Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
Mathematicians, using probability calculations, say it is not possible.

only those few mathematicians that don't understand evolution.
Most would disagree and say it is possible.

But that is just going off my topic.
so, back to my challenge:

I challenge you to go to my
“Question for RJHinds and other Creationists that deny evidence"
thread and see if you can answer my first question that I highlighted for the topic of that thread.
What have you got to loose?

Originally posted by humy
only those few mathematicians that don't understand evolution.
Most would disagree and say it is possible.

But that is just going off my topic.
so, back to my challenge:

I challenge you to go to my
“Question for RJHinds and other Creationists that deny evidence"
thread and see if you can answer my first question that I highlighted for the topic of that thread.
What have you got to loose?

I answered your strawman question. So now, what have you got?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I answered your strawman question. So now, what have you got?

you clearly did NOT answer my question. try again.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Mathematicians, using probability calculations, say it is not possible.

mathematicians, using probability calculations can only say it is not probable at most.

and even that is flawed thinking as you do not have any reference.

Originally posted by humy
you clearly did NOT answer my question. try again.

You just did not like the answer I gave.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
mathematicians, using probability calculations can only say it is not probable at most.

and even that is flawed thinking as you do not have any reference.

In a practical sense, they can say it is impossible. Of course, nothing is impossible with God. However, Atheist do not believe in God, and so we must leave the supernatural out for them. So they were saying, it was impossible, practically speaking. Get it?

P.S. They have a reference in this case.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You just did not like the answer I gave.

You answered a different question from the one I asked and one that wasn't asked by anyone.

You just did not like the question I gave.

Originally posted by humy
You answered a different question from the one I asked and one that wasn't asked by anyone.

[b]You just did not like the question I gave.[/b]

However you want to spin it. You make a good liberal Democrat, those that are in need of a SpinDoctor.

Originally posted by RJHinds
However you want to spin it. You make a good liberal Democrat, those that are in need of a SpinDoctor.

That's the second thread he has tried to compare democratic politics with evolution.

I guess you can't be a good republican and believe in evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In a practical sense, they can say it is impossible. Of course, nothing is impossible with God. However, Atheist do not believe in God, and so we must leave the supernatural out for them. So they were saying, it was impossible, practically speaking. Get it?

P.S. They have a reference in this case.

what reference? how many universes have been created and how many of those didn't develop life? who is to say that this universe wouldn't have created life with 100% certainty given the starting conditions?

i don't care much about scientists who marvel on how life wouldn't have been possible if any of the fundamental laws would be off by a fraction. how if the strong force would be any weaker we wouldn't have atoms. well if, absurdly, it was any weaker we wouldn't be around to marvel on how life isn't possible. it doesn't matter there is an infinity of natural numbers, if you start counting, you will get eventually to 1 million. the odds of that happening is 1, not close to 0.


"In a practical sense, they can say it is impossible. Of course, nothing is impossible with God. However, Atheist do not believe in God, and so we must leave the supernatural out for them. So they were saying, it was impossible, practically speaking. Get it?"

i do get it. you are convinced this mess of sentences somehow forms an indisputable argument.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That's the second thread he has tried to compare democratic politics with evolution.

I guess you can't be a good republican and believe in evolution.

I am always wary of people who claim they're "spiritual" but have a strong political agenda.
In Buddhism a ceasing of interest in the world ("worldly affairs" ) , including politics, is strongly recomended.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I am always wary of people who claim they're "spiritual" but have a strong political agenda.
In Buddhism a ceasing of interest in the world ("worldly affairs" ) , including politics, is strongly recomended.

in christianity too. someone should inform the christians.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That's the second thread he has tried to compare democratic politics with evolution.

I guess you can't be a good republican and believe in evolution.

I said liberal democrats. I like conservative democrats. I even vote for some of them from time to time. I have no use for those liberal democrats, especially those kind like you find in California.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I said liberal democrats. I like conservative democrats. I even vote for some of them from time to time. I have no use for those liberal democrats, especially those kind like you find in California.

You make me quiver at the depth of your depraved mind.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what reference? how many universes have been created and how many of those didn't develop life? who is to say that this universe wouldn't have created life with 100% certainty given the starting conditions?

i don't care much about scientists who marvel on how life wouldn't have been possible if any of the fundamental laws would be off by a fraction. how ...[text shortened]... t it. you are convinced this mess of sentences somehow forms an indisputable argument.

Exactly. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!