Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2018, 10:22:30 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 189 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolution is a hoax  (Read 82091 times)
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 573


View Profile
July 21, 2017, 08:21:33 PM
 #801

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

Cool

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

This is the response: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/

I think it's pretty simple to understand that the calculated probability is simply wrong since it doesn't take in count many important factors and it's just assuming things.
1539944550
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539944550

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539944550
Reply with quote  #2

1539944550
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1539944550
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539944550

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539944550
Reply with quote  #2

1539944550
Report to moderator
1539944550
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1539944550

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1539944550
Reply with quote  #2

1539944550
Report to moderator
Kotone
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 21, 2017, 09:01:22 PM
 #802

There are many kind of evolution around internet and i don't know which one is true even though we already tacle about the history of our country that human are came from ash or came from eva and adan and mostly is people are came up of money form


````███▄▄```````````````````````````````▄▄███
````███████▄▄```````````````````````▄▄███████
```███████████▄▄````````````````▄▄███████████
```████``▀▀███████▄▄````````▄▄██████▀▀``████
```████``````▀████████```███████▀▀`````█████
``█████`````````▀▀██████████▀▀`````````█████
``████````████▄`````▀▀██▀▀`````▄▄██```█████
`█████```███████▄▄`````````▄▄██████```█████
`█████```███████████▄``▄██████████````████
`████``````▀▀████████████████████````████
███████▄▄`````▀▀█████████████████````████
``▀▀███████▄▄`````▀▀█████████████````██▀
`````▀▀████████▄▄`````▀███████▀▀
`````````▀▀███████````████▀▀
`````````````▀▀████
vgvv
MODULE
|
|
Report to moderator 
█≣≣≣   SKYFchain   ≣≣≣█▐▃     SKYFchain is the first blockchain based     ▃▌█≣≣≣   BOUNTY   ≣≣≣█
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


They're tactical


View Profile
July 21, 2017, 09:06:06 PM
 #803


http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.



For me,this is only a part of the problem, because even so you could have the 200 concomitent mutation, it's only part of the problem when it come to explain the continuity through the whole chain of evolution, in sort that the first bacteria already have what it take to get to mozart, and there is still a sort of string of evolution which make that the "good" of those mutation cant always be known "a priori" only from the point it evolve from.

It's impossible for a monkey to know what "good mutation" get to einstein.
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


They're tactical


View Profile
July 21, 2017, 09:16:20 PM
 #804

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

Cool

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+2%3A6-16  Grin

God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 573


View Profile
July 21, 2017, 09:18:09 PM
 #805


http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.



For me,this is only a part of the problem, because even so you could have the 200 concomitent mutation, it's only part of the problem when it come to explain the continuity through the whole chain of evolution, in sort that the first bacteria already have what it take to get to mozart, and there is still a sort of string of evolution which make that the "good" of those mutation cant always be known "a priori" only from the point it evolve from.

It's impossible for a monkey to know what "good mutation" get to einstein.

You obviously do not understand evolution. It usually happens to people that deny it, it's pretty funny actually. An animal does not need to know what a good mutation is nor can they actually hold on to it or anything because it seems that's what you are implying. Mutations just happen for a number of reasons, if it's a good mutation then it usually stays and if it's not it's usually neutral or affects it very little. The article assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly. The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate. BUT there is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


They're tactical


View Profile
July 21, 2017, 09:20:46 PM
 #806


http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.



For me,this is only a part of the problem, because even so you could have the 200 concomitent mutation, it's only part of the problem when it come to explain the continuity through the whole chain of evolution, in sort that the first bacteria already have what it take to get to mozart, and there is still a sort of string of evolution which make that the "good" of those mutation cant always be known "a priori" only from the point it evolve from.

It's impossible for a monkey to know what "good mutation" get to einstein.

You obviously do not understand evolution. It usually happens to people that deny it, it's pretty funny actually. An animal does not need to know what a good mutation is nor can they actually hold on to it or anything because it seems that's what you are implying. Mutations just happen for a number of reasons, if it's a good mutation then it usually stays and if it's not it's usually neutral or affects it very little. The article assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly. The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate. BUT there is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.


I dont deny evolution lol

But how can the "good"  of the mutation that make it stay lead to a result that has zero obvious interest when it come by.


It's not like understanding time dilation do any good to a monkey peeling his banana.


Evolution is not goal-directed, whatever works is what is preserved, it isn't aiming at a specific outcome many generations in advance.

It's really this point that I find moot.

And it's something that has been issued by many great minds, including Nobel.

But im in vacation, I dont have my books here and im with the tablet so I feel a bit handicaped to really demonstrate this lol even typing 3 sentences look herculean lol

But if you are interested in more than hamering a doctrine , I will be able to find more water to this point.

If you really study the thing, you will see this point is hard to really hold.



You obviously dont know what I understand Smiley

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 02:12:09 AM
 #807

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

Cool

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

This is the response: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/

I think it's pretty simple to understand that the calculated probability is simply wrong since it doesn't take in count many important factors and it's just assuming things.

It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story.

Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like
- the probability against the parts coming together,
- Irreducible Complexity,
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't,
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer,
- cause and effect programming,
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve,
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately,
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them...
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax.

Cool
bkbirge
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 106


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2017, 02:56:12 AM
 #808

Why do the creationists on this thread embrace the most magical mythical stories as possible and part of the plan of an omnipotent unknowably complex god yet also say that probability math makes evolution impossible?


BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 03:06:25 AM
 #809

Why do the creationists on this thread embrace the most magical mythical stories as possible and part of the plan of an omnipotent unknowably complex god yet also say that probability math makes evolution impossible?



As for other creationists, I don't know.

Scientifically speaking, science has proven God exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cause and effect alone show that mutations are not at all random. This shows design, thereby disrupting the clear explanation of evolution.

Entropy suggests devolution is the fact.

It isn't only probability.

Cool
bkbirge
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 106


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2017, 03:19:29 AM
 #810

Why do the creationists on this thread embrace the most magical mythical stories as possible and part of the plan of an omnipotent unknowably complex god yet also say that probability math makes evolution impossible?



As for other creationists, I don't know.

Scientifically speaking, science has proven God exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cause and effect alone show that mutations are not at all random. This shows design, thereby disrupting the clear explanation of evolution.

Entropy suggests devolution is the fact.

It isn't only probability.

Cool

I don't think you understand entropy. What you see as design is quite possibly not and it doesn't have to have randomness thrown in. Look up self organization and emergence, the idea of very complex behavior of systems that can follow from extremely simple rules if applied over a large set of actors and/or iterations.

Here's an interesting article I just found and it even mentions emergence and entropy together, food for thought...
https://medium.com/@marktraphagen/entropy-and-complexity-the-surprising-paradox-behind-our-universe-60f11409da9b


BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 03:52:37 AM
 #811

Why do the creationists on this thread embrace the most magical mythical stories as possible and part of the plan of an omnipotent unknowably complex god yet also say that probability math makes evolution impossible?



As for other creationists, I don't know.

Scientifically speaking, science has proven God exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cause and effect alone show that mutations are not at all random. This shows design, thereby disrupting the clear explanation of evolution.

Entropy suggests devolution is the fact.

It isn't only probability.

Cool

I don't think you understand entropy. What you see as design is quite possibly not and it doesn't have to have randomness thrown in. Look up self organization and emergence, the idea of very complex behavior of systems that can follow from extremely simple rules if applied over a large set of actors and/or iterations.

Here's an interesting article I just found and it even mentions emergence and entropy together, food for thought...
https://medium.com/@marktraphagen/entropy-and-complexity-the-surprising-paradox-behind-our-universe-60f11409da9b


First, there is no disorder whatsoever. The only thing that exists is the appearance of disorder to us. Why is there no disorder? Cause and effect in everything. This means that there is no self-organization, and no emergence that wasn't in the making even though it appears that complexity came from simplicity. The thing to find is the "starter" of cause and effect.

Some people suggest that Big Bang started cause and effect. But BB Theory doesn't have anywhere near enough information in it to match multitudes of complex happenings in the universe... especially regarding life and intelligence... to make it realistic.

Cool
The_prodigy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 22, 2017, 08:20:00 AM
 #812

Why do the creationists on this thread embrace the most magical mythical stories as possible and part of the plan of an omnipotent unknowably complex god yet also say that probability math makes evolution impossible?



As for other creationists, I don't know.

Scientifically speaking, science has proven God exists:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380.

Cause and effect alone show that mutations are not at all random. This shows design, thereby disrupting the clear explanation of evolution.

Entropy suggests devolution is the fact.

It isn't only probability.

Cool

I don't think you understand entropy. What you see as design is quite possibly not and it doesn't have to have randomness thrown in. Look up self organization and emergence, the idea of very complex behavior of systems that can follow from extremely simple rules if applied over a large set of actors and/or iterations.

Here's an interesting article I just found and it even mentions emergence and entropy together, food for thought...
https://medium.com/@marktraphagen/entropy-and-complexity-the-surprising-paradox-behind-our-universe-60f11409da9b


First, there is no disorder whatsoever. The only thing that exists is the appearance of disorder to us. Why is there no disorder? Cause and effect in everything. This means that there is no self-organization, and no emergence that wasn't in the making even though it appears that complexity came from simplicity. The thing to find is the "starter" of cause and effect.

Some people suggest that Big Bang started cause and effect. But BB Theory doesn't have anywhere near enough information in it to match multitudes of complex happenings in the universe... especially regarding life and intelligence... to make it realistic.

Cool

I think that evolution really is true but sadly I think that it only applies to some. I ak a creationist and it is my belief that the reasons why there are still mo keys is that there is no need for them to evolve as nature does not need them to adapt anymore as they are alreat peak. But once the world changes then only then would they evolve again.

IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


They're tactical


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 12:04:08 PM
 #813

The theory from veda

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/evolution.asp

http://eternalreligion.org/evolution/

This explains the scientist and Vedic theory of evolution.

The Scientific Theory of Evolution – Charles Darwin Theory

Charles Darwin is famous worldwide for his evolutionary theory. According to his theory, one life form evolved into all the species that are existing today. Thus one body changes into another, then into another, and so on. We evolved from the animals, our closet relatives in the animal kingdom are the monkeys.

The Vedic Theory of Evolution

The Vedic scriptures specify an evolutionary process, but the definition is different from that of Charles Darwin. Instead of one body (species) changing to another, the Vedic knowledge is that the soul transmigrates from one body to another. There is an evolution of consciousness from one species to another. Based on the inclinations of the soul, it moves from one body to another to satisfy it’s desires and deserves. The variety of species is due to the variety of mentalities developed by the souls when in the human bodies. For example, if a human likes to eat meat, then he is better off in the animal kingdom as a tiger, where he can enjoy the best meat daily and fresh into the mouth. God is fair, just, and He satisfies our desires and deserves via the variety of species.

 Grin


And even if you decode darwin and Freud,  it come close to veda.

And those two are the most misunderstood genius of history, darwin is not limited to ape to man, and Freud not limited to oedipe complex, those are the anti religion troll arguments.

Darwin studied bio dynamics very deeply, much more than studying skeleton and ape to men, and Freud studied psychology dynamic very deeply too, and he is most famous for getting against religion saying libido is good, and would be hard to deny libido has to do with evolution, but that's deeper look into veda and evolutionary forces.

But taking darwin most known "moto" about necessity & chance, knowing the depth of thinking and appropriation of theory for political mean , it require some deeper understanding.

Already if you are scientific, world obey to reason, and chance is just unknown force . ( and it's also what the bible says)

And the concept of necessity is meaningless without an intelligence.

There is no "absolute objective necessity" if the world is just random. Necessity is always subjective.

Necessity is the product of desire from a conscious being.

Evolution is necessarily the product of intelligence, and recognition of desire for life to paliate it's own percieved deficiency.


Freud was actually jew and a believer most likely, and it would not surprise me that darwin was also a believers, despite the uproar of the catholic hierarchy of the time.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 12:58:52 PM
 #814

The theory from veda

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/evolution.asp

http://eternalreligion.org/evolution/

This explains the scientist and Vedic theory of evolution.

The Scientific Theory of Evolution – Charles Darwin Theory

Charles Darwin is famous worldwide for his evolutionary theory. According to his theory, one life form evolved into all the species that are existing today. Thus one body changes into another, then into another, and so on. We evolved from the animals, our closet relatives in the animal kingdom are the monkeys.

The Vedic Theory of Evolution

The Vedic scriptures specify an evolutionary process, but the definition is different from that of Charles Darwin. Instead of one body (species) changing to another, the Vedic knowledge is that the soul transmigrates from one body to another. There is an evolution of consciousness from one species to another. Based on the inclinations of the soul, it moves from one body to another to satisfy it’s desires and deserves. The variety of species is due to the variety of mentalities developed by the souls when in the human bodies. For example, if a human likes to eat meat, then he is better off in the animal kingdom as a tiger, where he can enjoy the best meat daily and fresh into the mouth. God is fair, just, and He satisfies our desires and deserves via the variety of species.

 Grin


Very good point. Both of these are religion.    Cool
IadixDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


They're tactical


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 01:13:36 PM
 #815

Many people would say veda is the original religion, some says jesus would have received some teaching from yogi in the east on the years he disapeard Smiley
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 573


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 03:14:25 PM
 #816

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

Cool

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

This is the response: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/

I think it's pretty simple to understand that the calculated probability is simply wrong since it doesn't take in count many important factors and it's just assuming things.

It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story.

Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like
- the probability against the parts coming together,
- Irreducible Complexity,
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't,
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer,
- cause and effect programming,
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve,
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately,
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them...
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax.

Cool

- the probability against the parts coming together, (Which is what? What parts?)
- Irreducible Complexity, (Which is debunked, you can google it for yourself)
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, (How is that a fact? Does nature have to be smarter than a scientist to create mountains?)
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, (I don't know what that means)
- cause and effect programming, (?)
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, (You do not understand entropy, stop mentioning it xd)
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, (Such as?)
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... (Everything you said can be googled and you can find rebuttals to everything lol)
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 04:38:45 PM
 #817

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

Cool

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

This is the response: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/

I think it's pretty simple to understand that the calculated probability is simply wrong since it doesn't take in count many important factors and it's just assuming things.

It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story.

Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like
- the probability against the parts coming together,
- Irreducible Complexity,
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't,
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer,
- cause and effect programming,
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve,
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately,
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them...
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax.

Cool

- the probability against the parts coming together, (Which is what? What parts?) - Any and all the parts of anything that is considered to make up so-called evolution.
- Irreducible Complexity, (Which is debunked, you can google it for yourself) - The debunking is simply talk-arounds, thereby debunking itself, and showing that evolution is not real.
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, (How is that a fact? Does nature have to be smarter than a scientist to create mountains?) - Yes. Mountains don't appear all over the place. But the DO exist. So, let a scientist make one. Or let someone show us the process whereby they were made. Nature must be way smarter to make something that scientists cannot... especially mountains and planets and stars and you-name-it... and so smart that science is only guessing about how all those things might have formed.
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, (I don't know what that means) - Of course you don't. You can't seem to see the machines in nature all around us. The simple lever that we use is being used by nature all over the place, both macro, and micro.
- cause and effect programming, (?) - Science could not break the laws of physics and nature even in the hydrogen bomb. All they did was put together some cause and effect actions that they were caused to do by some other cause and effect... exactly as the cause and effect had them do it... according to the physics and laws of nature. Everything is programmed to exist and act the way it does by cause and effect. Our goal should be to find out what programmed the cause and effect process, and to find out if that programmer ever travels through time, back to the beginning, to remake it a little here and there.
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, (You do not understand entropy, stop mentioning it xd) - Basically, entropy is the changing of complexity into simplicity without the loss or gain of any of the components of either. Entropy is universal on Earth. The few things we can see off-planet show us that it is universal out there as well.
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, (Such as?) - My mistake. Nature doesn't make complex chemicals. No evolution.
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... (Everything you said can be googled and you can find rebuttals to everything lol) - The rebuttals are not rebuttals. They are talk, backwards talk showing things that do not happen in nature, talk-arounds, non-proven talk, etc. The so-called rebuttals are part of the science that shows evolution to be impossible. They are part of the evolution hoax, because they are not rebuttals at all.
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.


Evolution is a big, fat hoax. At best, it is a religion.

Cool
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882
Merit: 573


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 04:45:16 PM
 #818

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

Cool

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

This is the response: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/

I think it's pretty simple to understand that the calculated probability is simply wrong since it doesn't take in count many important factors and it's just assuming things.

It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story.

Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like
- the probability against the parts coming together,
- Irreducible Complexity,
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't,
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer,
- cause and effect programming,
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve,
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately,
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them...
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax.

Cool

- the probability against the parts coming together, (Which is what? What parts?) - Any and all the parts of anything that is considered to make up so-called evolution.
- Irreducible Complexity, (Which is debunked, you can google it for yourself) - The debunking is simply talk-arounds, thereby debunking itself, and showing that evolution is not real.
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, (How is that a fact? Does nature have to be smarter than a scientist to create mountains?) - Yes. Mountains don't appear all over the place. But the DO exist. So, let a scientist make one. Or let someone show us the process whereby they were made. Nature must be way smarter to make something that scientists cannot... especially mountains and planets and stars and you-name-it... and so smart that science is only guessing about how all those things might have formed.
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, (I don't know what that means) - Of course you don't. You can't seem to see the machines in nature all around us. The simple lever that we use is being used by nature all over the place, both macro, and micro.
- cause and effect programming, (?) - Science could not break the laws of physics and nature even in the hydrogen bomb. All they did was put together some cause and effect actions that they were caused to do by some other cause and effect... exactly as the cause and effect had them do it... according to the physics and laws of nature. Everything is programmed to exist and act the way it does by cause and effect. Our goal should be to find out what programmed the cause and effect process, and to find out if that programmer ever travels through time, back to the beginning, to remake it a little here and there.
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, (You do not understand entropy, stop mentioning it xd) - Basically, entropy is the changing of complexity into simplicity without the loss or gain of any of the components of either. Entropy is universal on Earth. The few things we can see off-planet show us that it is universal out there as well.
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, (Such as?) - My mistake. Nature doesn't make complex chemicals. No evolution.
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... (Everything you said can be googled and you can find rebuttals to everything lol) - The rebuttals are not rebuttals. They are talk, backwards talk showing things that do not happen in nature, talk-arounds, non-proven talk, etc. The so-called rebuttals are part of the science that shows evolution to be impossible. They are part of the evolution hoax, because they are not rebuttals at all.
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.


Evolution is a big, fat hoax. At best, it is a religion.

Cool

Your arguments are not arguments, they are talk, backwards talk showing that they are false. Your arguments are simply talk-arounds therefore debunking themselves and showing that evolution is real
Sweetbtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


1st of May


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 05:10:00 PM
 #819

I thought that this might be one of the craziest things I've ever heard but then I forgot about something else that I saw on the internet.


         ▄████ ████▄
      ▄█████▀   ▀█████▄
   ▄█████▀  ▄█ █▄▄ ▀█████▄
▄█████▀    ███ ████▄▄ ▀█████▄
███▀  ▄    ███ ███████▄▄ ▀███
███ ▄██    ███ ███▀▀█████ ███
███ ███    ███ ███   ▀███ ███
███ ███▄▄▄▄███ ███    ███ ███
███ ██████████ ███        ███
███ ███▀▀▀▀███ ███    ███ ███
███ ███    ███ ███   ▄███ ███
███ ▀██    ███ ███▄▄████▀ ███
███▄  ▀    ███ ███████▀  ▄███
▀█████▄    ███ ████▀  ▄█████▀
   ▀█████▄  ▀█ █▀  ▄█████▀
      ▀█████▄   ▄█████▀
         ▀████ ████▀
.
Hash



     ▄▄ ▄▄
     ██ ██
   ▄▄█████▄▄
  ███▀▀▀▀▀███
 ██▀       ▀██
██▀         ▀▀
██
██▄         ▄▄
 ██▄       ▄██
  ███▄▄▄▄▄███
   ▀▀█████▀▀
     ██ ██
     ▀▀ ▀▀
.
ard
.REVOLUTIONISING HOW YOU USE CREDIT & DEBIT CARDS.









》》  .JOIN.
.WHITELIST.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1078


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 05:17:16 PM
 #820

What it shows is that is wrong. If they knew the real one, why not use that instead of using a simple example that is flawed?

No. What it shows is that you are afraid of saying anything that makes sense.

What what?
What it?
What showing?
Which that?
What is the wrongness?

They who?
which real what?
What that?
Which simple example of what?
What flaw?

You seem to be moving towards mindlessness.

Cool

http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ This link is the argument against evolution.

This is the response: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/

I think it's pretty simple to understand that the calculated probability is simply wrong since it doesn't take in count many important factors and it's just assuming things.

It's kinda like taking a look at nature, and assuming there is any evolution at all. Since evolution has never been seen happening, and anything that somebody says is evolution can be shown to be other things instead, all of evolution is a make-believe story.

Now, if this were the only point against evolution, the odds that evolution was false would be astronomical. But add to it things like
- the probability against the parts coming together,
- Irreducible Complexity,
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't,
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer,
- cause and effect programming,
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve,
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately,
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them...
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.

Evolution isn't just a hoax. It is a grand hoax.

Cool

- the probability against the parts coming together, (Which is what? What parts?) - Any and all the parts of anything that is considered to make up so-called evolution.
- Irreducible Complexity, (Which is debunked, you can google it for yourself) - The debunking is simply talk-arounds, thereby debunking itself, and showing that evolution is not real.
- the fact that nature must have been smarter than scientists to be able to do what scientists can't, (How is that a fact? Does nature have to be smarter than a scientist to create mountains?) - Yes. Mountains don't appear all over the place. But the DO exist. So, let a scientist make one. Or let someone show us the process whereby they were made. Nature must be way smarter to make something that scientists cannot... especially mountains and planets and stars and you-name-it... and so smart that science is only guessing about how all those things might have formed.
- machinery design of nature that points to an Intelligent Designer, (I don't know what that means) - Of course you don't. You can't seem to see the machines in nature all around us. The simple lever that we use is being used by nature all over the place, both macro, and micro.
- cause and effect programming, (?) - Science could not break the laws of physics and nature even in the hydrogen bomb. All they did was put together some cause and effect actions that they were caused to do by some other cause and effect... exactly as the cause and effect had them do it... according to the physics and laws of nature. Everything is programmed to exist and act the way it does by cause and effect. Our goal should be to find out what programmed the cause and effect process, and to find out if that programmer ever travels through time, back to the beginning, to remake it a little here and there.
- entropy that shows that things devolve rather than evolve, (You do not understand entropy, stop mentioning it xd) - Basically, entropy is the changing of complexity into simplicity without the loss or gain of any of the components of either. Entropy is universal on Earth. The few things we can see off-planet show us that it is universal out there as well.
- the fact that in the few cases where nature makes complex chemicals that it destroys them almost immediately, (Such as?) - My mistake. Nature doesn't make complex chemicals. No evolution.
- and many other things that you can find when you Google search for them... (Everything you said can be googled and you can find rebuttals to everything lol) - The rebuttals are not rebuttals. They are talk, backwards talk showing things that do not happen in nature, talk-arounds, non-proven talk, etc. The so-called rebuttals are part of the science that shows evolution to be impossible. They are part of the evolution hoax, because they are not rebuttals at all.
shows that the entire probability against evolution is way beyond what science considers necessary for there to even be a chance that evolution happened.


Evolution is a big, fat hoax. At best, it is a religion.

Cool

Your arguments are not arguments, they are talk, backwards talk showing that they are false. Your arguments are simply talk-arounds therefore debunking themselves and showing that evolution is real

If this is what you truly think, pick a point, and explain what is wrong with it. Using the words of other people to do this shows you do not personally, really know.

Cool
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 ... 189 »
  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!