THE LATER ASSUMES 7 PAIRS OF BEETLES.WRONG AGAIN!Please provide your math.
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
-
-
hooberus
-
-
-
hooberus
SO YOU BELIEVE FROM A PAIR OF BEETLES, 7,000 SPECIES A YEAR ARE BEING PROUCED?
Compare this with your earlier statement:IT THERE WERE ONLY 350,000 SPECIES AND ONLY ONE PAIR OF BEETLES,87 DIFFERENT SPECIES WOULD HAVE TO PRODUCE EVERY YEAR.
-
-
-
hooberus
HOOBERUS,WRONG AGAIN.
When was I wrong to begin with?I AM ASSUMING THERE ARE ONLY 350,000 SPECIES.
Yes, and I discussed assumption calculations with that number also, (as well your earlier number of 30 million species).
-
-
-
hooberus
IT THERE WERE ONLY 350,000 SPECIES AND ONLY ONE PAIR OF BEETLES,87 DIFFERENT SPECIES WOULD HAVE TO PRODUCE EVERY YEAR.
Let us also not forget that 1.) all the species need not descend directly from the original pair (and could have also come about from their descendents, and their descendants descendants, etc, etc.), 2.) there could have been more than one pair to begin with. 3). bettles may not have even have been necessarily taken on the ark for survival, which would allow for possible pre-flood diversification time from many pairs.
-
-
-
hooberus
ONE PAIR OF BEETLES WOULD HAVE HAD TO PRODUCE 7,500 SPECIES A YEAR,ASSUMING THERE ARE 30 MILLION SPECIES.
FROM 7 PAIRS,ABOUT 1000 SPECIES A YEAR.
DOES THIS SOUND PLAUSIBLE?
No it doesn't sound plausible, however your calculation falsely assumes that:
1. there must only one pair of beetles to begin with, and 2. that all the species must descend directly from the original pair (rather than also from any of their descendents, and their descendants descendants, etc, etc.), and 3. that there are 30 million species of beetles today [up by a factor of about 100 from the previous claim here that there are only about 350,000 documented species of beetles]. -
5
90.9% of Intelligent Design trial Judges' ruling copied from ACLU
by hooberus in.
.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewdb/filesdb-download.php?command=download&id=1186.
-
-
hooberus
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/study_shows_federal_judged_cop.html
"Judge John Jones copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling," said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_response_to_darwinist_defend.html
-
5
90.9% of Intelligent Design trial Judges' ruling copied from ACLU
by hooberus in.
.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewdb/filesdb-download.php?command=download&id=1186.
-
-
-
-
-
hooberus
From a similar question:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4474/
but do you think that he had all 350,000 documented species of beetles?
No, because beetles and other invertebrates were not among the animals that Noah had to take, because they could survive off the Ark. Our core literature such as The Creation Answers Book explains this in ch. 13.
Or did speciation occur after this time?
Of course, and quicker than you think, but as shown, irrelevant to the first question. But it doesn’t look like you have anything more than an ill-informed strawman about what creationists mean by ‘kind’.
-
32
Society's latest stance on Evolution in Jan 1, 2008 WT (bonus quote mining)
by marmot inmy parents gave me the latest "public edition" watchtower and it has 4-page festival of circular logic and hypocritical quote-mining entitled "is evolution compatible with the bible?
the opening salvo is golden, because they go and shoot themselves in the foot with it later on: "is it possible that god used evolution to create men from beasts?
did god direct bacteria to develop into fish and then to continue developing through reptiles and mammals, so that finally a race of apes became humans?
-
-
-
22
Science v Creationism
by Mr Ben inscience v creationism.
i keep popping back here every now and then to see whats going on, and i have noticed that the same questions about science and creationism are continually posted and answered now, as they were when i first came here.
for example, the statement that the sun and not the earth is the centre of the solar system is a scientific statement (the heliocentric theory) that is considered valid because it explains a large body of evidence (facts from the real world).
-
-
hooberus
Hooberus,
1) the book you are referring to is NOT scientific.
2) That book makes completely false and ignorant statements of very well known genetic dynamics.
3) Your pseudo-scientific book contains opinions that in no way debunks any aspect of the biological evolution
theoryphenomena.Have you read it?
