Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.
There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols.  You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know? Science law is very exact. My God is the real God Who science proves exists. Just because He is talked about in some religious books but not in others, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He exists. But you said yourself in your post about evolution: '' based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now)'' That it's not exact. Anyways, I fail to see how you determined that your God is the real God, show me where science proves that your God is the real one and the other ones are fake. However, my explanation of proof for God is written to a bunch of people who think that everything has been going on in the past like it is today. In addition, the word for physics is not the best word. The word should have as its meaning the part of physics that was applied at any one time. Cause and effect are universal throughout. Other parts of physics are stronger at some points, weaker at others, and theory in most. As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake. Episode number six, dear people. Badecker, our idiotic apologist, keeps invoking one and only one thing: cause and effect. He calls it a fundamental physical law, although it is a physical notion and it would actually prove him wrong (causal efficacy needs numbers, not names). What Badecker is actually talking about is causal determinism, or in his case, theological determinism or sometimes fatalism determinism. This is more of a subject for metaphysics, of course. He says this: cause and effect are universal throughout. What he does not realize is that in this particular case, nobody can tell what is the cause and what is the effect. You can not certainly say God is the cause of Humans and you can not certainly say Humans is the cause of Gods, so you take probabilities, the repetition of happenings: have Humans ever created Gods in the past? The answer is yes, about 3000 that we know of. Have Gods created humans ever before? Well, we have the stories of 3000 Gods that all specifically created Humans. We understand why would people create 3000 Gods, as an explanation for the unknown, as an answer to their most deep questions of the time, some of which are still unanswered today. It could be possible for people to have created Gods because we have a precedent. In the other case, we have an inconsistency, because only one is claimed to have created, and there are 3000 claims, so basically we have no precedent. Now, we do not have enough material to have a final statement: x was the cause and y was the effect. But the probability of Humans having created Gods is 3000 times much larger than the probability of God creating Humans. That is how causality or cause and effect, if you prefer, works. If we would have had a smart Badecker, we would have seen something like this in his proof. However, what we see in his proof is simple theological determinism which is a copy of causal determinism but instead of calling the first one a cause they named it God. But enough with the serious stuff, let's see the retard in action again: 'As for showing that My God is the real God, He is the only God. That's why the others are fake.' - If I would tell this to my 13 year old grandson, he would laugh at me and call me stupid. I actually believe any kid would laugh at you if you would say what Badecker said. That is a fallacy in logic as never seen before: Why is Yahweh (i bet he doesn't know who Yahweh is) the only God? According to Badecker he is the only God because he is the only God and that is why the others are fake. I can't even explain this, it deranged me. Stay tuned folks, our retard is not letting us down. Yep, I think we destroyed his logic, now he can't even pseudoscience out of this. His god is the real god because he is the only god. And that's what every single religious person says, badecker, why should I believe you and not a Muslim? Maybe yours is fake, you haven't answered my question yet and I'm going to ask you again and again until you admit that you don't know why your God is real and the others are fake. Cause and effect as horace said does not prove that God made us, it proves that everything has a cause. I can take cause and effect and say that aliens came here and saw a deserted planet and they made life, that's the cause of our existence. See? It's the same shit. Now stop evading the question or admit you are just a religious extremist and you base your beliefs in faith not science. |
|
|
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork. Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these. And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? The Bible is eye witness records that science shows are honest records, even though the science for this isn't pubicly known very well, or accepted, often. Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? Why do you think that I don't believe anything that scientists say? Why might you believe science theories to be true, when the fact that they ARE theories shows that they are not necessarily true? Why should You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now.
My proof is simply the upholding of fundamental proofs that science generally upholds and uses. Why are you against science? God made it, and is using it to show us about Himself. But you are trying to deny it. EDIT: Why are you constantly going off-topic about evolution? Now you are even trying to bring in other threads that are not about evolution. How does science show that the records in the Bible are honest and true? Enlighten us. You keep fucking talking about theories when I already explained to you what a scientific theory means, at this point I don't know if you are stupid or trolling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory |
|
|
|
Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.
There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols. You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know? Science law is very exact. My God is the real God Who science proves exists. Just because He is talked about in some religious books but not in others, doesn't have anything to do with the fact that He exists. But you said yourself in your post about evolution: '' based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now)'' That it's not exact. Anyways, I fail to see how you determined that your God is the real God, show me where science proves that your God is the real one and the other ones are fake. |
|
|
|
Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.
There is only One God. The rest of them are "gods" at best. Most are only idols. You still haven't answered the question, how do you know? Every religious person will say their God is the real God, they all can't be right, so, who is right? How did you determine that your God is the real God? What if the devil from another religion is trying to deceive you into believing in the Bible? How would you know? |
|
|
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. All methods for measuring time are based on the idea that the physics of nature have been operating like they do now, for all of time past. Since we don't know this simple thing about physics (if it always acted like it does now), there can be no factual determination about the age of the earth or universe. All the determinations are guesswork. Written records from the past are the best example of age determination that we have. And the Bible record is by far the strongest of these. And how is it exactly that the Bible is the strongest of these? Why should I believe anything it says in the Bible when you don't believe anything any scientist says? You based your ''proof'' for God in the other thread on what you said where physical laws, then it means that your proof is also false because it assumes that physics of nature have been operating like they do now. |
|
|
|
|
Another thing is that even if we agree with what badecker said and his crazy conclusions, how do we know which God did it? I asked him this question and he never responded, when you ask a religious person why he believes in his God and not any of the other hundreds of Gods, they cant answer. There is no reason to believe in the bible instead of the quran, for example. He simply believes in what he believes because he was brought up to believe it, he tries to be scientific and only ends up being a retard.
|
|
|
|
How long does it take to build a house? Two or three months? How long does it take to tear a house down? Two or three days? Charles Darwin started the evolution religion a short time over 150 years ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. It will be interesting to see how quickly it is torn down. Btw, the Bible religion started with writings and compilations that Moses put together, about 3,500 years ago - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm. And the first two chapters of Genesis may go all the way back to slightly after the creation, itself, about 6,150 years ago. Look at how long Bible religion has lasted. And it is way stronger than the evolution religion. Crash go the lies of science. Hopefully we will be able to retrieve the truthful science out of the ashes. Religion will be obsolete in few hundred years. For small percentage of population it already is. Comparing evolution with religion is like comparing computers and rocks. Anyway, Earth is older than 7000 years. We have trees that are older than that. Nope, badecker will not accept that either, what about fossils, there are fossils far older than 7000 years. Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time. Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time. Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods. Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate. Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA. And there are more methods, of course badecker will say all of them are false as usual. Obviously badecker does not understand what a religion is, to call evolution a religion is to show how incredibly stupid and ignorant you are. |
|
|
|
If the theory of evolution is correct then we will continue to evolve and change, that means human will evolve into another stage possibly with longer necks and metallic skin. Why haven't three been any evolution in the last 1000 - 2000 years.
We are actually still evolving though, In 2007, a group of researchers looking for signs of recent evolution uncovered 1,800 genes that have only become prevalent in humans in the last 40,000 years, many of which are devoted to fighting infectious diseases like malaria. More than a dozen new genetic variants for fighting malaria are spreading rapidly among Africans. Another study found that natural selection has favored city-dwellers. Living in cities has produced a genetic variant that allows us to be more resistant to diseases like tuberculosis and leprosy. Why don't you try to read before posting something like that? And no one said something must evolve within 1000-2000 years, some things take much longer than that to evolve, some may not evolve at all. |
|
|
|
"Scientific proof that God exists?"??. I don't think that really matters? Why is there a need for a scientific proof for the existence of God for you to believe in him? What's wrong with believing without a proof? I'm pretty sure it won't hurt you or do anything bad to your life or yourself as a person if you believe in God and heed his teachings. You have the freedom to choose anyway if you will believe and do what he teaches. Just remember one thing: God will never let you down and will lead you to doing evil things.
So it's ok to believe in God and follow his teachings, like killing people because they work on the Sabbath? You need solid proof of something to believe it, otherwise there is no point. If someone tells you, hey, if you jump this bridge you will teleport to another dimension, should I just believe him? Because why not, right? |
|
|
|
Why are you talking about lifespan? I'm talking about medicine in general, of course you can't refute that so you go on a rant about lifespan, what about the other things that I mentioned? You are writing on a computer tanks to science, do you not believe in computers? Evolution is a fact, keep ignoring it but the evidence for it is overwhelming, you just cant accept it for some reason. The age of the earth has been proven countless times and it's also a fact, again you simply ignore it and say it's not true, ''it has only been evidenced by science'' so that's not enough for you? But hey you would rather believe in a book rather than something evidenced by science.
No one knows the radiation in the past you say, you definitely seem extremely skeptic about anything scientific but you easily believe what a book says, makes sense.
Who told you that religion (I don't talk about fanatics here) don't accept evolution? Of course that we accept evolution but just we disagree about origin of universe. Science can't explain what happened before so called ''big bang'' but religion can. Yes, if someone read Bible literally it seems that god created universe in 6 days but in other place is written that for god one day is like thousand years,and thousand years as one day. So 6 days are not literal days but 6 periods of creation. In this sense, there is no difference between science and religion. Religion explain about purpose of life and what happened before creation. Science can't explain it. Purpose of science is to explain God's masterpiece. God used evolution in his creation. Talking about something is not explaining it. The bible has no idea about the big bang nor what happened before, you chose to believe the bible, why? There are other religious books that also explain the universe by your understanding, why the bible? Why not Zeus? They also explain how the universe is created. Evolution is a fact, you can say whatever you want but it's an extremely well documented fact. |
|
|
|
No proof whatsoever, what you say in those links is pure speculation, none of it can be tested, give me an example of can we test what you say there? How do you know which God is the real God anyways? Is it the christian God or the muslim God? Is it Zeus?
The links contain scientific laws^^^. They are used as they are stated as laws. Anything outside of scientific law is speculation. That is what Scientific theories are... speculation.
A New And Unusual Force in The Universe Just Got Even Stranger New research has expanded on the discovery of a strange phenomenon called blackbody force, showing that the effect of radiation on particles surrounding massive objects can be magnified by the space that warps around them.
The find could affect how we model the formation of stars and planets, and even help us finally detect a theoretical form of radiation that allows black holes to evaporate.
In 2013, physicists announced radiation emitted from objects called 'blackbodies' could not only nudge small particles away, but tug them closer. What's more, for hot-enough objects with only a small amount of mass, the pushing force could be stronger than their gravitational pull.
If you've never come across the term, a blackbody is any opaque object that absorbs visible light, but doesn't reflect or transmit it.
Technically, blackbodies describe theoretically perfect objects that cannot reflect any light at all. Physical examples such as the carbon nanotube materials used to make the crazy-looking Vantablack coatings come pretty close. Read more and click the links at http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-discover-curved-space-magnifies-light-s-pulling-power.You didn't answer, how do you know which God is the real God because you believe in the bible, why? How do you know it was a God? Stating laws is not proof, you are making conclusions for no reason, cause and effect doesn't point to God in any way. Everything has a cause, ok, how do you know it was God the first cause? The real God is God. I know it because I can observe science and nature, and think... a thing you seem to not be able to do. I observe science and nature therefore God exists, seems legit but I still can't figure out how you figured out a God existed in the first place. I observe the nature and I think and the real God is the flying spaghetti monster. See I can do it too, does what I said prove anything? |
|
|
|
|
Why are you talking about lifespan? I'm talking about medicine in general, of course you can't refute that so you go on a rant about lifespan, what about the other things that I mentioned? You are writing on a computer tanks to science, do you not believe in computers? Evolution is a fact, keep ignoring it but the evidence for it is overwhelming, you just cant accept it for some reason. The age of the earth has been proven countless times and it's also a fact, again you simply ignore it and say it's not true, ''it has only been evidenced by science'' so that's not enough for you? But hey you would rather believe in a book rather than something evidenced by science.
No one knows the radiation in the past you say, you definitely seem extremely skeptic about anything scientific but you easily believe what a book says, makes sense.
|
|
|
|
It's all about mathematics, there is a very interesting article, although a bit vague since he doesn't really tell that many details or specifics https://sports.vice.com/en_uk/article/the-life-of-a-professional-gamblerof a professional bettor, he bets on football only and as you can read he can earn even 10k per week, he says everything is based on math and has a ''luck ratio'' that I find very interesting. |
|
|
|
No proof whatsoever, what you say in those links is pure speculation, none of it can be tested, give me an example of can we test what you say there? How do you know which God is the real God anyways? Is it the christian God or the muslim God? Is it Zeus?
The links contain scientific laws^^^. They are used as they are stated as laws. Anything outside of scientific law is speculation. That is what Scientific theories are... speculation.
A New And Unusual Force in The Universe Just Got Even StrangerNew research has expanded on the discovery of a strange phenomenon called blackbody force, showing that the effect of radiation on particles surrounding massive objects can be magnified by the space that warps around them.
The find could affect how we model the formation of stars and planets, and even help us finally detect a theoretical form of radiation that allows black holes to evaporate.
In 2013, physicists announced radiation emitted from objects called 'blackbodies' could not only nudge small particles away, but tug them closer. What's more, for hot-enough objects with only a small amount of mass, the pushing force could be stronger than their gravitational pull.
If you've never come across the term, a blackbody is any opaque object that absorbs visible light, but doesn't reflect or transmit it.
Technically, blackbodies describe theoretically perfect objects that cannot reflect any light at all. Physical examples such as the carbon nanotube materials used to make the crazy-looking Vantablack coatings come pretty close. Read more and click the links at http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-discover-curved-space-magnifies-light-s-pulling-power.You didn't answer, how do you know which God is the real God because you believe in the bible, why? How do you know it was a God? Stating laws is not proof, you are making conclusions for no reason, cause and effect doesn't point to God in any way. Everything has a cause, ok, how do you know it was God the first cause? |
|
|
|
1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]
It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.
Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?
Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown. If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact. Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains. Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God. Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do. ''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.'' Prove it. Proof that evolution is possible has been shown: https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.
Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09 - Among the assumptions that this article makes are:
1. That evolution exists;
2. That there is such a thing as "random;"
3. Avoiding the fundamentals of things stated;
4. States itself, "We still haven't established what we're talking about;"
5. Doesn't have a steady stream of info that shows evolution.http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - The assumption is that random exists. Cause and effect law completely deny random. In addition, there are many circular references in the article.http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/ - Two basic flaws here are the idea of random existing, and the idea of the age of the earth, which has not been proven. Proof that simple atoms and molecules can come together in complex enough molecules to even align themselves into life-like cells, without some intelligence directing them, is completely ignored.So there is no point in mentioning probability. 1.You assume that random does not exist. Perhaps you assume that it does. Random has not been found. Newton's 3rd Law (did you catch that? LAW) upholds cause and effect. Stick with the law. asda 2.You also assumed that evolution does not exist. Perhaps you assume that it does. Evolution in the sense we are talking - evolving from inanimate to human - has not been found. I have listed a few of the reasons why it is impossible. Searching the Net will show you many more. 3.You avoid the fundamentals of the things stated. But you avoid the fundamentals of science... science law. 4.Out of context: We still haven't established what we're talking about. If we're talking about the origin of life (which is what seems to be referenced), those 'mutations' would have far more attempts, and the density would be far greater.
It was obviously referring to the article because the article assumes the origin of life is a part of evolution. The wording, "We still haven't established what we're talking about," is part of the article in one of your links. It shows that the article is useless. Now, you are trying to apply that wording to things that you and I are discussing. Doing such shows your nefarious intent. 5.You haven't provided a steady stream of info proving evolution wrong. A steady stream is not needed, because one broken link in the evolution chain destroys the whole thing. Yet I have shown several. And the Net is full of many more... plus a whole lot of other things that provide a lot of evolution-doubt. The age of the earth has not been proven. Many of the people who have written papers on the age of the earth have said, suggested, or hinted that the only reason they were stating the age of the earth to be as long as they suggested, was to keep continuity among the sciences, so that science could move forward. The only provable age is not even clear. But, it goes back to between 4,500 and 5,000 years. All the rest of it is theories or guesses, for one reason or another. Possibly the greatest reason for the guesses about the age of the earth is, nobody knows if the physics of the planet was the same in the past as it is now. And nobody can more than guess how great the differences of past physics might have been. All guesswork. The best we have is the written record of the Bible... not in a religious sense, but in an eye-witness sense. Show me those people that you say have written papers just to keep continuity among the sciences, I want proof of that. The age of the earth has been proven, by many methods as I previously stated. Radiometric dating which uses different radioactive elements that all show the same thing when you measure it. Of course you wouldn't agree with this fact, no surprise there. Obviously the best we have is a book written a few thousand years ago, obviously, hehe. A book that can't be verified whatsoever, that's definitely the best we have. Say for a moment what you said about randomness is true, nothing is random, all cause and effect, how does that prove God? The only thing you proved is that nothing is random, you don't know if God was the first cause, which God? Maybe it was something else, how can you tell it was God? I would like to know how can you tell it was God Secondly, it seems to be a problem, the bible talks about free will, if there is free will that means human behavior is indeed random, therefore pure randomness does exist, if it didn't that would mean everything you and I will ever do it's already ''written'' meaning that we don't actually have free will, so which one is it? Thirdly, how did creationism help with anything? We based pretty much everything we have today on science, cars, planes, medicine... As far as I know when you get sick you go to the doctor, prayers don't work so well. You can be ignorant on purpose if that's what you want but evolution is a fact, the evidence and proof is too much to ignore, you can keep lying to yourself but it's the truth. |
|
|
|
1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]
It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.
Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?
Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown. If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact. Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains. Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God. Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do. ''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.'' Prove it. Proof that evolution is possible has been shown: https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.
Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09 - Among the assumptions that this article makes are:
1. That evolution exists;
2. That there is such a thing as "random;"
3. Avoiding the fundamentals of things stated;
4. States itself, "We still haven't established what we're talking about;"
5. Doesn't have a steady stream of info that shows evolution.http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - The assumption is that random exists. Cause and effect law completely deny random. In addition, there are many circular references in the article.http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/ - Two basic flaws here are the idea of random existing, and the idea of the age of the earth, which has not been proven. Proof that simple atoms and molecules can come together in complex enough molecules to even align themselves into life-like cells, without some intelligence directing them, is completely ignored.So there is no point in mentioning probability. 1.You assume that random does not exist. 2.You also assumed that evolution does not exist. 3.You avoid the fundamentals of the things stated. 4.Out of context: We still haven't established what we're talking about. If we're talking about the origin of life (which is what seems to be referenced), those 'mutations' would have far more attempts, and the density would be far greater. It was obviously referring to the article because the article assumes the origin of life is a part of evolution. 5.You haven't provided a steady stream of info proving evolution wrong. The age of the earth has been proven by many many different methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth |
|
|
|
1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]
It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.
Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?
Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown. If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact. Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains. Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God. Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do. ''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.'' Prove it. Proof that evolution is possible has been shown: https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.
Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/So there is no point in mentioning probability. |
|
|
|
I am also having my own dicing strategy but I'm getting mixed results with my strategy. Still, I am very well aware of consistency of gambling strategies. I never come across any gambler is sharing their strategies is working all the times. But people are talking about/ in search of such consistent strategies.
Probably gamblers are finding a new kind of entertainment in searching of gambling strategies. I guess gambling will work in this way too.
i shared the delayed parachute version not my version which is different. Was that the shittiest YouTube channel you could find? A bunch of random videos of him winning some money? How do you know he is not just advertising those casinos? He should be world known by now for reinventing math.
Over the years, many people have tried to beat the casino, and turn roulette—a game designed to turn a profit for the house—into one on which the player expects to win. Most of the time this comes down to the use of betting systems, strategies which say that the house edge can be beaten by simply employing a special pattern of bets, often relying on the "Gambler's fallacy", the idea that past results are any guide to the future (for example, if a roulette wheel has come up 10 times in a row on red, that red on the next spin is any more or less likely than if the last spin was black).
All betting systems that rely on patterns, when employed on casino edge games will result, on average, in the player losing money.[8] In practice, players employing betting systems may win, and may indeed win very large sums of money, but the losses (which, depending on the design of the betting system, may occur quite rarely) will outweigh the wins. Certain systems, such as the Martingale, described below, are extremely risky, because the worst-case scenario (which is mathematically certain to happen, at some point) may see the player chasing losses with ever-bigger bets until he runs out of money.
Stay in school kids or you will think that you can win money gambling.
Your answer was so predictable, i can see you really want to win this arguement and are not that smart, again, a PHYSICAL game like roulette is physics based, the probabilities of streaks of red and black doesn't matter, 10 black is not 35 black is it? they are on different places on the wheel, and the odds of hitting a number CHANGE when physics is involved. Did edward thorpe not solve single deck blackjack thus destroying that game forcing casinos to add a cutting card and add more and more decks? And what are professional poker players a doing what ? It seems you are still on page 1 of logic for dummies. Im not replying to anymore of your rubbish. Use your brains kids. The guy said it can be used online, no physics are involved in online roulette as far as I know besides the roulette in the casinos now are checked every once in a while so it remains random and as I said, I know some people used to cheat because the roulette was imperfect, that's why I specifically asked about online as well. Why aren't you rich if you can win all the time? Come back when you make 1 million dollars from your betting. |
|
|
|
1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]
It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.
Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?
Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown. If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact. Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains. Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God. Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do. ''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.'' Prove it. Proof that evolution is possible has been shown: https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.htmlhttp://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
