Music Banter - The mathematical Impossibility of Evolution

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1717035)

Hysterical.

How obvious what I pointed out is and your inability to see it is? Yeah, it is.

See what? The bull****? Quite a bit of it here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1716932)

The Institute for Creation Research strikes me as one of the finer and least biased sources you can find on evolutionary matters.

:laughing:

I don't usually get involved in religous debates but this peaked my interest, however; Frownland has a point, the source you cited is heavily biased, and doesn't seem to be peer reviewed.

If the person proposing the thesis is a professor and has peer reviewed publications from a University, perhaps you could post them.

I find it an interesting theory, but I would like to know how he came by his data, as creationist websites are notorious for seeking an answer that reinforces their faith, as opposed to adhering to the scientific method.

I'm one of those people who believes that spirituality and evolution don't have to be at odds with each other, but the source you chose is going to raise alarm bells.

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.

Evolution is not a belief, it is well-proven and observable. Unlike creationism. There are various books that comprehensively debunk creationist arguments. Why don't you read one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1blankmind (Post 1717023)

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.

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.

I tried to explain in my original reply why his 200 piece argument is silly. He is looking at the probability of a very specific combination coming into existence - that has nothing to do with what is happening with evolution - organisms aren't aiming for an arbitrarily picked combination, anything that gives them a reproductive advantage will do. We can observe natural selection going on everywhere, and as I mentioned with viruses and bacteria the time scales are much shorter. Bacteria becoming resistant to a specific antibiotic is just one example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1717002)

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.

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).

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?

Calm the **** down.