- 3,475
- Vilnius
Maybe some had a dirty thought "Wow. I'm inside a vagina!" just before birth, so they had to die.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,001 views
- 11,294
- Sweden
- eran0004
Trees are green, so they have to have been made on a Thursday. Why? Because everything that's made on Thursdays are green. How do I know? I have carefully studied the evidence and I noticed that trees are green, and since they were made on a Thursday that proves I'm right.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Whoever came up with the title of that video deserves a round of applause for making me laugh. Perhaps they were watching a different clip and accidentally titled the wrong video - but the only person being owned in that clip is Phil Robinson. What a clown.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
I['m completely overwhelmed by the logic of that video. How could I have been so foolish as to think that the mountains (literally sometimes) of evidence in support of the ToE matter at all after that enlightenment?
The chick is pretty decent, though. I'd do her.
The chick is pretty decent, though. I'd do her.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
Figured as much, apologies.
Well duh, it's because we're already filthy sinners at birth.
Oh nooooo
- 687
Evolution: belief is optional, participation is not.
- 1,214
That's like asking if intelligent being created computers then why are there computer viruses and why does I have so many CTD. It's easy to die just the same as it's easy to CTD on my PC.
- 1,214
This is what happens to your cells in your body. The cell splits into another almost identical cell which splits into another almost identical cell which eventually the small neutral mutations adds up with time causing death. A lot of time equals death as there are a lot more ways to die than to live. Time isn't on our side yet evolutionist believe that Father Time and Mother Nature can produce miracles.
- 23,800
- Philippines
While vestigial and archaic features do exist on computer systems, such features always, always have a purpose.
Vestigial and archaic features on organisms do not. Oh, some of them are coopted to a new purpose, but they are never quite as fit as structures designed for that purpose in the first place.
Computers evolve with very obvious outside manipulation and design. And they don't reproduce. Organisms reproduce and evolve, manipulated by unthinking, chemical architects too small to see, but we've seen them, studied them and understand them to a point. Just because most people don't doesn't mean they're not there.
You're assuming that change over time is an unbelievable miracle. How is it fundamentally more unbelievable than everything appearing... poof... all at once? Especially as the evidence for continuous change and adaptation is present in every single organism alive on Earth? The evidence is so compelling against that Creationists have to begrudgingly accept "micro-evolution" because it's impossible to debate. All they can do is point at organisms even further back in time and say that the evidence for them is more tenuous.
That's like accepting that, sure, modern people can get drunk but saying that the evidence for ancient people getting drunk is not conclusive, even if we do have circumstantial evidence (historical writing) that they did.
Vestigial and archaic features on organisms do not. Oh, some of them are coopted to a new purpose, but they are never quite as fit as structures designed for that purpose in the first place.
Computers evolve with very obvious outside manipulation and design. And they don't reproduce. Organisms reproduce and evolve, manipulated by unthinking, chemical architects too small to see, but we've seen them, studied them and understand them to a point. Just because most people don't doesn't mean they're not there.
You're assuming that change over time is an unbelievable miracle. How is it fundamentally more unbelievable than everything appearing... poof... all at once? Especially as the evidence for continuous change and adaptation is present in every single organism alive on Earth? The evidence is so compelling against that Creationists have to begrudgingly accept "micro-evolution" because it's impossible to debate. All they can do is point at organisms even further back in time and say that the evidence for them is more tenuous.
That's like accepting that, sure, modern people can get drunk but saying that the evidence for ancient people getting drunk is not conclusive, even if we do have circumstantial evidence (historical writing) that they did.
Last edited:
- 1,214
I doubt the CTD I'm experiencing with NTG beta had a purpose.
Sounds like living cell fighting against time.
Man-made machine do build other machines. I serious doubt any of part of my computer were hand-made. Living cells do what they do without thinking because they are already equipped with the software and hardware to do so. With time cells will have hardware/ software failure.
I'm not against miracles as no matter what you believe everyone is forced to believe in them. I do believe time will bring on changes but not the changes some hope for.
- 7,621
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Again, no one believes in science. They only try to understand it. You see time leading to death. Great, that says nothing to prevent time from leading to life.
Even if you want to be stubborn and pretend that evolution doesn't happen, I'm sure you at least acknowledge that you came from your parents and that they came from their parents.
Your genes lives longer than individuals do, so what is so miraculous about evolution? It's not magic, it's a logical conclusion.
- 5,078
- Panama City, FL
Continuing from the same Zoom!Zoom! quote above, the fact that there are more ways to die then to live is part of evolution.
Nearly every mutation that results in an offspring having a trait not inherited from its parents is not advantageous to that individual. Stunted limbs, missing eyes, deafness, and so on will almost always result in the individual's death before its traits can be passed on to descendants.
Very rarely, though, some "freak of nature" actually produces an advantage. Some weird peice of skin becomes sensitive to air vibration. A malformed joint results in one of the paw's digits being opposite the others rather than in a line with them. Individuals with such traits are successful, and pass those traits down. Eventually no individuals without the advantageous trait exist any more, and the species has undergone a change.
Nobody made it happen, and it wasn't a "miraculous" shift in the genes. It was a freak thing that happened to be an improvement, and its success in the "haves" wipes out the "not-haves."
Nearly every mutation that results in an offspring having a trait not inherited from its parents is not advantageous to that individual. Stunted limbs, missing eyes, deafness, and so on will almost always result in the individual's death before its traits can be passed on to descendants.
Very rarely, though, some "freak of nature" actually produces an advantage. Some weird peice of skin becomes sensitive to air vibration. A malformed joint results in one of the paw's digits being opposite the others rather than in a line with them. Individuals with such traits are successful, and pass those traits down. Eventually no individuals without the advantageous trait exist any more, and the species has undergone a change.
Nobody made it happen, and it wasn't a "miraculous" shift in the genes. It was a freak thing that happened to be an improvement, and its success in the "haves" wipes out the "not-haves."
- 23,800
- Philippines
If you're talking about the side-effects of a beta-blocker, they're there because the medicine is acting upon an inherently flawed organic system, acting to correct a problem that shouldn't have been there in the first place if the organic system was properly "designed".
Machines cannot build machines autonomically. Organic compounds form in solution by themselves.
Evolution doesn't care how long an organism lives. It only care that it reproduces.
Evolution isn't a miracle. It's a simple, mathematical process. And yes, change does occur, even the ones some people hope didn't
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
An intelligent being didn't create computers; hundreds, nay thousands, of them did. Generally the beings who helped in the creation of computers are not the same beings who create viruses and other malware.
So are you saying that there isn't a single God, as the Bible assures us, but rather a whole pantheon? The ancient Greeks/Romans/Vikings had it right all along, or at least were more nearly correct?
That statement is completely irrelevant.
"Evolutionists" believe no such thing; neither Father Time, nor Mother Nature, nor miracles.
I myself am not "forced" to believe in anything. I do believe, however, that all so-called miracles have a rational explanation that doesn't invoke God.
Evolution is concerned with changes that have happened, not with changes which will happen and even less so with changes some might hope for.
Last edited:
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
Zoom Zoom, you clearly don't even know what causes ageing, I take it that is what you're trying to describe, and it's most definitely not to do with mutations.
Here, this will explain
Here, this will explain
- 1,214
If we find a Stargate (for example) on a descent planet studying it will give only limited information about it's builder or builders. This is evolution vs creation so there is limited on how much can be revealed about the creator; no mater if you believe a mindless nature god or a mindful superior god. I agree the only way to actually know the Creator (or creators) is by revelation and not by speculation.
really?
In denial huh? The idea that given enough time the impossible can happen.
Even ID is totally useless in predicting the sequences of amino acids of proteins and determining it's exact function until after the fact. It's not just the question now can evolution find the right sequences to construct a complex motor like the ATP synthase it's a question if man could find the right sequences with super-computers in 5 billion years. And this is dealing with just one of life's machines.
It's interesting that evolutionist still using the exact same arguments as Darwin used 150 years ago: the eye evolving, vestigial organs, etc. while science has move on into where the action really happens ; biochemistry, genetics, etc. While it's easy to slap a butch of eyes together from single to complex according to appearance yet it's not so easy to fit together when dealing on the genetic and biochemistry level.
Last edited:
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
No, it's even easier.
BSc. Molecular Biology & Genetics
MSc. Human Genetics & Disease
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
- 111
- Liverpool
- MrSulu
Complex life has been around for barely 1/10th of that time, and it's still a very, very, verylong time, more than you can get your head around.
Billions of generations with gradual mutations, and this horrible thing called EVIDENCE to back it up.
Also do any Young Earth Creationists have an opinion they would like to share with us on Pangaea?
How do people feel about "Theistic Evolution"?
The idea that God created evolution. If there is a God I think it's pretty safe to say he would've had to set Evolution into place. You can't argue with facts. Even the most annoying of all Bible lovers know evolution is obviously a real thing.
The idea that God created evolution. If there is a God I think it's pretty safe to say he would've had to set Evolution into place. You can't argue with facts. Even the most annoying of all Bible lovers know evolution is obviously a real thing.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- 23,800
- Philippines
Here's where we have a problem. The Universe and the Earth didn't start at the same time. Not nearly.
The Sun is a third-generation star. Meaning to say, detritus and debris left over from the previous two generations have seeded the cloud that eventually coalesced into the Sun. This is the reason we have a solid planet underneath our feet, spiked with metals and radioactive elements.
That's always been the interpretation I prefer. If there is a God, he might be behind the Big Bang. And even if there is a "God" that created him, and another beyond that one, and another, and another, all the way down to the "Prime Cause", it doesn't matter. Whatever or whoever created the Universe would be "God" to us.
The Sun is a third-generation star. Meaning to say, detritus and debris left over from the previous two generations have seeded the cloud that eventually coalesced into the Sun. This is the reason we have a solid planet underneath our feet, spiked with metals and radioactive elements.
That's always been the interpretation I prefer. If there is a God, he might be behind the Big Bang. And even if there is a "God" that created him, and another beyond that one, and another, and another, all the way down to the "Prime Cause", it doesn't matter. Whatever or whoever created the Universe would be "God" to us.
- 30,033
- Thailand
The only gripe I have with evolution is the stick insect.
How in evolutions name did it know to evolve into something that looked like a stick? Did it check a mirror and think "Mmmm...I'm not quite stick-like enough to avoid and fool predators yet, better evolve some more."?
How in evolutions name did it know to evolve into something that looked like a stick? Did it check a mirror and think "Mmmm...I'm not quite stick-like enough to avoid and fool predators yet, better evolve some more."?
- 7,621
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Two really really old insects. Insect 1 does not look like a stick. Insect 2 looks slightly less not like a stick. 1 gets eaten, 2 moves on. This continues. Stick bug results.
In more detail, you have a population of insects, they look very similar, but the probability of survival and reproduction for each of those insects is slightly different because of the small differences. The more stick like insects survived longer and reproduced more often. The most convincing insects passed on their genes, the others didn't.
In more detail, you have a population of insects, they look very similar, but the probability of survival and reproduction for each of those insects is slightly different because of the small differences. The more stick like insects survived longer and reproduced more often. The most convincing insects passed on their genes, the others didn't.
