Why do people deny evolution?

@OldGrumpy,

This has absolutely no relation to reality. For one thing, DNA has only four letters, not 26 (and English does not even hasve 267 letters as he contends. His math is completely bogus. His initiasl premises bear no relation to snything in the real world, past or present.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

well, as I sad earlier, let's do it here

what are the changes for a mutation?

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

/thflas dichotomy between randomness and design. He's projecting human constructs s if they were universal. They're not. The structure of matter is such that certain things ca happen, and certain ones can't. Cetrain chemical reactions will hppen, others won't. There is no indication there is a designer involved, and he
s arguing from religious [rinciples th at FTER 4000 YEARS OF HUMn argumentation still have ABSOLUTYNO CONCRETE PROOF.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

" ABSOLUTYNO CONCRETE PROOF."

Like evil-lotionists eh?! They have a huge shortage of it!

Now, what are the changes for a mutation?

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

WHATEVER YOU THINK THAT QUESTION MEANS, IT DOESN'T. Try rephrasing it.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

" ABSOLUTYNO CONCRETE PROOF."

Like evil-lotionists eh?! They have a huge shortage of it!

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

They're not evil. They just have no proof other thsan just-so stories, leadfoot in particular with his most recent post.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I didn't say they were!
And mostly , but not all, of their arguments are way better then wat evil-lotionists have, namely nothing.

Now, what are the changes for a mutation?

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

That question is meaningless to anyone who speaks English. If you are talking asbout the CHANCES for a mutation, they are quite good. Drinking coffee can cause them. So can radiation, mistranscription, any number of other things. What do you thik "changes" means? ASnd you repeatedly use "devil" for evolution.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

ok my bad, I ment in a mathematical way, so, as you say

"If you are talking asbout the CHANCES for a mutation, they are quite good."

But then, quite good isn't a number. Can you give a number?

and btw are you aware that ALL the mutations you mention are negative??

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

The number of mutations obviously varies, depending on hwat the individual experiences. Ther have been studies of individual mutation loads, and they turned out surprisingly high. I don't have them on the tip of my tongue. And mutations are NOT all negative, false conclusion. Most have no detectable effect. They're neutral. Some prove to be feneficial. Somre certainly are negative. It is estimated that about a third of pregnancies end in miscarriages, omost often before the woman knows he's pregnant, probablybecause of mistranscription and other mutations.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

"The number of mutations obviously varies, depending on hwat the individual experiences. Ther have been studies of individual mutation loads, and they turned out surprisingly high"

Well, ok, do you then agree about the following:

The chances (spelled right now?) for a mutation are between 0 and 1, do you agree,? And ok let make them very very very high , say, 0,999. So P(mutation)=0,999,ok?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

At least, you managed to make me laugh. I hadn't read such hilarious finalism since my mandatory reading of Voltaire's Candide in 10th grade.

I was just showing you that there were perfectly plausible answers to your presumably unanswerable questions. That is how you hypothesize.

If you had a scientific mind and wanted to refute my arguments you would have made counter arguments. But I see you don’t and can’t. Thank you for your time.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Math also says that bumblebees cannot fly.

Not only are you unable to refute the mathmatical arguments in ID with anything but cliche, but you resort to ones that are patently false.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
The question of how long the designer took might have several reasons. For one thing, terraforming a planet for our form of life takes eons of time. Starting with simpler life forms (plants) fits well into that reasoning. Earth lacked enough oxygen in the beginning so plant life was needed to get an oxygen rich atmosphere.

Next, The designer evidently anticipated intelligent life that would develop technology and that requires energy. Yet more eons of time were needed for coal and petroleum deposits to develop. Today’s population could not be supported without those resources. Billions would starve without them. It looks like they will hold out until our technology masters renewable energy sources. Good planning?

I do not know the details of what the designer was capable of. Omniscience is not necessarily a given. Perhaps he could have done all this instantaneously, but maybe not. Another possibility is that the designer did not want evidence of his activities directly observable or obvious. Maybe he/they wanted plausible deniability in order to see our development without the factor of us knowing about them. Make it look as if it could be accidental if you don’t look close?

Quote:

farmerman replied:
None of the above is empirical. Its all "revelatory", since NONE OF IT IS TESTIBLE. Beliefs arent knowledge

As I told Oliver, this was just to show there were plausible answers to his 'unanswerable' questions. None of it requires a 'revelation'. If you can show why they would not be reasonable assumptions when hypothesizing the possibility of the universe having an intelligent designer then I’d be happy to hear them. If all you can do is make stupid critiques of religion (which isn’t the subject) then shut the **** up.

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

The proability of EVERYTHING is netween 0 and 1.
So?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

EXACTLY my point, Exactly!

Now.....

We do agree that 0< P(mutation) <1, right?

Now if we have two mutations. let's call them P(M1) and P(M2).

You understand M stands for 'mutation".

Do you agree that

0 < P(M1) <1 & 0< P(M2) <1 ?

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

You have now regurgitated the first 2 minutes of Stats 101. DO try to make a point.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know