Pages:
Author

Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 99. (Read 108173 times)

Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
January 09, 2018, 08:31:54 PM
If evolution were to happen by any random method, it would take a universe billions of times older than the 13.5 billion years attributed to our universe.

Evolution is not random - it is the furthest thing possible from random. 

Yes, DNA gets mutated by some random act and that causes the new generation to evolve.

But whether that next generation survives or not (producing evolution) is determined by the advantages the new generation has.  If the mutation produced a disadvantage, then that DNA line would die off.    I don't expect you to understand BD, but that's how life works.

I'm married to Jennifer Lawrence!

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
January 09, 2018, 08:22:45 PM

Your site linked above debunks itself, it doesn't prove evolution is impossible. We have seen evolution in the peppered moth or the Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks.
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896


Say, thanks for the nice examples of complex cause and effect in action. If you want to call programmed C&E activity evolution, that's entirely up to you, of course. But it is in no way evolution as evolution scientists interpret evolution. And it isn't any greater than breeding, although it may be a little different. No proof of evolution in them.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

If you want to keep claiming that everything has a cause, you can but it wont make you right. You said that science supports this, yet you never shown a single scientist or a science field that says everything has a cause.
Badecker is a liar, he will often ignore past comments to fuel his delusion. What you are writing here is a hoax too because it has a cause.

Consider the blockchain. We are using 26 uppercase letters, + 26 lower case letters, +10 numbers. We are combining them at random into, what is it(?), 34 random character strings... or larger. Yet the odds of cracking a bitcoin password or hash via brute force would take thousands and thousands of years.

Now, arrange all the atoms necessary for life into the exact proper position and kick-start them into motion in just the right way to produce life. The improbability of this happening once is beyond impossible, partly because there are multitudes more atoms and molecules in a living cell, to say nothing about the forces necessary for the precise kick start, than the 26+26+10 used in a blockchain, that evolution is impossible to happen by any method we can start to dream of.

And then on top of that, there would have to be multiples of atoms and electrons plopping into place over the eons, adding more complexity to the probability/impossibility than ever, just for mutations to be beneficial.

If evolution were to happen by any random method, it would take a universe billions of times older than the 13.5 billion years attributed to our universe. The blockchain is proving that evolution is impossible.

We might say, "Well this or that might have happened to make evolution probable." But saying such is simply drawing at straws, and a gigantically large number of straws, at that. In other words, evolution is all guesswork.

All the grubbing around in the dirt for skeletons from the past is simply a method for evolutionists to make money.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
Vod
legendary
Activity: 3668
Merit: 3010
Licking my boob since 1970
January 09, 2018, 06:48:41 PM
We see proof of evolution everyday (what BD called "change").

Notice how the average height of people have increased over the last HUNDRED years?

Both men and women are attracted to taller people.  This leads to sex, which leads to taller people being born.

That is evolution - no matter what anyone calls it.  Smiley

I'm married to Jennifer Lawrence! 

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1027
January 09, 2018, 07:25:26 AM
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

Hahahaha, the same question I thought so? why would there be monkeys? I don't believe it either. But I do believe in the creator creating versions, not evolution. So if you are the creator and think there is a better way of making something i think you would have thoughts of redesigning it. And then trying to compare later if such a thing is better than the other. Then maybe opt for another if the other two doesn't satisfy you. Evolution for me is just a hoax. We would have change by now. Perhaps we should have looked even more handsome and beautiful or maybe the other way around. Like having our eyes bigger than our body, hands bigger than our feet, or better still we have antennas so that there is no need for cellphones. No radiations then.
Evolution for me is just a hoax. We would have change by now.

But but we have changed..

We evolved to have a brain fingers and to communicate so that means we evolved to make technology
and as you well know one day we will see half man half robot  Wink..

Maybe a brain and a robot and live for 2 thousand years  Wink..
So to say we as humans haven't evolved is a complete joke..

Why do you think we got brains and fingers YES to make shit  Wink..

I know it's to spread amongst the stars like a human seed ..

We evolved to make technology to go vast distances to spread our human seed..
Thus spreading our earth ..The earth lives on too Wink..
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1027
January 09, 2018, 05:16:09 AM

Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is the natural or worldly agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[2][3]

Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it.[4] Accordingly, causality is implicit in the logic and structure of ordinary language.[5]

In Aristotelian philosophy, the word 'cause' is also used to mean 'explanation' or 'answer to a why question', including Aristotle's material, formal, efficient, and final "causes"; then the "cause" is the explanans for the explanandum. In this case, failure to recognize that different kinds of "cause" are being considered can lead to futile debate. Of Aristotle's four explanatory modes, the one nearest to the concerns of the present article is the "efficient" one.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
January 09, 2018, 05:02:05 AM

Your site linked above debunks itself, it doesn't prove evolution is impossible. We have seen evolution in the peppered moth or the Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks.
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896


Say, thanks for the nice examples of complex cause and effect in action. If you want to call programmed C&E activity evolution, that's entirely up to you, of course. But it is in no way evolution as evolution scientists interpret evolution. And it isn't any greater than breeding, although it may be a little different. No proof of evolution in them.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

If you want to keep claiming that everything has a cause, you can but it wont make you right. You said that science supports this, yet you never shown a single scientist or a science field that says everything has a cause.
Badecker is a liar, he will often ignore past comments to fuel his delusion. What you are writing here is a hoax too because it has a cause.
member
Activity: 178
Merit: 10
January 08, 2018, 08:11:47 PM
Of course it is, all of them were nothing but theories. "Science is always wrong, it never solves a problem without creating 10 more" -George Bernard Shaw.
legendary
Activity: 948
Merit: 1026
January 08, 2018, 07:27:33 PM
Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

Because you don't understand evolution. 
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
January 08, 2018, 07:09:43 PM
You do not believe in science manuals but believe a collection of letters from 2000 years ago?
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
January 08, 2018, 06:45:32 PM

Your site linked above debunks itself, it doesn't prove evolution is impossible. We have seen evolution in the peppered moth or the Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks.
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896


Say, thanks for the nice examples of complex cause and effect in action. If you want to call programmed C&E activity evolution, that's entirely up to you, of course. But it is in no way evolution as evolution scientists interpret evolution. And it isn't any greater than breeding, although it may be a little different. No proof of evolution in them.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
January 08, 2018, 03:22:56 PM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Cool

Nice copy paste, look I can do it too.
Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself.

But I showed a website that was backed up with references that are reasonably common knowledge. All you did was debunk yourself.

Cool

So what? Just because it posts a bunch of references doesn't mean it's true. I can post counter references to the references there too:

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

Means I'm right now.

Neither of your sites shows any proof for evolution. Nobody has ever seen evolution happening that they can prove is evolution. In fact, all the so-called evidences fit creation better. You sites debunk themselves, besides having nothing to do with the site that I linked above - http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/84-contra-atheism/512-probability-statistical-impossibility.html.

Evolution is impossible, partly because science shows that life is impossible... except for the fact that life exists.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

Your site linked above debunks itself, it doesn't prove evolution is impossible. We have seen evolution in the peppered moth or the Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks.
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896

legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
January 08, 2018, 02:44:36 PM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Cool

Nice copy paste, look I can do it too.
Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself.

But I showed a website that was backed up with references that are reasonably common knowledge. All you did was debunk yourself.

Cool

So what? Just because it posts a bunch of references doesn't mean it's true. I can post counter references to the references there too:

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

Means I'm right now.

Neither of your sites shows any proof for evolution. Nobody has ever seen evolution happening that they can prove is evolution. In fact, all the so-called evidences fit creation better. You sites debunk themselves, besides having nothing to do with the site that I linked above - http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/84-contra-atheism/512-probability-statistical-impossibility.html.

Evolution is impossible, partly because science shows that life is impossible... except for the fact that life exists.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
January 08, 2018, 02:38:56 PM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Cool

Nice copy paste, look I can do it too.
Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself.

But I showed a website that was backed up with references that are reasonably common knowledge. All you did was debunk yourself.

Cool

So what? Just because it posts a bunch of references doesn't mean it's true. I can post counter references to the references there too:

http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/

http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/

Means I'm right now.
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
January 08, 2018, 02:36:16 PM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Cool

Nice copy paste, look I can do it too.
Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself.

But I showed a website that was backed up with references that are reasonably common knowledge. All you did was debunk yourself.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
January 08, 2018, 02:34:16 PM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Cool

Nice copy paste, look I can do it too.
Your so-called argument isn't an argument. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of argument that only debunks itself.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1027
January 08, 2018, 02:33:48 PM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool

Space the universe is full of life it's teaming with life Grin..

Why do you think NASA fuzzy the screens Wink..
Show me a full video of the whole moons surface ..NO THEY WONT WILL THEY Wink Wink..

Hiding things you see..
Because poor little Badecker couldn't handle the TRUTH..

Also the way we kill each other no wonder they back off Wink..
Imagine they was 4 ft and we got their technology i thinks we would kill them Wink..

So maybe they back off ..
Or maybe no alien humanoid but a type of alien creature or intelligent creature..

But if i looked down and seen lets say AFRICA with the village burning the next village and killing everyone in it i thinks i would stay away ..

Creature flying around space that's for sure Wink..

BELIEVE IT OR NOT..It's up to YOU Grin..

SECRET SPACE: What Is NASA Hiding? - UFOs Are Real - FEATURE ...
Video for ufo tv what is nasa hiding▶ 1:26:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqN-KLOCS5k
24 Oct 2010 - Uploaded by UFOTV® The Disclosure Network
Featuring extraordinary NASA digital video footage of authentic space-based UFOs and strange anomalies ...
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
January 08, 2018, 02:32:08 PM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...

Your so-called debunking isn't debunking. It's just talk that doesn't have anything to back it up. That kind of debunking talk only debunks itself.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
January 08, 2018, 12:52:28 PM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


That's just a classic argument from fine tuning, debunked many times. regardless of the supposed odds, if they were really so unachievable, we wouldn’t be here contemplating the “miracle” of existence. It contradicts a previous creationist idea that the entire universe was created by a wise god to be fine-tuned FOR the human race (You said this plenty of the times in the other thread, how the universe was so perfect and blabla), but it seems the only location nearby Earth on which a human can survive is... none.
Moreover, no matter how unlikely an event is, once it occurs, the probability of it having happened is 1.

And maybe.. just maybe you only find this false information on creationists sites because, maybe... just maybe, they are against evolution. Who knows...
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
January 08, 2018, 11:58:34 AM
^^^ It's kinda a black mark against evolutionists when one has to go to a theist site to get information that evolutions won't publish, because they know that it destroys their evolution cult to have the world find out about it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 4046
Merit: 1389
January 08, 2018, 11:32:46 AM
Probability and Statistical Impossibility

But, as we came to learn more about the universe and about the miracle of life, science realized that the necessary components of life were not that simple. Sagan's original estimate of two necessary conditions was eventually raised to 10; a later revision in light of further discoveries stated there were 20 necessary conditions. By the turn of the 21st century, scientific advances had now set the number of necessary conditions for life at around 50, which of course drastically reduces the amount of potentially life-supporting planets in the universe. The one septillion potentially life-supporting planets of 1966 had by 2000 been reduced to only a few thousand. And with each discovery about the universe or biological life, those numbers are constantly being revised, further raising the number of conditions and reducing the amount of planets capable of supporting life.

By 2006, the estimates of the necessary conditions for life had risen so high that a representative of the SETI project wrote in the Skeptical Inquirer an article abjectly admitting that all earlier estimates of the statistical likelihood of finding extraterrestrial life "may no longer be tenable" and that expectations about finding a planet that could support life should be put to rest. [2]

In fact, as further conditions for supporting life continued to be discovered, the mathematical probability of there being any planets able to support life dropped to zero. The odds were against any planet supporting life - even this one. Today the list of parameters necessary to support life is around 200 and will probably keep growing in the near future.  As Metaxas says, "The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing" [3].

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
Pages:
Jump to: