Well, this god or gods have never made their existence known to me to my best knowledge and all i have as to their supposed existence is from others, which on closer scrutiny have it from still others and so on. So, it all sounds like hearsay to me.
Which leads me to believe that either there are no gods at all or there possibly is some god or gods or super force above it all only it has never had any reason or will or whatever to make its existence known to me or anybody else. Ever.
Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 191. (Read 845650 times)
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.
^^^^^ However, proof that God exists gives you a firm foundation for your faith.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
If there would ever be proof of God, you would not need faith anymore, it would be fact. But your car example is absolutely delicious, regarding the fact that number one is science and number two is God. However, the sad truth is that most people choose number two. What I also observed is the subtle propaganda: 'Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air?' - Why did you specifically ask this? Is there anyone who can make cars appear using his faith? Is it possible for people to do this? Could faith ever get strong enough to make things appear out of nothing? If yes, can you prove it?
Okay. One more time. Does Horacewoodwood exist? Since the only things that we know about Horacewoodwood are things that show up in this forum, we have to say, "YES." Whatever Horacewoodwood is outside and off this forum, who knows? But because he responds in this forum, we know for a fact that he exists. It is a fact, and the evidence is the forum and his posts.
The next thing we have to ask is, do we believe in Horacewoodwood? The answer is maybe. Why maybe? Because some of the things that Horacewoodwood says match reality (at least as we know it), and some don't. Because of this, we can't say that we believe for sure in Horacewoodwood, even though we know for a fact that he exists.
My bad. Horacewoodwood doesn't exist. It's his dog that has been posting all this while.
P.S. That would still make my dog more intelligent than you.
^^^^^ However, proof that God exists gives you a firm foundation for your faith.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
If there would ever be proof of God, you would not need faith anymore, it would be fact. But your car example is absolutely delicious, regarding the fact that number one is science and number two is God. However, the sad truth is that most people choose number two. What I also observed is the subtle propaganda: 'Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air?' - Why did you specifically ask this? Is there anyone who can make cars appear using his faith? Is it possible for people to do this? Could faith ever get strong enough to make things appear out of nothing? If yes, can you prove it?
Okay. One more time. Does Horacewoodwood exist? Since the only things that we know about Horacewoodwood are things that show up in this forum, we have to say, "YES." Whatever Horacewoodwood is outside and off this forum, who knows? But because he responds in this forum, we know for a fact that he exists. It is a fact, and the evidence is the forum and his posts.
The next thing we have to ask is, do we believe in Horacewoodwood? The answer is maybe. Why maybe? Because some of the things that Horacewoodwood says match reality (at least as we know it), and some don't. Because of this, we can't say that we believe for sure in Horacewoodwood, even though we know for a fact that he exists.
My bad. Horacewoodwood doesn't exist. It's his dog that has been posting all this while.
Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.
It is a law of science that a simple theory is more plausible than a complicated one. Another law is that a plausible theory must adequately address the entire body of evidence. What is the plausible and simple theory/explanation for the 40 cases from AECES? Answer: Survival of the personality.
I perceive that non-survival explanations given by you are neither adequate, nor simple.
I'm sorry, but how did you link your answer with my post which was about Badecker? I need some time to read all those cases, research and give you my opinion on them, so you have no answer from me, yet you replied to my post about Badecker as if it were my opinion on that matter.
Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.
It is a law of science that a simple theory is more plausible than a complicated one. Another law is that a plausible theory must adequately address the entire body of evidence. What is the plausible and simple theory/explanation for the 40 cases from AECES? Answer: Survival of the personality.
I perceive that non-survival explanations given by you are neither adequate, nor simple.
^^^^^ However, proof that God exists gives you a firm foundation for your faith.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
If there would ever be proof of God, you would not need faith anymore, it would be fact. But your car example is absolutely delicious, regarding the fact that number one is science and number two is God. However, the sad truth is that most people choose number two. What I also observed is the subtle propaganda: 'Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air?' - Why did you specifically ask this? Is there anyone who can make cars appear using his faith? Is it possible for people to do this? Could faith ever get strong enough to make things appear out of nothing? If yes, can you prove it?
Okay. One more time. Does Horacewoodwood exist? Since the only things that we know about Horacewoodwood are things that show up in this forum, we have to say, "YES." Whatever Horacewoodwood is outside and off this forum, who knows? But because he responds in this forum, we know for a fact that he exists. It is a fact, and the evidence is the forum and his posts.
The next thing we have to ask is, do we believe in Horacewoodwood? The answer is maybe. Why maybe? Because some of the things that Horacewoodwood says match reality (at least as we know it), and some don't. Because of this, we can't say that we believe for sure in Horacewoodwood, even though we know for a fact that he exists.
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.
^^^^^ However, proof that God exists gives you a firm foundation for your faith.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
If there would ever be proof of God, you would not need faith anymore, it would be fact. But your car example is absolutely delicious, regarding the fact that number one is science and number two is God. However, the sad truth is that most people choose number two. What I also observed is the subtle propaganda: 'Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air?' - Why did you specifically ask this? Is there anyone who can make cars appear using his faith? Is it possible for people to do this? Could faith ever get strong enough to make things appear out of nothing? If yes, can you prove it?
Okay. One more time. Does Horacewoodwood exist? Since the only things that we know about Horacewoodwood are things that show up in this forum, we have to say, "YES." Whatever Horacewoodwood is outside and off this forum, who knows? But because he responds in this forum, we know for a fact that he exists. It is a fact, and the evidence is the forum and his posts.
The next thing we have to ask is, do we believe in Horacewoodwood? The answer is maybe. Why maybe? Because some of the things that Horacewoodwood says match reality (at least as we know it), and some don't. Because of this, we can't say that we believe for sure in Horacewoodwood, even though we know for a fact that he exists.
^^^^^ However, proof that God exists gives you a firm foundation for your faith.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
If there would ever be proof of God, you would not need faith anymore, it would be fact. But your car example is absolutely delicious, regarding the fact that number one is science and number two is God. However, the sad truth is that most people choose number two. What I also observed is the subtle propaganda: 'Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air?' - Why did you specifically ask this? Is there anyone who can make cars appear using his faith? Is it possible for people to do this? Could faith ever get strong enough to make things appear out of nothing? If yes, can you prove it?
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.
If bible, koran, torah and other holy scriptures are wrong this will not prove that there is no God. If there is a God there is no way we can prove his existence if he don't want to. Our civilization is still very young, still many things we cannot explained.
^^^^^ However, proof that God exists gives you a firm foundation for your faith.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
Imagine that you want a new car. Is your faith strong enough that, poof, the car will exist, right in your driveway, out of thin air? Probably not. But which would be easier to have faith for?:
1. a Ford Mustang just like the one down at the dealer?;
2. a new type of car, that you can't even envision because it has never been made, and nobody knows what it looks like, not even you?
While we could debate the car thing a bit, the point is that when you know that God exists, you have a firm foundation for believing what He says. You have a firm foundation for your faith in what He says. Your foundation is God, Himself, and the knowledge that He exists.
As for me I don't belive in God, neither in any esoteric nonsense. But I fully understand the conception of a religon that's based on the faith alone and requires no evidence or proves.
This seems to be a ligit answer. You really don't have to ask a religion person of proves because the only thing he has is the faith and you both know it.
As for me I don't belive in God, neither in any esoteric nonsense. But I fully understand the conception of a religon that's based on the faith alone and requires no evidence or proves.
God definitely exists as no human being is not being able to handle this whole nature. Nature exists due to God or we can say that nature is god.
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:
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:
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.
Badecker is a religious fanatic, of course he would deny evolution. He believes himself to be some kind of renowned scientist, he reinterprets and redefines scientific laws, he believes in God but he is not religious, he is a God himself as he knows God's will, he understands how God is and he is also kind to forgive us for our blasphemy. He might also talk to God and save us from his wrath if we maybe say that he is right and the rest of the world as we know it is not. He does with science the same that he does with his religion. He claims in its name but denies it. Some might say he is full of himself but I have to disagree. He is not full of himself. He is full of shit.
Horacewoodwood is a religious fanatic. He comes to a science thread like this one, and all he can do is talk religion.
It is easy to make a scientific determination that your talk is religious. All we need do is take a scientific look at the things that you say.
Jump to: