Two pics from Oilantaytambo that 100% defy evolution

a reply to: Barcs
Logical and scientific. ..........hmmm, not so much.
If life were to change that quickly there would be a slight problem.
If life reached this bottle neck and started branching out as quickly as some believe (with no intervention) there would inevitably be an offspring dilemma.
With a limited amount of a species how is it logical or scientific that they (limited number) could branch off in different directions and still be able to multiply?
I am not saying the theory is completely wrong, I just wish people would question more.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I like how you slip in "with no intervention" how pious of you to declare that it is hopeless to search any further, that it's time to give up and recognize that only magic pixies can solve the problem. Where scientists see problems to be investigated, you simply declare that the problems can't be solved except by appealing to a magical being?

And speaking of "Logical and scientific" if we’re going to have a satisfying explanation of the Cambrian explosion, it’s going to be a scientific one—one that is testable and does not invoke the actions of your favorite deity.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Why would there be an offspring dilemma? Conditions can switch from ideal to terrible (relatively speaking) numerous times. The species could flourish and then get nearly wiped out over and over again.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Cambrian explosion was triggered by an impact event that set things in motion for harsh and fast changing conditions for a 20 million or so year period. In reality it's not shocking at all that this could happen. Look how long dinosaurs ruled the earth. Hundreds of millions of years, and they changed quite substantially over time, but as soon as that asteroid hit at the end of the Triassic period, it changed the face of the earth forever, and accelerated evolution big time with the emergence of mammals. That's how it works. Big changes to the earth become big changes to the creatures, especially when 75%+ die out in a single event. Some things take lots of time, and others happen quickly.

Here's the best that I can offer all who participated in this
hotly contested thread.

Thank you all for your time. I promise to try and do better
concerning any future endeavors.

originally posted by: randyvs

Thank you all for your time. I promise to try and do better
concerning any future endeavors.

Don't sell yourself short Randy. As far as creationist threads go, this is surely as good as it gets!

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: randyvs

Thank you all for your time. I promise to try and do better
concerning any future endeavors.

Don't sell yourself short Randy. As far as creationist threads go, this is surely as good as it gets!

Yes, definitely. Although making a good creationist thread is kind of like getting the best seat on the short bus.

a reply to: Barcs
Judging by your signature, you have a front row seat with a clean window ready for licking.....enjoy.

a reply to: Quadrivium

What if we're all window lickers without even knowing it?
Randy!

a reply to: randyvs
Lol Randy!
We are. We sit here arguing and in 50 the theory of evolution will be only a shodow of what it is now.
Something is terribly wrong with us or right with us..........who can tell at this point?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Quadrivium

What if we're all window lickers without even knowing it?

Randy!

Hey that window licking trait could one day save the human race from extinction. Embrace it!

a reply to: Quadrivium
a reply to: Barcs

The two best points in my whole messed up thread.

I normally don't comment much on this site, but holy sh!t if I can save anyone's brain I will try.....

This is the worst thread I have ever read on here and it should be LOCKED. A simple troll tactic from someone with no evidence and his own theory. Re-word you're title to "My theory of why evolution is not true" because you did not prove any sort of information besides two pictures and a bunch of middle school grade remarks. Tell me how sunday school goes for you tomorrow.


Peace

a reply to: ninjamikec

Note taken.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The logic behind this thread is one of the reasons intelligent people who "consider" religion on an intellectual level reject it. Because you can't explain something it means that "god" made it? To the more thoughtful of us, the notion that you can't explain something means you don't have enough information and need to gather more to make an intelligent decision, not that an omnipotent mythical force is at work.

a reply to: Nowyouseeme

Randy might have reached a little bit when he made this thread but you are too when you say that no intelligent people accept religious belief. Do some research, there are many, many religious people that contribute to the knowledge pool.

originally posted by: wtbengineer
a reply to: Nowyouseeme

Randy might have reached a little bit when he made this thread but you are too when you say that no intelligent people accept religious belief. Do some research, there are many, many religious people that contribute to the knowledge pool.

I can see where the op might have reached far more than a "little bit" , but agree with the rest.

It would be nice to be able to point at the devoutly religious/creationists and simply credit the whole thing to a lack of intelligence, yet obviously, this isn't necessarily so. This idea could be something of a "fallacy" in itself...the notion that because someone has a belief that we don't understand (on a personal level), they must lack intelligence. They may very well be wrong, certainly appear unsubstantiated (scientifically)...but lacking in intelligence?

Eh, it's not really a fallacy when you read some of the threads in this section. Believing in god obviously doesn't make somebody stupid, but arguing against evolution because of a personal belief certainly lacks intelligence, especially when you get into things like YEC and ignoring evidence and science and then blindly believing a website that says something because you like what it says, rather than the validity of the statement. So I'll just say it. Evolution denial lacks intelligence. Sorry, but evolution is about as proven as it gets.

originally posted by: Barcs
Eh, it's not really a fallacy when you read some of the threads in this section. Believing in god obviously doesn't make somebody stupid, but arguing against evolution because of a personal belief certainly lacks intelligence, especially when you get into things like YEC and ignoring evidence and science and then blindly believing a website that says something because you like what it says, rather than the validity of the statement. So I'll just say it. Evolution denial lacks intelligence. Sorry, but evolution is about as proven as it gets.

Still a fallacy if you're going to ipso facto infer a lack of intelligence in the people holding such views IMO. It ain't necessarily so. I'm not saying creationist arguments themselves are intelligent (or even intellectually honest). In fact (IMO) the god they're using as a basis has no possibility of existing and is so obviously a primitive myth that the whole thing seems astounding.

Yet whether it's a group of people expecting the aliens to be waiting with Hale Bopp, or whatever else, it seems intelligence gives no immunity to even the most ridiculous beliefs. Kool-aid can be a powerful thing. This is well known in cult studies (which I consider applicable to all fundamentalist religions), there seems no common thing that could explain it.

Indoctrination from a young age plays a part (which is possibly the worst thing about religion), yet it doesn't explain it all. We could expect education systems in 1st world countries to lessen the effects of this, yet in many instances it simply allows for the psuedo science to be more imaginative. So while the arguments and beliefs can appear completely unfounded, contrary to accepted science and based on nothing other than personal belief ie. seem to be lacking in intelligence, the people holding such views can be a very different thing. I am often surprised at not only how intelligent they can be, but how reasonable and logical in basically every other area, except where it may concern one particular belief.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Compartmentalization

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Just to clarify, I do not think that believing in god or any particular religion, or even aliens makes anybody less intelligent. Attacking an established field of science, however, is a whole different ballpark. Sometimes it is willful ignorance and intentional preaching to recruit, but not always.