Exactly my point, if I ask you how we got here, you say "we're here aren't we" that in itself is absolutely no help to the theory of evolution. That only comes if you believe evolution already, it is a circular argument.We wouldn't be here to wonder about it if it didn't happen. You can't go back and say OH, that was nearly impossible! Roll a 10 sided die 300 times if you must, the die isn't going to disappear in a puff of logic because the sequence you rolled was almost impossible. It was possible and it did happen.
As to Dr Unne's website, this guy is horribly biased and does things that he says we do. First of all, evolution is a theory which is unproven and even has little evidence for it's truth. (you can post a link on this if you want) This is not an argument of science against
creation (whatever you want to think), this is an argument of creation against evolution.
He says creationist say this and then uses this fallacy the other way around by attacking creationists who quite possibly have not formed their arguments/models perfectly. One thing I've noticed (and I'm not a biologist) is that almost all his arguments are based on the existence of this theoretical molecule that can reproduce itself chemically and make a cell. (if I misunderstood that part please correct me) I just want to say something about argument, an Ad Hominem argument is an argument that uses people to prove your beliefs. This is what he attempts to use. He basically says."I can list examples of incompetent scientists, therefore all scientists are incompetent, and all of science is worthless".
1. The creationists models are wrong.
Therefore
Creation is wrong.
This is fallacious even if he could prove #1. (which is impossible of course)
Now on to new earth/old earth. I think it is quite possible that time dilation could make the earth seem (to us) to be billions of years old, but this is not the main argument I care about anyways.
Also commonly used in evolutionary theory, but I won't count that against evolution so as not to make an Ad Hominem argument.Extrapolation is dangerous
If the mathematical proof and it's premises are true, then intelligent design has a 100% (the integer) chance of happening. Therefore the dice argument is irrelevant.We wouldn't be here to wonder about it if it didn't happen. You can't go back and say OH, that was nearly impossible! Roll a 10 sided die 300 times if you must, the die isn't going to disappear in a puff of logic because the sequence you rolled was almost impossible. It was possible and it did happen.
Sorry, but I couldn't help but cringe at this statement. You just said evolution was not a theory.It was possible and it did happen.
This is the only thing the site managed to prove. That the amino acid arguments do not show that evolution is impossible, but we already knew that. It didn't even sucessfully stop those arguments from discrediting evolution, because all it could prove is that those models are not necessarily good representations.
