Why do people deny evolution?

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote mining is a practice in which honesty is subverted and unconnected phrses are linked together to sound like a scientist is refuting his or her studied opinion. We can call Dr Rup together and see what he would say bout these creationist douche bgs who manipulate copy to create flase representations of scientific opinions

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote mining is a practice in which honesty is subverted and unconnected phrses are linked together to sound like a scientist is refuting his or her studied opinion. We can call Dr Rup together and see what he would say bout these creationist douche bgs who manipulate copy to create flase representations of scientific opinions

Oh, man o man, in the time that you wrote your little text you could have used that time to

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!

Come on mate, WALK THE TALK, or you are really braindead!!!!

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

I have all ready done that. The core of the problem is that evolutionst think that the longer the time is, the higher the changes, but it is not true. The longer the time the lesser the change! This is because you can't just add chances but have to multiply them.

And that is complete nonsense from you.

Let's say we have a six sided die and roll it 10 times. What are the odds we will get 2 sixes in a row during those 10 rolls.
Now lets roll the die 1000 times. What are the odds we will get 2 sixes in a row during those 1000 rolls?
Your argument is that the likelihood of 2 sixes in a row is less if you roll the die 1000 times. I would love to see your math to prove it.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Okay, quehog, prove to us that the three main pieces of evidence for evolution are not true/factual.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution/

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Why don't you print the entire quotes of those folks you've just planted here.
You are engaging in the act of quote mining, not I.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Let's say we have a six sided die and roll it 10 times. What are the odds we will get 2 sixes in a row during those 10 rolls.
Now lets roll the die 1000 times. What are the odds we will get 2 sixes in a row during those 1000 rolls?
Your argument is that the likelihood of 2 sixes in a row is less if you roll the die 1000 times. I would love to see your math to prove it.

You just showed me again you don't understand the link between statistics and evolution at all.!

Go and look up: Stochastic Independence within statistics.

You can see it even simpler, assume you can add changes, So we add P(1) and (P2) etc etc etc.
So the total change P(x)=P(1)+P(2)+P(3) etc.

Now assume the changes are all the same P(t)=0,01 in wicht t=1,2,3 etc
Now if we add these changes , and if there is plenty of time, the change will become higher then 1, an impossibility.
You, see, we have to multiply these changes. P(1) x P(2) etc etc
and with each Pt) the changes are diminshed because we multiply numbers
smaller then one! Hence, the more years the less the change!

So, also here, evolution is impossible!

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Why don't you print the entire quotes of those folks you've just planted here.
You are engaging in the act of quote mining, not I.

Are you really this idiotic???

BUT I AKS AGAIN

SHOW ME THE ******* EVIDENCE

WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, MATE??????????????????????????????

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Of all the quotes you "presented" the neqest one was Raup's , of which I have hown you was debunked by Raup himself.
Your others range from quotes from 1930 to 1964.
ARE YOU SHITTING ME? TRY SOMETHING FROM THIS CENTURY

When Clark's quote was made, the laws that governed the NO_TEACHING of evolution in cschools was still in effect in the several states of the US

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Of all the quotes you "presented" the neqest one was Raup's , of which I have hown you was debunked by Raup himself.
Your others range from quotes from 1930 to 1964.
ARE YOU SHITTING ME? TRY SOMETHING FROM THIS CENTURY

When Clark's quote was made, the laws that governed the NO_TEACHING of evolution in cschools was still in effect in the several states of the US

YAWWWWWWWWN

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you do that we are finished, but because you don't I have to assume now you can't!!!!

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

youre paraphrasing Haldanes bio"statistical" mistake. Can you anwer where Haldane went wrong Quahog?

Where did you **** up with your "misquoting" Clark??
Ill give you an opportunity to wipe up after yourself.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

When anyone refuses current information on 'anything,' it only proves they're digging deeper into their own ignorance. I wonder why everybody today knows that planet earth isn't flat.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quhog admitted that he doesn't read anything he doesn't agree with. That's the difference.
Even Clark had some things to say despite being almost 85 years behind the times. Where he fucked up wasthat Clarks pet "theory" haD all organisms arising from separate "germ stocks" (No common ancestry). Then everything evolved on its way. (Clrk had no clue about the genome let alone individual genes and their functions). I would imagine that, when Clark would be presented with the facts, he probably would have changed his ideas .

Quahog wont read this so he wont know how incorrect his quote was

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

You make the most basic mistake of statistics. Your probabilities don't add up to 1.

Quote:

You, see, we have to multiply these changes. P(1) x P(2) etc etc
and with each Pt) the changes are diminshed because we multiply numbers
smaller then one!

Yes, but that is assuming that only 1 outcome is allowed and only one attempt is made. Evolution does no such thing.

Quote:

Hence, the more years the less the change!

Silly statement since DNA doesn't have years as a variable. What does happen over more years is there are more attempts. The more attempts the more likely an outcome will be achieved simply because there are more chances for it to occur.

So, let's look at stochastic variables such as a lottery. I think we can say that each number draw is independent of the previous number. If there are 60 numbers, the first number has a chance of 1/60, the second 1/59, the third 1/58 etc. We would multiple those together to get the chance of a particular number sequence occurring. But like in evolution, a winner is not restricted to only one sequence. The winner can be any combination of numbers or DNA. The outcome of all possible sequences must equal 1.

Now, based on stochastic Independence, tell us how no one has ever won the lottery because you think the more people that play reduces the chances of anyone winning. I find it rather humorous when you do that.

3 Replies

@parados,

bada bing

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Silly statement since DNA doesn't have years as a variable. What does happen over more years is there are more attempts. The more attempts the more likely an outcome will be achieved simply because there are more chances for it to occur.

wrong! again! Jesus! Buy a statistics book of sorts! please!!!!!

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Now, based on stochastic Independence, tell us how no one has ever won the lottery because you think the more people that play reduces the chances of anyone winning. I find it rather humorous when you do that.

O boy o boy, I am NOT talking about more people playing!
Please get educated into statistics or leave this one alone!!!

0 Replies

AND ALL THIS TIME STIL NO EVIDENCE IS SHOWN!

WHY?

WHY?

WHY??

THIS REALLY PROVES YOU CAN'T

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

The expansion of variables of DNA as time expands has nothing to do with Statistics. It has to do with Biology.

0 Replies

And how about this:

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

I am sure religious evolutionist will find a twist!!!! They are soo religious, the have too!

0 Replies

The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know