Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[McBell]

I can say jumping off the empire state building and surviving is possible. When you calculate the odds you see that it is not a viable or even a realistic possibility and is considered preposterous. Hanging on to that method/theory of evolution is just as preposterous in my opinion.

I have done the math enough to know that it is not reasonable to believe that to be a viable theory for the process of evolution. I gave you the process for calculating the odds so you can do the math for yourself.

I am sure you would be much more satisfied with your own results!

You have done the math but are unable to show it?

Looks more like you are merely making a bold empty claim of doing the math in support of your argument from incredulity.
Prove me wrong.
Show your math.

 

[Dante Writer]

You have done the math but are unable to show it?

Looks more like you are merely making a bold empty claim of doing the math in support of your argument from incredulity.
Prove me wrong.
Show your math.

Looks more like you are trolling and if you would like to prove what I said is wrong the empire state building is in Manhattan, New York City, on Fifth Avenue between West 33rd and 34th Streets.

 

[Dante Writer]

Still waiting for your math...
Not holding my breath seeing as you are merely interested in making unsubstantiated claims.

You seem merely interested in immature trolling. If my posts bother you feel free to ignore them.

 

[McBell]

Looks more like you are trolling and if you would like to prove what I said is wrong the empire state building is in Manhattan, New York City, on Fifth Avenue between West 33rd and 34th Streets.

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
That would be you.
Thus far all you have provided are bold empty claims.
And you whine that *I* am the one trolling?

 

[McBell]

You seem merely interested in immature trolling. If my posts bother you feel free to ignore them.

You have provided nothing but bold empty claims and whining about trolling.

 

[Dante Writer]

You have provided nothing but trolling to substantiate that my posts are incorrect.

 

[Dante Writer]

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
That would be you.
Thus far all you have provided are bold empty claims.
And you whine that *I* am the one trolling?

You have claimed I need math to prove my opinion.

I claim I do not and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

You can either use your math or take a step off that building and prove the odds of survival.

Either way I will be proven correct.

I will be waiting....

 

[Acim]

And what if there is no such thing as "outside of the physical"? Aren't you then just setting up an impossible standard? What is an example of evidence that is "outside the physical"?

Something like the scientific method would be outside the physical. What that method is (notoriously) applied to may not be 'outside the physical' but I think that's fair to cite as plausible example. Perhaps one could show that method in the physical, as existing by 'nature?'

 

[Acim]

Abiogenesis is not atheism.
Atheism can be considered a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a religion.
Now if that is how you want to set your standard, that is on you, not atheists.
Though it would explain quite a bit of your posts.

"Quite a bit" appears as a claim of something (posts explaining an unsubstantiated assertion) being quantifiable.

Please present your math.

(See how ridiculous that type of rebuttal is? Will be waiting for that math and every post you don't present it, I reserve the right to bring up that it has not yet been presented and is therefore worthy of noting your credibility is in question on all other things you purport. Hey, we can do that for all assertions on this thread.)

 

[McBell]

You have claimed I need math to prove my opinion.

I asked you to show the math for your math claim.
Thus far you have not been able to.
Therefore your math claims can be dismissed as the bold empty claims they are.

I claim I do not and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Denial of the claim you made does not make you free from supporting them.

You can either use your math or take a step off that building and prove the odds of survival.

I take it you are not going to bother supporting your math claim then?
Not that I am the least bit surprised.

Either way I will be proven correct.

I will be waiting....

A real legend in your own mind.

I see you will be an endless source of entertainment.

 

[McBell]

"Quite a bit" appears as a claim of something (posts explaining an unsubstantiated assertion) being quantifiable.

Please present your math.

(See how ridiculous that type of rebuttal is? Will be waiting for that math and every post you don't present it, I reserve the right to bring up that it has not yet been presented and is therefore worthy of noting your credibility is in question on all other things you purport. Hey, we can do that for all assertions on this thread.)

all this to get out of presenting the math?
Sad really.

 

[Acim]

all this to get out of presenting the math?
Sad really.

So, you will not present your math when it is requested, but insist on others do it? Interesting, and highly hypocritical.

 

[Acim]

So to answer your question: Yes, the verifiable evidence is the fact that with all our scientific knowledge we can still not answer the basic question of why it happened and we are the evidence that it did happen and the amount of random coincidences necessary for it to happen by chance is so phenomenally huge that the only realistic explanation is there was some outside direction, plan, or creator involved.

Why MUST this have a mathematical explanation provided? There are many claims in this thread that are conveying notions about allegedly quantifiable information that are not using any math to back them up, or not citing that math to support it. Are we going to question all of those? Or just harp on this one which is claiming that the ARITHMETIC is so huge that is plausibly cannot be presented and therefore an alternative explanation is realistic.

Cause if we are going to harp on this as if this needs math presented, and make assertions insinuating lack of credibility, I'll be sure to note that as not occurring much, or consistently, prior to this post and ANY post going forward that hints at something as quantifiable is now open to the trolling rhetoric of "present your math."

 

[Acim]

all this to get out of presenting the math?
Sad really.

How sad? Please present your math. I notice you are yet to do this.

 

[Dante Writer]

I asked you to show the math for your math claim.
Thus far you have not been able to.
Therefore your math claims can be dismissed as the bold empty claims they are.


Denial of the claim you made does not make you free from supporting them.


I take it you are not going to bother supporting your math claim then?
Not that I am the least bit surprised.


A real legend in your own mind.

I see you will be an endless source of entertainment.

I asked you to show what math claim was made and you failed.

Therefore your trolling for attention can be dismissed.

You claimed math was necessary and I proved it was not and can be answered with a simple test of stepping off the empire state building and surviving.

You have offered nothing of substance in your posts and you apparently are paying for the right to troll.

Now what was that about being a legend in one's own mind?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are taking a huge leap of faith claiming life from inorganic elements can create/form organic life. That is no different than the belief you can jump off the empire state building and survive. It flies in the face of mathematical odds and reason.

I did not declare anywhere it was not possible- just not mathematically reasonable based on odds and therefore other answers must be looked for.

I have studied their work many times and they absolutely did not create organic life and the fact that they had to set up a specific controlled experiment is evidence only that the odds of it happening naturally are even higher against that theory unless you want to throw a God, creator, or mad scientist in your theory to substantiate it.

If you hang your hat on that theory and experiment as evidence then you are limited.

I couldn't disagree more.

But if you want to keep harping on those odds you haven't calculated yet and compare numbers you don't have to other odds, by my guest.

 

[Dante Writer]

I couldn't disagree more.

But if you want to keep harping on those odds you haven't calculated yet, by my guest.

Have you stepped off that building?

You must have pretty good faith in the odds against survival without seeing the math or you would have jumped.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Have you stepped off that building?

You must have pretty good faith in the odds against survival without seeing the math or you would have jumped.

I'm too busy waiting for someone to substantiate their claim.

By the way, we've had this conversation a few thousand times on this forum. That's why people are asking for your numbers.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

 

[Dante Writer]

I'm too busy waiting for someone to substantiate their claim.

By the way, we've had this conversation a few thousand times on this forum. That's why people are asking for your numbers.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Posting links that you can not explain in your own words is a cheap way to avoid debate.

You have proven why a math expression for the odds of evolution was not necessary just as the odd of jumping off the empire state building and surviving is not necessary.

They are both obviously to improbable to happen.

Try again some time!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Posting links that you can not explain in your own words is a cheap way to avoid debate.

You have proven why a math expression for the odds of evolution was not necessary just as the odd of jumping off the empire state building and surviving is not necessary.

They are both obviously to improbable to happen.

Try again some time!

I've already explained plenty in my own words. You just brush it off and continue to say "impossible!"
There are a lot of problems with the math you are attempting to submit (but refuse to calculate) so I refer you to scientists who know what they're talking about. (Like I said, this is a very old conversation around here.)