Evolution is mathematically impossible

[tas8831]

You've got to stop following me. This is not good for you.

Ummm... I was posting in this thread before you were...

 

[tas8831]

Translation: I want a closer look, for the purpose of better understanding the issue. You'd be surprised what you learn by looking at each case closely. It's more than just a numbers game.

Like I said, the data do not comport with your preconceived notions, so you are looking for an out. Did you bother to look at the data? Did you see all the categories and the numbers in each?

 

[tas8831]

I accept that I might be wrong about lots of things. But do you think I would ever admit it to someone who viciously attacks everything I post? Some need to study human nature.

Some like.... YOU?
You know - if you hadn't presented yourself as having the 'right' answer on evolution because of your high IQ and and all this obviously false garbage, I probably wouldn't have paid much attention to you.

You know how some people really like to root for the underdog? I really like to knock down pompous, egotistical blowhards.

 

[sfs]

I accept that I might be wrong about lots of things. But do you think I would ever admit it to someone who viciously attacks everything I post?

A wise guy wouldn't admit it. A wise person would.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Like I said, the data do not comport with your preconceived notions, so you are looking for an out. Did you bother to look at the data? Did you see all the categories and the numbers in each?

Sure, I've visited the FBI website many times. However there are stories behind the numbers. I have done case history studies in the past. Much more revealing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Some like.... YOU?
You know - if you hadn't presented yourself as having the 'right' answer on evolution because of your high IQ and and all this obviously false garbage, I probably wouldn't have paid much attention to you.

You know how some people really like to root for the underdog? I really like to knock down pompous, egotistical blowhards.

You should let it go, you're going to get an ulcer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A wise guy wouldn't admit it. A wise person would.

A wise person doesn't cast pearls carelessly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[citation still needed]

"Several years ago, evolutionist Harold Morowitz of Yale, and currently professor of biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University, estimated the probability of the formation of the smallest and simplest living organism to be one in 10,340,000,000 (1970, p. 99). A few years following Morowitz’s calculations, the late, renowned evolutionist Carl Sagan made his own estimation of the chance that life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)!"

That's billion, Sagan's favorite number.

God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability

 

[VirOptimus]

"Several years ago, evolutionist Harold Morowitz of Yale, and currently professor of biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University, estimated the probability of the formation of the smallest and simplest living organism to be one in 10,340,000,000 (1970, p. 99). A few years following Morowitz’s calculations, the late, renowned evolutionist Carl Sagan made his own estimation of the chance that life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)!"

That's billion, Sagan's favorite number.

God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability

You really really dont understand probability.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your opinion that the state basically owns kids is noted. I disagree.

That's not my opinion. The state has a duty of care to kids, as do parents.

Your idea of rational health policies may be someone else's idea of wickedness.

There are plenty of people who support irrational policies for various reasons, e.g. irrational beliefs, ignorance, selfishness, etc.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You really really dont understand probability.

I defer to the experts.

 

[VirOptimus]

I defer to the experts.

Yes, they will agree with me.

 

[dad]

That's not my opinion. The state has a duty of care to kids, as do parents.

If God sent them to the parents then the parents are responsible. The state has a duty to protect people though. Yet they don't. Having the wicked state care for kids by allowing sex changes against the wishes of parents or abortions, or...etc etc etc...is like having the fox guard the hen house.

There are plenty of people who support irrational policies for various reasons, e.g. irrational beliefs, ignorance, selfishness, etc.

Yes. That is why God gave us the bible to know right from wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If God sent them to the parents then the parents are responsible. The state has a duty to protect people though. Yet they don't.

You may have heard about the NY measles outbreak:

"The state of emergency in Rockland county, which comes into effect at midnight on Tuesday, bars anyone under 18 who is not vaccinated against measles from public places for 30 days."
...
“Parents will be held accountable if they’re found to be in violation of the state of emergency and the focus of this effort is on the parents of these children,” Day said.

“We are urging them, now with the authority of law, to get your children vaccinated.”​

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks protecting kids, and society in general, from medical ignorance and gullibility, is important.

Yes. That is why God gave us the bible to know right from wrong.

That's a common misconception; the evidence suggests that most people interpret the bible in ways that support their personal preconceptions of right and wrong. It's also been shown that people's assessment of how much God would approve or disapprove of certain actions depends on their current emotional state and recent experience, rather than remaining constant and consistent as one might expect if they were based on biblical text.

Which may be no bad thing, given what a horrible creature the God of the bible is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks protecting kids, and society in general, from medical ignorance and gullibility, is important.​

To bad we can't protect them from being killed in their own schools.​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's a common misconception; the evidence suggests that most people interpret the bible in ways that support their personal preconceptions of right and wrong. It's also been shown that people's assessment of how much God would approve or disapprove of certain actions depends on their current emotional state and recent experience, rather than remaining constant and consistent as one might expect if they were based on biblical text. ​

​

That's not true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are plenty of people who support irrational policies for various reasons, e.g. irrational beliefs, ignorance, selfishness, etc.

I agree, and they are running our educational system. Who but the church is going to protect our kids from them?

 

[Tinker Grey]

"Several years ago, evolutionist Harold Morowitz of Yale, and currently professor of biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University, estimated the probability of the formation of the smallest and simplest living organism to be one in 10,340,000,000 (1970, p. 99). A few years following Morowitz’s calculations, the late, renowned evolutionist Carl Sagan made his own estimation of the chance that life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)!"

That's billion, Sagan's favorite number.

God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability

I appreciate your effort, but you'll forgive me for not trusting apologeticspress.org.

I did some leg-work and found this from here <-- physicstoday, a reprint of the 1973 article in 1974.

What this indicates is that the discussion is about Drake's equation. Without buying the original book to get the whole article, I'd wager a lot that what Sagan said was that there is low likelihood that an advanced-enough civilization existing such that we could communicate with it.

So, no, I don't accept that Sagan said the odd's of life developing on any given planet was 10^2e9.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To bad we can't protect them from being killed in their own schools.

Agreed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's not true.

Well a study was done that looked at the severity of punishment that subjects thought that God would expect or require for various sins and crimes; they made the same assessments after they'd shown subjects material containing cruelty and violence, and after showing them material about loving and forgiveness. There were large differences in the severity of the punishments they thought God would require, that depended on the nature of the material they'd seen. IOW their opinion of God's will varied according to their recent experience (& emotional state). Unfortunately, I couldn't find the relevant paper after a brief search - I'll see if I can find it if I get the time.

As for interpreting the bible according to preconceptions, perhaps I should have said the evidence suggests to me that people interpret the bible in ways that support their personal preconceptions of right and wrong. It's a plausible explanation for why there are so many different interpretations of what is considered right or wrong according to the bible.

Simply calling me a liar doesn't really encourage further discussion.