Replies

Math was just as reliable then as it is now. The problem with neodarwinism is that it says NOTHING about origins at all. It only speaks of CHANGE to existing organisms and cannot explain origins at all except to take wild guesses or spew another "just so" story.

I made no claim about the reliability of math in the distant past. I claimed that Thane_Banquo based his use of math on a faulty premise.

I also fail to see the relationship between my challenge over statistical use and abiogenesis not being addressed by the ToE.

Say we have a one celled bacteria (laying aside problem of origins for a moment), I have yet to have an evolutionist explain to me precisely by what mechanism that information is added to the genome in order to "evolve" into the different phyla. Information MUST be a added. Where does it come from? How is it added?

Through heritable random mutations and changes in the allele frequencies of genetic traits, which through natural selection result in beneficial changes being encouraged through successful survival and reproduction, while detrimental or neutral changes are not so encouraged.

(Thane_Banquo pinged as a courtesy since I mentioned him in this post.)

ME: Say we have a one celled bacteria (laying aside problem of origins for a moment), I have yet to have an evolutionist explain to me precisely by what mechanism that information is added to the genome in order to "evolve" into the different phyla. Information MUST be a added. Where does it come from? How is it added?
YOU: Through heritable random mutations and changes in the allele frequencies of genetic traits, which through natural selection result in beneficial changes being encouraged through successful survival and reproduction, while detrimental or neutral changes are not so encouraged.

This is hardly adequate to explain now new information is added to the genome. Where does the new information come from in order to add new body parts and organs and physiological systsems? Mutations can only alter information that is already there.

I also fail to see the relationship between my challenge over statistical use and abiogenesis not being addressed by the ToE.

More than one mathematician has concluded the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis. Are you a mathematician or are you just one of the faithful who refuse to believe any evidence that works against darwinism?

There have always been scientists that REJECT darwinism from its beginning. There is hardly a scientific consensus. The reason darwinism holds so much power is because the power of the U.S. government (as well as intimidation in the scientific community) is wielded to enforce it. Lord Kelvin and Louis Pasteur are two shining examples. In 1864, 717 scientists, including 86 members of the Royal Society signed a manifesto entitled, "the Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences." The manifesto affirmed the Bible's scientific integrity.