- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,285
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
You cannot compare chernobyl to evolution by natural selection. The laws of natural selection put forth that a species over time will make adaptations to aid in its biological directives. Chernobyl was a cataclysmic event that affected the genetics of the species around it in random ways, having nothing to do with aiding in survival.1. I have read books on genetics and I know a geneticist..he agress with me. And it's still not sinking in. I'll say it once more. THE EXACT SAME traits ARE NOT passed through generations..they may be SIMILAR but they will NEVER be EXACTLY the SAME. I'll even give you an example.. after Chernoble some pigeons developed mutations.. one grew an extra leg etc.. but NONE of the mutations were found to be EXACTLY the SAME in the species. One of the primary rules in science is not to declare any conclusions derived from an unstable and unproven theory.
2. You totally missed it..HOW did evolution occur..what was it's cause/catalyst if you argue mutation then I'll ask what caused such dramatic mutations and WHY would life need to evolve.
I can only answer this with my belief of why, and since you have such a hard time understanding, I will just put it inanely...Because God said so, amen and amen.
Oh, and in the theory of evolution, the changes arent really that dramatic considering they happen over millions of years in tiny steps.
Actually, biologists and evolutionists make the immediate assumption that living matter cannot come from inorganic matter. Its called abiogenesis and they make the immediate case against it from the onset. It applies against creationism more because creationists contend that God simply synthesized the earth, all living creatures, and a false fossil record to go with it. Now I am not the most devout Catholic, and correct me if I am wrong...God is the ultimate being of truth...so I find it hard to believe he would create a false fossil record...seems too much like lying to me.3. That makes no sense..you cannot apply that to the first cause argument...it has nothing to do with it. The first argument cause simply states that there must be a being independant of cause which began the cause and effect chain.
It means that your argument is unlikely. Evolutionists ignore the law that something cannot come from nothing and that organic material isn't derived from non-organic material.
They fail to provide enough evidence..period. All they have are a few skulls with fabricated chunks attached to the missing pieces so they can try to prove their theory. When I look at those skulls I see a dozen other possiblities. 1 imparticular..the one with the blue. Perhaps that is simply a cavity in the skull that was always naturally there..perhaps it's the skull of another animal. Just because it looks humanoid doesn't mean it is. Evolution is astromically improbable period. The different things must have been placed on earth independantly, plants, animals, bacteria etc because as I said nothing would survive early earth but bacteria and bacteria doesn't become an animal or a plant. If live derives from evolution then why isn't it found anywhere else in the solar system?? Bacteria forms in very hot and very cold conditions yet there is none..we're the only living planet in the solar system.
Now lets stop debating about this cause neither of us are going to budge. Agree to disagree.
I dont even know how to speak to this one. except maybe to say refer to my previous point.