The mathematical Impossibility of Evolution - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-05-2016, 11:40 PM   #31 (permalink)
Jacob Sartorius
Blank.'s Avatar
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Dank memes
Posts: 4,034

Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
How obvious what I pointed out is and your inability to see it is? Yeah, it is.
Blank. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2016, 11:44 PM   #32 (permalink)
Frownland's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,551

See what? The bull****? Quite a bit of it here.
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 01:30 AM   #33 (permalink)
Music Addict
William_the_Bloody's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sunnydale Cemetary
Posts: 2,093

Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
The Institute for Creation Research strikes me as one of the finer and least biased sources you can find on evolutionary matters.

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.
William_the_Bloody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 02:18 AM   #34 (permalink)
grindy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: .
Posts: 7,201

Originally Posted by 1blankmind View Post
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?
A smell of petroleum prevails throughout.
grindy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 02:50 AM   #35 (permalink)
Music Addict
Aloysius's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 351

Originally Posted by 1blankmind View Post
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.
Aloysius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 03:04 AM   #36 (permalink)
Zhanteimi's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 4,874

Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
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.

Zhanteimi is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads

© 2003-2023 Advameg, Inc.