Anyone Still Believing in the Evolution Fraud Should Watch This

[scruffy]

Thank goodness to scientists don't just throw up their hands and give up like this.

Else we would still all be trying to pray away illnesses, instead of using modern medicine.

Yeah. Leeches didn't work either.

 

[scruffy]

True, just as I don't know for sure that if I threw hundreds of scrabble letters into the air and watch them land, that I'd not get the full text of Shakespeare's King Lear, a feat no doubt thousands of times more likely than abiogenesis.

Nuh uh. In 4 billion years you'd get at least a sonnet.

I actually tried that experiment. I had the computer select random words and it only took 23 tries to come up with a proper grammatical sentence.

 

[scruffy]

So you don't know if abiogenesis is true or not.

What's with this "abio" crap?

Biology is carbon, and carbon is one of the most prevalent elements in the universe.

The tetrahedral symmetry is the key, it allows long chain polymers to fold into shapes that are useful.

Nothing is "abio". As Miller and Urey showed, put a bunch of carbon in some water, zap it with electricity enough times, and you get pretty much full spectrum bio.

(If you let it go on too long you get tar, which just means future organisms get gasoline).

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Except for literally all the evidence ever collected and every observation ever made.

So yeah... I don't think you could be more wrong.

See, everyone? Another example of the deniers having nothing but ad hoc lies to rely on.

There's zero evidence that molecules can evolve, can innately self assemble into anything remotely approaching the things we see in life, no evidence, none. Molecules are not alive.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

First, we know abiogenesis is a fact.

Your deluded, you do not know how living matter arose.

Once there was no life. Then there was.

Right and how did you prove that happened as a result of chemistry?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is the Junkyard Tornado fallacy.

We long ago got past this useless fallacy, as a species, in our philosophy and academia and science.

Evolution cleared this non hurdle in about the year 1870.

Tell me the probability that of the outcome of that experiment if repeated over and over, that we would at some point get the text of King Lear? calculate that. There's no fallacy, here, improbable has a meaning, that's why most sensible don't invest their money in the lottery.

Is it a fallacy to say that your chances of wining the lottery are 1 in 300 million?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes. That's a much better question. Open to experimental access.

Do you have an answer then?

Laws are just equations that describe the relationships between things.

Right so tell me do laws exist or not?

If you means laws like limits, those are open for investigation and experimentation.

Take some law of physics and explain to me how it came to be true? what led to it existing?

Science is investigation by experimentation. We send a Hubble telescope, it sends us pictures, from those we derive answers.

Yawn, yes I know.

Mostly they're negative answers, that help disprove theories.

Sometimes they're positive answers, and sometimes they raise new questions, especially about things we can't see directly.

I can tell you for sure that Einstein was wrong, his gravitational constant is actually a multi dimensional tensor. But we wouldn't have known that without hundreds or thousands of experiments.

Einstein did a lot of stuff, when you say he's wrong what specifically is wrong? everything?

Since we're talking science we don't say "Einstein is wrong" we say "Einstein's prediction of X doesn't match observations".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's zero evidence that molecules can evolve, can innately self assemble into anything remotely approaching the things we see in life, no evidence, none. Molecules are not alive.

All lies. All the evidence shows they both can and did.

You're just the crazy guy on the corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn, shouting at clouds, at this point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right and how did you prove that happened as a result of chemistry?

What a bizarre question. What else would it be?

Magic?

Oh yeah, that's right. You definitely think it was magic.

You seem to be under the very bizarre impression that scientists have to somehow rule out magic, whenever they learn something.

Absurd and hilarious.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thank goodness to scientists don't just throw up their hands and give up like this.

Else we would still all be trying to pray away illnesses, instead of using modern medicine.

He didn't "give up" he answered the question.

You seem unfamiliar with engineering, with design, with creativity and that might explain your naivety when discussing these kinds of questions. Luckily for you I'm here to help you.

Creativity cannot be reduced to rules, to algorithms, people have tried and failed repeatedly. So it cannot be decomposed in the way your questions seems to expect.

You seek a scientific answer to a non-scientific question, as I said before you are all over the place.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What's with this "abio" crap?

Biology is carbon, and carbon is one of the most prevalent elements in the universe.

The tetrahedral symmetry is the key, it allows long chain polymers to fold into shapes that are useful.

But the organization of the atoms is not a property of the atoms themselves. In order to take Lego bricks and make a house, I need something above and beyond the bricks. Nobody disputes that carbon atoms can be formed into long chains, just as nobody disputes that letters of the alphabet can be formed into King Lear, but one needs something other than the supply of letters to do that.

You are insinuating that these ordered collections do not involve more than the constituent atoms which is false.

The information is external to the parts, just as the design of a Lego house is external to the bricks.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

All lies. All the evidence shows they both can and did.

What evidence? there's no evidence that life was not designed, none.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What a bizarre question. What else would it be?

You can prove that it could not be anything else? if you cannot prove that then the possibility cannot be ruled out can it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nuh uh. In 4 billion years you'd get at least a sonnet.

I actually tried that experiment. I had the computer select random words and it only took 23 tries to come up with a proper grammatical sentence.

Then try this next please, generate sequences of 1000 random, independent digits, stopping when you generate one that represents π and let me know how many tries it took, this is that target:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510
58209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
82148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128
48111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
44288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091
45648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
72458700660631558817488152092096282925409171536436
78925903600113305305488204665213841469519415116094
33057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548
07446237996274956735188575272489122793818301194912
98336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798
60943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132
00056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872
14684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235
42019956112129021960864034418159813629774771309960
51870721134999999837297804995105973173281609631859
50244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881
71010003137838752886587533208381420617177669147303
59825349042875546873115956286388235378759375195778
18577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989

 

[scruffy]

There's zero evidence that molecules can evolve, can innately self assemble into anything remotely approaching the things we see in life, no evidence, none. Molecules are not alive.

HORSESHIT

You just don't want to look at the evidence.

You just want to stay in your comfort zone.

Feelz and all that.

 

[alang1216]

True, just as I don't know for sure that if I threw hundreds of scrabble letters into the air and watch them land, that I'd not get the full text of Shakespeare's King Lear, a feat no doubt thousands of times more likely than abiogenesis.

Of course if you threw hundreds of scrabble letters into the air and watch them land, and selected only those letters that made words found in Shakespeare's King Lear, you would eventually get the whole book. Randomness and selection is what makes it all possible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He didn't "give up" he answered the question.

False. His answer explained nothing whatsoever and replaced the mystery with an even bigger mystery.

So he did not answer the question, and he threw up his hands and gave up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can prove that it could not be anything else?

I don't have to do that, sorry. Nobody has to spend an ounce of effort or time proving magic doesn't exist. Not ever.

I hope you come to understand that. And to understand that you have put yourself in that useless position.

 

[alang1216]

He’s God.

So you don't know how he did it but insist you know how he didn't do it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you don't know how he did it but insist you know how he didn't do it?

Exactly.

Apparently he thinks his god is too stupid and too weak to have performed evolution...?