Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Seriously, dude, you need to get more math and science in you. I have math and science if you need it, you can just dissolve it in a drink and down it. You will have more math and science in you in 24 hours, tops.

?

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by jfrog

?

Coadie said you don't have enough math or science, I am trying to help you get that.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Sabby

Don't remember the exact date, but a couple of years ago a federal court threw out a Creationism challenge in the public schools because the "scientific data" collected in their opinion was overwhelmingly AGAINST creation in 6 days (new earth theory). The presentation (what I heard from Sekulow) for our side (Creationism) was weak and too poorly put together in argument for it to have a favorable outcome. It's made it difficult to put up a Creationism challenge for balance in the classroom because of precedence and past practice. If it's to go to court again an entirely DIFFERENT tact will need to be used...
This is a plea to ANY christians in the LEGAL profession attempting to slay the dragon. Be totally prepared to rebut any and every argument in opposition with OVERWHELMING credible scientific testimony.
God bless our Christian lawyers and God give them them the wisdom to deal with the "children of mammon" as wisely as "a serpent", yet harmlessly as "a dove" while proclaiming TRUTH in the courts.

It is ironic that with a legal system in place to keep it out of schools, people still believe in special creation. They don't teach evolution in Med schools.
Don't teach creation in grade school. The absolutely best college in america for percentage of grads that get accepted in med school teaches creation.

Let keep the undereducated uninformed.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Coadie said you don't have enough math or science, I am trying to help you get that.

You claim to have a touch of science.

Your tissues produce a protein known as alpha-1-antitrypsin which binds to the active site of serine proteases found in tissues & restricts them. So, just as soon as clotting systems became strong enough, gene duplication would have presented natural selection with a workin protease inhibitor that could then evolve into antithrombin, a similar inhibitor that today blocks the action of the primary fibrinogen-cleaving protease, thrombin. The problem the Darwinists can't explain is the co development of anti thrombin and thrombin.
"
Now go read Behe and see his take on why clotting evolution couldn't take place. This is why we heparanize a patient before putting them on the pump.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Coadie said you don't have enough math or science, I am trying to help you get that.

Coadie can't even prove that when you square an odd number you will always get an odd number. (a simple math proof)

Coadie can't even solve a first order linear homogeneous ordinary differential equation with constant coefficients. (differential equations)

Coadie can't even prove that the set of all rational numbers are dense in the set of all real numbers. (introduction to numerical analysis)

Coadie can't even tell whether the set of all 2x2 matrices under the matrix multiplication operation forms an abelian group. (abstract algebra)

Coadie can't even find the eigenvalues for the matrix [2 1;1 2] (linear algebra)

Coadie can't even tell whether the series given by the summation of k from one to infinity of k^-1.01 converges. (Series are usually covered in depth in a calculus 2 or calculus 3 class)

However, the biggest slight to coadie isn't his lack of mathematics, its his reading/comprehension skills as evidenced by his claim that evolutionists say the first man and first woman were 50,000 years apart. Evolutionists don't say this. Coadie might wish they said this but they don't. Such a thing is so obviously non-sensible that I wonder how coadie can even suggest with a straight face that anyone except someone with a major mental defficiency could say it. Oh wait, I forgot that coadie thinks all evolutionists must have a major mental defficiency. I guess that explains it all in his mind. But the rest of you should really question how he can keep spouting off such nonsense.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Coadie can't even prove that when you square an odd number you will always get an odd number. (a simple math proof)

Coadie can't even solve a first order linear homogeneous ordinary differential equation with constant coefficients. (differential equations)

Coadie can't even prove that the set of all rational numbers are dense in the set of all real numbers. (introduction to numerical analysis)

Coadie can't even tell whether the set of all 2x2 matrices under the matrix multiplication operation forms an abelian group. (abstract algebra)

Coadie can't even find the eigenvalues for the matrix [2 1;1 2] (linear algebra)

Coadie can't even tell me whether the series given by the summation of k from one to infinity of k^-1.01 converges. (Series are usually covered in depth in a calculus 2 or calculus 3 class)

However, the biggest slight to coadie isn't his lack of mathematics, its his reading/comprehension skills.

Quants apply Markov chain Montecarlo Methods to test probabilities for random mutations on

Drosophila melanogaster After 1 million itterations, we still have fruit flies.

Which could also be stated as 10 to the 3 million 600’Th power (1 with 3,600,000 zeroes after it). These are the same odds that E Coli developed 12,000,000 right-handed nucleotides by chance without one left handed nucleotide being added.

Hoyle assumed that the primordial soup consisted only of left-handed amino acids. Hoyle knew that if the soup consisted of equal portions of right and left-handed amino acids, then the mathematical probability of the origin of pure left-handed proteins would be exactly zero.



But the crackpot religion of Darwinism says with faith, all mutations developed new forms and structures.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Coadie can't even prove that when you square an odd number you will always get an odd number. (a simple math proof)

Coadie can't even solve a first order linear homogeneous ordinary differential equation with constant coefficients. (differential equations)

Coadie can't even prove that the set of all rational numbers are dense in the set of all real numbers. (introduction to numerical analysis)

Coadie can't even tell whether the set of all 2x2 matrices under the matrix multiplication operation forms an abelian group. (abstract algebra)

Coadie can't even find the eigenvalues for the matrix [2 1;1 2] (linear algebra)

Coadie can't even tell whether the series given by the summation of k from one to infinity of k^-1.01 converges. (Series are usually covered in depth in a calculus 2 or calculus 3 class)

However, the biggest slight to coadie isn't his lack of mathematics, its his reading/comprehension skills as evidenced by his claim that evolutionists say the first man and first woman were 50,000 years apart. Evolutionists don't say this. Coadie might wish they said this but they don't. Such a thing is so obviously non-sensible that I wonder how coadie can even suggest with a straight face that anyone except someone with a major mental defficiency could say it. Oh wait, I forgot that coadie thinks all evolutionists must have a major mental defficiency. I guess that explains it all in his mind. But the rest of you should really question how he can keep spouting off such nonsense.

Evolutionists are dishonest. The creationby evolution fairy tale isn't truth. it is just a story. Fairy tale for adults.

Mitochondrial Eve
Jfrog also has this little quirk that says he can't quote me accurately

Do you know what a mitochondrial eve is?

Passed down from mother to offspring, all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in every living person is directly descended from hers. Mitochondrial Eve is the female counterpart of Y-chromosomal Adam, the patrilineal most recent common ancestor, although they lived thousands of years apart.

wiki says

So the Mitochondrial eve and Adam are 50,000 years appart. That means evolutionists can't adopt the concept of a biblical Adam and Eve.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

Evolutionists are dishonest. The creationby evolution fairy tale isn't truth. it is just a story. Fairy tale for adults.

Mitochondrial Eve
Jfrog also has this little quirk that says he can't quote me accurately

Do you know what a mitochondrial eve is?

wiki says

So the Mitochondrial eve and Adam are 50,000 years appart. That means evolutionists can't adopt the concept of a biblical Adam and Eve.

Logic! Use Logic. If Mitochondrial Eve and Adam are the MOST RECENT common ancestors then that has no bearing on who our MOST ANCIENT or FIRST human common male and female ancestors were.

Again, its simple reading comprehension coadie.

[Aquila]

I believe that evolution is a scientific theory that is accompanied by a humanistic philosophy. In my mind a "religion" or "cult" is focused on a body of spiritual teachings. A philosophy is a theoretical way of interpreting the world around you and relating to it. In my opinion, evolution appears to be more of a philosophy rather than a religion.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Logic! Use Logic. If Mitochondrial Eve and Adam are the MOST RECENT common ancestors then that has no bearing on who our MOST ANCIENT or FIRST human common male and female ancestors were.

Again, its simple reading comprehension coadie.

Then they wouldn't be your ancestors would they. They be merely ancient.
You dont grasp the concept of (common ancestor)

You also seem to be clueless on the definition of Mitochondrial Eve.