All Life Insurance Tips

Why are there so many flaws in evolution proposals and why are evolutionist afraid of factsory?

The Greatest Magic in the World: Everything We See From Nothing at All We can illustrate the embarrassment of modern science by considering its attempt to explain the origin of the material universe from either 1) literally nothing or 2) virtually nothing. Equally embarrassing is its attempt to explain life from non-life. In fact, two of the most unbelievable scenarios of the modern evolutionary story are that 1) nothing created the material universe and 2) lifeless matter created all living diversity in its endless life forms. Both of these scenarios are so implausible that, rationally, they must be considered nonsense. In fact, both assumptions are flat out impossible. The Probability of Life The laws of probability govern all kinds of daily activities from calculating insurance rates to large purchase orders. The science of probability is one of the trustworthiest disciplines there is. And it has a logical bearing on the issue of origins: The laws of probability are proven trustworthy. The whole of science and every day practical living is based on the reliability of the probable happening and the improbable not. One need do no more than be consistent with this accepted standard of reality when considering what to believe in relation to the origin of life.1 When one reads through the literature on evolution that discusses the probability of the evolution of life, one finds all sorts of euphemisms for the word impossible including “terribly low;” “not conceivable;” “infinitesimally small;” “highly implausible” and “unimaginably small.” It would appear that these terms are used because there is no other choice. To really believe in what is impossible is absurd. Evolutionary scientists do not want to be seen as believers of the absurd. Boris, if you were in the science section, then you would still have a lame answer. They may be smarter than you, but they fail in comparison to me. Source: My A's in all areas of science at the college level. Ihvinny, said this and by this scientific assumption it would be reasonable for any scientist to believe and conclude that it is possible that God created all. "Just because something isn't likely to happen doesn't mean it can't happen" You see, this is why intelligent man has concluded that the field of evolution is actually a religion based on their religious belief and they are called "evolutionist". Type, the word, and you will find that your computer does not ask for it to be spell checked. ev·o·lu·tion·ist   /ˌɛvəˈluʃənɪst or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Show Spelled [ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA –noun 1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology. 2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.

Public Comments

1. Try asking this in a few of the Science sections. They'll eat you for breakfast. Careful, bubba--you'll sprain your arm patting yourself on the back.
2. You went to a lot of trouble to cut and past this nonsense. Why?
3. Another lying creationist. You people are scum.
4. Nice copypasta. Want to try thinking for yourself now?
5. It's bad enough that the person who originally wrote this was an idiot, but to copy and paste it, man, that's something else.
6. The content of your question is illegible, so I will base my answer off the headline of your question, and what I can discern from it: "Why are there so many flaws in evolution myths and why is the whole design based on altering Darwin's theory?" The flaws remaining in evolutionary theory are small, but they are important for researchers. There is a huge body of evidence showing the mechanisms for evolution. The chances of complex life emerging from cumulative selection are not implausibly small, in fact a very simple way to demonstrate this can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program . Basically, it would be indeed incredibly unlikely to spontaneously generate say an arm in a single generation, but it is very likely, given a sufficient number of generations to evolve an arm, with cumulative selection. As far as abiogenesis goes, many of the complex molecules that form life have been created in laboratories simulating the early conditions on earth, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment . Even if it is incredibly unlikely for the correct conditions for abiogenesis to occur, there are 100 x 10^22 stars in the observable universe. If say, the odds were one in a trillion of a star having a planet meeting the condition, there would be 10 billion stars in the observable universe with life on them. As far as why we alter the theory, that is how science works. We don't deal in absolutes, rather we create models, and alter them to fit empirical evidence, then use the models to predict future results. As an example, just as the field of biology is based on altering Darwins work, the field of physics is based on altering Newtons work. As far as the statement regarding the generation of the Universe from nothing: modern science does not claim that. We have sufficient evidence to extrapolate a massive expansion of the universe 13.5 billion years ago, and the subsequent formation of the universe as we know it. We do not have anything beyond speculative models of cosmology to explain what happened before 10^-47 seconds after the "big bang", but few of those hypothesis have something coming from nothing. "The biggest lie ever told is claiming that evolution is a fact, when it supposedly takes 1 million years to change from one species to another, germs in a lab is not evidence for evolution, its just proof for adaptation.." Indeed you are correct, that is why we have gathered a vast body of evidence from different sub-disciplines of biology, that all point towards the singular conclusion of evolution by cumulative natural selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent . In fact speciation does not have to take millions of years, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito
7. You asked a question about evolution in the Religion & Spirituality section. I don't even have to ready that page of shit to know you don't know what you're talking about.
8. Because there is no 'science' whatever to the evolution theories. God said it, God did it; I believe it. Papaw
9. I've yet to see a creationist who displays an understanding of the field of combinatorics. "probabilities" of things evolving are based on incredibly naive analyses that just white-wash everything as an independent random variable. Physical systems are not adequately described in this manner even to a first approximation, especially not chemical systems.
10. Cosmology has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis is not the same thing as evolution. "Both of these scenarios are so implausible that, rationally, they must be considered nonsense. In fact, both assumptions are flat out impossible." Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't make it any less true. We've witnessed the self-assembly of RNA in a proto-earth environment in the lab. We've witnessed the space between protons as being where most of the mass of the atom appearing. Your ignorance of abiogenesis and cosmology is no reason why people who do actually study these things should reject what is evidently true. Just because something isn't likely to happen doesn't mean it can't happen. If every user on YA flipped a coin 10 times, I can gaurantee at least 1 million of them just got 10 heads in a row and at least 1 million of them got 10 tails in a row, even through the probability of the event is only 1/1024. If you consider, however, how many people would be flipping, it's bound to occur. It's not magic; it's not supernatural; it's simply that you don't understand what you're talking about. Before you copy and paste something, at least try to understand it.
11. Eeeeeks, I'm afrightened of a factsory! Run! The factsory is coming!! Wait? What's a factsory?
12. Soooooo....your ultimatly intellectual and scientifically constructed counterargument is 'God Did It'? Smooth, a-hole.
13. The biggest lie ever told is claiming that evolution is a fact, when it supposedly takes 1 million years to change from one species to another, germs in a lab is not evidence for evolution, its just proof for adaptation..