1) If normally, random, inherent data-distribution is the foundation of evolution as stated by the above proponents…and the central limit theorem fits in the entire universe….meaning samples must fall within (approximate) the population…and the whole universe is made up of the same substances to nullify sample size….then why aren’t EARTH-TYPE planets prevalent?
a) who says they aren't? Half the planets in our solar system are rocky planets (more if you count the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.)
b) Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.
c) I don't think the "random, inherent data-distribution" is the foundation of evolution since elements are not all created equal (some are more reactive than others)
2) If system variability follows a predictable pattern….and evolution is a system…why isn’t transitional life more observable? Like 94% of the time?
Not to be rude... but... "because you don't know what to look for." We see it all around us. Back 120 million years ago, you would not have seen therapods as being in transition to birds... but they were making the transition. We humans are in the process of transitioning to something else -- we're far different from Australopithecus and Homo Erectus... and they were in the process of transitioning to us. However, you can't predict a future based on the past because of the uncontrollable number of variables, including cultures.
3) Why do evolutionists hold to the role of normally distributed-data and deny the central limit theorem….meaning, if nature did it only once it … it is not COMMON, and therefore must be assignable/special/God-breathed/Jesus-stuff? Does the math add up?
Because (although I'm familiar with those theorems), you aren't actually using any of the common tools used by scientists in studying evolution. Math won't add up. Take the Galton Experiment -- it had identically sized balls dropped past identically sized openings and bouncing against identically sized pegs. If you wanted to simulate evolution, then it'd be millions of different sized balls and thousands of different sized openings and pegs and many of the pegs would cause the balls to explode while some openings would cause balls to stick together or change color or turn into fluids or teleport them to the other side of the game board. Each ball, each peg, each hole, each gap would be unique. A ball passing through a hole would change the hole, a peg hit by a ball would change the peg and the ball.
THEN you'd have a model of evolution.
4) Doesn’t the biblical premise of Jesus’ ‘omni-present’ characteristic makes sense with him being the supposed “missing matter”
Uh... no? Jesus is not presented in the Bible as omnipresent.
What’s missing in Quantum Physics?
A ***REALLY*** good way of explaining it to people who don't understand differential geometry and partial differential equations (among other things.)
Quotes from Discovery Magazine in 2000, “The weirdness comes from the gluons. Quantum chromo dynamics, the force that holds protons together, is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics, the force that holds atoms together—but the gluons change screening to anti-screening, intuitive to bizarre.”
Dramatic Science Writing at its finest. If the writer had simply said "Quantum chromdynamics is modeled closely on quantum electrodynamics with the following changes noted", the editor who received the piece for the magazine would have turned it down as "not interesting to our audience."
I've sold some science articles to popular magazines. You have to have a "hook." It has to have appeal and drama. And it has to be shallow enough for everyone to understand.
In fact, if you follow the evolution to infinitely short distances, the triggering charge goes to zero. If you really study the equations, it gets almost mystical."
What's "mystical" to the average person and "mystical" to physicists and mathematicians are actually different things. The Riemann hypothesis is not mystical to any ordinary person, but it can be to the mathematician.
T
