CrEvo Rant #107: Mathemathical impossibilty of evolution

@ thesciencefoundation & vedasisme

is his math correct?
let's say he doesn't mention God, is the "chance" figures correct?

Foundation, all of your comments consist of you whining "We're right and you're wrong" without ever producing any reasonable argument. You're pushing dogma, SF. You are as closed-minded and religious as they come.

No, my comments consist of arguments backed by empirical data, now you're just projecting.

Helio- AH, but do those programs pop up spontaneously? The original program is intelligently designed. They are intelligently selected and intelligently bred, on a computer which was intelligently manufactured using an OS which was intelligently programmed.

If you conflate, like you just did, random generation of something, be it on a computer or not, with intelligent design, then alright, we're the product of intelligent design. You just insist on calling it by another name.

Random generation is random, no matter what you generate it on.
Also, the fact of running a program or not is irrelevant to the fact that it's runnable.

You believers in the supernatural insist on irrelevant aspects and change the question whenever you're answered to.

That's another body of reasoning altogether, Vedas. Since that's not directly related to the topic, he's cutting to the chase. It's not an assumption. He knows. If you want to know how he knows, ask.

As for the soup experiments, those have been debunked. Yes, they produce amino acids, under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. They also produce poisons, tar and mirror-image amino acids. In addition, they destroy as many acids as they produce.

It's not my responsibility to find out how he "knows" that it is God. If he is going to make that claim, he ought to support that claim with as much effort as he put into misrepresenting evolution.

It's bad science to assume that molecules don't tend to bond with each other in certain ways, and it's religious propaganda to insist that probability "proves" God.

All attempts to use science to support God have failed, and this instance has not proven anything different.

Beuller, you aren't listening. That's for ONE protein. Natural selection doesn't enter into it. There's nothing to select if you don't even have one protein.
And I will thank you not to use my God's name as a swear word.
Bueller, what ignorance. As for Darwin, he himself said that his theory should be discarded fifty years ago if evidence he predicted would be found wasn't.

@Orenotter

PROTIPs:

1)Natural selection didn't start with proteins.

2) Evolution has been confirmed in great detail.


P.S. Your god's "name" is "Yahweh". The word "god" was around long before Christians usurped it.

NJR- YES! That is exactly the example i use!