Let the Reckoning Begin

Vambram said:

There are far too many educated and trained scientists whom have shown all the various scientific fallacies, errors, and lack of real, actual facts concerning macro evolution. The odds are astronomically high that macro evolution happens as the atheist scientists teach and believe did happen.

Click to expand...

You'll have to do better than that. Speaking of "odds" without actual numbers and an explanation of the calculations involved is vacuous.

Vambram said:

Quick question for the evolutionists here.
Do you believe that the evolution is theistic evolution or intelligent design?

Click to expand...

Can you be more specific? Both of those terms admit of a range of possibilities.

Vambram said:

God by the Numbers

Coincidence and random mutation are not the most likely explanations for some things.

www.christianitytoday.com

Please read this article "God by the Numbers"
You might find it to be useful.

Click to expand...

Paywalled, but I have read other things by Roger Penrose and I am not aware that he has attempted to discredit the theory of evolution. His work has had more to do with cosmology.

Vambram said:

How much more specifity would you require? I'm curious as to the answer regarding intelligent design or theistic evolution as a broad question.

Click to expand...

Just saying "intelligent design" doesn't get us anywhere. All it does is add "designer" to the names of God. If you mean the ID of the
Discovery Institute, that has been thoroughly discredited. Did you have anything else in mind? As for "theistic evolution" all that says is that God exists and evolution happened. There are a variety of theological speculations as to what role God plays in the process. Which one do you favor?

Vambram said:

There are far too many educated and trained scientists whom have shown all the various scientific fallacies, errors, and lack of real, actual facts concerning macro evolution. The odds are astronomically high that macro evolution happens as the atheist scientists teach and believe did happen.

Click to expand...

Vambram said:

I am 100% absolutely certain that this quoted opinion is 100% incorrect. Macro-evolution is a failed teaching.

Click to expand...

I am going to repeat my question: it will be very easy for you to provide empirical data that is is contradiction with the Theory of Evolution, so please provide this empirical evidence.
If there are so many fallacies, it will be very easy to provide said fallacies, errors and lack of actual facts.. You are kindly invited to produce them.

Vambram said:

I made an edit in post #84 perhaps you could find it to be useful.

Click to expand...

That fine tuning idea is interesting, but it does not directly affect the theory of evolution. As to the mutation calculations, they are based on assumptions which are not consistent with the theory of evolution.

Vambram said:

A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible

There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that "The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know."1...

www.icr.org

The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution

ICR began publishing its popular free newsletter Acts & Facts in June 1972, over 31 years ago. The first two issues were 6-page, single-column, fold-over tract-like papers, black-and-white—not very impressive in appearance. Issue No. 1 contained only news items describing some of our early...

www.icr.org

Evidence does not support the theory of evolution

As president of the Centre des Etudes et de Prospective sur la Science (CEP), I would like to present some arguments which, I…

www.irishtimes.com

Click to expand...

A blast from the past, for sure. I thought that stuff had all gone out with the trash years ago. Kind of like finding a Guy Lombardo album in the attic.

Why are you arguing against this claptrap? If creationist could be swayed by evidence the170 years of steady scientific progress would of already convinced them.

Belk said:

Why are you arguing against this claptrap? If creationist could be swayed by evidence the170 years of steady scientific progress would of already convinced them.

Click to expand...

Creationism was all but dead, even in Evangelical circles, when it got a retread in the 1960s with the founding of the Institute for Creation Research on material plagiarized from 7th Day Adventist amateur geologist George Price and given a new spin. Vambram's stuff all dates from that period.

BCP1928 said:

Creationism was all but dead, even in Evangelical circles, when it got a retread in the 1960s with the founding of the Institute for Creation Research on material plagiarized from 7th Day Adventist amateur geologist George Price and given a new spin. Vambram's stuff all dates from that period.

Click to expand...

Very well could be. Does not change the fact that evidence will not sway them.

Vambram said:

I doubt that evidence from creationists scientists will sway evolutionists.
Both sides believe what they believe and I doubt either side will be swayed.

Click to expand...

<Looks around at the modern world science has created>

Yes. Can't imagine why they wouldn't reject this theory that continues to provide explanatory power and real world results. Must be a giant conspiracy.

Vambram said:

There are far too many educated and trained scientists whom have shown all the various scientific fallacies, errors, and lack of real, actual facts concerning macro evolution.

Click to expand...

There really aren't.

There are an incredible small number of motivated thinkers who have religious/philosophical reasons for rejecting the evidence in favour of either special creation in some form or 'intelligent design' (which is just creationism dressed up in a stolen lab-coat).

If we're just going by numbers though, what do you know of Project Steve?

Vambram said:

The odds are astronomically high that macro evolution happens as the atheist scientists teach and believe did happen.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see those calculations. Tell me, what's the statistical likelihood of a de novo mutation leading to novel body plan formation?

I once sat through a statistics lecture where my professor "proved" with statistics that none of us in the class could have been born, due to the statistical unlikelihoods of the circumstances of our birth. As someone with training in econometrics, I'm deeply skeptical of mathematical attempts to prove or disprove the likelihood of observed events.

Also, it's not just "atheist scientists" that teach evolutionary biology and believe it happened. I was taught the basics of evolutionary theory by (among others) a Catholic priest and a Marist brother.

There are also many, many Christians on this website (some of them even with PhD credentials in biology) that accept Evolution by Natural Selection as the best explanation for the evidence concerning the history and observed diversity of life.

Vambram said:

Quick question for the evolutionists here.

Click to expand...

I suppose you mean me, those who accept the science of evolution. (I don't study it personally.)

Vambram said:

Do you believe that the evolution is theistic evolution or intelligent design?

Click to expand...

Intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution. ID is a scam/con perpetrated to pass "creation science" (itself a pseudoscientific dress-up of creationism) as not religious. It never was.

I'm not completely sure what theistic evolution is. I gather it is some sort of attempt to make evolution seem acceptable to certain religious people. Science properly does not invoke deities or theology, so it would not seem to fit with any proper scientific understanding of evolution.