God and science: The laws of probability

PostmodernProphet said:
there is not a single bit of evidence supporting macro evolution......it is based entirely upon your faith......
Click to expand...

Evolution does not use the scientific method. Therefore, it is not even a scientific theory. It doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis. There are no experiments that can be performed on it. If, in fact, it did happen, no one saw it happen. It cannot be caused to happen again. There is, indeed, not one single scrap of observable scientific data that supports evolution. It's a fairy tale for grown-ups.
 
Grugore said:
Evolution does not use the scientific method. Therefore, it is not even a scientific theory. It doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis. There are no experiments that can be performed on it. If, in fact, it did happen, no one saw it happen. It cannot be caused to happen again. There is, indeed, not one single scrap of observable scientific data that supports evolution. It's a fairy tale for grown-ups.
Click to expand...

The irony is unbearable!
 
Grugore said:
Evolution does not use the scientific method. Therefore, it is not even a scientific theory. It doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis. There are no experiments that can be performed on it. If, in fact, it did happen, no one saw it happen. It cannot be caused to happen again. There is, indeed, not one single scrap of observable scientific data that supports evolution. It's a fairy tale for grown-ups.
Click to expand...

I will not agree with respect to evolution in general.......the evolution of new species of beetles from older species of beetles can in fact be scientifically observed......it is the claim that oak trees and human beings have a common ancestor that is not a valid scientific hypothesis......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I’d be embarrassed to publish such a shoddy piece of work. There is no evidence observed or referenced here just the opinion of others. His attack on macro evolution has two major flaws. One is he completely ignores the vast body of evidence supporting it. His second is his argument based on statistical probability is based on a logical fallacy. That is you cannot calculate the probability of an event occurring that has already occurred.

Looks like the work of a neophyte to me.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. I can calculate the probability of rolling snake eyes on a pair of dice. An event that has happened countless times.
 
Grugore said:
Evolution does not use the scientific method. Therefore, it is not even a scientific theory. It doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis. There are no experiments that can be performed on it. If, in fact, it did happen, no one saw it happen. It cannot be caused to happen again. There is, indeed, not one single scrap of observable scientific data that supports evolution. It's a fairy tale for grown-ups.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does and yes, it is a scientific theory. Please be less stupid.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-theory-of-evolution-respect-the-scientific-method
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85957-does-evolution-follow-the-scientific-method-if-so-how/
 
Grugore said:
Evolution does not use the scientific method. Therefore, it is not even a scientific theory. It doesn't even qualify as an hypothesis. There are no experiments that can be performed on it. If, in fact, it did happen, no one saw it happen. It cannot be caused to happen again. There is, indeed, not one single scrap of observable scientific data that supports evolution. It's a fairy tale for grown-ups.
Click to expand...

:lolup::rofl2:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I’d be embarrassed to publish such a shoddy piece of work. There is no evidence observed or referenced here just the opinion of others. His attack on macro evolution has two major flaws. One is he completely ignores the vast body of evidence supporting it. His second is his argument based on statistical probability is based on a logical fallacy. That is you cannot calculate the probability of an event occurring that has already occurred.

Looks like the work of a neophyte to me.
Click to expand...

That's been explained to him already. He's too invested in believe shit research and not having to actually think.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I will not agree with respect to evolution in general.......the evolution of new species of beetles from older species of beetles can in fact be scientifically observed......it is the claim that oak trees and human beings have a common ancestor that is not a valid scientific hypothesis......
Click to expand...

That is not evolution. It's adaptation. Atheists point to adaptation and claim that these changes result in new kinds of life. Small random changes are responsible, they claim. I wonder if I can talk one of them into making random changes to their computers operating system and see if it evolves into the next Window OS ON ITS OWN.
 
poor CA
from the 29 failed arguments of atheists....
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations.
Click to expand...
common descent fails in the very first paragraph.......case closed.....
 
Grugore said:
That is not evolution. It's adaptation.
Click to expand...

which is the scientific definition of evolution......I have no intention of arguing this with you......I don't give a fuck if you believe it or not......I am a-creational......I believe Genesis 1:1 is the literal truth......I don't care what anyone believes about the rest of the chapter......

I do believe you are wasting your time trying to "prove" the existence of God, just as atheists waste their time trying to "prove" that human beings evolved from single celled creatures.........God doesn't even want to be proved, he wants believers not calculators......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which is the scientific definition of evolution......I have no intention of arguing this with you......I don't give a fuck if you believe it or not......I am a-creational......I believe Genesis 1:1 is the literal truth......I don't care what anyone believes about the rest of the chapter......
Click to expand...

yUo = taRd.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
That's been explained to him already. He's too invested in believe shit research and not having to actually think.
Click to expand...

LOLOL!! You believe that we're the result of countless random events. IN SPITE OF THE ASTRONOMICAL ODDS AGAINST IT!. tell me. Would you bet your life on those odds? I wouldn't bet a nickle.
 
Quote Originally Posted by CharacterAssassin View Post
That's been explained to him already. He's too invested in believe shit research and not having to actually think.
Click to expand...

no need to talk, child.......you've already proven yourself a far greater idiot......
 
the atheist's cosmonomic analysis.......in the beginning there was nothing........shit happened......and there was human beings.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top