Author Topic: The Probability of the Big Bang  (Read 27345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #174 on: March 14, 2012, 03:02:43 PM »
You didn't explain the most important change of all!  The topic at hand.  The wing, but rather point to polar bear color?  Again, step by little step, think about it....  Picture a time lapse movie showing each little step and.examples of the advantages that the little steps make.  Have you ever really done that?  Or quickly think about a glider and say, "see gliding eas it!".
Never said anything about the polar bear. I said peppered moth.

Time lapse IS a good example. Take a picture of your baby every day. Do this for 20 years. Hard to believe the 20 year old came from the 1 day old is it?

Look at a human embryo and a chimpansee embryo, not much difference.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 03:28:56 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #175 on: March 14, 2012, 03:22:24 PM »
...Have we ever seen a mutation benefit us in any way?...

Yes, you might want to look into lactase and lactose tolerance.
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline Cyberia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
  • Darwins +35/-0
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #176 on: March 14, 2012, 03:52:28 PM »
What is the fascination with wings?  Why is this so hard to fathom?

Do you recognize that Birds don't have ARMS?  Or even that their wings are their evolved arms?

Small therapod dinosaurs had arms AND they had feathers.  Probably most therapods had feathers, including T-rex, as baby T-rexs have been found with feathers.

So either through Neotony (retaining baby characteristics into adulthood) or by natural variation (allowing feathers to grow on the entire body) some therapods grew feathers on their arms........

Small therapods that could run fast and weighted little could go airborne for short distances by extending their arms.  A VERY VERY helpful adaptation when trying to escape predators.  So they survived more often.  Over time, they got better and better at staying airborne.

Arms became wings. 
Soon we will judge angels.

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 707
  • Darwins +17/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #177 on: March 14, 2012, 04:37:15 PM »
American quail are like that. They run fast and just barely fly over a fence. Eurpean quail fly a little better.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1766
  • Darwins +74/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #178 on: March 14, 2012, 04:54:26 PM »
American quail are like that. They run fast and just barely fly over a fence. Eurpean quail fly a little better.

Exactly. An increment towards sustained flight. Just like you can find the various stages of eyeball development in different, extant species.

The pieces were there, rocky12. Darwin was just the first to organize them into a coherent theory that has been repeatedly borne out.

It explains the biological world as we observe it and makes predictions that so far have been valid. It works. Unless you can offer another theory superior in explanatory and predictive power, with evidence, your objections are unsupported opinion.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #179 on: March 14, 2012, 06:18:25 PM »
What is the fascination with wings?  Why is this so hard to fathom?

Do you recognize that Birds don't have ARMS?  Or even that their wings are their evolved arms?

Small therapod dinosaurs had arms AND they had feathers.  Probably most therapods had feathers, including T-rex, as baby T-rexs have been found with feathers.

So either through Neotony (retaining baby characteristics into adulthood) or by natural variation (allowing feathers to grow on the entire body) some therapods grew feathers on their arms........

Small therapods that could run fast and weighted little could go airborne for short distances by extending their arms.  A VERY VERY helpful adaptation when trying to escape predators.  So they survived more often.  Over time, they got better and better at staying airborne.

Arms became wings.

Fascination with wings?  Because it's a supposed to be a simple example of how absurd evolution is.  Shall I bring up a difficult example for all you to fumble through trying to explain?  You state that some dinosaurs had feathers.  What would this do?  Why would even a mutation that formed a bump on the arm (on it's way to being a feather) have benefited anything?  The rationale is NOT there.  You know how many mutations would have been needed for "flight" or "gliding" to take effect?  Lots and lots.  So on the way to "gliding", you have these odd looking bumps on the arms that are evolving for some reason on their way to feathers.  I'm trying to get you to think about what you are saying.  But you take these enormous leaps and start talking about "gliding".  That's a million mutations beyond the first little phase that a creature would have taken on its long journey to flight.  Understand?  You make it sound soooo simple..."a lightweight animal spread it's arms and soon learned how to fly".  And where is this evidence?  Cuz' right now, it's simply a far-cry. 

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #180 on: March 14, 2012, 06:25:46 PM »
Yes, bear color is evolution.  Wing formation is evolution.  Flipper development is evolution.  Eye formation is evolution.  All of these and so many more are because evolution is the process which describes how species change over time.  Yet you are apparently not willing to even concede this is possible because you already believe in special creation/intelligent design.  So I'll ask again, why do you think special creation/intelligent design are necessary?  I mean this seriously.  Why does your understanding and conception of God need him to "intelligently design" various species, which he then pops into existence?  Speaking hypothetically, why couldn't God use evolution instead and let life develop to see what ends up coming about?

Why couldn't God use evolution?  I suppose He could have.  I don't think He did, but He could have.  I don't see how science and natural causes could have brought about such complexity that we see.  Yet, nobody can give me a step by step of how things evolved.  Simply guesses.  Again, how did the middle ear ossicles form?  Does it seem rational to believe that evolution accidentally mutated a million times to create the middle ear ossicles?  The tympanic membrane?  The cochlea?  The semi-circular canals?  Such advanced designs and mechanisms that it makes you wonder, doesn't it?  And yes, all mutations are first accidental.  The benefitting ones lasted?  Think about the process!  The miraculous process that you propose.  From a scientific standpoint, I believe it becomes an impossibility.  Therefore, IF it's an impossibility....say for a second that it is.....what is left?  Ahhh, what's left is supernatural.  Something that we have NO idea of.  A new idea that we can't comprehend or explain.  Just think IF it was impossible. 

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #181 on: March 14, 2012, 06:28:59 PM »
Just think IF it was impossible. 

Excellent logic.[1] "If it was impossible, my explanation would be true, so my explanation is true."
Non-sequitur with false dichotomy and complete disregard for science. Genius.
 1. Sarcasm-meter overload!
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #182 on: March 14, 2012, 06:32:07 PM »

You're qualifications keep shifting and your dismissals are done out of personal incredulity.  Earlier you treated evolution as if changes were spontaneous, literally leaping out of an organism at whim, this has nothing to do with the various mechanisms for evolution under biological evolutionary science. 


The changes aren't spontaneous?  The organisms planned their next reproduction as having an extra toe to help it dig?  They are ALL accidental.  According to evolution, some were a hinderance, some neutral, and some beneficial.  There's a 33% chance right there of being beneficial.  Spontaneous 33% chance odd right there.  And these beneficial ones lasted.  Then the beneficial ones had another 33% chance of mutating (if they mutated!) of being even more beneficial.  And slowly things advanced to the extreme level of sophistication we see today?  That seems likely?  Or even possible?  Again, using the wing as an example.....think about a time-lapse scene of this happening in a creature.  Then take this time-lapse scene and use it a million times over for the even more complex creations we see....The eye, the brain, the reproductive sexual organs..etc.....  It becomes mind-blowing absurdity.  Not that a cute little tale of science and mutations can't explain, but a rational one?  No.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #183 on: March 14, 2012, 06:34:38 PM »
According to evolution, some were a hinderance, some neutral, and some beneficial.  There's a 33% chance right there of being beneficial.

Shows how much you know about genetics. The truth is that we don't know the odds of there being a beneficial mutation because we simply do not understand DNA well enough. However, even if we did, we don't have the DNA of most extinct species. Try again.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 06:36:47 PM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #184 on: March 14, 2012, 06:38:29 PM »
According to evolution, some were a hinderance, some neutral, and some beneficial.  There's a 33% chance right there of being beneficial.

Shows how much you know about genetics. The truth is that we don't know the odds of there being a beneficial mutation because we simply do not understand DNA well enough. Try again.

So the odds are even worse?  I see how you dodged the other questions and focused on a meaningless % I threw out there.  Certainly we don't see over 33% of humans developing extra toes and eyes, do we?  Can you explain the simple one.  The wing evolving from start to finish.  The very first step (whatever it was) out there in the animal kingdom, of the mutation that started it ALL.  And then go from there.  I'm curious to see the development of the wing in action.  Since it's sooo simple and logical, and somehow I just don't get it...

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #185 on: March 14, 2012, 06:42:34 PM »
So the odds are even worse?

Like I said - we don't know.

I see how you dodged the other questions and focused on a meaningless % I threw out there.  Certainly we don't see over 33% of humans developing extra toes and eyes, do we?  Can you explain the simple one.  The wing evolving from start to finish.  The very first step (whatever it was) out there in the animal kingdom, of the mutation that started it ALL.  And then go from there.  I'm curious to see the development of the wing in action.  Since it's sooo simple and logical, and somehow I just don't get it...

Whether we know how everything evolved or not is utterly irrelevant. Evolution has been proven ad nauseam and is used to save millions every year.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #186 on: March 14, 2012, 06:46:45 PM »
So the odds are even worse?

Like I said - we don't know.

I see how you dodged the other questions and focused on a meaningless % I threw out there.  Certainly we don't see over 33% of humans developing extra toes and eyes, do we?  Can you explain the simple one.  The wing evolving from start to finish.  The very first step (whatever it was) out there in the animal kingdom, of the mutation that started it ALL.  And then go from there.  I'm curious to see the development of the wing in action.  Since it's sooo simple and logical, and somehow I just don't get it...

Whether we know how everything evolved or not is utterly irrelevant. Evolution has been proven ad nauseam and is used to save millions every year.

So you don't know and can't do it?  But the above posts laughed at me for questioning the development of the wing.  Now, it's irrelevant and you say we don't understand how it evolved?  I'm confused.  Either it's true or it isn't.  The wing is a very simple example, I would think, to explain to a novice like me, how evolution worked. 

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #187 on: March 14, 2012, 06:50:06 PM »
So you don't know and can't do it?  But the above posts laughed at me for questioning the development of the wing.  Now, it's irrelevant and you say we don't understand how it evolved?  I'm confused.  Either it's true or it isn't.  The wing is a very simple example, I would think, to explain to a novice like me, how evolution worked. 

The term is "idiot, liar and troll", actually. I was making a point based on what I assumed was your point. I have also posted several instances of evolution, as has everyone else. Some even posted the evolution of the wing.
From colonies turning into multicellular beings to bacteria adapting to antibiotics and developing the ability to metabolize new substances, evolution has been proven so many times it's not even funny anymore.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #188 on: March 14, 2012, 06:56:30 PM »
So you don't know and can't do it?  But the above posts laughed at me for questioning the development of the wing.  Now, it's irrelevant and you say we don't understand how it evolved?  I'm confused.  Either it's true or it isn't.  The wing is a very simple example, I would think, to explain to a novice like me, how evolution worked. 

The term is "idiot, liar and troll", actually. I was making a point based on what I assumed was your point. I have also posted several instances of evolution, as has everyone else. Some even posted the evolution of the wing.
From colonies turning into multicellular beings to bacteria adapting to antibiotics and developing the ability to metabolize new substances, evolution has been proven so many times it's not even funny anymore.

I don't get the "liar" part....but I digress.  The posts of the development of the wing....I have looked at them all.  And, of course, there are explanations.  I never said that nobody has given it any thought....but logical?  And step by itty-bitty step?  No.  The fabrications are preposterous.  The reasoning far-fetched.  So you still can't give me a step-by-step?  I understand it would take a very long paragraph to compose, and I'm sorry.  But if you believe it to be true, at least think about what you believe.  That's all I'm asking, I guess.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #189 on: March 14, 2012, 06:59:47 PM »
<snip>

To reiterate: Whether we can accurately describe how structures evolved millions of years ago or not is irrelevant we have proof of evolution that occurred now ("now" being in the last five years).
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline rockv12

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 240
  • Darwins +3/-44
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #190 on: March 14, 2012, 07:05:20 PM »
<snip>

To reiterate: Whether we can accurately describe how structures evolved millions of years ago or not is irrelevant we have proof of evolution that occurred now ("now" being in the last five years).

Is anything proven from millions of years ago?  I get laughed at when I say that it isn't. 

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4731
  • Darwins +535/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #191 on: March 14, 2012, 07:05:42 PM »
Why couldn't God use evolution?  I suppose He could have.  I don't think He did, but He could have.  I don't see how science and natural causes could have brought about such complexity that we see.  Yet, nobody can give me a step by step of how things evolved.  Simply guesses.
This is not the site to go to if you want someone who can explain the evolutionary process in exquisite step-by-step details to you.  You do notice that this site is WhyWon'tGodHealAmputees.com, not EverythingYouEverWantedToKnowAboutEvolution.org[1], right?  Many of us here are laymen who know enough about science to understand the basics, but lack the specific knowledge of particular fields such as evolution to be able to explain it beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote from: rockv12
Again, how did the middle ear ossicles form?  Does it seem rational to believe that evolution accidentally mutated a million times to create the middle ear ossicles?  The tympanic membrane?  The cochlea?  The semi-circular canals?
When you make claims like "it took a million accidental mutations to create body structure X", you prove all over again that you don't really understand evolution and that you aren't looking to even try to.  Evolution is still a work in progress, as are all theories.  For example, there's a relatively new sub-theory called facilitated variation which shows that you have constrained processes (which are basic functions like cell division) which are not subject to anything but accidental mutations (and rarely change as a result), and deconstrained processes which rapidly combine based on environmental pressures to adapt to them.  In other words, it modifies the standard view of evolution so that you no longer need many accidental changes over a great length of time, and more importantly, it fits observed facts such as explosions in variety after extinction events.

Quote from: rockv12
Such advanced designs and mechanisms that it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Makes me wonder...what, precisely?  Makes me wonder if someone actually designed it?  Not really.  You see, I've written computer programs, so I know that a competent designer works to get rid of all known bugs, and moreover, continues working to get rid of them.  Therefore, either life was "designed" by someone who is happy just getting it to work, even though there's tons of design flaws and "bugs", or it wasn't designed and the flaws and "bugs" are the natural result of the way it came together.

Quote from: rockv12
And yes, all mutations are first accidental.  The benefitting ones lasted?  Think about the process!  The miraculous process that you propose.
"Miraculous".  You think it's a miracle that mutations that benefit an organism in some manner would naturally tend to last because it just tends to do better than other organisms which don't have those beneficial mutations?  Yeah, maybe you'd better think about what you just got done saying.

Quote from: rockv12
From a scientific standpoint, I believe it becomes an impossibility.
Not surprising.  Also wrong.  "Impossible" is one of those words which gets overused a lot by people who don't really know how probability works.  I have a simple probability question for you, which I'd like you to answer out of your own knowledge; how many people do you have to have in a room before you have a 50% chance of two shared birthdays?  And while we're at it, how many people do you have to have in a room before you have a 99% chance of two shared birthdays?  I'll bet the answer will surprise you.

Quote from: rockv12
Therefore, IF it's an impossibility....say for a second that it is.....what is left?  Ahhh, what's left is supernatural.  Something that we have NO idea of.  A new idea that we can't comprehend or explain.  Just think IF it was impossible.
Okay, so...when do you consider the odds of something happening to be effectively impossible?
 1. the name is made up, but I'll bet someone's made a site like that

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10782
  • Darwins +274/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #192 on: March 14, 2012, 07:07:34 PM »
Is anything proven from millions of years ago?  I get laughed at when I say that it isn't. 

Fossil evidence, coupled together with what we know of genetics is enough to prove that things evolved and are still evolving. What you're proposing is that the laws of nature were different a few million years ago. That's why you get laughed at.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6270
  • Darwins +722/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #193 on: March 14, 2012, 07:09:55 PM »
rockv12

What is your explanation for the many hundreds of thousands of biologists and geologists and paleontologists and archaeologists and other scientists all around the world spending their entire career working on something that you consider patently ridiculous? Either directly studying sciences that support evolution, or doing work that only makes sense if evolution is real. Do you really think that that many people would voluntarily spend their entire life doing something that is obviously false. So obviously false that you, as a non-scientist, can see the many flaws in the theory?

I know or have known three professional fisheries biologists, several dozen archaeologists, a biochemist, an oceanic geologist, two oil company geologists, a geologist who studies continental drift, a paleontologist who has traveled all over the world searching for fossils, and a few others I'm sure I've forgotten. Most were very excited about their chosen field and very willing to talk about the work they were or are doing. Do you really think that intelligent people would spend their entire professional career working on something they know not to be true? And do you think that they would spend their entire careers working in these fields and not see the lies, if the subjects they were studying were indeed lies?

Would you work for a pharmaceutical that cheated on its testing and overcharged for medicines and...oh wait, bad example. Would you spend your entire life knowingly living a lie, just to support some sort of hidden agenda of some sort of shadowy conspiracy group that terrorized the world by printing books?

Think about it. If ID is legitimate, for instance, why aren't there thousands of christian scientists researching all the discoveries and disproving with ease every single detail of evolutionary theory. Why is the christian right dependent on people like you, who all read exactly the same sites before coming here. The inner ear question, the eye question. The wing question. You didn't come up with those. Others did, and you are assuming they asked good questions and you trust that they are right. If only because their simple version of what happened matches your own.

It took me less than fifteen seconds to find a number of sources that describe how flight seems to have evolved. Yes, you're right, we had no video cameras or other eyewitnesses, but the lack of a Sony camcorder and Faux News doesn't mean it didn't happen. It only means that we have to discern what did occur based upon the evidencet. And we're having a heck of a time interpreting it any other way. No matter how unbelievable it is to you that these things could have happened, they probably did. Not because we commanded it to happen. Not because several trillion atheist heathens manufactured a lie to foist off on the world so we wouldn't have to obey your god. But because all of the evidence, fossil and otherwise, points to a very consistent story of evolved life.

Compared to all the things that are knowable, we don't know diddly. Nobody does. But rather than sitting around burning incense and mouthing incantations and drinking holy water by the gallon, a whole bunch of folks decided to start asking intelligent questions, and then to look for intelligent answers.

I suspect you area suffering from what is called "cognitive dissonance". We all suffer from it one way or the other, but folks like you who have so much invested in religion have to find ways to convince yourself that you haven't been a fool. And in order to do that, you have to find ways to convince yourself that others are. And by reading a little blurb on a creationist site about inner ears and wings, and then coming here and insisting we don't know WTF we're talking about, you are more sure than ever that you have the world figured out. And that we atheists and the scientists of the world are wrong about everything.

That's normal. That's why people who have tried to quit smoking and failed start to tell themselves that smoking isn't all that bad for them after all. People who haven't tried quitting know damned well it's bad, but they haven't failed at quitting so they don't have to lie to themselves to justify sucking on yet another cancer stick.

Now of course, you could say we are all wrong and deluding ourselves for the same reason, but the problem there is we have reams of evidence and tons of non-contradictory research in dozens of scientific fields, and tens of thousands of scientists who all agree with the theory of evolution. They may differ in some of the details, because like you say, nobody was there with a video camera, and hence we don't have absolutely everything we need to know the specifics of any given evolutionary process. But we have evidence. We have genetic similarities between humans and mice and yeast and dung beetles and naked mole rats, all of which were predicted long before we could sequence DNA. We have a geology that matches very precisely not only the findings of paleontology, but also the predictions of that science. We know where fossils are, and why. And we know where they are not. And why.

Now, in case you didn't read all this, here's my summary. Science isn't a huge conspiracy. You're wrong. You are too invested in your beliefs to be able to comprehend that. And in either case, if I type any more it will probably bore you, so I'll stop now.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5378
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #194 on: March 14, 2012, 07:15:48 PM »
.....and why would an intelligent designer design such unintelligent believers?
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #195 on: March 14, 2012, 07:19:27 PM »
Rocky: Dude you need to stay off the Darwinrefuted website it's got you all tangled up.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline jakec47

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Darwins +4/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #196 on: March 14, 2012, 07:32:13 PM »
but lack the specific knowledge of particular fields such as evolution to be able to explain it beyond reasonable doubt.

So you admit that you can't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats not enough to convict someone in a murder trial so its not enough for me.

When you make claims like "it took a million accidental mutations to create body structure X", you prove all over again that you don't really understand evolution and that you aren't looking to even try to.  Evolution is still a work in progress, as are all theories.  For example, there's a relatively new sub-theory called facilitated variation which shows that you have constrained processes (which are basic functions like cell division) which are not subject to anything but accidental mutations (and rarely change as a result), and deconstrained processes which rapidly combine based on environmental pressures to adapt to them.  In other words, it modifies the standard view of evolution so that you no longer need many accidental changes over a great length of time, and more importantly, it fits observed facts such as explosions in variety after extinction events.

I like how you use theory..."a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." Dictionary.com. So you can't prove anything, you can only theorize.

Makes me wonder...what, precisely?  Makes me wonder if someone actually designed it?  Not really.  You see, I've written computer programs, so I know that a competent designer works to get rid of all known bugs, and moreover, continues working to get rid of them.  Therefore, either life was "designed" by someone who is happy just getting it to work, even though there's tons of design flaws and "bugs", or it wasn't designed and the flaws and "bugs" are the natural result of the way it came together.

God did get rid of all the bugs, but a virus attacked the computer and messed everything up, since then he has been executing his plan to fix it again. Surely you would agree that if you have a computer program, someone had to make it, it just doesn't happen by itself.


"Miraculous".  You think it's a miracle that mutations that benefit an organism in some manner would naturally tend to last because it just tends to do better than other organisms which don't have those beneficial mutations?  Yeah, maybe you'd better think about what you just got done saying.

Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?






 

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #197 on: March 14, 2012, 07:39:24 PM »
Let me state this differently. Creationists typically do not understand the basics of evolution. It is because they get their information from  lop-sided sources. Creationist books and websites.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #198 on: March 14, 2012, 07:40:19 PM »

Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?

Are you fucking serious? I mean, this is just stupid.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #199 on: March 14, 2012, 07:51:06 PM »

God did get rid of all the bugs, but a virus attacked the computer and messed everything up, since then he has been executing his plan to fix it again. Surely you would agree that if you have a computer program, someone had to make it, it just doesn't happen by itself.




Well, computer programs are basically nothing but math and logic (logic is something you're probably bad at). The program didn't happen *itself* persay - it's just we mere humans were able to harness the power of binary to our advantage to compute in into a readable form displayed on our monitors via some sort of interface.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jakec47

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
  • Darwins +4/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #200 on: March 14, 2012, 07:58:33 PM »

Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?

Are you fucking serious? I mean, this is just stupid.

Of course its stupid, just like your theories. But in reality, small guns wont kill a Grizzly Bear because of how thick their skin is, if you hit a Grizzly Bear in the head with a baseball bat it would do nothing, their skulls are harder. So if they have such hard skulls does that mean that in order for that to happen they had to have been two mutations one with hard skin and one with soft and the soft skins died and no we only have the hards. So what of humans, why do defects still exist, why aren't they being put out like the other problems. Humans have been here for a long time and yet it seems we have not gotten stronger but in fact weaker then our ancestors.


God did get rid of all the bugs, but a virus attacked the computer and messed everything up, since then he has been executing his plan to fix it again. Surely you would agree that if you have a computer program, someone had to make it, it just doesn't happen by itself.




Well, computer programs are basically nothing but math and logic (logic is something you're probably bad at). The program didn't happen *itself* persay - it's just we mere humans were able to harness the power of binary to our advantage to compute in into a readable form displayed on our monitors via some sort of interface.

Exactly my point. Without a human there would be no computer program, and no computer. Without God there would be no universe or anything in it. Everything has to come from something. Especially something as orderly as our world. For another example. How is it that we can predict where a particular star is going to be 100 years in the future. They move in exact patterns that make it possible to predict their movements. How does this exactness occur on its own?

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #201 on: March 14, 2012, 08:00:51 PM »
Quote
Humans have been getting stabbed and shot for many years, how come we aren't invulnerable to attacks like that? Shouldn't we evolve?

Sig claimed.

No one else touch it.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: The Probability of the Big Bang
« Reply #202 on: March 14, 2012, 08:10:00 PM »
The problem creationists have with dismantling evolution, is they take on too much at one time.

Let's start with the basics.
There are three main components of evolution.

1) heritability
2) mutation
3) natural selection

Which of these would you deny, and why?
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.