A Question That Evolutionist Couldn't Answer

a reply to: Answer

yeah il have more fun with it lol. However if in the near future im proved wrong il embrace my ancestral haritage by throwing fecies.

As a ritualistic event to my foreapeothers.

a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

A giraff evolved a long neck to reach plants far above it.

Sorry, you still don't get it. Evolution has no "purpose." It is a natural process.

Giraffes did not evolve long necks to reach plants far above it. Incrementally longer necks enabled their ancestors to reach food other animals could not. That increased the likelihood that they would survive to produce offspring. Offspring which passed that trait on.

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief


Why is it that inefficiency prevails?

That should be the single biggest piece of evidence that disproves the concept of creation or intelligent design.

Why would a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing god create a bunch of inefficient animals?

Just because you don't understand why animals evolved the way they did doesn't mean they're inefficient. Sharks have evolved very little over millions of years because they are exceptional hunting machines. Apex predators tend to evolve much more slowly because there isn't much to threaten their survival.

a reply to: Answer

I see your point. All powerful all knowing creating the universe hmmm debatable. But possible.
Does this stop humans from filling some of those god creator roles? Not entirely.

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
I see this is one of those threads where the OP starts getting it handed to them they go back and edit to make it seem like everyone with a different opinion has no idea what they are talking about.

HA!
I read it before the editing! you discredited yourself and now nobody could take you seriously.
I hope everyone that reads this in the future knows you are dishonest.
so, um. yeah, have a nice day

I added in the Macro part just to reiterate what I was saying. I haven't changed what I meant and I haven't denied anything. You can clearly see what I meant from the start. If you are going to start throwing around bold claims of me being dishonest then please elaborate on what I was dishonest about exactly.

What did I edit that makes me dishonest? I added the macro part in so that anyone new to the thread would definitely know what I mean. As for people already participating in the thread I explained it to them already to clarify.

What's your problem? It's not as if I changed what my argument actually was or the substance of what I was saying. You pounced on it nonetheless though didn't you?

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique

but it still doesn't prove that it did happen like that. Everything you said is merely an interpretation of data/whatever else

and creationism is a better interpretation of the data?

I like that he admits evolution has data that can be interpreted as supporting it.

Of course. You can interpret data in any way you want though. You can pick and choose which bits of data supports your theory and then you can throw out anything else that doesn't fit it.

That pretty much sums up the theory of evolution, save for a few cover ups and straight up fabrications of evidence.

originally posted by: TechUnique
[

Of course. You can interpret data in any way you want though. You can pick and choose which bits of data supports your theory and then you can throw out anything else that doesn't fit it.

So what you're saying is, you pick and choose the few tiny bits of data that support your theory and throw out a metric ton of evidence that doesn't fit?

That's not using evidence to come to a conclusion... that's coming to a conclusion and then cherry-picking evidence to validate it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

A giraff evolved a long neck to reach plants far above it.

Sorry, you still don't get it. Evolution has no "purpose." It is a natural process.

Giraffes did not evolve long necks to reach plants far above it. Incrementally longer necks enabled their ancestors to reach food other animals could not. That increased the likelihood that they would survive to produce offspring. Offspring which passed that trait on.

Lmao.
Second line.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TechUnique
[

Of course. You can interpret data in any way you want though. You can pick and choose which bits of data supports your theory and then you can throw out anything else that doesn't fit it.

So what you're saying is, you pick and choose the few tiny bits of data that support your theory and throw out a metric ton of evidence that doesn't fit?

That's not using evidence to come to a conclusion... that's coming to a conclusion and then cherry-picking evidence to validate it.

You misunderstood me completely.

a reply to: TechUnique

You can pick and choose which bits of data supports your theory and then you can throw out anything else that doesn't fit it.

which 'bits of data' are being thrown out by evolutionary biologist (apart from the bible)?

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique

You can pick and choose which bits of data supports your theory and then you can throw out anything else that doesn't fit it.

which 'bits of data' is being thrown out by evolutionary biologist (apart from the bible)?

Giants for instance. But I bet you guys think that every single documented case of Giants is forged.

EDIT TO ADD: I'll add more, seeing as I'm actually going to bed now.

Already mentioned Giants. There's also a lot of evidence to suggest Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed. There's also a lot of evidence for Young Earth theory. There's also reason to suggest that a lot of the dating methods are incorrect. There's more evidence than you'll ever accept because you're stuck in your belief system and would rather believe we evolved from slime.

Then there is the mounting of evidence backing up the validity of the Bible and many of the stories in the Bible such as Noah's Ark, the Nephilim(spelling?) and Sodom and Gomorah.

a reply to: TechUnique

perhaps you can link to a solid documented case - i'm not sure what you're referring to

and perhaps you could also explain how the cited example couldn't have come about through evolution

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

If the fish were evolving to jump out of the water for food . The water is either disappearing, so not sustaining the plant life within or the plant life is dying off for some other reason. Either way the adapted fish would not last long enough to create a viable group of offspring. The babies would have nothing to feed on while they waited to be strong enough to jump out of the water. Thus they die off and its back to square one.

There are population dynamics involved. You're looking at this as an immediate change. It's not necessarily either case you presented with water being gone or plant life dying off completely. Population increase creates food shortage, but a few have mutations that allow better access to food. Population decreases due to food shortage. Food source recovers. Population increases again with a larger percentage of survivors that had advantageous mutations. Population increase causes food shortage. Rinse and repeat over many generations and the percentage with an advantageous mutation becomes dominant. Evolution is not something that normally happens due to a single catastrophic event like complete loss of habitat or food source. There is much more to evolution and you need to have an understanding of biology and ecology. You can't explore it in a vacuum without considering other pieces of the puzzle.

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
Any meat eater. Plant life is still. Rooted. Never needs to be chased. There is no logical reason that any animal would evolve into chasing down another animal to eat as it is extremely inefficient.

This is not true. While the hunting method is inefficient the food source is highly efficient. Meat eaters get higher returns for the higher energy investment. That is what allows them to exist. There is a balance in effort to gain food versus the energy return. It's perfectly logical.

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief
A giraff evolved a long neck to reach plants far above it. Why would it not climb instead or at the very least eat different foods on the ground?

Again, as with the example of fish, this is population dynamics. Food declines. Longer necked animals get more food. Food source recovers. More long necks as a percentage of the population. Rinse and repeat. There was no choice in climbing or eating different food. An existing condition proved advantageous.

a reply to: TechUnique

There's also a lot of evidence to suggest Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed.

any chance of a source?

There's also a lot of evidence for Young Earth theory.

any chance of a source?

There's also reason to suggest that a lot of the dating methods are incorrect.

any chance of a source?

I'm actually going to bed now.

sweet dreams

a reply to: aynock

Sodom and Gomorah. There's some seriously hard hitting info in this video if you have time to watch it.


I did see a very compelling video about Noahs ark and a look inside what is believed to have been Noahs ark. I can't find it though and I really do have to go to bed now its past 6AM in the morning.

There's plenty of proof of Giants and of Dinosaurs having lived with humans, just search it up yourself!

a reply to: Answer

I don't believe he paid enough attention at school. His science teacher didn't teach him that.
Iam older and they didn't teach me that.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Answer

I don't believe he paid enough attention at school. His science teacher didn't teach him that.
Iam older and they didn't teach me that.

Ok 'bigger arms than Jesse Ventura'
Lmao. Enough with the snide comments please mate. You come across as incredibly immature

Good night kid.

originally posted by: AngryAtTheBlindBelief

This is very good. Thank you. A well laid out rebuttal. You have explained that very well.

If the fish were evolving to jump out of the water for food . The water is either disappearing, so not sustaining the plant life within or the plant life is dying off for some other reason. Either way the adapted fish would not last long enough to create a viable group of offspring. The babies would have nothing to feed on while they waited to be strong enough to jump out of the water. Thus they die off and its back to square one.

Except in my example, nothing was happening to the water. Yes, if the lake suddenly dried up the fish all die. Again, that's sudden extinction and it is not directly a part of evolution (I say this because other things may adapt to the absence of the extinct creature)

In my example, let's say the water and plant environment stay stable. I'm not talking, in this case, about the environment pushing a species to evolve. I'm talking about a random gene difference (mutation) giving one fish an advantage over the rest. This happens at an obvious, observable level, even in humans (stronger, taller, smaller, smarter, etc). Because this fish has an advantage, it spawns an entire family of fish that will (mostly) inherit its advantage, thus leading to the incremental change I laid out. Every physical difference that has to occur to lead a species from point A to point B is blind luck leading to a random advantage, NOT the physiology of the creature responding to its surroundings.

I have a few very big problems still with evolution. If we are to look at animals today and wonder how they got to where they are it doesn't make any sense to me.

Any meat eater. Plant life is still. Rooted. Never needs to be chased. There is no logical reason that any animal would evolve into chasing down another animal to eat as it is extremely inefficient.

Protozoa swimming minutely around in the ocean were ALL mobile. Do you think they were going to spend their 3 days of life trying to swim the 500 yards from the 3-feet beneath the surface they were born in to the ocean floor to feed on kelp?

A lion is surrounded by grass that feeds animals far larger than itself. Why would it even exist?

Carnivorousness would have had to begun very, very early on in the history of mobile animals. The differences between a body built to digest plant life and animal tissue are significant, and would take a hell of a lot of time to reverse.

A giraff evolved a long neck to reach plants far above it. Why would it not climb instead or at the very least eat different foods on the ground?

Why is it that inefficiency prevails?

Same as the fish above. The giraffe didn't evolve the neck TO eat plants, the ones with longer necks survived. Then the trees with fewer low branches survived. Then the giraffes with still longer necks survived. And so on. A proto-giraffe with an inch-longer neck is a lot less of a mutation than a creature that no longer has cloven feet and can grapple a tree trunk.

a reply to: TechUnique

Imature?.
Better that than ignorant to everything but a man made version of god.