CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Evolution is anything but random and there are several mathematical models that describe the process. The most fundamental is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation. It is the primary mathematical null hypothesis for evolutionary theory and describes allele frequencies with the equation:
pΒ² + 2pq + qΒ² = 1
Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a"
The model shows that evolution will not occur in a population if seven conditions are met:
1. mutation is not occurring
2. natural selection is not occurring
3. the population is infinitely large
4. all members of the population breed
5. all mating is totally random
6. everyone produces the same number of offspring
7. there is no migration in or out of the population
1) If mutation occurs, the allele frequencies will change.
2) If there is a selection event on the trait (e.g. drought, habitat destruction, etc) the allele frequencies will change.
3) If the population is infinitely large, the allele frequencies will equal infinity; clearly ALL populations of organisms are finite.
4) Breeding is competitive and rarely if ever do 100% of the members of a population breed and produce offspring. If some members are more successful than others at breeding, allele frequencies will change.
5) If mating is non-random, those individuals who have more offspring will increase their allele frequency in the population; traits that favor reproduction will out-pace those that do not and allele frequencies will change.
6) If various breeding pairs produce more or less offspring than others, allele frequencies will change.
7) If members of the species from other populations migrate into the population (or breeding members migrate out) the allele frequencies will change.
"Let us assume that there is a trait that is determined by the inheritance of a gene with two alleles--B and b. If the parent generation has 92% B and 8% b and their offspring collectively have 90% B and 10% b, evolution has occurred between the generations. The entire population's gene pool has evolved in the direction of a higher frequency of the b allele--it was not just those individuals who inherited the b allele who evolved."
The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium equation is a useful null hypothesis to test because it assumes there is NO evolution occurring in a population. A violation of any one of the above conditions will result in a change in allele frequencies which rejects the null hypothesis and therefore demonstrates that the population has evolved. And it has been demonstrated literally THOUSANDS of times.
What is the name of the scientist who took the noble prize for deriving a formula for the darwinian evolution theory finally, after 7.7million years (that is if every scientist devoted 5% of his time from 1930 to 2007) of trying to derive a formula by many scientists to no avail.
Have you heard of jeremy england's new more logical theory about the origin of species. He is shy to call that of darwin junk. I haven't much details yet to accept it or not.
Have you heard of Henri Bergson's creative evolution? An anti-Darwinian evolution theory which won the noble prize. Yet it is not promoted, why?
Yes it can be verified so why are you lying ? There was no suitable candidates for a Nobel in 1927 Bergson was awarded it only a year later .......
Why do you constantly lie and accuse others of bigotry when that's your two favourite tactics ?
The Nobel Prize in Literature 1927 was awarded to Henri Bergson "in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brilliant skill with which they have been presented".
Henri Bergson received his Nobel Prize one year later, in 1928. During the selection process in 1927, the Nobel Committee for Literature decided that none of the year's nominations met the criteria as outlined in the will of Alfred Nobel. According to the Nobel Foundation's statutes, the Nobel Prize can in such a case be reserved until the following year, and this statute was then applied. Henri Bergson therefore received his Nobel Prize for 1927 one year later, in 1928.
Yes it can be verified so why are you lying ? There was no suitable candidates for a Nobel in 1927 Bergson was awarded it only a year later .......
Why do you constantly lie and accuse others of bigotry when that's your two favourite tactics ?
The Nobel Prize in Literature 1927 was awarded to Henri Bergson "in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brilliant skill with which they have been presented".
Henri Bergson received his Nobel Prize one year later, in 1928. During the selection process in 1927, the Nobel Committee for Literature decided that none of the year's nominations met the criteria as outlined in the will of Alfred Nobel. According to the Nobel Foundation's statutes, the Nobel Prize can in such a case be reserved until the following year, and this statute was then applied. Henri Bergson therefore received his Nobel Prize for 1927 one year later, in 1928.
More lies from Jeffrey ,so you've read Englands "logical theory " well if you cared to do some serious study you would see how incredibly complex his work is and yet Jeffrey full comprehends it ?
Maybe as his spokesman you could explain his more "logical Theory " to everyone ; by the way England is also a theist who spends a lot of time studying the Torah .
Really? So reptiles evolving into birds has been demonstrated? What was the name of the scientist who took a population of reptiles and demonstrated them changing into birds? Where did he keep the reptiles, or what was the name of the city and country in which he tracked the reptiles and watched them turn into birds?
Are you sure the guy did not us CGI as documentation for what he claims to have demonstrated?
All your argument shows is that you are incredibly ignorant of evolution.Reptiles became dinosaurs and then dinosaurs became birds.Just because you can't imagine anything past your short life span, that doesn't mean that things didn't look different than n the past. Science is our tool to both understand the past and predict the future.
Speciation is a by-product of genetic drift.
Evolution between species takes millions of years to occur.
I thought you said evolution has been demonstrated thousands of times...and you can't show me one of those demonstrations?
Don't you know you are only a monkey which is nothing but a lump of wet clay with enough brains to act like a devil? How can you be so ignorant of evolution that you don't know you are just a wet pile of dust which looks like a monkey and talks like a devil?
It is you who is ignorant of evolution. You can't even tell me what you are, you can't even tell me if you are real, you hope to be nothing and have no basis to believe you are anything but a pile of wet dust talking stupid.
Your stupid evolution was crammed down my throat from before I could read under the age of five as far back as I can remember. Are you really that retarded so you think evolution is hard to understand? It's a hoax, and you love it because you think that in it you have excuses for your perversions. They sell it to you promising you a license to be a pervert with the false hope of escaping reality in death. You are not getting out, you have to answer to God.
Ohhhh, so you really can't demonstrate what you said has been demonstrated thousands of times, I have to imagine it? Does imagining it make it real? Is that how it works? So if I can imaging reptiles morphing into birds, I can imagine myself being unreal and nothing in death?
So what you are saying is that you don't have any other argument except for out rite dismissal.
You don't have a single counter argument that includes a viable explanation for the diversity of life we see on this plsnet.
How do you explain why manatees have finger nails or why dogs have dew claws. Why do we share 98% of our DNA with chimps. Why is 90% of our DNA just useless junk. Why do puffer fish have 10Γ as much genetic information than us and they have no junk DNA.Why are marsupials only common in Australia?
Give me an answers for all this other than just"it is all fake", because it is pretty hard to fake the dew claws on every dog in the world.
Why do we find simpler and simpler fissils the deeper we dig? Why has 99% of all species gone extinct? How do you explain this stuff without evolution?
Your questions are based on disinformation rhetoric which must support belief in evolution because it's religion cannot handle the thought of God ruling over the individuals.
Evolution has never been observed, there is no true scientific basis for it, only hypothesis and conjecture. What has been observed is variation within kinds of animals, and living things always coming from the same kind of living things.
No field of true science, no area of physics, in application or research, requires belief in evolution. It's a waste of time, it is good for nothing. Trying to prove evolution scientifically is a useless waste of time, belief in evolution is good for nothing.
There is only one reason people cling to belief in evolution (naturalism, atheism, agnosticism)....it is because they walk according to their lusts and do not want God to rule over them. The people who have convinced you to follow them to Hell in evolutionary belief think that the pleasures of sin are worth more than life, so they live according to their lusts and they feel more powerful when they convince others like you to follow them.......and now you feel powerful promoting it, don't you?
Don't answer unless you can say something else besides" that's not true."
Your lack of knowledge is not evidence.
Give me a more plausible answer for how we got here.Where do we come from and what evidence do you have to believe that it's the right answer? You can't just say God and walk off. Which God? What evidence do you have that a God can exist? How can that God do anything? How do you determine whether or not that God had done anything?
All you do is show how much you don't or won't know.
You are a fool who doesn't belong on a debate forum.
"No no no no no no" is not how you debate.
You have to have some new information to bring to the table. Stop acting like an idiot.
You do not want to accept the fact that God created man because you do not want to be ruled by God, you want to follow your lusts as you please when you please.
Go on believing in evolution if you think you can avoid God forever. You will face Him in judgement and everything you have ever said, done, or thought will be on public display and you will be judged......and if you are not secure in God's pardon, you will be cast away from Him forever as you are now, dying in your sin and you will be left in the fire of Hell to fry like an eternal sausage.
So you are using the bible God for a source of morality? You do know that the biblical God justifies slavery, genocide, murder, child abuse, child molestation, rape, incest, racism, polygamy, homophobia, and dictatorships?
I don't know what the bible God is. Can you tell me what you are talking about?
If you claim to be talking about God, then He must be morally perfect or He is not God. Being morally perfect, your perception of Him is twisted and your morals are corrupt. You are trying to tell me that the thing you are calling "God" is not morally perfect, so the thing you are talking about cannot be God.
You obviously are ignorant of the Bible. There is no fear of sodomites in the Bible, no homophobia. In the Old Testament, the law for Jews was show no fear of sodomites and kill them. Today idiots like you are afraid of them, so you bend over for them and kiss their butts in fear of offending them by telling them the truth about their evil perversion which is worthy of AIDS.
You also are clearly ignorant of the laws regarding servants, bond servants, among the Jews........and you are ignorant of how God commanded total annihilation of every living thing among peoples whose religious practices included all kinds of orgies and child sacrifice by burning their children alive. God hated the things they loved doing in their evil and He ordered them to be destroyed. You too are falling down in death because you are a sinner and you deserve to die, you deserve to burn in Hell and if you keep going like a Dawkins robot parrot thinking you are smarter, better, and stronger than God you are going to wake up in Hell knowing how foolish you are.
I could give you some Bible lessons, but my experience with your flock of parrots is that you are not interested in truth and reason. All you want to to is to try justifying yourself in your evil by accusing God of not being good. All you are succeeding at is proving that YOU are not good and that you deserve to lose every good thing God gives you and fry like an eternal sausage in Hell...why do you think it is that "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God". (Psalm 14:1).
You're being a fool, and I really don't care to go through your parrot rhetoric again. A hundred like you saying the exact same things came before, and if there is time their will be a hundred more and I am learning you parrots are a waste of time for a person like me.
Are you a sodomite? Perversion is evil.
Are you another Dickie Dawkins trained parrot? You sound exactly like so many others, it seems like you are all the same person, all the same broken record,
Well the bible is the word of god and bingo the raging lunatic depicted in the bible is the morally perfect god you ass kiss ; regards being a sodomite I think you're well used to having your butt fucked as you never stop going on about it
You're just a foul mouth pretending to be stronger than God and only fooling yourself. The truth remains true if you believe it or not. If you won't believe it, there is no possible evidence you will accept that will change you mind to believe the truth. Your position is indefensible, you are dying and none of your self-deceiving "fortitude" can change your predicament. You do not deserve to live; your dying is evidence if you believe it or not. Dying people need to be saved, if you believe it or not. If you are not saved, you will be what you always are, dying, and eventually be dying forever in Hell. Believe it or not. You want evidence? Hold onto your fortitude.
Did you break out of a nut house or something? You are exhibiting signs of paranoid delusions and schizophrenia. Seek help immediately before you hurt someone.
If you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell and cannot end up in eternal deserved dying, that's your problem and I want you to leave me alone. Do you think you can do that?
You are really 25 years old? A child. Your father should give you a good whooping and tell you about good manners, but he's probably a sissy who allowed public schools to turn you into a devil-monkey.
Actually my father was a womanizer and a Christian and a Republican. He cheated on his first wife with my mom and got her pregnant with me. Also my mom put me in Christian school for a good part of my childhood. You are still a moron.
I'm more of a man than you loser. I have three kids and a wife that I work two jobs to take care of. I also accept the world for what it is, and not what a book of fantasies tells me it is. Why don't you go kill rape victims like your God ordered you to you freak?
You're a child; just a kid who has willfully been led by the nostrils to think that it is good to be militantly disrespectful toward those who hold opinions differing from your. Things have changed in the world, when I was your age the norm was to be respectful toward adults and act with them like they were your own parents. You are a product of public schools which brainwashed you with evolution and "self-esteem". I have news for you; we both deserve to burn in Hell. I have heard good news of how your sins can be forgiven and you can be saved from Hell. I have believed and received that good news, and the Savior now owns me; bought and paid for by His sinless blood.
If you were half the man you claim to be, you would admit that you are a sinner who deserves to die and burn in Hell. I doubt you can do that as you take too much pride in being a blowhard punk. You are leading your own children into Hell, don't tell me how much of a man you are. You're a child. You need to be saved, you can be saved. I am being kind to you, trying to get you to see and appreciate the truth. You are being a little punk jack ass and a disgrace to your parents who you publicly trashed as a womanizer and a whore. You're a spiteful little punk, hating Christians just because they believe the Bible and are not ashamed of the Savior which it revolves around is only going to fuel the fire in your engine on your train to Hell with your family.
(By the way, I don't believe you work two jobs. If you do, you are spending pretty much every spare moment you have on this site leaving your children to be raised by t.v.?)
You do more than accept the word for what it is, you love it as it's all you have outside of Hell. Enjoy.
sorry, if you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell
I don't believe in Hell. I think that's just some bullshit invented to scare you into perpetual obedience. Have you ever considered why exactly it is that so many men know the word of God, it differs in almost every case, and yet nobody has ever got any proof they are God's words instead of their own? I'm guessing nah, right?
You will believe in Hell sooner or later.......but if you wait too long, you will have great difficulty believing that you will never get out of the fire.
I choked down about five of your words, I know you don't believe in Hell, you think you can get away with sinning and be exonerated in death. You have another thing coming.
Not believing in Hell will not keep you out of the fire. Not believing God is God will not keep you out of Hell. You are not getting out of reality, son; you will be dying forever as you are dying now in Hell or you will be living forever in Heaven thanking the Savior for creating you and dying for you to save you from Hell. Fight it all you want, don't believe all you want, you won't get yourself out of dying and you won't escape punishment for your sins......except through the blood of the sinless Son of God who died for you to cover your sins with His blood, and rose from the dead with power to save you if you will believe and ask God in Jesus name to forgive you of your sins and save you from Hell.....but you won't, will you? You will keep on going saying "I don't believe in Hell, I want proof before I believe it's real" and then you will wake up in the fire hating the proof you get and hating yourself for being so stupid to demand proof while you fry like an eternal sausage.....have it your way if you must, kiddo.
So your father was a pervert and your mother was loose, and you think it's unfair that such animals were used by God to bring you into existence and you hate God for allowing a pervert and a whore to conceive you and you have no respect for your parents.
No wonder you are such a spoiled brat here. You need a good fatherly whooping.
Brake is something you do when you want the vehicle carrying you to slow down. Break is what is going to happen to the ice under your feet which is thin and melting over the fire of Hell is you don't get saved. Child.
Do you know the difference between monkeys and apes? I guess not, because that's a biology thing. If you don't understand evolution then you won't understand biology. You mite want to go back to 6th grade.
Understanding evolution is simple, that is why the put it in pictures for kids who are not old enough to read. To believe in evolution, you have to be stupid.
I've probably studied more biology than you, and I studied it under professors who believe in evolution. What a waste of time, they waste a lot of time pushing evolution when that time could be much better used for study and research. If they took evolution out of the biology textbook, and used the time in class for real learning, biology 101 and 102 could be easily finished as one class in the same amount of time as Bio101. Evolution is a stumbling block to learning...just a waste of time, a make believe industry in which fools pay each other to talk stupid.
Is this how your monkey teachers taught you to act? Did the teach you to be a smart ass punk and insult anybody who does not believe in evolution? Your parents should be ashamed of you, but they are probably just like your asinine teachers who are training robots to hate God and love death.......your admired and appreciated evolutionary peers are taking you to Hell with them and you are sucking it up....fool.
Actually my mother was a devout Roman Catholic who believed in Jesus, Big Foot, the loch ness monster, psychics, mermaids, and aliens. You see my mom is one of those people that will believe anything if you make it sound nice. The entire older generation of my family is like this. In fact I am actually the only person in my family that has ever read the bible cover to cover. I'm also the only person that goes to church on a regular basis. Yes, I go to church. I have been to 14 different denominations of Christian church. The thing I always find is that the people who go to church don't really know anything. They believe a lot of things but they live in a community that looks down on testing to see if what you believe is true. I became an atheist at age 7 because I read the bible all the way through, but I still go to church to learn why people believe these absurd things. Since then I have been to 14 Christian churches of different denominations. 4 Jewish temples, 2 Mosques, and 3 Buddhist temples. Studying the religious is one of my favorite hobbies. To be completely honest I feel sorry for people that are devoutly religious. Their minds potential was taken from them. I cry sometimes for these people because a lot of them never had a choice in the matter. I had a friend that was beaten horribly for asking his parents " what if the bible isn't true."
Religion is a virus that infects the mind. I was just born with a very strong immunity to bullshit. I have been sceptical of everything that I have ever been told. Science is my go to for facts because you can look at papers people have written on a particular field of study and compare them and discern what is true. Now, people have had the bible for thousands of years and yet no new knowledge has ever come of it because it was written by primitive savages that used their God to justify their own inhumanity.
You see my mom is one of those people that will believe anything if you make it sound nice. The entire older generation of my family is like this.
A very nice way of insulting your entire family.
Yes, I go to church.
It doesn't mean anything. Satan sat before God and even gained permission to torment job. You enter a church with the mentality that the preacher and everyone else in the church are stupid and you know better. Why do you waste your time?Church is not force. Quit.
I have been to 14 different denominations of Christian church. The thing I always find is that the people who go to church don't really know anything. They believe a lot of things but they live in a community that looks down on testing to see if what you believe is true. I became an atheist at age 7 because I read the bible all the way through, but I still go to church to learn why people believe these absurd things. Since then I have been to 14 Christian churches of different denominations. 4 Jewish temples, 2 Mosques, and 3 Buddhist temples
You are the biggest fool on earth to yet ask for evidence of God.
And please stop lying you became atheist at 7 from your own long hard thinking. Even at this age,you cannot think that is why you follow the religion of darwinian evolution. You were indoctrined in secrecy either by a stranger or whoever without the knowledge of your parents.
Even George Cuvier father of paleontology, expert in the study mammal, reptiles etc. fossils, who had more updated knowledge than charles lyell debunked evolution theory.
But charles darwin the idiot he is/was took the outdated research and propositions(guesses) of charles lyell and merged with a greek myth to write the most ridiculous book ever in history(which darwin himself agrees with) "the origion of species".
When he realised Huxley was another fool of his kind proving with his book about origin of men, darwin topped up the stupidity with the descend of man and today the stupid goes on and on for 150yrs of zero evidence in reality past and present.
"Science is my go to for facts because you can look at papers people have written on a particular field of study and compare them and discern what is true."
And you think science includes the darwinian evolution nonsense?
Am sorry you're not a fan of science but of myths just how your mum likes it; nicely presented.
Even a 7 year old can recognize a fairy tale when they read one. Plus I have read the bible back to front 8 times since then. What I haven't found is that, not only is the biblical God not all that smart but he is also a really shitty judge of character.
Satan himself knows the bible back and front according to the scriptures and he even tempted jesus with the bible. Stop that cliche stupidity.
ANALOGY;
A doctor prescribes for you an anti malaria drug and the dosage then you decide to take it all at once eight times . You just a stupid fuck
And try to point out specific parts in the bible you call fairy tale.The wars, generations,Kings,Jesus,Miracles, Journeys, catastrophies etc. and lemme show you the fool you are.
If there is a God of infinite wisdom and knowledge then not one of the current religions worships him\her. The Hindu Geeta teaches us that the world was created from a dream of Krishna. The bible teaches that the world was created in 6 days and and everyone is descended from a single incestuous bloodline twice. The Vikings believed that the world exist within Odin's skull and the clouds are his thoughts. The ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the world was created by the seven children of Kronos. AKA Father time.
Religion is mythology by definition. You can't prove or disprove that a God exists but you can disprove the teachings of a religion, and we have for thousands of years. Religious people are ignorant and delusional to the highest degree.
You keep calling me a "fool" because you don't understand what the word "fool" means.
You're going off of the bible verse "the fool saith in his heart there is no God."
But that isn't the definition of a fool.
A fool believes absurd claims on insufficient evidence from questionable sources. what can be more questionable than a book written by ignorant superstitious savages from the bronze age?
And try to point out specific parts in the bible you call fairy tale.The wars, generations,Kings,Jesus,Miracles, Journeys, catastrophies etc. and lemme show you the fool you are
The biblical God is a space wizard that spoke the universe into being with a magical incantation. Then he uses a golem spell to make Adam out of dirt. In the story of Noah you have a 600 year old man and his seven family members building a boat that was said to be 510 feet long, and they built this boat with no experience in ship building and they did it with bronze age tools. The reason why they were building said boat was because there was a flood coming, even though a wooden ship of that size wouldn't have been sea worthy and would have sunk almost immediately after being put in the water. Not to mention the fact that the flood was only 15 cubits deep or 22 feet but the water was supposed to cover the mountains all over the world. Once the ark landed, there was supposed to have been only 8 people in the whole world and yet just 40 years after the time when this was supposed to have happened, the first Egyptian pyramid was supposed to have started being built. Even though there would have only been about 40 people on the planet at that time to complete the project. The thing I always wondered is how creationist explain what the plant eaters would have eaten because a flood like the one in the bible would have killed ever tree,bush, and vine.
History, biology, paleontology, anthropology, physics, and geology disprove the old testament.
The biblical God is a space wizard that spoke the universe into being
Correction, the creation story wasn't about the entire universe but earth only; it's conditions and how it was modified.
If you say space wizard, Stephen Hawkins and NASA believes in intelligent space aliens. Could God be an alien on a different planet undiscovered? Yes. He is Alien because His body material is surely different from that of men that makes him far from being discovered or measured by science yet. Or you don't believe in hawkins and NASA anymore? If science studies light more intensely, then they will probably a century from now discover angels and other lesser gods who are superior to recent evidence backed suspicions of intelligent technology aliens.
Find out; The Azuza Street conference(the journalist'
s narration)
into being with a magical incantation.
Cite.
Then he uses a golem spell to make Adam
Cite.
out of dirt
Dirt applied on a material makes it dirty.
When ink drops on your shirt, it becomes dirty,
when you sweat and you get armpit stains, your shirt is dirty,
Petrol can make you dirty.
When you have cobwebs, empty can drinks, undressed bed, your room is dirty.
When you cancel too much on paper it makes your work dirty. etc.
Please specify which dirt and cite where in the bible.
So far you don't seem serious, Intelligent and worthy of my replies.
You've read the bible eight times yet seem not to have a clue of what it vividly says.
In the story of Noah you have a 600 year old man
It says the flood began in the 600th year. Meaning, he began building over years and it was ready in the 600th year when the flood began.
You say he had no knowledge on ship building? At age 600 what experience wouldn't one have in such a limited primitive technology time. Do you have his occupation stated anywhere that truly proves otherwise about his knowledge?
where did he get the tools??
Building was a common talent in those times. Apply your brains to it.
And it wasn't built by only him, he had kids you dumb ass. He had other family members like lamech and methuselah.
This happened approximately between 6000B.C and 5000B.C He lived 350years after the flood.
Civilisation in egypt and mesotopia began around 5000B.C(i will back up)
The story of the flood was being told in the mesotopia myths,(I will back up) and ham his son father of Cush(Kushites~Africa), Mizraim(Eqypt) and canaan.
What a coincidence. From 6000B.C to 5000B.C , died 350yrs later, his son Ham had children who settled in Eqypt around the same time the pyramids are said to have been built.
The thing I always wondered is how creationist explain what the plant eaters would have eaten because a flood like the one in the bible would have killed ever tree,bush, and vine.
I wonder how someone who read the bible 8times missed this.
Gen. 8:11
This time the dove returned to him in the evening with a fresh olive leaf in its beak. Then Noah knew that the floodwaters were almost gone.
Are you insinuating that if water uproots plants , they completely dissolve , evaporate or sublime by the time the water dries without any remains?
Really scientific reasoning. Good job.
even though a wooden ship of that size wouldn't have been sea worthy and would have sunk almost immediately after being put in the water.
Now that makes it a miracle.(read the bible well)
The God who brought the animals Noah had never met(Miracle 2) saved them.
Not to mention the fact that the flood was only 15 cubits deep or 22 feet but the water was supposed to cover the mountains all over the world.
That is not fact. This shows you are not updated about archaelogical findings, and also fossil searchs to prove your beloved myths "darwinian evolution" could be true(still to no avail). George cuvier and other paleontologists have given evidence to prove castrophies that occured including a global flood that left bodies of fishes on mountains, similar markings of fast heavy erosion, parts
History, biology, paleontology, anthropology, physics, and geology disprove the old testament.
you are both bible and science illiterate.
i must applaud myself for 1. I am a business student. but i apparently read more science than you do.
2.I never claimed to have read the bible cover to cover 8times yet i school you.
As benevolent as i am, i wouldn't let you drown in illiteracy.
Updated on archaeological findings? You referenced someone from the 1800's. I love how creationists feed off of what scientists got wrong in the past but can never use their religion to improve our future. You're dead weight and I can't wait for society to cut you loose as a whole.
Your argument is senseless. Be concerned with the authenticity of the content not who or when it was found.
You think christianity never developed our future? your illiteracy is obnoxious.
And in science, a research was carried out(led by an atheist) why china had lagged behind europe in science till now. He found out it was because europe had christianity. search
Would a talking donkey qualify ππππππππ
21 Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the Moabite officials. 22 But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the Lord stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, it turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat it to get it back on the road.
24 Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path through the vineyards, with walls on both sides. 25 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaamβs foot against it. So he beat the donkey again.
26 Then the angel of the Lord moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left. 27 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff. 28 Then the Lord opened the donkeyβs mouth, and it said to Balaam, βWhat have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?β
29 Balaam answered the donkey, βYou have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.β
30 The donkey said to Balaam, βAm I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?β
βNo,β he said.
31 Then the Lord opened Balaamβs eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.
32 The angel of the Lord asked him, βWhy have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.[a] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.β
34 Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, βI have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back.β
35 The angel of the Lord said to Balaam, βGo with the men, but speak only what I tell you.β So Balaam went with Balakβs officials.
36 When Balak heard that Balaam was coming, he went out to meet him at the Moabite town on the Arnon border, at the edge of his territory. 37 Balak said to Balaam, βDid I not send you an urgent summons? Why didnβt you come to me? Am I really not able to reward you?β
38 βWell, I have come to you now,β Balaam replied. βBut I canβt say whatever I please. I must speak only what God puts in my mouth.β
Roman Catholics believe in the Pope, a sinner, and Mary, another sinner, and they idolize them. Roman Catholics do not believe in Jesus of the Bible, they believe in a different version of Jesus conformed to Catholic dogma and used to enslave it's religious practitioners by teaching them that they must earn the right to be exempt from Hell....the same basic futile philosophy of all religions including atheism.
Okay, so your mother was not a monkey...it must have been your grandmother, so your mother was half ape and half human and you were born as half devil and half monkey.
I really do not have a problem with the Loch Ness monster (especially not the way you have a problem with grammar). I think the survival of a few dinosaurs is likely and the wide range of reputable people from all walks of life who swear to have seen or encountered such things is not easily discounted and all those testators get for their witness is ridicule. Sure a few make money off of promoting the creatures, but the witnesses for the most part get nothing. I have no problem believing "bigfoot" is a real creature. Those would simply be animals, and not a shock to me.
I have no problem believing "UFO's" manned by strange creatures actually do appear and interact with many people. I have no problem believing some people actually do have extrasensory perceptions. I am firmly convinced these things come from demonic sources for the purpose of deceiving people regarding their lack of right to exist outside of the fire of Hell as sinners.
What an arrogant little punk you are to insult every person who goes to any kind of church as "they don't know anything". Again you show how your parents failed to teach you manners and the public schools brainwashed you into believing rudeness equals intelligence. It is you who is not "testing" things you believe, it is you who is not seeking to know the truth of reality and history. It is you who is ignorant of what is coming in the future. You feel sorry for a person like me? Hahahaha.......you think you are free to sin as you see fit, do whatever pleases you whenever and however you feel is okay, and you think you have the right to exist outside of Hell? You're on your way to Hell, enjoy your sinning while you can.
What a little arrogant punk you are, putting yourself on an intellectual pedestal, applauding yourself for being an atheist. You're a fool, you have put up a mental block wall in your mind thinking you can keep God from seeing you there so you feel safe with your evil deeds and thoughts. The fact that you feel God does not care is not proof that He does not care. God is keeping your account and you are not getting off the hook in death, you will stand before God in judgement and everything you think you can hide is going to be on public display for everybody to see.
Too bad for your friend that his parents beat him horrible for asking if the Bible isn't true. Who are you or I to judge those parents? It is safe to assume the parents care for the child and did what they think is best. God will judge those parents, and if the child is in rebellion against God, God will not accept the excuse of "I had bad parents".
You're a nut case is what you are. A foul mouth punk, a sociopath who feels superior to others by making himself feel like he is smarter, stronger and better than God. Your profanity ends my interest in your self-flattering garbage and my concern for trying to get you to see the truth. I have told you more than enough, you want to believe that you have the right to exist outside of Hell and that when God the Son, Jesus, died for you it was nothing....just go on sinning and enjoy yourself while you can. I hope you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in His resurrection and are by Him saved, but I think you will remain as you are, lost, flattering yourself all the way to Hell like a moth flying into the flame.
I love it when the hopelessly ignorant start desperately flailing about with anger because their argument fell flat on its face. You're a clown. Nothing more and nothing less. Just tuck your tale between your legs and go cry home to mommy.
Sounds to me like you gloat in evil feelings of power.......you're a psycho, God can give you a new heart and your mind can be renewed so you stop talking like a devil.
You don't see the humor in my posts? Do you know the Bible says God laughs at people like you? I get a lot of laughter telling people like you the truth because I know you hate it. You are the one whose brain explodes in profanity falling apart unable to compose sentences to express your thoughts intelligently. I'm only telling you the truth, and much of the time I am laughing as I do it.
You're a psycho telling all your weird feelings toward people of faith, then you try to paint me with your psychosis, gloating evil and calling it "love" when you feel like you are winning. Your a sick puppy and God loves you and will give you a new heart, a loving heart, so you know the difference between real love and the thing you call love which is nothing but evil gloating when you feel powerful.
I forgot you don't have the brains to express yourself without explosive expletives, and you somehow think that talking like a drunken sailor makes you sound intelligent or strong. It just sounds stupid, and I have seen people lose their teeth and look stupid after spitting out profanity. Dawkins would have no teeth if he talked to people where I come from; the way he talks while he's sitting in his bastion of atheism with his safe-space university job.
Only telling you the truth, son. The truth is always good for you if you respond to it well. You only oppose yourself when you fight against the truth.
So now you are saying that evolution has to be imagined, and science is a tool to help your imagination? Hmmmm....
I thought science was observation of reality, and now you are telling me it is a tool to help my imagination?
Science is your tool to understand the past and predict the future? I thought history was the tool for understanding the past. Did you attend a school which taught science as history rather than history as history? Why didn't you learn science as observation of nature/reality? And it is a tool to predict the future? So science can tell you how many eggs I will eat for breakfast tomorrow? Please, Mr. Scientist, let me know so I can be prepared with the right amount of toast and ham.
Somebody has been pulling your leg, getting you mixed up about reality, and you have been saying "hehehe, that tickles, do it some more" and now you are trying to pull other people's legs. Don't you see you have been duped?
The number 1 shows that the propagation and recombining of genes in a given populas plus the guiding force of finding a suitable mate will definitely lead to the passing of a given mutation leading to a possibility of 1.
First fo all, writing pΒ² + 2pq + qΒ² = 1 instead of just p+q=1 looks like a very cheap trick to get a trivial formula look "complicated".
Well, it isn't complicated at all.
Second,
Here's what you wrote:
will definitely lead to the passing of a given mutation leading to a possibility of 1.
You can't have a possibility without an event. WHICH event has a possibility of 1? So far I get the impression you have no idea what you're talking about.
Finally:my initial statement remains true. You wrote:
Where p is the frequency of allele "A" and q is the frequency of allele "a"
where as we have already established, p+q=1
So my statement remains true: what you said just means that allele a and allele A are mutually exclusive events. It would be an obvious fact if you had any knowledge of probability theory basics.
The Hardy-Weinberg equation is a mathematical equation that can be used to calculate the genetic variation of a population at equilibrium. In 1908, G. H. Hardy and Wilhelm Weinberg independently described a basic principle of population genetics, which is now named the Hardy-Weinberg equation. The equation is an expression of the principle known as Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which states that the amount of genetic variation in a population will remain constant from one generation to the next in the absence of disturbing factors.
To explore the Hardy-Weinberg equation, we can examine a simple genetic locus at which there are two alleles, A and a. The Hardy-Weinberg equation is expressed as:
p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1
where p is the frequency of the "A" allele and q is the frequency of the "a" allele in the population. In the equation, p2 represents the frequency of the homozygous genotype AA, q2 represents the frequency of the homozygous genotype aa, and 2pq represents the frequency of the heterozygous genotype Aa. In addition, the sum of the allele frequencies for all the alleles at the locus must be 1, so p + q = 1. If the p and q allele frequencies are known, then the frequencies of the three genotypes may be calculated using the Hardy-Weinberg equation. In population genetics studies, the Hardy-Weinberg equation can be used to measure whether the observed genotype frequencies in a population differ from the frequencies predicted by the equation.
I'm calling what you wrote pseudo-science. And if that is the main equation of evolution theory, then yes, they are in serious trouble. But you're nowhere even close to understanding such issues.
You're a fucking idiot who has no knowledge of school-grade algebra, yet tries to lecture people on the internet on scientific theories.
You still fail to understand that p+q=1 is not an additional option, but a direct consequence of pΒ² + 2pq + qΒ² = 1. Regardless of whether it's in evolution, physics or anything else.
Mind-boggling? LOL you need to have a mind first, which you seem to lack.
It's not shameful to be illiterate in algebra like yourself, but copypasting wikipedia articles and trying to come off as a sceintist makes you look like a total bafoon.
In this case the parameters are way too high in number to deuce a formula to explain Darwin's evolution theory so in this context it is impossible to have a formula explaining why.
So you want a formula for what ? As you think the whole theory 'idiotic ' so a formula would be something else you would deny about Evolution wouldn't it ?
In the theory of evolution and natural selection, the Price equation (also known as Price's equation or Price's theorem) describes how a trait or gene changes in frequency over time. The equation uses a covariance between a trait and fitness to give a mathematical description of evolution and natural selection.
There are more ' formulas ' if you actually did a bit of reasearch ; also why are you posting links to your ridiculous creationist sites only the looney fringe take them seriously.
What a terrible hammering you've taken in this ill thought out topic every one of your statements has been exposed as either a lie or a complete nonsense hasn't it ?
So you still have'nt had the balls to post up your famous piece 'debunking ' Evolution whys that ?
You titled your debate .....Every scientific theory has a formula except darwinian evolution why?.........
Maybe you need to change the title as your ridiculous claim has been destroyed .
Literal interpretations of Genesis imply humanity came to life by earth.
There's a good possibility that abiogenesis could have taken place in the world's oceans when there were good conditions for life to form.
However, there are other theories that suggest bacteria might have been carried on comets or meteors. I do consider that a bit of a cop-out, as the life still needs to have been formed somehow.
I thought you claimed to have studied the Bible....now I'm thinking you are just a liar. I have heard many talk like you, then they show they know nothing of what they claim to know.
God spoke everything into existence, by His word the creatures were formed. If you read Genesis literally, it says "God said.......".
It says God formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
Abiogenisis is absurd, it has never been observed in nature and never will be because it never happens. To believe life came from non-life takes a lot more faith, baseless faith, than to believe the Living God created living things. Living things always come from living things, and the only logical originator of the first living thing would be the Living God who was always there and always will be there. You are building a hope for death, a false hope, a fools hope, hoping to be exonerated in death and free from judgement.
Scoffers walk according to their lusts. They love their lusts more than life so they fly off, riding high like moths into the fire of Hell.
It says God formed man from the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
So humans came from dirt according to the Bible. Thanks for proving my point.
To believe life came from non-life takes a lot more faith, baseless faith, than to believe the Living God created living things.
It doesn't. It's still better than the intellectual cowardice associated with the cop-out clause of "we don't know so it was God".
When there is new evidence as to where life came from, the theory may change.
Living things always come from living things, and the only logical originator of the first living thing would be the Living God who was always there and always will be there.
You've contradicted yourself in this statement. If living things ALWAYS come from living things, which living thing did God come from?
So your idea is similar to abiogenesis; it's possible for something to come from nothing.
You are building a hope for death, a false hope, a fools hope, hoping to be exonerated in death and free from judgement.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the science. Science does not exist to build hope.
Scoffers walk according to their lusts. They love their lusts more than life so they fly off, riding high like moths into the fire of Hell.
This has nothing to do with anything... are you capable of making a single argument without dragging Hell into it?
You completely missed the fact the original post was mocking the ancients for believing gods came from water. The idea that humans were made out of earth is really not that different.
You are going to act that stupid and then expect me to read your twisted renderings of my statements and your stupid responses?
I don't know, but you seem to expect me to, so may as well extend the courtesy.
Atheism is soooo stupid. You just can't face reality, can you? You hope to be exonerated in death and exempt from Hell, don't you? You think you are better, stronger, and smarter than God, don't you? God says you are a fool and I have to agree with God.
I'm not an atheist but I still disagree. Disbelieving in a god isn't stupid.
You just can't face reality, can you?
Most atheists would argue that the reality we can see is the one that exists. As for not being able to face reality, atheists aren't the ones with the afterlife comfort blanket. When you're dead you're dead and that's it. It might be scary, but it's better than the idea that you can go to heaven as long as you do x, y and z.
You hope to be exonerated in death and exempt from Hell, don't you?
I don't want to go to any afterlife, thank you. Being forced to continue to exist after one's natural life has ended sounds like torture no matter how pleasant it is. And it's not about being "exonerated" because if I die and there's no afterlife, there's nobody to gloat to. I wouldn't even know I was "exonerated".
You think you are better, stronger, and smarter than God, don't you?
Atheists don't believe there is a God, so there's no competition.
If there actually was an all-powerful God then God would win.
God says you are a fool and I have to agree with God.
Only your version of God. The thousands of other gods which have existed across the millennia -- which, by the way, have no more or less evidence than the one that's currently in favour -- have had little to say on the topic.
You're an atheist for every single god that exists or has ever existed, with the exception of the Jewish one. You don't believe in Thor, Ra, Woden, Guanyin, Susanoo, Kukulcan or Vishnu. I just went one god further than you.
If you'd been raised in a different culture or at a different period of history you'd believe in a different god and think the Christians were the heretics.
If your only critique of agnosticism -- not being sure if God exists, or not being particularly fussed because it is not impacting your life -- is that it's "stupid" then I think you need to reexamine your own beliefs.
Reality being having a "relationship " with a supernatural entity that's never been seen , heard or touched , that's your " reality " got ya π
Atheists don't believe in any of the other nonsense you speak off and if you think a god gave you a personal message to pass on you really need help π
What happened, Dermot? You were quoting the Bible a little while ago, claiming it proves your point. If the Bible proves your point, it must be a reliable source and it says Jesus Christ is God who was seen, heard, touched, both before and after He was crucified. Are you a hypocrite or do you believe the Bible?
[it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it
Seriously? I'm not surprised the belief was abandoned. Organic matter comes from organisms, which are alive.
This just proves the point that science is able to grow and develop in the light of new evidence and ideas.
So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution
This is a false and deliberate misrepresentation of evolution. This is abiogenesis, not evolution.
Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate.
Because cells can evolve too.
Everything should be in the process of changing into something elseβwith literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or half-men.
Tiktaalik. Archaeopteryx. Australopithecus. I was able to come up with an example of each off the top of my head.
We haven't discovered all fossils yet, and individual organisms don't have a very good chance of becoming fossilised. If there weren't many in a species, none might be preserved, or we might simply not have found them. Remember there's an entire ocean that would be very difficult to search.
Not one single drifting, changing life form has been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists.
False (see above).
As all scientists agree, mutations are very rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism.
Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry! Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their blood is different.
Tail length depends on habitat; if you spend a lot of time climbing then you need a longer tail for balance, or for swinging from branches.
Teeth variation depends on the food available in the climate and that individual species' diet.
Opposable thumbs depend on if the animal is evolving to be an efficient climber (no thumbs) or to use tools (thumbs).
Genes will change over millennia if the breeding pool is isolated. Humans still share 96% of their genetic material with a chimpanzee.
all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within their own families, just as God decreed
False. See my point above.
Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists.
Seismic shift, such as subduction can cause changes in the fossil layer.
All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils?
Much evolution took place during the "Cambrian Explosion".
Before the start of the Cambrian, their corpses and droppings were too small to fall quickly towards the seabed, since their drag was about the same as their weight. This meant they were destroyed by scavengers or by chemical processes before they reached the sea floor.
Darwin admitted having no way to defend his theory, but he still would not adjust his theory to meet the unanswerable arguments against it.
This is a guy who was writing in the nineteenth century. A lot of theories weren't backed up very well. The luminiferous ether was believed right through the nineteenth century. Science can now do better.
The Bible explains very graphically about a Flood that ravaged the face of this earth, covering the highest mountains and completely destroying all plant and animal life outside the ark.
And then a gem like this gets dropped. A book is clearly worth more to these people than observable evidence.
No such process of fossilization is taking place today. No oil or coal is forming by present natural forces at work.
This is patently false. It takes millions of years for this sort of thing to form and it requires a lot of pressure, meaning it's not possible to observe it. Even if we could observe the process, it would be taking place so gradually it would be impossible to detect.
"And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even if you are reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeros would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being?
This is a misrepresentation. The chances of creating something that looks like a human being are slim. They are equal to the chance of creating a human that more closely resembles an ape, or the chance of creating a Neanderthal. We could have never evolved at all, but then we wouldn't be here to marvel at how unlikely it is!
There are billions of inhabitable planets in the Universe. It is likely that on at least one, life would arise. After this it's a series of small steps, each with a degree of probability.
To follow our ancestry back through the sons of Adam, "who was the son of God," is so much more satisfying than to search through dismal swamps for bleeping monad forebears.
In the writer's opinion. Most scientists would argue it's more satisfying to actually look at the world around them and think about how far life has come.
The true cause for evil and the true remedy for it are found only in the Word of God. Sin has defaced the image of God in man, and only a personal encounter with the perfect Saviour will bring a reversal of the problem of evil.
Great piece and superbly taken apart ; no matter how many times you do this on CD the same people will still accept the word of bronze age goatherds over anything remotely rational or scientific , to do otherwise their whole little world collapses .
It's a pity you couldn't understand what she was saying. It simply means darwinian evolution isn't real. It has never been observed in reality under any artificial experiment or natural phenomenon. The only thing they have now is faith that oneday, fossils that will help support their myth will be found in the ocean even after 150years of COS 90 work.
I made her expose her faith. That is why i haven't bothered to reply yet. I am satisfied and wanted to wait till i am a bit hungry again lol.
Anyway i am not surprised. A friend told me irish schools don't write exams.
I understood perfectly you're the one who lacks comprehension as this post demonstrates , you've been corrected over 20 times on this thread alone and like the dumb brute you are here you are again getting things wrong .
No Jeffers I don't have ' faith' that's what weaklings like you have in a book of bullshit as in the bible .
93 per cent of scientists accept Evolution as fact including Christian scientists , which leaves you firmly with the minority of fuckwits who post up ππ answers in genisis as a counter πππ
A friend told you Irish schools don't write exams ? Well they're certainly not Ghanaian exams where one sits exams with thick crayons and a colouring book and is told to colour in the first page depicting the garden of Eden in big bright colours , after passing this 'difficult ' exam the average Ghanaian ( that's everyone ) then calls himself a doctor .
Dermot... he thinks I'm Irish because my profile says "United Kingdom"... he must not have done too well in his world history exam!
When my Irish friend was complaining about not having done as well in his Leaving Certificate exams as he'd wanted, I should have reassured him that they don't actually exist...
ππ Apparently he made you ' expose your faith ' π Jeffers is not the sharpest tool in the box and geography is another subject he knows little about .
When I was going to school in Dublin I had to sit exams or maybe that was all a dream of some sort π
Was it a case that like you, your deformed father had no genitals so you, being the illegitimate offspring of a syphilis infected traveling Romanian gypsy, who enticed your mother into bed with a few pots and pans, arrived by stork in the isolation ward for infectious diseases whilst being intravenously fed with penicillin.
Is it due to you being born with this social disease that your your mental capacity is so retarded or was it the result of being abused as a child by the local paedophile?
Did the Romanian gypsy visit your house regularly?
Did your half wit father watch the ''activity' with excitement and did your mother emerge from the bedroom with a satisfied smile on her face after their 'session(s)'?
Do try to remember to continue with your coarse of penicillin.
I know you're sharing your life tragedy story and you expect me an iconic figure in your eyes to have something in common with you.
Sorry, to disappoint, it doesn't work that way. I am the role model, and you're just a rolling bottle of an expired alchol i never touched heading to the junk bin......
You got the last three letters right as in nic , the other part is moronic that's you Jeffers as this debate clearly demonstrated ; you ran like the cowerdly dog you are as everyone in unison rubbished your ridiculous claim what a pounding you took I don't blame you fleeing for three days .
Every scientific theory has a formula except darwinian evolution why?
Your assertion is false. Scientific formulas were traditionally a staple of physics (and arguably chemistry), not biology. It is only recently, with analysis of the genetic code and human DNA that formulas have begun to become more prevalent in biology.
Biology certainly is a branch of science which does will make your head spin if chemical equations were inserted. Just studying about the human body,animals,plants etc is head spinning for biologist themselves now think about formulas to explain about those body entities.
"Darwinian evolution" is not a thing any more, and hasn't been for a hundred years. It's used by people like you almost as a perjerative.
Darwinian evolution effectively fell by the wayside and was replaced with what is called "The modern evolutionary synthesis" which has a combination of natural selection, common descent, biochemistry, evo-Devo, mendelivian inheritancs, and population genetics.
So, Darwinian evolution has few if any formulae.
MES has loads, indeed, population genetics is nearly as much a branch of mathematics as it is biology.
You also have the maths-heavy information theory, and a lot of game theory (including the Nash equilibrium).
So the idea that evolution has no formulae is pretty hilarious.