Conquer Club

It's funny that a 4,000 year widespread shrinking theory is more plausible than evolutionary theory to UC.

What about the stegosaurus? I've not seen any mini-stegos around with those plates on their backs. Cuz that'd be awesome to have one.

-TG

universalchiro wrote:

Steiner75 wrote:

GoranZ wrote:UC in another thread you said that there were dinosaurs in Noah's ark(or better said they survived)... If they survived the flood how did they got extinct? U can correct me if I misunderstood something from your previous post about the issue with the dinosaurs... the question stays tho. How did the dinosaurs become extinct?

Well, "there is a book out there" which tells us:

The First Book of Moses, Called GENESIS 7

show

So if I interpret the above correctly Dinosaurs may have been neither clean nor not clean and thus extinct in the big flood, or they were either clean or not clean and on board which then leads us to the question which GoranZ asks above...

Interestingly, the instruction given by god were not adhered to completely:

show

Negative. Two of every kind went into the Ark Genesis 6:19-22. The larger creatures would of been younglings to reduce capacity & logistics.
Dinosaurs survived the flood.
Dinosaurs are reptiles, if after the flood the O2 levels dropped 33% & gravity increased 20%, what do you think T-Rex would look like today? Name a reptile that has the same image and characteristics of T-Rex. Same Velaceoraptor. I doubt dinosaurs are extinct. I think they arw living among us in plane sight.
Evolutionist have very creative imaginations thinking dinosaurs evolved into birds, yet they can't connect the dots to see dinosaurs are still living yet smaller. As man once lived 900+ years, so too did dinos. Man adapted to changes from the flood, so too did dinos. They are just much smaller.
To say dinos would have tore mankind to shreds is missing important info. God has given man to have dominion over the creatures. So the same reason that a bear would rather avoid human: contact is the same reason dinos avoided human contact.

Is it only 2s now for all kinds or 2 plus 7 for the "clean" kinds, `cuz Genesis 7:2 is quite precise about the 7? Or are there even different versions of the bible? Would Dinosaurs be clean or unclean?

universalchiro wrote:

Steiner75 wrote:

GoranZ wrote:UC in another thread you said that there were dinosaurs in Noah's ark(or better said they survived)... If they survived the flood how did they got extinct? U can correct me if I misunderstood something from your previous post about the issue with the dinosaurs... the question stays tho. How did the dinosaurs become extinct?

Well, "there is a book out there" which tells us:

The First Book of Moses, Called GENESIS 7

show

So if I interpret the above correctly Dinosaurs may have been neither clean nor not clean and thus extinct in the big flood, or they were either clean or not clean and on board which then leads us to the question which GoranZ asks above...

Interestingly, the instruction given by god were not adhered to completely:

show

Negative. Two of every kind went into the Ark Genesis 6:19-22. The larger creatures would of been younglings to reduce capacity & logistics.
Dinosaurs survived the flood.
Dinosaurs are reptiles, if after the flood the O2 levels dropped 33% & gravity increased 20%, what do you think T-Rex would look like today? Name a reptile that has the same image and characteristics of T-Rex. Same Velaceoraptor. I doubt dinosaurs are extinct. I think they arw living among us in plane sight.
Evolutionist have very creative imaginations thinking dinosaurs evolved into birds, yet they can't connect the dots to see dinosaurs are still living yet smaller. As man once lived 900+ years, so too did dinos. Man adapted to changes from the flood, so too did dinos. They are just much smaller.
To say dinos would have tore mankind to shreds is missing important info. God has given man to have dominion over the creatures. So the same reason that a bear would rather avoid human: contact is the same reason dinos avoided human contact.

I never knew that ZIP or RAR can be such nasty tools...
Now another question(that we all want to know)... Can current "dinosaurs" unzip on their own?
Or maybe we should buy one way ticket to Mars just to be safe

He keeps saying "adapted"replace with "evolve" Without evolution everything would look the same as it did day 1.It can not adapt or change.plague outbreaks would still be killing people and at this point we would become extinct.Go talk to the Aztecs.Thank evolution for the human race not being extinct.

I hate to do this but if we were to ask him why the Aztecs met their demise,would his response be because they were "non Believers"

ooge wrote:He keeps saying "adapted"replace with "evolve" Without evolution everything would look the same as it did day 1.It can not adapt or change.plague outbreaks would still be killing people and at this point we would become extinct.Go talk to the Aztecs.Thank evolution for the human race not being extinct.

I hate to do this but if we were to ask him why the Aztecs met their demise,would his response be because they were "non Believers"

Nope, he will have different answer, answer that evolutionist cant imagine.

This (and several other topics) never really work out well on the internet. I have tried lol.
People can hide behind their avatar and just ignore points and move on.

But I would recommend anyone read these two books and give their opinion or alternative view or rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Both books present TONS of information in regards to their being an intelligent being outside of our universe.
Aspects looked at (not not limited to) are: science, philosophy, ethics, morality, information, origins, etc

READ THESE BOOKS. Then give rational explanations for: No God. Evolution from molecules to man. No absolute morality, etc

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
John C. Lennox
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertake...7681642&sr=1-2

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enou...+be+an+atheist

There is another one but it is HUGE. Deals with DNA and information. Deals with all the issues of it arising from material causes and not intelligence (as materialism requires)
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell...re+in+the+cell

Evolutionist that are not aware of the difference between adaptation and evolution, really should stop posting that you know about the topic. You are embarrassing yourself and you don't see it.


Adaptation already has the information for adapting to external stimulus already in the DNA coding. There are limits to how far a creature can adapt, the limits of adaptation are set by the DNA code, if one gets too close to the edge of adaptability, they become sterile, still birth, premature death from disease, sickness, climate or predators.


Evolution requires NEW information in the DNA coding that was not there, to produce new function and new kind. The problem: Imbedded in the DNA code of creatures is to not select another creature that has inability to adapt to changes in external stimulus, to not select a mutated kind. So evolutionary theory that mutated DNA gets passed on, is not reality, for creatures select the strong, not the weak (and all mutations produced a loss of function, not an enhancement).


The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".

What is observable: Mutations produce a loss of function, weakness, shortness of life, and loss of desirability for reproduction. And what evolution requires is trillions upon trillions of mutations that enhance, improve function, make one stronger, increase longevity, make one more desirable to the opposite sex for reproduction, not just one instance, but trillions upon trillions.

the hammerhead shark is a perfect example of "evolution gone wrong" . yet it's a very healthy specie that has been passing its genes over and over.
Or just look at dogs. they are basically breeded by humans that decide to focus on certain characteristics. Easy peasy over a few hundread years to create extremely different breeds.
If you look at insects, you can easily be amazed by what evolution and mutation have done to make them adapt to their environment.
Also, would you agree that a huge quantity of species have disapeared and will continue to do so every day?
If you go on to wikipedia on any animal's page; till what level do you not agree in terms of family classification?

most importantly, how big was noah's ark, and how big is santa's sleight?

universalchiro wrote:Evolutionist that are not aware of the difference between adaptation and evolution, really should stop posting that you know about the topic. You are embarrassing yourself and you don't see it.

Correct. I don't see it. I guess my degree in Genetics isn't accepted by UC.

Adaptation already has the information for adapting to external stimulus already in the DNA coding. There are limits to how far a creature can adapt, the limits of adaptation are set by the DNA code, if one gets too close to the edge of adaptability, they become sterile, still birth, premature death from disease, sickness, climate or predators.

There are no such limits.

Evolution requires NEW information in the DNA coding that was not there, to produce new function and new kind. The problem: Imbedded in the DNA code of creatures is to not select another creature that has inability to adapt to changes in external stimulus, to not select a mutated kind. So evolutionary theory that mutated DNA gets passed on, is not reality, for creatures select the strong, not the weak (and all mutations produced a loss of function, not an enhancement).

That is not embedded anywhere I have seen. Can you point to the genes to which you refer?
Plenty of mutations we have witnessed not only produced new information, but also led to genetic enhancement.
For new information: Drosophila melanogaster strains have been kept intact for nearly a hundred years. All the strains from before the 1950s had no transposase. Most of the strains after the 1950s have the transposase gene. This gene takes sections of DNA that were previously inert, and gives them activity.
Many other minor mutations (both natural and artificial) have led to enhancements.

The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".

Nope.

What is observable: Mutations produce a loss of function, weakness, shortness of life, and loss of desirability for reproduction. And what evolution requires is trillions upon trillions of mutations that enhance, improve function, make one stronger, increase longevity, make one more desirable to the opposite sex for reproduction, not just one instance, but trillions upon trillions.

So...

WidowMakers wrote:This (and several other topics) never really work out well on the internet. I have tried lol.
People can hide behind their avatar and just ignore points and move on.

But I would recommend anyone read these two books and give their opinion or alternative view or rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Both books present TONS of information in regards to their being an intelligent being outside of our universe.
Aspects looked at (not not limited to) are: science, philosophy, ethics, morality, information, origins, etc

READ THESE BOOKS. Then give rational explanations for: No God. Evolution from molecules to man. No absolute morality, etc

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
John C. Lennox
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertake...7681642&sr=1-2

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enou...+be+an+atheist

There is another one but it is HUGE. Deals with DNA and information. Deals with all the issues of it arising from material causes and not intelligence (as materialism requires)
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell...re+in+the+cell

Read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and give a rebuttal to the facts presented.

Metsfanmax wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:This (and several other topics) never really work out well on the internet. I have tried lol.
People can hide behind their avatar and just ignore points and move on.

But I would recommend anyone read these two books and give their opinion or alternative view or rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Both books present TONS of information in regards to their being an intelligent being outside of our universe.
Aspects looked at (not not limited to) are: science, philosophy, ethics, morality, information, origins, etc

READ THESE BOOKS. Then give rational explanations for: No God. Evolution from molecules to man. No absolute morality, etc

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
John C. Lennox
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertake...7681642&sr=1-2

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enou...+be+an+atheist

There is another one but it is HUGE. Deals with DNA and information. Deals with all the issues of it arising from material causes and not intelligence (as materialism requires)
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell...re+in+the+cell

Read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and give a rebuttal to the facts presented.

I will if you read one of the books above and give answers to them as well.......

FYI. The book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is a book written to counter the God Delusion by Dawkins. So any "facts" he has in both of his books are countered very well in this one.

WidowMakers wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:This (and several other topics) never really work out well on the internet. I have tried lol.
People can hide behind their avatar and just ignore points and move on.

But I would recommend anyone read these two books and give their opinion or alternative view or rebuttal to the arguments presented.
Both books present TONS of information in regards to their being an intelligent being outside of our universe.
Aspects looked at (not not limited to) are: science, philosophy, ethics, morality, information, origins, etc

READ THESE BOOKS. Then give rational explanations for: No God. Evolution from molecules to man. No absolute morality, etc

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
John C. Lennox
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertake...7681642&sr=1-2

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Norman L. Geisler & Frank Turek
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enou...+be+an+atheist

There is another one but it is HUGE. Deals with DNA and information. Deals with all the issues of it arising from material causes and not intelligence (as materialism requires)
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell...re+in+the+cell

Read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and give a rebuttal to the facts presented.

I will if you read one of the books above and give answers to them as well.......

FYI. The book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is a book written to counter the God Delusion by Dawkins. So any "facts" he has in both of his books are countered very well in this one.

This whole idea that trusting basic history has anything to do with your metaphysics is absurd. I don't care if you're an atheist or a theist; you can't make any claims about the history of life on Earth if you haven't actually inspected the evidence for it. Even that last book, if I can trust the Amazon description, isn't attempting to counter the history of evolution, instead looking for evidence that this process was intentionally initiated by some entity in some way.

So The God Delusion is very different from most of Dawkins' written work, and you don't get to just discard all the evidence he (or anyone else) presents for the necessity of evolution to make sense of anything in modern biology simply because he is an atheist and you are not. The problem is that this is exactly what UC is doing. And it sounds like you might be skirting with it too, if you're demanding a "rational explanation" for "evolution from molecules to man." Stop mixing two completely unrelated subjects. More importantly, stop making claims about history if you haven't read the history.

universalchiro wrote:Evolutionist that are not aware of the difference between adaptation and evolution, really should stop posting that you know about the topic. You are embarrassing yourself and you don't see it.

Include voting if you have balls... let we all see who is embarrassing.

universalchiro wrote:Adaptation already has the information for adapting to external stimulus already in the DNA coding. There are limits to how far a creature can adapt, the limits of adaptation are set by the DNA code, if one gets too close to the edge of adaptability, they become sterile, still birth, premature death from disease, sickness, climate or predators.

Evolution requires NEW information in the DNA coding that was not there, to produce new function and new kind. The problem: Imbedded in the DNA code of creatures is to not select another creature that has inability to adapt to changes in external stimulus, to not select a mutated kind. So evolutionary theory that mutated DNA gets passed on, is not reality, for creatures select the strong, not the weak (and all mutations produced a loss of function, not an enhancement).

Adam and Eve and 4 human blood types. Go ahead I would like to hear your explanation

universalchiro wrote:The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".

The number you mention is joke compared to the number of stars in the universe... So I dont recommend using numbers to explain probability.

universalchiro wrote:What is observable: Mutations produce a loss of function, weakness, shortness of life, and loss of desirability for reproduction. And what evolution requires is trillions upon trillions of mutations that enhance, improve function, make one stronger, increase longevity, make one more desirable to the opposite sex for reproduction, not just one instance, but trillions upon trillions.

Usually you are correct but only usually... Vast majority of mutations are for waste and are not necessary, but that little percentage that is successful is driving evolution forward

universalchiro wrote:Really? Species adapt to other species all the time, Just the other day, a neighbor of mine he and his wife both have recessive brown eyes and they produced a blue eyed child. Adaptation occurs everyday.

That isn't adaptation. It might be if you were a Nazi of the Third Reich, but otherwise it isn't. Sorry to break it to you.

-TG

GoranZ wrote:

universalchiro wrote:The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".

The number you mention is joke compared to the number of stars in the universe... So I dont recommend using numbers to explain probability.

Not really. The number of stars in the universe is this (approx)
And so, if you multiply the number of stars in our galaxy by the number of galaxies in the Universe, you get approximately 10^24 stars
That’s a 1 followed by twenty-four zeros.
http://www.universetoday.com/102630/how-many-stars-are-there-in-the-universe/

Much much much smaller than odds of evolution of a protein molecule from unguided amino acids.
So while you may not like the probability numbers of the amino acid, they are larger than the number of stars.

So yes, it is "possible" but is it realistic. I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?

WidowMakers wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

universalchiro wrote:The remoteness of evolution:
A protein is much simpler than the DNA code. and a protein has 20 amino acids in a chain of 150 sequenced. The odds of random unguided amino acids in a primordial soup of complex chemicals forming ONE single protein is 1 in 2X10exp150. That's 150 zeroes after the 2. Let that sink into your belief system, the odds of a protein forming via evolutionary process is 1 in 2X10exp150. And the DNA code is much more complex and goes on for billions of sequences. The odds are beyond possible. That's why the question at the start of the first post, reveals the lack of possibility of evolution, for the question was posed to one of the elite minds of evolution, "come up with one increase in the genetic code from mutations?", the response, "<crickets>".

The number you mention is joke compared to the number of stars in the universe... So I dont recommend using numbers to explain probability.

Not really. The number of stars in the universe is this (approx)
And so, if you multiply the number of stars in our galaxy by the number of galaxies in the Universe, you get approximately 10^24 stars
That’s a 1 followed by twenty-four zeros.
http://www.universetoday.com/102630/how-many-stars-are-there-in-the-universe/

Much much much smaller than odds of evolution of a protein molecule from unguided amino acids.
So while you may not like the probability numbers of the amino acid, they are larger than the number of stars.

So yes, it is "possible" but is it realistic. I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?

The numbers you are mentioning are for observable universe. In reality we have no idea how big the universe is. and we are adding zeroes over time

The ting is that if we find life on another world in the solar system then creationists are out for life.

And another question that no creationist can answer... Why Earth, whats so special about Earth?

WidowMakers wrote:
So yes, it is "possible" but is it realistic. I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?

So much wrong with this in so many different ways.

1) God is amazing, he can do things with infinittessimal odds of occurring. It doesn't matter that there is a near-zero percent chance of protein coming into existence randomly since God can do it.
2) The p-value of life happening spontaneously is 1. It happened. Life exists. Deal with it. What are the odds that I typed this sentence?
3) Proteins don't need to randomly come into existence for evolution to be truth. Evolution is the theory that life forms evolve into other ones. The abiotic origins of life has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
4) Many of those (that I know, anyways) who spend time hypothesizing about the abiotic origin of life subscribe to the RNA-World hypothesis. It currently is the most-accepted.
5) Metsfanmax already showed how your bullshit analogy looking at probability is totally wrong. If you throw together 150 amino acids - you have a protein! It may not be the strand you were looking for but it is undeniably a protein. The odds of taking 20 amino acids and putting them in a sequence 150 peptides long is 1.

WidowMakers wrote:I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?

I can answer that with one word.























































YES

And it's a resounding yes for the enlightened masses.

DoomYoshi wrote:2) The p-value of life happening spontaneously is 1. It happened. Life exists. Deal with it. What are the odds that I typed this sentence?

A slightly different way of making this type of anthropic principle argument is that there are many, many planets out there, many of which will have the right conditions for life. That will be a lot of planets, even if only a small fraction are capable of supporting it. So even though the formation of the first replicating molecules may be a rare event, it only needed to happen on one of those planets for life to form.

WidowMakers wrote:So yes, it is "possible" but is it realistic. I mean really, do you believe that these proteins can into existence randomly, Much less DNA?

Aside from the answers DY gave, consider the problems with the argument that "God" came along and "helped out" this process, which didn't have much chance of occurring otherwise, and then let evolution play out as normal. Then you've made an unfalsifiable argument, because there's no testable difference between the worlds. We're left to choose between a rare random process happening and a guided process occurring by a (rare?) god. What difference does it make which is true? By construction, it makes no difference, so there's no point in worrying about it.

Metsfanmax wrote:
Aside from the answers DY gave, consider the problems with the argument that "God" came along and "helped out" this process, which didn't have much chance of occurring otherwise, and then let evolution play out as normal. Then you've made an unfalsifiable argument, because there's no testable difference between the worlds. We're left to choose between a rare random process happening and a guided process occurring by a (rare?) god. What difference does it make which is true? By construction, it makes no difference, so there's no point in worrying about it.

SALVATION IS THE POINT, METS.


--Andy

GoranZ wrote:
And another question that no creationist can answer... Why Earth, whats so special about Earth?

If I was trying to argue for creatonism, I would simply say it was the canvas that God decided on. If you fire up Civilization 5 or AoM, how do you decide what world you'll play on? I always liked to play on random and let the computer decide. They all fit the purpose of what I was trying to do, yet the world I'm playing on, didn't truly exist until I started playing on it.

patrickaa317 wrote:

GoranZ wrote:
And another question that no creationist can answer... Why Earth, whats so special about Earth?

If I was trying to argue for creatonism, I would simply say it was the canvas that God decided on. If you fire up Civilization 5 or AoM, how do you decide what world you'll play on? I always liked to play on random and let the computer decide. They all fit the purpose of what I was trying to do, yet the world I'm playing on, didn't truly exist until I started playing on it.

You play games but you dont create them
Software development is nothing like Gods creationism... Every line of code has a meaning, every byte has a purpose... Its like evolution but on extreme scale.

GoranZ wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

GoranZ wrote:
And another question that no creationist can answer... Why Earth, whats so special about Earth?

If I was trying to argue for creatonism, I would simply say it was the canvas that God decided on. If you fire up Civilization 5 or AoM, how do you decide what world you'll play on? I always liked to play on random and let the computer decide. They all fit the purpose of what I was trying to do, yet the world I'm playing on, didn't truly exist until I started playing on it.

You play games but you dont create them
Software development is nothing like Gods creationism... Every line of code has a meaning, every byte has a purpose... Its like evolution but on extreme scale.

Isn't your point there that the software developers are more like God? Part of an intelligent design that was thought out, tested, fixed all by the same team of people; and then released into existence. Wouldn't the evolution comparison be some sort of self writing program that's only purpose of existence is to simply exist?

Evolutionist always make this common mistake, they'll argue Natural selection, but the information for natural selection is already existing. Always in life whenever we see information, especially functional digital information, we always assume intelligence designed it. And that is exactly what DNA is, functional digital information. And Natural selection is based on the information in the DNA code.

So the idea that computer software demonstrates evolution is precisely the sort of blind illogical backwards thinking to authenticate evolution. For it is intelligence that designed the software.

Evolutiinist always skip a step and jump to natural selection, the step they skip is you can't have natural selection , nor artificial selection w/o the information already existing in the DNA. and there is no reproduction w/o that information to replicate already existing in the DNA code.

So don't bother arguing evolution until you figure out where the information came from in the first place for replication and for natural selection. Every evolutionist has the cart before the horse.

The odds of forming via chance one protein is 1 in 2X10^150. Multiply that by the odds of 1,500 DNA sequence to form the one protein. Multiply those odds by 250-500 for each cell has that many proteins. One, if they are intellectually honest, sees the impossibilities of evolution.

universalchiro wrote:Evolutionist always...

--Andy