PROOF against evolution

Ah, yes, I remember the 9th grade, when I, too, could wax eloquently on the most profound subjects without actually knowing anything.Let me ask you, k, which seems more likely:a bumbling, foolish, bad-tempered god as expounded in contradictory collection of bronze age myths,
or a scientific theory that has passed every test for the past 150 years?By the way, welcome to EvC.

Were you insulted by my message? I should apologize, I guess, but I merely replied in the same manner as your own post - read the post to which I responded. I wasn't making fun of your age - I was sarcastically referring to the way you came in here, sounding like you believe all the answers, and the rest of us must be idiots if we don't see the world as you do.As far as my crack about a "bumbling god", you should read the Bible. At any rate, those last two lines were a parody of the equally offensive last two lines of the post to which I responded.Sorry if I seem to have gone over a line, but if you want politeness, you should be polite yourself. Now I have no problem with a little sarcasm or ribbing the other person, but if you are going to do that then you'd better be prepared to get a little static in return.

No one should try to explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics precludes evolution until they have first passed gallo's thermodynamics test.Sorry, but if you think that evolution violates the Second Law, then you just don't understand what the Second Law is.NewGuy, so far you have only presented scientific "facts" that are clearly wrong. Where do you get your information?

Or why can simple, one-celled zygotes develop into complex adult human beings?

quote:

---

I'm not saying that the population growth rate is uniform, but simply constant in the fact that it grows.

---

Except to do any calculation, you have to know what the rate of growth of the population is at each time in history and pre-history. You can't just assume you know what this growth rate is. The only way you can find this rate of growth is to look at a census of the human population in the past.-

quote:

---

There are other cultures (some which had not seen or heard of the Hebrew nation) that have Flood accounts of their own.

---

Most of these cultures are in regions where large scale flooding is a known phenomenon. And most of these stories differ from Genesis in important points - like the flood is not global, or that the survivors escaped by climbing mountains or tall trees.

quote:

---

I didn't give a growth rate. I did a mathematical calculation. Looking at the population charts, I notice a considerable change in the growth patterns of the earth in the past 50 years.

​

The fertility rate is 1.5 in developed countries, and 3.1 in underdeveloped nations. The growth rate 2/3 lower in 1950, and slightly lower during the 1700s.

---

Your calculations are meaningless unless the numbers you put into it are valid. Can I interpret this statement as meaning you have no figures for population growth before 1700? So how can you assume your calculations have any validity before 1700?

quote:

---

...Population growth follows from population figures....

---

A point I was going to make, too, fnord, but then I decided the limited scope of the data set was a more interesting quibble.Another intesting point that I have brought up before. Newguy is attempting to use a mathematical model to come to conclusions about the real world. The results he is getting contradict what is already known about the real world. What he doesn't understand is that mathematical models never, ever refute actual data, nor do they ever invalidate well-established hypotheses. When a model produces results contradicting established fact, the first thing one does is to examine the model and either see if it can be fixed or whether it is too simplistic to be accurate. One can, of course, look at the data again to determine whether another interpretation of the data is warranted, or whether the collection of the data was problematical; but if there is no reason to dispute the data then one must always keep in mind the very real possibility that the model is in error.