How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability?
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by Idaho_Shooter
And the Earth was flooded with fresh water about 4000 yrs ago,
1: Where did all the salt water fishes come from?
2: How did all of the millions of terrestrial species of mammals, reptiles, and birds survive the flood?
3: Why are not all humans still black?
This is a convoluted argument. Evolution can be proven to be a myth because it cannot be scientifically demonstrated how random process can spontaneously generate the whole cosmos, whether you believe in the Genesis account or not. So until you accept that evolution is a myth on scientific grounds it is pointless to discuss all that we do not exactly know about how certain things developed over time. When you recognize the scientific fallacy of the theory of evolution, and remove that obstruction as an apriori, then your mind is cleared of the obstructions to intelligent design. No one will ever be able to completely explain how an infinite cosmos came into existence and development with our finite capacities.
Can you show the math you base your God-based Creation hypothesis is correct? If you cannot, then we will have to assume that it is only on faith, again, that you base your entire argument that God did it.
Well first of all the thread is about whether evolution is a myth, and evolution states that it is based wholly on science. But science cannot prove evolution as a starting point, so it fails.
To entertain the question ... Some things are proven by deduction and positive evidence. Mathematical calculations make it quite clear that the first existence needs to be an uncaused first cause and a miraculous beginning. So yes I have faith in what the evidence shows whereas in your position you have doubt in what the evidence shows. In this case there is far more scientific evidence for faith than doubt.
So we can assume that you probably have not looked into the assumptions and the math based on those assumptions.
Was hoping you would be able to defend your position with a real mathematical proof.
Far smarter people than you or I have shown that the mathematical calculations are not possible to prove the negative--but the same mathematical conundrum would support the positive. That's not too hard to deduce.
