Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Assertions are not proof, nor does any real evidence exist to support Seelke's beliefs.

     A not entirely bad idea is for some people to take a look in the mirror and to make that claim to the image.
    Let's take as an example you claim No.1 presented as 'evidence No.1': The aminoacids are simple chemistry (and not biochemistry, for example) and they are nothing different from the 'standard' chemical reactions (whatever that 'standard' might mean).
     The amino acids are neither simple (set of 'polimers'), nor chemistry. The chemical reactions are based either on minimizing the energy of the system by releasing the 'excessive' energy, or on absorption of the external energy, supplied to the system (of molecules) in order to achieve equilibrium. Besides that no chemical element and/or compound could replicate by following a code of a DNA sequence. The amino acids are not arranged to minimize the energy of the system, and are not split to absorb the energy from the outer world - otherwise we will replicate in every visit of the sauna ... and of the beach.

0 Replies

crystal clear indeed

Quote:

Don't let the evolutionist distract you. Talk about evolution, and try to make him talk about evolution.

The evolutionist will probably say that there is just too much evidence for him to present in the time allotted, when in fact, he doesn't have much evidence at all. What he does have is weak, and he knows it. That's why he will avoid presenting it at almost any cost. That's why it will be up to you to force the discussion. Make the evolutionist address the issue

lol, nothing new under the sun, eh fb?

0 Replies

How ******* true it all is!

Quote:

Evolutionists don't want any honest investigation of the theory of evolution. That's why they use the court system to keep any reference to the problems with the theory of evolution out of the public school science books. If the theory of evolution had nothing to hide, then evolutionists would not need the courts to protect it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Some tales make you smarter,
And some tales are just tall.
But the tales of evolution
Don’t make any sense at all.
Go ask Alice.
She has heard them all.

0 Replies

Well, well, well, well, well

Quote:

Scientific American says the theory of human evolution needs revision.
The cover of this month’s issue of Scientific American promised to be a “special evolution issue” about “Evolution, the human saga,” which tells “the remarkable 7-million-year story of us.” We strongly encourage you to run right out and buy the issue because it basically says that practically everything ever written about human evolution in the past is wrong.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/magazine/sa/2014/09-01/

Enough of this idiocy!!!!

Now wait for the people in the asylym ( evolutionists) to start screaming, defending, misqouting and what have you?

So! Now please stop with this evolution nonsense!!!!!

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
Where is your "******* EVIDENCE" that probability proves evolution can't occur?
If the count of all possible DNA sequences in human is 4^3 000 000 000, the probability of any one of these sequences to appear out of the big bang and out of the evolution of the stars from ground zero and by chance is 1 / 4^3 000 000 000. Of the same order is also the probability for the evolution to appear out of an alien bacteria without nitrogen and to start designing various species ... with nitrogen. If the dilemma is either God or the Evolution/Big Bang, why don't you follow this.
Let's designate the probability of an Intelligent Life Form (ILF) to have designed us as Pg, and for the evolution - Pe, then we have Pg + Pe = 1 (the emergence of new species is indisputable fact). So Pg = 1 - Pe = 1 - 1/4^3 000 000 000 ~ 1.
Hence, the probability for an Intelligent Life Form or Higher Universal Intellect or an Intellectual Continuum or some String Theory in the capacity of the 'Mind of God' ... or God Himself (called it as you like, and you may call it the Intelligent Designer, for example as well) is true, it is equal to 1 rounded down to the trillianth sign after the decimal point ... as a minimum. Absolute truth. The truth in its full glory.

So...you are saying that in an infinite and eternal universe (which this may be)...

...it is entirely possible...and even probable...that it happened by chance.

Right?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

If the count of all possible DNA sequences in human is 4^3 000 000 000, the probability of any one of these sequences to appear out of the big bang and out of the evolution of the stars from ground zero and by chance is 1 / 4^3 000 000 000.

Really? Where did you get that number? What assumptions did you make to get your number? Did you include all the atoms in the universe when you made the calculation? Did you assume all atoms could combine with any other atoms no matter what they were? Did you assume the atoms only had one chance to combine or did you assume they could combine at any time in the billions of years the universe has been in existence? Did you account for the energy in the universe that can be used to combine atoms?

Of course you fail to account for the simple fact that most of the heavy atoms in the universe did NOT come from the big bang but are created in stars. But let's forget your false assumption for the moment. I look forward to seeing your actual math and not your conclusion.

1 Reply

@parados,

Start reading scientific american of this month!

Evolution is gone, gone and bye bye!

Finally that ******* idiotic theory can be destroyed!!!!!

Make haste!!!

1 Reply

extremely funny to see evolutionists dodge the "Scientific American" issue of this month!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

It seems you can't read. Changes to ancestors in the evolution of a species doesn't change the theory of evolution.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

It seems you can't read. Changes to ancestors in the evolution of a species doesn't change the theory of evolution.

Ohh please mate! You haven't even read the issue!!!!!

Buy and read, buy and read!!

Then destroy evolution to its core!

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

I would suggest you haven't read the issue if you think this story says that evolution is debunked.

Feel free to quote the exact part of the article that you think debunks evolution.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald, you haven't demonstrated that P(existence of a god) is anything other than zero, among other flaws in your argument, And P(existence of one specific strand of human DNA existing) is in NO sense the same as P(life originating from laws of physics) which is what you SHOULD be calculating. If it were within your capability, which it is not.
In short, that is probably the stupidest misuse of probability and statistics I've ever seen

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Which article in "Scientific American" do you think disproves evolution, quahog?
I looked it up online, where they give precises of the articles.
Is it the one where they talk about new advances in duplicating the chemistry of prebiotic life?

Quote:

New Steps Shown Toward Creation of Life by Electric Charge

Or the one entitled "No, Humans have Not Stopped Evolving"?

THEY think evolution is what's happening They don't seem to agree with you. Why is that, I wonder?

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

The only time I'll ever question evolution, is when I apply its implications to people like you.

1 Reply

@One Eyed Mind,

Quote:

The only time I'll ever question evolution, is when I apply its implications to people like you.

Isn't it time this one gets banned?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

In short, that is probably the stupidest misuse ...

Why don't you prove it. Prove that the number of all possible (actually we don't know whether all of them are possible) DNA sequences is something else. Or you may try to prove that the 'gravitional continuum' at whatever temperature is able to 'create' amino-acids. The probability method by which you want to make calculations has never been proved to be even plausible (working in theory, as a formal math model), let alone feasible (can create the things it is claiming that it has made). If your theory about life-just-happening-throughout-the-Universe is true, we should have observed various life forms in various places throughout the whole Universe ... or at least their 'radio-channels' and 'TV shows'. Where are they?
Besides that I have reasonable ground to believe that the masterminds of the evolution don't understand anything of what they are talking about. They don't have any single process that can make any DNA sequence. They simply don't know how it is happening. If they knew the processes we should have had by now technology for cloning own teeth and doing auto-implants, for example. We should have some brand new species designed in a laboratory - and I am not talking about the hybridization of the existing species and pumping a buffalo with steroids ... and prohibited for human use antibiotics. Something brand new, created from ground zero.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

To rid life, is to rob life from others. One can grow tired of life, but others may not. Life does not revolve around you. I would never ban or take someone away from others because of my own insecurity.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

So...you are saying that in an infinite and eternal universe (which this may be)... ...it is entirely possible...and even probable...that it happened by chance. Right?

No, I am not saying that. You don't have even the slightest idea of what that number 4^3 000 000 000 is, do you? Just for comparison - the number of the particles in the known Universe is calculated by some physicists to be 2^300. Do you know what does that mean? It means that the number of the possibilities for our DNA sequence is incomparably huge in terms of the number of particles in the Universe. Your fellow evolutionists advised me to use 2^200 instead of 4^3 000 000 000 ... not that it has any significance to the results of the inference.
Why don't you tell us why you believe in the evolution. You neither know whether the processes driving the live and the appearance of various species on the Earth are based on/driving the evolution, nor even whether these processes are directly observable or detectable ... or we are missing the observation tools and methods that can detect them ... or perhaps even the granting of the access to get knowing them ... for they obviously exist.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Why don't you prove it. Prove that the number of all possible (actually we don't know whether all of them are possible) DNA sequences is something else.

That is completely asinine on your part. The number of human DNA sequences currently on earth is NOT the same thing as the number of possible DNA sequences in the entire universe for the time the universe has existed.

MJ is correct. It is a stupid misuse of statistics on your part.

Quote:

The probability method by which you want to make calculations has never been proved to be even plausible (working in theory, as a formal math model), let alone feasible (can create the things it is claiming that it has made)

Actually, the probability theory I use has proven plausible. The odds of one particular person winning the lottery are very high but that doesn't mean no one wins the lottery. The same statistics play out when it comes to DNA and humans. The odds of evolution creating humans are astronomical but the odds that evolution creates new species are low. Just because humans are the lucky lottery winner out of the quintillions of other possible winners doesn't mean we didn't evolve. It only means you are misusing the statistics.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know