Evolution is mathematically impossible because objects do not have computers and objects do not even know how to use computers even if they did have them. Fossils are evidence of the flood. Evolution has never been observed. Grasshoppers change into locusts but they don't change into crickets.
68 comments
Evolution is mathematically impossible because objects do not have computers
Non-sequitor alert!
Natural processes do not require computers, you thick-skulled, inbred American.
That's clear.
Evolution has never been observed, but creation has?
Actually, we're observing evolution right before our eyes, every day.
(Journeyer)
I've got you covered. Here's something you'll probably be able to use quite a bit in the future:image
What?
No, seriously, what ?
Grasshoppers change into locusts? Do what?
As for crickets, I know that Everyday, fundies make me say Oh Boy!, and make my Heartbeat faster. I suppose a fundie could say something sensible, and Not Fade Away into stupidity ... yeah, That'll Be The Day.
Eh? What sort of nonsensical bollocks is this?
WTF?
Evolution is mathematically impossible because objects do not have computers and objects do not even know how to use computers even if they did have them.
What the fuck?
No seriously, enlighten me. Can anybody even begin to make sense of this statement? There's not even any of the traditional fundie arguments here. It's just completely nonsensical.
My best guess is that seeksmoistproperty is confused over the gambler's fallacy.
A naive gambler might assume that because a coin is fifty-fifty, a run of heads makes it more likely the next toss will come down tails. But coins do not have memories or calculators to know that they are straying from the 'correct' 50-50 ratio, nor mechanisms to decide to come down a particular way round. But this does not mean coins don't or can't have a 50-50 ratio, that ratio is a natural consequence of the mechanics of a fair toss. No tallies, or calculators, are required.
It is the same with evolution. Organisms do not have to somehow work out their fitness and decide whether to live, die, breed or not breed. Alleles do not need to work out with what frequency they should exist in the gene pool on computers. Simple natural laws cause this to happen on its own, and it is these simple laws we model on computers.
"Objects" no more need computers to evolve than clouds need to watch the weather forecast to know where to go tomorrow.
"Evolution is mathematically impossible because objects do not have computers and objects do not even know how to use computers even if they did have them."
What do computers have to do with natural phenomena?
"Fossils are evidence of the flood."
No, there was no global flood.
"Evolution has never been observed."
Yes it has, both in the lab and in nature.
"Grasshoppers change into locusts but they don't change into crickets."
Ah, the old "if a horse doesn't change into a fish it's not evolution" argument. Your stupidity is outstanding, have a chocolate watch.
What's it called when you are below the level of an idiot? I think morons are higher than idiots in psychological terminology. Apparently, in psychology, an idiot is a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
Just been on that thread - here is some more of smtp's wisdom. Beware - you have been warned.
'Theres more than one way of looking at laws (Ls). The L for a caterpillar (C) is not the same as for a butterfly (B). What? In reality the same L applies to both, only the B is not restricted by the L of gravity (G) as the C is because there are other forces at work that are greater than G. The same holds true with Newtons Ls, they work within the framework (F) that we are in. If we go outside of the F, other Ls apply."
That was the best laugh I've had in months. Thank fuck I'd already finished my coffee amd put the cup down.
Objects don't have computers? Grasshoppers change into locusts? There's a couple of new, instant classics.
Interfaced together, HAL 9000, SkyNet, Colossus/Guardian, Proteus IV, WOPR/Joshua, Orac, K.I.T.T., MCP, Holly, Red Queen, E.D.I., Wirbelwind, and Deep Thought* wouldn't be able to calculate shitforbrainspathetic's levels of stupidity.
*- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_computers [/nerd]
“Evolution is mathematically impossible”
“because objects do not have computers and objects do not even know how to use computers even if they did have them.”
“Fossils are evidence of the flood.”
“Evolution has never been observed.”
“Grasshoppers change into locusts but they don't change into crickets.”
Denial, straw men, ignorance and falsehoods. Who's the father of lies and deception?
Edit/Adding:
Then, there's evidence of ancient water, for instance oil resulted from the decomposed layers of organisms like zooplankton and algae. But those seas date way before humans. With the geological evidence that there was no global flood since humans appeared, it is reasonable to understand that if flood myths were influenced by actual past floods, they would have been local and regional. It was also common during the Iron Age to perceive one's own region as the world...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
