It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adaptations are clear evidence of intelligent design

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2020 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Yet food and oxygen go down same holes.

So intelligent.

Literally a hose from mouth to anus....


# design imao.



posted on Oct, 11 2020 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neoholographic

Very well done indeed!


Thanks,

It's obvious adaptation destroys any notion of a natural interpretation of evolution but this is a huge false paradigm connected to peoples beliefs. They use evolution to deny the existence of God.

Some scientist are realizing that adaptation supports directed mutations and intelligent design. In most of the literature, adaptation is described as an organism having a need to survive in a new environment and then evolving the traits to fill that need. This is what we see in the fossil record.

If this is the case, there's no need for natural selection because there's nothing to select. Adaptation occurs and the traits the organism needs to survive evolves. Natural selection is something that may happen between species in an environment but it has nothing to do with the information encoded in the sequence of DNA or when an organism adapts to a new environment.

Here's the choices.

A. An organism is in a new environment, it needs x traits to survive, envoronmental pressures occur, directed mutations and adaptation occur and the organism evolves the traits it needs to survive.

This is what we see in the fossil record. Some scientist are panicked and headed towards crazytown.

B. An organism is in a new environment, it needs x traits to survive, environmental pressures occur, random mutations occur with no direction, there's no adaptation because there's no direction, you just have the random evolution of all of these traits and the traits that survive are selected via reproduction.

There's zero evidence for this but those who believe in this false paradigm are desparate.

Again, these traits that evolve randomly don't have anything to do with the survival of the organism. This only has to do with environmental pressures that trigger random mutations.

So we should see thousands of fossils for each organism with some random traits that don't help the organism survive, traits that just help the organism a little bit and more.

We should see the fossil record littered with all kinds of traits and then it takes time for the best traits to win out and populate the environment.

This is a fantasy. It belongs in middle earth and we would never get the evolution of life this way. It only happens when an organism needs x to survive then x evolves not x, y, z, a, b, c, d... and more evolve.

We see the exact trait needed evolve from a to b.

The maned wolf (pictured) is part of the canid family and a relative of other wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs. One evolutionary theory says the maned wolf's long legs evolved to help it survive in the tall grasslands of South America.



The maned wolf needed longer legs to survive in the high grasslands and evolved longer legs. What the new crazytown interpretation of evolution says is, environmental pressures occurred, random mutations happened and all of these different traits evolved and one of them just happened to be exactly the right adaption needed to survive in the environment.

It's really crazy but logic and reason are thrown out of the window to support this false paradigm. Remember, the wolf can't be evolving long legs because it needs long legs to survive. That would be directed adaptations and mutatations. It just evolved a bunch of traits and one of the traits just happened to be what it needed to survive LOL!

What we see in the fossil record is the wolf needs long legs to survive so it evolve exactly what it needs to survive.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!

They were shocked to see lizards adapt to their environment in just 36 years instead of millions of years.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.


api.nationalgeographic.com...

The changes should take millions of years because according to a natural interpretation of evolution, the lizards aren't changing in a direction to adapt to their environment, they're just changing due to environmental pressures. These pressures trigger random mutations and thousands of changes randomly occur without any direction then over a long period of time the traits that best help the organism survive populate the environment via reproduction.

If anyone believes this nonsense, I have a Bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!


Wow, a very good read.

I don't see how evolution can be correct if these adaptations are directed. I don't see any evidence for random adaptations that's brought about by random mutations.



posted on Oct, 11 2020 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
But aren't the "natural"/"random" trait evolutions spurred on / initiated by the external environment? So are not random. IE the giraffe didn't start to evolve a long neck as a reason to survive... It happened because the only giraffes which survived were those with a long neck and could reach the leaves, they passed this trait on and it got stronger. The dead giraffes didn;t all have random evolved traits with no link to the environment, they just had no evolved traits, just short necks.

Letting the Fossil Record Speak

...
No Transitional Features

28. Have transitional forms of bones and organs ever been found?

28 Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures​—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

29. What do evolutionists now acknowledge about supposed transitional forms?

29 New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”⁠31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”⁠32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”⁠33​—Italics added.

30. What does an extensive study confirm?

30 This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc.[whereislogic: eg. giraffes], all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/​or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”⁠34

31. Does the fossil record say something different now from what it said in Darwin’s day?

31 Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”⁠35

What About the Horse?

32. What is often presented as a classic example of evolution?

32 However, it has often been said that at least the horse is a classic example of evolution found in the fossil record. As The World Book Encyclopedia states: “Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development.”⁠36 Illustrations of this begin with a very small animal and end with the large horse of today. But does the fossil evidence really support this?

33. Does the fossil evidence really support evolution of the horse?

33 The Encyclopædia Britannica comments: “The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line.”⁠37 In other words, nowhere does the fossil evidence show a gradual development from the small animal to the large horse. Evolutionist Hitching says of this foremost evolutionary model: “Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all​—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush.”⁠38

34, 35. (a) Why do some now question the place of Eohippus? (b) Have any evolutionary ancestors been found for the varieties of fossil horses?

34 Placing little Eohippus as the ancestor of the horse strains the imagination, especially in view of what The New Evolutionary Timetable says: “It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal.” But do the facts support this assumption? “The fossil species of [Eohippus] show little evidence of evolutionary modification,” answers the book. It thus concedes, regarding the fossil record: “It fails to document the full history of the horse family.”⁠39

35 So, some scientists now say that little Eohippus never was a type of horse or an ancestor of one. And each type of fossil put into the horse line showed remarkable stability, with no transitional forms between it and others that were thought to be evolutionary ancestors. Nor should it be surprising that there are fossils of horses of different sizes and shapes. Even today, horses vary from very small ponies to large plow horses. All are varieties within the horse family.

What the Fossil Record Really Says

36. What does the fossil record really show?

36 When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

“The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”⁠40

Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: “To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory​—and we have seen that it does not—​what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.”⁠41 Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged in his book Cosmos: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”⁠42



posted on Oct, 11 2020 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: neoholographic
...
Long necks randomly evolved, passed down through the generations, the healthier guys had longer necks, this was passed down the chain. The neck wasn't in competition with any other traits... Sure they had different hoof sizes and different hair thickness I guess, but these don't aid survival so are not passed down....

Well, that's what we're told anyway.. I tend to believe your posts more than the textbooks.

Perhaps you should consider some of the things mentioned in the 2 videos below as well (in light of my previous comment):




posted on Oct, 11 2020 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Knew you wouldn't reply to who you thought the creator was or what religion, because you clearly are a Christian who sees what he /she wants to see. Blinded by faith and with a disingenuous OP.



posted on Oct, 11 2020 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Klassified

The topic is intelligent design. not the one true God and don't
you get tired of asking that like forever? It's like your off topic
stand-by, go to for thread derailment binky. lol

Just mess'n with ya Klass but don't derail please?


When we look at the results of intelligent design it doesn’t look too intelligent. Disease, inferior mutations, death.

BUT! When it is looked at in the context of a perfect program that was infected by a virus early on the design looks more than intelligent, it must be miraculous. How did it ever survive this long if not?

That’s where the one true God comes in. His message to us explains it all.

Other gods, not so much.

Just replying not arguing, I know where you stand



posted on Oct, 11 2020 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: neoholographic
Which god?

And why that particular god?


I have been asked this several times and it's obvious from my posts I'm a Christian who thanks God for his Son Jesus Christ, the Word of God who was there with God in the beginning and who poured out his Spirit to all of those who have faith in Christ.

You already know this because you said:

Knew you wouldn't reply to who you thought the creator was or what religion, because you clearly are a Christian who sees what he /she wants to see. Blinded by faith and with a disingenuous OP.

Well, if you clearly knew the answer, why are you asking?

Look, I have no problem shouting to anyone that can hear me that I'm a Christian that's Saved by the PROFOUND LOVE of God through His Only Begotten Son who died for the sins of the world even though there was no sin found in Him.

The reason you ask a question that you clearly know the answer to is because you can't refute what's being said. Clearly, we're Designed by intelligence and a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

Tell me, how does anything random and natural just randomly create parts that are the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles to carry out specific tasks?

Tell me, where's the evidence of natural or random adaptation? The evidence shows an organism needs xtraits to survive in an environment and x traits evolve. There's no need for natural selection because there's nothing to select.

Tell me, how can a storage medium(DNA) encode it's sequence with information and then encode the information to build the machinary to decode the sequence and also encode information in non coding sequences to regulate coding sequences?

Give Glory to the Majesty of God, our Creator!
edit on 11-10-2020 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
So dinosaurs were intelligenty designed too?


yes



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: neoholographic
Which god?

And why that particular god?



I would have to say the God of the Bible. Why Him? Because the Bible states that He created everything in the beginning. It also details exactly what is going on in our day and time to the letter, and there is no way that they could have known about it all 2,000 years ago.



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

There is a flaw in your theory.

The 'information' isn't available to x. Out of the millions of examples of x, the ones that survived evolved correctly, the others did not.

If it were truly a one to one correspondence they would all evolve and survive.



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: neoholographic
Which god?

And why that particular god?


I have been asked this several times and it's obvious from my posts I'm a Christian who thanks God for his Son Jesus Christ, the Word of God who was there with God in the beginning and who poured out his Spirit to all of those who have faith in Christ.

You already know this because you said:

Knew you wouldn't reply to who you thought the creator was or what religion, because you clearly are a Christian who sees what he /she wants to see. Blinded by faith and with a disingenuous OP.

Well, if you clearly knew the answer, why are you asking?

Look, I have no problem shouting to anyone that can hear me that I'm a Christian that's Saved by the PROFOUND LOVE of God through His Only Begotten Son who died for the sins of the world even though there was no sin found in Him.

The reason you ask a question that you clearly know the answer to is because you can't refute what's being said. Clearly, we're Designed by intelligence and a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

Tell me, how does anything random and natural just randomly create parts that are the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles to carry out specific tasks?

Tell me, where's the evidence of natural or random adaptation? The evidence shows an organism needs xtraits to survive in an environment and x traits evolve. There's no need for natural selection because there's nothing to select.

Tell me, how can a storage medium(DNA) encode it's sequence with information and then encode the information to build the machinary to decode the sequence and also encode information in non coding sequences to regulate coding sequences?

Give Glory to the Majesty of God, our Creator!


Thank you for your honesty



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Funny why do whales have toe bones if Not for the fact they had feet sometime in the past ?
That is way past just a adaptation that is Proof of evolution the whales ansters 100 million years back COULD NO LONGER mate with them .

Genesis 1.26 God said Let US make man in OUR image . Either god is skitso or he is talking about other gods who he Must consider = to him .

Ten Commandments NUMBER UNO ( Thou shall NOT Have ANY OTHER GOD BEFOR ME . Now why would GOD need to make that Commandment if he was the ONE and Only true god ?
And if being the most powerful why would God let any other god interfere with his work ? OOO LIKE his very top angle the DEVIL !

God first thing he cerates after the universe if THE DEVIL lol his own worst enemy then just sits back while this enemy SETS out to destroy his most prized creating ?

Then to add injury to insult Blames the CREATION for HIS the VERY EVIL GOD HIME SELF CREATED !



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The poster thinks people who understand science are the illogical ones while the God he believes In Created the devil then man then Killed man more times then can be counted while demanding sacrifice's .

Jericho god commanded that guy to march around the city for so many days then GOD would make the city walls fall .
God also commanded that man to KILL every one BUT he could keep the Young girls for slaves if he wanted to .

God HIM self destroyed Sodom and Gomorra ( spelling )
True to Remember NON were spared children baby's well to bad hu ?

This sir the God so many here Insist is so good .The BIBLE is FULL of Barbaric acts God did OR told others to do .
The bible is full of the sins god told us are sins he him self doing ( THOU shall NOT KILL !



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: midnightstar

Who would have guessed, figments as flawed as the mind that created them



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Romeopsi

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neoholographic

Very well done indeed!


Thanks,

It's obvious adaptation destroys any notion of a natural interpretation of evolution but this is a huge false paradigm connected to peoples beliefs. They use evolution to deny the existence of God.

Some scientist are realizing that adaptation supports directed mutations and intelligent design. In most of the literature, adaptation is described as an organism having a need to survive in a new environment and then evolving the traits to fill that need. This is what we see in the fossil record.

If this is the case, there's no need for natural selection because there's nothing to select. Adaptation occurs and the traits the organism needs to survive evolves. Natural selection is something that may happen between species in an environment but it has nothing to do with the information encoded in the sequence of DNA or when an organism adapts to a new environment.

Here's the choices.

A. An organism is in a new environment, it needs x traits to survive, envoronmental pressures occur, directed mutations and adaptation occur and the organism evolves the traits it needs to survive.

This is what we see in the fossil record. Some scientist are panicked and headed towards crazytown.

B. An organism is in a new environment, it needs x traits to survive, environmental pressures occur, random mutations occur with no direction, there's no adaptation because there's no direction, you just have the random evolution of all of these traits and the traits that survive are selected via reproduction.

There's zero evidence for this but those who believe in this false paradigm are desparate.

Again, these traits that evolve randomly don't have anything to do with the survival of the organism. This only has to do with environmental pressures that trigger random mutations.

So we should see thousands of fossils for each organism with some random traits that don't help the organism survive, traits that just help the organism a little bit and more.

We should see the fossil record littered with all kinds of traits and then it takes time for the best traits to win out and populate the environment.

This is a fantasy. It belongs in middle earth and we would never get the evolution of life this way. It only happens when an organism needs x to survive then x evolves not x, y, z, a, b, c, d... and more evolve.

We see the exact trait needed evolve from a to b.

The maned wolf (pictured) is part of the canid family and a relative of other wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs. One evolutionary theory says the maned wolf's long legs evolved to help it survive in the tall grasslands of South America.



The maned wolf needed longer legs to survive in the high grasslands and evolved longer legs. What the new crazytown interpretation of evolution says is, environmental pressures occurred, random mutations happened and all of these different traits evolved and one of them just happened to be exactly the right adaption needed to survive in the environment.

It's really crazy but logic and reason are thrown out of the window to support this false paradigm. Remember, the wolf can't be evolving long legs because it needs long legs to survive. That would be directed adaptations and mutatations. It just evolved a bunch of traits and one of the traits just happened to be what it needed to survive LOL!

What we see in the fossil record is the wolf needs long legs to survive so it evolve exactly what it needs to survive.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!

They were shocked to see lizards adapt to their environment in just 36 years instead of millions of years.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.


api.nationalgeographic.com...

The changes should take millions of years because according to a natural interpretation of evolution, the lizards aren't changing in a direction to adapt to their environment, they're just changing due to environmental pressures. These pressures trigger random mutations and thousands of changes randomly occur without any direction then over a long period of time the traits that best help the organism survive populate the environment via reproduction.

If anyone believes this nonsense, I have a Bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!


Wow, a very good read.

I don't see how evolution can be correct if these adaptations are directed. I don't see any evidence for random adaptations that's brought about by random mutations.


Thanks and you're exactly right. This is why a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: midnightstar
Funny why do whales have toe bones if Not for the fact they had feet sometime in the past ?
That is way past just a adaptation that is Proof of evolution the whales ansters 100 million years back COULD NO LONGER mate with them .

Genesis 1.26 God said Let US make man in OUR image . Either god is skitso or he is talking about other gods who he Must consider = to him .

Ten Commandments NUMBER UNO ( Thou shall NOT Have ANY OTHER GOD BEFOR ME . Now why would GOD need to make that Commandment if he was the ONE and Only true god ?
And if being the most powerful why would God let any other god interfere with his work ? OOO LIKE his very top angle the DEVIL !

God first thing he cerates after the universe if THE DEVIL lol his own worst enemy then just sits back while this enemy SETS out to destroy his most prized creating ?

Then to add injury to insult Blames the CREATION for HIS the VERY EVIL GOD HIME SELF CREATED !


Don't forget slavery! You can beat your slave as savagely as you want unless he dies within 3 days. Then you're a bad slave owner. Exodus 21
edit on 12-10-2020 by FinallyAwake because: Typo



posted on Oct, 12 2020 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Given that there is no refutation, I suppose people on these forums are starting to realize that evolution is simply not a plausible theory.

Our genetic code is made in a way that allows us to adapt to all sorts of environments. Take for example 2,3-BPG which is a gene in humans that allows us to acclimate to higher altitudes. We do not evolve in such a short timespan, instead our body turns this gene higher or lower to allow us to acclimate to various altitudes. It's brilliant and also defies evolutionary mechanisms. What's even crazier is that our body does this automatically without our conscious input. This means it is also detecting the changes that would require the expression of this gene.

There are countless other genes that work exactly like this. This proves organisms do not evolve, they are simply adapting with mechanisms that are already present in the genome.
edit on 12-10-2020 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2020 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
The fossil record study is brilliant, thanks for posting.

Whilst I do tend agree with you and the OP (as mentioned earlier) those two videos you posted were not relevant and make the common mistakes/confusions. The first one assumes that giraffes starved to death by not eating high leaves. That's not how the theory works. No animals chose to starve to death.

The second video talks about inherited changes and likens them to big muscles.... again, that's a fallacy. The evolution argument states that the inherited traits are pre-existing genetic traits that just so happen to help the animal. These traits are passed down and become stronger due to breeding. However, I do agree that there are no giraffes with long necks! Although the evolutionists say these evolved into other things.... Clearly the fossil record argument holds up here.

So whilst I agree and value the info, I think those videos miss the points.

Thanks for the links.



posted on Oct, 13 2020 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

The videos aren't perfect, but you have to remember that they are responding to what they hear other people say about the evolution of the giraffe. Some people who believe in this myth, do tend to get confused themselves and either think that's how evolution works, or talk about it as such.

Even the way Neoholographic talks about it is as if an organism evolves a trait that they need in their lifetime, "gained after birth" as the 2nd video puts it (just like bigger muscles) and then passes that on to the next generation (as implied by calling that evolution).

Regarding the 1st video, the bit about giraffes being too proud to eat what every other animal is eating near the ground, and because of that starving (as if it's their choice) was just describing why the whole idea as explained by evolutionists how this change happened to the giraffe (how the long neck evolved) is rather ridiculous, it doesn't make sense, hence the funny description. Evolutionists do say the giraffes (or precursors of the giraffe) with short necks died (more) because they couldn't reach as high as their competitors with longer necks, thus by starvation. I think you missed the point there, the idea is ridiculous because they could have just ate the same stuff all the other animals were eating near the ground, so then you are basically arguing that they chose not to (why would they otherwise have been outcompeted by their longer-necked competitors, i.e. died more because they didn't have access to the same high branches). It was meant to point out that when thinking through the evolutionary storyline, it leads to ridiculous argumentation to sort of fill in the holes in the storyline (that hole being, why didn't they just eat the stuff nearer to the ground? A longer neck doesn't make your species more survivable when there's plenty of food near the ground, as we know there was, cause fossils of other much shorter animals are found in the same rocklayers and continued their species long thereafter without needing a longer and longer neck in order to be favored by natural selection over the ones that didn't evolve a longer neck).

The OP seems to be trying to fit evolution into their worldview. It sounds like he still believes organisms evolved from one kind to another. He's only saying it wasn't a natural process. Doesn't sound much different from what is called "theistic evolution", basically God starting the process, then evolution takes over and turns single-celled lifeforms into all the different kinds of life on earth (all preprogrammed by what is somewhat vaguely referred to as "an intelligence" into these single-celled lifeforms, presumably, from what I'm hearing).

That's quite a different opinion about it than mine.

P.S. The primary reason for sharing those videos was for what they said about the missing fossils anyway. Also note that the 1st picture used in the 2nd video with the "stretching" remark is one used by evolutionists themselves to promote this storyline, I think (I think I saw it in that context somewhere else). That idea as depicted there, is definitely the same as the idea of "characteristics [or traits] gained after birth" (that are then supposedly passed on to the next generation, but nature doesn't work that way, as they appropiately point out that these sort of characteristics or traits "cannot be inherited", just like muscles that grow because you're using them a lot "after birth", same idea as the 'stretching further and further' idea, which you can also do with muscles btw to make them longer within certain limitations; so the analogy is quite appropiate in relation to that picture). I think Neoholographic also occasionally is talking about uninheritable characteristics or traits acquired or gained after birth, or uses them as examples for his 'unnatural evolution', or as he puts it "intelligent design interpretation of evolution" (not sure if he used that term in this thread but I think I saw him using it elsewhere, still somehow trying to fit the concept of evolution in there).
edit on 13-10-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2020 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Given that there is no refutation, I suppose people on these forums are starting to realize that evolution is simply not a plausible theory.

It has nothing to do with such a realization, it's an exercise in futility to do so.




top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join