Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is why Evolution to me does not seem reasonable--> photosynthesis, cellular respiration, protein synthesis, DNA replication. Those are my main reasons probably. If you know these processes to it's deepest darkest depths it should be very clear that it could not have happened over blind chance. It is so complex, each one on it's own level of beautiful complexity, it calls for an Intelligent Designer. If you want me to go into more detail, my friend, just holla!
I'd actually say that the complexity of life can do some damage to the hypothesis of design. After all, a bit of complexity can be useful, but photosynthesis, for example, seems to be needlessly complicated. An intelligent designer could easily remove many steps of the process while preserving the function.
All of those things are integral to evolution. When working in coordination, they create a species or being that is better suited to environment around it. Humans don't need strength to survive in their environment, gorillas do. The common ancestor of gorillas, humans, and other apes lived in many places, each place required different skills to survive, so the different groups of the species evolved in different ways.I have never seen 1 single example of upward evolution. I've only seen examples of adaptation, natural selection, speciation & variation.[/COLOR][/FONT]
Anyone who believes that humans and dinosaurs walked side by side and that the earth was created within the last 10000 years deserves to be put in the deepest darkest hole on earth. So why don't you start walking?sounds dumb considering the fact that even man were in age of dinos, if we to exist 6 billion years ago the whole earth and its sources be pretty off of its foundation.. its safe to say earth is created somewhat 6000-7000 years ago.
The Ryals Track: Evidence that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed
that case we are to be in a new millenium then that would be thousands of milliniums toward jesus's time.
Needlessly complicated? Remove many steps of the process? Like what? Even if you look at this from an evolutionary stand point, the reason it is still "around" and because plants use photosynthesis(whether it is C3, C4, or CAM) is because it is perfect. A very good example is the usage of glycolysis for cellular respiration. Organisms that are simple or organisms that are considered "old" that use processes like glycolysis prove it. Evolutionists would agree that if the majority of all organisms use glycolysis it is because it is perfect and therefore has been passed down thousands of years later. Glycolysis is just as complex as photosynthesis. If it wasn't perfect, then of course steps would have been cut out to preserve energy, but the fact that it hasn't prove that it is not "needlessly" complicated. An Intelligent Designer made these processes perfect, this is why the majority of living organisms use it.
Anyone who believes that humans and dinosaurs walked side by side and that the earth was created within the last 10000 years deserves to be put in the deepest darkest hole on earth. So why don't you start walking?
soo if there wasnt God, Those Tracks on the pics wouldnt be there, humanity will be nothing, animals will be nothing, just a dark nothing with nothing going to happen.
surely you cant believe the monkeys evolved into humans
if you dont believe the bible, then how did they find noahs ark and fossles on moutain tops,
I certainly would disagree with the idea that photosynthesis is necessarily the perfect way to produce energy. In fact, it's probably quite likely that there are other ways that are far more efficient. However, other methods didn't develop because it was far more unlikely for them to develop or because they required the organism to take a step backward, so to speak, which cannot happen in evolution.
I also think it's a bit presumptuous to imagine that everything that life uses is ''perfect." If evolution always led to perfection, then there wouldn't be any more evolution.
1.) Quote me in which I said Photosynthesis is the perfect way to produce energy.
the reason it is still "around" and because plants use photosynthesis is because it is perfect.
2.) Quote me in which I said evolution always leads to perfection.
If it wasn't perfect, then of course steps would have been cut out to preserve energy
3.) Quote me in which I said that everything that life uses is perfect.
An Intelligent Designer made these processes perfect
You can't because I did not say that.
So, I assume you are proposing that there are far more efficient ways for photosynthesis, cellular respiration, DNA replication, and protein synthesis to work than what they already do?
- It claims that every living creature on Earth descended from a single common ancestor yet life cannot originate without intelligence. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. The chances are beyond the law of probability at 1 in 10^40,000 as a generous estimate. In science, things beyond 1 in 10^50 are deemed impossible. I have never seen empirical evidence of chemical evolution without any intelligent input.
- The DNA code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters. Code systems are only developed by intelligent agents. DNA is useless unless it has the specific protein translation machinery which is itself encoded on DNA. There has been no empirical evidence of meaningful DNA code forming on it's own.
- Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. The rare beneficial mutation has very minor effects & has never been shown to produce a novel functional feature in any lab experiments. Probably why experiments trying to evolve bacteria & fruit flies don't work.
- Natural selection decreases the information in the genome. It makes a creature more specific so that it can adapt to its environment, using the existing potential for variation. This is how speciation occurs & why we have degenerates like poodles & pugs coming from wolf ancestry. Natural selection is not a creative process.
- Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence.
- We've never seen any empirical evidence for cells learning to co-operate on their own to build up more complex creatures in the environment. You have to have apoptosis & a bunch of other systems in place for multicellularity to even exist.
- How do male & female sexual organs evolve simultaneously. Non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs. Just saying sex is advantageous does not explain the origin of these systems.
- Fossils should not be used as "transitional forms". No one can determine from bone whether a creature was ancestral to another. The coelacanth was thought to be a possible ancestor to tetrapods but now that it's alive in the oceans, we know that's not the case. If a chihuahua & a great dane were found in different strata we might contend that the chihuahua was ancestral to the great dane. We cannot even tell if a creature is mosaic like the platypus. Are humans transitions to something else?
- There's too much stasis in the fossil record.
- I have never seen 1 single example of upward evolution. I've only seen examples of adaptation, natural selection, speciation & variation.
Interesting thing I learned recently. Did you know that light is actually slowing down? According to some calculations, at 3000 BC, light could have been traveling at over 100 times the speed it is now. That would change a lot of things, especially the movement of time, and could allow a Young Earth Theory to hold some weight.
I find this rather doubtful. Source?
Here is the original article I read(if you want to gloss over it):
Speed of light slowing down?
And here is the original paper(if you want an in-depth look):
The Atomic Constants, Light, And Time
Here is the original article I read(if you want to gloss over it):
Speed of light slowing down?
And here is the original paper(if you want an in-depth look):
The Atomic Constants, Light, And Time
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?