Why every rational person must accept evolution

[orogenicman]

 

[orogenicman]

Nothing but crickets chirping...

Interesting.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Evolution is two centuries of research and science. What else can match the facts on the ground?

 

[jwoodie]

Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils? Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed. Guess what? They are all still dogs.

"Research and science" doesn't have a clue as to how one species can transform into another species, other than to assert that it magically happens "over millions of years." Instead, it resorts to attacking the straw man of "Creationism" in order to bolster its currently popular theory.

 

[hunarcy]

Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils? Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed. Guess what? They are all still dogs.

"Research and science" doesn't have a clue as to how one species can transform into another species, other than to assert that it magically happens "over millions of years." Instead, it resorts to attacking the straw man of "Creationism" in order to bolster its currently popular theory.

I'd be very impressed if evolutionists could demonstrate how the eye was developed.

 

[Mudflap]

I don't have a problem with evolution in the sense that horses evolved from a small horse to a larger horse, or that a flower adapted to living in a swamp as opposed to a more arid climate. But I don't believe a flower evolved into a horse. I can accept evolution in that context.

The mystery is where the horse and flower came from.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY

Because you don't know what rational means?

It is entirely possible to be rational and reject evolution, especially if you happen to approach reality from the premise that the mind is the fundamental building block of reality. You might not agree with that view, but you cannot dismiss it as irrational.

 

[orogenicman]

Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils? Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed. Guess what? They are all still dogs.

"Research and science" doesn't have a clue as to how one species can transform into another species, other than to assert that it magically happens "over millions of years." Instead, it resorts to attacking the straw man of "Creationism" in order to bolster its currently popular theory.

I'd be very impressed if evolutionists could demonstrate how the eye was developed.

I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

 

[chikenwing]

I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. There were several points addressed,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve

 

[orogenicman]

I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. There were several points addressed,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve

None of which were germane to the facts presented in the OP video.

 

[chikenwing]

I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. There were several points addressed,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve

None of which were germane to the facts presented in the OP video.

Really,like what and how,just saying it doesn't cut it.

 

[orogenicman]

I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. There were several points addressed,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve

None of which were germane to the facts presented in the OP video.

Really,like what and how,just saying it doesn't cut it.

Have you watched the video? All the way through?

 

[chikenwing]

None of which were germane to the facts presented in the OP video.

Really,like what and how,just saying it doesn't cut it.

Have you watched the video? All the way through?

Yep

 

[Iceweasel]

So if you don't agree that a cell jump started itself and all the intricaies needed for life, simutaneously, survived for long enough to self generate and so on and so on, then you must be a Biblical creationist? There's only two choices? Extreme faith or extreme faith?

 

[orogenicman]

Really,like what and how,just saying it doesn't cut it.

Have you watched the video? All the way through?

Yep

Great, so tell me where, in this thread, anyone has addressed or discussed the facts presented in the video.

 

[orogenicman]

So if you don't agree that a cell jump started itself and all the intricaies needed for life, simutaneously, survived for long enough to self generate and so on and so on, then you must be a Biblical creationist? There's only two choices? Extreme faith or extreme faith?

If you are wanting a discussion of abiogenesis theory, you are in the wrong thread.

 

[Iceweasel]

If you are wanting a discussion of abiogenesis theory, you are in the wrong thread.

I was going for the bigger picture and poiting out how people can misuse science as a pseudo religion while criticizing competing faiths. It isn't rational. You can't consider evolution by chance unless you consider its' origins.

 

[orogenicman]

If you are wanting a discussion of abiogenesis theory, you are in the wrong thread.

I was going for the bigger picture and poiting out how people can misuse science as a pseudo religion while criticizing competing faiths. It isn't rational. You can't consider evolution by chance unless you consider its' origins.

Evolution is not a matter of chance because natural selection does not occur by chance. Since science is not faith-based, it cannot criticize "competing faiths". That said, it certainly can and does criticize willful ignorance, and should continue to do so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. There were several points addressed,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve

I would be even more impressed if the OP had a point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd be very impressed if just once a creationist would actually address the contents of an OP. I'm not holding my breath. After all, they believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.

Don't expect much,rational escapes you as well. There were several points addressed,but all you got as a retort is insults,yep you get what you deserve

None of which were germane to the facts presented in the OP video.

I didn't watch the video, I addressed your attack on rational thinking.