs a cause. We could then easily argue that the Universe or the Big Bang or whatever didn't need a cause, it created itself or some other hogwash.

[Lenticular_J]

I hate having the idea of logic and reason.

 

 

 

I bet if we ignored what was logical, we could go a lot farther as people.

 

 

 

It's the only logical thing.

[snowager286]

I get what your saying. But, everything else seems to have a reasonable explanation as to why it happened. We've found a source for everything.except for one thing, the universe and it's base components. We've found a reason for why most things are the way they are. Why should we think that the universe is somehow exempt from this? Why shouldn't the universe have an explicit reason to have these base components?

 

 

 

Well, if you agree that everything has to have a cause for it. Then you claim that the universe had to have been created by something. It then follows that everything needs to be caused, so that cause needs to have a cause. Then that cause needs a cause, ad infinitum.

 

It's just infinite regression.

 

 

 

If you argue that God isn't a part of this phenomenon, and doesn't need a cause, then that's special pleading, and destroys your argument that everything needs a cause. We could then easily argue that the Universe or the Big Bang or whatever didn't need a cause, it created itself or some other hogwash.

 

 

 

Exactly, why should their ever be an end? The goal of science is to explain everything. Then it should be science's goal to explain why the universe exists. 'because' is not an acceptable answer from a scientist. The whole point of my argument is that I'm arguing from a scientific point of view,(or at least what I've been lead to believe a scientific view is) that science can explain everything. Because I don't feel that everything needs to proof I could potentially agree with you. But, if you hold that what science tells us is absolutely true, and that it's fundamental ideals are also true. Then wouldn't you be contradicting yourself.

[Roberthree]

We don't know for sure how things began. That doesn't mean god did it. The answer is "we don't know.... yet". Not "I blame god".

[Moad14]

Nobody planted it. If there is a planter to universe, it cannot be anything else than the universe itself! :lol: It's illogical imo, to expect that there is something 'outside' the universe. If universe is considered to be 'all that there is', there can't be anything else, it simply is all. So yeah, universe planted itself.

 

Picture a hypothetical city where everyone and everything is two-dimensional. Were I to view the city from above, the inhabitants wouldn't have a clue I'm watching because they can't imagine what "above" even means. We work off four dimensions (to the best of my knowledge at least; correct me if I'm wrong), time being the fourth. I think most of the string theory hypotheses say there are thirteen dimensions, right? Why can't there be a God in a dimension that we can't comprehend?

[Roberthree]

Nobody planted it. If there is a planter to universe, it cannot be anything else than the universe itself! :lol: It's illogical imo, to expect that there is something 'outside' the universe. If universe is considered to be 'all that there is', there can't be anything else, it simply is all. So yeah, universe planted itself.

 

Picture a hypothetical city where everyone and everything is two-dimensional. Were I to view the city from above, the inhabitants wouldn't have a clue I'm watching because they can't imagine what "above" even means. We work off four dimensions (to the best of my knowledge at least; correct me if I'm wrong), time being the fourth. I think most of the string theory hypotheses say there are thirteen dimensions, right? Why can't there be a God in a dimension that we can't comprehend?

 

 

 

Why assume that he's there when theres no evidence? Celestial Teapot, Invisible pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster all say Hi.

[snowager286]

We don't know for sure how things began. That doesn't mean god did it. The answer is "we don't know.... yet". Not "I blame god".

 

 

 

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God.

 

 

 

Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction.

[Serpent Eye]

We don't know for sure how things began. That doesn't mean god did it. The answer is "we don't know.... yet". Not "I blame god".

 

 

 

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God.

 

 

 

Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction.

 

 

 

Shouldn't you be capitalizing He, as well? Just curious...

 

 

 

I never capitalize god. Only... uh, when I'm mocking the idea.

[warri0r45]

I get what your saying. But, everything else seems to have a reasonable explanation as to why it happened. We've found a source for everything.except for one thing, the universe and it's base components. We've found a reason for why most things are the way they are. Why should we think that the universe is somehow exempt from this? Why shouldn't the universe have an explicit reason to have these base components?

 

 

 

Well, if you agree that everything has to have a cause for it. Then you claim that the universe had to have been created by something. It then follows that everything needs to be caused, so that cause needs to have a cause. Then that cause needs a cause, ad infinitum.

 

It's just infinite regression.

 

 

 

If you argue that God isn't a part of this phenomenon, and doesn't need a cause, then that's special pleading, and destroys your argument that everything needs a cause. We could then easily argue that the Universe or the Big Bang or whatever didn't need a cause, it created itself or some other hogwash.

 

 

 

Exactly, why should their ever be an end? The goal of science is to explain everything. Then it should be science's goal to explain why the universe exists. 'because' is not an acceptable answer from a scientist. The whole point of my argument is that I'm arguing from a scientific point of view,(or at least what I've been lead to believe a scientific view is) that science can explain everything. Because I don't feel that everything needs to proof I could potentially agree with you. But, if you hold that what science tells us is absolutely true, and that it's fundamental ideals are also true. Then wouldn't you be contradicting yourself.

 

 

 

Scientists don't say that science can explain everything; an explanation is only scientific if it's testable, and we can only test things within the bounds of the natural universe. You can't form a scientific explanation for the ultimate question of why the universe exists.

 

 

 

You asked the question of why the universe should be exempt from having a reasonable explanation to it's existence. I think I have an answer for you, but perhaps it's not the one you were looking for. At one point, at the very root of cause and effect, there can be no explanation. Originally we suppose there must be something from which everything else flows, and people may suppose that god has always been and made the universe, or, the universe has always been and it spawned everything we have today through natural means. You could question the unexplained existence of both progenitors equally; why does god exist or why does the universe exist (both for no reason).

 

 

 

Some things no one can explain.

[snowager286]

We don't know for sure how things began. That doesn't mean god did it. The answer is "we don't know.... yet". Not "I blame god".

 

 

 

Exactly! Agnosticism is the only 'logical' argument. To be honest, I'm not "sure" that God exists, but I live my life like he does, and I assume that he does as the world is hopless without that assumption( to me at least.) I don't need logical proof to believe in God.

 

 

 

Oh and you should capitlize God, not out of respect, but God is still a proper noun. Even if you believe he is pure fiction.

 

 

 

Shouldn't you be capitalizing He, as well? Just curious...

 

 

 

I never capitalize god. Only... uh, when I'm mocking the idea.

 

 

 

You are right I should be capitalizing he when referring to God. But, yes you should capitlize God, It IS a proper noun whether or not you believe in him or not. Unless you enjoy mauling the English language to make an ideological point.

[Shinjula]

Scientists don't say that science can explain everything; an explanation is only scientific if it's testable, and we can only test things within the bounds of the natural universe. You can't form a scientific explanation for the ultimate question of why the universe exists.

 

Very VERY well said.

 

Now thats a true scientific perspective.

[Moad14]

Why assume that He's there when theres no evidence? Celestial Teapot, Invisible pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster all say Hi.

 

Where do you believe we humans originate? Surely not macroevolution, the lack of evidence for that theory is laughable at best.

 

 

 

[hide=Disclaimer]I say macroevolution is laughable. Obviously microevolution exists, but I have yet to see a species transform into one that is completely different.[/hide]

[l0rd]

 

Where do you believe we humans originate? Surely not macroevolution, the lack of evidence for that theory is laughable at best.

 

 

 

 

So you don't believe that Humans descended from Australopithecines etc? You don't believe that bacteria was the first forms of life? Or did god create the separate bacteria and pre-human homonids separatly also? There is sufficient evidence proving that these extinct creatures existed. The one logical scientific explanation is natural selection, and I fail to see how it is close to funny as it is a very valid, logical and accepted theory.

 

 

 

If you were to laugh at macroevolution then you might as well laugh at your religious view of the creation of species because they are both theories. And one of them has more a graspable explanation.

[warri0r45]

Why assume that He's there when theres no evidence? Celestial Teapot, Invisible pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster all say Hi.

 

Where do you believe we humans originate? Surely not macroevolution, the lack of evidence for that theory is laughable at best.

 

 

 

[hide=Disclaimer]I say macroevolution is laughable. Obviously microevolution exists, but I have yet to see a species transform into one that is completely different.[/hide]

 

 

 

The prospect that species don't share common ancestry is laughable. In the DNA of just about all life forms, there are elements not dissimilar to genes called transposons. In mammals they make up a sizeable portion of the genome, somewhere in the order of 40%. Their trick is the ability to move around the genome by cutting themselves out and inserting elsewhere. A form of transposon, called a retrotransposon, does the same thing, but by forming a copy of the original and inserting the copy elsewhere. The result is the multiplication of the retrotransposable elelement throughout the genome over time. The insertion of the copies is largely random (though there are some insertion biases) such that the probability of the same element inserting in the same location along the genome in two separate species is miniscule.

 

 

 

Taking humans and chimps as an example, there are multiple identical retrotransposons inserted in the same locations along each genome, the most prolific of which being the LINEs, such as L1, and the SINEs, such as Alu. The only probable explanation is common ancestry.

 

 

 

Here's an example in the literature of common retrotransposon insertions between humans and non-human primates:

 

Link[/url]":2iiofyt0]The genomes of modern humans are riddled with thousands of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage. Most HERVs are nonfunctional, selectively neutral loci. This fact, coupled with their sheer abundance in primate genomes, makes HERVs ideal for exploitation as phylogenetic markers.

 

 

 

The genomes of vertebrate species contain dozens to thousands of ERV sequences (2), some of which were acquired in evolutionarily recent times, whereas others derive from "ancient" times, as indicated by their identical site of integration in more than one species (1, 3, 4).

 

 

 

Cross-hybridization and PCR studies consistently reveal that most HERV families are also found in other primates, including apes and Old World monkeys (OWMs) (12-19). Many HERVs, including the ones used in this study, are the result of integration events that took place between 5 and 50 million years ago, as indicated by the distribution of specific proviruses at the same integration sites (or "loci") among related species.

 

 

If you expect one species to turn into another completely different species, you'll be waiting a long, long time. That's not to say we can't infer that it happened in the past. What I've given you is one such line of evidence to support that inference.

[Lenticular_J]

Why assume that he's there when theres no evidence? Celestial Teapot, Invisible pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster all say Hi.

 

Yeah, because assumptions don't make up our entire world.

 

 

 

The one logical scientific explanation is natural selection, and I fail to see how it is close to funny as it is a very valid, logical and accepted theory.

 

The one part I don't find it logical is how it assumes bacteria sprung out of nowhere.

 

 

 

How does life spring up out of nothing? I've never heard a logical explanation for why I should expect that bacteria popped out in the ocean with no help. After that, sure, I guess that makes sense. But that one point I just have heard people talk around.

[warri0r45]

Why assume that he's there when theres no evidence? Celestial Teapot, Invisible pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster all say Hi.

 

Yeah, because assumptions don't make up our entire world.

 

 

 

The one logical scientific explanation is natural selection, and I fail to see how it is close to funny as it is a very valid, logical and accepted theory.

 

The one part I don't find it logical is how it assumes bacteria sprung out of nowhere.

 

 

 

How does life spring up out of nothing? I've never heard a logical explanation for why I should expect that bacteria popped out in the ocean with no help. After that, sure, I guess that makes sense. But that one point I just have heard people talk around.

 

 

 

Why do you continually say they came from nothing? I've already tried to explain in another thread (or this one?) that the most likely explanation is the formation of simple self-replicating DNA or protein molecules, followed by encapsulation by a lipid membrane to form a proto-cell which would eventually form the first cell through natural selection. The progenitors of this process being nucleotides and amino acids, which can form naturally and polymerise naturally, under the right conditions.

 

 

 

Let me put it to you this way: When you put two chemicals together in a chemistry class, they react to form a product. That's what they do. When you make certain small DNA/RNA or protein molecules, they catalyse their own self-replication. That's what they do. When you put nucleotides and amino acids on the right mineral surface, they polymerise. That's what they do. When you put ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water together with an energy source, they form the precursor molecules to life on earth. That's what they do.

 

 

 

I'll try and find a link and edit in later.

 

 

 

EDIT: This looks like a good summary of the current understanding of the formation of the first protocell, complete with animations and everything.

[l0rd]

The one logical scientific explanation is natural selection, and I fail to see how it is close to funny as it is a very valid, logical and accepted theory.

 

The one part I don't find it logical is how it assumes bacteria sprung out of nowhere.

 

 

 

How does life spring up out of nothing? I've never heard a logical explanation for why I should expect that bacteria popped out in the ocean with no help. After that, sure, I guess that makes sense. But that one point I just have heard people talk around.

 

 

 

I have a earth science encyclopedia, just looked it up. The following is text straight from the book:

 

 

 

"Life is defined as a self-contained system of molecules that can duplicate itself from generation to generation. In Earth's early history, the elements that make up the vast majority of living tissues (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen) were available in some form, and energy was abundant. Also the concentration of atmospheric oxygen was low, which probably allowed a period of chemical evolution before the development of life. The earliest life forms may have resembled the bacteria-like organisms that exist today in hot springs associated with volcanic activity.

 

The first bacteria-like microfossils are dated at 3,500 million years old. Stramatolites, fossilized mats of cyanobacteria, first appear in the fossil record at about this time. These are the dominant fossils found in rocks older than about 550 million years. Between about 3,500 and 1,500 million years ago, cyanobacteria and blue-green algae were probably the main forms of life. Importantly, they slowly contributed oxygen to the atmosphere.

 

The build-up of free oxygen, harzadous to most life forms, may have stimulated the development of organissms with more complex cellular organisation about 1,500 million years ago. The eukaryotes could reproduce sexually allowing evolutionary change. They generated more oxygen and eventually an ozone shield- this is probably what enabled further biotic evolution.

 

The earliest fossil record of protozoans, which are animals and so derive their energy from ingesting other organisms, is from about 800 million years ago. By about 680 million years ago, the protozoa were highly diverse and complex range of multicelluar animals- mostly coral or worm-like life forms."

 

 

 

Not going to type out the rest of the stages of evolution but it basically gives reasoning for each stage of early evolution all the way from eukaryote to mammals.

[Moad14]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080117065023AAoU5EJ

 

And here are some of the statistics from the given site:

 

...the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16...

 

...the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10,100,000,000,000.24...

 

...the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34...

 

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

 

That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me.

 

 

 

I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated.

[NoMoreDead]

Why assume that He's there when theres no evidence? Celestial Teapot, Invisible pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster all say Hi.

 

 

 

Where do you believe we humans originate? Surely not macroevolution, the lack of evidence for that theory is laughable at best.

 

 

 

[hide=Disclaimer]I say macroevolution is laughable. Obviously microevolution exists, but I have yet to see a species transform into one that is completely different.[/hide]

 

 

 

You truly don't understand the concept of Macroevolution. You, like many other ignorant people who choose to ignore the massive amounts of evidence of transitional species, seem to be mistaking macroevolution for something other than what it really is. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is time scale.

 

 

 

Saying you believe in microevolution but you don't believe in macroevolution is like saying "I believe that someone can walk outside and grab the newspaper, but they surely cannot walk to the mall that is five miles away."

 

 

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080117065023AAoU5EJ

 

And here are some of the statistics from the given site:

 

...the probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is approximately one chance in 4.9 X 10191.16...

 

...the odds of a single bacterium emerging from the basic building blocks necessary were 1 chance in 10,100,000,000,000.24...

 

...the chance of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 102,000,000,000.34...

 

I grabbed a statistic off this site as well: http://www.earthtraces.com/godsodds.shtml

 

That means the odds of that DNA strand forming are:1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

The perpetuation of any theory along these lines seems insane to me.

 

 

 

I just wanted to share these. I'm obviously not convincing you, and you are unable to convince me. I'm stepping out now, hopefully on friendly terms with you all. Thanks for all the time you dedicated.

 

 

 

I can't believe creationists are still playing the odds card.

 

 

 

You want some outrageous odds? How about this: If God did indeed create the universe he must be AT LEAST as complex as the universe. What are the odds of a something being as complex as the entire universe, or as complex as all of existence. I think those odds dwarf your petty odds game.

 

 

 

Not to mention the odds of an omniscient being who can see everything and can defy all physical laws being just about as bad.

 

 

 

The odds of the molecules found in every object in the room you're currently in forming to be as they are at the present moment are so slim that it's not worth considering the possibility of it actually being a reality. Still, we never question this. It seems that creationists only pick and choose which odds cards they'd like to play and neglect the fact that the world around them is filled to the brim with improbability.