[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP

[zarf]

I've got the popcorn. Let's go kids.

[Wycowboy]

Hope you've got your asbestos suit on and zipped up.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

I wonder how the evolution verses creation argument goes in Allah land. Will some Muslim please step up and speak. I need a change in the argument to keep me interested.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

QED

[Tribune7]

ping

[festus]

PowerBASIC...............

Hmm.....

Visual RPG
Object Oriented Cobol
Point-n-Click Assembler
Non-recursive LISP.

[Wycowboy]

Yeah, well what about the punctuated quantums?? Huh?

[Ostlandr]

As Mark Twain wrote, "There are three kinds of untruths; white lies, damnable falsehoods, and statistics."

What about the Peppered Moth? This species rapidly changed it's coloration "when coal was King" and then changed back once it's environment wasn't colored by coal soot. The changes only took a few generations, as those moths that didn't adapt were poorly camouflaged and easy targets for predators.

Also note the change in the Eastern Coyote since the elimination of wolves. The Eastern Coyote is rapidly gaining size and strength in order to prey on abundant white-tailed deer- in effect, changing into wolf analogues. This has happened in roughly a hundred years. Scientists have actually documented the genetic changes in these animals- they are different from both dogs/wolves and other Coyotes. Some are suggesting that these animals may well become a new, separate species of canine.

While the posted article may well prove mathematically that evolution cannot occur, practical observation indicates that it is still operating today.

I tend to believe that God planned out his Creation in advance, then spoke a single word and it all unfolded according to his plan. (Yes, I think this took more than seven days.)

[babygene]

Bump

[Oztrich Boy]

VG. Now prove that it is mathematically impossible for the to fly.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Note: If something is wrong with the math, please show me."

That's good, because everything is wrong with the math. It isn't based on anything approaching biological reality. Not even close.

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[GrandEagle]

Now THIS should be fun!

[Tax Government]

Something is wrong when evolution and Christianity are fighting. The outcome it known: Christianity will evolve.

[TOWER]

AoU – age of the Universe. (1)
AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc – total reproductive cycles in the age of the Universe.

AoU = 10 billion = 10,000,000,000 years
AvRpdCyc = 100 per year (2)(3)
TotalRpdCyc = AoU * AvRpdCyc = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1 Trillion


Obvious flaws:
1) Are we talking about the theory of evolution or abiogenesis? Those are two different things. Evolution doesn't care how life got started.
2) Current estimates put the universe at a bit older than 10 billion years.
3)AvRpdCyc - average reproductive life cycle generation: What does this mean? It is never defined. Are you saying that cells only divide 100 times every year? Isn't that a bit laughable.
4) There is no variable for the number of organisms in the universe.

Given these flaws, your calculation should look more like this: AoU x AvRpdCyc x Number of Organisms
Which equals: 13,000,000,000 x (some really high number) x (another really high number)
Thus the TotalRpdCyc is actually much higher than 1 Trillion by several factors (like billions or trillions).

[Dimensio]

While another poster has tackled the inherent problems with the mathematical formula and values used, I noticed a factual error in one of your qualifying statements:

This is overly fair. Evolution has been intently studied for over 100 years and there is no evidence of anything evolving in the last 100 years.

This statement is demonstratably false. It would appear that your claims that the theory of evolution is "dead" are based both upon faulty variables in mathematical equations and basic factual errors in starting assumptions. Perhaps you should rethink your reasoning before presenting such a conclusive claim.

[RightWhale]

This is probably what Watson was referring to. Buy gold!

[thomaswest]

Intelligent design does not meet the maximum likelihood test.

ID has a fundamental internal contradiction. If life forms were made {poof} by god, how come many species became extinct? If a result of poor design or inability to see the future, then god is not omniscient. ID has no explanation for extinctions other than to say "god did it--no need to ask any more questions".

[Elsie]

I'm now gonna buy a LOOTERY ticket!