• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Math, who has more faith than evolutionist?

ttechsan

twitter @ttechsan
Well let me go over a few mathematical calculations and you tell me this isn't faith or agenda based. I really want your explanation to explain these, Please.

1. According to known historical records the world's population doubles every 100 yrs. In the last few hundred years it is taking place about every 60 yrs. If you start with only the story of Noah and the flood and 8 people survived, which by the way this story in some shape or form is in many many civilizations and very far from one another. To the present day, doubling like earlier discussed, there would be 30 times or around 3000 to 4500 yrs if you use every 150 yr avg for doubling. Ironically that gives us the world's present population of around 7 billion people.

What is fascinating about this is that evolution teaches that man appeared about 1 billion yrs ago. Using the same calculations that scientist use, doubling every 60 to 150 yrs the total no. resulting of people over 1 billion yrs would give us more people on earth than atoms in the entire universe. There should be more people and more bodies if evolutionist were correct.

2.The coded instructions in DNA of a human cell would fill 4,000 encyclopedia books of information. Lets even assume evolution were true, the probabilities of mutations and natural selection to produce that much info is zero. Why you ask?

Evolutionist assume that, and I have been told this on here many times also, given enough time all things are possible. Well lets analyze that for a second. Evolutionist have stated that given that much length of time, in the millions or billions of yrs a monkey could type the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica. Ironically it has been calculated that by random trials just to type the TITLE "Encyclopedia Brittanica would happen only once in 10 to the 39th power. For comparison sake this is like saying it is the same as one monkey sitting on every square foot of the earth's surface stacked 10 miles deep and being able to with only one attempt every second for 10 billion years. Do you realize we are only talking about the TITLE not even the whole series of the Encyclopedia.

The odds of natural process producing the information on a SINGLE strand of DNA exceeds the total no. of subatomic particles within the entire known universe.

3. At one time living cells were considered no more complex than empty table tennis balls. As knowledge has increased is has become apparent that thousands of SPECIFIC and COMPLEX chemicals are required for any form of life to exist and survive.

EVOLUTIONIST Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism to be 10 to the 340,000,000 power! This is equivalent to having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand. There isn't enough time for this to occur and that is just for the simplest not counting more complex and evolving to higher forms. 5 Billion years doesn't give you enough time and in reality all of eternity wouldn't give it enough time by random process to form the enormous complexity of life.

4. The simplest conceivable form of life is bacteria. Did you realize it contains at least 600 protein molecules? Each one performs a specific function by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact 3 dimensional spacial arrangements. They work like a key fitting into a lock-only specifically shaped protein. Yet, there are multiple trillion possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How did this happen by random chance and multiple times as evolution became more complex along the way?

Did you also know that most scientist agree and acknowledge that probability odds of 10 to the 50th power to be impossible?

So who uses faith with this type of mathematics probability! Yet taught as "fact" and esp for so many in present generation without telling about this. What could that mean?

5. The SCIENCE, yes I said SCIENCE of stats proves evolution is not possible. For example for life to form all things must happen in exactly correct sequence and amounts and exact correct way.

If you only took 6 components needing to be combined in specific order, the six factorial no. of possibilities is 720. (6x5x4x3x2x1).

The simplest form of life requires thousands of specific chemicals in correct sequence. Lets for arguments sake say it only takes 200 the factorial is (200x199x198 so on until you get to one). This means by natural random chance this process can occur only once every 10 to the 375th power. Problem is only the right combination can result in a living cell.

Compare that to the total no. of electrons that could be placed into the space available within the entire universe is only 10 to the 130th power, which statistically by scientist is IMPOSSIBLE. All this happens by random chance?

Yet despite the math it is taught as fact. I find that interesting don't you?

Mathematics tells us evolution is impossible yet taught as fact even using the scientific proven math models.

We are taught and told this is fact, despite all odds making evolution an impossibility,which I doubt you were ever exposed to were you? Why not?

6. Tell me honestly if you can? Which one uses more faith, esp despite the odds not making it possible.

Sounds like the only way possible is ID or God using only math.

For you fellow mathematicians, please do your own calculations and show me the errors, if any were made, but still they can't be greater than 10 to the 50th power for evolution to occur or is impossible!

7. I truly look forward to your responses based on math and science not opinion or cut downs.

8. As I stated in another thread, I would expect you to defend the only thing you have ever been taught or exposed to. Yet as academic people I also would expect you to be honest on the math and science or you prove my other point that no matter what you would never acknowledge God or ID regardless, which is agenda not science or math.

9. Don't argue only creationist are faith based as I have proven otherwise. You have much more than I ever could.

Yours truly!

matt_a_dor
 
  • Like
Reactions: MD

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
1) Population growth is not regular, it's rate is increasing. US population is three times what it was when I was born.
Scientists do not use this 60 to 100 year doubling rate you speak of, and it would have nothing to do with evolution. Where did you get this info?
Humans arose a billion years ago? A billion years ago multicellular life was just beginning.
You really need to check your sources. Your hypothesis seems to be based on pure fantasy.

2) Why do you say that? That much information could easily accumulate.
Place a grain of rice on a chessboard square. Place two on the next square, four on the next, eight on the next, &c. How much rice would you have on the last square?
Evolution is not random. It's guided. It's selective.

3) Where did you get this empty tennis ball analogy? It sounds like myth.
Thousands of complex molecules? No. A thing is not either life or non-life. Life is a continuum of organic complexity. Things started simply and grew into the complexity we see today.
There is no way Morowitz could make such a calculations.The variables just aren't known. You might also consider that the statistical possibility of any specific rock in your front yard being in that particular place and in that particular orientation at this particular time is also impossibly great.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Well let me go over a few mathematical calculations and you tell me this isn't faith or agenda based. I really want your explanation to explain these, Please.
For the whole thing? Two possible explanations:

- ignorance on your part
- deliberate dishonesty on your part

You know, I was going to give a point-by-point response to your post, but I realized that this would be giving your diatribe more respect than it deserves.

Tell you what: next time you think you have some big "gotcha" that disproves evolution, go to this site and look it up:

An Index to Creationist Claims

Once you do that, only post it if either:

- your claim isn't on the list, or
- you've come up with some reason why their refutation of your particular claim is wrong.

Deal?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Why do some people insist on asking the wrong question?

This guy could really put his powerful intellect to good use, calculating exactly how many creationists it takes to screw a coconut.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
9. Don't argue only creationist are faith based as I have proven otherwise. You have much more than I ever could.

Yours truly!

matt_a_dor

No, you haven't proved that creationism is not faith based. Without religious faith, creationism does not exist.

Here's a meditation on the abundantly obvious: the theory of evolution is not based on statistics. We know that the world as it is exists with the probability of 1. It exists the same for a creationist and an evolutionist - or shall we say to one with an immature faith and someone with a rational mind. That's beside the point. This concept isn't that complex. The scientist examines the world as it appears, and all of the mathematical nonsense that you throw at it doesn't matter at all because "it" somehow happened and the scientist reviews it to see what it is.

If evolution were the product of your "mathematical" formula, then yes, your thoughts would have a chance of being relevant.

As it stands now, you don't even have a chance of being productive.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
4)The simplest life is bacteria? Where did you get that? And why do you think all bacteria is equally complex?
These probability estimates are rubbish. Science doesn't subscribe to it. The variables are unknown, and everything is massively improbable, yet something is inevitable.

5) Yet scientists all agree that evolution did and is happening, and that probability arguments are all rubbish.
You've proved nothing but your statistical ignorance.

6) Science is based on observation and testing. It actively seeks to disprove its hypotheses. The only faith is in its methodology, which history has shown to be extraordinarily productive.
You assume that if something is not currently fully understood the only logical "explanation" is magic (God).
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Using the same calculations that scientist use, doubling every 60 to 150 yrs the total no. resulting of people over 1 billion yrs would give us more people on earth than atoms in the entire universe.

The odds of natural process producing the information on a SINGLE strand of DNA exceeds the total no. of subatomic particles within the entire known universe.

This is absolutely hilarious. It's amazing that someone came up with this crap and someone else believed it.

My god. How many atoms are there in the universe?

How many subatomic particles are in the universe?

Funny thing is - whichever moron thought this up places humans in comparison to atoms and their DNA to subatomic particles. I guess he figures that while he's making up stuff he assigns the larger atom to people and the smaller subatomic particles to their DNA.

We're not dealing with the bottom of the barrel here. We're dealing with the stuff that grows on the scum of the bottom of the barrel.
 

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Well let me go over a few mathematical calculations and you tell me this isn't faith or agenda based. I really want your explanation to explain these, Please.

1. According to known historical records the world's population doubles every 100 yrs. In the last few hundred years it is taking place about every 60 yrs. If you start with only the story of Noah and the flood and 8 people survived, which by the way this story in some shape or form is in many many civilizations and very far from one another. To the present day, doubling like earlier discussed, there would be 30 times or around 3000 to 4500 yrs if you use every 150 yr avg for doubling. Ironically that gives us the world's present population of around 7 billion people.

What is fascinating about this is that evolution teaches that man appeared about 1 billion yrs ago. Using the same calculations that scientist use, doubling every 60 to 150 yrs the total no. resulting of people over 1 billion yrs would give us more people on earth than atoms in the entire universe. There should be more people and more bodies if evolutionist were correct.

This one is easy, it has been refuted over and over again by simple common sense and basic biology. First of all, your facts are wrong. Evolution teaches that man existed about 1million years ago, not 1 billion. Your "facts" would mean man lived with dinosaurs which ironically, creationism does teach. Now on to the meat of your argument, as you say yourself, know historical records show exponetial growth. Know historical records only go back 10,000 years or so, before this, we were not as intellectually advanced as we are now. That is why no historical records exist in that time. Our prehistorical anscestors, lacking our gift of intelligence, were bound by natures rules. And in nature, NO animal is allowed to have exponetial growth.

" In nature, population growth must eventually slow, and population size ceases to increase. As resources are depleted, population growth rate slows and eventually stops: This is known as logistic growth. The population size at which growth stops is generally called the carrying capacity (K), which is the number of individuals of a particular population that the environment can support. At carrying capacity, because population size is approximately constant, birthrates must equal death rates, and population growth is zero."

That is a quote from nature.com. I vividly remember learning this principle around 3rd grade, but apparently you missed that lesson so, here you go, no need to thank me.

2.The coded instructions in DNA of a human cell would fill 4,000 encyclopedia books of information. Lets even assume evolution were true, the probabilities of mutations and natural selection to produce that much info is zero. Why you ask?

The odds of natural process producing the information on a SINGLE strand of DNA exceeds the total no. of subatomic particles within the entire known universe.

Again, your facts are wrong. The information contained in human DNA would only fill about 750 megabytes in a computer. That is about the size of the average cd-rom. Compare that to the encycolpedia britannica which would take up over 2gigabytes on 3 cd-roms. On to the argument now. The probability that human DNA was formed "as is" is astronomically high, you are right about that. Unfortunately, evolution does not make this assumption. Ironically again, creationism does make that assumption. Evolution says that only a handfull of genes or less are changed. The probability for only a small percentage of genes mutating is much less astronomical.

3. At one time living cells were considered no more complex than empty table tennis balls. As knowledge has increased is has become apparent that thousands of SPECIFIC and COMPLEX chemicals are required for any form of life to exist and survive.

EVOLUTIONIST Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism to be 10 to the 340,000,000 power! This is equivalent to having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand. There isn't enough time for this to occur and that is just for the simplest not counting more complex and evolving to higher forms. 5 Billion years doesn't give you enough time and in reality all of eternity wouldn't give it enough time by random process to form the enormous complexity of life.

With a refreshing change of pace, your facts are not wrong this time. Unfortunately, your use of the probability of life formation from EVOLUTIONIST Harold Morowitz is wrong. You conveniently left off the part where he was talking about equilibrium condition. Luckily for us, Earth has never been under equilibrium conditions, and is in fact VERY chemically active and on top of that, receives an abundant amount of energy from the sun.

4. The simplest conceivable form of life is bacteria. Did you realize it contains at least 600 protein molecules? Each one performs a specific function by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact 3 dimensional spacial arrangements. They work like a key fitting into a lock-only specifically shaped protein. Yet, there are multiple trillion possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How did this happen by random chance and multiple times as evolution became more complex along the way?

Did you also know that most scientist agree and acknowledge that probability odds of 10 to the 50th power to be impossible?

So who uses faith with this type of mathematics probability! Yet taught as "fact" and esp for so many in present generation without telling about this. What could that mean?

I'm not even sure what "point" you are trying to make here. I guess it is the faith thing so... Sure, I have faith in evolution. Why wouldn't I. It has been proven to be true. I don't really think you can call something faith if it has been proven empirically, but that is just semantics.

5. The SCIENCE, yes I said SCIENCE of stats proves evolution is not possible. For example for life to form all things must happen in exactly correct sequence and amounts and exact correct way.

If you only took 6 components needing to be combined in specific order, the six factorial no. of possibilities is 720. (6x5x4x3x2x1).

The simplest form of life requires thousands of specific chemicals in correct sequence. Lets for arguments sake say it only takes 200 the factorial is (200x199x198 so on until you get to one). This means by natural random chance this process can occur only once every 10 to the 375th power. Problem is only the right combination can result in a living cell.

Compare that to the total no. of electrons that could be placed into the space available within the entire universe is only 10 to the 130th power, which statistically by scientist is IMPOSSIBLE. All this happens by random chance?

Yet despite the math it is taught as fact. I find that interesting don't you?

Mathematics tells us evolution is impossible yet taught as fact even using the scientific proven math models.

We are taught and told this is fact, despite all odds making evolution an impossibility,which I doubt you were ever exposed to were you? Why not?

This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only deals with life after it has been formed, so all of what you said here doesn't matter at all.

6. Tell me honestly if you can? Which one uses more faith, esp despite the odds not making it possible.

Sounds like the only way possible is ID or God using only math.

For you fellow mathematicians, please do your own calculations and show me the errors, if any were made, but still they can't be greater than 10 to the 50th power for evolution to occur or is impossible!

7. I truly look forward to your responses based on math and science not opinion or cut downs.

8. As I stated in another thread, I would expect you to defend the only thing you have ever been taught or exposed to. Yet as academic people I also would expect you to be honest on the math and science or you prove my other point that no matter what you would never acknowledge God or ID regardless, which is agenda not science or math.

9. Don't argue only creationist are faith based as I have proven otherwise. You have much more than I ever could.

Yours truly!

matt_a_dor

Which one uses more faith? Religion, hands down. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory, in ecosystems, in the fossil record, and even in hypothetical situations evolution still is more probable than creationism. In creationism, the best you can do is what? "The lord works in mysterious ways"? Is that it? When you can come up with a better answer than "magic", I will consider it.
 

mycorrhiza

Well-Known Member
What is fascinating about this is that evolution teaches that man appeared about 1 billion yrs ago. Using the same calculations that scientist use, doubling every 60 to 150 yrs the total no. resulting of people over 1 billion yrs would give us more people on earth than atoms in the entire universe. There should be more people and more bodies if evolutionist were correct.
Evolution surely does not teach that. It's more like 200,000 years.

There's no need for debate if you're going to be dishonest.
Evolution has no goal, so even though the odds of the exact animals we have to day arising is low, that in no way disproves evolution. Also, please do not confuse abiogenesis with evolution. They're completely different fields.
 
Last edited:

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
*sigh*

Ya see? This is why I don't even bother "debating" silly and pointless "mathematical impossibilitiy" OPs in this particular topic forum anymore...

All of these silly posits have been thoroughly debunked and discredited thousands of times beforehand, but like a game of whack-a-mole, two heads pop up after one is whacked back into it's unhappy hole.

Ignorance hopes to prevail in a war of attrition...and I salute the current soldiers that defend the walls of reason and science here, but I am spent in patience, and have done my part for over thirty years on the topic. I pass the baton, and hope you carry on :)
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Ok, point by point refutation. Point 1 is factually incorrect. The population does not double every 100 years. It grew very slowly for most of human history and then exploded after the industrial revolution. Points 2 through whatever are no more likely to be factually correct than point 1, so I didn't bother reading them.
 

David M

Well-Known Member
Well let me go over a few mathematical calculations and you tell me this isn't faith or agenda based. I really want your explanation to explain these, Please.

1. According to known historical records the world's population doubles every 100 yrs.

Completely false. According to known historical record the worlds population has even dropped in certain 100 year periods. During recorded history we have pretty good data that shows that between 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population did not double.

2.The coded instructions in DNA of a human cell would fill 4,000 encyclopedia books of information. Lets even assume evolution were true, the probabilities of mutations and natural selection to produce that much info is zero. Why you ask?

And where is the maths of this probability?

4. The simplest conceivable form of life is bacteria.

No its not. Viruses are alive. And consider Candidatus Carsonella ruddii, 160k base pairs in its genome, that is 0.055% of the size of the genome of some amoebae.

5. The SCIENCE, yes I said SCIENCE of stats proves evolution is not possible. For example for life to form all things must happen in exactly correct sequence and amounts and exact correct way.

No, the science says that evolution happens.

6. Tell me honestly if you can? Which one uses more faith, esp despite the odds not making it possible.

I think it takes a lot of faith to believe that this level of dishonesty is in any way persuasive (or that your post and run tactics are any way to discuss anything).

For you fellow mathematicians, please do your own calculations and show me the errors, if any were made, but still they can't be greater than 10 to the 50th power for evolution to occur or is impossible!

Why don't you show the math? I would guess that is because you don't have any real math.
 

Zoe Doidge

Basically a Goddess
Lets for arguments sake say it only takes 200 the factorial is (200x199x198 so on until you get to one). This means by natural random chance this process can occur only once every 10 to the 375th power.

See this is what I don't like, the horrible inaccuracy when using figures. Why not just work out 200! so everyone can see it's 788657867364790503552363213932185062295135977687173263294742533244359449963403342920304284011984623904177212138919638830257642790242637105061926624952829931113462857270763317237396988943922445621451664240254033291864131227428294853277524242407573903240321257405579568660226031904170324062351700858796178922222789623703897374720000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000?

Just laziness if you ask me.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And genetic sequences aren't built by random chance, they're naturally selected. Organisms are selectively bred.

Probability? Deal out a dozen or so cards. What's the probability of that particular sequence appearing? Huge! -- Yet there it is in front of you.
Repeat -- another improbable combination. Keep repeating. Same same.
Consider the statistical probability of all the sequences together -- astronomical!

Near infinitely improbable things happen all the time, every minute, and this is without active selection.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well let me go over a few mathematical calculations and you tell me this isn't faith or agenda based. I really want your explanation to explain these, Please.

1. According to known historical records the world's population doubles every 100 yrs. In the last few hundred years it is taking place about every 60 yrs. If you start with only the story of Noah and the flood and 8 people survived, which by the way this story in some shape or form is in many many civilizations and very far from one another. To the present day, doubling like earlier discussed, there would be 30 times or around 3000 to 4500 yrs if you use every 150 yr avg for doubling. Ironically that gives us the world's present population of around 7 billion people.

What is fascinating about this is that evolution teaches that man appeared about 1 billion yrs ago. Using the same calculations that scientist use, doubling every 60 to 150 yrs the total no. resulting of people over 1 billion yrs would give us more people on earth than atoms in the entire universe. There should be more people and more bodies if evolutionist were correct.

2.The coded instructions in DNA of a human cell would fill 4,000 encyclopedia books of information. Lets even assume evolution were true, the probabilities of mutations and natural selection to produce that much info is zero. Why you ask?

Evolutionist assume that, and I have been told this on here many times also, given enough time all things are possible. Well lets analyze that for a second. Evolutionist have stated that given that much length of time, in the millions or billions of yrs a monkey could type the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica. Ironically it has been calculated that by random trials just to type the TITLE "Encyclopedia Brittanica would happen only once in 10 to the 39th power. For comparison sake this is like saying it is the same as one monkey sitting on every square foot of the earth's surface stacked 10 miles deep and being able to with only one attempt every second for 10 billion years. Do you realize we are only talking about the TITLE not even the whole series of the Encyclopedia.

The odds of natural process producing the information on a SINGLE strand of DNA exceeds the total no. of subatomic particles within the entire known universe.

3. At one time living cells were considered no more complex than empty table tennis balls. As knowledge has increased is has become apparent that thousands of SPECIFIC and COMPLEX chemicals are required for any form of life to exist and survive.

EVOLUTIONIST Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism to be 10 to the 340,000,000 power! This is equivalent to having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand. There isn't enough time for this to occur and that is just for the simplest not counting more complex and evolving to higher forms. 5 Billion years doesn't give you enough time and in reality all of eternity wouldn't give it enough time by random process to form the enormous complexity of life.

4. The simplest conceivable form of life is bacteria. Did you realize it contains at least 600 protein molecules? Each one performs a specific function by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact 3 dimensional spacial arrangements. They work like a key fitting into a lock-only specifically shaped protein. Yet, there are multiple trillion possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How did this happen by random chance and multiple times as evolution became more complex along the way?

Did you also know that most scientist agree and acknowledge that probability odds of 10 to the 50th power to be impossible?

So who uses faith with this type of mathematics probability! Yet taught as "fact" and esp for so many in present generation without telling about this. What could that mean?

5. The SCIENCE, yes I said SCIENCE of stats proves evolution is not possible. For example for life to form all things must happen in exactly correct sequence and amounts and exact correct way.

If you only took 6 components needing to be combined in specific order, the six factorial no. of possibilities is 720. (6x5x4x3x2x1).

The simplest form of life requires thousands of specific chemicals in correct sequence. Lets for arguments sake say it only takes 200 the factorial is (200x199x198 so on until you get to one). This means by natural random chance this process can occur only once every 10 to the 375th power. Problem is only the right combination can result in a living cell.

Compare that to the total no. of electrons that could be placed into the space available within the entire universe is only 10 to the 130th power, which statistically by scientist is IMPOSSIBLE. All this happens by random chance?

Yet despite the math it is taught as fact. I find that interesting don't you?

Mathematics tells us evolution is impossible yet taught as fact even using the scientific proven math models.

We are taught and told this is fact, despite all odds making evolution an impossibility,which I doubt you were ever exposed to were you? Why not?

6. Tell me honestly if you can? Which one uses more faith, esp despite the odds not making it possible.

Sounds like the only way possible is ID or God using only math.

For you fellow mathematicians, please do your own calculations and show me the errors, if any were made, but still they can't be greater than 10 to the 50th power for evolution to occur or is impossible!

7. I truly look forward to your responses based on math and science not opinion or cut downs.

8. As I stated in another thread, I would expect you to defend the only thing you have ever been taught or exposed to. Yet as academic people I also would expect you to be honest on the math and science or you prove my other point that no matter what you would never acknowledge God or ID regardless, which is agenda not science or math.

9. Don't argue only creationist are faith based as I have proven otherwise. You have much more than I ever could.

Yours truly!

matt_a_dor

I am not at all surprised by the evolutionists reaction. Freethinker44 claim you are wrong about the information content of DNA, saying it would fill only 750mb. According to Richard Dawkins, no friend of ID, "There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaeida Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaeida Britannicas. " (The Blind Watchmaker, p.116) But the alternative to the baseless ToE is unthinkable to many... an intelligent Designer to whom we are all accountable. (Romans 14:11,12)

 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
I am not at all surprised by the evolutionists reaction. Freethinker44 claim you are wrong about the information content of DNA, saying it would fill only 750mb. According to Richard Dawkins, no friend of ID, "There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaeida Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaeida Britannicas. " (The Blind Watchmaker, p.116) But the alternative to the baseless ToE is unthinkable to many... an intelligent Designer to whom we are all accountable. (Romans 14:11,12)
You noticed that the Encyclopedia Britannica isn't in digital format, right?
 
Top