Evolution Vs. God

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Please show what part of the original op is wrong. Point to a video point, mark it and tell why you find it to be wrong. Then we can have a debate.

I didn't watch the whole video because the way the video was made is crap. Anyone creationist half-wit with access to editing software and a couple hours worth of free time could have made it. That's not called a documentary, that's called a digital soapbox.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


See, you don't want to debate or post anything worth while. You just want to throw mud and not offer anything substantial and you really want this thread removed so people won't see it on the "RECENT" posts page.

Now, I will ask you again, offer something substantial in the video to debate rather than some nebulous "Read the beginning" comment. I am willing to debate whatever you want to offer as proof this video is wrong, and yet you won't.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

See, you don't want to debate or post anything worth while. You just want to throw mud and not offer anything substantial and you really want this thread removed so people won't see it on the "RECENT" posts page.

Now, I will ask you again, offer something substantial in the video to debate rather than some nebulous "Read the beginning" comment. I am willing to debate whatever you want to offer as proof this video is wrong, and yet you won't.

If you want a legitimate debate, then post legitimate material. You still haven't proven intelligent design on your other thread, let alone disproven evolution on this one. Get the hell off of Youtube and creationist blogs if you want to make progress in this subject. That's my final answer, but not my final post.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


So, you won't offer anything to prove the video is wrong but denigrate youtube. Tell me sir, how did you learn while growing up? Was it not by teachers and professors giving a lecture? That is exactly what these video's are, and you offer NOTHING to counter them. You demean my intelligence, you refuse to debate, and you now want the thread closed. Offer up something worthy to show the OP is wrong. You have not done so.

AI,

Do you believe in natural selection?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

So, you won't offer anything to prove the video is wrong but denigrate youtube. Tell me sir, how did you learn while growing up? Was it not by teachers and professors giving a lecture? That is exactly what these video's are, and you offer NOTHING to counter them. You demean my intelligence, you refuse to debate, and you now want the thread closed. Offer up something worthy to show the OP is wrong. You have not done so.

Alright. Ya got me. You managed to prove evolution is flawed. Wait, what's that? Flawed? But what about disproven? Oh, no no no...see, you got a ways to go yet. Sure, evolution is a flawed theory, but so is God and nobody questions that one, right?

Definition of THEORY

1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action

So basically, a theory isn't ALL fact. But it does contain facts. And from what I gather, you still have several thousand facts to debunk. Again, you've given us some pretty good reasons to keep studying evolution. Kinda the opposite of what you'd intended, right? Trying to shut evolution down. Nope, you just gave us several reasons to keep going.

Meanwhile, you still have several thousand facts to debunk, all of which are keeping evolutionary theory quite happily afloat. If I were you and I were determined to not admit my errors, I'd get busy.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

AI,

Do you believe in natural selection?

I believe we are governed by exactly the same forces as every other organism on this planet.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


So, is that a "yes"? Do you believe in natural selection?


natural selection
noun
the process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations. source


or alt definition

Natural selection

Definition

noun

A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.


Supplement

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism. source

Just a simple "yes" or "no" will do.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Yes. No one else has a better theory.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Ok, so as we both agree in natural selection, let me now ask you, do you believe in Darwin's postulation of common ancestry and that some animal changed slowly over millions of years from a once ground dwelling critter to become a flying bird?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Ok, so as we both agree in natural selection, let me now ask you, do you believe in Darwin's postulation of common ancestry and that some animal changed slowly over millions of years from a once ground dwelling critter to become a flying bird?

More or less. There might be a few slight discrepancies, but that's the general idea. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Now, Darwin does not say all of that animal group evolved so some did and some didn't. Now, here is one of my problems with this idea. If an animal is a land dwelling animal and their body begins to lose bone mass slowly over millions of years to turn into a wing, how useful is that limb? How well can it handle the impact of running around being chased or chasing food? Wouldn't their own animal family that is not changing find them an easy target, hence natural selection of survival of the fittest, and wouldn't that animal die out by necessity before it could turn into a bird and fly away? Can you imagine a bald eagle helplessly crawling on the ground trying to run from a wolf?

This is just one issue. I do want to hear how you explain that losing bone density is a good thing for a land dwelling animal or even a tree dwelling animal trying to survive monkeys, cats, snakes etc..

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

How well can it handle the impact of running around being chased or chasing food?

How useful were the "arms" of T-Rex?

hence natural selection of survival of the fittest

"Survival of the fittest" is not the same thing as natural selection.

Can you imagine a bald eagle helplessly crawling on the ground trying to run from a wolf

No. But how about this: that eagle used to have really long legs and was a good runner but with a really great set of wings those legs were no longer as useful? Those really great wings meant he could soar and use little energy searching for food. Those really great wings meant he was more likely to pass them on to his offspring but if he had short legs...so what?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I think Phage has it covered. As I recall, he had no problem schooling you last time.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


So, you really don't want to debate the issues then? Why crawl back to point to Phage? I am talking to you. You don't want youtube videos, and demand debate, so here I am waiting to debate you.

Or maybe you really know this is one of the very big problems with Darwin's theory of evolution.

reply to post by Phage


Would you please show me an image of this great eagle?

Oh, and to add, just how did he survive while his legs were not yet wings, and unable to run?

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

So, you really don't want to debate the issues then? Why crawl back to point to Phage? I am talking to you. You don't want youtube videos, and demand debate, so here I am waiting to debate you.

Or maybe you really know this is one of the very big problems with Darwin's theory of evolution.

or maybe it's been covered so there is little point in redundancy. if you take umbrage with Phage's reply I'd direct toward him. Don't get angry with other posters for seeing the game and not taking the bait.

eta I stand corrected, we must've been replying simultaneously

reply to post by peter vlar


Actually, Phage did not explain how a useless leg that is "pre-wing" is helpful to the animals survival and by natural selection it would become extinct and not evolve.

He jumped right to long legged big winged animal, flying or short legged winged animal flying. I am talking about this millions of years slowly evolving from an animal that uses four legs to get around, hunt, build dens etc to one that has some pretty useless front limbs that are less dense than before trying to make it another half a million years before it gets wings that can fly.

You all know that it would not survive and therefore it is not a likely explanation of how birds evolved or how anything evolved.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Would you please show me an image of this great eagle?

No. It's extinct.

Oh, and to add, just how did he survive while his legs were not yet wings, and unable to run?

Why would he not be unable to run?
This isn't an eagle and it can't soar but it sure as hell can run:

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

So, you really don't want to debate the issues then? Why crawl back to point to Phage? I am talking to you. You don't want youtube videos, and demand debate, so here I am waiting to debate you.

Or maybe you really know this is one of the very big problems with Darwin's theory of evolution.

Or maybe you know I'm a weak target who doesn't know all the answers so you figure you can slide your crap past me one card at a time. Unfortunately for you, Phage is smarter than that, does have the answers, and will catch you. He's already catching you, see?

Doesn't look like you enjoy being caught out.