1.Same can be applied for your links. Your article simply had mistakes in it and I pointed them out, I would like you to point out the mistakes.
2.Which is?
3.Stop insisting I get it you are ignorant but I already taught you what a scientific theory actually means but I'm going to do it again, let's see if this time you actually read it:
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]
It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory".[4][Note 1] In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
READ THE RED PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And by the way, I simply don't see why would scientists have an agenda to convince people that evolution is real, what possible reasons could they have for that in contrast to creationists who are trying to control people through religion.
Also if evolution is not true then how are they able to use it on fields like medicine and even computer science? If it wasn't real then it would be impossible to apply it to other things, no?
Remaining within the topic of evolution, proof that evolution is impossible has been shown.
If the science community wants to re-define "theory," it is because they want to avoid absolute truth, and turn their suppositions into something that sounds like truth. They do this by using probability, for which they have calculated the probability (odds) of probability, itself, according to their desires rather than science fact.
Probability calculations of the probability that evolution is factual, all based on desires, does not refute the facts that evolution is impossible. All it does is turns evolution theory into religion. How does it do that? All religion is based on faith. And much of the greatest formal religions suggests that if you have enough faith, you can move mountains.
Some people want evolution to exist so badly that they are stating that evolution is fact when it is actually impossible, so that they can move the faith of the ignorant masses into making it factual through faith. Won't work, though. The faith of humans can't match the faith of God.
Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.
''Nobody applies impossible evolution to anything. They simply might say that they do.''
Prove it.
Proof that evolution is possible has been shown:
https://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html - Great example of lots of words being used, to attempt to contradict the simple fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together through evolution, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are sufficient and necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html - Great method to bypass the fact that, in any part of the conversion of inorganic material to a human being, the odds against atoms and molecules randomly coming together, in varieties and quantities and locations to cause changes that are necessary for life or life change, makes this form of change impossible, by the odds.http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ - The tiny part of this link that has been proven factual, can apply to all kinds of things besides The Theory of Evolution. In the face of this, The Theory of Evolution doesn't even stand as theory.https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/fossil-record-prove-evolution-true-part-1/ - This site concerns itself with a lot of talk that doesn't even challenge the points against evolution that it brings up. The way this site talks shows that it is the beliefs (or supposed beliefs) of some scientists that is the thing that makes evolution real. This site is essentially evolution religious talk.http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-discoveries-that-prove-evolution-is-real-1729902558 - This site is full of assumptions and theories on which the Theory of evolution is based. It is close to entirely circular evidence. The few spots where some real scientific evidence is used, show evidence that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways outside of The Theory of Evolution.Some people want evolution to not exist so bad that they refute every single piece of evidence (thousands) that prove evolution is real and say it's not because they believe in God.
Look at how strong the religion of Islam is in Muslim suicide terrorists. We should be glad that the evolution religion doesn't have directives that state that its believers become suicide terrorists. These evolution religion people are some of the greatest believers in their religion... maybe even stronger believers than Muslims in theirs.Already debunked the mathematical impossibility that you chose to ignore:
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n832l/the_mathematical_impossibility_of_evolution_can/?st=j3464u23&sh=dfa6ea09 - Among the assumptions that this article makes are:
1. That evolution exists;
2. That there is such a thing as "random;"
3. Avoiding the fundamentals of things stated;
4. States itself, "We still haven't established what we're talking about;"
5. Doesn't have a steady stream of info that shows evolution.http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - The assumption is that random exists. Cause and effect law completely deny random. In addition, there are many circular references in the article.http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/ - Two basic flaws here are the idea of random existing, and the idea of the age of the earth, which has not been proven. Proof that simple atoms and molecules can come together in complex enough molecules to even align themselves into life-like cells, without some intelligence directing them, is completely ignored.So there is no point in mentioning probability.
1.You assume that random does not exist.
Perhaps you assume that it does. Random has not been found. Newton's 3rd Law (did you catch that? LAW) upholds cause and effect. Stick with the law.
asda
2.You also assumed that evolution does not exist.
Perhaps you assume that it does. Evolution in the sense we are talking - evolving from inanimate to human - has not been found. I have listed a few of the reasons why it is impossible. Searching the Net will show you many more.
3.You avoid the fundamentals of the things stated.
But you avoid the fundamentals of science... science law.
4.Out of context: We still haven't established what we're talking about. If we're talking about the origin of life (which is what seems to be referenced), those 'mutations' would have far more attempts, and the density would be far greater.
It was obviously referring to the article because the article assumes the origin of life is a part of evolution.
The wording, "We still haven't established what we're talking about," is part of the article in one of your links. It shows that the article is useless.
Now, you are trying to apply that wording to things that you and I are discussing. Doing such shows your nefarious intent.
5.You haven't provided a steady stream of info proving evolution wrong.
A steady stream is not needed, because one broken link in the evolution chain destroys the whole thing. Yet I have shown several. And the Net is full of many more... plus a whole lot of other things that provide a lot of evolution-doubt.
The age of the earth has not been proven. Many of the people who have written papers on the age of the earth have said, suggested, or hinted that the only reason they were stating the age of the earth to be as long as they suggested, was to keep continuity among the sciences, so that science could move forward.
The only provable age is not even clear. But, it goes back to between 4,500 and 5,000 years. All the rest of it is theories or guesses, for one reason or another.
Possibly the greatest reason for the guesses about the age of the earth is, nobody knows if the physics of the planet was the same in the past as it is now. And nobody can more than guess how great the differences of past physics might have been. All guesswork.
The best we have is the written record of the Bible... not in a religious sense, but in an eye-witness sense.
Show me those people that you say have written papers just to keep continuity among the sciences, I want proof of that. The age of the earth has been proven, by many methods as I previously stated.
The age of the earth has not been scientifically proven. It has only been evidenced by science.
You want papers? Go look for them. The science I refer to is foundational science law that has been around for ages.
Radiometric dating which uses different radioactive elements that all show the same thing when you measure it. Of course you wouldn't agree with this fact, no surprise there. Obviously the best we have is a book written a few thousand years ago, obviously, hehe. A book that can't be verified whatsoever, that's definitely the best we have.
Of course I agree with the method. The thing that nobody knows is how far into the past was any radiation the same as it is today.
Nobody knows about radiation amounts of the past. This makes radiometrics simply a ploy to distract from the fact that the age of the earth is scientifically unknown. Radiometrics is circular evidence. Google it. You will find many people and sites that explain this.
Say for a moment what you said about randomness is true, nothing is random, all cause and effect, how does that prove God? The only thing you proved is that nothing is random, you don't know if God was the first cause, which God? Maybe it was something else, how can you tell it was God? I would like to know how can you tell it was God
What? You forgot to read info at the links? Here are the links again, in case you can't find them:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.
Secondly, it seems to be a problem, the bible talks about free will, if there is free will that means human behavior is indeed random, therefore pure randomness does exist, if it didn't that would mean everything you and I will ever do it's already ''written'' meaning that we don't actually have free will, so which one is it?
You are missing one major part about free will. That part is the part of us that has free will. Science has proven long ago that all physical aspects of people operate through cause and effect. The brain is physical. The mind is modified by the brain. So, where is the free will? It truly is there. Go figure out where it is. Or search through my posts to see where it is. I might repeat it sometime. But not right now.
Thirdly, how did creationism help with anything? We based pretty much everything we have today on science, cars, planes, medicine... As far as I know when you get sick you go to the doctor, prayers don't work so well.
You can be ignorant on purpose if that's what you want but evolution is a fact, the evidence and proof is too much to ignore, you can keep lying to yourself but it's the truth.
How in the world ignorant are you? Science has barely increased the lifespan of anyone. And the expense to do it is virtually prohibitive except for the wealthy.
We read just a few weeks ago that David Rockefeller died. He was a billionaire. So, if anybody knew where to look for medical/scientific methods to remain alive, he would be it. But he died... at a mere 101 years old.
Science is so ignorant that dumb nature has secrets locked away so that scientists can't even get down to the basics. But if we went down a little further, we might find out how to live 200 years... which is nothing in the scheme of time.
Mankind can barely build a simple robot that can reproduce itself if given the "raw materials." Ignorant nature contains life procreation on such immense scales that it is mind-boggling.
How dense are you that you can't see that there is intelligence behind nature, and intelligence that is way beyond the intelligence of man.
