Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Ringtone]

Your comments on the math please ...

See video in the OP. Then prove naturalism is true.

Thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

You do not deny being a false prophet? ... shocking you should think yourself smarter than God ... you should spend less time hating on evolution and more time studying basic Christian doctrine ...

Do you deny being an apostate?

Winning!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Winning!

And again...

james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.

 

[james bond]

Winning!

And again...

james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.

Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.

Anyway, I think our side is winning in more ways than one. For example, with falsifiability, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.

It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable . It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal. These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.

Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified. Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins. I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity. If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world. Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.

OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states. Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys. We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth. Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon. What do you think they're going to come up with? A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon? Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?

 

[Hollie]

Winning!

And again...

james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.

Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.

Anyway, I think our side is winning in more ways than one. For example, with falsifiability, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.

It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable . It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal. These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.

Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified. Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins. I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity. If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world. Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.

OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states. Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys. We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth. Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon. What do you think they're going to come up with? A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon? Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?

There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.

 

[LittleNipper]

Winning!

And again...

james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.

Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.

Anyway, I think our side is winning in more ways than one. For example, with falsifiability, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.

It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable . It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal. These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.

Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified. Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins. I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity. If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world. Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.

OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states. Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys. We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth. Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon. What do you think they're going to come up with? A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon? Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?

There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.

Why would a human wish to live with a dinosaur? What proof is there that man has lived with whales?

 

[Hollie]

Winning!

And again...

james bond ...are you getting jealous, yet? This guy is stealing your act.

Ringtone and I discuss different things for creation because we are different people.

Anyway, I think our side is winning in more ways than one. For example, with falsifiability, it wasn't Karl Popper who came up with the concept first, but creationist GK Chesterton.

It isn't falsifiability that is the big deal like that clown abu afak was giving examples of how evolution can be falsifiable . It is ideas that are falsifiable, but not falsified that are the big deal. These can be shown as ideas capable of being tested, have been tested, and have passed the test.

Evolution may be falsifiable, but its ideas have been falsified. Basically, its ideas have big problems in the origins. I think that's why evolution doesn't have a strong logical argument like Kalam Cosmological Argument and has false concepts in the natural world like potential infinity. If you guys weren't so blind, then you'd realize actual infinity can only exist in the supernatural world. Thus, things like what more and more atheist scientists are believing like multiverses (another potential infinity) can't exist in the natural world.

OTOH, we find evidence of humans living with dinosaurs. If evolution was not falsified, then we'd see more evidence for a common ancestor like this thread states. Not just natural selection, but humans from monkeys. We'd have found the intelligent alien already, but instead are finding why life doesn't exist elsewhere besides Earth. Just look at the Mars expedition rovers and now they're going to look below the surface like the moon. What do you think they're going to come up with? A microbe or more reasons why life can't exist on Mars like we learned with the moon? Wouldn't it be that ToE was falsified once again?

There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.

Why would a human wish to live with a dinosaur? What proof is there that man has lived with whales?

Why humans would wish to live with dinosaurs was not the statement I responded to.

Man has not lived with whales. That’s a conspiracy.

 

[ReinyDays]

See video in the OP. Then prove naturalism is true.

Do you deny being an apostate?

Please stick to the subject of the thread ... you claim to have a mathematical challenge to evolution and you have yet to state this challenge ... that makes you a loser ...

I prohibit myself such vain-glories ... it's unbecoming one of the faith ...

 

[james bond]

There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.

It's in the Bible, for one. Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.

Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's in the Bible, for one. Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.
Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.

Bubba didn't finish Middle School because he can't read ...
No where in the Bible does it mention dinosaurs ... sheesh ... not once ...
Another one who thinks they know God's will better than He does ...

 

[Hollie]

There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.

It's in the Bible, for one. Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.

Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.

“It’s in the Bible”, is hardly a reason for anyone to accept such a statement.

So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.

If the evolution timeline is wrong, all the available evidence for dating of ancient fossil remains is wrong. Is that the conspiracy theory you’re floating?

“It’s in the Bible” vs. modern methods of research and discovery to include paleontology, chemistry, biology, etc. which identify a timeline far older than a global flood (that never occurred), a few thousand years ago. That’s your position? T-Rex was on the Ark along with all the other vertebrate dinosaurs? T-Rex was alive and stomping around just a few thousand years ago?

Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here.

 

[james bond]

It's in the Bible, for one. Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.
Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.

Bubba didn't finish Middle School because he can't read ...
No where in the Bible does it mention dinosaurs ... sheesh ... not once ...
Another one who thinks they know God's will better than He does ...

This shows your ignorance as the word "dinosaur" did not exist until much later. The Bible uses a different word. Do you know what words?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no evidence that humans lived with dinosaurs.

It's in the Bible, for one. Soft tissue found in the fossils are another, i.e. evolution timeline is wrong.

Other evidence are pictorial representations carved into cave or canyon walls, brass or clay, and drawn into pottery.

“It’s in the Bible”, is hardly a reason for anyone to accept such a statement.

So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.

If the evolution timeline is wrong, all the available evidence for dating of ancient fossil remains is wrong. Is that the conspiracy theory you’re floating?

“It’s in the Bible” vs. modern methods of research and discovery to include paleontology, chemistry, biology, etc. which identify a timeline far older than a global flood (that never occurred), a few thousand years ago. That’s your position? T-Rex was on the Ark along with all the other vertebrate dinosaurs? T-Rex was alive and stomping around just a few thousand years ago?

Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here.

That is exactly what he is saying. Bond has no original material or thoughts on these matters. He is, for all practical purposes, a bot that regurgitates talking points from creation.com.

 

[james bond]

So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.

The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse. They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.

 

[Hollie]

So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.

The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse. They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.

Oh. OK, that makes sense. So... T-Rex and the other dinosaurs grew into adulthood after Noah’s sea cruise? Noah only collected juvenile dinosaurs?

I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?

If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?

Why did they disappear?

 

[abu afak]

The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse. They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.

Proverbs: ""The lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any;""

I guess they missed large dinosaurs who SHOOK the ground when they walked, and could just pluck up humans with one bite.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actual infinities exist as concepts in minds only.

Shaman Ringtone has spoken!

 

[james bond]

Proverbs: ""The lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any;""

I guess they missed large dinosaurs who SHOOK the ground when they walked, and could just pluck up humans with one bite.

`

When did the lion come into existance?

 

[Hollie]

Proverbs: ""The lion, which is mightiest among beasts and does not turn back before any;""

I guess they missed large dinosaurs who SHOOK the ground when they walked, and could just pluck up humans with one bite.

`

When did the lion come into existance?

It's not in the Bible?

 

[james bond]

So, Identify for us which Dinosaurs were on the Ark? In Genesis 6:19–20, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate animals were brought to the Ark for Noah’s sea cruise. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark, all of them.

The "dinosaurs" on the Ark were thought to be smaller than a horse. They were younger versions of the 3-story beasts you are thinking of and are usually depicted in articles.

Oh. OK, that makes sense. So... T-Rex and the other dinosaurs grew into adulthood after Noah’s sea cruise? Noah only collected juvenile dinosaurs?

I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?

If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?

Why did they disappear?

Noah didn't collect anything. God sent the creatures to the ark. To fit on the Ark, they were younger dinosaurs.

>>I’m curious about that dynamic of post-cruise physiology of people living to be 900 years old due to lower gravity and a different atmosphere on the earth just a few thousand years ago?<<

I'm going to skip this as it's not fair to the OP and his topic.

>>If dinosaurs grew into 3-story beasts post-cruise, why are fossil remains of dinosaurs so... you know... old? Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?<<

They're not old. Only evos think they are millions of years old.

>>Why are there no fossil remains dated to just a few thousand years ago?<<

C'mon, you should know this. Evos do not accept fossils out of range of their timelines (More evidence for them lying and being wrong).

>>Why did they disappear?<<

I don't think the Bible says. They may have died to the asteroid impact.