@kellyjay saidTo my mind, it is you that is failing to do this, not me. If the probability argument is to be applied, it ought to be applied to your own beliefs as well.
A search for truth should be done by not just looking at those things that agree with us but possible things that can destroy what we believe.
@bigdoggproblem saidI'm sorry measuring if God is real, you can give me odds if you disagree with the ones I gave. If you don't like the probability argument what arguments do you prefer the proof by contradiction? I'm not sure what it is you want, can you spell it out for me, give me some specifics? Not trying to insult you, but you are not being very clear here.
To my mind, it is you that is failing to do this, not me. If the probability argument is to be applied, it ought to be applied to your own beliefs as well.
The probability argument doesn't address my beliefs, it is simply being used by me to weed out some of the counter beliefs surrounding the origin of life. Proving undirected natural processes didn't do it does not automatically mean what I believe it true, not even close, but one step at a time.
@kellyjay saidI have not watched it, I have no intention to Kelly. Here’s why, I’ll offer up criticisms, show points of error and you’ll just blithely dismiss them without any understanding of what has been addressed and move onto the the next video and do the same again.
None that I'm aware of. You look at the other video yet?
The main issue with these ‘probability’ videos are two fold. Firstly, as in the last video they just cough up a straw man argument to begin with. Secondly, no one knows how life began, the processes involved or the conditions in which it first happened. How a ‘probability calculation’ on so many variables can be established is beyond me.
@kellyjay saidYes they do. This is the problem which has been pointed out to you by me and many others over the years, you have zero understanding of how natural selection works. The odds change dramatically. That you can’t grasp this is a fundamental error on your part.
It doesn’t matter what is being suggested if they were either formed all at once or a little at a time the odds don’t change.
@proper-knob saidWhat have I not addressed or what was my dismissal? I cannot think of anything you wrote I didn't take seriously, I cannot say the same for you.
I have not watched it, I have no intention to Kelly. Here’s why, I’ll offer up criticisms, show points of error and you’ll just blithely dismiss them without any understanding of what has been addressed and move onto the the next video and do the same again.
The main issue with these ‘probability’ videos are two fold. Firstly, as in the last video they just cough up a ...[text shortened]... irst happened. How a ‘probability calculation’ on so many variables can be established is beyond me.
@proper-knob saidThis is the your complaint? The flood there are fossils on top of mountains that shouldn't be there. So there is evidence, the ship I cannot think of anything outside of finding the ship that show that. That wasn't a dismissal it was simply acknowledging the truth.
So how come there isn’t any science which supports your ‘dinosaurs floating on a boat over a flooded earth’ doctrine then? Surely there must be some?
@proper-knob saidNo, flipping a coin 150 times to get heads each time is done one flip at a time, each flip will be 50/50 that is true, but having to do it 150 times in row is 2X2X2 a hundred and fifty times that still makes those odds the same. You refuse to look at something that may pop your bubble, what do you care, if you want to bury your head in the sand, and say your right without acknowledging you may not be so be it. Talk about blowing off someone, I answered your questions you cannot even watch a video.
Yes they do. This is the problem which has been pointed out to you by me and many others over the years, you have zero understanding of how natural selection works. The odds change dramatically. That you can’t grasp this is a fundamental error on your part.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
@kellyjay saidWhats the probability of a an amino acid forming?
No, flipping a coin 150 times to get heads each time is done one flip at a time, each flip will be 50/50 that is true, but having to do it 150 times in row is 2X2X2 a hundred and fifty times that still makes those odds the same. You refuse to look at something that may pop your bubble, what do you care, if you want to bury your head in the sand, and say your right without ac ...[text shortened]... e so be it. Talk about blowing off someone, I answered your questions you cannot even watch a video.
@stellspalfie saidGoogle has it around 10 to the 164, but google isn’t a biologist so not sure you would accept it. You have another number in mind like 1?
Whats the probability of a an amino acid forming?
@fmf saidWater creature fossils on mountain tops, is one thing. Personally I think the fossil record is another piece of evidence overall. The sudden appearance of life, the static forms, then they disappear, doesn’t look like a tree of life with branches of life evolving! The sudden appearances look more like an explosion of life without anything evolving.
Do you think you know enough about geology and plate tectonics to be able to say this?
1 edit
Was the point that you finally realized you ought to stop plagiarizing?
Nope. Not at all. But now that you mentioned it, even if someone plagiarized a hundred times your sorry excuses for dodging the significance of probability problem would be just as incompetent.
And it appears here that the big copycat jumping on a bandwagon of imitation is you.