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.

Originally Posted by Syme

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.



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.



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.



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.

And let me repeat my question: What WAS your theory, exactly? I haven't seen you present a hypothesis ITT about the origin of new chromosomes. Again, it seems like the closest you've come is asking "Who's to say God didn't do it?"

Dude, my completely wrong idea had these imbeciles stumped until you googled the shit out of it.

You can say it's not true, but it is.
You can't learn kung fu from Rush Hour, and you can't learn Genetics on the internet.
You can't back someone into a corner by saying, "Where's your dissertation on your new hypothesis" either. Oh wait, yes you can.

Originally Posted by bacon ops

Dude, my completely wrong idea had these imbeciles stumped until you googled the shit out of it.

...and you can't learn Genetics on the internet...

Just for the record, I didn't use Google to discover why you were wrong; I knew why you were wrong as soon as I read your post, because I have a working knowledge of how evolution works. What I used Google for was to find a website that would explain the facts in a way that everyone reading the thread could understand, since providing links to other websites is obviously the only practical way to show other people information in an online discussion. It seems like your automatic assumption about everyone else is that they couldn't possibly know anything about a scientific topic, and if they do demonstrate any knowledge of a scientific topic, then it must be because they Googled it 30 seconds earlier and just parroted what they found. This may come as a shock to you, but you are not the only person in the universe who has ever taken a class or read a book. Every other person besides yourself does not necessarily get 100% of their knowledge from Google on an as-needed basis. My degree isn't scientific, but I do have a strong interest in science, and I read a lot. Consequently, I have some scientific knowledge that wasn't gained via a Google search made for the express purpose of arguing with Intelligent Design advocates on the internet.