Originally posted by @dj2beckerWe have not been around long enough to see a moth evolve to something else. That is not in the cards. That moth story is proof evolution is here and is real.
Started off as a moth ended as a moth. There is ample evidence for variations within a kind and this doesn't contradict creation.
You can believe in creationism because science as a whole is still in kindergarten, it's only been around a couple hundred years and humans have been around for a couple hundred THOUSAND years as well as previous versions around for millions of years such as Denosovans and Neantertals. These were real humans of a different variety from deep in our past and we can see the changes brought about by evolution from the ordering of the available fossils which are relatively few and far between for humanity.
You should not try science to add evidence for creationism, you just just say, this is my religion, live with it.
That is fine since science can only point to possible ways life may have started on Earth for now, but I believe the answers will come about but may take another two hundred years which of course leaves me out as far as personally finding the answers.
However you don't get to force the conflation of evolution with life origins, totally separate science no matter how much you scream we can't separate the two disciplines.
Evolution has NOTHING to do with life origins and there is nothing you can do to change that except mouth the continuous opinions that they do.
So just accept you think life origins is due to creationism and based ONLY on faith. There is no other choice in the matter.
All your proof by design is just another failure of the creationist community.
For instance, the eye as part of that design issue where you try to say you cannot remove part X and still have an eye and so forth is just so much balderdash.
If you had cared enough to actually study the issue, eyes evolved early on starting with just patches of skin or beneath with molecules sensitive to light, just the mere presence of light, nothing more, a lot of primitive animals have that ability and following that trail leads to fossils with progressively more complex light receptors and different modes of vision.
It is all there in the fossil record but I guess you would never deign to study such things seriously since that would directly conflict with your own world view.
That is definitely YOUR problem, not ours. So please drop this design issue and just back off and call it faith. That way we don't have to endlessly loop what has already been proven a hundred times over where creationists just refuse to accept evidence presented, never good enough for you and your ilk.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @sonhouseSo you are saying that observing a moth adapt to its environment is proof that one specie can change into another specie given enough time?
We have not been around long enough to see a moth evolve to something else. That is not in the cards. That moth story is proof evolution is here and is real.
You can believe in creationism because science as a whole is still in kindergarten, it's only been around a couple hundred years and humans have been around for a couple hundred THOUSAND years as w ...[text shortened]... e creationists just refuse to accept evidence presented, never good enough for you and your ilk.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseSo you are saying that observing a moth adapt to its environment is proof that one specie can change into another specie given enough time?
We have not been around long enough to see a moth evolve to something else. That is not in the cards. That moth story is proof evolution is here and is real.
You can believe in creationism because science as a whole is still in kindergarten, it's only been around a couple hundred years and humans have been around for a couple hundred THOUSAND years as w ...[text shortened]... e creationists just refuse to accept evidence presented, never good enough for you and your ilk.
Actually I have studied fossils extensively. Seemingly you are unaware of all the guess work, creativity and imagination that goes into analyzing fossils. You are also probably unaware of the circular reasoning involved in assigning dates to the different layers of the geologic column? What about all the unprovable assumptions made when using radiometric dating?
Originally posted by @sonshipIf you were capable of reading the wholeThe human body is badly designed.
Which is your opinion wolfgang?
1.) The human reproductive system is "badly designed".
2.) The human reproductive system is not designed at all.
post and looked at whose opinion I was
responding to it would be crystal clear.
As you well know.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerCameras can have hugely better resolution than the human eye.
The eye is so badly designed that it is a million times better than any camera that was designed with human intelligence? Whatever you say wolfy.
Cameras can have larger depth of field.
Cameras can focus closer.
Cameras can have a wider field of vision.
Cameras can detect light beyond red and beyond violet.
Cameras do not have a blind spot in the middle.
Cameras can see YELLOW.
Apart from that the eye is superior?
Do some research. For gods sake!
Originally posted by @dj2beckerToward the end of one evolution debate a proponent of evolution was telling me a refrigerator is more complex than the human body, and none of the other evolutionists here disagreed with him.
So you wouldn't say that something as complex as a spaceship or computer chip necessarily exhibits design?
This is what you are up against.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeWas it on the Science Forum? What was the thread called?
Toward the end of one evolution debate a proponent of evolution was telling me a refrigerator is more complex than the human body, and none of the other evolutionists here disagreed with him.
This is what you are up against.