Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   The mathematical Impossibility of Evolution (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/86743-mathematical-impossibility-evolution.html)

Frownland 07-05-2016 10:28 PM

Everything is matter, but nothing matters.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/ToMjG...kxhu/200_s.gif

Blank. 07-05-2016 10:30 PM

Most of these sites go into things about God and his existence. Just ignore that. This site is much more in depth on the math. Mathematical Impossibility

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:06 PM

Dude, they're starting with the result that they want and are using the research to support what they already believe! How can you not ****ing see that? Good research lets the results speak for themselves and weighs their results or conclusions against pre existing research. All of the sources that you've posted ignore the fossil record and get bent on some facetious statistics that is built off of false assumptions.

This is the same kind of thing I always see with creationists. Willfully ignoring half of the evidence presented to them, even though it disproves their unproven assumptions that are founded in heady theoretics. That source you just posted undermines the thriving complexity of life, the chaotic nature of the universe that led to that organism, and is still a bad source.

Look at this ****ing quote. Just ****ing look at it.

Quote:

We don't find mathematical support for the spontaneous generation of life through various chemicals accidentally bumping into each other.
You dumb mother****er. No. No. No! What you just walk around with a microscope and see if there are amino acids being spontaneously created in a chaotic Hadean climate? Of course you ****ing haven't seen that because you're not looking for it and given that it would disprove your little theory, you'd probably ignore that too. (Btw you is to the source, not blankmind).

Quote:

However, we do find mathematical support for the biblical claim that man has been on the earth less than 10,000 years.
No you dumb ****, that mathematical support is taken from the supposed lineage throughout the Old Testament up to a certain point. I forget exactly where. This entirely disregards carbon dating and in turn demolishes the credibility of this source, as if that was a surprise to anyone.

You ****ing people make me hate life. Have a goddamned reliable source and stick it up your ass.
NOVA - Official Website | How Did Life Begin?

kibbeh 07-05-2016 11:11 PM

talking about existence and what our purpose on this planet is always makes me hard

Blank. 07-05-2016 11:23 PM

While I get what you're upset about, i think you're ignoring the math. To prove their math they don't use the 10,000 year theory.

Quote:

Even when we work at the staggering rate of one billion trials per second throughout the whole universe for a period of 300 billion years, we can only achieve 5x10^105 combinations. That is well short of the 788x10372 combinations needed to be sure that we can arrive at the correct combination to start our very simple form of life. In fact, impossibly simple at just 200 pieces.
Here they use 300 billion years to show the imporobability.

My personal opinion on this subject comes back to how I've always felt. Which is in really have no personal opinion towards it. This theory didn't change anything. So... yeah.

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:26 PM

Too bad that the 200 part example is irrelevant. I'm gonna go with evolution being right.

And...hang on...is he trying to prove the improbability of something that legitimately happened? Is that what's going on in that quote?

Blank. 07-05-2016 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1717026)
Too bad that the 200 part example is irrelevant. I'm gonna go with evolution being right.

And...hang on...is he trying to prove the improbability of something that legitimately happened? Is that what's going on in that quote?

Well, the word legitimate is relative based upon beliefs. Since he is trying to use his math to prove creationism.

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1717031)
Well, the word legitimate is relative based upon beliefs.

I see someone has discovered basic philosophy but hasn't gotten a grasp on applying it.

Blank. 07-05-2016 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1717032)
I see someone has discovered basic philosophy but hasn't gotten a grasp on applying it.

It's not philosophy. He believes in creationism, you believe in evolution. So the word legitimate would be used to mean something different to each of you on this subject.

Frownland 07-05-2016 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1717033)
It's not philosophy. He believes in creationism, you believe in evolution. So the word legitimate would be used to mean something different to each of you on this subject.

Hysterical.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:58 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.