Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2018, 12:08:41 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 [135] 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolution is a hoax  (Read 80127 times)
patarfweefwee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 11


View Profile
February 22, 2018, 10:52:26 PM
 #2681

If we follow the original post's logic. Then all of us would just be single celled organisms. We all started from one species if a single celled organism and lo and behold we still have single celled organisms. Evolution explains the relationship of an environment to the specific species living in it. A weaker species will die if they could not adapt. What happened to apes, monkeys and humans is that these three species branched out from it's ancestors but could still adapt to it's environment

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1692


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2018, 12:37:10 AM
 #2682

Who created your thoughts? Does your thoughts need to be created? Not quite, sometimes they just happen.

Nothing needs to be created.  Evolution proves that.  Smiley

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
raizhur19
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 02:31:57 AM
 #2683

well TS, in order to evolve, many aspects are considered and not all have to adapt in order to survive. those only who needs to change to be fit must change so theres also other species that dont need to evolve in order to survive
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1692


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2018, 02:41:26 AM
 #2684

well TS, in order to evolve, many aspects are considered and not all have to adapt in order to survive. those only who needs to change to be fit must change so theres also other species that dont need to evolve in order to survive

An organism does not need to evolve if it has a safe environment and a stable food supply.

Near the bottom of the oceans, where nothing much changes, one celled organisms still exist from billions of years ago.  Smiley

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
Bugsbey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 03:10:45 AM
 #2685

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
Lets assume that fact that we descended from monkeys are true. Why there are still monkeys around you ask. Well first of all, i guess that not all monkeys would be able to evolve. Some of them would stay monkeys, and that explain your question. And it would take a lot of time for evolution, from one specie to another.
I strongly agree with your brilliant idea. If we really are from monkeys, then why other monkeys are not evolving to human? But there are also some evidences that would somehow show us that human structures yesterday are different from us today. But these are still not enough to prove that the theory of evolution is true.
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1692


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2018, 03:19:00 AM
 #2686

I strongly agree with your brilliant idea. If we really are from monkeys, then why other monkeys are not evolving to human? But there are also some evidences that would somehow show us that human structures yesterday are different from us today. But these are still not enough to prove that the theory of evolution is true.

Hey, we have cars.  Why are horses still around?   Roll Eyes

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
Przemax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 07:24:11 AM
 #2687

Quote
Proven false by what? Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?

Proven false but not finding anything that the theory claimed it should be abundant - like transitional fossils of for example human. Proven false by abiogenesis, and proven false by not observing what it claims - mainly the seperation of species.

I would guess they say millions of years. There are several problems with that.

1. You can speed up the process in the lab by thousands and thousands of times, by accelerating breeding, accelerating mutation and accelerating everything many many many times than it is in a nataural enviroment, by radioactive izotopes, changing the enviroment rapidly etc etc etc.
2. The process of evolution is constant - so it should occur everywhere from time to time. You say - it takes millions of years. Why cant you assume that the process had taken millions of years untill now minus one day. Why cant you assume that one of your ring specie is just enough ready for a one more step? Why cant you assume a million of years have passed minus one day? So you see? One time they say that a ring specie is a step in the evolution. And on the other hand they say it isn't. So is it or not? Your stupid theory all the times contradicts itself. That looks like playing a soccer for a time to pass and not seriously trying to score.
3. Just get one of your ring specie that breeds like mad, stuff it with radioactive isotopes if you are so sure about your outcome. Why not do that? Becuase its fake!


Im sorry but there is no excuse for a failure here.
bkbirge
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 223
Merit: 106


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2018, 04:40:51 PM
 #2688

You are confusing the process of evolution with a comic book.



Let me know when you figure out how to accelerate the natural mutagenic rate "thousands and thousands" of times.


Despite hopes that the processes of molecular evolution would be simple, clock-like and essentially universal, variation in the rate of molecular evolution is manifest at all levels of biological organization. Furthermore, it has become clear that rate variation has a systematic component: rate of molecular evolution can vary consistently with species body size, population dynamics, lifestyle and location. This suggests that the rate of molecular evolution should be considered part of life-history variation between species, which must be taken into account when interpreting DNA sequence differences between lineages.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679939/

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 04:49:06 PM
 #2689

Quote
If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life.

Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity.

Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen.

The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver.

That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3dLq8YGkWI/hqdefault.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/aa/2e/ab/aa2eabfc9455479bf219b97a9e3e5198--fractal-dendritic-agate.jpg

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1PG6K/dendritic-drainage-pattern-aerial-view-erosion-gullies-in-the-mancos-C1PG6K.jpg

That is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself.

By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything.

You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?

You, Astargath, keep on ignoring or forgetting that, even if evolution were somehow possible according to evolution theory, it is still impossible with regard to the requirements for life on any planet. What do I mean? This:
...

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

...

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. [For example. Ed.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

...

Cool
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 04:56:33 PM
 #2690

I strongly agree with your brilliant idea. If we really are from monkeys, then why other monkeys are not evolving to human? But there are also some evidences that would somehow show us that human structures yesterday are different from us today. But these are still not enough to prove that the theory of evolution is true.

Hey, we have cars.  Why are horses still around?   Roll Eyes

Because horses eat grass and other plants...the ancient plants from which coal and oil were made underground...so that we have fuel for the cars.

Why are cars still around?

Cool
BitcoinPaw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
February 23, 2018, 05:27:05 PM
 #2691

Evolution is not a hoax at my opinion because world wasn't the same in past and people too. The easiest example is atmosphere pressure that always chaning im many places and people are not losing their head because can adopt.

Przemax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 23, 2018, 05:45:43 PM
 #2692

You are confusing the process of evolution with a comic book.



Let me know when you figure out how to accelerate the natural mutagenic rate "thousands and thousands" of times.


How? Just try a simple logic, or answer me why that does not work:

Expose the speciment to the DNA damaging effects - like UV light as your article says. Pick a small speciment - as your article says. Make it grow more rapidly than in normal enviroment without constrains. Because normally animals and plants have constraints. For example - if an organism breeds 10 times faster in a lab than it is in nature because of lack of food  the chances for mutation is 10 times faster to occur. It is just a simple probability as mutation - I assume is random based. And if mutation is random based just increase its chances to occur like expose it to UV light by 10 or 100 more than it would be exposed in a natural enviroment. That would increase the chances of mutation to occur by another 10. So that would be 100 times faster process in total 10x10=100. Im making an example with the numbers just for the argument sake. Naturally there the mutated species die more often so if you keep the sick speciments alive the chances of cumulated mutations are higher, than in the natural enviroment many times over.

So as you see - the ability to make mutation happen, compared to a natural enviroment is quite staggeringly more potent. If ... evolution is to be understood logically like everything else in the world.

Do not belittle me please. I was just using logic and argument of comparing the two enviroments - natural and artificial and how the latter could potentially make the sick organisms to stack more mutations, than in nature. Therefore speeding the "evolution", because the evolution as far as I understand is the "pack of mutations" that if an organism with it survive eventualy makes a new specie.

But it is better to belittle someone and call him ignorant because he uses logic. Well... It does not sound convincing. Does it?

If you would want to belittle me again, first anwer me this simple questions?

1. Why do you think that the simple logic - the more speciments the more chances for mutation to occur is wrong?
2. Why are we being scared about the mutagenic properties of certain chemicals, rays, and radiation when it does not world from an evolution point of view?
3. Why do you think that artificialy keeping alive mutated animals, would not increase the chances of mutation to occur in the general population?
4. If previous 3 questions are not answered - Why do you think therefore that a lab enviroment is not a quickening factor in speeding up the evolution by mutation?

I have many more questions but I would be satisfied with those.
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 563


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 01:10:57 AM
 #2693

Quote
If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life.

Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity.

Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen.

The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver.

That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3dLq8YGkWI/hqdefault.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/aa/2e/ab/aa2eabfc9455479bf219b97a9e3e5198--fractal-dendritic-agate.jpg

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1PG6K/dendritic-drainage-pattern-aerial-view-erosion-gullies-in-the-mancos-C1PG6K.jpg

That is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself.

By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything.

You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?

You, Astargath, keep on ignoring or forgetting that, even if evolution were somehow possible according to evolution theory, it is still impossible with regard to the requirements for life on any planet. What do I mean? This:
...

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

...

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. [For example. Ed.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

...

Cool

Such a claim is fraught with statistical perils, however. The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. In order for me to be writing this piece at this precise instant on this airplane, having done all the things I’ve done today, consider all the factors that had to be “just right”: I had to find myself in San Francisco, among all the cities in the world; the sequence of stoplights that my taxi had to traverse had to be just right, in order to get me to the airport when I did; the airport security screener had to experience a similar set of coincidences in order to be there when I needed her; same goes for the pilot. It would be easy for me to derive a set of probabilities that, when multiplied together, would produce a number so small that it would be statistically impossible for me to be here now writing.
This approach, of course, involves many fallacies. It is clear that many routes could have led to the same result. Similarly, when we consider the evolution of life on Earth, we have to ask what factors could have been different and still allowed for intelligent life. Consider a wild example, involving the asteroid that hit Earth sixty-five million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs and a host of other species, and probably allowing an evolutionary niche for mammals to begin to flourish. This was a bad thing for life in general, but a good thing for us. Had that not happened, however, maybe giant intelligent reptiles would be arguing about the existence of God today.
An even more severe problem in Metaxas’s argument is the assumption of randomness, namely that physical processes do not naturally drive a system toward a certain state. This is the most common error among those who argue that, given the complexity of life on Earth, evolution is as implausible as a tornado ravaging a junkyard and producing a 747. The latter event is, indeed, essentially statistically impossible. However, we now understand that the process of natural selection implies that evolution is anything but random. Is it a miracle that the planet produced animals as complex as, and yet as different from, humans, dolphins, and cicadas, each so well “designed” for its own habitat? No. Natural selection drives systems in a specific direction, and the remarkable diversity of species on Earth today, each evolved for evolutionary success in a different environment, is one result.



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1692


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
February 24, 2018, 01:21:38 AM
 #2694

1. You can speed up the process in the lab by thousands and thousands of times, by accelerating breeding, accelerating mutation and accelerating everything many many many times than it is in a nataural enviroment, by radioactive izotopes, changing the enviroment rapidly etc etc etc.

No you can't.

Like the blockchain, your entire argument became invalid.

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1047


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 05:33:44 AM
 #2695

Quote
If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life.

Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity.

Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen.

The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver.

That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3dLq8YGkWI/hqdefault.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/aa/2e/ab/aa2eabfc9455479bf219b97a9e3e5198--fractal-dendritic-agate.jpg

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1PG6K/dendritic-drainage-pattern-aerial-view-erosion-gullies-in-the-mancos-C1PG6K.jpg

That is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself.

By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything.

You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?

You, Astargath, keep on ignoring or forgetting that, even if evolution were somehow possible according to evolution theory, it is still impossible with regard to the requirements for life on any planet. What do I mean? This:
...

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

...

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. [For example. Ed.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

...

Cool

Such a claim is fraught with statistical perils, however. The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. In order for me to be writing this piece at this precise instant on this airplane, having done all the things I’ve done today, consider all the factors that had to be “just right”: I had to find myself in San Francisco, among all the cities in the world; the sequence of stoplights that my taxi had to traverse had to be just right, in order to get me to the airport when I did; the airport security screener had to experience a similar set of coincidences in order to be there when I needed her; same goes for the pilot. It would be easy for me to derive a set of probabilities that, when multiplied together, would produce a number so small that it would be statistically impossible for me to be here now writing.
This approach, of course, involves many fallacies. It is clear that many routes could have led to the same result. Similarly, when we consider the evolution of life on Earth, we have to ask what factors could have been different and still allowed for intelligent life. Consider a wild example, involving the asteroid that hit Earth sixty-five million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs and a host of other species, and probably allowing an evolutionary niche for mammals to begin to flourish. This was a bad thing for life in general, but a good thing for us. Had that not happened, however, maybe giant intelligent reptiles would be arguing about the existence of God today.
An even more severe problem in Metaxas’s argument is the assumption of randomness, namely that physical processes do not naturally drive a system toward a certain state. This is the most common error among those who argue that, given the complexity of life on Earth, evolution is as implausible as a tornado ravaging a junkyard and producing a 747. The latter event is, indeed, essentially statistically impossible. However, we now understand that the process of natural selection implies that evolution is anything but random. Is it a miracle that the planet produced animals as complex as, and yet as different from, humans, dolphins, and cicadas, each so well “designed” for its own habitat? No. Natural selection drives systems in a specific direction, and the remarkable diversity of species on Earth today, each evolved for evolutionary success in a different environment, is one result.

You realize what you just posted^^^, don't you?

There have been scientists, researchers, and doctors working for years to put together a living cell from scratch. Finally, after hundreds of thousands of man-hours, they have managed to manipulate some DNA so that they can make some new kind of life. But they still haven't been able to duplicate the complexity of life from scratch.

Dumb old nature has out-selected the smartest scientists, researchers, and doctors in making life in tremendous abundance. In fact, nature has done it just like God would... if God existed.

Thanks for admitting that God exists.

Evolution is a hoax.

Besides, Metaxas is simply putting a bunch of findings together. He isn't making a new theory. He is simply showing what a lot of other people have found out.

Cool
Labajah
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 137
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 06:56:10 AM
 #2696

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE
I think evolution is a hoax because. As we observed their is a big differences between monkey and human. The monkey are still exist until now leaving in the trees. While humans are in the house replying this conversation.
Przemax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 10:14:39 AM
 #2697

1. You can speed up the process in the lab by thousands and thousands of times, by accelerating breeding, accelerating mutation and accelerating everything many many many times than it is in a nataural enviroment, by radioactive izotopes, changing the enviroment rapidly etc etc etc.

No you can't.

Like the blockchain,

The blockchain transaction cannot be speed up? Hahhaha pay a higher miners fee and you will have a faster transaction.... WTF MAN...

The blockchain in itself cannot be speed up. Ok... but we are not talking about speeding the evolution in its natural state as we are not talking about speeding up blockchain in its entirety. We are talking about generating more mutation by increasing the random chances of it to occur, by simply increasing the chances of its occurance and preserving the occurances of them, to be able to be stacked more easily, compared to a natural state of being.

Answer my 4 questions hotshot and then make claims mmmk?

Quote
However, we now understand that the process of natural selection implies that evolution is anything but random.

Yes. Natural selection is not random. But there is no link in natural selection and appearance of life - as it would have to imply logically that natural selection had selected life to exist what is in itself absurd. So your trying to link natural selection in a sittuation where the natural selection is not even an option yet, what is a logical fallacy unable to be connected honestly.

You know... Anywhere in the known universe there is NO TRACE OF LIFE, except earth. That does not imply that the life there has not been selected properly. It does not imply either that life there was selected to terminate itself. You understand that right?

The natural selection part is not even viable because selecting between none and none is no selection at all.
cerberus5424
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 208
Merit: 10

Blockchain Powered Clinical Trial Management


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 10:46:27 AM
 #2698

It seems to me that in addition to some specific monkeys (which have evolved), there is no incentive for them. That is, there are no conditions under which they really would have evolved.

Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 563


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 10:52:02 AM
 #2699

Quote
If you or anyone else has a better scientific theory then go ahead and propose one, however evolution itself is still a fact even if the theory of evolution is changed.

There are many clues about the connection between the living organisms and batteries - and electricity. One day if we would know more about electricity we would know better about the creation of life.

Bones are acting like magnets, cells are like a tiny electricity factories, especially membranes, and the shape of all living creatures ressembles the Tesla observance of how the water flows, and how that matter how all energy flows, as all energy is transferable to electricity, and is a form of electricity.

Right now - the pure chemical answer is not giving any answers. It have to be therefor a physical, or more precise an electrical phenomen.

The question is - who makes the energy flow and give it a precise shapes? Who had made the law of Birkelands current? We just observed that and every energy flow makes the same pattern. Why? Why that law exist? It is not silly at all to assume a law giver.

That kind of shapes are repeatable to the high degree - it is not random by all means. If that would be random it would overflow. It does not overflow therefore there is a flow. Why? :

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3dLq8YGkWI/hqdefault.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/aa/2e/ab/aa2eabfc9455479bf219b97a9e3e5198--fractal-dendritic-agate.jpg

http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1PG6K/dendritic-drainage-pattern-aerial-view-erosion-gullies-in-the-mancos-C1PG6K.jpg

That is how nonliving materia behaves. For evolutionists to explain why that is - he would have to assume that evolution applies to a non-living materia as well - what is an absurd in itself.

By the way - if dead things have created life, one would have to assume how dead things behave, and evolutionists are not even interested in that, therefore they do not explain anything.

You can post as much as you like but where is your scientific theory?

You, Astargath, keep on ignoring or forgetting that, even if evolution were somehow possible according to evolution theory, it is still impossible with regard to the requirements for life on any planet. What do I mean? This:
...

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

...

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. [For example. Ed.] Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

...

Cool

Such a claim is fraught with statistical perils, however. The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. In order for me to be writing this piece at this precise instant on this airplane, having done all the things I’ve done today, consider all the factors that had to be “just right”: I had to find myself in San Francisco, among all the cities in the world; the sequence of stoplights that my taxi had to traverse had to be just right, in order to get me to the airport when I did; the airport security screener had to experience a similar set of coincidences in order to be there when I needed her; same goes for the pilot. It would be easy for me to derive a set of probabilities that, when multiplied together, would produce a number so small that it would be statistically impossible for me to be here now writing.
This approach, of course, involves many fallacies. It is clear that many routes could have led to the same result. Similarly, when we consider the evolution of life on Earth, we have to ask what factors could have been different and still allowed for intelligent life. Consider a wild example, involving the asteroid that hit Earth sixty-five million years ago, wiping out the dinosaurs and a host of other species, and probably allowing an evolutionary niche for mammals to begin to flourish. This was a bad thing for life in general, but a good thing for us. Had that not happened, however, maybe giant intelligent reptiles would be arguing about the existence of God today.
An even more severe problem in Metaxas’s argument is the assumption of randomness, namely that physical processes do not naturally drive a system toward a certain state. This is the most common error among those who argue that, given the complexity of life on Earth, evolution is as implausible as a tornado ravaging a junkyard and producing a 747. The latter event is, indeed, essentially statistically impossible. However, we now understand that the process of natural selection implies that evolution is anything but random. Is it a miracle that the planet produced animals as complex as, and yet as different from, humans, dolphins, and cicadas, each so well “designed” for its own habitat? No. Natural selection drives systems in a specific direction, and the remarkable diversity of species on Earth today, each evolved for evolutionary success in a different environment, is one result.

You realize what you just posted^^^, don't you?

There have been scientists, researchers, and doctors working for years to put together a living cell from scratch. Finally, after hundreds of thousands of man-hours, they have managed to manipulate some DNA so that they can make some new kind of life. But they still haven't been able to duplicate the complexity of life from scratch.

Dumb old nature has out-selected the smartest scientists, researchers, and doctors in making life in tremendous abundance. In fact, nature has done it just like God would... if God existed.

Thanks for admitting that God exists.

Evolution is a hoax.

Besides, Metaxas is simply putting a bunch of findings together. He isn't making a new theory. He is simply showing what a lot of other people have found out.

Cool

So what, there are many things scientists cannot create and 7000 years ago we barely invented the wheel, I don't see your point here. Life is a complex matter, it also has been evolving for millions and millions of years. In the future we might even be able to make a human from scratch, who knows but you have no argument here.

I on the other side, destroyed your bullshit ''200 component needed'' argument. Now go back to your cave and think.



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 563


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
February 24, 2018, 10:54:47 AM
 #2700

Quote
Proven false by what? Do you know how long it takes for number 2 to occur?

Proven false but not finding anything that the theory claimed it should be abundant - like transitional fossils of for example human. Proven false by abiogenesis, and proven false by not observing what it claims - mainly the seperation of species.

I would guess they say millions of years. There are several problems with that.

1. You can speed up the process in the lab by thousands and thousands of times, by accelerating breeding, accelerating mutation and accelerating everything many many many times than it is in a nataural enviroment, by radioactive izotopes, changing the enviroment rapidly etc etc etc.
2. The process of evolution is constant - so it should occur everywhere from time to time. You say - it takes millions of years. Why cant you assume that the process had taken millions of years untill now minus one day. Why cant you assume that one of your ring specie is just enough ready for a one more step? Why cant you assume a million of years have passed minus one day? So you see? One time they say that a ring specie is a step in the evolution. And on the other hand they say it isn't. So is it or not? Your stupid theory all the times contradicts itself. That looks like playing a soccer for a time to pass and not seriously trying to score.
3. Just get one of your ring specie that breeds like mad, stuff it with radioactive isotopes if you are so sure about your outcome. Why not do that? Becuase its fake!


Im sorry but there is no excuse for a failure here.

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
http://www.businessinsider.com/examples-of-evolution-happening-right-now-2015-2#bedbugs-are-becoming-a-new-species-of-nightmare-insects-1

You can find hundreds of different examples but of course you are not interested, you only believe in God.



.
.BITVEST DICE.
HAS BEEN RELEASED!


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
Pages: « 1 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 [135] 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!