If anyone denies evolution, that someone does NOT understand evolution at all. There is no denying, evolution is merely change, you can talk about evolution and discuss it but denying it entirely it's just plain stupid.
There are hundreds of examples of evolution and it is supported by virtually every scientist, by different types of science like biology, paleontology, radioisotope dating, bio-geography and many more, denying evolution is denying all of them and as I said that is just plain stupid.
If evolution is just change, say "change." why? Because the word "evolution" used to mean, and still implies, random beneficial mutations. There isn't any such thing. Cause and effect says that there is no random. Beneficial mutations have never been seen or recorded... even once. Be clear. Drop "evolution." Say "change."  Because evolution is the name of the scientific theory, that's why? Are you fucking dense? I feel like you are not even trying at this point. No one said it was random, I stated the cause, it was the pollution which had a cause which was the industrial revolution which had a cause, human behavior which is random. You believe in God and the bible, right? It says specifically in the bible that we have free will, if we have free will it means our actions are totally random and can't be predicted so your whole cause and effect shit is stupid. Another example of the inequity of Astargath. He agrees that evolution is change. Then he admits that it is a theory (an unknown). Yet he denies by omission the fact that evolution is more than change. Then he brings religion into it. And when he admits to God, he is unwilling to recognize the almighty power of God to use our free will the way He wants. What a slippery snake! A Scientific Theory. Again showing your ignorance not knowing what a scientific theory means and pulling the retarded card of OH ITS ONLY A THEORY HEHEHE. ''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.'' You keep dismissing thousands of scientific arguments and articles and choose to believe this one article you keep mentioning for some reason, the mathematical impossibility of evolution. Quick search: Debunked many times: 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/Badecker keeps posting one article here and there backed by 1 guy who said it, he ignores 99.9% of the scientific community because they are all wrong and this one dude that made that retarded argument must be the one who knows. Well there you go buddy 3 articles for you to read, for every single article of bullshit you post I can find hundreds of scientific articles debunking it. The only reason he rejects evolution is because it messes up his fairy tale about how an invisible man far away in another universe created this universe and created this special type of primates who can worship him. Oh, yeah he created everything else as well  Ignoring genetic disorders, cataclysmic events, extinction of whole species, creation of new species, planets, solar systems and galaxies coliding etc. It is a "perfect" design. I like science fiction as well as the next guy. But there is a time when we need to step out of the science fiction of evolution, and get on with reality. Google "why evolution is false" to see lots of reason that it is science fiction. Look here http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html for 9 reason why evolution is science fiction, and the reasons why it is being pushed in the education systems as truth, even though it is false. For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody I can post hundreds debunking it, as I said previously. Why is that link better than the thousands of articles explaining evolution? How do you exactly pick what links you are in favor of? http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-9-Unscientific-Excuses-to-Ignore-Evolutionhttps://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3r2jjz/what_the_hell_9_scientific_facts_prove_the_theory/?st=j35lzyl1&sh=ab7a92f9I can link thousands of actual scientific documents about evolution, you still wouldn't believe any of them, you rather believe what someone says in a website that is a stupid conspiracy theory website, nice fucking sources you have All anti-evolution debunking is completely false for at least one of 3 reasons: 1. Much of the debunking has simple, blatant mistakes in it; 2. Most of the debunking doesn't get down to the basics of the debunking points, and is incomplete because of this; 3. All of the debunking not covered by the above, two points is based on theory, which even science admits is not known to be factual. At the same time, probability math and Irreducible Complexity are scientific facts, essentially scientific laws, that are bases that science sits on. Anti-evolution rebuttals fail miserably. Since they fail, that simply is further evidence of an agenda of falsehood among evolution promoters, and many evolution believers. 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? |
|
|
|
For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody
Yes it's very important to take seriously what Dawkins says because he is very popular. It doesn't matter if anything he says makes sense but I believe him because he is famous. I'm very intelligent, not a mindless sheep following stupid masses  Dawkins? Who said anything about dawkins? Mindless sheep following every scientist in the world, so you would rather follow the guy who writes about conspiracy theories in that website he linked than actual scientists who studied, tested and proved evolution, are you sure I am the one who is mindless? By a nobody I meant literally a nobody, that website is run by whom exactly? Someone who believes in every single conspiracy there is. I didn't mean to say you should trust someone's opinion because he is famous but you should definitely have some trust in what respected scientists have to say, dawkins is one of them surely, I wouldn't just believe anything Dawkins says but if 99.9% of the other scientists actually agree, provide proof, evidence why in the world would I disagree with them? |
|
|
|
If anyone denies evolution, that someone does NOT understand evolution at all. There is no denying, evolution is merely change, you can talk about evolution and discuss it but denying it entirely it's just plain stupid.
There are hundreds of examples of evolution and it is supported by virtually every scientist, by different types of science like biology, paleontology, radioisotope dating, bio-geography and many more, denying evolution is denying all of them and as I said that is just plain stupid.
If evolution is just change, say "change." why? Because the word "evolution" used to mean, and still implies, random beneficial mutations. There isn't any such thing. Cause and effect says that there is no random. Beneficial mutations have never been seen or recorded... even once. Be clear. Drop "evolution." Say "change." Because evolution is the name of the scientific theory, that's why? Are you fucking dense? I feel like you are not even trying at this point. No one said it was random, I stated the cause, it was the pollution which had a cause which was the industrial revolution which had a cause, human behavior which is random. You believe in God and the bible, right? It says specifically in the bible that we have free will, if we have free will it means our actions are totally random and can't be predicted so your whole cause and effect shit is stupid. Another example of the inequity of Astargath. He agrees that evolution is change. Then he admits that it is a theory (an unknown). Yet he denies by omission the fact that evolution is more than change. Then he brings religion into it. And when he admits to God, he is unwilling to recognize the almighty power of God to use our free will the way He wants. What a slippery snake! A Scientific Theory. Again showing your ignorance not knowing what a scientific theory means and pulling the retarded card of OH ITS ONLY A THEORY HEHEHE. ''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.'' You keep dismissing thousands of scientific arguments and articles and choose to believe this one article you keep mentioning for some reason, the mathematical impossibility of evolution. Quick search: Debunked many times: 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/Badecker keeps posting one article here and there backed by 1 guy who said it, he ignores 99.9% of the scientific community because they are all wrong and this one dude that made that retarded argument must be the one who knows. Well there you go buddy 3 articles for you to read, for every single article of bullshit you post I can find hundreds of scientific articles debunking it. The only reason he rejects evolution is because it messes up his fairy tale about how an invisible man far away in another universe created this universe and created this special type of primates who can worship him. Oh, yeah he created everything else as well Ignoring genetic disorders, cataclysmic events, extinction of whole species, creation of new species, planets, solar systems and galaxies coliding etc. It is a "perfect" design. I like science fiction as well as the next guy. But there is a time when we need to step out of the science fiction of evolution, and get on with reality. Google "why evolution is false" to see lots of reason that it is science fiction. Look here http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html for 9 reason why evolution is science fiction, and the reasons why it is being pushed in the education systems as truth, even though it is false. For every retarded link that you post written by a nobody I can post hundreds debunking it, as I said previously. Why is that link better than the thousands of articles explaining evolution? How do you exactly pick what links you are in favor of? http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-9-Unscientific-Excuses-to-Ignore-Evolutionhttps://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3r2jjz/what_the_hell_9_scientific_facts_prove_the_theory/?st=j35lzyl1&sh=ab7a92f9I can link thousands of actual scientific documents about evolution, you still wouldn't believe any of them, you rather believe what someone says in a website that is a stupid conspiracy theory website, nice fucking sources you have |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
Science and God doesn't match. Science is about to prood things and Religion is about faith.
Therefore, science can never prove the existence of God. Science is not used to accept those things that an ordinary person can not see. Bullshit, what other methods are there to prove something? Faith? So which faith should we consider to be accurate, the christian faith, the Muslim faith? Jewish, Buddhism ? Faith is stupid and does not prove anything anywhere. The scientific method works, all the scientific theories work, we have medicine thanks to them, technology, the computer you are using right now exists because science works. Religion is useless, hasn't helped in anything. If you read the bible you realize it's not moral at all, slavery, homophobia... God preached those things, is that the all powerful God that everyone talks about? A God that failed numerous times and had to wipe the whole humanity, how does God actually fail? |
|
|
|
I could name a names of people on youtube right now who have systematically done what you say is impossible, with videos showing them do it week in and week out, against real casino and rng games. Winning over $250,000 in single sessions a small relatively "dust" balance and working up a couple thousand into way over $100,000 with a "system", you have no idea cos you dont do any research worth paying attention to. The only reason casinos dont go bankrupt, is because they deny "advantage" players entry, simple! AND First you need the money to make a high basebet Why you so angry ?  How would online casinos deny players entry? I would like to know that, you can set a new IP and come to an online casino over and over again, your logic is stupid, as I said if a strategy worked, every single online casino would be bankrupt but they aren't, amazing. I would like to know those names on youtube right now. You know im talking about real casinos. Why should i tell you ... ill give you 2 clues, roulette and roulette others can tell you if they know. Anyway last cap for today 70,000 rolls ...  I don't care that you are talking about real casinos, read this carefully please. IF a strategy for roulette/dice existed and worked it could obviously be applied to online casinos as well because it's the same thing and they have the same odds, that strategy is based on math, nothing physical that the roulette may have. THEREFORE someone who knew about that strategy could easily go to any online casino, bitcoin/usd doesnt matter and wipe the fucking casino, if he gets kicked or banned he can easily create another account and keep doing it and eventually every casino would die, can you follow the logic on this? |
|
|
|
'The proof that Badecker is far less intelligent than a rock is' or 'When idiots try to act like scientists':
First of all, this is not a reply to you, Badecker, so I do not expect a reply from you. This is me proving how stupid you are and discrediting your idiotic persona as much as possible. Even if you do reply, I do not give a tiny fuck about what you say anymore.
First, Badecker said : 'We simply don't understand the programming because it is so extremely complex.' to which Astargath replied with 'Im sorry but you keep saying we simply don't understand it, then how is it that YOU understand it? If you say something is not understood how can you claim it's true? You realize the logic fallacy, right?'. What comes next is a bit shocking because we rarely see people that get so stupid while trying to scientifically prove something: Badecker replied to Artargath with this ' - Are you trying to be funny? First, who is the we? Second, if anyone says it is not so, they have suggested that they don't understand it. It isn't me stating that you don't understand it. At least not until after you suggested it. Third, who says that it is not understood? I understand it. There are lots of things that some people understand while others don't. This doesn't make them to be not true. However, if this is the extent of your ability to think, it is easy to see why you don't understand.. Let us analyze for a second: first, Badecker said we don't understand the programming. The same Badecker then asked who is the we, which proves that he barely knows what is coming out of his primitive brain. He actually stated something and then asked what was that about. After that, Badecker claims that if someone says something is not in a certain way, he suggests that he does not understand it. Logic failure example: if someone states that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist that actually means that the person is just suggesting he does not understand it. After that Badecker denied the fact that he stated that Astargath does not understand it...although he just did say that about all of us. Right after that he asks who said it is not understood proving to us again how stupid he is and not realizing that he just said it is not understood. Next thing, he claims he understands it, basically doing exactly what Astargath said he was doing, the logic fallacy. Later on, Badecker went full retard by stating evolution doesn't work not knowing parts of the evolution are now used even in computer technology, the very thing that he is typing from, which means it actually works. Not to talk about medicine and other science that uses the principles of evolution successfully. But hey, you can't expect to see butterflies coming out of a piece of shit, can you? Another thing to notice is this: Badecker is part of the apologist idiots who say that they can not trust in evolution because 'evolution theory is still a theory because blah blah blah'...but they believe in God, which is not even at the level of theory, it's a myth, it's primitive science fiction. Logic fallacy again. This is how Badecker ended: 'God set everything in place according to cause and effect... even the cause and effect that made the pollution. But don't blame God for pollution. He only acted according to the request of people, many of whom didn't even know that they were requesting.'. God is the cause and everything we know is the effect, he says, even the pollution. But he is not responsible for the pollution, people are...although he is the cause. However, he only acted at the request of people, even though when he created everything there were no people, but somehow he predicted their request which was not really a request because people did not know they were requesting. In conclusion, God is the cause of pollution but he is not responsible because some people who were also an effect of God were requesting while not knowing they were requesting it. If there would have been a prize for the most insanely stupid person alive at the moment, I would hands down hand it to Badecker. This brainless creature tries to bring 'scientific proof' for God and he actually demands that we take it seriously. That is the effect of religion on some people, mostly dumb ones. I bet that if you give him a gun and the 'legal' right to shoot those who do not believe in his God, he would immediately slaughter at least as much as any islamic terrorist does. Thank you for your time and remember: Badecker is as stupid as a pineapple covered slice of pizza, there is no way he could ever scientifically prove anything. Stay tuned for more soon.
Oh man sorry for shit posting like this but this was funny as hell to read. |
|
|
|
If anyone denies evolution, that someone does NOT understand evolution at all. There is no denying, evolution is merely change, you can talk about evolution and discuss it but denying it entirely it's just plain stupid.
There are hundreds of examples of evolution and it is supported by virtually every scientist, by different types of science like biology, paleontology, radioisotope dating, bio-geography and many more, denying evolution is denying all of them and as I said that is just plain stupid.
If evolution is just change, say "change." why? Because the word "evolution" used to mean, and still implies, random beneficial mutations. There isn't any such thing. Cause and effect says that there is no random. Beneficial mutations have never been seen or recorded... even once. Be clear. Drop "evolution." Say "change." Because evolution is the name of the scientific theory, that's why? Are you fucking dense? I feel like you are not even trying at this point. No one said it was random, I stated the cause, it was the pollution which had a cause which was the industrial revolution which had a cause, human behavior which is random. You believe in God and the bible, right? It says specifically in the bible that we have free will, if we have free will it means our actions are totally random and can't be predicted so your whole cause and effect shit is stupid. Another example of the inequity of Astargath. He agrees that evolution is change. Then he admits that it is a theory (an unknown). Yet he denies by omission the fact that evolution is more than change. Then he brings religion into it. And when he admits to God, he is unwilling to recognize the almighty power of God to use our free will the way He wants. What a slippery snake! A Scientific Theory. Again showing your ignorance not knowing what a scientific theory means and pulling the retarded card of OH ITS ONLY A THEORY HEHEHE. ''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.'' You keep dismissing thousands of scientific arguments and articles and choose to believe this one article you keep mentioning for some reason, the mathematical impossibility of evolution. Quick search: Debunked many times: 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/Badecker keeps posting one article here and there backed by 1 guy who said it, he ignores 99.9% of the scientific community because they are all wrong and this one dude that made that retarded argument must be the one who knows. Well there you go buddy 3 articles for you to read, for every single article of bullshit you post I can find hundreds of scientific articles debunking it. |
|
|
|
No one know what actually looks like the evolution unless there's a man who lives until now or reincarnation and remembered all what happens during the day and what really happens to human kind no ones who created everything as the scientist said it all created by science but how when they don't have a creator,
The universe knows nothing but everything a human knows everything but nothing.. Evolution is random when will it rain When will the wind blow when will lighting strike and where when will the earth make a river So much we don't know that we will know always .. But all because religious bible crazies cannot get over the fact god never made man..  Video for Best of Christian Nonsense- the Crazy Christians compilation▶ 26:32 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ibEaIPtMkThe funny thing is that only religious extremists are the ones denying evolution at this point. A study found in 2007: Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007) Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth Buddhist 81% Hindu 80% Jewish 77% Unaffiliated 72% Catholic 58% So 58% and that was 2007 so I'm guessing it could be at 70% by now or even higher, there is no point right now to deny it. Badecker is a perfect example of religious extremist that denies every single scientific discovery, he denies many different science branches, he denies every single proof and evidence for evolution and the only thing he does is link flawed studies or people who ''claim'' something. For some reason he believes them, oh a guy claimed evolution is false, I better believe this one guy, he must know better than pretty much everyone else, right? Oh he doesn't have any kind of evidence, oh well, all the evidence scientists have is fake. And that's his logic. |
|
|
|
If anyone denies evolution, that someone does NOT understand evolution at all. There is no denying, evolution is merely change, you can talk about evolution and discuss it but denying it entirely it's just plain stupid.
There are hundreds of examples of evolution and it is supported by virtually every scientist, by different types of science like biology, paleontology, radioisotope dating, bio-geography and many more, denying evolution is denying all of them and as I said that is just plain stupid.
If evolution is just change, say "change." why? Because the word "evolution" used to mean, and still implies, random beneficial mutations. There isn't any such thing. Cause and effect says that there is no random. Beneficial mutations have never been seen or recorded... even once. Be clear. Drop "evolution." Say "change." Because evolution is the name of the scientific theory, that's why? Are you fucking dense? I feel like you are not even trying at this point. No one said it was random, I stated the cause, it was the pollution which had a cause which was the industrial revolution which had a cause, human behavior which is random. You believe in God and the bible, right? It says specifically in the bible that we have free will, if we have free will it means our actions are totally random and can't be predicted so your whole cause and effect shit is stupid. |
|
|
|
Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.
Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.
The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.
False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25] This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists. You keep mentioning probability math. What is your point, what probability are you talking about? The thing we were talking about is evolution. What are the odds that the atoms and molecules that make up a simple living cell could come together in just the right places to form what a living cell would be? The odds against this happening even once are literally impossible. Add to this the proper motions for each and every atom and molecule so that the cell can be alive, and you have another big impossibility. Add to this the fact that any "soup" that we can envision that would allow the above to happen, would immediately kill the new living cell. This means that the cell would have to be ejected from the soup at exactly the time it formed and became alive. This is another impossibility. But, if the above happened, it would have to happen over and over each time there was an advancement in the cell, to the next level of evolution. The probability math odds against this happening even once are so strong that it is impossible, and impossible, and impossible, beyond any chance of a possibility. Do the math. you sir are so willfully phucking ignorant it is beyond comprehension. for chrissakes get outta your delusional echo chamber .and do some research on these subjects you crow about. oh no wait a minute never mind..you wont listen to the real science. you got yer fingers in your ears if it goes against your retarded fairy tale beliefs. Well, do the math. The smallest possible living cell would have at least 200 molecules. What are the odds that these 200 molecules of different varieties and substances could ever come together to form a cell? It is essentially impossible. But if they did, they would still have to move into the right motions to make the cell alive. How in the world ignorant are you? The 200-molecule cell would barely be alive, because cells that small are specialized for a specific job. In nature the cell would have to be a whole lot larger, and the odds against its coming together a whole lot greater. You evolutionists are so dense that it amazes one how you can even live without riding a bicycle all the time:  You see, you keep showing how ignorant you are, evolution does not try to determine how the first cell or how life was created, you obviously do not understand evolution at all, thanks for clarifying that. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. The first cell would be the easiest. You're only going down hill with further cells. That simply shows that people are devolving... at least the ones who think that evolution is real. No, stop it, stop embarrassing yourself, evolution has nothing to do with cells forming. How can you be so ignorant about it? Peppered moth - This moth had a light coloring darkened after the Industrial Revolution, due to the pollution of the time. This mutation came about because the light colored moths were seen by birds more readily, so with natural selection, the dark colored moths survived to reproduce. Italian Wall Lizards - These lizards were taken to an island and left there to see any changes that occurred. They shifted their diet and ate more vegetation, causing a change to their head size, giving them a stronger bite. They also developed cecal valves in their intestine which gives bacteria more time to break down the vegetation. 2 Easy examples of evolution for you so you can understand what it is about. It has nothing to do with probability math or cells forming, please inform yourself before talking because it's going to make you look stupid. Cause and effect has to do with everything. This means that all natural transformations are essentially programmed in. We simply don't understand the programming because it is so extremely complex. More than likely it ties into dimensions that we know very little about yet... and dimensions that we couldn't hold enough of the knowledge in our minds at once, so that we could even envision them vaguely. The evolution you talk about is only the recent understanding of the word "evolution." And it is not an all-inclusive understanding. There are many people who still hold that abiogenesis is part of evolution, and that "evolution" includes abiogenesis, and many more things that you have left out of your explanation of what evolution means. Im sorry but you keep saying we simply don't understand it, then how is it that YOU understand it? If you say something is not understood how can you claim it's true? You realize the logic fallacy, right? - Are you trying to be funny? First, who is the we? Second, if anyone says it is not so, they have suggested that they don't understand it. It isn't me stating that you don't understand it. At least not until after you suggested it. Third, who says that it is not understood? I understand it. There are lots of things that some people understand while others don't. This doesn't make them to be not true. However, if this is the extent of your ability to think, it is easy to see why you don't understand.And no abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. ''Many people'' hold that abiogenesis is? Who are these people? I would like you to show them to us and tell us if they are scientists. - Before the word "abiogenesis" was used in standard everyday life, that which it encompasses was considered to be part of evolution by almost everyone.Stop evading the questions, you clearly didn't understand how evolution works. - Not only doesn't evolution "work," but it has been proven to be impossible for several reasons. I have listed some of them in this thread, already.And yes cause and effect, if you actually read what I posted you would understand: ''Peppered moth - This moth had a light coloring darkened after the Industrial Revolution, due to the pollution of the time'' The cause is the pollution, you get it? That ''transformation'' was not programmed in, it was not God, it was just a mutation due to environmental causes. So you take a scientific theory backed by virtually every scientist in the world, studied for years and you simply deny it and then you say NOPE, it was god, how do you know? Where is the evidence that God did it and it wasn't random? If nothing is random, you still don't know that it was God. |
|
|
|
I could name a names of people on youtube right now who have systematically done what you say is impossible, with videos showing them do it week in and week out, against real casino and rng games. Winning over $250,000 in single sessions a small relatively "dust" balance and working up a couple thousand into way over $100,000 with a "system", you have no idea cos you dont do any research worth paying attention to. The only reason casinos dont go bankrupt, is because they deny "advantage" players entry, simple! AND First you need the money to make a high basebet Why you so angry ? How would online casinos deny players entry? I would like to know that, you can set a new IP and come to an online casino over and over again, your logic is stupid, as I said if a strategy worked, every single online casino would be bankrupt but they aren't, amazing. I would like to know those names on youtube right now. |
|
|
|
The odds are calculated at 49.95% which is what an old dice casino had as odds, it doesn't matter if its lower or higher, the point is to illustrate how using martingale is a waste of time and it's worse than playing a single bet
if you use 40% you can use a smaller multiplier, and hitting 40% is better than hitting 33%, but playing 40% alone will destroy you. If you look at the odds, you switch when it tells you to. oh yeah btw i was using d'alambert style bets, not martingale.The thing is as I said it doesn't matter what % you use, it's pointless and never going to be better than other ''strategies'' like one single bet to not waste time. There was another calculated ''strategy'' by dooglus showing how a single sequence of martingale was almost the best ''strategy'' in terms of odds, it would give you like a 0.1% extra, still obviously not a winning strategy .  Say what you want but you can't ignore the evidence. Decided to try it with 0.009 btc last night, made 0.0005 twice, seeing as i had a bigger balance i ignored my stop loss and watched it perform better than i knew it could. Started it this morning and went out for 2hrs, came back and it was at -0.006 ( not bad cos ive seen it recover from this twice, one time was quick the other time took a few thousand spins ), but this time -0.008. profit 0.00116433 bb 10 satoshis I honestly didn't think there would still be delusional people that think you can win in a game where your odds are not in your favor, at least not in the long term but you seem to be one of them. I will tell you what the evidence says, the evidence says that casinos are making a ton of money and gamblers are not, even if only 1 strategy would work, every casino would be bankrupt by now, it only takes 1 guy with that strategy to win everything. If your strategy worked, you could use it forever with a higher base bet and win literally thousands of bitcoins every day and pretty much kill any online bitcoin casino. Let us know when you do that. |
|
|
|
|
If anyone denies evolution, that someone does NOT understand evolution at all. There is no denying, evolution is merely change, you can talk about evolution and discuss it but denying it entirely it's just plain stupid.
There are hundreds of examples of evolution and it is supported by virtually every scientist, by different types of science like biology, paleontology, radioisotope dating, bio-geography and many more, denying evolution is denying all of them and as I said that is just plain stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Who cares if it's unrealistic, it's still publicity to bitcoin. If a few famous actors or singers were to say right now that bitcoin is the future, we would see an insane pump even if they don't know or say anything specific because people just listen to other ''important'' people
|
|
|
|
Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.
Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.
The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.
False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25] This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists. You keep mentioning probability math. What is your point, what probability are you talking about? The thing we were talking about is evolution. What are the odds that the atoms and molecules that make up a simple living cell could come together in just the right places to form what a living cell would be? The odds against this happening even once are literally impossible. Add to this the proper motions for each and every atom and molecule so that the cell can be alive, and you have another big impossibility. Add to this the fact that any "soup" that we can envision that would allow the above to happen, would immediately kill the new living cell. This means that the cell would have to be ejected from the soup at exactly the time it formed and became alive. This is another impossibility. But, if the above happened, it would have to happen over and over each time there was an advancement in the cell, to the next level of evolution. The probability math odds against this happening even once are so strong that it is impossible, and impossible, and impossible, beyond any chance of a possibility. Do the math. you sir are so willfully phucking ignorant it is beyond comprehension. for chrissakes get outta your delusional echo chamber .and do some research on these subjects you crow about. oh no wait a minute never mind..you wont listen to the real science. you got yer fingers in your ears if it goes against your retarded fairy tale beliefs. Well, do the math. The smallest possible living cell would have at least 200 molecules. What are the odds that these 200 molecules of different varieties and substances could ever come together to form a cell? It is essentially impossible. But if they did, they would still have to move into the right motions to make the cell alive. How in the world ignorant are you? The 200-molecule cell would barely be alive, because cells that small are specialized for a specific job. In nature the cell would have to be a whole lot larger, and the odds against its coming together a whole lot greater. You evolutionists are so dense that it amazes one how you can even live without riding a bicycle all the time: You see, you keep showing how ignorant you are, evolution does not try to determine how the first cell or how life was created, you obviously do not understand evolution at all, thanks for clarifying that. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. The first cell would be the easiest. You're only going down hill with further cells. That simply shows that people are devolving... at least the ones who think that evolution is real. No, stop it, stop embarrassing yourself, evolution has nothing to do with cells forming. How can you be so ignorant about it? Peppered moth - This moth had a light coloring darkened after the Industrial Revolution, due to the pollution of the time. This mutation came about because the light colored moths were seen by birds more readily, so with natural selection, the dark colored moths survived to reproduce. Italian Wall Lizards - These lizards were taken to an island and left there to see any changes that occurred. They shifted their diet and ate more vegetation, causing a change to their head size, giving them a stronger bite. They also developed cecal valves in their intestine which gives bacteria more time to break down the vegetation. 2 Easy examples of evolution for you so you can understand what it is about. It has nothing to do with probability math or cells forming, please inform yourself before talking because it's going to make you look stupid. Cause and effect has to do with everything. This means that all natural transformations are essentially programmed in. We simply don't understand the programming because it is so extremely complex. More than likely it ties into dimensions that we know very little about yet... and dimensions that we couldn't hold enough of the knowledge in our minds at once, so that we could even envision them vaguely. The evolution you talk about is only the recent understanding of the word "evolution." And it is not an all-inclusive understanding. There are many people who still hold that abiogenesis is part of evolution, and that "evolution" includes abiogenesis, and many more things that you have left out of your explanation of what evolution means. Im sorry but you keep saying we simply don't understand it, then how is it that YOU understand it? If you say something is not understood how can you claim it's true? You realize the logic fallacy, right? And no abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. ''Many people'' hold that abiogenesis is? Who are these people? I would like you to show them to us and tell us if they are scientists. Stop evading the questions, you clearly didn't understand how evolution works. And yes cause and effect, if you actually read what I posted you would understand: ''Peppered moth - This moth had a light coloring darkened after the Industrial Revolution, due to the pollution of the time'' The cause is the pollution, you get it? That ''transformation'' was not programmed in, it was not God, it was just a mutation due to environmental causes. |
|
|
|
In my experience bitcoin convinces itself and you don't need to help it. For me my technically incompetent friends are the ones asking me for help to get them into bitcoin. With all the positive news flowing about bitcoin everyone is eager to get on the bandwagon already.
This is what I saw with my experience in bitcoin. Even I don't convince people into using bitcoin, in my case. When my friends and I started to talk about our sources of income when I said that I'm good with bitcoin, they started to google it out and saw that the price is good at $1,500 and by that time they started to become interested immediately. There are always waves of people that become interested when the price rocket jumps and even the news talk about bitcoin but usually it's young people that use bitcoin so really in the near future most people will use bitcoin without having to be convinced of it because we are the ones who started using it Because it is interesting to see that there's a type of something like this with that value. And we know people, it's a human nature that upon seeing big figures involved we are pushing ourselves and trying our luck to get into it. That's why there's no need for some of us to convince people but it's also good if we will share it to others for potential additional investment to the market cap. I knew someone before whose not interested on it yet when he see the value of btc now and tell him that in just small figure it goes to be the value now,he just buy btc by then. That's what I'm saying, when people starts to see the price of bitcoin pumping. It will catch their interest and they are going to study more about it. And good thing that guy you knew get to understand the rapid growth of bitcoin and did bought some. Because for all of us we are always attracted easily when seeing high prices for an investment. What we need is people that use cryptocurrencies for their business, sure having a lot of people buying bitcoin is good but that doesn't really help. What we need is business, stores, online shops to accept bitcoin, it's the only way to make it relevant. |
|
|
|
Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.
Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.
The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.
False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25] This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists. You keep mentioning probability math. What is your point, what probability are you talking about? The thing we were talking about is evolution. What are the odds that the atoms and molecules that make up a simple living cell could come together in just the right places to form what a living cell would be? The odds against this happening even once are literally impossible. Add to this the proper motions for each and every atom and molecule so that the cell can be alive, and you have another big impossibility. Add to this the fact that any "soup" that we can envision that would allow the above to happen, would immediately kill the new living cell. This means that the cell would have to be ejected from the soup at exactly the time it formed and became alive. This is another impossibility. But, if the above happened, it would have to happen over and over each time there was an advancement in the cell, to the next level of evolution. The probability math odds against this happening even once are so strong that it is impossible, and impossible, and impossible, beyond any chance of a possibility. Do the math. you sir are so willfully phucking ignorant it is beyond comprehension. for chrissakes get outta your delusional echo chamber .and do some research on these subjects you crow about. oh no wait a minute never mind..you wont listen to the real science. you got yer fingers in your ears if it goes against your retarded fairy tale beliefs. Well, do the math. The smallest possible living cell would have at least 200 molecules. What are the odds that these 200 molecules of different varieties and substances could ever come together to form a cell? It is essentially impossible. But if they did, they would still have to move into the right motions to make the cell alive. How in the world ignorant are you? The 200-molecule cell would barely be alive, because cells that small are specialized for a specific job. In nature the cell would have to be a whole lot larger, and the odds against its coming together a whole lot greater. You evolutionists are so dense that it amazes one how you can even live without riding a bicycle all the time: You see, you keep showing how ignorant you are, evolution does not try to determine how the first cell or how life was created, you obviously do not understand evolution at all, thanks for clarifying that. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. The first cell would be the easiest. You're only going down hill with further cells. That simply shows that people are devolving... at least the ones who think that evolution is real. No, stop it, stop embarrassing yourself, evolution has nothing to do with cells forming. How can you be so ignorant about it? Peppered moth - This moth had a light coloring darkened after the Industrial Revolution, due to the pollution of the time. This mutation came about because the light colored moths were seen by birds more readily, so with natural selection, the dark colored moths survived to reproduce. Italian Wall Lizards - These lizards were taken to an island and left there to see any changes that occurred. They shifted their diet and ate more vegetation, causing a change to their head size, giving them a stronger bite. They also developed cecal valves in their intestine which gives bacteria more time to break down the vegetation. 2 Easy examples of evolution for you so you can understand what it is about. It has nothing to do with probability math or cells forming, please inform yourself before talking because it's going to make you look stupid. |
|
|
|
In my experience bitcoin convinces itself and you don't need to help it. For me my technically incompetent friends are the ones asking me for help to get them into bitcoin. With all the positive news flowing about bitcoin everyone is eager to get on the bandwagon already.
This is what I saw with my experience in bitcoin. Even I don't convince people into using bitcoin, in my case. When my friends and I started to talk about our sources of income when I said that I'm good with bitcoin, they started to google it out and saw that the price is good at $1,500 and by that time they started to become interested immediately. There are always waves of people that become interested when the price rocket jumps and even the news talk about bitcoin but usually it's young people that use bitcoin so really in the near future most people will use bitcoin without having to be convinced of it because we are the ones who started using it |
|
|
|
|
It's funny that there was a time where you could gather close to 0.01 bitcoins per month on this site, which would be around 20$ right now, someone who used to collect faucets all the time could have made around 0.50 easily with many faucets over the span of a year which is 1.000$
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
