Thread: Creation 'Science' Made Easy

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I still think the whole, "over huge periods of time" and "millions of generations" is a crutch that proponents need to get off of. If something is ridiculously improbable, but it looks like it happened, say so.

It's not a "crutch" if it's true. Do you not understand that the probability of an event occurring is intrinsically linked to the number of opportunities it has to occur? If someone has a one-in-a-million probability of occurring, it's only "ridiculously improbable" if you give it significantly less than a million chances. If you give it a million chances, then "one-in-a-million" is not that improbable at all. And if you give it a billion chances, then it's damned improbable that it won't occur. It's a pretty simple concept.

Evolutionary events that have a 1-in-X chance of occurring are ridiculously improbable in any given single case, but that does NOT mean they are ridiculously improbable in the population as a whole, over the evolutionary timescale as a whole.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I'm making up probabilities? How exactly do you calculate the probability of a new species being formed? You can't.

Right, so I guess that would be a clue to a reasonable person not to make up arbitary claims about that probability, like you did.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

Dude, to you guys, this is just a political issue, and/or extension of your personality.
You won't bother to think about genetics or evolution outside of those boundaries or this thread.

You do not even know what you're talking about. Just like you made stupid and baseless presumptions about the likelihood of parents with a chromosomal mismatch reproducing, you are now making stupid and baseless presumptions about other people's interest in this issue.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

I was sitting in class one day when I used my understanding of procreation to realize that there was something wrong with it.
I didn't simply parrot out a page I googled like you did. I used my brain, and the information gleaned from words written on paper.

But you obviously didn't bother to check and make sure your crackpot theory was correct or even grounded in reality before you stormed into this thread and started acting like you knew what you were talking about. Forming your own hypotheses and ideas is great; but you need to make sure they aren't totally wrong before you try to argue with other people over them.

It's really ridiculous that you dreamed up your own theory, never bothered to verify it, and tried to use it in an argument as if it were fact... and now you are trying to act like you are somehow superior to people who actually tracked down the facts and educated themselves before opening their mouths, because those people may have used the internet to do so. It's also ridiculous how you think that if someone gleaned information from words displayed on a screen, that information is somehow inferior to the information that you gleaned from words written on paper... even if they were right and you were wrong. Newsflash: The veracity of facts doesn't depend on whether they were learned from an electronic medium or a printed medium.