Evidence for macro-evolution

[Astrid]

Most people don't, but you'd have to argue that with Darwinists, they literally still believe humans evolved from single celled bacteria like organism through purely random mutations!

You can't find one person who thinks that.
I can find millions who believe there really was a ark and flood.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, considering that evolution and mutation don't work the way you say they work, then it's not really a problem at all for anyone but you!

That's OK, my hopes were not particularly high to be honest.. but if you ever want to try to answer the question, I'm happy to respond.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's OK, my hopes were not particularly high to be honest.. but if you ever want to try to answer the question, I'm happy to respond.

I answered the question. My answer was:
Well, considering that evolution and mutation don't work the way you say they work, then it's not really a problem at all for anyone but you!

 

[Astrid]

And so the problem remains; how do you evolve a single celled bacteria into a human being by merely corrupting functional genetic information?

Take a swing a the substance of the scientific question, you sound like a reasonably intelligent person to me, don't let anyone tell you, you are not smart enough to actually debate this. You don't have to hit it out of the park in one go, none of us can, but give it a shot. Once you get past the standard internet ad hominem stuff, the science can actually get fairly interesting.

The things you make up are easy to laugh at.

Kind of a one man comedian and audience.

I recommend a bit more self respect.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can't find one person who thinks that.
I can find millions who believe there really was a ark and flood.

Well no, not personally, but It depends on where you live. Apparently about 19% of the population in the United States (according to Gallup) still believes in Darwinian evolution. Mostly high school/ college age.- dropping off when you get to professions like medical doctors who are more skeptical.

The flood is pretty well historically documented at this point, not just in Biblical and other written accounts but geology. The Ark- I don't know, it's inherently difficult to verify- but I could see the story surrounding the event being more apocryphal than the event itself, as with so much of written history.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The things you make up are easy to laugh at.

Kind of a one man comedian and audience.

I recommend a bit more self respect.

As above, my hopes were not high.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I answered the question. My answer was:
Well, considering that evolution and mutation don't work the way you say they work, then it's not really a problem at all for anyone but you!

And that's why I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution, nobody can defend it on objective scientific grounds.

 

[Astrid]

As above, my hopes were not high.

And that's a reason to make things up.

 

[Astrid]

And that's why I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution, nobody can defend it on objective scientific grounds.

No. Nobody can defend your made up
confused version.
Nor would they want to.

Learn to be skeptical of yourself,
for lo, thou be the easiest for thineself to fool.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody can defend your made up confused version.

Nor would they want to.

Perhaps they're too busy trying to defend their own version of what happened in history against the Bible's version?

 

[Astrid]

Well no, not personally, but It depends on where you live. Apparently about 19% of the population in the United States (according to Gallup) still believes in Darwinian evolution. Mostly high school/ college age.- dropping off when you get to professions like medical doctors who are more skeptical.

The flood is pretty well historically documented at this point, not just in Biblical and other written accounts but geology. The Ark- I don't know, it's inherently difficult to verify- but I could see the story surrounding the event being more apocryphal than the event itself, as with so much of written history.

Your claim about Gallup poll is false.
You made it up.

I will agree though that the state of American
education is shameful.


Here in Hong Kong where student achievement ranks with best in the world, we are taught to understand evolution.

Which alas for you, you clearly were not. And do not.

We also learned some chemistry, physics and geology.


Anyone with the most basic grasp of geology knows there was no flood. You claim that geology supports flood is yet another thing you made up.


Generally, it's the same low education group who say yes to flood and no to evolution.

Such ignorance is of course chronic, tho not incurable.

 

[BCP1928]

Perhaps they're too busy trying to defend their own version of what happened in history against the Bible's version?

No reason to defend against that, either.

 

[BCP1928]

And that's why I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution, nobody can defend it on objective scientific grounds.

Have you attacked it on objective scientific grounds?

 

[dlamberth]

The flood is pretty well historically documented at this point, not just in Biblical and other written accounts but geology. The Ark- I don't know, it's inherently difficult to verify- but I could see the story surrounding the event being more apocryphal than the event itself, as with so much of written history.

Truth be told, there is absolutely no geological evidence of a world wide Noah flood. The evidence of a global catastrophic flood like that would be clear as day. But there just isn't any evidence of said flood to be found anywhere.

 

[NxNW]

Most people don't, but you'd have to argue that with Darwinists, they literally still believe humans evolved from single celled bacteria like organism through purely random mutations!

No, they don't. Humans evolved from Australopithecus.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But it's still a loss of functional design information.
And crucially an evolutionary dead end; additional random corruption will never restore the original functions; pigment in the bears fur or a complete new exhaust system- the entropy works in one direction only, towards decay, degradation, regardless of whether that degradation happens upon an advantage in certain niche environments along the way.

Entropy is the energy of a system that is unavailable to do useful work. This claim has nothing to do with entropy.

 

[Astrid]

No, they don't. Humans evolved from Australopithecus.

Um...
The claim was "... through purely random
mutations". Concentrate on that.

Its a bit of dishonest low- creationist garbage our friend
pickrd up someehere, mistaking it for gold

Or at least a killer gotcha to win every encounter
with them foolish " darwinists" .

Its dishonest in deliberately leaving out
"selection".

Of course there are random mutations on the
line from wolf to toy poodle.

But even the very lowest of the "skeptics" of
evolution know good and darn well that animal
or plant breeding requires selection.

 

[Astrid]

Entropy is the energy of a system that is unavailable to do useful work. This claim has nothing to do with entropy.

But will we hear " oops, got that
wrong?"

 

[sjastro]

Entropy is the energy of a system that is unavailable to do useful work. This claim has nothing to do with entropy.

I take issue when he states entropy always works in the one direction.
He eats and breathes and does disgusting things involving eliminating waste which indicates he is an open thermodynamic system.

 

[NxNW]

Um...
The claim was "... through purely random
mutations". Concentrate on that.

Will, the claim was that it went from single cells to humans.