Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
What your doing is Knit picking on one or 2 sentences and saying that all the science is bad?? Come on you looked at 3 sites lol
If the site gets the basics of science wrong then yes, their science is almost certainly wrong.
And yeah, I posted about only 3 sites, so what?
__________________ If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?
"Be happy noble heart... And now the God of vengeance yields to me his power."
Just remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.
Nobody got the basics wrong... now your just rammbling trying to start something... pathetic
Sleep time
:rolleyes:
Look, genius, I pointed out what basics I was talking about. I seem to have touched a nerve with you though, judging by your inflammatory post. So take a step back, before you 'hulk' out on any of us for presenting you with the truth.
When you cool down, please take a second look at the websites you presented-you'll see what I'm talking about.
__________________ If we are going to teach 'creation science' as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction. ~Judith Hayes, In God We Trust: But Which One?
"Be happy noble heart... And now the God of vengeance yields to me his power."
Just remember, you are unique, just like everybody else.
Now are u gonna visit all these sites? I highly doubt it.
I will be honest with you here, I didn't look at all of them. I looked at the first few but started getting bored. However, I will pick one of the numerous faults I found:
Originally Posted by http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
The total number of nanoseconds (1 billionth of a second) in 20 billion years is 10^26
Probability of the random combination of a 40-chain amino acid is 1 in 10^141
If recombination occurred every nanosecond only 10^26 would be done in 20 billion years leaving undone 10^115 recombinations. The average protein is a chain of 500 amino acids.
Firstly, this is just plain bad maths. If you start off with 10^141 combinations, go through 10^26 of them, you still have nearly 10^141 left, not 10^115.
Now, this may seem a slightly bad argument to be using as it probably sounds a bit like a creationalist one which goes, 'well one thing is wrong with your theory, so it's all wrong,' (no offence meant to any creationalists who do not use this argument - but some do seem to). If you read it to the end you will see that there is more to it.
Secondly, this is working on three assumptions that have no justification:
- that you have only one set of these atoms/molecules from which you are trying to form the amino acid, ignoring the fact that there are lots and lots and lots of sets of these atoms.
- that there are no stable intermediates that could be formed.
- that all configurations are equally likely.
Thirdly, I am curious as to where the number 10^141 comes from. I saw no reference.
Also,
Originally Posted by Skillz151
And still my #1 undisputed link of the year! www.halos.com
I dispute this.
Firstly, what Polonium isotope are that they are talking about on this? It doesn't say.
Secondly, how do you claim the Polonium got there? It doesn't say.
Thirdly, and I think this is probably my main point:
- Polonium 218, 214 and 210 are all part of the Uranium 238 decay chain. (see here
- Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years.
- This is plenty of time for the rock to cool so that the halos can form from Polonium decay.
I have read some of the articles on the site and would be interested in your response to these points.
Firstly, this is just plain bad maths. If you start off with 10^141 combinations, go through 10^26 of them, you still have nearly 10^141 left, not 10^115.
Now, this may seem a slightly bad argument to be using as it probably sounds a bit like a creationalist one which goes, 'well one thing is wrong with your theory, so it's all wrong,' (no offence meant to any creationalists who do not use this argument - but some do seem to). If you read it to the end you will see that there is more to it.
Secondly, this is working on three assumptions that have no justification:
- that you have only one set of these atoms/molecules from which you are trying to form the amino acid, ignoring the fact that there are lots and lots and lots of sets of these atoms.
- that there are no stable intermediates that could be formed.
- that all configurations are equally likely.
Thirdly, I am curious as to where the number 10^141 comes from. I saw no reference.
even assuming 80 amino acids (way too many), and assuming the probabilty of the next amino acid in a chain being 1 in 80 (i.e. for a given amino acid, any amino acid has an equal probability of connecting to it - this is not true), I still only get 10^76.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
even assuming 80 amino acids (way too many), and assuming the probabilty of the next amino acid in a chain being 1 in 80 (i.e. for a given amino acid, any amino acid has an equal probability of connecting to it - this is not true), I still only get 10^76.
I presume that is on the basis of each amino acid being different as well - that there is no amino acid that appears twice in the chain.
Phony as in a fake, It was staged so they could get their grant money.... phony as in your whole Chain of Missing links is well..... Missing
You didn't mention Pilt Down man, so what?? Not post a whole link of good info because you didn't mention Piltdown man? what can i do email the internet provider and tell him to delete the Piltdown man because Lorentz Ha didn't mention him??
Why would I lie about clicking the links and them not working for me?? Coome on.. please. No, believe me I love to learn.. I just don't want to learn anything besides truth. Nahhhheeextt...
All of these links open!! You claim that you love to learn- then read these. The first one has over 120,000 articles.
None of the gods love wisdom or desire to become wise, for they are wise already -- nor if someone else is wise, do they love wisdom. Neither do the ignorant love wisdom or desire to become wise; for this is the grievous thing about ignorance, that those who are neither good nor beautiful nor sensible think they are good enough, and do not desire that which they do not think they are lacking.
Linear Mode
