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.
That's not 2 Peter 3:6, which reads, δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο.2 Peter 3:6 Οπότε ο κόσμος που ήταν τότε, ξεχειλισμένος από νερό, χάθηκε:
We see new mutations arise all the time and we see alleles change frequency all the time. Such a large change in frequency will occur over a long period of time unless the population is small or the allele is beneficial, both of which we also see routinely. If you really know this little about genetics, why are you making confident statements about it?"Suppose a chance mutation occurs and eventually all three alleles have..." is a massive supposition, friend.
My bad. I should avoid translating when it comes to Greek. It's close, no?That's not 2 Peter 3:6, which reads, δι' ὧν ὁ τότε κόσμος ὕδατι κατακλυσθεὶς ἀπώλετο.
Did you ever see "Dumb and Dumber" when Lloyd asked Mary if his chances with her were 1 out of a 100 and she replied, "More like 1 out of 1,000,000".......and he ridiculously replied, "So, you're tellin' me there's a chance?!!"You still don't get it. Information is just the uncertainty of a message you haven't yet seen. Let's go over the basics:
1. if you are absolutely sure what an incoming message will say, the information in it is 0. You learn nothing from the message.
2. If you are somewhat uncertain as to what the message will be, the message will be a number between 1.0 and 0, but will not include 1.0 and 0.
In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes.
Where H is information and there are x alleles in the population.
Does that mean that random things like scrabble letters tossed on a surface have information? Yep. In fact, they have a great amount of information, more than a proper sentence would have. You might have to think about that for a bit to realize why. But if you can't see it, then I'll explain. Let me know.
So a new allele could be the result of a point mutation, and it might do something or it might no. As I said, you have about 100 mutations that were present in neither of your parents. Because proteins are so large, one amino acid switched out usually don't do anything measurable. But it's still new information and it increases the information in the population genome.
The origin is in mutations. That was Mendel's discovery.
Right. That was Darwin's great discovery. Random mutation and natural selection. It's been directly observed to work. Would you like to learn about that?
You might think so, but of course, you aren't Jesus. Remember, He created things to work this way. So I'm pretty sure He wouldn't agree with you.
We see new mutations arise all the time and we see alleles change frequency all the time. Such a large change in frequency will occur over a long period of time unless the population is small or the allele is beneficial, both of which we also see routinely. If you really know this little about genetics, why are you making confident statements about it?
Your chances aren't that good.Did you ever see "Dumb and Dumber" when Lloyd asked Mary if his chances with her were 1 out of a 100 and she replied, "More like 1 out of 1,000,000".......and he ridiculously replied, "So, you're tellin' me there's a chance?!!"
Which is why in this case, it would be the analogue to something like 99.99% sure of the message. Which would then mean the information would be very close to 0.0. Good example.You see, the math does show that there's a chance that Lloyd ends up with Mary, despite the fact that he's broke, looks like a doofus, and has an IQ of a toaster, while she's rich, a knockout, and already married...but does anyone other than a raving lunatic actually believe Lloyd can end up with Mary, barring some miracle of God?
Since evolution is an observed phenomenon, that's not necessary. We know the likelihood for evolution. It's 1.0. Remember when I showed you that your major issue is not knowing what evolution is? It just tripped you, again.Likewise, it's not reasonable to take what are essentially mathematical impossibilities and employ them as "evidence" for why evolution is possible.
Seems pretty foolish to deny something that is observed constantly around us. I'm guessing you YouTuber is like you, and has no idea what evolution is. As I said, most likely, he's confused evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution like common descent. But just to be sure, why not show us what you think is his most compelling argument, and we'll see how it goes?How impossible?
Here's how to tell:How impossible?
Macro-evolution has never been observed, so please stop claiming it has. Everytime I give you evidence for why it hasn't, you gloss over.Your chances aren't that good.
Which is why in this case, it would be the analogue to something like 99.99% sure of the message. Which would then mean the information would be very close to 0.0. Good example.
Since evolution is an observed phenomenon, that's not necessary. We know the likelihood for evolution. It's 1.0. Remember when I showed you that your major issue is not knowing what evolution is? It just tripped you, again.
Seems pretty foolish to deny something that is observed constantly around us. I'm guessing you YouTuber is like you, and has no idea what evolution is. As I said, most likely, he's confused evolution with agencies of evolution like natural selection, or consequences of evolution like common descent. But just to be sure, why not show us what you think is his most compelling argument, and we'll see how it goes?
On the other hand, if you don't understand the issue well enough to bring it up here, what makes you think he's got it right?
I've seen this story before...."It has to be true! I saw it on YouTube!"
Did you watch the video? Did you see the incredible amount of faith it takes to believe such improbabilities are probable?Here's how to tell:
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it thoroughly, and then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result is 1 divided by 52!. 1/Fifty-two factorial is about:
0 .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000123
And yet every time you try this, you get an equally unlikely result.
If you take your genes, given the genes of all your great-great-great grandparents, you are several degrees of magnitude less likely than that.
So your ambitious YouTuber just "proved" that you and shuffled decks are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.
Does that give you a hint as to why the probability argument against evolution amuses mathematicians so much?
How do you think I so easily refuted his idea? There is, of course, another, less mathematical goof he made. You see, his calculations also depend on events being random. As you learned earlier, Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.Did you watch the video? Did you see the incredible amount of faith it takes to believe such improbabilities are probable?
Thanks. I can always use prayer. I'll pray for you too.I've decided I need to pray intently for you
That's the great thing. Even if you deny the way He created species, it won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of it, and insist that other Christians must believe it to be saved. So long as you don't do that, God doesn't care what you think of the way He did it.from what I believe is error
Wrong:Macro-evolution has never been observed, so please stop claiming it has.
Your own guys undercut you on this one. Sorry.Everytime I give you evidence for why it hasn't, you gloss over.
I showed you that your error was in assuming that erosion is constant over the whole earth and that there is no deposition of sediment anywhere, among other misconceptions. If you thought about it for a bit, I think you'd see why that would be impossible.For instance, I've shown you several times that even the areas with the slowest rates of erosion and uplift, these should have been washed into the ocean many times over, forever erasing the entire fossil record
Guess how I know you didn't actually read his article. Would you like me to show it to you?though your evolutionist comrades call your defense "an embarrassment to all the commonly accepted models of landscape development"
You, for example, have not been able to even tell us what it is, much less know it's "inner workings." However, many such critics do know something about it. Creationist Dr. Todd Wood, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, and others are able to understand it. But you don't.You surmise that all critics of evolution are ignorant of its inner workings
For example, he assumed it was random. And the most important part of Darwin's discovery was that it isn't random. So yes, he's more than a little ignorant of the subject.if you watch the video clip I posted, you'll see that God did not strike Dr. Veith with "anti-atheist amnesia" leaving him ignorant of how evolution is claimed to work.
I don't know Koine Greek; I figured it was pretty close to modern Greek. My bad.Dunno. I assume it's modern Greek, which I don't know.
Are you aware that there is an entire field of science devoted to investigating evolution and making inferences about it?Hunches or intuitions aren't whole answers, they are meant to start investigation and inference.
Not bad, but a few comments.When some forms of life were eliminated, others exapted to fill the remaining ecosystem. The two halves of that sentence are what is actually meant by "natural means of selection" and it doesn't explain why or how any forms suddenly found themselves "fittest" and surviving (all surviving were "fittest"), making the slogans sort-of true after all but only if by effort understood.
Nature can't explain humanity, because we are more than mere bodies. God directly gives us our souls.This doesn't explain humanity, not even in our mammalian dimension, and that was considered subordinate until materialist moralisers projected guilt onto us.
Reminds me of this infographic,Here's how to tell:
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it thoroughly, and then deal out the cards one at a time, noting the order. The likelihood of that result is 1 divided by 52!. 1/Fifty-two factorial is about:
0 .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000123
And yet every time you try this, you get an equally unlikely result.
If you take your genes, given the genes of all your great-great-great grandparents, you are several degrees of magnitude less likely than that.
So your ambitious YouTuber just "proved" that you and shuffled decks are so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.
Does that give you a hint as to why the probability argument against evolution amuses mathematicians so much?
1 - I agree with your three middle sentences, and the first if you mean it as you might. My rhetoric was aimed at the usual "explanation" ignoring mass eliminations contingently happening sometimes (did the valuation "fittest" match the population before, or after, the elimination of those not remaining?) Thus this is what some extinction is about.Not all that survive are the fittest. There's only a tendency for the fit to survive. Over time that's the trend. But it can go the other way. That's what extinction is about. 1
And until genetics, it wasn't really clear how natural selection worked in the details. Darwin only knew that it did, just as Wegener knew that continents had moved, even if he had no idea how. When the mechanisms became clear, those theories were much more solidly accepted. 2
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?