Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NOVACANE1

Atheism is mathematically impossible. But its politically possible.

Recommended Posts

can you prove this how mathematically is not believing in an invisible daddy in the sky impossible ?

now know this first I seen your site its Christian basted BS. so do the math show with numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you prove this how mathematically is not believing in an invisible daddy in the sky impossible ?

now know this first I seen your site its Christian basted BS. so do the math show with numbers

I would but it would confuse you. It takes intelligence and you have to be good at math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are evolutionists and evolution is mathematically impossible. Atheists have to choose to be stupid. So it is political. Which means that the study and distribution of power is its sole purpose. Religion prevents this.

 

 

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/27-09-2010/115095-atheism-0/

"Atheists are evolutionists"

 

Really? Every last one of them? A=Without. Theist=Belief in a deity. I do not believe in a deity, so I am an Atheist. I do not believe in evolution either. Let's say that I, as you, and everyone else on this earth...simply do not know. But I do find it more plausible than a deity, regardless of your evolution equation which must have more intellect behind it than Mr. Darwin could ever muster. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are evolutionists and evolution is mathematically impossible. Atheists have to choose to be stupid. So it is political. Which means that the study and distribution of power is its sole purpose. Religion prevents this.

Politics protect spiritual denial. Academia saves denying and economics ensures nobody wants to know what is really going on in plain sight.

 

All academia requires each lifetime to adopt something to believe in rather face real existence as they adapt to being here now.

 

The fulcrum in societal evolution is economic practices of making believe BS walks as money talks arguing which governance is best, political if or spiritual might.

 

Academia trains brains to mind 0-9 is 10 digits the same as 1-10, but relatively speaking 0-10 is still 10 digits while occupying 11 spaces.

 

0 and 1 is a first digit to each figurative and literal interpretations but when used relatively 0 is referred to being nothing at all mathematically. Figures lie and liars figure anyone not honoring hypothetical values isn't worth playing a character role of saving humanity.

 

What is humanity?

 

Societal evolution or genetic continuation? One is speculation and the other specific ancestry p[assing through this atmosphere and this moment exactly as life is lived one lifetime at a time.

 

NOVACANE1, this thread is not designed to help everyone equally. You may honestly believe everything you recite, but you are not honest with yourself either. Why does that become my concern socially?

 

Your invented charcter's rights takes away my liberty to live a real existence being myself. I have to behave as society's child, not adapt to the moment as ancestry's replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are evolutionists and evolution is mathematically impossible. Atheists have to choose to be stupid. So it is political. Which means that the study and distribution of power is its sole purpose. Religion prevents this.

 

 

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/27-09-2010/115095-atheism-0/

 

 

What a load of Creationist gibberish and mathematical nonsense.

 

When Creationists start talking about probability be warned that you are about to be fed a load of horse[excrement]. Their argument can be boiled down to this: "It is so improbable God must of dun it!" Which is a intellectual vacuum and doesn't lead anyone to a greater understanding of the universe.

 

So, lets talk about probability for a minute I, unlike most Creationists have been formally trained in math and science will happily deliver this free math lesson:

 

sample_10x10grid_zps574fbdd9.png

This is a 10x10 grid. The probability of putting the first object (A) in the first place is 1/100. The probability of putting the second object ( B) into the second place is 1/99. The probability of putting the first and second object in the first two spaces is ~1/10,000. Similarly the probability of putting all objects in the first 4 spaces as indicated above is ~1/100,000,000.

 

However to accurately assess probability you must have an absolute understanding of the dynamics of the subject you are attempting to assess probability. "God dun it" hardly qualifies as an absolute understanding.

 

 

The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.

 

 

I know where this Creationist is about to go and its the mythical world of chance or random that they assume Atheists and Evolutionary science believes in which is utter hooey. Nothing happens randomly all things happen in and are controlled by the laws of nature that directly effect them.

 

For example Planets form, not because rocks accidentally or randomly bump into each other, but because they are responding to the dynamics of gravity, electromagnetism, and other planetary sciences and laws.

 

Fortunately we have duplicated planetary formation in computer simulations and we can peek into extra protoplanetary disks and see this working. Do you think probability or the laws of nature guide this process?

 

 

The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation.

 

 

This is quite easily one of the most stupid statements I've ever read. Neptune was mathematically predicted (scientific method on gravitational perturbations) before it was observed. The atom was long known about before direct observation but because of atomic theory we know they exist, what makes their innards, what makes the innard's innards, innard's innard's innards. (sub-atomic particles and strings). We've found hundreds of extrasolar planets using the scientific method on the gravitational and luminescent effects those planets have on their stars. The list goes on and on.

 

 

If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.

 

 

Another favorite argument of the Creationist. Comparing things we know are designed versus things we know have a naturalistic explanation and then throwing their "probability" or "chance" argument in to boot.

 

Comparing apples and oranges.

 

One, even a child, can quickly deduce that Mt. Rushmore was designed because you don't see any other examples of that happening nor is there a natural explanation for that specific configuration. However sunsets can be breathtakingly beautiful to look at, but we aren't clamoring for a sunset god? Why? Because we know the processes that create beautiful sunsets.

 

 

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.

 

Again it isn't probability that guides these processes, it is chemistry, electromagnetism, biology, and strong/weak nuclear reactions that guide these processes.

 

Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

 

 

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life you twit. It deals with the origin of species. And life originated not by chance, not by randomness, and not by probability, but by chemistry, electromagnetism, biology, and strong/weak nuclear reactions and the laws thereof.

 

 

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.

 

Oh here we go. ID had its chance to defend itself in federal court and got their asses handed to them. Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute (an ID thinktank) refused to defend ID under oath.

 

 

The judge, a Bush appointee wrote:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

 

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

 

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

 

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)

 

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]

 

 

[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

 

 

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

 

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

 

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

 

Its a real pity the state prosecutor didn't crucify these lying creationists for perjury as he should have.

 

-NW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What a load of Creationist gibberish and mathematical nonsense.

 

When Creationists start talking about probability be warned that you are about to be fed a load of horse[excrement]. Their argument can be boiled down to this: "It is so improbable God must of dun it!" Which is a intellectual vacuum and doesn't lead anyone to a greater understanding of the universe.

 

So, lets talk about probability for a minute I, unlike most Creationists have been formally trained in math and science will happily deliver this free math lesson:

 

sample_10x10grid_zps574fbdd9.png

This is a 10x10 grid. The probability of putting the first object (A) in the first place is 1/100. The probability of putting the second object ( B) into the second place is 1/99. The probability of putting the first and second object in the first two spaces is ~1/10,000. Similarly the probability of putting all objects in the first 4 spaces as indicated above is ~1/100,000,000.

 

However to accurately assess probability you must have an absolute understanding of the dynamics of the subject you are attempting to assess probability. "God dun it" hardly qualifies as an absolute understanding.

 

 

 

I know where this Creationist is about to go and its the mythical world of chance or random that they assume Atheists and Evolutionary science believes in which is utter hooey. Nothing happens randomly all things happen in and are controlled by the laws of nature that directly effect them.

 

For example Planets form, not because rocks accidentally or randomly bump into each other, but because they are responding to the dynamics of gravity, electromagnetism, and other planetary sciences and laws.

 

Fortunately we have duplicated planetary formation in computer simulations and we can peek into extra protoplanetary disks and see this working. Do you think probability or the laws of nature guide this process?

 

 

This is quite easily one of the most stupid statements I've ever read. Neptune was mathematically predicted (scientific method on gravitational perturbations) before it was observed. The atom was long known about before direct observation but because of atomic theory we know they exist, what makes their innards, what makes the innard's innards, innard's innard's innards. (sub-atomic particles and strings). We've found hundreds of extrasolar planets using the scientific method on the gravitational and luminescent effects those planets have on their stars. The list goes on and on.

 

 

Another favorite argument of the Creationist. Comparing things we know are designed versus things we know have a naturalistic explanation and then throwing their "probability" or "chance" argument in to boot.

 

Comparing apples and oranges.

 

One, even a child, can quickly deduce that Mt. Rushmore was designed because you don't see any other examples of that happening nor is there a natural explanation for that specific configuration. However sunsets can be breathtakingly beautiful to look at, but we aren't clamoring for a sunset god? Why? Because we know the processes that create beautiful sunsets.

 

 

Again it isn't probability that guides these processes, it is chemistry, electromagnetism, biology, and strong/weak nuclear reactions that guide these processes.

 

 

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life you twit. It deals with the origin of species. And life originated not by chance, not by randomness, and not by probability, but by chemistry, electromagnetism, biology, and strong/weak nuclear reactions and the laws thereof.

 

 

Oh here we go. ID had its chance to defend itself in federal court and got their asses handed to them. Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute (an ID thinktank) refused to defend ID under oath.

 

 

The judge, a Bush appointee wrote:

 

Its a real pity the state prosecutor didn't crucify these lying creationists for perjury as he should have.

 

-NW

A state prosecutor doing his job? Now there's a mathematical impossibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are evolutionists and evolution is mathematically impossible. Atheists have to choose to be stupid. So it is political. Which means that the study and distribution of power is its sole purpose. Religion prevents this.

 

 

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/27-09-2010/115095-atheism-0/

Why is evolution mathematically impossible?

 

If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is evolution mathematically impossible?

 

If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.

well 5X5 read the attached link it will explain. Thats what its there for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What a load of Creationist gibberish and mathematical nonsense.

 

When Creationists start talking about probability be warned that you are about to be fed a load of horse[excrement]. Their argument can be boiled down to this: "It is so improbable God must of dun it!" Which is a intellectual vacuum and doesn't lead anyone to a greater understanding of the universe.

 

So, lets talk about probability for a minute I, unlike most Creationists have been formally trained in math and science will happily deliver this free math lesson:

 

sample_10x10grid_zps574fbdd9.png

This is a 10x10 grid. The probability of putting the first object (A) in the first place is 1/100. The probability of putting the second object ( B) into the second place is 1/99. The probability of putting the first and second object in the first two spaces is ~1/10,000. Similarly the probability of putting all objects in the first 4 spaces as indicated above is ~1/100,000,000.

 

However to accurately assess probability you must have an absolute understanding of the dynamics of the subject you are attempting to assess probability. "God dun it" hardly qualifies as an absolute understanding.

 

 

 

I know where this Creationist is about to go and its the mythical world of chance or random that they assume Atheists and Evolutionary science believes in which is utter hooey. Nothing happens randomly all things happen in and are controlled by the laws of nature that directly effect them.

 

For example Planets form, not because rocks accidentally or randomly bump into each other, but because they are responding to the dynamics of gravity, electromagnetism, and other planetary sciences and laws.

 

Fortunately we have duplicated planetary formation in computer simulations and we can peek into extra protoplanetary disks and see this working. Do you think probability or the laws of nature guide this process?

 

 

This is quite easily one of the most stupid statements I've ever read. Neptune was mathematically predicted (scientific method on gravitational perturbations) before it was observed. The atom was long known about before direct observation but because of atomic theory we know they exist, what makes their innards, what makes the innard's innards, innard's innard's innards. (sub-atomic particles and strings). We've found hundreds of extrasolar planets using the scientific method on the gravitational and luminescent effects those planets have on their stars. The list goes on and on.

 

 

Another favorite argument of the Creationist. Comparing things we know are designed versus things we know have a naturalistic explanation and then throwing their "probability" or "chance" argument in to boot.

 

Comparing apples and oranges.

 

One, even a child, can quickly deduce that Mt. Rushmore was designed because you don't see any other examples of that happening nor is there a natural explanation for that specific configuration. However sunsets can be breathtakingly beautiful to look at, but we aren't clamoring for a sunset god? Why? Because we know the processes that create beautiful sunsets.

 

 

Again it isn't probability that guides these processes, it is chemistry, electromagnetism, biology, and strong/weak nuclear reactions that guide these processes.

 

 

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life you twit. It deals with the origin of species. And life originated not by chance, not by randomness, and not by probability, but by chemistry, electromagnetism, biology, and strong/weak nuclear reactions and the laws thereof.

 

 

Oh here we go. ID had its chance to defend itself in federal court and got their asses handed to them. Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute (an ID think tank) refused to defend ID under oath.

 

 

The judge, a Bush appointee wrote:

 

Its a real pity the state prosecutor didn't crucify these lying creationists for perjury as he should have.

 

-NW

just read the article. Like most hard heads you would rather argue on points other than the ones in the link. READ and try to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just read the article. Like most hard heads you would rather argue on points other than the ones in the link. READ and try to stay.

 

What are you babbling on about? I pulled the quotes other than the one quote detailing the embarrassing defeat ID suffered in federal court.

 

I eviscerated your source concept by concept.

 

-NW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For contrast, please show us your mathematical equation which shows proof that creationism is the reason behind the origin of life.

 

 

Get ready for some sort of tosh about probability, chance, randomness, etc.

 

 

-NW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are evolutionists and evolution is mathematically impossible. Atheists have to choose to be stupid. So it is political. Which means that the study and distribution of power is its sole purpose. Religion prevents this.

 

....And, scientists allow religion to make that assumption. It's the civil thing to do.....when dealing with the least-educated of our population.

http://www.inferse.com/31454/messengers-4-years-work-reveals-mercurys-magnetic-field-4-bn-years/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are evolutionists and evolution is mathematically impossible. Atheists have to choose to be stupid. So it is political. Which means that the study and distribution of power is its sole purpose. Religion prevents this.

 

 

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/27-09-2010/115095-atheism-0/

your a dumb con fuck who enjoys the company of little boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your a dumb con fuck who enjoys the company of little boys.

 

Easy, there.....you know how upset "conservatives"/Teabaggers get, when we start talking about Porky Limbaugh....OR, his Thailand-vacations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They hate it when you use science.

 

NW my friend you are wrong about your probability argument. I don't know if you are just trying to argue to save face or you just really don't know...

 

Let me splain it to you.

 

You are correct with your grid example--but I will bet anything you did not follow the "rules".

 

First, for the odds to be as you say, you must have some random way, each with an equal chance, to come up with the position of the letters.

Second - and this is very very important, you must say (or predict) where the letters will land BEFORE any choice is made. AFTER the event(s) occur it is no longer some astronomical chance - in fact - it is 100%.

 

You have unwittingly made the perfect case for ID.

 

I will make it easy for you. Take two hats. Put 10 pieces of (equal sized) paper numbered 1-10 in each hat. Now - at random - draw one piece of paper from each hat. The first piece of paper represents the column, the second the row. To be correct, the answer must be as you depict it - the first letter must be an "A" on the first position. the second must be a "B" on the second position, etc. The result must be on the grid where you have it shown and it must be in the order you have shown.

 

So, your "math lesson?"-- as you say--should be easy for you to demonstrate. Just send us a film clip with the above CORRECT rules where you draw out of a hat the numbers then place the letters on the board. In fact, just because it is fun to rub your nose in it, I am more than willing to put some money on this "lesson". You will find out, the hard way, that it makes a big big difference predicting where the letters will be BEFORE you draw the numbers instead of AFTER you draw the numbers.

 

If you are really "trained in math and science" as you say then you won't waste any time with paper slips and hats because you know you are wrong - and you are using your knowledge of math and science against people who don't know better which is dishonest. If you are really that dense, then you have seen a new light - statistical methods can be used to prove a point. The only way to make your "ABCD" pattern is with ID - it cab't be done with random chance (well, can't be done is not correct - not very likely done is more correct). If you don't believe it - go get some hats and learn the hard way...

 

So, if you see a pattern "ABCDEFG" on you board - do you think it was drawn out of a hat or just put there by man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... evolution is mathematically impossible. ...

 

If that's true, then you can prove it with math. But you can't so you're wrong (and stupid, but definitely wrong)

 

I blame Shaman for bumping this stupid thread back to life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are MANY gods because no one god would create something kind

and gentle like a deer and then also create wolves to tear it apart.

 

No one god would give this wonderful country to good people and then,

create rednecks and phony christians and ass hole gun nuts and garbage

in the red states to tear it apart as they tried to do in the civil war.

 

No one god would create sociopathic rich ass holes to enjoy a lifetime

vacation and be allowed to steal sweat equity in businesses from working

men and women who live paycheck to paycheck and work their whole lives.

 

Clearly, there are as many gods as their are species on this planet and in

UFOs visiting us. Someone had to create all of the very different species.

 

And then, after they were created, evolution occured to let the more

adaptable ones with stronger survival traits to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is real, it's proven and proven again. To believe otherwise if everyone's right but if you're so stuck on your beliefs that you ignore reality then you're doing nothing but hurting yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William, there were not a bunch of species put here in the beginning. All life can be traced back to single cell organisms that all evolved slightly differently, and those who adapted to their environment had better chances of surviving to reproduce and pass on their genetic code to their children and so on until we have all the species that have existed and still exist to this day from those very first simple organisms.

 

Although to my beliefs, the Big Bang, the universe, evolution and all that has happened and will occur endlessly again throughout "time" is all part of this God being we ALL pray to in one way or another. We are a very tiny part of something so big none can even fathom our true existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you prove this how mathematically is not believing in an invisible daddy in the sky impossible ?

now know this first I seen your site its Christian basted BS. so do the math show with numbers

It is simple. It is probabilities.

 

The first is what is the probability of the creation of the universe?

The seccond is what is the probability of the creation of life?

The third is what the probability of macro evolution happening?

Fourth is what the probability of intelligence life being created?

 

All of these is approaching 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simple. It is probabilities.

 

The first is what is the probability of the creation of the universe?

The seccond is what is the probability of the creation of life?

The third is what the probability of macro evolution happening?

Fourth is what the probability of intelligence life being created?

 

All of these is approaching 0.

 

Except not a damn one of those processes are governed by probability. What guides babymaking process? Biology or "probability" you fucktard? Furthermore thanks to the double-slit experiment each individual instance of fucking anything is a virtually limitless shots at existing. This is of course all wonderfully laid out in uncertainty principle which I know you know fuck all about.

 

 

That's in crayon for you.

 

This further evident in quantum physics where the same event can be happening simultaneously. In other words, any given event has essentially an infinite number of potentials, every potential exists at the same space-time, every single potential has equal footing, but only one collapses.

Genetics is a slam dunk for macro-evolution and you can't support micro evolution without supporting macro evolution. Macros are just a collection of micros; specieization; Darwin's Pretty Finches.

 

-NW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...