A Cephalopod disproves Darwin.

a reply to: SecrettoSociety

Well. We agree on the Creator bit. But I do not agree with Darwin's Theory.
Darwin laid out conditions that would disprove his theory if the conditions proved true; and those conditions proved true.

So the duct tape professors came into save their careers patching holes here and there with BS papers, and forced others to agree with them less they lose funding for their projects. Because that is how they butter their bread, the scientific community and its' politics are about as reliable as a politician at a rally.

You want an example of this? I'll give you two and drop the mic.

1. Every Scientist that comes onto the Joe Rogan Podcast and complains about the group think politics of getting projects funded, latest being Eric Weinstein.
2. Anthony Fauci

originally posted by: FingerMan
a reply to: SecrettoSociety

Well. We agree on the Creator bit. But I do not agree with Darwin's Theory.
Darwin laid out conditions that would disprove his theory if the conditions proved true; and those conditions proved true.

So the duct tape professors came into save their careers patching holes here and there with BS papers, and forced others to agree with them less they lose funding for their projects. Because that is how they butter their bread, the scientific community and its' politics are about as reliable as a politician at a rally.

You want an example of this? I'll give you two and drop the mic.

1. Every Scientist that comes onto the Joe Rogan Podcast and complains about the group think politics of getting projects funded, latest being Eric Weinstein.
2. Anthony Fauci

Darwin’s theory was rammed through asap , because it supported species differences .ie Blacks were scientifically degraded to subhumans by Darwin’s book . White’s in charge could not get it into schools & colleges fast enough. Theories are just that

Just another thought on this evolution BS.

So, somehow we, the human race, started out as a shrub of some kind.
Science then postulates we evolved into a monkey, then into a bipedal ape, and then into the modern human.
That is a LOT of evolution.

But the shark and the crocodile are the exact same as 500 million years ago.

Just another example from the beer chugging layman of how this don't add up.

originally posted by: FingerMan
According to Darwin, all mutations are chance occurrences.

I think you got it backwards here, but first Darwin equals to about 2% of what we know today about evolution, so the timeless talk about Darwin is not really even remotely connected to evolution of today's understanding. Also, Darwin got a number of things wrong, and we know it, so not really a big intelligent design vs evolution argument.

If you had 10 mutations some will survive some will not. Those that survive will continue on into the next generations. More mutations happen and the rinse and repeat for a million or more years. What helps survivability will carry forward what doesn't die out. It is also not good to use words like chance or random since there are many external factors involved driving mutations in one direction or another. Why do polar bears have white fur and not some random color as example if it all was just random or chance?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well. You are onto my argument, just not 100%. And I agree with most of what you are saying.

I agree there is another means by which mutations occur and then take hold. According to Darwinian theory, these are chance mutations that are purely random.

Why would random mutations that are perfectly adaptable and purposeful to that environment ever occur. It's like winning a lottery to win a lottery to win a lottery. Would never happen.

originally posted by: FingerMan

Why would random mutations that are perfectly adaptable and purposeful to that environment ever occur. It's like winning a lottery to win a lottery to win a lottery. Would never happen.

The big problem is that many look at starting with the present then follow the species timeline looking backwards and say it is impossible for all these things to happen to get what we see today. They then throw out a number that the chance is greater than the lifespan of the universe to happen, such as you continuous winning the lottery, and say this is proof of intelligent design.

Where their mistake lies is that the end product is still random, so if one looked at the beginning of a species and it evolves into something not preplanned then there is not chance apart of the equation as it will be whatever it will be. If we rolled earth back a billion years and replayed it we would see that life today would all be different to include no humans here.

So, we are down to either intelligent design or not and that is something we cannot answer as it is an unfalsifiable statement, so we would just be spinning our wheels in conversation. I do commend you though in you are like the first person I have talked to in a long time that sees evolution as a tool that God could use. I have argued many times that intelligent design vs evolution is an incorrect debate because one answers the "why" why are humans here and the other answer the "how" how did humans get here. So, for hundreds of years people been arguing the "why" against the "how" when God could be in both sides of the argument.