It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution and Creationism is easy as math.

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


And that would be the argument from complexity... An argumentative fallacy




posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Its a mortal atheist sin to question evolution, to deny you understand it is to deny faith in science Darwin and Dawkins.
Burn atheist heretic, burn.

Well you know its a joke I hope.

As easy as maths, 0+0= everything and then life.
If they could explain the answer so that I could understand it, I would accept evolution, as I would expect every Christian to do. To deny we dont understand evolution to the atheist is to invite ridicule and hate. One would think it was an opportunity to invite a logical methodical explanation, but that doesnt exist so ridicule and hate will have to do.

If I was an atheist it would be easier to lie and agree


So basically you don't believe the theory because it hasn't been dumbed down enough



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


If you wouldn't do this at home


My last response to you.


Best thing that's happened all day so far.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
Its a mortal atheist sin to question evolution, to deny you understand it is to deny faith in science Darwin and Dawkins.
Burn atheist heretic, burn.

Well you know its a joke I hope.

As easy as maths, 0+0= everything and then life.
If they could explain the answer so that I could understand it, I would accept evolution, as I would expect every Christian to do. To deny we dont understand evolution to the atheist is to invite ridicule and hate. One would think it was an opportunity to invite a logical methodical explanation, but that doesnt exist so ridicule and hate will have to do.

If I was an atheist it would be easier to lie and agree


The problem is that "logical methodical explanation" isn't in the creationist's lexicon. I don't know how much more dumbed down you want it. If you don't understand it the way it's written, then educate yourself until you do. That's what critical thinkers do. They can admit that they don't know or understand something...and then they read everything they can, or ask people, until the DO understand it.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yup it's easier for all the parts from a F-22 fighter to just fall together with no designer & no assembly team.
And then fly itself, after building itself with no intelligence, and no reason. Yup makes total sense



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yup it's easier for all the parts from a F-22 fighter to just fall together with no designer & no assembly team.
And then fly itself, after building itself with no intelligence, and no reason. Yup makes total sense


Ah, yes, Hoyle's Fallacy. Easily debunked, and has been a million times.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-10 *40000.

Those are some nice math odds, that's a nasty bet. But then it's not money that we are talking about, it's life.

Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-10 *40000.


Oh good Lord, now you're invoking Borel's Law. Which isn't a law, by the way, and Borel himself was being tongue-in-cheek.


Those are some nice math odds, that's a nasty bet. But then it's not money that we are talking about, it's life.


It's called Hoyle's FALLACY. I'll give you three guesses as to why it's called that.


Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?


All organisms obey the laws of chemistry and physics. That's how. It's not blind chance, but it is random. There is a difference.

Hoyle, like you, conflated the difference in complexity of a living organism with the complexity of inanimate objects. Inanimate objects don't reproduce themselves, they don't interact with their surroundings. If they don't reproduce, they don't pass on any changes.

Argument over. You lose.


edit on 11/1/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/1/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Odds of winning the powerball jackpot - 1 in 175,223,510
Odds of being struck by lightning in any given year - 1 in 700,000
Odds of being attacked by shark - 1 in 11,500,000

Number of times the powerball jackpot claimed, so far, in 2012 - 10
Lighting strike deaths this year - 28
Shark attacks this year in U.S. - 33

what do your statistics on life starting and those above have in common?



Speaking of highly improbable events that happen with stunning regularity . . .

Heard of the Drake equation? Info can be found at the link.
SETI - Drake


Is there a way to estimate the number of technologically advanced civilizations that might exist in our Galaxy? While working at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, West Virginia, Dr. Frank Drake conceived a means to mathematically estimate the number of worlds that might harbor beings with technology sufficient to communicate across the vast gulfs of interstellar space. The Drake Equation, as it came to be known, was formulated in 1961 and is generally accepted by the scientific community.



Frank Drake's own current solution to the Drake Equation estimates 10,000 communicative civilizations in the Milky Way. Dr. Drake, who serves on the SETI League's advisory board, has personally endorsed SETI's planned all-sky survey



Sure, you can "claim" that the odds are too great and life couldn't have possiblibly "just started by chance" and developed to where we are today, but there are more star systems in the universe (heck even our galaxy) than you could count in a lifetime . . . each with just a "chance" at developing life. Billions and billions and billions that just need the right conditions to occur over the last 15 billion years. And, these odds are only relevant if you are wagering . . . otherwise the only thing that matters is that it happened once (or a billion).

I'm fairly confident that life is common in our own galaxy, and even moreso throughout the universe, be it from chance or not. I am also fairly confident that it does not take the supernatural to create the natural. I've seen it in labs and in "the wild" . . . magic was never involved . . . just good ol' sexual or asexual reproduction or chemistry (in a lab setting).
edit on 11/1/12 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


It's the Drake Equation verses the Fermi Paradox then....guess which one I side with ?

For every argument there is a philosophical counterpoint, of course evolutionists and atheists will support what conforms to their world view. And theists will support what conforms to their world view.

I have had experience with supernatural support after intense prayer, he doesn't answer every prayer instantly and unfortunately, as I found out, he is very selective. But one experience is enough to confirm it, it was just too quick, like seconds.
Thus I know he created the cosmos and the biological entities on the planet.
And the math supports this.

People are in denial on this, to deny accountability & justify (in their less than 100 old mind that is using 1/10 of 1 percent of it's ability yet they think they understand so much) the mess world is in, they actually think they know better than God. Does a 1 year old know better than a 50 year old ?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Yup it's easier for all the parts from a F-22 fighter to just fall together with no designer & no assembly team.
And then fly itself, after building itself with no intelligence, and no reason. Yup makes total sense


So after using that argumentative fallacy...you simply use it again and expect people not to laugh?


Learn to debate, and look up those argumentative fallacies


No one's saying evolution is a "chance event" by the way, learn about the theory you're questioning beforehand or you'll look silly...like now.




100 old mind that is using 1/10 of 1 percent of it's ability


And that's a myth that has been debunked dozens of times on this forum

edit on 1-11-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So after using that argumentative fallacy...you simply use it again and expect people not to laugh?


Do your really think I am using it to try to convince you ?


No this is for the lurkers, especially people with logical minds, not you, your mind is solidly made up, so it has nothing to do with the quality of the debate, that's irrelevant.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So after using that argumentative fallacy...you simply use it again and expect people not to laugh?


Do your really think I am using it to try to convince you ?


No this is for the lurkers, especially people with logical minds, not you, your mind is solidly made up, so it has nothing to do with the quality of the debate, that's irrelevant.


So wait...you're aware that your argument is complete bonkers, but you still post it to dumb down other posters? And then you have the audacity to call your argument "logical"?


Comon'!!



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

Sorry, a simple logic can beat out this convoluted theory.

This aspect just happens to be mathematical.
Anyways you get the last word, as I am done in this thread, no use beating a dead horse, waste of time.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by borntowatch
Its a mortal atheist sin to question evolution, to deny you understand it is to deny faith in science Darwin and Dawkins.
Burn atheist heretic, burn.

Well you know its a joke I hope.

As easy as maths, 0+0= everything and then life.
If they could explain the answer so that I could understand it, I would accept evolution, as I would expect every Christian to do. To deny we dont understand evolution to the atheist is to invite ridicule and hate. One would think it was an opportunity to invite a logical methodical explanation, but that doesnt exist so ridicule and hate will have to do.

If I was an atheist it would be easier to lie and agree


So basically you don't believe the theory because it hasn't been dumbed down enough




Yeah that way
Or
I dont understand it and wont accept science as a faith like some ( I mean you when I say some).

What a pathetic argument. I have to accept science as a faith, seriously?

That argument is mind numbingly silly. You admit evolution is a faith by stating that



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny


The problem is that "logical methodical explanation" isn't in the creationist's lexicon. I don't know how much more dumbed down you want it. If you don't understand it the way it's written, then educate yourself until you do. That's what critical thinkers do. They can admit that they don't know or understand something...and then they read everything they can, or ask people, until the DO understand it.


You are hacking and slashing every atheist on earth who cant explain evolution, not just Christians.
You would eat (metaphorically) your own children to justify your faith.

Do you believe evolution is 100% fact? No doubts at all? That is faith.

I mean why even study evolution ifits so true, why does anyone care if the evidence is so solid.


edit on 1-11-2012 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch
You are hacking and slashing every atheist on earth who cant explain evolution, not just Christians.
You would eat (metaphorically) your own children to justify your faith.

Do you believe evolution is 100% fact? No doubts at all? That is faith.

I mean why even study evolution ifits so true, why does anyone care if the evidence is so solid.


What faith is involved when agreeing with repeatable testable evidence and experiments? Do you need faith to believe the sky is blue? 100% fact? No doubts at all? That is faith! The sun revolves around the sun in 365 days. It really takes a LOT of faith to believe that one, even though we can measure and record the exact time it takes. You believe it 100%??? Gotta be faith. This dude kills me. I'm posting this and I don't even have power at my house it's just so worth it!



edit on 2-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





So after using that argumentative fallacy...you simply use it again and expect people not to laugh?


Do your really think I am using it to try to convince you ?


No this is for the lurkers, especially people with logical minds, not you, your mind is solidly made up, so it has nothing to do with the quality of the debate, that's irrelevant.


Wow, could you be any more intellectually dishonest?



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by borntowatch
You are hacking and slashing every atheist on earth who cant explain evolution, not just Christians.
You would eat (metaphorically) your own children to justify your faith.

Do you believe evolution is 100% fact? No doubts at all? That is faith.

I mean why even study evolution ifits so true, why does anyone care if the evidence is so solid.


What faith is involved when agreeing with repeatable testable evidence and experiments? Do you need faith to believe the sky is blue? 100% fact? No doubts at all? That is faith! The sun revolves around the sun in 365 days. It really takes a LOT of faith to believe that one, even though we can measure and record the exact time it takes. You believe it 100%??? Gotta be faith. This dude kills me. I'm posting this and I don't even have power at my house it's just so worth it!



edit on 2-11-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Hope you guys are okay. It looks pretty bad there.

Stay safe!



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by solomons path
 


It's the Drake Equation verses the Fermi Paradox then....guess which one I side with ?

For every argument there is a philosophical counterpoint, of course evolutionists and atheists will support what conforms to their world view. And theists will support what conforms to their world view.


You're mixing philosophy with science. They don't mix very well.


I have had experience with supernatural support after intense prayer, he doesn't answer every prayer instantly and unfortunately, as I found out, he is very selective. But one experience is enough to confirm it, it was just too quick, like seconds.
Thus I know he created the cosmos and the biological entities on the planet.
And the math supports this.


No it doesn't. If you think it does, then you don't understand math. Especially probability.


People are in denial on this, to deny accountability & justify (in their less than 100 old mind that is using 1/10 of 1 percent of it's ability yet they think they understand so much) the mess world is in, they actually think they know better than God. Does a 1 year old know better than a 50 year old ?


That's an old myth that's been debunked, too.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join