• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The 90% Theory

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by JohnR7, Aug 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Now that the industrial revolution is in full swing, they have come up with what they call the 90% theory. This theory says that in a lot of cases it is cheaper to throw away 10% of what you manufacture then it is to try and hit a 100% efficency rate.

    So evolutionists are trying to apply this efficiency to evolution. They say that it is easier for put out 90% efficient species. Then dump the 10% or make a adjustment so they can not reproduce. That way evolution can dump all of the errors in that 10% in order to get rid of them.
     
  2. EvoDan

    EvoDan Senior Member

    756
    +54
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    :scratch: Who is "they", and how are they "applying" this "efficiency" to evolution?
     
  3. imind

    imind Senior Veteran

    +641
    Christian
    Single
    US-Others
    somebody please make sense of this for me. OP, if you'd like to give it another go, please, feel free.
     
  4. vitodabona

    vitodabona Active Member

    286
    +33
    Atheist
    Is this what goes on in the factory that manufactures your strawmen for you?
     
  5. Opcode42

    Opcode42 Member

    178
    +15
    Atheist
    Was there an actual question here, point of discussion, or was it just rambling?

    And for my own personal edification, are you in the regular habit of abandonding threads when you get called out to present evidence? Just want to know before I waste more time in 3 or 4 more threads where you subsequently leave when we started trying to get you to back up your claims.
     
  6. vitodabona

    vitodabona Active Member

    286
    +33
    Atheist
    The latter.

    You nailed it.
     
  7. BeamMeUpScotty

    BeamMeUpScotty Senior Veteran

    +156
    Atheist
    US-Others
    I think Led Zeppelin said it best on side 2 of their second album..."it's time to ramble on..."
     
  8. GoSeminoles!

    GoSeminoles! Guest

    +0
    No, you are thinking of Ambrosia's debut album, OneEighty.
     
  9. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    I am the one that wastes a lot of time on here because no one knows anything about evolutionary theory. Even most Phds in Biology know very little about it.

    The subject here is "COST". The cost of evolution. The way science works is you have to KNOW the keywords. That is also the way Google works. So if you memorize KEY words then you can find information about that very fast in this day and age.

    In this case we are talking about COST along with EVOLUTION or NATURAL SELECTION. The tread is wide open to anything that has to do with the "cost" Here is an example:

     
  10. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Do a little research on what evolutionists have to say about the COST of evolution. While evolution maybe a strawmen theory I am not the author. Evolutionists are the ones that invent evolutionary theory. The more I study it, the more I learn about it, the more I realize that the average person knows nothing about it or almost nothing about it. Even people with Phds know almost nothing about it, outside of the area they are researching.

    1 Cor. 14:33
    For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
     
  11. AnEmpiricalAgnostic

    AnEmpiricalAgnostic Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

    +174
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    With almost 22,000 posts I think John has resorted to creating his arguments with a Madlibs book.
     
  12. Mincus

    Mincus Regular Member

    146
    +3
    Atheist
    Single
    Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, that it might be your idea of evolution is incorrect, meaning that your assertions about evolution don't match up to what others say?

    Just a thought.
     
  13. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Maybe Evos have come to realize that their theory is incorrect. They use to try and defend it, but they do not try to defend it anymore.
     
  14. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    Yeah, 22,000 posts and I still have not shown creationism to be true. But at least I have proven evolution to be false.
     
  15. EvoDan

    EvoDan Senior Member

    756
    +54
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Yeah... that's it.:bow:
     
  16. XTE

    XTE Well-Known Member

    +106
    Atheist
    US-Others
    Megalomaniasism is a horrible, horrible thing to watch in anyone else.

    When it finally takes hold the person always feel it's "them against the world." That "they know more than people that actually study the topic."

    It's incredible to watch because it's rare, and you can't hardly believe what you are seeing.

    I can't believe what I am seeing.
     
  17. Maxwell511

    Maxwell511 Contributor

    +225
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Are you debating against the TOE based on the fact that "evolutionists" believe it doesn't break the 2nd LOT? Or am I not understanding your post at all?
     
  18. Hydra009

    Hydra009 bel esprit

    +332
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Sorry, I stopped at this. It's impossible to take someone seriously when they post about technological developments in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as if they just now hit the scene.
     
  19. TheBear

    TheBear Free Agent

    +1,216
    Atheist
    Private
    :D :thumbsup:
     
  20. random_guy

    random_guy Senior Veteran

    +134
    Christian
    Moore's Law says that the number of transitors on a chip doubles every 18 months. So are the evolutionists applying this theory? If evolution was correct, the number of neuron connections in a brain should be doubling every 18 months, but according to phrenology, this has not been the case. Therefore, evolution is false.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.