Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2019, 10:26:44 PM

Quote from: Astargath on March 28, 2019, 10:11:43 PM

Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2019, 11:03:04 AM

Quote from: Astargath on March 28, 2019, 09:50:52 AM

Quote from: BADecker on March 28, 2019, 02:47:47 AM

^^^ LOL! It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened, would make the 13.5 billion-year-old universe, millions of times too short for evolution to even get going.

And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years old that the Bible says, evolutionists are the laughingstock.

Either way, evolution is simply a passing philosophy... or for people like af_newbie who are serious about it - a religion.

Cool

''And if the universe happens to be only the less than 10,000 years '' Science already proved it's not using dozens of different methods. - Science never proved such. And they even state it by calling their own calculations "theory." All science has done is to formulate ideas that interpret observations in ways that they want, not in ways that are necessarily factual.

''It doesn't take much of a scientist at all, to figure out that the odds for the complexity involved in evolution to have happened'' That was already debunked and I linked it several times but your alzheimers is affecting you again, http://answers-in-reason.com/religion/mathematical-impossibility-evolution-debunked/ - Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.

Again, badecker, you can't win, science always wins.

Since your points destroy themselves, there isn't anything to win.

Cool

One of them it's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating and it's not a theory, even if it was a scientific theory, I know you have no problem believing in gravity, do you? That's a scientific theory too btw.

''Again, your debunking has to do with limited, circular thinking. And it is based on old data.'' Nope, ''the mathematical impossibility'' of evolution is based on old and wrong data as shown in that link and many more.

Now you are starting to sound like notbatman in his flat earth thread. Gravity is not a theory. It is a fact, used by everyone every day of his life (except for folks on the ISS, of course). Gravity theory is the theory, not gravity fact.

As I said in my previous post. New findings regarding the complexity of life show us that random chance can't bring about evolution in anything near the scientifically accepted age of the universe. But that is only if evolution happenstance worked the way that evolutionist say that it does.

The fact of the matter is that evolutionists have it backward. How? Because they avoid the increase in the things that would destroy evolution, but focus on the things that increase evolution. In other words, the longer you roll the dice, the more chance you have to roll a particular sequence. But the greater the chances that you won't roll that particular sequence at the same time.

Evolution is a complete fantasy hoax.

Cool

''New findings regarding the complexity of life show us that random chance can't bring about evolution'' Where are these new findings, can you link it?

As the post above said, gravity is a scientific theory but I'm sure you know that, you simply ignore it on purpose because it fits your argument, as usual.