Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can evolution prove creation?....They are direct opposites...One is real, verified and testable and the other is a figment of a bunch of goat herders imaginations more than two thousand years ago. Fantasies cannot be verified. Creation could be taught in a comparative religions class, but certainly not in a science class.
Yet, the fact that you're sitting there able to express a thought proves that which you deny.
How could something evolve that was never created?
Again, why keep bringing up things unrelated to evolution in a discussion about
evolution (and then attempt and use them to point out how others have bought
into the hoax that is evolution)? To me, that just screams you don't know what
evolution is.
I brought it up to illuminate the weakness of your theory
Quote:
And to what weakness in my position are you referring?
Natural selection an only occur when life already exists. It is a theory of improvement, but you cannot improve something which does not already exist. Also, assuming a fish came out of nowhere and started evolving, how did one fish knew to evolve wings and another one know to evolve hands and legs? Don't you think humans could use wings AND arms and legs? The truth is that the target, the blueprint, is in the DNA, not in some random accident.
I wish the religious would just simply say, "I have faith in what I believe. I require no evidence, so I will not try to prove it. It is simply faith." Instead, they try to employ logic, very poorly, and mix in pseudo-science along with gross misrepresentations of science ("Evolution is just a theory!!!")
Actually the scientists who believe in creation use science just like the those scientists who believe in evolution. Have you seen "Darwin's Dilemma"? Veteran scientists like Simon Conway Morris, James Valentine, Paul Chien, Jonathan Wells, Richard Sternberg, Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer and others use your own 'god', science, to provide evidence to prove species did not evolve the way you have been taught.
Evolution is a theory that can be changed as new data arises.
Creationism is unchanging dogma that is believed solely on faith.("a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true").
In my 65 years the current status of the evolution theory sounds more plausible than the creationism story. Debating either side of the coin is rather pointless as i'm sure most people made up their minds long ago as to which side of the fence they are on with this issue.
You would think, finding the missing link, would have been big news.
You would think that people who took it upon themselves to criticize one of the best-founded scientific theories in existence would read up enough to realize that using a term like "missing link" - yet alone claiming its absence is a problem for the ToE - instantly flags them as having no idea of what they're talking about.
Natural selection an only occur when life already exists.
Correct.
Quote:
It is a theory of improvement...
No. It is a theory of adaptation. Subtle, but seriously crucial difference. Evolution has blundered into some solutions that are best described as crude hacks - but, given the nature of the process, can't be helped now. Can't unevolve the mammal eye and start over to get the better squid design that doesn't have a blind spot. Evolution is stuck with doing what it can with what it has.
Quote:
Also, assuming a fish came out of nowhere and started evolving, how did one fish knew to evolve wings and another one know to evolve hands and legs?
Nobody postulates a complex organism like a fish came out of nowhere. That being said, different mutations are beneficial in different ecological niches.
Quote:
Don't you think humans could use wings AND arms and legs?
We branched off from the "has possibility to develop flight" predecessors long ago - but we do of course share a common ancestor with bats, way back when. Evolution works with what it has, not towards some grand final design. But once evolution has arrived at a bipedal ape on the Savannah, you can't backtrack the process and start down a path towards flying mammals.
Quote:
The truth is that the target, the blueprint, is in the DNA, not in some random accident.
DNA isn't the result of some random accident. Mutations are random, selection very much isn't.
I brought it up to illuminate the weakness of your theory
Natural selection an only occur when life already exists. It is a theory of improvement, but you cannot improve something which does not already exist. Also, assuming a fish came out of nowhere and started evolving, how did one fish knew to evolve wings and another one know to evolve hands and legs? Don't you think humans could use wings AND arms and legs? The truth is that the target, the blueprint, is in the DNA, not in some random accident.
One more time with feeling.....
The fact that you asked something so asinine proves you know virtually nothing about evolution. You're embarrassing yourself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
