What's new
By:

Evolution discussion

PearlWatson said:
Okay, so you get out your fossils and you line them up from smallest to biggest how you think they might have progressed. Then you tell us that a series of lucky accidents accounts for this progress. Then we say, hey you geniuses, "that looks like a clean and well organized sequence of events," but then you keep on telling us that this was a brutal dog eat dog fight for survival among all the retarded babies.
Click to expand...


Nobody tells you it was series of lucky accidents.
The progress was neither clean nor well organized.
It is you who are creating and using "retarded babies" terminology. None of the evolutionist using it. You trying to use extremely primitive way to describe extremely complex situation.
 
AKMVP said:
Nobody tells you it was series of lucky accidents.
The progress was neither clean nor well organized.
It is you who are creating and using "retarded babies" terminology. None of the evolutionist using it. You trying to use extremely primitive way to describe extremely complex situation.
Click to expand...

Let me clear up some terminology.

lucky accidents = random mutation

linear progression = clean and well organized

retarded babies = animals with weird *** random mutations they are trying out to see if they are "fit" enough to survive
 
PW: There were black and white moths before pollution and there was black and white moths after.
OB: Of course.

When you are trying to show that black moths are more "fit" for survival than white, the continued existence of white moths presents a huge problem.
****
PW: If you continued to support this idea that nature knows how to deal with pollution you would also undermine the entire "climate change" movement. Ooops.
OB: I don't see the connection between the peppered moth experiment and "nature knows".

If "natural selection" of black moths leads to adaptation to pollution. What other crazy *** **** does mother nature perform to adapt to human caused pollution. It turns out she has a lot of tricks up her sleeve, like sea bacteria that eats oil slicks.
 
One Brow said:
The problem is not that evolutionists lack an answer, it's that there are so many possible answers, and no reliable way to choose between them.
Click to expand...

The real problem is that scientists can't question the crazy *** answers Darwiniacs insist upon.
 
green said:
When it comes to science, God is irrelevant. IF God exists, he follows the laws of science. If you believe in the Bible, Jesus didn't snap his fingers then magically walk through walls. He did it following the laws of science. Jesus didn't say abracadabra and magically walk on water. He did it manipulating the laws of science. He didn't shuffle a deck of cards, then feed thousands from a few fish, he did it following the laws of science (which, we are close to being able to replicate with 3-D printing).

This is a stupid debate, because it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

This is kind of a weird claim. Christ either followed the laws of nature or he violated/manipulated the laws of nature.

He would be considered supernatural when He overcame death, or turned water into wine, or made fish go farther than they normally would have. He is above the law because he created the laws...like Congressmen.

The debate matters to the degree that it shapes social policy.

Eugenics was a disastrous policy that was shaped by the idea that humans are an accident and that some of them are more "fit" than others.
 
AKMVP said:
What evidence you have that it was clean and well organized? Plus why you calling it linear progression?
Click to expand...

Okay you say whales came from this "Pakicetus" bear-like mammal fossil

tumblr_mie44kPeyh1r34488o1_500.png


and you Darwiniacs must have a chart somewhere that shows the progression from pakicetus to whale...that would be a linear progression....you get what I'm saying?

Have you ever taken geometry?
 
PearlWatson said:
Okay you say whales came from this "Pakicetus" bear-like mammal fossil

tumblr_mie44kPeyh1r34488o1_500.png


and you Darwiniacs must have a chart somewhere that shows the progression from pakicetus to whale...that would be a linear progression....you get what I'm saying?
Click to expand...

Stop bear analogy for once - pakicetus was not bear like.

And are you saying that you agree that evolution from pakicetus to whale took place but it was not caused by evolution forces but it was rather well organized and directed by intelligent designer making necessary changes in genetic codes of these transitional species until he/she got what he/she was aiming for - a whale?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top