Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[Trader666]

Speaking of "false equivalency," humans not being able to disprove the existence of these at a given point in time absolutely does NOT make them equally likely to exist or not. Do you not already get that?

Hypocrisy much?

Quote from Gayfly:

No one can disprove the existence of a god any more than disprove the existence of unicorns, blue swans, and spaghetti monsters. Do you not already get that?

Hypocrisy much?

 

[Max E.]

But why would we ditch a quality which was so beneficial? You are "one offing" this, as if it is inconsequential.

What do you think would happen to a bird, if one day they mutated and lacked the wings to fly? Would they just continue to live and evolve that way?

There is tons of examples in evolution where animals lost qualities that would have been beneficial, or gained qualities which would have been detrimental.

Natural selection doesnt explain everything.

Quote from Gabfly1:

As for your swinging monkey comment, we are cousins of chimpanzees and somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys. Regardless, natural selection is always about trade-offs. There is only so much energy that can be concentrated on any single attribute before it takes away from another. I cannot specifically answer your question because I don't know. However, I do know that whatever attributes mutated over time for our more recent ancestors, the bottom-line trade-off obviously favored our present form. Remember, embryos can't simply have it all. By and large, it's pick and choose, give and take. Overdeveloping one attribute comes at the expense of another. And yes, Dawkins discusses the "economics" of evolutionary change.

 

[Trader666]

I said the thread is about evolution and in fact the title is "Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph." Sex is a subtopic of that. Is inbreeding a family tradition?

Quote from shortie:

this thread is about sex if you bother to read the opening post

but i bet you would not know what sex is



since you can't comprehend the opening post it appears your reading comprehension is lacking

but i am no doctor and can't help you there either, sorry



also you seem to be obsessed with inbreeding (did something bad happen to you as a child?)

-- Shortie Freud Out

p.s. i think i am gonna start adding the dumbest ones to my ignore list

 

[Trader666]

Gayfly desperately cares. Dawkins is one of his science "gods."

Quote from Hansel H:

In any case who cares what Dawkins says?

 

[seneca_roman]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

But why would we ditch a quality which was so beneficial? You are "one offing" this, as if it is inconsequential.

What do you think would happen to a bird, if one day they mutated and lacked the wings to fly? Would they just continue to live and evolve that way?

There is tons of examples in evolution where animals lost qualities that would have been beneficial, or gained qualities which would have been detrimental.

Natural selection doesnt explain everything.

Nor does God; if so, why did a Priest save Hitler from drowning?

 

[Max E.]

Quote from seneca_roman:

Nor does God; if so, why did a Priest save Hitler from drowning?

I thought i made myself very clear in this thread that i dont believe in a god based on an organised religion. I simply believe that there are gigantic holes in science which we can not explain. And i do not dismiss the fact that there could be something bigger than us out there which we can not explain.

 

[shortie]

the thread is much cleaner now that Trader666's posts are gone.

Thank God for that!

 

[as678]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

I thought i made myself very clear in this thread that i dont believe in a god based on an organised religion. I simply believe that there are gigantic holes in science which we can not explain. And i do not dismiss the fact that there could be something bigger than us out there which we can not explain.

Pick up a college biology textbook and study it for about a year. All the holes will be explained to you in detail beyond reasonable doubt.

It just takes time and effort to understand these things. Mental capacity helps, but you're a trader, you should have that already.

 

[byteme]

Quote from Max E. Pad:

What do you think would happen to a bird, if one day they mutated and lacked the wings to fly? Would they just continue to live and evolve that way?

Again. Wow.

If you were genuine, you would have made an earnest effort to learn about the topic by now.

I applaud the patience of the people on here who have been humoring you.

 

[jem]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Settle down. No one can prove god does not exist any more than they can prove that a spaghetti monster does not exist. The comparison may seem silly to you, but it is an even-handed comparison from an evidentiary standpoint. Can you not see when he patronizes you with a throw-away? So he throws you an inflated 1% bone and you're all giggles. Even at that overly generous mulligan of 1%, you're still willing to overlook the 99%? It's amazing on just how little straw some people can thrive.

How life began is a matter of statistical probability, which Dawkins goes on at some length to explain. It is not about certitude of the form creationists have about their faith. It is about scientifically valid statistical probability which is far more than you and your creationist buddies have at your disposal.

you really do not understand the science do you....

the stats are overwhelmingly impossible against life forming on earth from non life, by chance.

Do you want the quotes again... do you understand why Dr. Crick the nobel prize winning DNA guy suggested that maybe life got here via pan spermia.

The best guess is that it would take something like the perfect timing and alignment of 250 substances (read variables) to form that first cell.

the idea of that happening by chance is trillions and trillions and trillions to one. There has not been enough time to take the chances and there was probably not enough substance on the earth to allow the chances.... its almost folly to suggest it happened by chance.

thats the science....

One noble prize winners said that its this absurd.... it would be like expecting a golf ball to play a golf course at par by random chance just because a golfer could play the course at par.