can probability theory be used to refute evolution

[Hespera]

couple of articles about it.

CSI | Can Probability Theory Be Used to Refute Evolution? (Part One)

CSI | Can Probability Theory Be Used to Refute Evolution? (Part Two)

 

[Baqueinfaith]

No, no it can't.

 

[Hespera]

just offering some stuff for those here who have been arguing that it can.

 

[Baqueinfaith]

just offering some stuff for those here who have been arguing that it can.

Evening--it is not time to post this.

 

[Hespera]

Evening--it is not time to post this.

it wont go stale overnite will it?

 

[Baqueinfaith]

You didn't see what I did there?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

couple of articles about it.

CSI | Can Probability Theory Be Used to Refute Evolution? (Part One)

CSI | Can Probability Theory Be Used to Refute Evolution? (Part Two)

I wonder how many millions of years the crocodile has been throwing the macro-evolutionary dice and always throwing snake eyes (same as croc eyes I wonder)?

 

[Hespera]

I wonder how many millions of years the crocodile has been throwing the macro-evolutionary dice and always throwing snake eyes (same as croc eyes I wonder)?

is that supposed to mean something?

 

[Baqueinfaith]

is that supposed to mean something?

Nobody knows.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

is that supposed to mean something?

Sure does. What is the probability that a crocodile would only go through micro-evolution and not macro-evolution over the course of 100 million years?

Crocodile’s Fossil 100 Million year old is Found in Thailand | newstodaynews.com


Cool

 

[Baqueinfaith]

Sure does. What is the probability that a crocodile would only go through micro-evolution and not macro-evolution over the course of 100 million years?

Crocodile’s Fossil 100 Million year old is Found in Thailand | newstodaynews.com


Cool

Doesn't matter.

 

[Blayz]

Sure does. What is the probability that a crocodile would only go through micro-evolution and not macro-evolution over the course of 100 million years?

Crocodile’s Fossil 100 Million year old is Found in Thailand | newstodaynews.com


Cool

So just to clarify, in a thread devoted to explaining why probability theory is a useless tool in discussing evolution, you are asking what is the probability of a particular aspect of evolution.

Nice one

 

[Hespera]

Sure does. What is the probability that a crocodile would only go through micro-evolution and not macro-evolution over the course of 100 million years?

Crocodile’s Fossil 100 Million year old is Found in Thailand | newstodaynews.com


Cool

why pick on crocodlles? clams, cockroaches, possums, palm trees- lots of organisms hit on a good thing and a significant change would not be advantageous. there are older croc fossils than that one

When the phytosaurs died out at the end of the permian, the crocodiles evolved and took their place.

thought you said you "love" science, but, not of course, enough to know anything about it.

 

[jpcedotal]

Only maths & sciences that "prove" evolution count. We will jump on any bandwagon whose goal is to back up evolution and we will discount any that may not line up.

Because evolution itself is not really a science, but a religion. I mean, aint that what New Earth Christians do...only accept the sciences and maths that back up Creationism?

So we are really talking about whose religion is correct by twisting science and math to back us up...but in fact, neither religion can be proven in human terms.

 

[jpcedotal]

Why are there are no "Gravity vs God" threads?

 

[Greg1234]

Sure does. What is the probability that a crocodile would only go through micro-evolution and not macro-evolution over the course of 100 million years?

Crocodile’s Fossil 100 Million year old is Found in Thailand | newstodaynews.com


Cool

Try it out Random Mutation Generator

No your eyes are not deceiving you. No it's not a trick.

 

[Hespera]

Only maths & sciences that "prove" evolution count. We will jump on any bandwagon whose goal is to back up evolution and we will discount any that may not line up.

Because evolution itself is not really a science, but a religion. I mean, aint that what New Earth Christians do...only accept the sciences and maths that back up Creationism?

So we are really talking about whose religion is correct by twisting science and math to back us up...but in fact, neither religion can be proven in human terms.

"prove" evolution

nobody tries to prove theory.

discount any that may not line up.

Until someone produces such data, this is a lie because it hasnt happened yet.

Because evolution itself is not really a science, but a religion

double false on that one. doesnt your "religion' counsel against speaking falsely?

only accept the sciences and maths that back up Creationism?

not really, they also accept science that isnt seen as threatening to their 'faith".

so you managed one semi factual statement and the rest are false.

So as usual we see that the only way a creationist has to attack science is with falsehoods.

 

[Hespera]

Why are there are no "Gravity vs God" threads?

You really really really honestly dont know?

if this were geocentrism days you would see anti heliocentrism threads.

nobody is against gravity theory because it does not threaten their self-styled inerrant interpretation of the bible.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

nobody tries to prove theory.

What?!

How else do we go from the imagined to the reality of actually knowing?

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Hespera

nobody tries to prove theory.

​

What?!

How else do we go from the imagined to the reality of actually knowing?

Proof is for maths and alcohol. Nothing in science is ever proved, everything is potentially falsifiable. However, somethings have so much evidence backing them that falsification is extremely unlikely.