Originally posted by humyYou think I implied? 😏
For there to be occasional improbable occurrences is mathematically inevitable therefore do not require some kind of divine intervention just for being improbable.
So there is no logical contradiction between something improbable occurring and there being no god nor is there a contradiction between there being a god but that god having noting to do with that improbable event -your implied conclusion does not logically follow from your implied premise.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI have already clearly said why not.
Why not?
Reminder:
your premise was "I would guess the chances of those preexisting facilities existing in a unicellular species is not generally very likely to come about." (my quote)
your conclusion was "That is because God had to do His part” (your quote)
and I said why the conclusion could not logically follow from your premise with:
“For there to be occasional improbable occurrences is mathematically inevitable therefore do not require some kind of divine intervention just for being improbable.
So there is no logical contradiction between something improbable occurring and there being no god nor is there a contradiction between there being a god but that god having noting to do with that improbable event -your implied conclusion does not logically follow from your implied premise.” (my quote)
-if you are so hung-up with the word “imply” in my quote above, just consider it deleted out and ignore it -I don't care whether you 'implied' it or just said it , it makes no difference to the argument either way.
You ask “why not” i.e. why does your conclusion NOT logically follow from your premise but, perhaps the default question should be “why does it” i.e. why DOES your conclusion logically follow from your premise. That's because, if you cannot demonstrate that your conclusion logically DOES follow from your premise, then THAT is the reason “why not”!!!!!
1 edit
Originally posted by humyWhen the improbability numbers reach a certain number then the conclusion changes from improbable to possible only with God. The numbers for evil-lution have reached that number many times over. This is the reason for the Multi-universe or (Multiverse) hypothesis of many evil-lution scientists of today becasue evil-lution has been declared impossible in a single universe.
I have already clearly said why not.
Reminder:
your premise was "I would guess the chances of those preexisting facilities existing in a unicellular species is not generally very likely to come about." (my quote)
your conclusion was "That is because God had to do His part” (your quote)
and I said why the conclusion could not logically follow from yo on logically DOES follow from your premise, then THAT is the reason “why not”!!!!!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html
Originally posted by RJHindsSigh...
When the improbability numbers reach a certain number then the conclusion changes from improbable to possible only with God. The numbers for evil-lution have reached that number many times over. This is the reason for the Multi-universe or (Multiverse) hypothesis of many evil-lution scientists of today becasue evil-lution has been declared impossible in a ...[text shortened]...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html
Multiverse theory has got nothing to do with evolution. But I don't suppose you're interested in any cosmology.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThe number model used in the video you posted is just silly.
When the improbability numbers reach a certain number then the conclusion changes from improbable to possible only with God. The numbers for evil-lution have reached that number many times over. This is the reason for the Multi-universe or (Multiverse) hypothesis of many evil-lution scientists of today becasue evil-lution has been declared impossible in a ...[text shortened]...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html
If proteins were able to replicate simply by repeated chains on some kind of
catalyst (which seems immediately obvious) or a similar mechanism, then the
whole argument goes out the window.
It wouldn't take long before patterns emerged and interacted. It's called complexity.
No really Hinds. Do you believe that it's a 'no brainer' that the conditions for protein
for growth and functionality didn't spring from completely random conditions?
Just because you can't wrap an answer up into a 'because of this' sentence, doesn't
mean that there's divine intervention. It just means it's complicated and requires
scientific explanation.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThere is no "scientific" explanation. There is only evil-lution fairy tale and comic book explanations. 😏
The number model used in the video you posted is just silly.
If proteins were able to replicate simply by repeated chains on some kind of
catalyst (which seems immediately obvious) or a similar mechanism, then the
whole argument goes out the window.
It wouldn't take long before patterns emerged and interacted. It's called complexity.
No really ...[text shortened]... vention. It just means it's complicated and requires
scientific explanation.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
When the improbability numbers reach a certain number then the conclusion changes from improbable to possible only with God. The numbers for evil-lution have reached that number many times over. This is the reason for the Multi-universe or (Multiverse) hypothesis of many evil-lution scientists of today becasue evil-lution has been declared impossible in a ...[text shortened]...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html
When the improbability numbers reach a certain number then the conclusion changes from improbable to possible only with God.
That is totally nonsensical. There being something X where X does not involve a god and X is highly improbable, regardless of how highly improbable, does not logically imply “possible only with God”. In this case, why “possible only with God” but not “possible only with evolution”?
Does someone winning the lottery imply “possible only with God”? -if so, then anything goes including "possible only with evolution”. But, of course, neither follows from that premise.
Perhaps you should study the very basics of deductive logic for you clearly don't understand very basic logic.
Originally posted by humyThere are lottery winners all the time. The lottery odds are extremely good when compared with all the lottery winnings that evil-lution must win. It means evil-lution is impossible in any universe and only an extremely intelligently controlled process could have produced life. A creative process that man's intelligence can not even conceive.When the improbability numbers reach a certain number then the conclusion changes from improbable to possible only with God.
That is totally nonsensical. There being something X where X does not involve a god and X is highly improbable, regardless of how highly improbable, does not logically imply “possible only with God”. In this case, why ...[text shortened]... ld study the very basics of deductive logic for you clearly don't understand very basic logic.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsAll it shows is your continued use of science, pseudo science actually, as a weapon. You care nothing about science only in destroying it in your rabid quest to get back to the year 1000. As a result, you post all those stupid creationist fantasy video's with zero backing of real science, there is no science there, only weaponized bullshyte.
There are lottery winners all the time. The lottery odds are extremely good when compared with all the lottery winnings that evil-lution must win. It means evil-lution is impossible in any universe and only an extremely intelligently controlled process could have produced life. A creative process that man's intelligence can not even conceive.
2 edits
Originally posted by KeplerSeconded. Preferably OLD wet fish.
I want a slap with wet fish facility built into this site. I'd use it as often as possible on Revd. Hindquarters.
I don't even attempt to watch his insane videos, the thought that there's more than one of him is so profoundly depressing. This from a country with a widespread high level of education? I'll bet the creationists do their best to bludgeon science in schools as well, thank goodness they've never really got a foothold outside the US. Sometimes you guys are just too accepting of loony ideas.
Originally posted by KewpieYou are ignorant of what to argue against because you refuse to view the videos. Has the evil-lution hypothesis become so shattered of credibility that you no longer can find honest defenses for its fallacies? 😏
Seconded. Preferably OLD wet fish.
I don't even attempt to watch his insane videos, the thought that there's more than one of him is so profoundly depressing. This from a country with a widespread high level of education? I'll bet the creationists do their best to bludgeon science in schools as well, thank goodness they've never really got a foothold outside the US. Sometimes you guys are just too accepting of loony ideas.