Scientific Proof Against Evil-lution

Originally posted by e4chris
to try and be serious , (somehow i picture you in a fez)

Evil lution, Darwins ideas were based on observation, in particular how certain humming birds beaks had evolved to fit certain flowers, and the flowers evolved round the birds who polinated them (why i was on about foxgloves earlier) You can see this with your own eyes, its hard to dispute. if there ...[text shortened]... evolutionairy ideas to them , offering evolution up as an alternative to god, is a stupid idea.

Darwin never showed any evidence of evil-lution. What he was showing was the effects of adaption and what he called "natural selection" resulting from various factors through reproduction. He only hypothesised the possibility of something like evil-lution. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwin never showed any evidence of evil-lution. What he was showing was the effects of adaption and what he called "natural selection" resulting from various factors through reproduction. He only hypothesised the possibility of something like evil-lution. 😏

i grant you that, Darwin is not like Newton, you can't prove it in a lab, but he is about right.

Originally posted by e4chris
i grant you that, Darwin is not like Newton, you can't it in a lab, but he is about right.

The atheists picked up on the idea and have been doing everything, by hook or crook, to promote it ever since. They have even redefined words so that evil-lution now can be any biological change, including adaptation and Darwin's natural selection.

I can't argue with Darwin on adaptation and natural selection for, apparently, God has made his creatures able to adapt to changes in order to preserve the kinds. However, that is not what evil-lution started out to be. And evil-lutionists do not limited it to that.

The evil-lutionists believe in Darwin's hypothesis that all the variety of creatures and even man came from one common ancestor which must have taken millions or billions of years. There is absolutely no evidence for that type of evil-lution, even though the atheists have attempted to fraud the pubic into accepting these ridiculous notions.

What I find interesting is that within certain groups even these can't reproduce. Like a Horse and a Donkey make the hybrid Mule yet two mules can't reproduce. Also in the Dog group certain types like Jackals can't reproduce with wolves or something like that. Obviously the hybrid and the parent animals were or are related somehow or they could not even produce a hybrid. fascinating no doubt.



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
What I find interesting is that within certain groups even these can't reproduce. Like a Horse and a Donkey make the hybrid Mule yet two mules can't reproduce. Also in the Dog group certain types like Jackals can't reproduce with wolves or something like that. Obviously the hybrid and the parent animals were or are related somehow or they could not even produce a hybrid. fascinating no doubt.



Manny

Apparently, they have reached the limit that God has set within that kind.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is common sense again. God is said to have made them to reproduce after their own kind. Have you ever seen a cat reproduce a dog or vice versa? If you see an alligator hatching out of an egg, you should know a bird did not lay that egg. That might be okay with Evil-lution, but not with God. 😏

So if my domestic cat produces a litter of lions I shouldn't be surprised?

Originally posted by e4chris
to try and be serious , (somehow i picture you in a fez)

Evil lution, Darwins ideas were based on observation, in particular how certain humming birds beaks had evolved to fit certain flowers, and the flowers evolved round the birds who polinated them (why i was on about foxgloves earlier) You can see this with your own eyes, its hard to dispute. if there ...[text shortened]... evolutionairy ideas to them , offering evolution up as an alternative to god, is a stupid idea.

Survival of the fittest doesn't have quite the same meaning now as it did then. Now it implies physically fit, back then it meant those that fitted best into their bit of the environment, what ecologists call a niche.

Originally posted by e4chris
I think denying evolution is an intellectual cul de sac. But the adam and eve story holds much more water, and its important to point out to some scientist like dawkins humans did not evolve, they seperated, and applying evolutionairy ideas to them , offering evolution up as an alternative to god, is a stupid idea.

Well actually we have all the evidence we need and more to demonstrate that actually humans did (and are still)
evolve. And anyone trying to tell Dawkins, or any other biologist, otherwise is likely to get a well deserved ticking off.

We evolved, we are great apes, we descend from monkeys. Period.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well actually we have all the evidence we need and more to demonstrate that actually humans did (and are still)
evolve. And anyone trying to tell Dawkins, or any other biologist, otherwise is likely to get a well deserved ticking off.

We evolved, we are great apes, we descend from monkeys. Period.

Dawkins is the idiot for trying to dress up evolution (which remember when applied to people is called Eugenics) as an alternative to religion

it is painfully well proven that Eugenics is not an alternative to religion.

Originally posted by e4chris
Dawkins is the idiot for trying to dress up evolution (which remember when applied to people is called Eugenics) as an alternative to religion

it is painfully well proven that Eugenics is not an alternative to religion.

Um What?!?!?!

You don't know what you are talking about.

First off, nobody, including Dawkins, is saying that evolution is an alternative to religion.

That's as stupid as saying that Newtonian gravity is an alternative to religion.

Evolution is an explanation (a scientific theory) for how life diversified and adapted to it's
environment over billion of years to give the present diversity of species (including us).
All arising from a single common ancestor.

That's all it is (although when I say all... that's quite a lot).

What Dawkins, and others HAVE said... Is that a consequence of understanding how the
modern diversity of species can come to exist through purely natural unguided means is that
you have no need of, or evidence for, a god creating us.

When asked the question of where do we come from you don't have to say "I don't know" and
then have to explain to the idiotically triumphant theist that "and you don't know either, and
when you don't know you don't get to just make up an answer"... With evolution and the rest of
modern science you can actually answer the question (with a few parts still to be worked out).

this doesn't make atheism any more rationally justified (it was already full justified without it)...
But it does make it more satisfying.


As for Eugenics... That's a complicated subject, but saying that talking about the evolution of
people is automatically eugenics is absurd and wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um What?!?!?!

You don't know what you are talking about.

First off, nobody, including Dawkins, is saying that evolution is an alternative to religion.

That's as stupid as saying that Newtonian gravity is an alternative to religion.

Evolution is an explanation (a scientific theory) for how life diversified and adapted to it's
environment ove g about the evolution of
people is automatically eugenics is absurd and wrong.

You cannot deny the first half of the 20th century

you had evolution from darwin, which became eugenics which quickly became genocide. worst still an 'intellectually grounded' one, that is what happens when evolution gets out of the science books and into philosophy

Dawkins is good at promoting discussion and creationists need putting right sometimes, but he is one hell of a devils advocate.

Originally posted by e4chris
You cannot deny the first half of the 20th century

you had evolution from darwin, which became eugenics which quickly became genocide. worst still an 'intellectually grounded' one, that is what happens when evolution gets out of the science books and into philosophy

Dawkins is good at promoting discussion and creationists need putting right sometimes, but he is one hell of a devils advocate.

Bullc**p

You need to learn history from someone who isn't a lying Christian apologist.

The atrocities of the last century ABSOLUTELY don't follow from and are not supported by evolutionary theory.

What happened is what happens when ignorant evil bigots distort and pervert a straw man of evolutionary theory.

You need to go back to school.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Bullc**p

You need to learn history from someone who isn't a lying Christian apologist.

The atrocities of the last century ABSOLUTELY don't follow from and are not supported by evolutionary theory.

What happened is what happens when ignorant evil bigots distort and pervert a straw man of evolutionary theory.

You need to go back to school.

your wrong, wrong , wrong , evolution is a dangerous idea when taken out of the science book.... school, do you remember the bell curve studies, how much controversy they caused. I should clarify i have a degree in chemistry, not biology true, but unless you have one i doubt you can educate me much on this

Originally posted by e4chris
your wrong, wrong , wrong , evolution is a dangerous idea when taken out of the science book.... school, do you remember the bell curve studies, how much controversy they caused. I should clarify i have a degree in chemistry, not biology true, but unless you have one i doubt you can educate me much on this

Mines in physics.

And also unlike you I actually understand evolutionary theory and am not so intellectually bumfuzzled that I think it's rational to believe in gods and the supernatural.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Mines in physics.

And also unlike you I actually understand evolutionary theory and am not so intellectually bumfuzzled that I think it's rational to believe in gods and the supernatural.

did you read the bit i posted about humming birds, yes i have read a bit about it too. Christianity is about compassion, evolution is not, i think thats why the two ideas rub so much