Jump to content


Photo

Math Logic Disproves Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#41 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 27 November 2009 - 01:56 PM

A real house of cards here of assumption and speculation - is any of this real?  With this as proof I can say the the Theory of Evolution is an addicting fantasy.

.

.

View Post



Notice how the scientist imply that apparently the salamanders can't interbreed in nature, but that isn't exactly solid proof now is it?

If the salamanders can produce fertile offspring then by definition they are still the same species.

#42 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 27 November 2009 - 02:02 PM

Notice how the scientist imply that apparently the salamanders can't interbreed in nature, but that isn't exactly solid proof now is it?

If the salamanders can produce fertile offspring then by definition they are still the same species.

View Post



Smoke and mirrors !

#43 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 27 November 2009 - 02:50 PM

A real house of cards here of assumption and speculation - is any of this real?


Yes, welcome to reality.

What assumptions?

#44 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 27 November 2009 - 03:04 PM

Yes, welcome to reality.

What assumptions?

View Post


What no links?

#45 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 27 November 2009 - 05:46 PM

Yes, welcome to reality.

What assumptions?

View Post



What assumptions you ask? Well the scientist stated that apparently the salamanders cannot breed in nature. They assume that since they didn't see it happen then it can't happen.

#46 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 27 November 2009 - 07:04 PM

Of course you'd imply the theory of evolution is wrong if you claim that.[God created the world in six days]

View Post

So then if you teach my kids in a lawfully required science class that evolution is how we got here, you imply that Genesis is a story, metaphorical, and/ or invalid. I do not yank your kids in my church and force Genesis on them.

Church is a choice, public education is not. Furthermore you don't have to give to my church, but my tax dollars go to the NSF, and the public school system.

The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about whether a God exists or not. You're the one assuming the only possible God is one that created the universe in six days.

View Post

Are you telling me that evolutionists are not researching abiogenesis? And if there was ever success, evos would lead the parade on it's propagation to the entire human race. How can you say it doesn't say anything about whether God exists?

Are you aware the 1) there are many scientists who believe in God (Francis Collins, for example), and 2) that over a billion people belong to a religion (namely, western Catholicism) that officially accepts evolution?

View Post

Quite aware. However, numbers do not determine truth or validity. Theistic evolution has been extensively discussed on this site.

Belief in God--theists believe in the non-personal God--they believe in the clockmaker who wound it up and took a vacation. Very convenient. Pantheists believe in God--He is everything and everything is God. Satan believes in God the Bible says.

Yes, the website agrees with the theory of evolution and presents its evidentially supported postulates as fact. What's your point?

View Post

Hypothesis is not fact. Theory is not fact. Alleomorphic change is fact. Recombination, deletions, insertions, mutations, alleles, empirical speciation are all facts.

Macro evolution-man from ape is hypothesis, non-empirical, and therefore non-fact.


"What is most interesting about this species of salamander, is that the two southern most subspecies, eschscholtzi and klauberi, meet in several locations. Near Mount Palomar, these two subspecies meet in a very narrow zone and hybridize infrequently. (Brown, 1974) To the south near Cuyamaca State Park, klauberi and eschscholtzi meet and apparently fail to interbreed under natural conditions even though they are narrowly sympatric. In fact, by analyzing electrophoretic separations of selected enzymes and studying DNA patterns, the two subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi are different species by every definition."

Sympatric means "same area."

View Post


I know what sympatric means. I'm not sure what your point is--perhaps you think I believe in species fixity.

Here's a quote:
"Ensatina eschscholtzii is typically treated as a "ring" species, consisting of 7 subspecies: E. e. croceater, E. e. eschscholtzii, E. e. klauberi, E. e. oregonensis, E. e. picta, E. e. platensis, and E. e. xanthoptica...."Source

Yes this would qualify as a baramin that has speciated, depending on your definition of species. This is not anything close to macro evolution.

#47 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 27 November 2009 - 07:23 PM

The idea that evolution is the majority opinion is false. More and more people are standing up in opposition. http://www.youtube.c.../16/VtV3d53rGCk

#48 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 27 November 2009 - 08:13 PM

I'm leaving this forum, because there's nothing more for me here. I don't have time to educate you, and you don't have the will to learn. You've already decided your Bible is correct, and that decision is a barrier to any learning from areas that disagree with the Bible. But I've learned much from you about the workings of a religious mind and about critical thinking and reasoning.

Thanks.

#49 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 December 2009 - 05:40 PM

I'm leaving this forum, because there's nothing more for me here. I don't have time to educate you, and you don't have the will to learn. You've already decided your Bible is correct, and that decision is a barrier to any learning from areas that disagree with the Bible. But I've learned much from you about the workings of a religious mind and about critical thinking and reasoning.

Thanks.

View Post

Perhaps you think I live with my head in a box. It's not hard to be educated by evolutionists. Just watch the history channel. Do you think it would be wise to debate evolution if we never read on it?

As far as my will to learn--I read all the time. I'm quite aware of many of your theories, and aware of why they don't work.

We see the same thing you do, but we don't infer the same thing from it.

A religious mind? No, I'm not religious--I have a relationship with Someone who is real--far above what my imagination or "capillary dilation" can produce.

But as far as a belief system--I confess--and you should be familiar with that, because you also adhere to unseen phenomena that supposedly happened in the past.

#50 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 December 2009 - 06:36 PM

I'm leaving this forum, because there's nothing more for me here. I don't have time to educate you, and you don't have the will to learn. You've already decided your Bible is correct, and that decision is a barrier to any learning from areas that disagree with the Bible. But I've learned much from you about the workings of a religious mind and about critical thinking and reasoning.

Thanks.

View Post


Here, I'll swap a word or two around from the above quote and leave the overall message as it is. Could be self applicable couldn't it?

You have already decided evolution is correct, and that decision is a barrier to any learning from areas that disagree with it. But I've learned much from you about the workings of a religious mind and about critical thinking and reasoning.

Both sides have their faith and bias, no matter how much one pretends they do not. We all have some barriers. Even you! :o

#51 Bill

Bill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 December 2009 - 07:51 PM

I'm leaving this forum, because there's nothing more for me here. I don't have time to educate you, and you don't have the will to learn. You've already decided your Bible is correct, and that decision is a barrier to any learning from areas that disagree with the Bible. But I've learned much from you about the workings of a religious mind and about critical thinking and reasoning.

Thanks.

View Post


I read somewhere that when relationships break down it is usually the fault to the one who goes.

#52 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 06 December 2009 - 05:22 AM

Talking about math, look at this article :

Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution.

Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution. :lol:

PubMed

Someone needs to tell them that according to evolutionary fairytale, Human evolved from a monkey-like creature in only 10 Million years B)

#53 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 06 December 2009 - 06:11 AM

Talking about math, look at this article :

Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution.

Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.  :rolleyes:

PubMed

Someone needs to tell them that according to evolutionary fairytale, Human evolved from a monkey-like creature in only 10 Million years B)

View Post

Have our read the paper or just the abstract???

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 December 2009 - 07:01 AM

Talking about math, look at this article :

Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution.

Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.  :rolleyes:

PubMed

Someone needs to tell them that according to evolutionary fairytale, Human evolved from a monkey-like creature in only 10 Million years B)

View Post


What is humorous here is the great faith involved in the "few millions years" and the "100 Million years" prayers (evolutheism). Observation + Millions of years = evolution B)

#55 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 06 December 2009 - 07:18 AM

Have our read the paper or just the abstract???

View Post


both

#56 QED

QED

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • University of Texas, Texas

Posted 06 December 2009 - 01:15 PM

The idea that evolution is the majority opinion is false.  More and more people are standing up in opposition. http://www.youtube.c.../16/VtV3d53rGCk

View Post

I will accept that Creationism represents a significant minority of the general population. However, in the scientific community, Evolution is supported by >99% of all Biologists. There have been several surveys of this. To take this to the extreme, we can exclude any scientist with a name other than Steve(or Stephanie) and still have more Evolutionists(with graduate degrees in science) than creationists(with graduate degrees in science). I've never seen a creationist site try to challenge the claim that the majority of Scientists support Evolution. In fact, Creationwiki and several other sources, openly state that Evolution is the majority belief within the scientific community.

http://ncse.com/taki...ion/list-steves
http://www.religious...rg/ev_publi.htm

To say that more and more people are standing up, is quite frankly a blunt lie according to all historical surveys. Every decade the creationist movement looses more followers that it could ever hope to regain. And this is in the most heavily Christianized nation in the world. If we include the EU and other nations, the gap becomes much larger, even at the general population level.

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 December 2009 - 01:21 PM

I will accept that Creationism represents a significant minority of the general population. However, in the scientific community, Evolution is supported by >99% of all Biologists.

View Post



Once again, the illogical "Might makes Right" argument rears its ugly head in an attempt to say that "all those people cannot possibly be wrong. :rolleyes:

#58 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 December 2009 - 01:25 PM

I'm leaving this forum, because there's nothing more for me here. I don't have time to educate you, and you don't have the will to learn. You've already decided your Bible is correct, and that decision is a barrier to any learning from areas that disagree with the Bible. But I've learned much from you about the workings of a religious mind and about critical thinking and reasoning.

Thanks.

View Post


This is normally what happens when someone doesn't have good evidence or a good argument. They project their shortcomings upon those who don't cave into their strong arm tactics. Then slink away while turning their head back and spewing accusatory excuses.

Yes we've indeed learned a lot here.

#59 QED

QED

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • University of Texas, Texas

Posted 06 December 2009 - 01:31 PM

Once again, the illogical "Might makes Right" argument rears its ugly head in an attempt to say that "all those people cannot possibly be wrong.  :rolleyes:

View Post

I didn't say anything about the majority opinion makes an opinion right. I didn't even make an argument implying anything around the statistics. I just stated that X>Y whereas X == number of Evolutionists and Y == number of creationists.


You're just trolling the thread with irrelevant information...

#60 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 December 2009 - 01:53 PM

I didn't say anything about the majority opinion makes an opinion right. I didn't even make an argument implying anything around the statistics. I just stated that X>Y whereas X == number of Evolutionists and Y == number of creationists.
You're just trolling the thread with irrelevant information...

View Post



That would be incorrect all all counts... You said (and I quote):

I will accept that Creationism represents a significant minority of the general population. However, in the scientific community, Evolution is supported by >99% of all Biologists.

View Post


That was a nice little attempt at the old "bait and switch" too. But, anyway, the statistic you used was:

99% of all Biologists

View Post


And by doing so, implied that it must be true because "99% of all Biologists" say so. Media advertisers use this tactic to hawk their wares as well.

You're just trolling the thread with irrelevant information...

View Post



No trolling, just stating facts by pointing out flaw in your argument. That you don't like it, and make false accusations against me, is but a weakness on your part.

Nothing bu relevant information here.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users