Desert Snake
Veteran Member
There are some serious threads here, you just have to keep looking. good luck!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pink flamingos prove Creationism.
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
There are some serious threads here, you just have to keep looking. good luck!
McBell
Unbound
You go to great lengths to avoid presenting the math you claim supports your "argument".
I suspect that you do not have any math to show because you are merely parroting the bold empty claims of others.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle "black". lol.
It's worse than that.
The pot makes the claim, but won't support it.
The kettle made no claim....he just wanted the pot to support his own.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It isn't a bad argument in the context of certain preset parameters. However in a more objective parameter, no it's not very good probability estimation imo. That being said this aspect is not the crux of the debate, ultimately, anyway; just a part that might indicate a direction or inference. You won't find me placing everything on probability, that's not my thing.
McBell
Unbound
Seeing as the probability of god existing is so much lower than the probability of plain materialism we can plainly and obviously see that creationism is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Now since you do not have to show any math, neither do I.
McBell
Unbound
No need to respond to, let alone refute, bold empty claims.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Lol no idea how you reached that conclusion.
McBell
Unbound
There is no need for you to.
You just have to accept it as fact even though I have not presented a damn thing to support it.
Now the question is why is my bold empty claim rediculous and yours not?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, your subjective belief says that my op is ridiculous. It's not a fact. It's not a logical inference FROM THE OP. it's a inference from your beliefs. notice the difference?
McBell
Unbound
and?And yet you seem to do it all the time.
I never claimed they "cannot" or "must not" respond to bold empty claims.
McBell
Unbound
There is no difference between your OP and post #298.
Both are nothing more than bold empty claims.
McBell
Unbound
You do know that probability is math, right?
So when you make a claim of probability, you are making a math claim.
Thus asking for you to show your math is not "wanting the evidence to conform to my parameter".
Nice try, but epic fail.
Care to try again?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I considered all of your points and I explained that, with your explanation of "creationism" being "God did it"/"God made everything as is", you are making an unfalsifiable claim ... unfalsifiable claim = no claim at all (logically speaking).
Paranoid Android
Active Member
Thanks. I take my Serequel and Depakote every night like my psychiatrist ordered.
dust1n
Zindīq
Very, very, bad. Trying to computate that is a feat unto itself. Let me put it this way, it's worse than the usual numbers offered, because those would tend to give a benefit of doubt to /0/ . In the ''real world'', the probabilities are astoundingly bad./ie in the real world no one gives benefit of doubt to /0/ in a similar context./
just my opinion!
So without computing anything at all, you've deduced that it is worse than the usual numbers offered? Hmmm. I wonder if x > y. Oh well, probably.
You know statistics aren't matters of opinion, right?
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Fair enough.
dust1n
Zindīq
No it doesn't.
Epigenetics is the study of how different environments result in different expressions of genes. These are generally mitigated by the presence of various chemicals (especially in utero) and not because the genes are choosing which to select. Still deterministic mechanisms. Epigenetics does not change the DNA in the way that random mutations due during the process of reproduction.
"Epigenetic changes modify the activation of certain genes, but not the genetic code sequence of DNA. The microstructure (not code) of DNA itself or the associated chromatin proteins may be modified, causing activation or silencing. This mechanism enables differentiated cells in a multicellular organism to express only the genes that are necessary for their own activity. Epigenetic changes are preserved when cells divide. Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism's lifetime; however, if gene inactivation occurs in a sperm or egg cell that results in fertilization, then some epigenetic changes can be transferred to the next generation.[25]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Sorry, epigenetics only explains more about what we already know regarding genes. There is a reason science discovered epigenetics, by the way, and not creationists.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Which formulas and parameters are you referring to here? That seems pretty vague.