Posted:
#1351
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Where is that harvard professor Rostos?
So where is he Rostos?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Post your tough questions in here regarding Christianity
Posted:
#1352
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Once again, I realize that is in that dopey website that you cut and paste from....
BUT HE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HARVARD.
Get it? Obviously you dont, because you even post it as your souce - KNOWING THAT HE DIDNT.
Rostos - the point is that you constantly make shit up, and expect people not to call you on it.
So just admit you embellished. You lied (breaking one of the 10 commandments), and by continuing to lie you are further angering your god, bringing death and destruction to some peasant in an impoverished nation and death to 100 puppies.
The Intelligent Universe (London: Michael Joseph, 1983, 256 pp.), Hoyle says:
Life cannot have arisen by chance (pp. 11-12).
"I am not a Christian, nor am I likely to become one as far as I can tell (p. 251)." Still, Hoyle argues that there must have been some "intelligence" behind the emergence of life on Earth
according to Hoyle, roughly 1040000 to 1. Or, to give a more graspable notion of the improbability, Hoyle says, it would be roughly comparable to rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice. Looking at it from the point of view of the expected time lapse before reaching a solution, the predicted heat death of our solar system would have occurred early on, and our Milky Way galaxy would have rolled itself up like a scroll long before a solution could be hoped for.
He says that anyone foolish enough to believe that the solution to the life-problem might just come about by accident is guilty of a "junkyard mentality
Vaznack + KittKatz = Junkyard mentality
Junkyard mentality
0
Posted:
#1353
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Mate, i follow a guy called Dr William Lane Craig who is the guns of all guns. One of the best debaters u will see.
He continually destroys atheists like Hitchens, Dennet, Harris.
Furthermore, Richard Dawkins is scared shitless to debate him.
None of the atheists can debunk his arguments which are pretty much the ones i use above....
I suppose the truth always wins out.
Of course you would say Craig wins the debates because he tells you what you want to hear. You would never say what it would take to convince you otherwise because you are allowed to even consider that you are wrong.
0
Posted:
#1354
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
The Intelligent Universe (London: Michael Joseph, 1983, 256 pp.), Hoyle says:
Life cannot have arisen by chance (pp. 11-12).
"I am not a Christian, nor am I likely to become one as far as I can tell (p. 251)." Still, Hoyle argues that there must have been some "intelligence" behind the emergence of life on Earth
according to Hoyle, roughly 1040000 to 1. Or, to give a more graspable notion of the improbability, Hoyle says, it would be roughly comparable to rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice. Looking at it from the point of view of the expected time lapse before reaching a solution, the predicted heat death of our solar system would have occurred early on, and our Milky Way galaxy would have rolled itself up like a scroll long before a solution could be hoped for.
He says that anyone foolish enough to believe that the solution to the life-problem might just come about by accident is guilty of a "junkyard mentality
Vaznack + KittKatz = Junkyard mentality
Junkyard mentality
SO I WILL ASK AGAIN:
WHERE IS YOUR HARVARD PROFESSOR, AND WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING BY CONTINUING THIS CHARADE??
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#1357
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
SO I WILL ASK AGAIN:
WHERE IS YOUR HARVARD PROFESSOR, AND WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING BY CONTINUING THIS CHARADE??
Rostos -
All of us want to hear you admit that there is no harvard professor.
Come on. Jesus will be proud of you. Dont let pride dishonor you.
Proverbs 11:2
When pride comes, then comes dishonor.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#1358
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
SO I WILL ASK AGAIN:
WHERE IS YOUR HARVARD PROFESSOR, AND WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING BY CONTINUING THIS CHARADE??
I misread it regarding the Harvard professor.
HOWEVER, the FACT that it is SIR Fred Hoyle only strengthens the position over any Harvard professor.
The fact that it is Sir Fred Hoyle should make you shut your mouth.
Its like me saying, i beat Derek Fisher in a game of 1 on 1. Only to realise later that i beat Lebron 1 on1, not Fisher.
So my mistake only further strenghens my view...
Junkyard mentality
0
Posted:
#1360
Quote Originally Posted by MRGETRICH:
Of course you would say Craig wins the debates because he tells you what you want to hear. You would never say what it would take to convince you otherwise because you are allowed to even consider that you are wrong.
Of course you would say Craig wins the debates because he tells you what you want to hear. You would never say what it would take to convince you otherwise because you are allowed to even consider that you are wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1F4KC9a4AY
0
Posted:
#1362
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
I misread it regarding the Harvard professor.
So just to be sure, I want to clarify:
YOU POSTED A FACT, THAT WAS NOT INDEED A FACT, AND YOU ARE ADMITTING IT.
Is that correct?
Check one box:
YES ( ) NO ( )
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#1363
"what are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing the parts of a 747 and just accidentally assemble it so as to leave it sitting there all set for take-off. "So small as to be negligible," he says, "even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe" (p. 19)."
Furthermore, cells are much much more complex that any 747 in the world......
0
Posted:
#1365
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
So just to be sure, I want to clarify:
YOU POSTED A FACT, THAT WAS NOT INDEED A FACT, AND YOU ARE ADMITTING IT.
Is that correct?
Check one box:
YES ( ) NO ( )
Let me boast about myself.
Hey guys , i just beat Derek Fisher (starting point guard and champion for the Lakers) in a game of one on one....
oops my bad, sorry, honest mistake, i thought it was Fisher, i actually beat Lebron in a game of 1 on 1.
Vaznack, u are just embaressing yourself mate, my honest mistake has only strenghtened my position.
0
Posted:
#1366
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
"what are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing the parts of a 747 and just accidentally assemble it so as to leave it sitting there all set for take-off. "So small as to be negligible," he says, "even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe" (p. 19)."
Furthermore, cells are much much more complex that any 747 in the world......
What are the chances of Rostos making up facts, and posting them as the truth?
Much better than a 747 blowing together, that is for sure!
(better pray to jesus for forgiveness tonight for violating a 10 commandment, dont want to see you burning in hell with Ghandi)
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#1368
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Let me boast about myself.
Hey guys , i just beat Derek Fisher (starting point guard and champion for the Lakers) in a game of one on one....
oops my bad, sorry, honest mistake, i thought it was Fisher, i actually beat Lebron in a game of 1 on 1.
Vaznack, u are just embaressing yourself mate, my honest mistake has only strenghtened my position.
YOU STILL HAVENT ADMITTED THAT YOU POSTED A FACT THAT WAS BULLSHIT.
Just do it. Jesus will love you more.
And why should we believe anything you post from here on out? You are a proven liar, and should be discounted as such.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#1369
Quote Originally Posted by KittyKatz286:
Rostos' brain: "Ahhh! Numbers! Too big! Don't understand...MUST BE MAGIC!!!!!!"
Rostos' brain: "Ahhh! Numbers! Too big! Don't understand...MUST BE MAGIC!!!!!!"
And even if we accept an intelligent creator, the odds of it being Harry Potter himself are just as low as it being Jesus' daddy.
Yeah, but what are the odds of Harry Potter building a 747 and rolling 50,000 pairs of sixes?
A leading Harvard professor stated that these odds were 10 to the 9999th power (and that was only if Harry could use the Patronis spell). That number is sooooooo big, that it could NEVER happen!!
This proves that there must be a god!!
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
Posted:
#1371
Here is a pretty good refutation to Hoyle's fallacy.
https://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
Too bad Hoyle is not alive to see he's been debunked.
https://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
Too bad Hoyle is not alive to see he's been debunked.
We turn now to the tornado in the junkyard. This analogy says nothing about the validity of evolution, or for that matter abiogenesis, because it fails to represent them in four crucial ways.
- It operates purely according to random chance.
- It is an example of single-step, rather than cumulative, selection.
- It is a saltationary jump - an end product entirely unlike the beginning product.
- It has a target specified ahead of time.
The first point is the most important. The tornado in the junkyard is an example of an intricate, complex and highly organized form being produced by nothing more than random chance. But evolution is not chance. (See this article for more on this.) Rather, it operates according to a fixed law - the law of natural selection - which favors some assemblages over others; it preferentially selects for those adaptations which improve fitness and selects against those that do not. The tornado, by contrast, slams parts together and tears them apart with no preference whatsoever, thus completely failing to represent natural selection, the central force which drives evolution. To more accurately represent evolution, one would have to grant the tornado some power to recognize assemblages of parts which could serve as part of a 747 and prevent it from tearing them apart.
Second, the tornado analogy is an example of single-step selection - in one step, it goes from a random pile of parts to a fully assembled airliner. This is completely unlike evolution, which operates according to a process of cumulative selection - complex results that are built up gradually, in a repetitive process guided at each step by selective forces. To more accurately represent evolution, the tornado could be sent through the junkyard not once, but thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving chance assemblages of parts that could make up a jumbo jet.
Third, in relation to the point above, the tornado in the junkyard is an example of saltation - a sudden leap in which the end product is completely different from the beginning product. Evolution does not work this way; birds do not hatch out of dinosaur eggs and monkeys do not give birth to humans. Rather, species grow different over time through a process of slow change in which each new creature is only slightly different from its ancestor. Evolution forms a gradually shading continuum in which any two steps are almost identical, though the creatures at the beginning and end of the continuum may be very different indeed. If we sent a tornado through a junkyard once, we would not expect to see a complete airplane; but if we repeated the process thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving useful assemblages, we might see a jumbo jet gradually taking shape out of slowly accreting collections of parts. The idea is the same with living things. We do not see complex new creatures appearing suddenly in the fossil record; rather, we see them gradually forming by a process of modification from a line of increasingly dissimilar ancestors.
Finally, the tornado analogy fails to represent evolution in one more significant way: it has a target specified ahead of time. Evolution does not. Natural selection is not a forward-looking process; it cannot select for what may become useful in the future, only what is immediately useful in the present. To more accurately represent evolution, we might add the additional stipulation that the tornado be allowed to assemble, not just a jumbo jet, but any functional piece of machinery.
A tornado racing through a junkyard hundreds of thousands of times, at each step somehow preserving rather than tearing apart functional assemblages of parts, with the aim of ultimately producing some sort of working machine, be it a 747, a station wagon or a personal computer - this is still not a very good analogy to describe evolution, but it is far better than the implausible caricature of random, single-step saltation with a predetermined target the creationists put forth. This analogy completely fails to represent evolution in every significant way.
0
Posted:
#1373
Quote Originally Posted by MRGETRICH:
Here is a pretty good refutation to Hoyle's fallacy.
https://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
Too bad Hoyle is not alive to see he's been debunked.
Here is a pretty good refutation to Hoyle's fallacy.
https://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html
Too bad Hoyle is not alive to see he's been debunked.
We turn now to the tornado in the junkyard. This analogy says nothing about the validity of evolution, or for that matter abiogenesis, because it fails to represent them in four crucial ways.
- It operates purely according to random chance.
- It is an example of single-step, rather than cumulative, selection.
- It is a saltationary jump - an end product entirely unlike the beginning product.
- It has a target specified ahead of time.
The first point is the most important. The tornado in the junkyard is an example of an intricate, complex and highly organized form being produced by nothing more than random chance. But evolution is not chance. (See this article for more on this.) Rather, it operates according to a fixed law - the law of natural selection - which favors some assemblages over others; it preferentially selects for those adaptations which improve fitness and selects against those that do not. The tornado, by contrast, slams parts together and tears them apart with no preference whatsoever, thus completely failing to represent natural selection, the central force which drives evolution. To more accurately represent evolution, one would have to grant the tornado some power to recognize assemblages of parts which could serve as part of a 747 and prevent it from tearing them apart.
Second, the tornado analogy is an example of single-step selection - in one step, it goes from a random pile of parts to a fully assembled airliner. This is completely unlike evolution, which operates according to a process of cumulative selection - complex results that are built up gradually, in a repetitive process guided at each step by selective forces. To more accurately represent evolution, the tornado could be sent through the junkyard not once, but thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving chance assemblages of parts that could make up a jumbo jet.
Third, in relation to the point above, the tornado in the junkyard is an example of saltation - a sudden leap in which the end product is completely different from the beginning product. Evolution does not work this way; birds do not hatch out of dinosaur eggs and monkeys do not give birth to humans. Rather, species grow different over time through a process of slow change in which each new creature is only slightly different from its ancestor. Evolution forms a gradually shading continuum in which any two steps are almost identical, though the creatures at the beginning and end of the continuum may be very different indeed. If we sent a tornado through a junkyard once, we would not expect to see a complete airplane; but if we repeated the process thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving useful assemblages, we might see a jumbo jet gradually taking shape out of slowly accreting collections of parts. The idea is the same with living things. We do not see complex new creatures appearing suddenly in the fossil record; rather, we see them gradually forming by a process of modification from a line of increasingly dissimilar ancestors.
Finally, the tornado analogy fails to represent evolution in one more significant way: it has a target specified ahead of time. Evolution does not. Natural selection is not a forward-looking process; it cannot select for what may become useful in the future, only what is immediately useful in the present. To more accurately represent evolution, we might add the additional stipulation that the tornado be allowed to assemble, not just a jumbo jet, but any functional piece of machinery.
A tornado racing through a junkyard hundreds of thousands of times, at each step somehow preserving rather than tearing apart functional assemblages of parts, with the aim of ultimately producing some sort of working machine, be it a 747, a station wagon or a personal computer - this is still not a very good analogy to describe evolution, but it is far better than the implausible caricature of random, single-step saltation with a predetermined target the creationists put forth. This analogy completely fails to represent evolution in every significant way.
If there are 1000 words in that, it is 990 too much for Rostos to read or understand.
"TOO MANY WORDS, CANNOT READ, MUST MAKE SIMPLE SENTENCE TO EXPLAIN. THE ODDS OF HOYLE BEING WRONG ARE THE SAME AS THROWING A BUNCH OF WATCH PARTS IN THE AIR, AND HAVING THEM COME DOWN AS A ROLEX"
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
0
vaznack has never made an honest mistake. 
Hot Forum Topics
