Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

Elephants can fly. That they do fly in the skies is the leading idea how airplanes were developed. And it has , and I mean the idea has a lot of evidence to support the fact that elephants do indeed fly and such evidence far outweighs any empty rhetoric that elephants can't fly.

The theory about flying elephants has withsdoot 50000 years of testing.
Cavemen who inscrbed on rocks some creatures reminiscent of flying elephants didn't know that airplanes will some day exist but airplanes just confirm that elephants can fly and that cavemen were right. The idea about flying elephants and airplanes benefited and will continue to do so to humankind in a very practical sense.

http://www.flyingelephants.org/
But really what's the point some people just going to say MEH whatever

 

I don't know why a i posted in this trend i mean its like talking to a brick wall, anyways am of to bed good day to u sir when u find an alternative lets us know.

 

There is no alternative ,scientifically valid theory about origins and development of life, but non existence of alternative theory doesn't make existing one valid.
Talk about brick walls

 

Dammit cant sleep but hey a I have a nice e.g.

So Joey comes wondering a bout and say hey u still using windows operating system.
I say sure.
Joe says well u know it haves some flaws.
I say yeah I know but hey its still does the job well enuf.
Joe says well it has some bad code u should delete it.
I say yeah ok am up for that u have anything in mind to replace it.
Joe says no its bad practice just delete it.
I say well how am I going to run my machine I have 90% working great but
Joe says 0% is better.
I say well until u are going to present me with an alternative operating system like Linux or whatever I will never delete my existing windows its insane cant u see that Joe is crazy

 

Yeah, the problem is that Darwin's Theory is 0% valid , not that there is even remotest chance of it being a workable theory.

Why don't you go to sleep?

 

I need to go to bed now haven't slept in a loaaang time drugs are bad kids just say NO.
BTW is there anything in the world that could actually change ur view on this Evoliution thing-.-

 

All it takes to convince me that the theory is scientifically valid is some relevant evidence and plausible argument to support it.

Take Probability Theory, for instance.
That theory is a pure abstraction, calculated and represented by numbers.
However, there is a strong evidence for it (if you roll dice all day long and take a note of all combinations, the actual sequence of those random events will correspond well with statistical patterns that you can calculate using the mathematical formula).

Little more ambiguous is the Big Bang theory, and frankly I am somewhat sceptical of it , however it does work in terms of math (which ,if not directly representative of manifestations of matter is still based on actual knowledge about the behavior of same and accounts for events up to the Plank epoch, beyond which all formulas collapse and stop producing meaningful numbers).
Despite it's shortcomings I consider Big Bang theory to be scientifically valid theory (it is far fetched theory but not entirely improbable or impossible, therefore I consider it to be scientifically valid theory).

It is not so with Darwin's theory about origins of species. The fallacy of it becomes evident the very first instant you examine it with critical mind. I have yet to see anyone who would venture to methodically prove it's scientific validity while addressing all the reasonable critisism aimed against it's fundamental premises.

Now why should I change my mind if there is neither evidence nor proof to a claim that it is a scientifically valid theory?

 

First of all, jumbuli, I call "troll". But I'll play your game, since I feel like it.

You say you don't find the evidence for evolutionary theory sufficient. What, exactly, do you find lacking? What is this "self-evident fallacy" which we should see?

 

There are 10 more pages where I have answered this qurestion 50 times already.

 

Hehe jumbuli ur are a lost cause.
There will never be absolute proof and for that matter there will never be a perfect theory we just have to except that.

 

I do see the lost cause here and it's evident that it is not mine but of those who claim that Darwin's religious theory of evolution is the scientifically valid one.

There is not only a lack of absolute proof , but there is a lack of ANY proof whatsoever.

And despite any unsubstantiated claim to the contrary it is PROVEN by PHD from MIT to be improbable and utterly impossible for events to occur as envisioned by Darwin's theory.

Ergo there is no way this theory can be accepted by any reasonable mind as a scientifically valid theory.

 

Fine, I will read the thread. Preface: Evolution should not be "proven". If it were "proven", it would never change. Scientific theories should always be open to change - gravity is still called the "Gravitational Theory". Yet it is widely accepted as a good explanation because it correlates with visible reality, as far as we know. Which is the best, and all, that the scientific method can do.

You say the burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion, so my assertion is this: Organisms can and do create offspring which differ from themselves. Given enough generations, organisms can arise which are markedly different from those it is descended from. It may or may not be able to produce valid offspring were it to mate (in this case, a sexually reproducing species) with an individual which more closely resembles its "ancient" (for lack of a better word - time has little to do with this) form. I am not interested in the past - you are obviously not satisfied with fossils, because there is no unbroken chain of fossils. Agreed, there isn't. It isn't necessary to see that chain to see that generations of organisms, descended from one another, can differ. It has happened in our lifetimes. See: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33232#__secid139007

Notice I do not use the word "species". The concept of a "species" is poorly understood. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that the definition of "species" which you go by precludes inter-species mating. The reality is, inter-species mating happens often, both in plants and in animals. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7834107 , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4766217.stm , also http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1505/2805.full . In light of this, this quote here:

becomes nonsensical on several counts. I am not asking you to answer these questions, unless you feel you must. You have read the book, I haven't, so ask yourself: What is his definition of "species"? What is an "information gaining mutation"? If it is what I assume its name means, what about mutations which involve loss of traits? We are not told how long this "long shot" is to be carried out over, either. "2.7 x 10^(-2739)" what? The odds that a "new species" will arise after.. how long? It's a nonsensical number. Is it the odds of a new species being born from parents of another species, instantaneously? That is not evolutionary theory. Number of births per evolutionary step? He's deciding what an evolutionary step is now, too? They're not all the same size or complexity - "wings" are a whole order of magnitude away in complexity from "pesticide resistance".

This doesn't answer the question. This argument of "odds" has nothing to do with his original question - how is the mutation of influenza strains and other diseases not evidence that species can and do change?

Just because something is a Statistical Analysis does not make it truth. Statistical analyses require human interpretation in two places - setting up the analysis, and the interpreting the results. They are not infallible, particularly so if one has one's definitions skewed.

"Why do we have tail bones?" "We don't know" - science is about coming up with the best explanation, until a better one can be found. Currently, the best scientific explanation for the existence of tail bones in humans is that we are descended from organisms which had tails, but lost them, for whatever reason. Natural selection, random, it doesn't matter - manx cats are a good example of a similar mutation occurring: isolated populations of tail-less cats exist both on the Isle of Man and a small peninsula in Denmark. See "Founder effect", here. Natural selection does not mean that "only advantageous traits will evolve". Natural selection is given far greater weight in evolution arguments than it should.

"That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance." Can we agree that the source of life is not known? The statement "Organisms evolve, change, and adapt through generations of change, both incremental and not-so-incremental" has nothing to do with the ultimate origin of life. Whether God created it, it landed here on an impacting comet/asteroid, or it arose chemically, it doesn't matter. My point is that arguing that "God created the world in 7 days, with all the animals as they are" is a very blind, unsupported, argument. I am not saying you are arguing this - you are not. If your ultimate complaint is that we know little of the origin of life, I will agree with you on that point.

"Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so." This is like asking me to prove that the light from the sun really did take 8 minutes to reach us. We can't measure the age of light, but we can extrapolate. Knowing the mechanisms of smaller-scale evolution, until a more complete theory is put forth, we extrapolate that micro-evolution, on a large time scale, becomes macro-evolution. This is the way science works.

"In this series, each mutation must have a higher selective value than the previous." Misinterpretation of evolutionary theory. Traits need not be beneficial to establish themselves - see Manx cats comment. Furthermore, traits don't exist in a vacuum, they are interrelated with other traits.Example: blue eyes in humans. Blue eyes are often paired with fair skin and hair, yet it is not blue eyes which were "selected for", it was the skin color. Blue eyes accompany the lighter skin color of Northern populations because skin color = melanin production, which also affects eye color. The whole concept of a "trait" is misleading, in this context. Blue eyes and fair skin are clearly two separate "traits", yet they are related and must be considered as so. Without the knowledge that skin color influences eye color, it would appear that the development of blue eyes in humans contradicts "evolution" because it is not beneficial.

I will repeat myself, to summarize: The evidence for change in organisms, from generation to generation of inheritence, is there (see above. I'm not talking about "macro-evolution" here). You say statistics, math, our current knowledge of genetics, disproves this. There is the (in)famous example of a mathematician claiming that his calculations showed bee flight to be impossible, by the laws of physics. Yet, bees can and do fly. He made that assertion in 1934. We know know much more about aerodynamics and flight mechanisms, and can calculate the physics behind the flight of a bee. If the math does not reflect reality, the math must be incorrect.

One more thing:

Credentials have nothing to do with being right or wrong. They make one appear to be more qualified to make a statement, but if an argument is wrong, it is wrong, no matter who puts it forth.

 

If you make a claim you must prove it or else you have no claim.
If someone claims that theory of evolution is scientifically valid theory they must prove that their claim is valid, or else they have no claim.
Simple as that.

Again, what you or others claim is that the theory of evolution is a scientifically valid theory.

For theory to be scientifically valid it has to conform to known evidence, some observations in nature and plausible argument to support it's premises.

But that is not the case with theory of evolution, as it is with other, scientifically valid theories.

I posted this earlier, but evidently you haven't read it , so here is a copy-paste:

All it takes to convince me that the theory is scientifically valid is some relevant evidence and plausible argument to support it.

Take Probability Theory, for instance.
That theory is a pure abstraction, calculated and represented by numbers.
However, there is a strong evidence for it (if you roll dice all day long and take a note of all combinations, the actual sequence of those random events will correspond well with statistical patterns that you can calculate using the mathematical formula).

Little more ambiguous is the Big Bang theory, and frankly I am somewhat sceptical of it , however it does work in terms of math (which ,if not directly representative of manifestations of matter is still based on actual knowledge about the behavior of same and accounts for events up to the Plank epoch, beyond which all formulas collapse and stop producing meaningful numbers).
Despite it's shortcomings I consider Big Bang theory to be scientifically valid theory (it is far fetched theory but not entirely improbable or impossible, therefore I consider it to be scientifically valid theory).

It is not so with Darwin's theory about origins of species. The fallacy of it becomes evident the very first instant you examine it with critical mind. I have yet to see anyone who would venture to methodically prove it's scientific validity while addressing all the reasonable critisism aimed against it's fundamental premises.

Now why should I change my mind if there is neither evidence nor proof to a claim that it is a scientifically valid theory?

Of course they do, within the frame of limited variability, as far as we observe.

Even human children are not exactly identical clones of their parents.
Many a wise men had imbecile children who ruined themselves and their country.Many imbeciles had wise children who brought glory to themselves and those around them (Take, for example, historical example of Charles V the Wise, Charles VI the Mad and Charles VII the Victorious, direct descendant of two).

And what does it prove?

Given HOW MANY generations? HOW LONG time it would take ? What markedly different characteristics are we talking about? (Be precise, show the numbers, explain the method of calculation employed, give evidence of a short term change based on which you project the possibility of those occuring in the long term).

As I wrote earlier What about toxin resistance within species that have poison in them? How does it prove that the most complex form of life evolved from most primitive by random chance , mutation and natural selection of better adopted organisms ?

Can you also quantitatively prove it ?
In terms of required time span, how does it fit within the known age of fossils and even entire lifespan of our planet?
Are you familiar with the concept, such as Probability Theory?
Do you know what , for each evolutionary step forward, is the number of total combinations/possibilities out of which, by pure chance and in random basis, one would be a "lucky" number to make even infinitely small advance on evolutionary ladder? Do you know in what geometric proportions those numbers increase as the complexity of organism increases?
Do you know how many of those steps it would take for life to evolve , just by random chance, from simple one cell to fully devoleped human being?
Do you know what an unimaginable magnitute of number such calculation would produce, that even thousands of trillions of years would not be enough to accomplish what is claimed by Darwin to have happened in mere few billions of years?
Do you even know or understand what is being questioned here?
Do you know that this is aside from other inconsistencies in the theory, as it is related to passage of information and gain of information or alleged improvement due to changes forced by external forces?



I can say all day long that "Given enough hands to play a game of cards one can amass a great fortune , ergo you must believe that someone has won 6000 hands per day, for 6000 days in the row, and that just how it happened for there is no other explanation how the player could get so much money by any other means".
Duh...

This is a mere wordplay , designed to confuse unwitting reader more than present a plausible argument to support your view.

The main problem with fossils is:

As I wrote in my earlier posts (And you still claim to have read it? )

As to fossils, you just lack any so called evidence of evolution in it (contrary to widespread claims of hoax perpetrators) and whenever challenged about it all you say is "but of course we can't have an evidence , as required, because A) fossils are too rare and uniquie in the first place , B) any fossil is transitory anyway", well then why even bother to mention fossils and claim they are "evidence of evolution" ? And yes , every fossil could be transitional , just as any point between point C and D is transitional, but where does the reasoning come from that there is a linear connection between two? What if point C has nothing whatsoever to do with D ? How do you know D has sprung from C or that both have come from common E?
Just where the reasoning, the argument come from?

No , it does not become nonsensical because you cleverly attempt to confuse unwitting reader.
You may try to perpetrate hoax all you want and many naive readers may fall for it for they do not possess logical capacity to sharply cut through mountain of your trickery and wordplays.

But it is not the case with me. I am a great genius and I can see clearly the game you are playing and I can easily point out how incoherent your arguments sound once we apply critical reasonaning and our cognitive skills analyzing it.

As Spetner wrote in his book:

"The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Hahahaha You do have a sense of humor, even though you lack brains to argue with me on logical grounds.

The main subject is scientific validity of Theory of Evolution and it's claim that the most complex organisms developed from the most primitive spontaniously, by random chance mutations and through natural selection and it has everything to do with Probability Theory.

The rate of mutation and range of change occuring in influenza strains prove none of the major claims of Darwinists, and if you claim it does then you must also quantitatively analyze and prove so.

As I wrote earlier, in responce to similar claim by another poster:

What about toxin resistance within species that have poison in them? How does it prove that the most complex form of life evolved from most primitive by random chance , mutation and natural selection of better adopted organisms ?

Can you also quantitatively prove it ?
In terms of required time span, how does it fit within the known age of fossils and even entire lifespan of our planet?
Are you familiar with the concept, such as Probability Theory?
Do you know what , for each evolutionary step forward, is the number of total combinations/possibilities out of which, by pure chance and in random basis, one would be a "lucky" number to make even infinitely small advance on evolutionary ladder? Do you know in what geometric proportions those numbers increase as the complexity of organism increases?
Do you know how many of those steps it would take for life to evolve , just by random chance, from simple one cell to fully devoleped human being?
Do you know what an unimaginable magnitute of number such calculation would produce, that even thousands of trillions of years would not be enough to accomplish what is claimed by Darwin to have happened in mere few billions of years?
Do you even know or understand what is being questioned here?
Do you know that this is aside from other inconsistencies in the theory, as it is related to passage of information and gain of information or alleged improvement due to changes forced by external forces?

Right, now since you are the one making the claim that theory is valid, you are also obliged to prove it and in the meantime show us what the flaws of statistical analysis employed by Spetner were?
Be very precise!

Exactly, we DO NOT KNOW.

Right, but explanation it comes with can not contradict the very basis on which it is founded.

If you claim a certain change at certain rate produces new organism, your claim must also confirm with the know lifespan of organisms, with known rate at which mutations occur in organism, with known age of planet during which you claim X number of mutations and changes occured that then were naturally selected and etc.


You say "James won 6000 hands a day playing cards/game of chance and he did so successfully for 6000 days in the a row".
Well ,the natural question is what were the odds of James winning even a one hand in a game like that?
How many games , in average, would he have to play to win just one hand?
What are the statistical probabilities of someone winning 6000 hands a day at such rate?
How many hands/games would he have to play to get that result?
Is there enough time in 24 hrs to play so many hands as to win 6000 of them, even if James had superhuman ability to play non-stop?
This leaves aside the question of how much more resourses than won would James necessarily need to possess to keep gambling for 6000 days in a row at 6000 hands won per day?

Alternatively, you say "James has amassed a fortune of 100 trillion dollars in a matter of 6000 days. There is no scientific data, no evidence, no way of knowing how he got so much of a great fortune, ergo we must assume he won it all in a game of chance. And guess what? 6000 in a row is just a long enough time for James to have played enough hands to win $100 trillions of dollars, even though there is no way in the world we can show you how it happened.
So, despite it's being at odds with mathematical calculation of probabilities of winning so much in so short time in a game of chance, it must still has happened so because we just can't imagine and come up with any other explanation how James could get $100 trillions".


Very convincing theory, and scientifically valid one, isn;t it?

I already addressed this.

See above and earlier replies.

It's not there. Nothing is there except empty rheotic and claim "this is proven fact because it's a proven fact" all the while you produce neither proof nor plausible argument to support your claim.
All you show is handwaving technique and wordplay aimed at distorting and confusing unwitting reader, but neither proves your claim and neither makes Darwin's theory of evolution a scientifically valid one.

I agree about instances where math does not reflect empirically observable events , or instances where mathematical formulas collapse and stop to produce meaningful numbers (it happens in quantum physics and relativistic calculations all the time. Try to calculate the state/condition of matter before Planck epoch, see if you can come up with anything useful).

But such instances do not cancel out nor negate other instances where math does work, does produce accurate, meaningful , reliable numbers and give us useful statistical prediction of future or past events (take very relevant Probability Theory for example).

Of course, credentials alone have nothing to do with being right or wrong.
It would be inverse ad hominem argument if I claimed that Spetner is right in his calculation MERELY BECAUSE he has PHD in physics from MIT, no matter how incompatible with Probabilistic Theory his calculations might be.

But I never made such a claim and if you know math better than Spetner then sure, go ahead and show us the fallacy of his quantitative analysis (I don't think you will have any success doing it, but you may try).

It is in fact Darwinists who, as long as I can recall, keep referring to some mythical mountain of "evidence" presented by such and such scientific name or circles as a major "proof" of scientific validity of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

Most don't even comprehend what Darwin's theory implies or what the premises of so called theory are and it becomes evident as soon as they are challenged to produce any relevant evidence or plausible argument to support their claims.

In responce to inquiry they just keep on repeating the same mantra like "this is so because it has already been proven so and so by so and so and that's why it is so" and it just goes on in circles and forever.

 

Darwin's version of the theory is limited. I do not consider myself a "Darwinist" - putting it that way implies some element of belief or faith.

You seem far too hung up on several things. One, names. I don't even want to count how many times you use the words "Darwin", "Darwinist", "Spetner" and other such trigger words. The fact that you keep referring to Darwin so much shows how much research you have done, i.e., none. Anyone who calls themself a Darwinist has become caught up in the unfortunate sweep of rhetoric and bias that so pervades this argument. It's not about Darwin, , it's not about taking sides, it's about seeing evidence and drawing conclusions from it. Darwin was the first to draw the conclusion, but he was not 100% correct.

Two, numbers. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough: the numbers in these "probability calculations" don't matter. If the math doesn't match observed reality, such as in pre-Planck epoch Big Bang calculations, that simply means your math cannot, in its current state, describe reality. You made no comment when I said that Probability Theory is highly interpretive. I can create a mathematical system that "proves" whatever I want, if I set up my definitions (in)correctly.

I have provided concrete examples, links to peer-reviewed studies, and what do you provide? One author's words. Not once do you specifically counter an example I have given, you repeat the same argument, and claim that I am the one doing the hand-waving. You feel personally invested in this argument. I'm sure you have been insulted many times. So much so that you feel the need to ad hominem me. I'm sorry you feel that way. Please read my post and tell me if I ever personally attacked you or your intelligence.

 

So many words and so little substance.
In other words, all you wrote above is a mere digression.

Now would you please come up with plausible argument to support your point that Darwin's theory of evolution is scientifically valid one ?

 

It is a digression, but it has a point. The point being, I have answered you, to the best of my ability. For this I get insulted and repeated to, but not specifically responded to. I have the decency not to repeat myself, because in the end it just looks like trolling.

 

You don't have to answer me.

But if you claim that theory of evolution , which is founded by Darwin and hasn't changed it's fundamental premises since, is scientifically valid theory you also are obliged to prove your claim.

Either that, or you don't have a claim to begin with.

 

I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head. I had a similar go-around with Mr. Jumboli on another thread having nothing to do with evolution, in which he intruded with his "evolution is not a valid theory" claim because I made an offhand reference to Darwin and then, when I said yes it is, proceeded with his "the burden is on you to prove it because you asserted it" line. Obviously, the argument could go on forever, since he dismisses refereed books and articles as "hearsay". Evidently, by proving it, he wants us to go dig up the missing link! His own case seems to be built around Spetner's book, which he thinks is the definitive statement on neo-Darwinism, Spetner having a Ph.D. from MIT and therefore being infallible. When I pointed out that Spetner irrationally believes that his own theory of non-random mutation is derivable from the Talmud, Jumboli accused me of an ad hominem attack, but it's apparently okay to tout Spetner's academic credentials in support of his theory. To continue arguing with Jumboli would have completely hijacked the thread--a point which he seems unable to get.

 

I don't think so.

Yeah, you started it.

That's right, you made claim and I called on it.

Of course! What do you expect? That you can simply say something is so because you said so?
Hm...

I dismiss "there are tons of hard, empirical evidence" sort of arguments where none is actually prsented. What books exactly are you referring to?
What chapter, what page? Who wrote it?


Next, I present you with very strong argument that discredits fundamental premises of the Darwin's theory of evolution, and what do you respond with?
Nothing really, except "I have faith that Darwin's theory is valid".

Well, if you have faith in it, then we don't have an argument.
Faith is a religious feeling and has nothing to do with science and scientific validity of the theory.

No that's not what i asked for. Why don't you read what I write before responding to some imaginary , nonexistent poster who allegedly asked you to do such things?

All I request is some relevant evidence and plausible argument.

And as I repeatedly said, I do accept Bing Bang theory as a scientifically valid theory, even though I don't think it's 100% correct in it's assumptions (could very well be found to be erroneous some day) , but at least it does make sense tand it does correspond well with known properties of the matter and you can actually calculate it back to the Planck epoch.

It is NOT so with Darwin's theory which collapses the very first moment you critically analyze it (for reasons I clearly outlined in numerous posts before).

I don't even have to have a case built.
It is you who is obliged to prove your case since you are the one who made the claim.
That's just the way it is, whether you find it convenient or not.
If you make claim you must prove it or else you don't have a claim to begin with.

I never said such a thing. Unlike Darwinists, I don't think anyone is infallible and I don't say the Probability Theory is right because Spetner used it in his calculations.

I think Probability Theory is verifiably accurate within accepted margin of error (Just go on , roll the dice all day long, record the combinations and then compare overall results with mathematically calculated prediction, you will get a good match, I can tell that).

And since the fundamental premise of Darwin's theory is that all life had advanced from most primitive forms to most advanced by sheer chance , random mutation and natural selection, the Probability Theory then is very relevant to determining just how likely it was for those mutations and advances to occure in a given, limited timeframe.

Because that's exactly what it was - an ad hominem argument.

Apparently you don't read what I write, instead you make up whatever and however you please , however just because you make up things doesn't mean things are really so.
Just like the case is with Darwin's theory.

Then why are you arguing in the first place?

 

Hopeless. Interesting (and appropriate) that most of your postings are in the Mindfuck forum.