Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[EternalDragon]

oh oh oh its magic the original version - YouTube

 

[Split Rock]

Aham, so you did a copy-paste job, to which I presume you expected full and substantial replies. Bravo. Can you actually explain any of "your" ten points in your own words?

I doubt it... he didn't even bother to read them. They're just "talking points."

 

[lasthero]

oh oh oh its magic the original version - YouTube

Pathetic.

 

[CabVet]

oh oh oh its magic the original version - YouTube

Funny that you posted a video about magic. Do you want to know what magic is, I will give you an example. When someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat and people say "I cannot explain that", they usually conclude that "it was magic". Exactly what ID does, it looks for things that evolution cannot explain (yet) and guess what it claims.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Going slightly off-topic...

Next, he goes on to cite... a New Scientist article as evidence that the tree of life concept is somehow not valid. Secret: New Scientist is the Daily Mail of science.

That was the funniest thing I've read on this forum for quite a while.

 

[EternalDragon]

Funny that you posted a video about magic. Do you want to know what magic is, I will give you an example. When someone pulls a rabbit out of a hat and people say "I cannot explain that", they usually conclude that "it was magic". Exactly what ID does, it looks for things that evolution cannot explain (yet) and guess what it claims.

ID predicts what we would find in an intelligently designed creature and then that is what they find. Code, information, machinery....the exact same things we find in human inventions. Computers, cars, etc.

It's a completely natural process. Evolution with unguided, unintelligent processes building something like that by chance is not natural.

 

[lasthero]

Evolution with unguided, unintelligent processes building something like that by chance is not natural.

You keep saying this. You don't even understand what you're talking about.

Evolution is guided by natural selection. It's not random.

 

[CabVet]

ID predicts what we would find in an intelligently designed creature and then that is what they find. Code, information, machinery....the exact same things we find in human inventions. Computers, cars, etc.

ID doesn't predict anything. Finding random things that we cannot explain and claiming that they are "designed" is not a prediction.

It's a completely natural process. Evolution with unguided, unintelligent processes building something like that by chance is not natural.

Evolution does not progress "by chance". You should try to learn what evolution really is one of these days. Seriously, it would make it much easier for you to debate the subject if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[Naraoia]

Evolution does not progress "by chance". You should try to learn what evolution really is one of these days. Seriously, it would make it much easier for you to debate the subject if you knew what you were talking about.

I think the UCMP's Evolution 101 should be required reading for anyone who wants to comment here.

But seriously, Dragon. Evo 101 is really good. I highly recommend it.

 

[RedRover]

The fossil record perfectly supports the theory of evolution. It goes directly against the Noah's Ark myth.

Noah's Ark is not a myth. Unless you can show some evidence that the Nephilim survived because God's only intent was to destroy them. "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

 

[CabVet]

Noah's Ark is not a myth. Unless you can show some evidence that the Nephilim survived because God's only intent was to destroy them. "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

You should read the Bible again. God's intent was to destroy every living thing that was not inside the ark.

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

What I find it most peculiar though is that only animals went into the ark, no plants. I wonder how could any have survived a one year flood that covered the entire planet.

 

[biggles53]

You should read the Bible again. God's intent was to destroy every living thing that was not inside the ark.

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

What I find it most peculiar though is that only animals went into the ark, no plants. I wonder how could any have survived a one year flood that covered the entire planet.

I think the usual invented nonsense suggests that Noah collected seeds ..!

That and the "floating vegetation mats" are often good for a giggle...

 

[CabVet]

I think the usual invented nonsense suggests that Noah collected seeds ..!

And why would God mention animals by numbers of pairs but completely omit plants? Makes zero sense to me. Even less when after everything was dead the bird comes back with a twig.

That and the "floating vegetation mats" are often good for a giggle...

Reminds me of Life of Pi.

 

[biggles53]

And why would God mention animals by numbers of pairs but completely omit plants? Makes zero sense to me. Even less when after everything was dead the bird comes back with a twig.



Reminds me of Life of Pi.

Makes you wonder too, what all those herbivores had to eat for the first few months/years after being released from the ark...

Let me guess.........more magic!

 

[CabVet]

Makes you wonder too, what all those herbivores had to eat for the first few months/years after being released from the ark...

Let me guess.........more magic!

Not only that, but where did all the fish came from? Roughly half the fish alive in this planet today live either in salt or fresh water. Very few can live on both. So, about 15,000 fish in each habitat (salt versus fresh). According to the Bible, no fish was put in the ark (only things that creepeth upon the earth).

A global flood with rain water (which is what is described in the Bible) would cause the salinity in all oceans to drop by half, and the salinity in all rivers/lakers to increase a lot. In other words, a global flood would kill 99.9% of the fish in this planet. Yet, today, we have 30,000 species of fish happily living in their respective habitats (fresh or salt).

The level of ignorance in this subject is so big that most of the time when I ask about it, the usual YEC will just say: but fish don't die in a flood. Yeah, try a global flood for an entire year and see how many would survive.

 

[lasthero]

If that didn't kill them, I'd imagine the sudden increase in water pressure would.

 

[EternalDragon]

You should read the Bible again. God's intent was to destroy every living thing that was not inside the ark.

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

What I find it most peculiar though is that only animals went into the ark, no plants. I wonder how could any have survived a one year flood that covered the entire planet.

It's not that hard to imagine.

Evolution supposedly did it from nothing.

 

[EternalDragon]

Makes you wonder too, what all those herbivores had to eat for the first few months/years after being released from the ark...

Let me guess.........more magic!

Herbivores can live off a vegetarian diet. Sheesh.

 

[lasthero]

Herbivores can live off a vegetarian diet. Sheesh.

Not if all the plants are dead. You missed the point.

Try this experiment - take a plant, just about any plant, and put it under water for the better part of a year. Take it out and see how well it survived

Plants need CO2 to survive. H20 is not C20. There is no carbon dioxide in water. See where this is going?

EDIT: Actually, my bad, there is CO2 in water, it comes from fish resperation and other things. However, underwater plants have adaptions that terrestrial ones simply don't.

Adaptations of totally submerged, floating and swamp plants.

I don't know where you live, but in my state, it rains fairly often. In my backyard, there's this little hill, and the rain water collects at the bottom. Nothing can really grow there, because that area keeps getting flood. Sometimes, a few blades of grass might pop up, but sooner or later, it rains, they're covered in water, and they die. Imagine what the whole Earth would look like under that effect.

Not to mention that, if there's enough water - say enough to reach over the highest mountain - the water is going to block out most, if not all, of the sunlight.

Not to mention most plants aren't designed to withstand water pressure.

Herbivores can't eat the plants if all the plants are dead.

 

[EternalDragon]

A global flood with rain water (which is what is described in the Bible) would cause the salinity in all oceans to drop by half, and the salinity in all rivers/lakers to increase a lot. In other words, a global flood would kill 99.9% of the fish in this planet. Yet, today, we have 30,000 species of fish happily living in their respective habitats (fresh or salt).

So you believe in natural selection and mutations yet you name 30,000 species of fish that are alive today to discount the flood.

Of which many of the 30,000 species we have today diversified from the fish that survived the flood thousands of years ago.