This whole discussion of Gravity+EM is getting off topic, I don't understand what relevance it has to the Evolution discussion (or any biblical discussion). Since you seem keen to make it an issue, I'll follow up on your 'Gravity is nonsense' thread.
No of course I cannot apply Law or physics to 'evolution', 'evolution' is magic it can defy all observable phenomena, just look how it defies all odds, even infinite odds are no match for the magic word!
Again, you've yet to provide a reasonable example for what this observable phenomena is. I've explained one reason that your probability calculation is wrong because it assumes it is all equally random.
Pogrud said:
We're talking a huge amount of time though, so it's certainly not unfeasable.
That's right just extend the amount of time and if it goes past infinity, just cast probability out the window and believe, believe because that's what they told you in school, that's what the text book said, that's what National Geographic magazine says, Discovery Channel says so, it must be true, no one would lie would they?
I'm not sure you understand what infinity is. It's not possible to go beyond infinity. Besides, the period I'm talking about is billions of years - a finite number, and certainly a number within our comprehension.
Pogrud said:
Evolution also indicates that we didn't necessarily have to be exactly as we are today
You saved the best till last...that really is the crux of it isn't it, really gets to the core of secular post-modernism; just start from the basis that what you observe presently as not being true, because evolution 'indicates' that it must be something else!
I don't think my statement means what we observe isn't true. I had meant, that there is no reason why we needed to be exactly as we are today. We could have been taller, had less hair, had longer limbs, thicker skin etc. Your calculation for the probability of evolution, assumes we could not be any otherway. The heart of evolution, implies we COULD have turned out differently.
Pogrud said:
Firstly, the possibliity of a dinosaur being described does not imply evolution doesn't exist. Suppose it were a dinosaur, it only suggests humans and dinosaurs may have overlapped.
Which evolution seems to insist as a fact that dinosaurs were wiped out way before man came unto the scene as in hundreds of millions of years gap.
Truly wonder by that gap if even fossilized bones would still be remaining today because how time and the elements can erode even rocks presently.
Yes, science (not evolution!) has evidence of such a gap. For the sake of following your agrument though, I said 'suppose'. Geology indicates that new layers of sediments are created on top of old ones (from things like decaying organisms, dust, volcanoes etc). That's why we need to dig down to go further back in history, and find fossils. It wasn't that someone was kind enough to dig them all graves. Some materials are eroded, whilst others are created. Even the eroded material has to go somewhere. Fossils are rocks, it takes a long time to create such rocks. These are reasons why fossils can be so old and not all be eroded (although some certainly have been).
Lotus leaves? Where did you get that? What Bible version are you using?...Anmd the tail moving like a cedar which is a tree points to size.
That's from the American Standard Version. Both the plants and the tail description vary between versions. The 'tail like cedar' has been translated into "moved", "swayed", "carried" or "straight". I don't think you could deduce what the creature is from that with any certainty.
If it was taken in 1925, then as we know of dying rare species in the earth, so are the dinosaurs, obviously.
Sorry, are you saying there were dinosaurs in 1925?
Hello Pogrod,
I don't focus very much on scientific arguments for creationsim (I think I mentioned why earlier), but the best evidence I've seen has been in referring to bacterium flagellum. Some extreme applications of this have been debunked, but the core statemen that evolution is currently unable to explain the development of this locomotive device is still valid I believe.
Does this point to God? Not necessarily.
Does it say that the theory of evolution by natural selection may have flaws? Yes.
A good question
Dragoon9. You're quite right, Bacterial Flagellum up until the 90s was held up as being a possible counter example to evolution as something that could not have been formed by successive modifications. At that time it was a reasonable case. To put it in context though, it's evolutionary path was not studied in much detail until creationists began highlighting it as a counter example. Since then there has been research that indicates a common ancestor - something to do with T3SS proteins. This and other research indicates there are snapshots along such a evolutionary path, which considerably weakens its case as a counter example. It does not however YET explain the precise route taken. Further detail is probably beyond this forum, but if you want to read more, there is a short New Scientist article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...the-evolution-of-the-bacterial-flagellum.html