Not only is probability math science law, but it is one of the foundational pieces of physics in the universe. Probability math, alone, shows us that evolution is impossible.
Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.
The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.
False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25]
This simply shows that most scientists have not deeply considered probability math. In fact, most scientists probably have not deeply considered evolution, but simply have accepted the conclusions of fellow scientists, often without even meeting or knowing those fellow scientists.Can you win the lottery if you are only 1 in 10 million people playing? Yes, you can. The odds are that you won't.
The odds against evolution is so great that ... forget it.
False, if that was the case no scientist would support evolution:
''1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[23] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[24][25]
You keep mentioning probability math. What is your point, what probability are you talking about?
The thing we were talking about is evolution. What are the odds that the atoms and molecules that make up a simple living cell could come together in just the right places to form what a living cell would be? The odds against this happening even once are literally impossible.
Add to this the proper motions for each and every atom and molecule so that the cell can be alive, and you have another big impossibility.
Add to this the fact that any "soup" that we can envision that would allow the above to happen, would immediately kill the new living cell. This means that the cell would have to be ejected from the soup at exactly the time it formed and became alive. This is another impossibility.
But, if the above happened, it would have to happen over and over each time there was an advancement in the cell, to the next level of evolution.
The probability math odds against this happening even once are so strong that it is impossible, and impossible, and impossible, beyond any chance of a possibility. Do the math.
you sir are so willfully phucking ignorant it is beyond comprehension.
for chrissakes get outta your delusional echo chamber .and do some research on these subjects you crow about.
oh no wait a minute never mind..you wont listen to the real science. you got yer fingers in your ears if it goes against your retarded fairy tale beliefs.
Well, do the math. The smallest possible living cell would have at least 200 molecules. What are the odds that these 200 molecules of different varieties and substances could ever come together to form a cell? It is essentially impossible. But if they did, they would still have to move into the right motions to make the cell alive.
How in the world ignorant are you? The 200-molecule cell would barely be alive, because cells that small are specialized for a specific job. In nature the cell would have to be a whole lot larger, and the odds against its coming together a whole lot greater.
You evolutionists are so dense that it amazes one how you can even live without riding a bicycle all the time:
You see, you keep showing how ignorant you are, evolution does not try to determine how the first cell or how life was created, you obviously do not understand evolution at all, thanks for clarifying that.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
The first cell would be the easiest. You're only going down hill with further cells. That simply shows that people are devolving... at least the ones who think that evolution is real.
No, stop it, stop embarrassing yourself, evolution has nothing to do with cells forming. How can you be so ignorant about it?
Peppered moth - This moth had a light coloring darkened after the Industrial Revolution, due to the pollution of the time. This mutation came about because the light colored moths were seen by birds more readily, so with natural selection, the dark colored moths survived to reproduce.
Italian Wall Lizards - These lizards were taken to an island and left there to see any changes that occurred. They shifted their diet and ate more vegetation, causing a change to their head size, giving them a stronger bite. They also developed cecal valves in their intestine which gives bacteria more time to break down the vegetation.
2 Easy examples of evolution for you so you can understand what it is about. It has nothing to do with probability math or cells forming, please inform yourself before talking because it's going to make you look stupid.
Cause and effect has to do with everything. This means that all natural transformations are essentially programmed in. We simply don't understand the programming because it is so extremely complex. More than likely it ties into dimensions that we know very little about yet... and dimensions that we couldn't hold enough of the knowledge in our minds at once, so that we could even envision them vaguely.
The evolution you talk about is only the recent understanding of the word "evolution." And it is not an all-inclusive understanding. There are many people who still hold that abiogenesis is part of evolution, and that "evolution" includes abiogenesis, and many more things that you have left out of your explanation of what evolution means.
Im sorry but you keep saying we simply don't understand it, then how is it that YOU understand it? If you say something is not understood how can you claim it's true? You realize the logic fallacy, right? - Are you trying to be funny? First, who is the we? Second, if anyone says it is not so, they have suggested that they don't understand it. It isn't me stating that you don't understand it. At least not until after you suggested it. Third, who says that it is not understood? I understand it. There are lots of things that some people understand while others don't. This doesn't make them to be not true. However, if this is the extent of your ability to think, it is easy to see why you don't understand.
And no abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. ''Many people'' hold that abiogenesis is? Who are these people? I would like you to show them to us and tell us if they are scientists. - Before the word "abiogenesis" was used in standard everyday life, that which it encompasses was considered to be part of evolution by almost everyone.
Stop evading the questions, you clearly didn't understand how evolution works. - Not only doesn't evolution "work," but it has been proven to be impossible for several reasons. I have listed some of them in this thread, already.
And yes cause and effect, if you actually read what I posted you would understand: ''Peppered moth - This moth had a light coloring darkened after the Industrial Revolution, due to the pollution of the time''
The cause is the pollution, you get it? That ''transformation'' was not programmed in, it was not God, it was just a mutation due to environmental causes.
God set everything in place according to cause and effect... even the cause and effect that made the pollution. But don't blame God for pollution. He only acted according to the request of people, many of whom didn't even know that they were requesting.
First of all, this is not a reply to you, Badecker, so I do not expect a reply from you. This is me proving how stupid you are and discrediting your idiotic persona as much as possible. Even if you do reply, I do not give a tiny fuck about what you say anymore.
First, Badecker said : 'We simply don't understand the programming because it is so extremely complex.' to which Astargath replied with 'Im sorry but you keep saying we simply don't understand it, then how is it that YOU understand it? If you say something is not understood how can you claim it's true? You realize the logic fallacy, right?'. What comes next is a bit shocking because we rarely see people that get so stupid while trying to scientifically prove something: Badecker replied to Artargath with this ' - Are you trying to be funny? First, who is the we? Second, if anyone says it is not so, they have suggested that they don't understand it. It isn't me stating that you don't understand it. At least not until after you suggested it. Third, who says that it is not understood? I understand it. There are lots of things that some people understand while others don't. This doesn't make them to be not true. However, if this is the extent of your ability to think, it is easy to see why you don't understand.. Let us analyze for a second: first, Badecker said we don't understand the programming. The same Badecker then asked who is the we, which proves that he barely knows what is coming out of his primitive brain. He actually stated something and then asked what was that about. After that, Badecker claims that if someone says something is not in a certain way, he suggests that he does not understand it. Logic failure example: if someone states that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist that actually means that the person is just suggesting he does not understand it. After that Badecker denied the fact that he stated that Astargath does not understand it...although he just did say that about all of us. Right after that he asks who said it is not understood proving to us again how stupid he is and not realizing that he just said it is not understood. Next thing, he claims he understands it, basically doing exactly what Astargath said he was doing, the logic fallacy. Later on, Badecker went full retard by stating evolution doesn't work not knowing parts of the evolution are now used even in computer technology, the very thing that he is typing from, which means it actually works. Not to talk about medicine and other science that uses the principles of evolution successfully. But hey, you can't expect to see butterflies coming out of a piece of shit, can you? Another thing to notice is this: Badecker is part of the apologist idiots who say that they can not trust in evolution because 'evolution theory is still a theory because blah blah blah'...but they believe in God, which is not even at the level of theory, it's a myth, it's primitive science fiction. Logic fallacy again. This is how Badecker ended: 'God set everything in place according to cause and effect... even the cause and effect that made the pollution. But don't blame God for pollution. He only acted according to the request of people, many of whom didn't even know that they were requesting.'. God is the cause and everything we know is the effect, he says, even the pollution. But he is not responsible for the pollution, people are...although he is the cause. However, he only acted at the request of people, even though when he created everything there were no people, but somehow he predicted their request which was not really a request because people did not know they were requesting. In conclusion, God is the cause of pollution but he is not responsible because some people who were also an effect of God were requesting while not knowing they were requesting it. If there would have been a prize for the most insanely stupid person alive at the moment, I would hands down hand it to Badecker. This brainless creature tries to bring 'scientific proof' for God and he actually demands that we take it seriously. That is the effect of religion on some people, mostly dumb ones. I bet that if you give him a gun and the 'legal' right to shoot those who do not believe in his God, he would immediately slaughter at least as much as any islamic terrorist does. Thank you for your time and remember: Badecker is as stupid as a pineapple covered slice of pizza, there is no way he could ever scientifically prove anything. Stay tuned for more soon.
