Forums → WEPR → [nec]Christianity vs Atheism
| 3094 | 564809 |
- 3,094 Replies
Even if Evolution were through mutation, it wouldn't work because mutation only affects, it does not create. For example:
Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
� Scales had to have mutated into hair.
� Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
� Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.
Those three examples are not what would happen. What would happen is that scales get replaced by hair, but the gene for scales would still exist. The rest follows the same idea. When studying genes scientists found a number of genes that seemingly did nothing, but when turned on would cause animals to grow scales, limbs, eyes, whatever they once had before they gained new traits. A good example of this is tails in humans. Humans are sometimes born with tails. Why you ask, well thats because humans have genes that can grow tails, but because we evolved to not have tails most people do not have them.
And why do they show a picture - or even idea - that the whale lost legs and dove into the sea? Isn't Evolution about gaining things, not losing them?
Anyone or thing that told you whales lost legs was lying. Whales still have the legs they had when they walked on land, they evolved into the flippers we see today.
This is a whale flipper, notice how it still looks like a limb you would find on a land mammal.
'No record of evolution of any kind'?...
Could you explain how this:
Became these:
[url=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/03/article-0-004EEFC7000004B0-704_468x436.jpg]
over the course of roughly 10,000 years?
I would be SO insulted to come from apes...
Why so? You are technically an ape, by all scientific definitions. You are a monkey without a tail, witch in most cases, means your an ape.
I'd much rather be made in the image of God than of the image of Ape.
Your not in the image of an ape, you just share a common ancestor.
You know that sort of insulted me. Here are some things I do know: Evolution has never been totally correct historically. Nor scientifically. Even if Evolution were through mutation, it wouldn't work because mutation only affects, it does not create. For example:
So the frogs with multiple legs don't exist?
Darwinists
Has anyone noticed this term is only used by the foolish?
Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
� Scales had to have mutated into hair.
� Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
� Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.
It doesn't have to be reptiles, first off. For example, look at the whale. Secondly, its easier than you think. The ones that mutated a little hair would be slightly warmer(assuming they have warm blood at this point) making them able to do slightly more, then pass on the hair gene until it is all over. Then another generation mutates slightly to have a little more hair, and so on and so forth. Same thing for the breasts, those that were able to feed there children survived better thus the trait was passed on. Same thing for the young being born inside.
Also: there is no record of any evolution of any kind. Animals are the same and have been the same since we can remember. Also, naturally, there is no record. By now, over the last few thousand years, we should have some change of some kind. But since we are the same as we were a few thousand years ago.
Wow. This is totally ignorant. There is plenty of records, just look at one of the dozens of links we have provided.... Evolution takes time. A lot of it. If you want to see micro evolution, just look at a banana, dog, or any crop. They were all bread, by humans, to have specific traits, such as long living and dogs breeds having strong noses, thanks to evolution.
Now, the textbooks. Even today, they are showing things that were proved false a while ago. Shouldn't they have taken them out by now? And why do they show a picture - or even idea - that the whale lost legs and dove into the sea? Isn't Evolution about gaining things, not losing them?
Most aren't. Evolution is about being fit for survival. Lets say a species of deer had five legs, and managed to survive. One leg just hang loosely from its stomach. Evolving it off would make growth and food usage more effective.
I don't know if you realized... Mark Cahill was a Evolutionist just like you all the way through college. He provides a crapload of evidence (or lack of) against Evolution, and why the Bible is much more believable than Evolution
The Bible is less believable than my seventh grade creative writing assignment, everything is more believable than it...
For example, he explains how the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate
Yes, like the talking snakes that eat dirt. Great science there... And its about as historic as the Iliad, why are they not taken as infallible?
The Bible states ideas - including atoms - before they found out the earth was round.
Were in hell does it say about the atom? "And then, O LORD, you created a microscopic building block, with a nuclease, electrons, protons, and neutrons, with the protons and neutrons in the middle. O LORD you have made the electron act as if a wave some of the time, but as a solid other of the time." I would like to see that verse..
The universe was created by someone who knew what they were doing, from fine craftwork like atoms to entire galaxies, and strings of galaxies, and music
Our eye takes images upside down. Without massive work from the brain, you would see everything upside down. If there is a designer, why not make a better eye?
Today Mark Cahill is a speaker and evangelist, speaking at youth conferences and camps and such. (he is an incredible speaker, I'll tell you that.)
Great, another child brain washer...
You do realize that the Creationist ideas have been dis proven, over and over and over and over, hundreds of years ago?
There are other questions I have. Humans are very far in the line - they can think, they have free will, and can do other things that regular animals can't
It is theorized that beasts can think, they obviously have what you would call "free will", and can do everything humans can... For example, have you ever seen one of the videos of a non human animal using/making tools?
Where did humans learn to walk on their feet?
Its not something you learn. Apes have the same ability. It is a useful trait we have gained that makes climbing much simpler.
they're the only animal that does it normally.
More ignorance...
Notice how its walking on its feet.
Babies crawl, their parents teach them to walk.
Babies crawl do to there inability to walk. You don't "learn" to walk. Its something that is natural. If both your parents were killed by Lord Voldemort (who has a striking resemblance to your god) then you would still walk even without them "teaching" you.
Where did we originally learn that from
You don't learn to walk -_-. Most animals can walk only a little time after there born, without any need to be thought how to walk..
No animal can talk,
What do you call dogs barking, howling, and whining? They are communicating. What do you call primates using hand signals? Communicating.
Birds will build nests, but no other animal will do that
Rats, primates, parry dog burrows, mole holes, actually nest building is quite common.
Bears will sometimes walk on their feet, however very rarely, usually only when they are angry
I already proved your ignorance here...
Oh look, another biped!
Shouldn't all the animals have formed into more complex beings, like us?
They are, what makes you think your so advanced? Even bacteria is advanced now a days.
Why are there no transformations happening now?
There are, they just take forever.
In conclusion, your arguments are based solely on ignorance... Avorne's links get the rest.