On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Sunil Shah <s.u.n....@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have > ever seen. > Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace.. > Then why don't you go to the effort of dismantling it? > And stop misusing the "proof" word all the time : D > > I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again > in arguments like these: > The failure to realize what a "big number" is. > ***And I see, time and time again, all kinds of commentary but really very little of substance when someone postulates something supposedly so refutable. > > First of all, you have assumed SERIAL changes, ONE at a time. > ***Then, by all means, we should be seeing observable changes every few seconds, since there are so many more possible. > Secondly you assume there is only ONE entity. > ***What a poorly worded refutation. What entity? > Thirdly, you claimed your calculation just "proved" something". > May I suggest: The calculation PROVES you are a TROLL. > ***May I suggest: Your refutation is worthless. > > So have another go, but scale things up a bit before you do. > ***Perhaps you should have another go, and learn how to write understandably before you engage such heavy sarcasm. Let your argumentation & facts speak for themselves, similar to the DNA evidence being discussed. > > (It takes today's bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce, so I don't see why one > change every 140 hours is fast.) > ***And yet, we've studied hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit fly and the only thing we've seen come of it is... another generation of fruit fly. > > Why are you assuming changes are sustained? > ***Because it appears to be necessary for the "theory" of evolution to be valid. > Why are you assuming changes are observable? > ***Because Darwin did, and the converse is an argument from silence. > The math would say: A very small change x A rather "long time" (from your > perspective) = An unobservably small change. > ***Argument from silence. Historically considered invalid in critical thinking classes. You can do better. > /Sunil > > > > ------------------------------ > From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: Re: [Vo]: The Absurdity of Darwinian Evolution. > Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 23:26:39 +0800 > > > Assuming the most liberal assumptions of the age of the Universe being > 16,000,000,000 years. (504576000000000000 seconds) > > Assuming that at the birth of the Universe there was a single cell > lifeform. > > Assuming that there are 1,000,000,000,000 changes from a single cell > lifeform vs Man. (There is certainly more than 1 trillion differences > between man and single cell lifeform.) > > This single lifeform must produce a change every 140 hours or 5.84 > days (504576000000000000/1000000000000) for it to evolve into Man. > > This is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution rates this fast must surely be > observable. Where are the observable changes we can see? > > Simple math like this clearly prove that Darwinian Evolution is stupid, > yet we have intelligent people like Jed arguing for it. I truly wonder why > that is the case. > > > > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots > > Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: > > I have a simple question: > > 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? > > > There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian > evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly > like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes > disease. > > I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this > level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- > and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of > religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God > as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of > evolution just as a trick to fool us. > > If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't > annoy people who know the subject. > > I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have > learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions > about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time > trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how > the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and > energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste > of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, > including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's > guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. > As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! > > - Jed > >
