Evolution vs Creationism

You are again using the reverse approach to scientific method here. We formulate theories after confirmation of the hypothesis through experiments drawn from the evidence. Not 'Formulate theory and then look into evidence'. Evidence can't suggest theory is wrong because evidence is the thing we drew the theory from. If you are unaware of what scientific method is, it consist of five sequential steps. First evidence based observation, then secondly questioning and debating which leads to the third, making hypothesis. Fourth is conducting experiments and making predictions and then we formulate theory. Then theory eventually becomes a law. These steps are in sequential order. You can't just skip a step, or go down a step. If you do, you are just being unscientific. The theory of evolution, wasn't drawn from old primitive and anonymous scripture like creationism. No, it was a result of repeated experiments on evidence, and these evidence are not just the fossils, a wide variety of evidence from geological time scale, to molecular genetics. You've stated "Every single scientific theory has a mathematical formula except for evolution". Could this be any more wrong? Sorry to say this, but I was disappointed because this came from a biology student. This statement is absolutely obnoxious. No, there's no need of mathematical formulas to explain everything in science. Is there any mathematical formula to show how human conception occur? Is there any mathematical formula to show the theory of endosymbiosis? Does this mean human conception or endosymbiosis doesn't occur? You are learning biology. Is there mathematical equations to prove everything you learn in biology? Does human anatomy, photosynthesis, cellular respiration, bio diversity, excretion, skeletal systems, is there any mathematical functions to describe them all? Let me teach you something about science, Mathematics is the language of science, Mathematics is important to make 'predictions' based of physical variables. But evidence is more stronger than predictions. Because if the predictions are wrong, we can't just change the evidence, we change our theories to make our future predictions more accurate. Theory of evolution is here to stay. Scientific community is absolutely unanimously certain about this, and you can't change this fact. Your statement is also wrong to some extent because some parts of evolution does include some mathematical functions to decide gene flow through a population. I'm sure you have heard of "Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium" and "Drake's rule". These mathematical modules predict occurrence of dominant or recessive allele pairs down the generations and how the occurrence of some percentage mutations will cause the change in phenotype ratio, hence using this module, scientist are even able to calculate the time required to evolution of humans from any given species just using the data from molecular genetics and with some assumptions. And about the bacteria gene argument, you've stated "Bacteria has about 500 genes, and humans are having over 22,000". "According to the theory of evolution, simple bacteria transformed into a much more complex being" I absolutely agree on that. And then you asked "how can that be without adding a gene?" If you just do the math, you could see that, from evolution of bacteria to human 21,500 genes are added (based on your numbers). It looks like your point just ate itself. "A gene mutation can only change an existing gene" this is true, but genes make other genes all the time, It's called DNA Replication, I'm sure you have heard of this too. There's a theory called 'Conjoined Genes' which perfectly explain how new genes are added to gene pool of a species and how it is regulated, as a biology student, you must have learned about this. Just because you don't know, doesn't mean the entire theory falls, it just means your understanding about the theory, collapses. Since you've made the same point several times, The second law of thermodynamics is "In an isolated physical system, there is a tendency towards spatial homogeneity. In particular, when an isolated physical system reaches its own internal state of thermodynamic equilibrium" This is the most basic explanation, and this is a direct quote[1]. Again, I must stress the point 'isolated physical system' which the universe is not. if you are continuing to repeat the same point over and over, in this round or the next, I believe you have ran out 'evidence' to claim creationism. Is there any evidence in bio-genesis? Biogenesis is defined as the production of new living organisms or organelles. Is this evidence for supernatural god? Does second law of thermodynamic specifically suggest that there is a supernatural god able to create life? Is there any logic to that conclusion? If you are answering these questions simply 'yes', then all I have to say is 'It is just illogical thinking' And also, please explain me how dinosaur fossils prove creationism? Bible, nor the Quran doesn't teach us science. It just re-teaches us morals, which we had since the dawn of the mankind. The book of genesis never tried to explain anything in specific details because it can't. You can't just emphasise the occasional good verses from the bible ignoring all obviously wrong scientific errors in the bible. We are talking about the bible here. A book that says unicorns exist. A book that says the earth is flat. I assume you don't believe in either. You can't just cherry-pick only the correct ones from a book that contains many inaccuracy. One might say that bible is sometime not literal, for those, the only thing I have to say is they are just moulding what the bible says to prove their own argument. This is 21st century. And you are a smart person. How can a smart person believe in a talking snake, noah's ark, Jonah living in a whale. Are they any different from other fairytales you've heard. Don't you think when you were little if you were taught that jack and the beanstalk was religion, and Jonah living in a whale is fairytale, would you be defending Jack's story over Jonah's as the absolute truth? Bible doesn't say a word about dinosaurs, the job 40 actually refers to an rhinoceros, and you know that. Most religious people are actually smart, they know what is true and what is not, but some go to great lengths to defend such ridiculous irrational events as the absolute truth. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the literature from the artistic view. It seems like i'm gravitating away from the main subject here. You are using the 'fine tuning argument' which basically says everything earth has is very suitable to life, not too hot, not too cold, and somehow this translates as evidence of supernatural creator. I would like to approach your argument in this way. Let's assume there's infinite number of solar systems in the universe, from these solar systems lets say large number of them has a perfectly stable planetary system. For the sake of argument, let's say life did originated in each an every plant I've described above. So we have large number of stable planets orbiting around the sun, all are sustainable of life, and yet some of them are too close to the sun which is too hot, some of them so far away which is cold. The only life that survives in this way, is the life in the planets of not-so-cold-not-so-hot region. Isn't is the case for our own solar system? with the discovery of riverbeds and ancient dead bacterial colonies on mars which died out due to the planet being too hot. If you look at this holistically it's much like survival of the fittest in darwinian terms. Does this make us any special? Do we need a god to explain this natural phenomena? You can claim every thing in this world as proof for god, "look the mountains are proof, the moon is the proof" but is it really any proof at all? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...