Ironic that you call CTD's logic faulty.
He's the one that does not believe that random chance causes highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines to form.
What does this have to do with CTD's faulty math skills and inability to admit it when he is shown to be wrong?
How is it that he reaches the correct logical conclusion through faulty logic and you reach myth through sound logic?
You have done next to nothing to support your assertions about evolution so I find it rather humorous that you can use those assertions as a basis for categorizing anyones ability to use sound logic.
Evolution is an affront to science.
Astoundingly this is not a conclusion of almost all scientists and especially not to scientists that work in the field of biology
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."
—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
Strangely, you quote from a biologist who also concluded that the myriad life forms we have today came from a common ancestor. This quote is about his disagreement with the Darwinian method by which this took place. De Grasse followed the teachings of Lamarck in that he believed an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring and thats how life evolved. Are you saying that you also believe as he did or are you just grasping at any old quote that appears to demean the theory of evolution?
