Pages:
Author

Topic: The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution (Read 1919 times)

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
August 17, 2017, 03:24:46 PM
#42
Yeah, you only need to get old to realize nothing your body does is "Intelligently Designed". You start to see the random chance a lot faster when everything isn't unicorn farts and participation trophies.

Cause and effect shows that nothing operates by chance at all. Everything is programmed.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
As Richard Dawkins says, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

 Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Can you show where he made this quote? I don't think he ever said that.

This is a misconception of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Google it. Various websites show it. Doesn't make it true, however.

Cool
full member
Activity: 938
Merit: 137
Scientists are also convinced that in the process of evolution a person can only lose positive qualities and functions, and not multiply them. As for Darwin's theory of natural selection, it is completely untenable. The probability of its existence is compared with the probability of creating a new type of aircraft hurricane, which flies into the cemetery is old
full member
Activity: 322
Merit: 122
Hello World!
Yeah, you only need to get old to realize nothing your body does is "Intelligently Designed". You start to see the random chance a lot faster when everything isn't unicorn farts and participation trophies.
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
This is the last place i expected this creationism cool aid.  I though cryptoheads were supposed to be science nerds.  You know rational with deductive reasoning.  How did this slip through the cracks?
I am definitely a science nerd, I learned all that I could about abiogenesis and came to my own conclusions. Instead of accepting what my professors told me I chose to do research.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
This is the last place i expected this creationism cool aid.  I though cryptoheads were supposed to be science nerds.  You know rational with deductive reasoning.  How did this slip through the cracks?
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
The origin of life indicates the existence of a life force. An outside variable is necessary to account for the scientific model of abiogenesis.

The Improbability of Abiogenesis:
https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html

Abiogenesis is falsifiable with these statistics, there has to be an additional factor that caused the impossible transformation.
full member
Activity: 197
Merit: 100
As Richard Dawkins says, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

 Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Can you show where he made this quote? I don't think he ever said that.

This is a misconception of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
As Richard Dawkins says, "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

 Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
In this thread are many empirical observations and we should all think rationally about them, each one holds a clue to life on earth.

Who in this thread also thinks that their theory may be wrong? A rational thinker will not rest in the belief that s/he already knows everything s/he needs to know, but if something is wrong with an idea s/he will specifically state the problem. We are all here to learn.

I am also here to give a voice for Intervention Theory; it is an alternative to Creationism and Darwinism.

I will admit that Intervention Theory may be wrong, but my attempts to discuss the details with others in this thread have failed precisely because others will not admit to the same about their own theories. Others in this thread think that their theory alone is factual, but a theory is just a rational explanation of observations, and if your explanation does not plausibly fit the observations that I am presenting, then mine is obviously more rational by definition.

Who are you to say that you are more rational than me if you cannot even make your theory fit my observations? I think that my theory is superior but you do not need to conclude GOD, you just need to conclude that you don't know everything yet:

The A-s strangely assume that those who believe in God believe in a fairy tale. It’s a postulation they arrogantly consider themselves qualified to make as if they have mastered the totality of knowledge of life and of the Universe – an intellectual hypocrisy they deem to be nowhere near as bad as the supposed fallacy of the believers’ blind faith. Yet they sanctimoniously use said blind faith in their own God Complex or their Know-it-all Syndrome to appoint themselves as the new gods and unseat the true God whom they pompously declare to be either dead or non-existent. It’s their equivalent of a coup d’état.

Hence they rebuff everything and anything that have to do with the Almighty. They have developed a fantasy – in many cases a hatred – that can only be explained thus:

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” Psalm 14:1

They actually fool themselves to believe there’s no God by adhering to cockamamy theories like the Theory of Evolution (see how we destroy that nonsense here) and the Big (bada-bing-bada) Bang Theory, which they want humanity to believe are facts when in reality they’re just that, theories (i.e., unproved assumptions or conjectures).

I will link Pye's essay again because I think the domesticated plants are a powerful example:
However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.

Of course, "miracle" implies that there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because, in each case, in each area, someone actually had to look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.

Also take a look at: 'More Rational Than Thou', an open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, it discusses "three remaining mysteries in evolution" listed by Dawkins.

The math behind evolution is far from the only example of biological studies failing to be complete and thorough.


Keep entropy in mind when you read this, and consider what our ancient ancestors might have been able to do.


Changing Our DNA through Mind Control?

A study finds meditating cancer patients are able to affect the makeup of their DNA

...

In Carlson’s study distressed breast cancer survivors were divided into three groups. The first group was randomly assigned to an 8-week cancer recovery program consisting of mindfulness meditation and yoga; the second to 12-weeks of group therapy in which they shared difficult emotions and fostered social support; and the third was a control group, receiving just a 6-hour stress management course. A total of 88 women completed the study and had their blood analyzed for telomere length before and after the interventions. Telomeres were maintained in both treatment groups but shortened in controls.

...


Cool
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
In this thread are many empirical observations and we should all think rationally about them, each one holds a clue to life on earth.

Who in this thread also thinks that their theory may be wrong? A rational thinker will not rest in the belief that s/he already knows everything s/he needs to know, but if something is wrong with an idea s/he will specifically state the problem. We are all here to learn.

I am also here to give a voice for Intervention Theory; it is an alternative to Creationism and Darwinism.

I will admit that Intervention Theory may be wrong, but my attempts to discuss the details with others in this thread have failed precisely because others will not admit to the same about their own theories. Others in this thread think that their theory alone is factual, but a theory is just a rational explanation of observations, and if your explanation does not plausibly fit the observations that I am presenting, then mine is obviously more rational by definition.

Who are you to say that you are more rational than me if you cannot even make your theory fit my observations? I think that my theory is superior but you do not need to conclude GOD, you just need to conclude that you don't know everything yet:

The A-s strangely assume that those who believe in God believe in a fairy tale. It’s a postulation they arrogantly consider themselves qualified to make as if they have mastered the totality of knowledge of life and of the Universe – an intellectual hypocrisy they deem to be nowhere near as bad as the supposed fallacy of the believers’ blind faith. Yet they sanctimoniously use said blind faith in their own God Complex or their Know-it-all Syndrome to appoint themselves as the new gods and unseat the true God whom they pompously declare to be either dead or non-existent. It’s their equivalent of a coup d’état.

Hence they rebuff everything and anything that have to do with the Almighty. They have developed a fantasy – in many cases a hatred – that can only be explained thus:

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” Psalm 14:1

They actually fool themselves to believe there’s no God by adhering to cockamamy theories like the Theory of Evolution (see how we destroy that nonsense here) and the Big (bada-bing-bada) Bang Theory, which they want humanity to believe are facts when in reality they’re just that, theories (i.e., unproved assumptions or conjectures).

I will link Pye's essay again because I think the domesticated plants are a powerful example:
However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.

Of course, "miracle" implies that there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because, in each case, in each area, someone actually had to look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.

Also take a look at: 'More Rational Than Thou', an open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, it discusses "three remaining mysteries in evolution" listed by Dawkins.

The math behind evolution is far from the only example of biological studies failing to be complete and thorough.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
I'll just leave this here in case anybody's seeking some light reading: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/

I like to go the simple route.

I never before realized that God went the simple route when He created the universe with all its mind-boggling complexity.

Just think how great the New Heavens and New Earth are going to be... a place where God is putting a little thought into the whole new thing.

Cool
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
I'll just leave this here in case anybody's seeking some light reading: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/
Good reading.

But what about the empirical, observational challenges to BOTH Creationism and Darwinism as described in Pye's essay? I have not seen a plausible refutation for those.
vip
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1145
I'll just leave this here in case anybody's seeking some light reading: http://www.darwinsmaths.com/
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
Lol wow didn't expect to find creationism retardation on this forum

Intervention Theory is an alternative to Creationism and Darwinism, and its explanatory power is superior to both.
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
My advice is to have more rational ideas.

How so? I am still waiting on you to rationally engage with these ideas; so far no discussion of domesticated plants.

How can you say you are rational if you won't think clearly and intelligently assess these new ideas when they are presented?  Huh
full member
Activity: 157
Merit: 100
Lol wow didn't expect to find creationism retardation on this forum
sr. member
Activity: 432
Merit: 251
––Δ͘҉̀░░
My advice is to have more rational ideas.
hero member
Activity: 636
Merit: 505
You (criptix) cannot admit that Darwinism might be wrong.
Creationists cannot admit that Creationism might be wrong.
I will admit that Intervention might be wrong. I am ready to discuss the facts.
I would not expect to have a rational discussion with someone who can only laugh at the ideas presented here.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
What do you need a church for? Use some critical thinking; I posted some great links in this thread. Welcome!

Your links are total shit
How so? Waiting on you to rationally engage with these ideas.

Your links are just concatenation of scientific words without meaning behind. Like one of this bot created papers.
The links are just science fiction without science Lol
Pages:
Jump to: