Beliefsbeliefs

Fri Aug 9, 2019, 05:15 PM

Mathematical challenges to Darwins theory of evolution.

It's time to look at Darwin again.



22 replies, 462 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mathematical challenges to Darwins theory of evolution. (Original post)
outside Aug 9 OP
Cold Warrior Aug 9 #1
rahtruelies Aug 9 #3
outside Aug 14 #14
Micrometer Aug 14 #15
nolidad Aug 15 #16
Micrometer Aug 16 #21
Micrometer Aug 9 #2
Cold Warrior Aug 9 #4
nolidad Aug 15 #17
Micrometer Aug 15 #18
SatansSon666 Aug 15 #19
orson Aug 9 #5
outside Aug 9 #6
Micrometer Aug 9 #7
nolidad Aug 10 #8
Micrometer Aug 10 #9
nolidad Aug 10 #10
Micrometer Aug 10 #11
nolidad Aug 14 #12
SatansSon666 Aug 14 #13
Micrometer Aug 16 #20
Micrometer Aug 16 #22

Response to outside (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2019, 05:20 PM

1. The Discovery Institute, a THINK TANK?????

Give me a break.

It was interesting to see Gelernter after all these years. He was an AI researcher who had his hands blown off by the Uni-Bomber.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 9, 2019, 07:32 PM

3. npc alert

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 08:52 PM

14. No.

The Hoover Institute from Stanford University. Maybe you should watch the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to outside (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 10:24 PM

15. Yes, the Discovery Institute.

Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific
principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and
Culture (CSC) of the ****** Discovery Institute ****** (DI), which is the main
organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the DI,
Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College.
Meyer is a Senior Fellow of the DI and Director of the CSC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American author and academic who
opposes the scientific consensus on evolution. He is a senior fellow of
the ****** Discovery Institute's****** Center for Science and Culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #15)

Thu Aug 15, 2019, 11:29 AM

16. Isn't it amazing!

2 men who had been ardent evolutionists and through research and exploration have come to realize there must be a designer for the design of the universe.


Even lame brain Dawkins admits the universe has the appearance of complex design- but then says it is not!

Isn't it amazing that everything we see like houses, roads, clothes cars, etc all have a designer--but when it comes to the universe- the supposed intelligentsia all think it occurred by accident!

They say that nothing exploded, and when nothing exploded it started the process of causing everything to come to be by cosmic random accidents

We have two choices- eternal matter or eternal God!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 16, 2019, 01:20 PM

21. Wow! You have two, count them two, ardent evolutionists who changed their minds.

"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too
beautifully 'designed' to have come into existence by chance.
How, then, did they come into existence? The answer,
Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations
from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently
simple to have come into existence by chance. Each successive
change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple enough,
relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance. But the
whole sequence fo cumulative steps constitutes anything but a
chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final
end-product relative to the original starting point.
The cumulative process is directed by nonrandom survival."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to outside (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2019, 06:31 PM

2. Where's the math?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 9, 2019, 07:38 PM

4. Here it is Creationist Maths




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 15, 2019, 11:32 AM

17. Well some people think 2+2 100

in base 2 so why not?
but it is sad that cold warrior cannot see this man using exaggeration to show how true the bible is as compared to mans supposed logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 15, 2019, 11:55 AM

18. HaHaHaHaHa!!!!!

In mathematics and digital electronics, a binary number is a number expressed in the base-2 numeral system or binary numeral system, which uses only two symbols: typically "0" (zero) and "1" (one). The base-2 numeral system is a positional notation with a radix of 2. Each digit is referred to as a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 15, 2019, 12:48 PM

19. 6 + 4 X 4 equals 40.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to outside (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2019, 07:40 PM

5. Blather

57 minutes of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to outside (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2019, 09:18 PM

6. Not one of the men

said there was a God. All they said is with all the new information that Darwin's theory of evolution does not work and a second look is needed. Just like 150 years ago when the Church fought to keep Darwin's theory out of schools todays college professors don't want to hear about intelligent design or string theory and are fighting to kill it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to outside (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 9, 2019, 10:08 PM

7. Intelligent design is not science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #7)

Sat Aug 10, 2019, 08:19 AM

8. Evolution on the macro scale is not science either!

It cannot be validated by the scientific method ergo it is outside of science!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)

Sat Aug 10, 2019, 09:38 AM

9. I'm glad you agree that intelligent design is not science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #9)

Sat Aug 10, 2019, 01:16 PM

10. Now I wish you would finally realize

that goo to you by way of the zoo: or:

that a simple life form supposedly that happened to appear on earth over 650 million years ago through a series of accumulated micro mutations and preserved by natural selection over eons of time produced the biodiversity we see today!

See as a YEC I am honest enough to know that Divine Creation and ID are outside the realm of scientific investigation.. Problem is Darwinists will not admit that their belief system is just as much outside the realm of scientific investigation, cannot be validated by the scientific method as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #10)

Sat Aug 10, 2019, 01:32 PM

11. Why do you deny science?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 04:08 PM

12. I don't! I love science!

But if you were honest you would have to admit that macro evolution is not science as well as divine creation is.

It cannot be tested repeated and observed! We have never even seen random mutations add or change limbs as had to occur millions of times!

Heck I tried for months to get people here to prove one thing that evolutionists have arbitrarily declared a fact, that feathers evolved from scales!

They call that a fact but yet they cannot validate that fact by the scientific method- so it is not science!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 14, 2019, 05:01 PM

13. Lmao.

Same old posts over and over and over again.
Refusing to read evidence.
Refusing to attempt to understand evidence.
Not realizng what an observation is.
Not knowing what testing and repeating evidence is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 16, 2019, 01:15 PM

20. You say you love science but you reject radiometric dating.

Young Earth Creationism is a rejection of science.

Whether feathers evolved from scales or not, there is still no evidence for a Creator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to outside (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 16, 2019, 01:57 PM

22. They didn't say there was a God because there is no God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Beliefsbeliefs