Evolution is mathematically impossible

[tas8831]

Now where was I...

... and that you have poor judgment, which you’ve once again proved with this post.

One will note that at no point do you highlight an example of this 'poor judgement' and then explain why it shows 'poor judgement.'

As in nearly always the case with your type, you merely assert, and expect others to take your groundless nonsense at face value. I'm sure the pew-warmers comply, but sensible adults will not.

I don’t seem to have any problem with your generally googled info and opinions

Funny stuff from the fellow that believes YEC sources are reliable.

In reality, I first read that Atchley and Fitch paper when I was a graduate student in the mid 1990s. Same with the Hillis papers. I cited them in my dissertation, even. Knew of 2 of the others in the later 1990s, as well. But as I acknowledged the first time I posted it, it was on here that I saw all of those papers presented as a group.
So, no google, thanks. I get that you must project your own 'research' activities onto others, but it makes you look rather... petty.

when and if I can get you out of the ‘cut & paste’ posts, which only serve the purpose of boring everyone to death and laying the trap of causing someone to have to compose a research paper for an answer.

No, they serve as a direct refutation of the typical uninformed creationist mantra about there being "no evidence" for evolution, which even your great "inquiring mind" has foolishly made. Your 'inquiring mind' has produced the following quotes (in no particular order, all from this forum (just 2 threads), all easily searched for in case you doubt your own words). I do like the excessive amount of unwarranted condescension and a rather blatant lack of self-awareness in many of your erroneous claims - pretty common among your ilk; the laughable arrogance premised on ignorance (willful, it seems) is sometimes staggering. I also enjoy the arrogance of dismissing anyone's "interpretation" of evidence if it contradicts your favorite tall tales from the ancient middle east:

"I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out."

"Yes, some Christians can and often do allow themselves to be duped by Godless, well-cloaked doctrines of all sorts, and without even really realizing it... trust in man over God."

"Simply put, I think it is your interpretation of the evidence that is inadequate."

"...it is much more probable to me that God could have created all the different “kinds”, plant and animal, in stages since there is no convincing evidence of a complete progressive transformation as macroevolution would have it."

"No such evidence will be submitted, because no such evidence exists."

"You mean the smoke screens for lack of actual evidence for a change from one kind to another."
​

I really like this lie - lies like this are why I paste my "google" stuff :

"Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false."

"But, you believe your evidence is interpreted 100% accurately."
​

And especially relevant to my "google" knowledge:

"Genetic evidence can be argued as much for Creation and a Designer as for Evolution... come on, you know that."

"in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word."
​

I especially like how no evidence "convinces" you of 'macroevolution' - yet you make it quite clear, Ken Ham-like, that you would not accept ANY evidence that counters your religious myths in the first place. All rather disingenuous.


But sure, I can see why you consider scientific evidence that refutes your mendacious mantras to be 'boring.' It is a way of dismissing that which you have no answer for. Pretty transparent, really.

I think if you even came close to understanding science as much as you claim, you’d be able to discuss it with entertaining dialogue. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

I find your desire for "entertainment" very informative. I once had a freshman say something similar to me in BI 101. Of course, he was just 18, and was used to being entertained because, you know, learning and paying attention is hard.

Of course, unlike you, my scientific knowledge is not pretend, and also unlike you, I do not present myself as having knowledge that I do not.

I will interpret your latest sad attempt at face-saving as an unwitting admission of intellectual defeat and simply laugh at your unwarranted over-estimation of your own intellectual worth.

More evidence of your poor judgment.

No, more evidence of the validity of my conclusion.
If you could actually understand and discuss the evidence that I and others have wasted time presenting to you, you would not be reduced to these condescending cop-outs.

Beaten? That certainly doesn’t sound like someone interested in ‘inquiring’ or exchanging ideas.

I am not interesting in the sort of "inquiring" you engage in, this is true. Your "inquiring" seems to consist entirely of unwarranted mockery, condescension premised on your own ignorance, and an unyielding desire to prop up you preferred ancient middle eastern numerology myths.

So much for your humility.

MY humility?

I am not the one presenting myself as possessing sufficient knowledge to overturn the conclusions of thousands of far more intelligent and honest people than yourself - those studying, researching finding evidence for, etc. a scientific field that just so happens to up-end your precious pre-technological beliefs.

I am simply providing evidence that you clearly cannot grasp the significance of, but also cannot bring yourself to admit to.

You are good at projection, that is true. But science? Not so much.

Who would've figured?

Indeed. Creationists with little to no science knowledge have a documented history of being insufferable buffoons when pretending to be able to address scientific evidence.

I had you on ignore for a few months. Now I remember why.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution: Lots of evidence, no proof.
Creationism: Lots of evidence, no proof.

Pick the one that appeals to you the most.

 

[VirOptimus]

Evolution: Lots of evidence, no proof.
Creationism: Lots of evidence, no proof.

Pick the one that appeals to you the most.

You clearly don understand the concept of "proof" and evidence in science.

Also, creationism has zero evidence and zero supporting facts. Thas why its grounded in belief.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You clearly don understand the concept of "proof" and evidence in science.

Also, creationism has zero evidence and zero supporting facts. Thas why its grounded in belief.

Belief is good. Give us something to hope for.

Not much hope in evolution. Only despair, as I see it.

 

[Speedwell]

Belief is good. Give us something to hope for.

Not much hope in evolution. Only despair, as I see it.

Our hope should be in Salvation through the risen Christ. Scientific theories are not constructed to provide hope.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Our hope should be in Salvation through the risen Christ. Scientific theories are not constructed to provide hope.

True, and science hasn't solved our problems but instead has made a business of them.

 

[tas8831]

Evolution: Lots of evidence, no proof.
Creationism: Lots of evidence, no proof.

Pick the one that appeals to you the most.

Strange how we never see this creationism evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

Now where was I...
One will note that at no point do you highlight an example of this 'poor judgement' and then explain why it shows 'poor judgement.'

As in nearly always the case with your type, you merely assert, and except others to take your groundless nonsense at face value. I'm sure the pew-warmers comply, but sensible adults will not.


Funny stuff from the fellow that believes YEC sources are reliable.

In reality, I first read that Atchley and Fitch paper when I was a graduate student in the mid 1990s. Same with the Hillis papers. I cited them in my dissertation, even. Knew of 2 of the others in the later 1990s, as well. But as I acknowledged the first time I posted it, it was on here that I saw all of those papers presented as a group.
So, no google, thanks. I get that you must project your own 'research' activities onto others, but it makes you look rather... petty.

No, they serve as a direct refutation of the typical uninformed creationist mantra about there being "no evidence" for evolution, which even your great "inquiring mind" has foolishly made. Your 'inquiring mind' has produced the following quotes (in no particular order, all from this forum (just 2 threads), all easily searched for in case you doubt your own words). I do like the excessive amount of unwarranted condescension and a rather blatant lack of self-awareness in many of your erroneous claims - pretty common among your ilk; the laughable arrogance premised on ignorance (willful, it seems) is sometimes staggering. I also enjoy the arrogance of dismissing anyone's "interpretation" of evidence if it contradicts your favorite tall tales from the ancient middle east:

"I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out."

"Yes, some Christians can and often do allow themselves to be duped by Godless, well-cloaked doctrines of all sorts, and without even really realizing it... trust in man over God."

"Simply put, I think it is your interpretation of the evidence that is inadequate."

"...it is much more probable to me that God could have created all the different “kinds”, plant and animal, in stages since there is no convincing evidence of a complete progressive transformation as macroevolution would have it."

"No such evidence will be submitted, because no such evidence exists."

"You mean the smoke screens for lack of actual evidence for a change from one kind to another."
​

I really like this lie - lies like this are why I paste my "google" stuff :

"Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false."

"But, you believe your evidence is interpreted 100% accurately."
​

And especially relevant to my "google" knowledge:

"Genetic evidence can be argued as much for Creation and a Designer as for Evolution... come on, you know that."

"in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word."
​

I especially like how no evidence "convinces" you of 'macroevolution' - yet you make it quite clear, Ken Ham-like, that you would not accept ANY evidence that counters your religious myths in the first place. All rather disingenuous.


But sure, I can see why you consider scientific evidence that refutes your mendacious mantras to be 'boring.' It is a way of dismissing that which you have no answer for. Pretty transparent, really.


I find your desire for "entertainment" very informative. I once had a freshman say something similar to me in BI 101. Of course, he was just 18, and was used to being entertained because, you know, learning and paying attention is hard.

Of course, unlike you, my scientific knowledge is not pretend, and also unlike you, I do not present myself as having knowledge that I do not.

No, more evidence of the validity of my conclusion.
If you could actually understand and discuss the evidence that I and others have wasted time presenting to you, you would not be reduced to these condescending cop-outs.

I am not interesting in the sort of "inquiring" you engage in, this is true. Your "inquiring" seems to consist entirely of unwarranted mockery, condescension premised on your own ignorance, and an unyielding desire to prop up you preferred ancient middle eastern numerology myths.

MY humility?

I am not the one presenting myself as possessing sufficient knowledge to overturn the conclusions of thousands of far more intelligent and honest people than yourself - those studying, researching finding evidence for, etc. a scientific field that just so happens to up-end your precious pre-technological beliefs.

I am simply providing evidence that you clearly cannot grasp the significance of, but also cannot bring yourself to admit to.

You are good at projection, that is true. But science? Not so much.


Indeed. Creationists with little to no science knowledge have a documented history of being insufferable buffoons when pretending to be able to address scientific evidence.

I had you on ignore for a few months. Now I remember why.

Wow, what can I say... I’m somewhat aroused.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now where was I...
One will note that at no point do you highlight an example of this 'poor judgement' and then explain why it shows 'poor judgement.'

As in nearly always the case with your type, you merely assert, and except others to take your groundless nonsense at face value. I'm sure the pew-warmers comply, but sensible adults will not.


Funny stuff from the fellow that believes YEC sources are reliable.

In reality, I first read that Atchley and Fitch paper when I was a graduate student in the mid 1990s. Same with the Hillis papers. I cited them in my dissertation, even. Knew of 2 of the others in the later 1990s, as well. But as I acknowledged the first time I posted it, it was on here that I saw all of those papers presented as a group.
So, no google, thanks. I get that you must project your own 'research' activities onto others, but it makes you look rather... petty.

No, they serve as a direct refutation of the typical uninformed creationist mantra about there being "no evidence" for evolution, which even your great "inquiring mind" has foolishly made. Your 'inquiring mind' has produced the following quotes (in no particular order, all from this forum (just 2 threads), all easily searched for in case you doubt your own words). I do like the excessive amount of unwarranted condescension and a rather blatant lack of self-awareness in many of your erroneous claims - pretty common among your ilk; the laughable arrogance premised on ignorance (willful, it seems) is sometimes staggering. I also enjoy the arrogance of dismissing anyone's "interpretation" of evidence if it contradicts your favorite tall tales from the ancient middle east:

"I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out."

"Yes, some Christians can and often do allow themselves to be duped by Godless, well-cloaked doctrines of all sorts, and without even really realizing it... trust in man over God."

"Simply put, I think it is your interpretation of the evidence that is inadequate."

"...it is much more probable to me that God could have created all the different “kinds”, plant and animal, in stages since there is no convincing evidence of a complete progressive transformation as macroevolution would have it."

"No such evidence will be submitted, because no such evidence exists."

"You mean the smoke screens for lack of actual evidence for a change from one kind to another."
​

I really like this lie - lies like this are why I paste my "google" stuff :

"Any evidence you present as macro evolution is indeed false."

"But, you believe your evidence is interpreted 100% accurately."
​

And especially relevant to my "google" knowledge:

"Genetic evidence can be argued as much for Creation and a Designer as for Evolution... come on, you know that."

"in fact, I think our Creator designed micro evolution parameters, but I do not believe there is evidence to support macro evolution, either in the scientific field or His written word."
​

I especially like how no evidence "convinces" you of 'macroevolution' - yet you make it quite clear, Ken Ham-like, that you would not accept ANY evidence that counters your religious myths in the first place. All rather disingenuous.


But sure, I can see why you consider scientific evidence that refutes your mendacious mantras to be 'boring.' It is a way of dismissing that which you have no answer for. Pretty transparent, really.


I find your desire for "entertainment" very informative. I once had a freshman say something similar to me in BI 101. Of course, he was just 18, and was used to being entertained because, you know, learning and paying attention is hard.

Of course, unlike you, my scientific knowledge is not pretend, and also unlike you, I do not present myself as having knowledge that I do not.

No, more evidence of the validity of my conclusion.
If you could actually understand and discuss the evidence that I and others have wasted time presenting to you, you would not be reduced to these condescending cop-outs.

I am not interesting in the sort of "inquiring" you engage in, this is true. Your "inquiring" seems to consist entirely of unwarranted mockery, condescension premised on your own ignorance, and an unyielding desire to prop up you preferred ancient middle eastern numerology myths.

MY humility?

I am not the one presenting myself as possessing sufficient knowledge to overturn the conclusions of thousands of far more intelligent and honest people than yourself - those studying, researching finding evidence for, etc. a scientific field that just so happens to up-end your precious pre-technological beliefs.

I am simply providing evidence that you clearly cannot grasp the significance of, but also cannot bring yourself to admit to.

You are good at projection, that is true. But science? Not so much.


Indeed. Creationists with little to no science knowledge have a documented history of being insufferable buffoons when pretending to be able to address scientific evidence.

I had you on ignore for a few months. Now I remember why.

Best post I have read all year. Surgical precision with the impact of a tactical nuclear weapon. Thank you.

 

[sfs]

Wow, what can I say... I’m somewhat aroused.

TMI.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Strange how we never see this creationism evidence.

You see it. You just don't see it.

 

[Shemjaza]

You see it. You just don't see it.

Turns out that along with, assertions and gut-feelings, that riddles are also not actually evidence.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You see it. You just don't see it.

Cool. So you should have no problem presenting it.

Ready when you are......

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Cool. So you should have no problem presenting it.

Ready when you are......

If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck..........

 

[VirOptimus]

If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck..........

... oh, the irony!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

It may be noted that such claimed similarities is reliant upon taking snippets of code and randomly matching it to any random part of the genome it happens to match.

Don't be fooled by the pseudoscience people.

To test for relationships no court of law would allow one to randomly match snippets of code to a random portion of another genome and get away with calling it a match...

They are trying to feed you a bait and switch, as if their random matching of code has any basis in actual DNA testing for relationship..... It is nothing even similar to what is done to test for relationships, that is known to work. Instead they talk of DNA matching (the bait), then use a totally random process correlated by algorithms (the switch) to convince you there is actually science involved.

Don't be fooled by the pseudoscience people.... Such a sad attempt too, because doing DNA testing that we know works for relationships is devastating to their theory and claims....

But evolutionists don't let reality get in the way of their believing that a random matching is anything similar to what is actually proven to work in DNA testing for relationships.... They have a theory to uphold regardless of the facts.....

 

[pitabread]

Don't be fooled by the pseudoscience people.

If only more creationists took this to heart.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If only more creationists took this to heart.

Yes, it's a shame they have let the bait and switch take affect and have become convinced that a random comparison shows relatedness when no such test would ever be allowed in any court of law to prove relatedness or guilt of a suspect....

it is a good bait and switch though, I'll give them that...

it's only too bad more evolutionists don't take this to heart....

 

[tas8831]

Wow, what can I say... I’m somewhat aroused.

Wouldn't surprise me.

But one will notice the lack of rebuttal - and the astute reader will know the reason why there is no rebuttal.

 

[Jimmy D]

Don't be fooled by the pseudoscience people.... Such a sad attempt too, because doing DNA testing that we know works for relationships is devastating to their theory and claims....

So show us.... don't just make wild claims.

Why are creationist "scientists" so inept / lazy / dishonest?