There will come a time when Christianity will be laughed at...it says so in the Bible. Does this mean that Christianity is not the truth?
In the context in which I was speaking about evolution, yes:
I disagree. I think the fact that Christianity will be laughed at has no bearing on its truth.
Yet despite multiple requests for you to actually present the mathematics, you have not done it. I know, I've studied all your posts in this topic.
I presented the math in several posts several months back and the posts were all but ignored (not surprisingly).
I have read your threads where you claim that the mathematics make the theory of evolution absurd. Unless by "all but ignored" you mean "soundly refuted", your statement above is incorrect. If you can point me to the threads that contain actual math, I guarantee that I will not ignore it.
Most harmful mutations result in unhatched eggs or miscarriages...not much to leave. That is assuming that your statement about the ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is correct. Might help if you provided some kind of reference for those figures.
First, the numbers are everywhere. Even the evolution claimants will agree with those numbers.
Yet you haven't presented a single reference. If they were "everywhere", they should be easy for you to show us at least one instead of simply telling us that they exist.
Second, with that kind of ratio, you would see something. There would be evidence, a lot of evidence, but there isn't.
So there is no evidence of this high harmful mutation to beneficial mutation ratio? Do you now claim that most mutations are neutral?
Your assumptions about most harmful mutations resulting in unhatched eggs or miscarriages are your speculations. Ironically, you're doing exactly the same thing that you've accused me of doing.
Seems to work for you
. Tell ya what, you point me to a thread of yours where you discuss the math instead of dance around making unsupported claims about it, and I will give you my references for the above statement.
Do you know how many mutations occur in each generation of....say...humans? How can you determine if too much time is needed if you have no idea of the mutation rates within species?
The evidence that these kinds of numbers require a while lot of time is self evident. In fact, the "age of the Earth" has grown by billions of years over the past few decades because evolutionists know this.
You have to claim it is self evident since you can't provide any real evidence to support that baloney.
The age of the Earth has grown because geologists and physicists have found more accurate means of determining that age.
It is revealing that these speculations about the age of the Earth are printed as fact in textbooks, even though they keep changing.
Sure, and they keep publishing those
speculations about computer speeds and network integration complexity as facts in textbooks even though they keep changing.
Perhaps you should take a look at show is publishing the textbooks, or better yet, who is doing the funding. I have.
Those who refuse to study the conspiratorial side of this massive coverup are remaining fantastically naive on purpose.
And they would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids...OOOOoooo another conspiracy...Scooby-Doo where are you?
In other words, they don't want to know. They are too fearful to face the truth yet accuse others of the same, calling them paranoid conspiratorialists.
Show some evidence instead of bluster and anecdote and maybe people won't think you run around with a tin-foil hat.
In what way are they contradictory? What, exactly, are these anti-error mechanisms that allow "1,000,000" harmful mutations to every mutation that allows the organism to live? Doesn't seem very "anti-error" to me.
Exactly my point. The process of the evolution myth requires the failure of the system that is redundant in its error checking. A very intelligent system indeed.
Now you say that mutations don't occur? You are confusing me.
It's truly astounding that people refuse to see this. I really mean this.
I'm sure you do and that's the scary part.
Why should there be? Harmful mutations kill unborn and infant organisms most. Very few organisms with harmful mutations live long enough to reach maturity.
That is your massive speculation. Is this what we see happening today? We really should be intellectually honest here.
It's amazing that people believe this despite our contemporary observations.
You claim that there are contemporary observations that show harmful mutations don't result in miscarriages or non-hatching of eggs. The best way to refute what I stated would be to show some research on harmful mutations and embryo deaths. Did you? Nope...business as usual.
They're only staring at those of you who don't bother to research anything beyond the I-hate-evolution websites.
No, the fundamental issues with the evolution myth are staring at everyone.
With all of the observation of entropy we see, to believe that rocks (or even cells) change into highly complex, self-replicating, symmetrical machines through error processes is the foundation of madness.
The blind faith evolutionists have in those disseminating information relating to the evolution fairytale (without thinking for themselves) is not unlike Jonestown.
So grand and so coveted are their desires, people are unable to see even the most basic truths.
These last statements made me realize that I should make a concerted effort to rise to the level of evidence that you have provided and produce a rebuttal worthy of these writings. After much thought the only thing I could come up with was....Bla-Bla-Bla..
