Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability?
Not only is there zero evidence for evolution, it can be scientifically proven impossible.
I don't think it's against forum rules,
but please do report me because you think so.
If I am gone for 30 to 60 days, then you will be justified.
If not...then........
For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”
How is it that die hard evolutionists fail to appreciate the mathematics of probability? This article Infinite Monkey Theorem - Rational Disciple, which is predicated on the realizations of Stephen Meyer, Doug axe and Bill Dembski,
is just another example of the glaring obviosity that chance is a weak inference.
Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”
For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
Thank you for your feedback.
As for probabilities, consider the following. I shuffle cards and pull one out at random, then record it. I proceed to repeat this a thousand times.
Why is a Creator the default choice?
Have you ever seen anything come into existence, period?Have you ever seen anything come into existence without it being created?
Have you ever seen anything come into existence, period?
Off topic. This isn't a discussion about whether God exists or not.
Perhaps you should try to define what it means to "come into existence". As for me, I've never seen anything come into existence at all.
Just a reminder is all I meant my post to be. We have already had an attempt to derail the ID/evolution debate by turning it into a contest between theism and atheism.But because you are on the same side, not word to the person I relied to, whose post had to be of topic as well, or is this the part where you start splitting hairs in order to keep your point alive?
I've seen entirely too much of these petty little cop outs today.
"If it hurts our side, we'll determine it off topic instead of rendering an intelligent reply.". Or maybe they didn't have one?
Firstly, it wasn't off topic to that which I replied, and #2 Have you ever posted off topic? No3, who cares?
Geez
How do you eliminate the possibilities you haven't thought of?If you eliminate all other possibilities, you are left with a Creator.
Origin of Life" industry, pointing out facts from the .
What does it mean to you?...And you may want to difine existence for yourself, I already know what it means.
This false analogy has been rebutted countless times. Hoyle was known for being a great astronomer and also a stubborn maverick contrarian - he once said, "it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right" , which gives some insight into the value of his opinions.... Atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer, realized this long ago and is famous for the quote:”The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”
The scientific method is a product of the philosophy of science.For anyone who understands the difference between philosophy and the scientific method, is there a better inference to the best explanation for the origin of life? Especially given the multiplicative nature of probabilities re the fine tuning, the Goldilocks zone of the earth, origin of first life, origin of human life and finally the order we see in the universe that is vast and not merely a small patch of order the size of our solar system? I get the probabilistic resource multiplication, but that’s speculative and want to remain scientific.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?