EvC Forum: Why Darwinism is wrong

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Why Darwinism is wrong

mark24

Member (Idle past 5216 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 248 of 305 (226824)
07-27-2005 3:55 PM

Reply to: Message 239 by Mr. Creationist
07-27-2005 12:15 PM

Re: Randomness, does it create?

Mr C,

On to the randomness thing, the chances of a human evolving have been calculated to be 1 in 10 to the two millionth power!

I've seen this figure before, & I think you'll find it's the odds of the atoms/molecules spontaneously forming a human from a container with those materials inside it.

It is not the odds of a human evolving a la the ToE (Theory of Evolution), & is therefore irrelevant to the ToE.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 07-27-2005 03:59 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 239 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-27-2005 12:15 PM		Mr. Creationist has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5216 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 258 of 305 (227244)
07-29-2005 3:36 AM

Reply to: Message 253 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 12:43 AM

Mr C,

Also, if evolution happend, why are there not trans forms that are alive today? As far as I know, there are no incomplete species in the fossil record, or alive today. How does evolutionary theory explain this?

They really got to you, didn't they?

Evolutionary theory doesn't predict "incomplete" species, it predicts species that are intermediate between two taxa. They are "complete" in every way, however.

The number of intermediate species are legion, Archaeopteryx lithographica posess' a character mix between modern birds & therapod dinosaurs, for for example.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 253 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 12:43 AM		Mr. Creationist has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5216 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 263 of 305 (227286)
07-29-2005 9:46 AM

Reply to: Message 261 by Mr. Creationist
07-29-2005 7:57 AM

Mr Creationist,

Kent Hovind, Carl baugh, Ken Ham, ect.), one of those guys will give you a run for your money.

I, & almost anyone else here could dispatch any argument any of those guys makes in seconds. They are the worst of their creed.

You seem like a decent bloke, & if you come here with an open mind & the time to assimilate information, then you are in for a treat. Many here are working scientists or very knowledgable amateurs.

Mark

This message is a reply to:
	Message 261 by Mr. Creationist, posted 07-29-2005 7:57 AM		Mr. Creationist has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5216 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 271 of 305 (227440)
07-29-2005 2:58 PM

Reply to: Message 269 by randman
07-29-2005 2:45 PM

Re: Oh, this is going to be fun.

randman,

Uh huh? Sorry, but all that is just one big rant with no substance.

Annoying, isn't it?

I have shown you an example with the 3 mammal ear bones. Since they arose independently, the idea that lesser similarities indicate a developmental pathway is highly dubious.

Could you pls re-post the link?

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 269 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 2:45 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 273 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 3:09 PM		mark24 has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5216 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 302 of 305 (227670)
07-30-2005 6:56 AM

Reply to: Message 296 by randman
07-29-2005 5:23 PM

Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record

randman,

Because I see no reason if macro-evolution could occur, that it would not produce the same similarities across a wide range of species, and thus the data would be interpreted as common ancestry perhaps when it was just micro or macro-evolution producing convergent similarities.

So the alternative interpretation to evolution & common descent is actually evolution, where common descent is implicitly involved?

and it can also be explaine, imo, by a Common Creator.

And the evidence of a common creator = zero. And you accuse evo's of overstating the case!

You find it funny for me to show you guys your own inconsistency using your own theory, eh?

But as Jazz points out, your "inconsistency" only exists if evolution occurred.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 07-30-2005 11:17 AM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 296 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:23 PM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 304 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:23 PM		mark24 has not replied

mark24

Member (Idle past 5216 days)

Posts: 3857

From: UK

Joined: 12-01-2001

Normal Thread Display

Message 303 of 305 (227796)
07-30-2005 12:59 PM

Reply to: Message 299 by randman
07-29-2005 5:54 PM

Re: Huh?

randman,

But my point on whales is that if evolutionists found out that creatures appeared to be intermediaries between whales and fish, then they would say whales evolved from fish, and that land mammals evolved from whales, not that whales would be called anything but mammals.

And if that were the only evidence, why not? A more tentative hypothesis than the existing accepted wisdon it would be, but perfectly logical nevertheless.

But mutiple lines of evidence point to cetaceans being artiodactyl mammals, so we accept that instead.

Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
	Message 299 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:54 PM		randman has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

5 online now:	dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 1/0