Evolution is a hoax

[BitcoinPaw]

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.

[1713554788]

1713554788

[1713554788]

1713554788

[Przemax]

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]

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?

...

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.

[Vod]

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.

[BADecker]

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?

...

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.

[Labajah]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

...

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.

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.

[Astargath]

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.

[Przemax]

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?

...

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.

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.

Excelent. Some humility at least - you can't be sure about what the hell are those scientist doing if they have not done what they claim.

20 years later maybe you would get to the next level that you should double check the validity of their claims.

But bravo - humility at last. It would be excelent if you would not bash the ancient people. They at least knew how to survive in a world that wrong ideas resulted in death. Right now you can be wrong all your life and still live.

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

Thats just bones meh......

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Pepper moth was proven to be fraud. But it is not even what we talk about....... Do you know what do we talk about? A new specie in a classical sense.

http://www.businessinsider.com/examples-of-evolution-happening-right-now-2015-2?IR=T#bedbugs-are-becoming-a-new-species-of-nightmare-insects-1

Those insects are still insects of the same specie - just differently named larger or smaller.... Why dont you call asians non human? FFS - be consistant.....

Ehhhhhhh... It's hopeless. You do not understand my point... Or you choose not to.

[Astargath]

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?

...

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.

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.

Excelent. Some humility at least - you can't be sure about what the hell are those scientist doing if they have not done what they claim.

20 years later maybe you would get to the next level that you should double check the validity of their claims.

But bravo - humility at last. It would be excelent if you would not bash the ancient people. They at least knew how to survive in a world that wrong ideas resulted in death. Right now you can be wrong all your life and still live.

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

Thats just bones meh......

https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Pepper moth was proven to be fraud. But it is not even what we talk about....... Do you know what do we talk about? A new specie in a classical sense.

http://www.businessinsider.com/examples-of-evolution-happening-right-now-2015-2?IR=T#bedbugs-are-becoming-a-new-species-of-nightmare-insects-1

Those insects are still insects of the same kind - just different....

Ehhhhhhh... It's hopeless. You do not understand my point... Or you choose not to.

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Hawthorn fly
Three-spined sticklebacks
Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
Tennessee cave salamanders
Greenish Warbler
Ensatina salamanders
Larus gulls
Petroica multicolor
Drosophila
Mayr bird fauna
Finches
Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
Apple maggot
Faeroe Island house mouse
Primula kewensis
Croatian lizards

Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-speciation.html#998gQHXmatXO5sSx.99

[Przemax]

Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

Yes I wrote to you about the ring species! I DID! You do not have to inform me what a ring specie is. I told several posts ago what they are. I must say that i almost got hooked in evolution by the ring specie, but then I thought... well... why not the one more step? Because well... its impossible maybe?

Ring species are almost new species to make it short.

You know what they say about almost. It's like you are almost right - being wrong.

Someone almost won - that means he had lost.

P.S Sorry... previously I had wrote that you show just bones. You show bones that not even showing what you imply they are showing. They are heavily incomplete small fragments that you imagine for example a whale to have legs... You just imagine stuff....

Yeah it could be the ancestor of a whale, as it could be the 99% of fake fossils. Yeah it could be anything.... It could be the bones of still living organisms today as well that looks totally different than in the picture as well.... Totally credible NOT.

[BADecker]

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?

...

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.

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.

Did you forget what we were talking about? Have you forgotten what this thread is about? We are not talking about what scientists can create and not create. We are talking about the evolution hoax.

In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist. Since evolution has to do with life, evolution can't exist, simply because life can't exist.

Scientists, doctors, and researchers understand many things about how life works. When you go to a standard hospital, you see them using their understanding of life and how it works... although their understanding is far from perfect.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a bunch of stories. If there happens to be some solid fact for evolution, we don't know it. All we really have in evolution theory is stories. We have not been able to create it in the lab. The closest we have come is to create some stuff that points towards evolution more strongly than anything before. But this stuff also points toward adaptation. So we don't know that it is evolution.

So, to recap, we have much understood manipulation of life in the medical. We have only hazy arguments about evolution without any proof for it other than talk, talk, talk. And then some additional science is found out. What is this additional science? There is no way that life can exist, scientifically.

We were having enough trouble with evolution alone. But now we find that life can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Since life can't exist, all the silly, non-fact-backed evolution talk is totally meaningless. In fact, the medical operations of life examination might be meaningless, except that they seem to factually work to some extent.

I understand your consternation. I totally understand why you would rather distract from the points being talked about. Your religion of evolution is unraveling before your eyes. Your trolling is coming out into the open. Since life is not possible scientifically, evolution is one big scandal. See, again, http://ericmetaxas.com/media/articles/science-increasingly-makes-case-god/.

Evolution is a big fat hoax.

[Astargath]

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?

...

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.

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.

Did you forget what we were talking about? Have you forgotten what this thread is about? We are not talking about what scientists can create and not create. We are talking about the evolution hoax.

In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist. Since evolution has to do with life, evolution can't exist, simply because life can't exist.

Scientists, doctors, and researchers understand many things about how life works. When you go to a standard hospital, you see them using their understanding of life and how it works... although their understanding is far from perfect.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a bunch of stories. If there happens to be some solid fact for evolution, we don't know it. All we really have in evolution theory is stories. We have not been able to create it in the lab. The closest we have come is to create some stuff that points towards evolution more strongly than anything before. But this stuff also points toward adaptation. So we don't know that it is evolution.

So, to recap, we have much understood manipulation of life in the medical. We have only hazy arguments about evolution without any proof for it other than talk, talk, talk. And then some additional science is found out. What is this additional science? There is no way that life can exist, scientifically.

We were having enough trouble with evolution alone. But now we find that life can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Since life can't exist, all the silly, non-fact-backed evolution talk is totally meaningless. In fact, the medical operations of life examination might be meaningless, except that they seem to factually work to some extent.

I understand your consternation. I totally understand why you would rather distract from the points being talked about. Your religion of evolution is unraveling before your eyes. Your trolling is coming out into the open. Since life is not possible scientifically, evolution is one big scandal. See, again, http://ericmetaxas.com/media/articles/science-increasingly-makes-case-god/.

Evolution is a big fat hoax.

And I have already debunked your argument, it's right here, in this quote. ''In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist.'' This specifically is a lie, again it's right here you just have to look up. The 200 component stuff that you posted is not correct. I'm sorry.

[BADecker]

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?

...

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.

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.

Did you forget what we were talking about? Have you forgotten what this thread is about? We are not talking about what scientists can create and not create. We are talking about the evolution hoax.

In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist. Since evolution has to do with life, evolution can't exist, simply because life can't exist.

Scientists, doctors, and researchers understand many things about how life works. When you go to a standard hospital, you see them using their understanding of life and how it works... although their understanding is far from perfect.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a bunch of stories. If there happens to be some solid fact for evolution, we don't know it. All we really have in evolution theory is stories. We have not been able to create it in the lab. The closest we have come is to create some stuff that points towards evolution more strongly than anything before. But this stuff also points toward adaptation. So we don't know that it is evolution.

So, to recap, we have much understood manipulation of life in the medical. We have only hazy arguments about evolution without any proof for it other than talk, talk, talk. And then some additional science is found out. What is this additional science? There is no way that life can exist, scientifically.

We were having enough trouble with evolution alone. But now we find that life can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Since life can't exist, all the silly, non-fact-backed evolution talk is totally meaningless. In fact, the medical operations of life examination might be meaningless, except that they seem to factually work to some extent.

I understand your consternation. I totally understand why you would rather distract from the points being talked about. Your religion of evolution is unraveling before your eyes. Your trolling is coming out into the open. Since life is not possible scientifically, evolution is one big scandal. See, again, http://ericmetaxas.com/media/articles/science-increasingly-makes-case-god/.

Evolution is a big fat hoax.

And I have already debunked your argument, it's right here, in this quote. ''In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist.'' This specifically is a lie, again it's right here you just have to look up. The 200 component stuff that you posted is not correct. I'm sorry.

Right at the moment I don't have anything better to do than to say that it's not a lie except in one way. That's old info. Its way beyond 200 at present.

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides13.pdf

[Tai Chi Chain]

I can't believe this is even a thread on this forum

I'm kind of shocked as well.
LOL

[Astargath]

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?

...

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.

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.

Did you forget what we were talking about? Have you forgotten what this thread is about? We are not talking about what scientists can create and not create. We are talking about the evolution hoax.

In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist. Since evolution has to do with life, evolution can't exist, simply because life can't exist.

Scientists, doctors, and researchers understand many things about how life works. When you go to a standard hospital, you see them using their understanding of life and how it works... although their understanding is far from perfect.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a bunch of stories. If there happens to be some solid fact for evolution, we don't know it. All we really have in evolution theory is stories. We have not been able to create it in the lab. The closest we have come is to create some stuff that points towards evolution more strongly than anything before. But this stuff also points toward adaptation. So we don't know that it is evolution.

So, to recap, we have much understood manipulation of life in the medical. We have only hazy arguments about evolution without any proof for it other than talk, talk, talk. And then some additional science is found out. What is this additional science? There is no way that life can exist, scientifically.

We were having enough trouble with evolution alone. But now we find that life can't exist... except for the fact that it does. Since life can't exist, all the silly, non-fact-backed evolution talk is totally meaningless. In fact, the medical operations of life examination might be meaningless, except that they seem to factually work to some extent.

I understand your consternation. I totally understand why you would rather distract from the points being talked about. Your religion of evolution is unraveling before your eyes. Your trolling is coming out into the open. Since life is not possible scientifically, evolution is one big scandal. See, again, http://ericmetaxas.com/media/articles/science-increasingly-makes-case-god/.

Evolution is a big fat hoax.

And I have already debunked your argument, it's right here, in this quote. ''In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist.'' This specifically is a lie, again it's right here you just have to look up. The 200 component stuff that you posted is not correct. I'm sorry.

Right at the moment I don't have anything better to do than to say that it's not a lie except in one way. That's old info. Its way beyond 200 at present.

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides13.pdf

''As far as we can tell, carbon chemistry and
liquid water are really good for life
• We are indeed in a good place for this, but
it is not clear how strong the requirements
are
• Moon, Mercury, moons of Mars not great
for life''

That's what your link says, I don't see anything about life not being possible in the universe.

'' That's old info. Its way beyond 200 at present.'' And as I mentioned already, they failed to take in count that each of those components have different percentages. Don't get too stuck on this, we don't know exactly how life originated but evolution is still a fact, even if your god existed, evolution would still be a fact. Actually most religious groups already accept evolution as a fact. Almost 100% of Jews, buddhists and hindus already accept evolution. Even 60% of catholics accept evolution and that was a poll made in 2007 and in the United States which is known for being extremely religious and usually against evolution. So why don't you take a step back and think about this badecker.

[covfefe_]

Yes, if you are ignorant about the facts, your father too can be a hoax.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In this particular segment of posts, we are talking about the fact that science has found that life can't exist. Since evolution has to do with life, evolution can't exist, simply because life can't exist.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a bunch of stories. If there happens to be some solid fact for evolution, we don't know it. All we really have in evolution theory is stories. We have not been able to create it in the lab.

The Miller-Urey experiment, which showed the chemical origin of life occuring spontaneously in the conditions of an early Earth, was conducted in 1952.

Georgy Shaposhnikov evolved a new and reproductively isolated species of aphid by altering their food source in the 1950s.

So you are only about 70 years out-of-date with your baseless, factless ramblings.