Celtic Heroes

The probability of the simplest organism forming by chance is not just low. It is so low you could not even comprehend the amount of zeroes required to make that number. It is mathematically impossible. Also, we shouldn't teach something as fact if it hasn't been proven. And a theory has to be testible. Thus, neither evolution, not the Big Bang is a theory. It is a model.

No one knows how simple the first organism was but it might actually be quite easy to happen by chance. For example the first organism may simply be a collection of amino acids that build up in porous rock near sea vents. Just one has to get a self replicating structure going and it could spread into the nearby material and start up evolution. So just because you assume the simplest organism is something like a mouse or single cell the fact is that you don't have an idea because you systematically demonstrate a lack of understanding basic science.

Not to mention earth like planets are quite common - about 1/100 to 1/1000 of planets with perhaps a trillion in our galaxy and a trillion galaxies in the visible universe alone. If each had a billion years for life to develop that means if you had one powerball lottery entry (1/170 million chance) per planet per year to win the "does spontaneous life start" - life would have started at least 6 billion trillion times in the visible universe already.

You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding the actual math of probability and statistics, role of chance in science, and the scope of reality.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/6788 ... nce-alone/

And don't get started with your bs crap of ''oh they guessed the chances'' after all, isn't that all of what evolution is grounded upon is rough estimates?

Here is some excerpts from Charles Darwin himself, and how he even had doubts about his theory. He still refused to believe Creationism, not because since disproved it, but because he was hard-hearted and straight up refused to stop hoping to find crucial evidence.

Excerpts from Charles Darwin's "the origin of species"

From chapter 6:

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.


Read the origin of species. Darwin doubts his own theory and says it's obscured to believe.

Here is some excerpts from Charles Darwin himself, and how he even had doubts about his theory. He still refused to believe Creationism, not because since disproved it, but because he was hard-hearted and straight up refused to stop hoping to find crucial evidence.

Excerpts from Charles Darwin's "the origin of species"

From chapter 6:

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”

If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.


Read the origin of species. Darwin doubts his own theory and says it's obscured to believe.

The probability of the simplest organism forming by chance is not just low. It is so low you could not even comprehend the amount of zeroes required to make that number. It is mathematically impossible. Also, we shouldn't teach something as fact if it hasn't been proven. And a theory has to be testible. Thus, neither evolution, not the Big Bang is a theory. It is a model.

No one knows how simple the first organism was but it might actually be quite easy to happen by chance. For example the first organism may simply be a collection of amino acids that build up in porous rock near sea vents. Just one has to get a self replicating structure going and it could spread into the nearby material and start up evolution. So just because you assume the simplest organism is something like a mouse or single cell the fact is that you don't have an idea because you systematically demonstrate a lack of understanding basic science.

Not to mention earth like planets are quite common - about 1/100 to 1/1000 of planets with perhaps a trillion in our galaxy and a trillion galaxies in the visible universe alone. If each had a billion years for life to develop that means if you had one powerball lottery entry (1/170 million chance) per planet per year to win the "does spontaneous life start" - life would have started at least 6 billion trillion times in the visible universe already.

You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding the actual math of probability and statistics, role of chance in science, and the scope of reality.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/6788 ... nce-alone/

And don't get started with your bs crap of ''oh they guessed the chances'' after all, isn't that all of what evolution is grounded upon is rough estimates?

^In addition, the article you provided is IF evolution is random chance, which it is not entirely. Again, natural selection is the main mechanism and is not random chance.

^In addition, the article you provided is IF evolution is random chance, which it is not entirely. Again, natural selection is the main mechanism and is not random chance.

You keep using facts and logic when the real reason for the disbelief is too much of thier life has been built on the lies of creation myth. Likely all of thier friends and family have helped promote it and will also likely rage on them if they admit anything. It's too terrible for them to face reality, tear down the mountain of lies and all parts of thier life built upon them, and accept it all.

In my opinion getting them to rage about it is more productive because by this point in thier lives the majority have already had the slow polite trickle of facts which is far too little to late to help. But to each thier own strategy I suppose.

^In addition, the article you provided is IF evolution is random chance, which it is not entirely. Again, natural selection is the main mechanism and is not random chance.

You keep using facts and logic when the real reason for the disbelief is too much of thier life has been built on the lies of creation myth. Likely all of thier friends and family have helped promote it and will also likely rage on them if they admit anything. It's too terrible for them to face reality, tear down the mountain of lies and all parts of thier life built upon them, and accept it all.

In my opinion getting them to rage about it is more productive because by this point in thier lives the majority have already had the slow polite trickle of facts which is far too little to late to help. But to each thier own strategy I suppose.

Well, I was able to change... Granted, I had a great amount of intellectual freedom but I do not think anyone is beyond the cold reason and pure logic.

I know I am not Magixal but I will still answer with some basic proof. The two most convincing evidence, in my opinion, are embryonic comparisons and vestigial structures.

Embryonic comparisons:

Human embryos also have gills, which disappear later on.

Vestigial structures:
Human tailbone. Useless yet we still have it. It neither harms nor benefits us but indicates an ancestor with a tail (apes).

Pelvis and femur in whales. Aka leg bones. That would indicate they may have descended from a land animal.

The pictures are meant to give you an idea. You can look up the actual real pictures and find the vestigial structures and compare embryos.

It is also important to remember we still use fossils, dating, genetics, and behaviour.

The tailbone is very important actually. It acts as a support when we sit. It also helps us defecate. I think that it is also important because it is an attachment for muscles? Anyhow, that is an important part of our bodies. I'll edit this in the morning to add more.

Yes and the gills help babies breathe in the womb and the tail helps them too! This is just evidence that creatures with tails and creatures with gills had the same creator duh!! God let Satan manifest them in embryos to decieve us from the true path of God!!!!!1!1!!1!!!!!!!!

When will you lying athiest sinners wise up and start giving a ton your money to the church!!! He may be all powerful all knowing and all seeing but he (yes god is a man) is just bad with money!!!