The mathematical Impossibility of Evolution - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-05-2016, 11:28 PM   #21 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
Default

Everything is matter, but nothing matters.

__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2016, 11:30 PM   #22 (permalink)
Jacob Sartorius
 
Blank.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Dank memes
Posts: 4,033
Default

Most of these sites go into things about God and his existence. Just ignore that. This site is much more in depth on the math. Mathematical Impossibility
Blank. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 12:06 AM   #23 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
Default

Dude, they're starting with the result that they want and are using the research to support what they already believe! How can you not ****ing see that? Good research lets the results speak for themselves and weighs their results or conclusions against pre existing research. All of the sources that you've posted ignore the fossil record and get bent on some facetious statistics that is built off of false assumptions.

This is the same kind of thing I always see with creationists. Willfully ignoring half of the evidence presented to them, even though it disproves their unproven assumptions that are founded in heady theoretics. That source you just posted undermines the thriving complexity of life, the chaotic nature of the universe that led to that organism, and is still a bad source.

Look at this ****ing quote. Just ****ing look at it.

Quote:
We don't find mathematical support for the spontaneous generation of life through various chemicals accidentally bumping into each other.
You dumb mother****er. No. No. No! What you just walk around with a microscope and see if there are amino acids being spontaneously created in a chaotic Hadean climate? Of course you ****ing haven't seen that because you're not looking for it and given that it would disprove your little theory, you'd probably ignore that too. (Btw you is to the source, not blankmind).

Quote:
However, we do find mathematical support for the biblical claim that man has been on the earth less than 10,000 years.
No you dumb ****, that mathematical support is taken from the supposed lineage throughout the Old Testament up to a certain point. I forget exactly where. This entirely disregards carbon dating and in turn demolishes the credibility of this source, as if that was a surprise to anyone.

You ****ing people make me hate life. Have a goddamned reliable source and stick it up your ass.
NOVA - Official Website | How Did Life Begin?
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 12:11 AM   #24 (permalink)
kibbeh
 
kibbeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: nowhere
Posts: 648
Default

talking about existence and what our purpose on this planet is always makes me hard
kibbeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 12:23 AM   #25 (permalink)
Jacob Sartorius
 
Blank.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Dank memes
Posts: 4,033
Default

While I get what you're upset about, i think you're ignoring the math. To prove their math they don't use the 10,000 year theory.

Quote:
Even when we work at the staggering rate of one billion trials per second throughout the whole universe for a period of 300 billion years, we can only achieve 5x10^105 combinations. That is well short of the 788x10372 combinations needed to be sure that we can arrive at the correct combination to start our very simple form of life. In fact, impossibly simple at just 200 pieces.
Here they use 300 billion years to show the imporobability.

My personal opinion on this subject comes back to how I've always felt. Which is in really have no personal opinion towards it. This theory didn't change anything. So... yeah.
Blank. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 12:26 AM   #26 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
Default

Too bad that the 200 part example is irrelevant. I'm gonna go with evolution being right.

And...hang on...is he trying to prove the improbability of something that legitimately happened? Is that what's going on in that quote?
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 12:29 AM   #27 (permalink)
Jacob Sartorius
 
Blank.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Dank memes
Posts: 4,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
Too bad that the 200 part example is irrelevant. I'm gonna go with evolution being right.

And...hang on...is he trying to prove the improbability of something that legitimately happened? Is that what's going on in that quote?
Well, the word legitimate is relative based upon beliefs. Since he is trying to use his math to prove creationism.
Blank. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 12:30 AM   #28 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind View Post
Well, the word legitimate is relative based upon beliefs.
I see someone has discovered basic philosophy but hasn't gotten a grasp on applying it.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 12:34 AM   #29 (permalink)
Jacob Sartorius
 
Blank.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Dank memes
Posts: 4,033
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
I see someone has discovered basic philosophy but hasn't gotten a grasp on applying it.
It's not philosophy. He believes in creationism, you believe in evolution. So the word legitimate would be used to mean something different to each of you on this subject.
Blank. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2016, 12:37 AM   #30 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blankmind View Post
It's not philosophy. He believes in creationism, you believe in evolution. So the word legitimate would be used to mean something different to each of you on this subject.
Hysterical.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.