Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

Circular reasoning. I say something is random, you say nothing is random because everything has a cause, I ask you, how do you know and you say because everything has a cause. I ask you what is the cause of my random process, you say, there is no need to prove it because everything has a cause.

Quantum processes are random until you can prove they have a cause, that's what science says.

Again, this topic is about evolution. Prove even one non-C&E action. Then prove the loads of non-C&E actions it would take to have a non-C&E mutation so that evolution could happen. It hasn't been done. No proof of even one non-C&E mutation. Or do you have one? Until somebody does, evolution is all guesswork.

Evolution is a hoax.

This top is about proving evolution is a hoax, prove everything has a cause as you said you would. You said plenty of times that science says that yet you never linked a single example of it.

Badecker is a liar.

You poor baby.

I posted the proof, but you can't even research it.  And you don't believe me, so all I can do is continue back on topic.

I know. And I sympathize with you. I have essentially destroyed your pet religion... evolution. And so you are going to badmouth me, because it hurts, right?

Come on! Take it like a man, and get back on topic. Find at least one, factual non-cause and effect action. This way you will have a start. If you don't at least have that start, evolution for sure doesn't have its fundamental, basic premise for existing... random mutation.

Evolution is a hoax. See how easy it is to stay on topic? Why can't you do it? Does it hurt so badly?

You poor baby.



EDIT: Thanks for badmouthing me and going off topic all the time. It prompts me to respond. Many others are coming to find out that evolution is a hoax, simply by looking at my responses that you prompted.

Evolution is a hoax.

We already found them, quantum processes that you keep insisting they have a cause yet you never explained what the cause is or how you know they have a cause.

Whether quantum processes have a cause or not is irrelevant to the topic. The whole idea of quantum processes is probability. And probability means that it is unknown, that we are guessing or guestimating at it. Look at what Brian Cox says.

Brian Cox explains quantum mechanics in 60 seconds - BBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcfQkxwz4Oo


With regard to evolution, there still isn't any proof for any mutation that existed without a cause. If evolution mutations are caused through the laws of physics that operate through cause and effect, then they are programmed, and not evolution at all.

But if evolution mutations DON'T come about through cause and effect... find at least one such mutation proof. If you don't find the proof, you are guessing... because there are countless actions in the universe that are C&E actions. So the norm would be C&E by a mindbogglingly vast majority, not random... not causelessness.

Until you find proof of a mutation without a cause (or many causes), evolution is guesswork. And even if you found one, you would still have to find many. Stating that evolution is true and real is guessing, and a lie.

Evolution is a hoax.



P.S. And thank you, again, for prompting me to show our reading audience the basic reason why evolution is an unknown, and therefore is a big fat hoax.

Mutations have causes, however that doesn't mean they are programmed. Humans use the word ''random'' in different ways. When evolutionists explain or say that mutations are random they certainly don't mean that they have no cause just like when we say a dice is random. I don't see how mutations having a cause would make evolution a hoax.

Then again quantum processes seem to have no cause anyways and you said that we should find something without a cause.

[Vod]

P.S. And thank you, again, for prompting me to show our reading audience the basic reason why evolution is an unknown, and therefore is a big fat hoax.

But your god/magic is an unknown as well, so therefore it must be a big fat hoax.

So where did we come from?  Obviously, as everything around us proves, we evolved.

You are rehashing debunked arguments.  You lost this one last year.  Provide a new argument or move on to proving the world flooded.

I'm married to Jennifer Lawrence!

[turkandjaydee]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

I dont believe in physical evolution, just think that if its true, then why human still havent evolved into something yet?
There is still no change at all.

[Astargath]

P.S. And thank you, again, for prompting me to show our reading audience the basic reason why evolution is an unknown, and therefore is a big fat hoax.

But your god/magic is an unknown as well, so therefore it must be a big fat hoax.

So where did we come from?  Obviously, as everything around us proves, we evolved.

You are rehashing debunked arguments.  You lost this one last year.  Provide a new argument or move on to proving the world flooded.

I'm married to Jennifer Lawrence!

Lies, Jennifer lawrence uses cause and effect therefore is a hoax.

Anything that has causes is a hoax for badecker. A dice or a roulette are also hoaxes because they use the word random.

[BADecker]

Mutations have causes, however that doesn't mean they are programmed. Humans use the word ''random'' in different ways. When evolutionists explain or say that mutations are random they certainly don't mean that they have no cause just like when we say a dice is random. I don't see how mutations having a cause would make evolution a hoax.

Then again quantum processes seem to have no cause anyways and you said that we should find something without a cause.

Now that we know that mutations have causes...

Why does a mutation act the way it does? Why doesn't it act in a slightly different way. Because its causes acted upon it to mutate in just the way that it mutated. If the causes were different, the mutation would be different. But the causes weren't different. So the mutation is just like it is.

Why did the causes act just like they did? Because their causes acted upon them just as they did, causing them to act exactly as they did, so they would produce the exact mutation that they produced.

You can carry this idea all the way back to the beginning. Everything is set up to act the way it does because whatever started the whole thing going, set the exact way that it was going to act, through C&E.

How do we know? We can track countless C&E actions, but we have yet to find even one action that, for a fact, is not C&E.

Quantum is simply complex probability. But the nature of probability, we see there is no fact that comes out of it without something else to substantiate it. Saying "quantum" is like saying "let's guess, but in a complex way."

There is no selection in anything, other than the selection that was set up in the beginning of "everything." There are changes, but there is no evolution in the way that evolutionists suggest. But if you think it exists, show us the proof. Not just a bunch of words that suggest why the proof must exist.

That is what programming is. Everything has been programmed, through C&E. But if it hasn't, we haven't found the proof for non-C&E. Not one piece of proof. Just guesses and suggestions. But we have countless proofs for C&E.

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

I dont believe in physical evolution, just think that if its true, then why human still havent evolved into something yet?
There is still no change at all.

No two humans are exactly the same. No parents have children that are exactly the same as the parents. This means that there is nothing but change. The only thing that seems changeless is that there seems to be nothing but change.

[Vod]

No two humans are exactly the same. No parents have children that are exactly the same as the parents.

That's exactly how evolution works.  The child has half DNA from each of it's parents.

I'm married to Jennifer Lawrence!

[Flying Hellfish]

No two humans are exactly the same. No parents have children that are exactly the same as the parents.

That's exactly how evolution works.  The child has half DNA from each of it's parents.

I'm married to Jennifer Lawrence!

DNA is a hoax because causes LOL

Old BD likes to use the evolution of language.  See he takes words that have an actual meaning understood by normal people and evolves them into different meanings that only make sense in his brain...

BADecker believes in evolution!

[Acisrummor]

I guess there would still have monkeys in the zoos, not every species can evolve

[Astargath]

Mutations have causes, however that doesn't mean they are programmed. Humans use the word ''random'' in different ways. When evolutionists explain or say that mutations are random they certainly don't mean that they have no cause just like when we say a dice is random. I don't see how mutations having a cause would make evolution a hoax.

Then again quantum processes seem to have no cause anyways and you said that we should find something without a cause.

Now that we know that mutations have causes...

Why does a mutation act the way it does? Why doesn't it act in a slightly different way. Because its causes acted upon it to mutate in just the way that it mutated. If the causes were different, the mutation would be different. But the causes weren't different. So the mutation is just like it is.

Why did the causes act just like they did? Because their causes acted upon them just as they did, causing them to act exactly as they did, so they would produce the exact mutation that they produced.

You can carry this idea all the way back to the beginning. Everything is set up to act the way it does because whatever started the whole thing going, set the exact way that it was going to act, through C&E.

How do we know? We can track countless C&E actions, but we have yet to find even one action that, for a fact, is not C&E.

Quantum is simply complex probability. But the nature of probability, we see there is no fact that comes out of it without something else to substantiate it. Saying "quantum" is like saying "let's guess, but in a complex way."

There is no selection in anything, other than the selection that was set up in the beginning of "everything." There are changes, but there is no evolution in the way that evolutionists suggest. But if you think it exists, show us the proof. Not just a bunch of words that suggest why the proof must exist.

That is what programming is. Everything has been programmed, through C&E. But if it hasn't, we haven't found the proof for non-C&E. Not one piece of proof. Just guesses and suggestions. But we have countless proofs for C&E.

Evolution is a hoax.

Everything acts the way it does because it was caused that way, what's your point? Is gravity suddenly not real because it was caused to exist just like it does?

''Everything is set up to act the way it does because whatever started the whole thing going, set the exact way that it was going to act'' We don't know what started everything so we don't know if everything is essentially random or not, you claim it was god but you have no proof. What if it was just another process or maybe a truly random process that started everything?

''How do we know? We can track countless C&E actions, but we have yet to find even one action that, for a fact, is not C&E. '' How would we find that if everytime someone finds something that may be random you just claim it's not?

Humans for example are mostly deterministic, however we might be able to make random decisions. This is a very hard problem and it's not solved. You keep claiming everything has a cause but you never prove it. Even if we don't find something without a cause, it doesn't mean it's not there just because we have a few things that we know the cause of.

[BADecker]

Mutations have causes, however that doesn't mean they are programmed. Humans use the word ''random'' in different ways. When evolutionists explain or say that mutations are random they certainly don't mean that they have no cause just like when we say a dice is random. I don't see how mutations having a cause would make evolution a hoax.

Then again quantum processes seem to have no cause anyways and you said that we should find something without a cause.

Now that we know that mutations have causes...

Why does a mutation act the way it does? Why doesn't it act in a slightly different way. Because its causes acted upon it to mutate in just the way that it mutated. If the causes were different, the mutation would be different. But the causes weren't different. So the mutation is just like it is.

Why did the causes act just like they did? Because their causes acted upon them just as they did, causing them to act exactly as they did, so they would produce the exact mutation that they produced.

You can carry this idea all the way back to the beginning. Everything is set up to act the way it does because whatever started the whole thing going, set the exact way that it was going to act, through C&E.

How do we know? We can track countless C&E actions, but we have yet to find even one action that, for a fact, is not C&E.

Quantum is simply complex probability. But the nature of probability, we see there is no fact that comes out of it without something else to substantiate it. Saying "quantum" is like saying "let's guess, but in a complex way."

There is no selection in anything, other than the selection that was set up in the beginning of "everything." There are changes, but there is no evolution in the way that evolutionists suggest. But if you think it exists, show us the proof. Not just a bunch of words that suggest why the proof must exist.

That is what programming is. Everything has been programmed, through C&E. But if it hasn't, we haven't found the proof for non-C&E. Not one piece of proof. Just guesses and suggestions. But we have countless proofs for C&E.

Evolution is a hoax.

Everything acts the way it does because it was caused that way, what's your point? Is gravity suddenly not real because it was caused to exist just like it does?

The point is that cause and effect are like a computer. A computer acts exactly the way it does because of programming. The laws of nature make C&E act exactly the way it does just like the computer. Everything is programmed.

''Everything is set up to act the way it does because whatever started the whole thing going, set the exact way that it was going to act'' We don't know what started everything so we don't know if everything is essentially random or not, you claim it was god but you have no proof. What if it was just another process or maybe a truly random process that started everything?

I can't help it that you are so religion minded that you have to bring God into it. The fact that we don't know what God is, doesn't have anything to do with the way things act. Things act precisely like they were programmed, according to the laws of physics, acted upon by cause and effect.

''How do we know? We can track countless C&E actions, but we have yet to find even one action that, for a fact, is not C&E. '' How would we find that if everytime someone finds something that may be random you just claim it's not?

That's the point. Claiming anything isn't the scientific way. Science has proven thousands of C&E actions. And they see so many more, that if they wanted to waste the time, they could scientifically prove multitudes more. Yet they haven't scientifically proven even one non-C&E action.

Humans for example are mostly deterministic, however we might be able to make random decisions. This is a very hard problem and it's not solved. You keep claiming everything has a cause but you never prove it. Even if we don't find something without a cause, it doesn't mean it's not there just because we have a few things that we know the cause of.
7

It IS solved. People make decisions based on group firings of synapses in their brain. These firings are based on other firings, and even on the amounts of electrolyte in their bodies. This is all based on what they ate at the last meal, and on a host of other promptings. It is all C&E processed with extremely complex C&E activities. This is common knowledge in the medical.

The further you go trying to prove that evolution exists, the more explanations are brought out, and the more evolution is proven to be an unknown at its core, but doesn't exist according to nature and reality.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

''Science has proven thousands of C&E actions''. Science however has never proven that everything has a cause as you claim. There is also no scientific law of ''cause and effect'' only the 3rd law of Newton. Most things do have a cause, the mystery is what caused the first event. Theists like you claim that it was their god, and there are thousands of different purported gods. But if there were a god, it too would have to of had a cause. To claim otherwise is a cop out, a plead to ignorance. The most honest answer is simple that we do not know. There are plenty of hypothesis and claims to what started everything. Could be that there is no beginning and there is no end. Big Bang wasn't the start. Maybe a start of this cycle, but not the start of everything. Effectively, there is no cause. Just effect.

Now I'm not claiming that that's what happened, I'm simply explaining to you that there are a lot of possibilities and yours is not necessarily true, in fact I already debunked it in the other thread ''scientific proof of god''

[BADecker]

Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

[BADecker]

^^^ It's kinda a black mark against evolutionists when one has to go to a theist site to get information that evolutions won't publish, because they know that it destroys their evolution cult to have the world find out about it.

Evolution is a hoax.

[Astargath]

Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

[BADecker]

Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

[popcorn1]

Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Space the universe is full of life it's teaming with life ..

Why do you think NASA fuzzy the screens ..
Show me a full video of the whole moons surface ..NO THEY WONT WILL THEY ..

Hiding things you see..
Because poor little Badecker couldn't handle the TRUTH..

Also the way we kill each other no wonder they back off ..
Imagine they was 4 ft and we got their technology i thinks we would kill them ..

So maybe they back off ..
Or maybe no alien humanoid but a type of alien creature or intelligent creature..

But if i looked down and seen lets say AFRICA with the village burning the next village and killing everyone in it i thinks i would stay away ..

Creature flying around space that's for sure ..

BELIEVE IT OR NOT..It's up to YOU ..

SECRET SPACE: What Is NASA Hiding? - UFOs Are Real - FEATURE ...
Video for ufo tv what is nasa hiding▶ 1:26:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqN-KLOCS5k
24 Oct 2010 - Uploaded by UFOTV® The Disclosure Network
Featuring extraordinary NASA digital video footage of authentic space-based UFOs and strange anomalies ...

[Astargath]

Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Nice copy paste, look I can do it too.
Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself.

[BADecker]

Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Nice copy paste, look I can do it too.
Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself.

But I showed a website that was backed up with references that are reasonably common knowledge. All you did was debunk yourself.

[Astargath]

Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Nice copy paste, look I can do it too.
Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself.

But I showed a website that was backed up with references that are reasonably common knowledge. All you did was debunk yourself.

So what? Just because it posts a bunch of references doesn't mean it's true. I can post counter references to the references there too:

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

Means I'm right now.