As already pointed out -- the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God. If you think the scientific evidence suggests otherwise please provide the mathematical calculations which show it to be a logical and statistical probability on the grand scale of the universe. If successful, you will be a better man than others who have tried and failed. This thread poses the question as to why some would suppose evolution to be a myth and I have given my scientific reasons and those reasons have never been refuted with science. The question of the existence of God and the myth of evolution does not hinge on goat herders or mad or prejudiced scientists--it merely hinges on the evidence that relates to the question that was posed.
It is not being pointed out that - ''the mathematical, logical and statistical evidence all require a self-existent eternal Designer to bring things miraculously into existence because science proves that it cannot happen any other way. All the evidence is there to logically require the existence of God'' - that is something that is being claimed and asserted. A false assertion.
It has been pointed out that this claim is false and the reasons why it is false have been given. Yet the claim is repeated and asserted time and time again regardless.
''A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.
Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that evolution couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.''
''Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false''
"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.
"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.''
This still doesn't help the cause any because it simply follows one track of change. How does the whole universe come into being in the right state at the right time to support all the interdependent life structures and the environment itself which needs to be finely tuned to support life. Those studies only demonstrate that they cannot address the whole issue because they are stupefied by trying to address one minuscule part of minutia and making it work. It doesn't matter when you start evolution after the Big Bang--it still has the same unsolvable problems.
It does more than just follw one track of change. Evolutionary theory explores the mechanisms of evolution, genetic, epigenetic, molecular, etc, the environment driving adaption and change - none of which indicates special creation or the hand of 'God' at work, just life forns adapting to their environmental niche or role in the ecosystem.
If the hand of God (whatever that is) is at work, that needs to be shown, not just claimed or asserted.
And it lacks the explanation of how or why it started spontaneously and how it brought all the right conditions into play when needed in order for the most simple cell to survive--all within a random context of random processes. Please explain how that occurred and the mathematical probability of it occurring. The logic being used to defend this proposition also has random strains which are not tying in with logic.
