Math, who has more faith than evolutionist?

[camanintx]

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.

Aparently creationists don't believe in smallpox, the plague, or any of a hundred other reasons why population growth isn't constant.

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.

As Seyorni pointed out, man has not been around 1 billion years. If you can't even get this fact straight, how are we to believe anything else you say?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ttechsan,

Do you think that life exactly as we see it now was the predetermined goal of evolution?

That's the implicit premise in all your claims about probability, so if you want me to take those claims seriously, you're going to have to defend it.

 

[Alceste]

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)

​

​

And I'm not surprised you would accept total falsehoods without any serious reflection whatsoever just because they're coming from a fellow evolution denier.

 

[Bob Dixon]

And I'm not surprised you would accept total falsehoods without any serious reelection whatsoever just because they're coming from a fellow evolution denier.

But I'm surprised he called the Theory of Evolution "baseless". I guess I shouldn't be, but... it just rattles me every time.
Like, if it's so baseless, HOW DID THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ACCEPT IT AS A THEORY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Spoiler: Hint:

It makes sense.

 

[Alceste]

But I'm surprised he called the Theory of Evolution "baseless". I guess I shouldn't be, but... it just rattles me every time.
Like, if it's so baseless, HOW DID THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ACCEPT IT AS A THEORY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Spoiler: Hint:

It makes sense.

It is always a shock to the system, isn't it? It helps to remember that they are almost always completely ignorant on the entire subject of science and live in an echo chamber where they only listen to others who are completely ignorant on the subject. Most of them were born into the echo chamber, I think. It must be awfully difficult to become informed when it means being ostracized from the only community you know.

 

[Valjean]

There are none so blind....

I think we've scared ttechsan off with this avalanche of critical posts

 

[Alceste]

There are none so blind....

I think we've scared ttechsan off with this avalanche of critical posts

Maybe he's just rearming for another assault on reason.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe studying Kipling's Just So Stories for some biological insight into the evolution of elephant's trunks, rhinoceros wrinkles and camel's humps...

 

[secret2]

I think this forum needs something like this
Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS : Creationism • Rational Skepticism Forum

 

[outhouse]

I think this forum needs something like this
Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS : Creationism • Rational Skepticism Forum

frubals

we do need that :yes:


excellent article/thread

 

[Bob Dixon]

There are none so blind....

I think we've scared ttechsan off with this avalanche of critical posts

Is it bad that I want him to come back, just so we can continue throwing logic at him?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are none so blind....

I think we've scared ttechsan off with this avalanche of critical posts

I doubt very seriously if he's read anything on this thread.

 

[painted wolf]

He's a post and run spam troll.

wa:do

 

[Krok]

He's a post and run spam troll.

wa:do

Yes painted wolf, that's been noticed. Isn't it against the rules, as this is a discussion forum?

 

[rusra02]

But I'm surprised he called the Theory of Evolution "baseless". I guess I shouldn't be, but... it just rattles me every time.
Like, if it's so baseless, HOW DID THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ACCEPT IT AS A THEORY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Spoiler: Hint:

It makes sense.

So your proof of evolution is that the evolutionists believe in the theory? But, really, that is a good question. And the partial answer is: many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." In other words, ID doesn't fit into their biased world-view. As Richard Lewontin, an avowed evolutionist wrote: "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Add to that the gigantic propaganda campaign waged over the last 150 plus years, and it is not hard to see why the scientific community accepts such unscientific bluster.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So your proof of evolution is that the evolutionists believe in the theory? But, really, that is a good question. And the partial answer is: many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." In other words, ID doesn't fit into their biased world-view. As Richard Lewontin, an avowed evolutionist wrote: "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Add to that the gigantic propaganda campaign waged over the last 150 plus years, and it is not hard to see why the scientific community accepts such unscientific bluster.

You mean...

It's a conspiracy?!?!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So your proof of evolution is that the evolutionists believe in the theory? But, really, that is a good question. And the partial answer is: many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." In other words, ID doesn't fit into their biased world-view. As Richard Lewontin, an avowed evolutionist wrote: "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Add to that the gigantic propaganda campaign waged over the last 150 plus years, and it is not hard to see why the scientific community accepts such unscientific bluster.

Please describe a valid test for intelligent design. If it really is true that an intelligent designer intervened in the history of life, what things should we expect to see?

Also, just as importantly, what should we expect to see if an intelligent designer *never* intervened in the history of life?

 

[Krok]

So your proof of evolution is that the evolutionists believe in the theory?

I think that you are not telling the truth here. As always.

The specialists on the subject accept the theory of evolution, because of the evidence they have investigated, themselves. Just like the specialists studying the gravity theory accepted the theory. Themselves. Just like the specialists on the atom theory. Themselves. Just like the specialists studying the germ theory. Themselves.

Do you think that you know more than all of them on these subjects, to insinuate that they all are wrong, but you, who knows nothing, knows it all?

 

[mycorrhiza]

So your proof of evolution is that the evolutionists believe in the theory? But, really, that is a good question. And the partial answer is: many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." In other words, ID doesn't fit into their biased world-view. As Richard Lewontin, an avowed evolutionist wrote: "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Add to that the gigantic propaganda campaign waged over the last 150 plus years, and it is not hard to see why the scientific community accepts such unscientific bluster.

Do you have any evidence that points towards this? You're pretty much accusing 99,9% of all biologists of being unscientific..

There is no evidence at all for ID, so why should it be considered?

 

[Bob Dixon]

So your proof of evolution is that the evolutionists believe in the theory? But, really, that is a good question. And the partial answer is: many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." In other words, ID doesn't fit into their biased world-view. As Richard Lewontin, an avowed evolutionist wrote: "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Add to that the gigantic propaganda campaign waged over the last 150 plus years, and it is not hard to see why the scientific community accepts such unscientific bluster.

There we have it, folks. All scientists hate God so, of course, they'd espouse an anti-God view like evolution! Of course!