The Armor Games website will be down for maintenance on Monday 10/7/2024
starting at 10:00 AM Pacific time. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Forums → WEPR → Intelligent design Vs Evolution
| 388 | 55572 |
- 388 Replies
Wrong. It is not testable, and not observable.
Microbes. Bacteria live and die much faster than we do, and we can observe natural selection and in some cases, even speciation, with them.
Wrong. Micro-evolution are small defections in the DNA (Small Dog Big Dog etc.) Not 99/100 dog 1/100 cat turning into 98/100 dog 2/100 cat, etc.
(Tell me if i am wrong, which i am sure you will say) Macro-Evolution is saying that a dinosaur evolved into a feathered Bird-osaur after 3000 trillion years(feathered Dinosaur-bird which does not have supported fossils) and then into a bird after another 3000 trillion years.
Disclaimer: I randomly chose birds and dinosaurs i am not saying that is what evolutionists believe.
No, you're wrong.
"Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process."
~wabam
Micro-Ev can can observed not Macro-Ev.
Macroevolution doesn't need to be observed, because it's just a way of categorizing the evolutionary process in a more holistic way than microevolution, which is reductionist.
No evidence that we evolved from amino acids etc.
The fact that WE'RE MADE OF AMINO ACIDS is evidence enough. This is stuff they teach you in middle school science class.
Because no one was alive to observe the big bang/ us evolving from AA's, we are unable to recreate the (fictional) occurrence.
Oh please. Observational evidence is not the only kind of evidence. And there is observational evidence anyway.
There have been no transitional fossils to be found.
No matter how stable it is, it's still combusting gases into radiation, heat and stuff. So it is losing gases over time. which would either make the sun Colder of hotter, not both at the same time.
The Sun is a yellow star. That means it has hydrogen and helium in close-to-equal amounts. So it's losing them both, quite possibly in relatively equal amounts.
Where?
Nylonase
Peppered moth
Can't find the link right now, but there is also a lizard that was transplanted from on environment into another who developed a completely new digestive system and social traits.
Just to name a few.
I could randomly make a tree of life that said rocks evolved into humans too.
No scientist is saying that.
Not 99/100 dog 1/100 cat turning into 98/100 dog 2/100 cat, etc.
If that happened that would disprove evolution.
Macro-Evolution is saying that a dinosaur evolved into a feathered Bird-osaur after 3000 trillion years(feathered Dinosaur-bird which does not have supported fossils) and then into a bird after another 3000 trillion years.
First off, 3000 trillions of years? Are you trying to be sarcastic or do I have to break out my facepalm made of facepalms.
Disclaimer: I randomly chose birds and dinosaurs i am not saying that is what evolutionists believe.
To bad considering it's the first thing you got somewhat right so far.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=new-feathered-dinosaur-specimen-wea-2009-09-24
Oh, and btw transitional fossil depicted in the link. You know one of those things you say don't exist.
There is no evidence that the big bang happened, No evidence that we evolved from amino acids etc. Because no one was alive to observe the big bang/ us evolving from AA's, we are unable to recreate the (fictional) occurrence.
There's evidence it's been presented, your ignoring it.
If by evolution you meant the entire amino acids (Or w/e it was) turning into life, (AKA abiogenisis or w/e you said it was) then eventually into humans. Then it does explain the origin of life.
abiogenesis is a different theory that does explain the origin of life. Evolution just explains what happened afterwords.
Seriously, this guy is either really ignorant to just about everything in the scientific community regarding evolution (even what it is by definition) or he is trolling us all hardcore...
Maybe both?
One thing i do not get about atheists. Why do you debate on this forum? If you "convert" me to atheism and it turns out you are right, you gain nothing. Tell me if I'm wrong, but if we "evolved" from matter then we should have no purpose.
interest in the truth. I don't give a flying &*^% about converting you. As for purpose sure I have purpose in my life.
You could technically argue that one objective purpose or meaning to life (in a collective not individual sense) is to reproduce.
There are also individual subjective purposes such as the one of mine that has me coming back and debating with people like you.
Maybe, but the person that i converted would have gained everything.
Ability to not be able to think, feel, or act for themselves...
Mage . . . .
You mean . . . THIS FACEPALM MADE OF FACEPALMS?????!!!?!??!/1?!/1/1//1!
Anyway, I was convinced a long time ago that redace is just rolling us. But I like going with the flow with trolls like this, to give 'em practice before going onto something crazy, like /b/.