Post your tough questions in here regarding Christianity

So where is he Rostos?

The Intelligent Universe (London: Michael Joseph, 1983, 256 pp.), Hoyle says:

SO I WILL ASK AGAIN:

WHERE IS YOUR HARVARD PROFESSOR, AND WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING BY CONTINUING THIS CHARADE??

Where is that Harvard Professor Rostos?

Why dont you just admit that you made that up?

Come on, we all know it, just admit it.

Rostos -

All of us want to hear you admit that there is no harvard professor.

Come on.  Jesus will be proud of you.  Dont let pride dishonor you.

Proverbs 11:2

When pride comes, then comes dishonor.

I misread it regarding the Harvard professor.

HOWEVER, the FACT that it is SIR Fred Hoyle only strengthens the position over any Harvard professor.

The fact that it is Sir Fred Hoyle should make you shut your mouth.

Its like me saying, i beat Derek Fisher in a game of 1 on 1. Only to realise later that i beat Lebron 1 on1, not Fisher.

So my mistake only further strenghens my view...

Junkyard mentality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1F4KC9a4AY

JUNKYARD mentality

So just to be sure, I want to clarify:

YOU POSTED A FACT, THAT WAS NOT INDEED A FACT, AND YOU ARE ADMITTING IT.

Is that correct?

Check one box:

YES (  )         NO  (  )

"what are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing the parts of a 747 and just accidentally assemble it so as to leave it sitting there all set for take-off. "So small as to be negligible," he says, "even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe" (p. 19)."

Furthermore, cells are much much more complex that any 747 in the world......

Let me boast about myself.

Hey guys , i just beat Derek Fisher (starting point guard and champion for the Lakers) in a game of one on one....

oops my bad, sorry, honest mistake, i thought it was Fisher, i actually beat Lebron in a game of 1 on 1.

Vaznack, u are just embaressing yourself mate, my honest mistake has only strenghtened my position.

What are the chances of Rostos making up facts, and posting them as the truth?

Much better than a 747 blowing together, that is for sure!

(better pray to jesus for forgiveness tonight for violating a 10 commandment, dont want to see you burning in hell with Ghandi)

YOU STILL HAVENT ADMITTED THAT YOU POSTED A FACT THAT WAS BULLSHIT.

Just do it.  Jesus will love you more.

And why should we believe anything you post from here on out?  You are a proven liar, and should be discounted as such.

Yeah, but what are the odds of Harry Potter building a 747 and rolling 50,000 pairs of sixes?

A leading Harvard professor stated that these odds were 10 to the 9999th power (and that was only if Harry could use the Patronis spell).  That number is sooooooo big, that it could NEVER happen!!

This proves that there must be a god!!

I said it was a mistake....

Didnt u read that oart or u ignored it after you were taken aback as to how silly you sound with your junkyard mentality?

We turn now to the tornado in the junkyard. This analogy says nothing about the validity of evolution, or for that matter abiogenesis, because it fails to represent them in four crucial ways.

1. It operates purely according to random chance.
2. It is an example of single-step, rather than cumulative, selection.
3. It is a saltationary jump - an end product entirely unlike the beginning product.
4. It has a target specified ahead of time.

The first point is the most important. The tornado in the junkyard is an example of an intricate, complex and highly organized form being produced by nothing more than random chance. But evolution is not chance. (See this article for more on this.) Rather, it operates according to a fixed law - the law of natural selection - which favors some assemblages over others; it preferentially selects for those adaptations which improve fitness and selects against those that do not. The tornado, by contrast, slams parts together and tears them apart with no preference whatsoever, thus completely failing to represent natural selection, the central force which drives evolution. To more accurately represent evolution, one would have to grant the tornado some power to recognize assemblages of parts which could serve as part of a 747 and prevent it from tearing them apart.

Second, the tornado analogy is an example of single-step selection - in one step, it goes from a random pile of parts to a fully assembled airliner. This is completely unlike evolution, which operates according to a process of cumulative selection - complex results that are built up gradually, in a repetitive process guided at each step by selective forces. To more accurately represent evolution, the tornado could be sent through the junkyard not once, but thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving chance assemblages of parts that could make up a jumbo jet.

Third, in relation to the point above, the tornado in the junkyard is an example of saltation - a sudden leap in which the end product is completely different from the beginning product. Evolution does not work this way; birds do not hatch out of dinosaur eggs and monkeys do not give birth to humans. Rather, species grow different over time through a process of slow change in which each new creature is only slightly different from its ancestor. Evolution forms a gradually shading continuum in which any two steps are almost identical, though the creatures at the beginning and end of the continuum may be very different indeed. If we sent a tornado through a junkyard once, we would not expect to see a complete airplane; but if we repeated the process thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving useful assemblages, we might see a jumbo jet gradually taking shape out of slowly accreting collections of parts. The idea is the same with living things. We do not see complex new creatures appearing suddenly in the fossil record; rather, we see them gradually forming by a process of modification from a line of increasingly dissimilar ancestors.

Finally, the tornado analogy fails to represent evolution in one more significant way: it has a target specified ahead of time. Evolution does not. Natural selection is not a forward-looking process; it cannot select for what may become useful in the future, only what is immediately useful in the present. To more accurately represent evolution, we might add the additional stipulation that the tornado be allowed to assemble, not just a jumbo jet, but any functional piece of machinery.

A tornado racing through a junkyard hundreds of thousands of times, at each step somehow preserving rather than tearing apart functional assemblages of parts, with the aim of ultimately producing some sort of working machine, be it a 747, a station wagon or a personal computer - this is still not a very good analogy to describe evolution, but it is far better than the implausible caricature of random, single-step saltation with a predetermined target the creationists put forth. This analogy completely fails to represent evolution in every significant way.

Good.

Now we can move on, but we cannot accept anything you post from here on out because you are proven to be non-bonafide.

If there are 1000 words in that, it is 990 too much for Rostos to read or understand.

"TOO MANY WORDS, CANNOT READ, MUST MAKE SIMPLE SENTENCE TO EXPLAIN.  THE ODDS OF HOYLE BEING WRONG ARE THE SAME AS THROWING A BUNCH OF WATCH PARTS IN THE AIR, AND HAVING THEM COME DOWN AS A ROLEX"

Everyone i have made discovery.

Major announcement.

Vaznack has NEVER EVER made an honest mistake, NEVER not once in his life.

vaznack has never made an honest mistake.