Originally posted by Fromabove
Evolution simply cannot work because of the randomness and the fact that any organism doing one thing would have no knowledge of needing to pass it on to the next generation, nor would any following organism know the need to keep it. So math is on my side by far. And math alone condemns evolution to to rubbish heap of ideas.

Life is far too complex to be a chance event with spontaneous knowledge and understanding.

How can you say the math is on your side when you haven't provided the equations you are using to figure those odds? What about the SCIENCE, that is CLEARLY in favor of evolution? Again, genetic mutations can be observed and studied. Natural selection can be observed and studied. 1+1=2. You need to provide sources or science experiments that show evolution is wrong, or creation is accurate. Oh wait, you don't have any of that, yet you know more than a scientist about a field you don't even know the very basics about. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

Originally posted by radkrish
Not many agree with this. We still don't know how it all evolved without any direction or guidance.

How does 99% of scientists sound? The points you brought up weren't suggesting evolution was guided, they were suggesting it was impossible.

And these are genuine questions that he asked which does not need one to be an evolutionary biologist. He mentioned in his website that simply questioning his credentials does not mean his questions are all wrong.

Questions can never be wrong. They are questions and they can be answered. I'm saying that his questions clearly demonstrate his lack of knowledge on the subject. If they are merely questions, that he's asking because of genuine interest in the subject, why is his website called evillusion.com?

Time this and Time that- we get complex organisms?! Why and how does Time and Nature have to assume and create something when it itself is not self-conscious?

When does nature assume? Science = how, faith / religion = why. So when a tree spreads its seed and it grows into a new tree, thus creating another tree with similar genetics to the first one, it consciously chose to do that? There's no need for that, because we know exactly how trees distribute their seeds. Now if you're actually falling back on the "evolution is guided" argument instead of what that web site suggests, then I'll simply say that's your opinion, and there's no evidence to suggest that is true. You're welcome to believe that as your faith, but pretty much all of those questions brought up are easily answered, and simply saying "oh, science can't explain THIS!" is not showing evidence of a designer or evolution guider", it's essentially saying we don't know the answer yet.

As much as I appreciate the OP's historical presentation, I must admit it's far too morphologically based. We need more genetics.