Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok. Explain away the initial post. If you want, the one about the six creative days. But I'd prefer you click on the original thread and talk about the chances of DNA and Protein happening. Thanks.

Chances? Are the odds above 0? Then it is inevitable given enough time and space. Looks like that was the case since you and I are having this conversation. Done.

Who cares about the six creative days? That is just folklore.

Really? That is all you can do? And you expect others to look up to this?

a reply to: iSomeone

I will address this. The chances of a protein folding upon itself is 1 in a billion billion billion. That is, if there were a primordial soup, not the size of the earth, but of the universe, it would take many many times the lifetime of our universe for it to have happened by chance. A protein is one of 50,000 the human body has.

Now his response was: Is it above 1. Actually if the probability is more that 10 ^27 power it is considered impossible.

Now who is the fool?

originally posted by: iSomeone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok. Explain away the initial post. If you want, the one about the six creative days. But I'd prefer you click on the original thread and talk about the chances of DNA and Protein happening. Thanks.

Chances? Are the odds above 0? Then it is inevitable given enough time and space. Looks like that was the case since you and I are having this conversation. Done.

Who cares about the six creative days? That is just folklore.

Really? That is all you can do? And you expect others to look up to this?

Sure, why wouldn't they? It's true. That is how probability works. Why do we have to work out the exact odds of it? We have evidence that it happened, proving that the odds are greater than one therefore we know that it's possible. It also tells us that it could happen again, meaning that given a large enough universe and enough time, there could be another us out there in the universe having this exact same conversation. Cool huh?

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

That is a cop-out.

Because 99% of the time it is YOU and those who think like you who call us that. Now that you are being called out, instead of asking the original questions you are outing your own selves....

This shows something is terribly terribly wrong with your viewpoint. I asked for one, one, one, logical explanation to counter the explanation I gave and a total of NONE were given, only deflection, denial, and subterfuge.

Who has the truth?

And in asking that question you exposed your own arrogance and high-handedness, thus tipping your hand. Insults are never the way to start a meaningful debate and you started out with a bucketload of them. So pardon me if I don't think that it's worthwhile debating you on this. Your mind is still closed and you will ignore whatever evidence I provide. Oh and I'm guessing that you'll throw a few more insults and continue in your name-calling in whatever you post in reply to this.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: iSomeone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok. Explain away the initial post. If you want, the one about the six creative days. But I'd prefer you click on the original thread and talk about the chances of DNA and Protein happening. Thanks.

Chances? Are the odds above 0? Then it is inevitable given enough time and space. Looks like that was the case since you and I are having this conversation. Done.

Who cares about the six creative days? That is just folklore.

Really? That is all you can do? And you expect others to look up to this?

Sure, why wouldn't they? It's true. That is how probability works. Why do we have to work out the exact odds of it? We have evidence that it happened, proving that the odds are greater than one therefore we know that it's possible. It also tells us that it could happen again, meaning that given a large enough universe and enough time, there could be another us out there in the universe having this exact same conversation. Cool huh?

I will address this. The chances of a protein folding upon itself is 1 in a billion billion billion. That is, if there were a primordial soup, not the size of the earth, but of the universe, it would take many many times the lifetime of our universe for it to have happened by chance. A protein is one of 50,000 the human body has.

Now his response was: Is it above 1. Actually if the probability is more that 10 ^27 power it is considered impossible.

Now who is the fool?

If the fool wishes to reply without knowing or understanding then let it be known.

Not one protein is needed. A fully functional DNA (with it's billions of coded digital letters in exact form) and also RNA and chromosomes are needed.

Not one at a time.

They must all pop into existence at the EXACT SAME TIME or human life, man and woman, the genetic blueprint for our life could never have happened.

They will not explain to you these complicated things.

ONLY stupid things which have no meaning. And they will not meditate on the reality.

And the fact is, smart people ares systematicaly brain-washed into believing in impossibles such as this so they don't look "un-cooll" or loose money grants..


Nothing that these evolutionists teach is honest at its core, and those WHO KNOW what evolution really teachings compared to facts know this.

Many minions are clueless. But there are those who know better who are accountable.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Why has variety been removed from the classification scale? Yes, variety among humans is the result of selective breeding. I would agree with variety among humans, that would be phenotypes.

But have humans become resistant to snake bites? If we are the most highly evolved then we should have become resistant, except an above poster believes it was all randomly. So if it is random, then some people have mutated to not be susceptible to certain diseases.

Are we then like the bacteria that evolves, or are we a higher life form than bacteria and lice?

Why do SOME people become resistant to disease, but others don't? I don't disagree that bacteria can mutate, but could it be said that bacteria was designed to do that?

Of course, you would say there is no direct evidence that the Intelligence would do such a thing, but think of it this way, if the Intelligence did design and account for mutations, then every life form would live forever as an individual without the need to self-replicate, and if we were to live forever and be self-replicating, then where would we put the entire populace?

A system of checks and balances exists, but is that the result of random mutations? Nature itself ( I mean organic life forms that are not animalistic) is designed for checks and balances. Even in the human body there are checks and balances, but to fit it into the whole encompassing spectrum of all of nature, do the trees mutate to randomly fall on people? No, that would be absurd.

I think that one could say that bacteria and lice simply build up a tolerance, the same way that humans build up tolerances when they drink alcohol or take drugs. But no human yet has been randomly mutated to resist things in nature or what it does to itself.

In other words, man hasn't yet mutated, randomly or otherwise, to resist random events in nature. Go back the first response in this thread.

wow!!! You have got this so friggin twisted. It's really not this hard to understand. It is obvious you are not looking for understanding or you would be studying this in a classroom. These processes are very complex and require years of dedicated work.

People are giving you pretty good explanations and you are twisting them around and then asking nonsensical questions. If you really want to understand these processes and what the scientists are actually claiming then you need to study the experiments that are being done everyday to push this field deeper into discovery. Arguing nonsensical questions is not going to further your understanding. You can't listen when your talking and you need to do a lot more listening.

a reply to: iSomeone

Ah. More insults. How unsurprising.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And yet no reply to one single question.

That is uninspiring.

originally posted by: iSomeone
Now who is the fool?

I'm pretty sure the jury is leaning towards you. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how any life as we currently know it survived period let alone thrived under an atmosphere consisting of a vapor canopy as you yourself state in your original post when claiming Genesis is based in scientific fact. How did Noah and his family and every other biological organism survive with a surface pressure of 13,000psi and how would they survive afterwards with the reduced atmospheric pressure if they somehow were adapted to living under a vapor canopy? It just can't work both ways.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And yet no reply to one single question.

That is uninspiring.

No, it's unsurprising. I'm impressed that you reined in the insults in answer to my post. My argument still stands however. I have no intention of debating someone whose mind is closed and who answers with little more than insults.

originally posted by: iSomeone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: iSomeone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok. Explain away the initial post. If you want, the one about the six creative days. But I'd prefer you click on the original thread and talk about the chances of DNA and Protein happening. Thanks.

Chances? Are the odds above 0? Then it is inevitable given enough time and space. Looks like that was the case since you and I are having this conversation. Done.

Who cares about the six creative days? That is just folklore.

Really? That is all you can do? And you expect others to look up to this?

Sure, why wouldn't they? It's true. That is how probability works. Why do we have to work out the exact odds of it? We have evidence that it happened, proving that the odds are greater than one therefore we know that it's possible. It also tells us that it could happen again, meaning that given a large enough universe and enough time, there could be another us out there in the universe having this exact same conversation. Cool huh?

I will address this. The chances of a protein folding upon itself is 1 in a billion billion billion. That is, if there were a primordial soup, not the size of the earth, but of the universe, it would take many many times the lifetime of our universe for it to have happened by chance. A protein is one of 50,000 the human body has.

Now his response was: Is it above 1. Actually if the probability is more that 10 ^27 power it is considered impossible.

Now who is the fool?

No it isn't. And what's this about being a fool? I never called you a fool. You are just wrong that's all. By the way, 10^27 is a number WAY greater than 1. Are you sure you didn't mean 10^-27? You also don't need to write the word power after 10^27. You should probably learn correct scientific notation if you are going to use it.

In any case, the only time a probability is considered impossible is if that probability is 0. 10^-27 (I'm just going to go ahead and correct you here) does not equal zero, therefore it's possible.

I can't believe I'm doing this, because the above is obvious, but let's ask some math experts about this.
Can An Event Be Statistically Impossible?

Can An Event Be Statistically Impossible?

Date: 06/19/2007 at 20:56:30
From: John
Subject: I don't have an equation just a simple question.

Dr. Math, at what point in the realm of probability does an event have
absolutely no chance of happening ever? Is it 1 out of 10 to the 10th
power or 1 out of 10 to the 100th power or what? At what point is it
statistically impossible for an event to take place?



Date: 06/20/2007 at 13:52:18
From: Doctor George
Subject: Re: I don't have an equation just a simple question.

Hi John,

Thanks for writing to Doctor Math.

An event is impossible when its probability is zero. If the
probability is greater than zero then it might occur.

Here is an important point about probability. If there are enough
possible events with very low probability then it is likely that at
least some of them will occur. Or, if an event with low probability
is given a large number of opportunities, then its chance of happening
at some time may be quite large. What would be really unusual is if
nothing unusual ever happened.

Consider this example. Let's say that something has a 1.0E-10
probability. If there are 1.0E+10 such independent events, then the
probability that none of them happens is only about 1/e, or about 0.37.

Does that make sense? Write again if you need more help.

- Doctor George, The Math Forum
mathforum.org...



Date: 06/20/2007 at 23:47:51
From: Doctor Peterson
Subject: Re: I don't have an equation just a simple question.

Hi, John.

As Dr. George said, if the probability is anything other than zero,
then mathematically speaking it IS possible.

It is possible that a statistician would give you a probability at
which you can consider an event to be PRACTICALLY impossible; but that
would only be a convention--a probability considered small enough that
you can ignore it and treat it as if it were zero. The probability
wouldn't really be zero, so it still might happen.

Interestingly, even if the probability is zero, the event may occur.
This happens when there are infinitely many possible outcomes; say, if
you are talking about the probability of choosing a specific point on
a number line. With infinitely many points to choose, the probability
of choosing any one point is zero; yet you do choose one, so that one
event does occur. Probability in itself can't say that something is
absolutely impossible!

If you have any further questions, feel free to write back.


- Doctor Peterson, The Math Forum
mathforum.org...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

They have no re-buff. Is what they are being brain-washed into believing really reality?

Well, it's testable and therefore it's provable. Whereas the alternative is... frankly rather unbelievable.

Actually there are several things about the philosophy of science that demonstrates that not all thing can be testable. You know this from the famous Popper-Kuhn debate. But we could throw in some thoughts from other scientists about this...

Grover Maxwell--The line between observation and theory is always an arbitrary one; and all objects could be potentially observable. What counts as observable is itself a theoretical question, so the distinction has no real value.

He is on the realist side. But here is the other side of that coin, the anti-realist

Bas van Fraassen--"Empirical adequacy" is the best a scientist can claim about any theory; the observation-theory distinction can be made though admittedly "observation" is always a vague predicate, which can only be used in a functional manner.

The Ultimate Argument fails because the success of science is like Darwinian evolution; the strongest theories survive due to their empirical adequacy in handling the physical world.

Two very different philosophies regarding the handling of empirical evidence. As I read these two opposing worldviews about the same subject, I am reminded of "The Law of Non-Contradiction" and that Christian apologists use a concept called "First source". In other words, the more closer to the original, then the more reasonable it is to assume the accuracy of the doctrine.

As our worldview takes on the origins of such questions or thoughts written in documents, that's why we must take it down to the lowest common denominator of which all other writings were based upon. For us, to mention Darwinism as the "first source", then it becomes fundamentally important to understand that even though science has made great advances since Darwin, it still rests on Darwinism at the foundation.

We operate out of "The Law of Non-Contradiction" and "First Source". And many scientists are able to reconcile the contradictions, publishing the contradictions in such a manner as not allowing anyone to question those contradictions, and yet the scientific community addresses within itself why there are contradictions.

It can be summed this way "according to the LNC, no object can be green and red all over at the same time". If it is observed to be green and red all over at the same time, then that is a contradiction. Therefore, no scientist can make the claim that an object can be green and red all over at the same time. But it is testable.

Therefore, if it can be testable then it can be published. Yet no one faults the scientists for attempting to falsify that claim, however, if the scientist does attempt to falsify it, but does not say whether or not that is true about the object, but then states that one should believe the the testability only, then it leads to the idea that the scientist is merely publishing a claim about the method and not the very object that he studied. Don't give the answer that it was a contradiction and so therefore failed, only talk about the test itself. Hence, Miller Urey.

So then people said there are variables that Miller Urey had not concluded in the original theory which led to the overall failure of the experiment. While it led them to believe they could create simple life in a science apparatus, what they could not replicate everything to be able to test everything accurately.

And if something cannot be tested for all accuracy, then a half-accuracy shouldn't be presented as being a fully accurate theory.

While the belief in God does not only entail a belief in whole accuracy, which is not testable, it certainly is observable when it comes to the things that the Bible or any other religious texts claim. Human behavior and motives are addressed and presented as moral lessons and to observation as to what happens when people fail to live according to moral standards that all religious texts introduce.

And if it observable, then it is testable, that is why we have anthropology and the social sciences along with psychology and psychiatry. All of those sciences are not based in empirical evidence except they can be tested within the realm of metaphysical experience.

No one would say that the neurosciences are pseudoscience, and yet psychologists use that in testing their own theories. So science is never just about empirical evidence, it has to conclude metaphysical concepts, because the brain can be empirically observed, but the mind itself cannot.

Intellect is never empirically observed but it is empirically tested. One can measure intellect or intelligence, but it is never empirically seen. And that is what religious texts understand, the Bible itself is a book of philosophy because it asks observable and testable questions. But as it can only be answered in a metaphysical manner, that does not negate anything.

One of the most important questions the Bible asks is "what is man?" One could answer that as nothing more than just an organic body, but the metaphysical can answer that man is a complex being of emotions and intelligence that can be either constrained, restrained or completely free to live life according to their own morality.

Morality is a metaphysical construct, but it can be observed. Therefore it can be tested, but not empirically.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

wow!!! You have got this so friggin twisted. It's really not this hard to understand. It is obvious you are not looking for understanding or you would be studying this in a classroom. These processes are very complex and require years of dedicated work.

People are giving you pretty good explanations and you are twisting them around and then asking nonsensical questions. If you really want to understand these processes and what the scientists are actually claiming then you need to study the experiments that are being done everyday to push this field deeper into discovery. Arguing nonsensical questions is not going to further your understanding. You can't listen when your talking and you need to do a lot more listening.

Who? Me or Cogito?

Cogito, ergo sum is obviously someone who believes in a metaphysical realm, otherwise the "I think, therefore I am", rests solely in his belief that he thinks, which is not empirically observed. We can see that Cogito thinks, we can read the responses from Cogito, indicating an intelligent being is on the other side, but it rests within Cogito's experience to say that because Cogito thinks, therefore Cogito is.

That's philosophy.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And yet no reply to one single question.

That is uninspiring.

thats not the problem here. the prblem is that you are getting replies and dismissing them out of hand, courtesy of your minimal yet apparently all-incusive grasp on the suject at hand.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And yet no reply to one single question.

That is uninspiring.

thats not the problem here. the prblem is that you are getting replies and dismissing them out of hand, courtesy of your minimal yet apparently all-incusive grasp on the suject at hand.

By the way, not as subject of this thread, I really like your username. It is very clever. Not only are you sarcastic, but you are the king of sarcasm, and that was a nice play on words.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And yet no reply to one single question.

That is uninspiring.

thats not the problem here. the prblem is that you are getting replies and dismissing them out of hand, courtesy of your minimal yet apparently all-incusive grasp on the suject at hand.

By the way, not as subject of this thread, I really like your username. It is very clever. Not only are you sarcastic, but you are the king of sarcasm, and that was a nice play on words.

you are the first one to comment on it. thanks.

If the fool wishes to reply without knowing or understanding then let it be known.

That is why you don't get any responsive posts to your drivel. You clearly have no desire to converse in a reasonable manner. Calling people names is not a good tactic to get them to take you seriously. You are in fact a troll with no redeeming value at all.

Never-the-less, I will allow myself to be momentarily 'sucked in'...

Not one protein is needed. A fully functional DNA (with it's billions of coded digital letters in exact form) and also RNA and chromosomes are needed.

For what? A modern animal? A pre-cellular biote that doesn't have a need for DNA or RNA or a cell membrane?

Biology does not make any claim that the first life was made up of DNA, chromosomes, or even cells 'Modern' cells didn't 'pop into' existence fully formed, they 'evolved' chemical reaction by chemical reaction. Straight forward organic chemistry all the way down. Step by step by step.

Not one at a time.

Yes, one at a time. Or at least one primitive step at a time. Perhaps in parallel, perhaps in piggy back. Whatever the sequence was, it wasn't "fully formed all at the same time".

They must all pop into existence at the EXACT SAME TIME or human life, man and woman, the genetic blueprint for our life could never have happened.

a reply to: iSomeone

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sorry.

You couldn't be more wrong if you were intentionally trying to make foolish claims just so you could draw an argument. Let Nobel Laureate Dr. Jack Szostak explain it to you:

a reply to: iSomeone

I just wanted to put this out there. You'd have much better success in this thread if you treated folks with respect. Coming in here and calling everyone fools isn't conducive to knowledge and understanding. Don't be condescending and act like your personal faith is absolute fact. It's not. We all have different opinions, and we don't all agree, but there is no need for the name calling.

I'd also like to see a citation on your one billion billion billion protein folding chance that breaks down the mathematics for us. Unfortunately bible verses like genesis cannot be verified as truth, so asking for rebuttals to these verses isn't going to get us anywhere. If you've got scientific data to present that verifies them or any of your claims, that would be your best strategy instead of proclaiming all of what you said to be fact and insulting anybody who disagrees.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: iSomeone

I just wanted to put this out there. You'd have much better success in this thread if you treated folks with respect. Coming in here and calling everyone fools isn't conducive to knowledge and understanding. Don't be condescending and act like your personal faith is absolute fact. It's not. We all have different opinions, and we don't all agree, but there is no need for the name calling.

I'd also like to see a citation on your one billion billion billion protein folding chance that breaks down the mathematics for us. Unfortunately bible verses like genesis cannot be verified as truth, so asking for rebuttals to these verses isn't going to get us anywhere. If you've got scientific data to present that verifies them or any of your claims, that would be your best strategy instead of proclaiming all of what you said to be fact and insulting anybody who disagrees.

Yes, I agree, don't call people fools or stupid or superstitious or ignorant or any of the names and implications and accusations bandied around. We need constructive dialogue.

But the problem is not that religious people don't understand science, the problem is that religious people can't weed through the many contradictions within science and not come to the conclusion that the scientific industry is religious itself in believing certain things are true.

Not only do people believe something is true because of dogmatic a priori, they allow it to be published as evidence of truth, which even they themselves know it can't possibly be true. And that's the heart of the debate.

One says "I don't believe in Genesis because it can't be proven", but that is exactly what many scientists are trying to do, prove something that is fundamental and it is not God they are trying to prove, but Genesis or In the Beginning. As one does not want to think God could ever be as Christians describe, it is the Christian account of God they are trying to disprove. No one says "I'm going to prove the Jewish God wrong" or "I want evidence for Krishna or Lakshmi".

When certain famous scientists started saying they demand proof and the burden of proof is on us, the same applies to the scientific community that is trying to prove something themselves. Everyone is trying to prove, but it can't disproved so it falls into the realm of "no evidence means it doesn't exist" which we know that those truly interested in science will never say that because "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack".

People quote Isaac Asimov all the time and yet Isaac Asimov himself inserted the ideas of God in his writings, by taking the ideas of morality of godlikeness and putting that into his characters. Carl Sagan does the same thing. Even the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey contained elements of religious thought. Dave was the hapless victim of the machine, one that man invented and yet still had control over Dave. "I can't do that, Dave". Implying that intelligence becomes no longer artificial but takes on moral imprecations.

I, Robot also asks the same moral questions found in religion. No one can escape moral conundrums, which religion, no matter which, addresses the conundrums. But those are works of fiction, still in the realm of science though. But science does ask of itself, what are the moral implications?

We debated a long time over worldviews, which used to be called paradigms, and everyone enters any study with some dogmatic a priori. But let's ask this, why was in on Air Force bases when those radar controllers were seeing anomalies, they were told to not talk about them and not report them? Why? Dogmatic a priori from their superiors. If the one in authority refuses to allow all evidence, then the authority is wrong, especially in the scientific community.

That's why thousands of scientific experiments will never be published, only the ones the authority allows. But this places the moral condrum onto the authority, in order to get money to conduct experiments they have to allow only certain ones, and then the regular scientists under the authority of that person, must agree, going against their own moral conscience.

The science industry is huge financially, because the government is doling out massive amounts of money. That is true for as long as governments have been interested in science. People are being told what to believe because authority will only allow you to know some things, and academia pushes certain things but denies other things. They don't deny because of the lack of experiments, they deny on the basis of hypothesis and when certain evidence is found, it is dismissed.

But you can find this everywhere. Even religious people use doctrines against each other. You can see how many times on religious threads the varying explanations for our understanding of God and things within the texts. We have different interpretation, but we aren't getting money for it.

We allow each other the right to propose theories, we only correct each other if they did not present the text as it is written. And we see the same thing going on in the scientific community, because all evidence is interpreted in certain ways, and maybe vast differently from lab to lab. But the only ones that are published are not the proof of evidence, just that interpretation of the evidence.

I have read many things from scientists themselves who talk about the opposition to their work, not from religious people, but the very academic institutions that are getting money from the government to reach certain conclusions. I've read that from one person who posted on this thread, because his work was against the dogmatic a priori of the day. That opposition came from other scientists, not the religious people.

Here is a nice article about logic from Harvard Philosophy about a priori.

But then there's Leonard Susskind, who people claim to have proven Stephen Hawking wrong. Well, there are fans of Susskind and there are fans of Hawking, each side reaching apriorism in defense of their guy. But do people reject Susskind's theoretical evidence in favor of Hawking? Absolutely they do. And that goes against the very nature of scientific inquiry.

People aren't really defending science, they are defending only the system of evidences and interpretations that their camp holds. For instance, ask any scientist on here who they tend to follow when it comes to literature. I will give you another example, Todd Standing. He is the famous geneticist from New York University that is a Sasquatch skeptic. He maintains that Sasquatch does not exist, but then admits that he has stored in his lab thousands of samples that he himself calls Sasquatch samples. Then his lab ran the experiments for Melba Ketchum and when he got to an anomaly in the DNA that couldn't be explained by him, he threw the samples away. He admitted this. See the problem?