How can house pets, bananas and other plants be proof of evolution. It makes more sense to look at their purpose and determine they were designed. It takesmore faith to emagine all these things coming from oneancestor.
Question: When, and how, did the process take two directions...animals and plants.
All these things can be more easily explained by creation.
@friendsfortruth House pets and bananas are proof of evolution because none of these existed before humans began to select for them. They all came from wild versions, and we slowly guided their evolution to what they are today. This is proof of evolution that we've observed because it wouldn't have even happened if it were not for us doing it! We've witnessed it, because WE DID IT. But we did it by guiding evolution's path by selecting for certain desirable traits.. like friendliness :-)
Where is your evidence that none of these things existed before humans? House pets may have come from wild versions, but WE have not turned a wild dog into a tame cat...and certainly not a banana into an animal.
The changes come from the built-in, genetic code.
@friendsfortruth If you do not recognize that we have domesticated various animals and fruits, then I don't know what else to tell you. You're immune to evidence, or ignorant in a way that is unimaginable in today's modern world, especially considering you have Internet access.
"There are only 2 things that can show us anything about God."
You yourself stated that the design of things around us shows the nature of god. And these designs show us that the nature of god is malicious and/or incompetent. Where are you not following?
Who is asserting we have not domesticated wild animals? My point is that it is not evolution. Some call it macroevolution, which is not evolution at all. It is natural changes within any species. We breed 2 dogs with characteristics we like. Sometimes it works.
Knowing you would challenge the "2 things" issue you have graciously opened the door for the real issue.
I do not know if you have read the Bible, but there is more evidence that the Bible is true.
The Internet is also full of outstanding evidence "apposing" evolution.
But, how do we know the Bible is true.
The Bible is the only reliable history of the world since the creation to the 1st century. The enemies of God have tried to discredit the bible for centuries. They have not succeeded!
The Bible is the most popular book ever. All reliable Roman, Jewish, Biblical and Contemporary historians confirm that Jesus lived, was a wise teacher, died on a roman cross and lived again.
The Bible says faith is based on the fact that God spoke the universe into existence.
Now we have a problem: If history verifies that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, but what historians say about Jesus is not true, we are in big trouble. None of this conversation means anything and all reliable historians say is wrong...and we have no joice but believe an unbelievable theory.
@friendsfortruth When did historians prove that Jesus was the Son of God? Isn't there actually a notable number of historians who question whether Jesus even existed? We can't use the Bible for justification until the Bible itself has been justified, and it hasn't. In fact, it's been shown wrong on numerous counts, both historical and scientific, and even contradicts itself on many matters, including basic chronology.
Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian wrote that Jesus "claimed" to be the Son of God...and said Jesus "was" the Jewish Messiah.
The only place we find anything about the personal life and his teaching is found in the writings of Biblecal historians. But, the writing of these men were curculated during the time they were written. All the enemies of Jesus had to do was prove one a historical event written about to stop Christianity dead. They did not because the could not.
Your have challenged yourself with another problem. All you have to do is show me one fact that anyone has given that proves the historical accuracy of the Bible is wrong...with specific evidence. Good luck!
I have been offering this challege for a long time and have never had anyone provide verifiable evidence. The real challenge is to prove Jesus was not who he claimed to be!
It is difficult to honestly read/study the Bible and accept your premise.
@friendsfortruth Google Biblical errors, Biblical inaccuracies, Biblical contradictions or inconsistencies and ye shall find what I would provide.
Beyond that, I refuse to answer any further challenges from you as you've not answered a single one of mine, and the count is well into the double digits. Until you do so, you will receive no further correspondence from me. The burden is overwhelmingly on your shoulders at this point.
@AcidRain64 In fairness, you did attempt to answer one -- the malicious claim. While unsatisfactorily, this is one answer you did provide. Still, far too many remain for me to allow this exchange to continue. I won't let 99% of the points I've made slide by unanswered.
Do not believe anything I have said. Just take time to read the Bible book of John. It is an historical book written to establish that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you might have life.
I know you're going to object -- but dogs are still dogs and cats are still cats! They're the same kind! And I will ask, can you breed a house cat with a tiger? No, you cannot. They are distinct species. Domesticated cats evolved from wild animals.. so much to the point where we have a new species of animal. And as I've already said, if we continue this process long enough and on a large enough scale, we could create a horse from a cat. There's nothing stopping us, would just take a LONG time.
The only thing that you are proving is that you don't understand evolution, and that you don't have an interest in studying evolution.
If you were serious about understanding evolution, why not follow the line from single-cell to full nervous structure, and point out where the gap is insurmountable.
I take it you will not, because you have no interest in scientific truth.
Answer one question: Which came first, blood, blood-vessels, heart or brain?
Without blood there is no need for blood-vessels or a heart. Blood-vessels have no purpose without blood. The heart has not purpose and cannot live without blood. And...none of this makes any sense without the brain that controls the whole business...and depends on blood to survive.
All this had to be in place at the same time to make it work.
Gravity is a great example off the impossibility of evolution. How did the complex, process of gravity happen by chance? Without gravity there would be nothing for things to evolve from...or in.
It takes more faith to believe that this all happened by pure chance, than to believe it evolved.
Nice try, but you need a stronger argument than this!
BUT, that said, we DO actually have a couple of theories about "how" gravity comes to be. So all you're doing here is making a god of the gaps argument, and unfortunately for you, one that is actually already in the process of being figured out through science. Look into the LHC at CERN, and the Higgs boson.
Another point-- it makes no sense to ask "WHY" the laws of physics are as they are. They just are. We can only know the "HOW."
Without gravity there would be no evolution because there would be no primordial soup for evolution to happen...the soup would be floating around somewhere.
You say there are a couple of theories about gravity. Until theories are proven truth, there is no absolute truth....and we get back to blind-faith. Even if your theories are proven true, it still does not answer the question of how everything needed for such a complex process just happened to be available at just the right time.
You say science has already proven it. Show me the science. There is no verifyable science that proves evolution is true...that is why it is called a "theory". Changes in the genetic code are mutations..and are almost always damaging.
The real question is: why is it hard to see that the only sensible explanation of our compex world is that every creature is intricately designed by God for a purpose in an incredibly complex world?
Actually "theory" in the scientific sense is THE most powerful thing in all of science. You cannot get any higher than a theory, except *perhaps* a law.. but even that is debatable. A theory is arguable much stronger. You're using theory in the colloquial sense, which is a very dishonest (or ignorant) thing to do.
Correct most mutations are damaging. That's why natural selection necessarily selects for the ones that are not.
I claim ignorance.. I do not know how God created the world and everything in it...just like Job claimed ignorance after hearing the material found in Job 40,41.
Theory is valuable only in the search for verifiable truth. Gravity is no longer a theory because it has been proven. You have admited that even after hundreds of years of inlightenment, the "how" it happened originally has not been proven.
You know that natural selection can only happen within species, not between species...which explains changes within species, not the evolutionary process.
That is incorrect. There is no difference in the process. In fact, it would be quite difficult to conceive of any way to PREVENT evolution "between" species. If you think it only applies within species, then you still don't understand the theory.
If enough changes occur WITHIN species, eventually you will have so many changes that the most recent one cannot breed with the original. Now you have a new species (roughly speaking). Continue the process, and soon you won't even recognize it.
You are right. There is not difference in the process. The difference is...does the process actually works. Can you breed a horse with a monkey?
I know what you say the evolutionary process is, but I do not understand your claims because there is no verifiable proof that it works...only theories.
You say it is inconceivable! Great, just give me one verifiable example of one species successfuly breeding with another.
- NO, of course not! That is the definition of being a distinct "species!"
But you can breed a horse with another horse, which makes a slightly different baby horse. And you can mate the new slightly different horse with another, which makes another even more different horse that's more like a monkey. The next baby is even more like a monkey. Repeat MANY times and eventually you have a monkey. It's extremely simple, not hard to understand.
Extremely simple! You must be joking. With your argument we could keep breeding horses long enough to produce a monkey or even a sperm whale. The differences are so vast that the question has to be. How long would it take, and how could it possibly happen? And, what if just one link in this incredible process is accidentally killed?
Why do you insist on believing an indefensible theory...instead of accepting the fact that living beings are so complex that they had to be designed?
Actually, if the breeding sample was large enough, we could probably do that in hundreds of years.. if not less. It all depends on the size of your population.
You fall back on positions that can, and never have been proven.
But, you did not answer my question. Why do you cling to an indefensible position...and refuse to accept the fact that the horse, monkey and Sperm whale are all remarkably designed, very different creatures...which demand a remarkable designer.
Of course the answer is the creator of the universe and everything in it...God!
@friendsfortruth They've been proven thousands of times over. Thus, the reason I do not answer your question is because your question has a false premise built into it. The question is invalid. If these creatures were designed, then we must conclude that the designer was at least a) incompetent and b) malicious. The design is not very impressive AT ALL, even by HUMAN standards. This does not reflect well on your asserted "intelligent" designer. Also, there's no reason to automatically say God.
It is easy to make statements without backing them up. So, provide specific examples of how evolution "has been proven" and how the designer is "incompetent" and "malicious".
This is the irreducible complexity argument and it's invalid. These systems are, in fact, NOT irreducibly complex. Science has already shown and continues to show that these features all served OTHER, DIFFERENT purposes as they evolved, thus negating the entire irreducible complexity argument at its very foundation.
Also, could these things evolve by pure chance? Actually, yes though it's beyond unlikely. But my point is they DIDN'T evolve by chance. You've forgotten the Natural Selection part.
My question is simple: How has science already shown that complex systems accidentally evolved to serve other purposes. With your logic, how do we know which purpose is the original purpose?
Why would you have so much confidence in the fact that it is beyond unlikely that things could evolve by pure chance. It sound like blind faith to me.
Hmmm! Now we are talking about religion. It makes more sense to believe in an all-powerful creator that designed and powered the universe.
No sir, scientists agree it would be fleetingly unlikely for these complex systems to have evolved by pure chance. Natural selection is precisely the opposite of chance. It is what makes evolution non-random. You've apparently missed the entire basis of the theory that makes it NOT a random process.
There are no original purposes, either. Evolution is blind. Purpose is something we assign to something after the fact, in this case.
It seems you have major misconceptions about the theory.
Ever hear of artificial selection? Do you believe in it? I hope so, because we do it every single day. It's how we have domesticated pets (dogs, cats) as well as the fine fruits (bananas in their current form) we have today. It happens, we do it. It's fact. It's also absolutely NO DIFFERENT from natural selection except that humans are the ones consciously applying the selective pressures. Nature applies its own pressures in the case of natural selection (e.g. cold temps up north).Works same way
Fleetingly unlikely, beyond unlikesly, artificial selection, natural selection (chance), theories, selective pressures...it sounds like blind-faith to me.
I would be laughted out of the room if I told a scientist that the theory of gravity is more powerful than the law of gravity.
My question stays the same...why do you choose a theory that is not verifiable over a truth that has been verified over and over...the fact that the world and everything in it has a designer.
Everything you just said demands justification. I don't accept any of the statements you just made. All these theories sound like blind faith? Very funny...
I invite you to try. You very well may be laughed out of the room, but not because of the assertion.. rather, because of your inability to defend it, which is because you lack a solid understanding of science.
How has design been proven? If it has, then it's also been proven that the designer is quite incompetent and very malicious.
Study evolution, it expains all this.
gregrutz 1 year ago
It not God, who or what?
How can house pets, bananas and other plants be proof of evolution. It makes more sense to look at their purpose and determine they were designed. It takesmore faith to emagine all these things coming from oneancestor.
Question: When, and how, did the process take two directions...animals and plants.
All these things can be more easily explained by creation.
I will deal with the malicious in another post.
Ran out of room!
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth House pets and bananas are proof of evolution because none of these existed before humans began to select for them. They all came from wild versions, and we slowly guided their evolution to what they are today. This is proof of evolution that we've observed because it wouldn't have even happened if it were not for us doing it! We've witnessed it, because WE DID IT. But we did it by guiding evolution's path by selecting for certain desirable traits.. like friendliness :-)
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Where is your evidence that none of these things existed before humans? House pets may have come from wild versions, but WE have not turned a wild dog into a tame cat...and certainly not a banana into an animal.
The changes come from the built-in, genetic code.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
AcidRain
Malicious
Very good, you have finally changed the subject to God.
There are only 2 things that can show us anything about God.
1. The extraordinary design of things around us show the power and nature of God.
2. The Bible, which is the only way to know specifics about God's power, nature and love. It is God's revelation to men.
Evolution and creation are both based on faith. Faith is evolution is blind-faith because it cannot be proven. Faith is God's word "can" be verified.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth If you do not recognize that we have domesticated various animals and fruits, then I don't know what else to tell you. You're immune to evidence, or ignorant in a way that is unimaginable in today's modern world, especially considering you have Internet access.
"There are only 2 things that can show us anything about God."
- This assertion requires defense.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
You yourself stated that the design of things around us shows the nature of god. And these designs show us that the nature of god is malicious and/or incompetent. Where are you not following?
AcidRain64 2 years ago
In order to understand the purpose and nature of God, one must use the only source of God's nature...the Bible.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
Who is asserting we have not domesticated wild animals? My point is that it is not evolution. Some call it macroevolution, which is not evolution at all. It is natural changes within any species. We breed 2 dogs with characteristics we like. Sometimes it works.
Knowing you would challenge the "2 things" issue you have graciously opened the door for the real issue.
I do not know if you have read the Bible, but there is more evidence that the Bible is true.
Continued in another post.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
The Internet is also full of outstanding evidence "apposing" evolution.
But, how do we know the Bible is true.
The Bible is the only reliable history of the world since the creation to the 1st century. The enemies of God have tried to discredit the bible for centuries. They have not succeeded!
The Bible is the most popular book ever. All reliable Roman, Jewish, Biblical and Contemporary historians confirm that Jesus lived, was a wise teacher, died on a roman cross and lived again.
More...
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
The Bible says faith is based on the fact that God spoke the universe into existence.
Now we have a problem: If history verifies that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, but what historians say about Jesus is not true, we are in big trouble. None of this conversation means anything and all reliable historians say is wrong...and we have no joice but believe an unbelievable theory.
Fortunately, the historians are not wrong.
And, this is just a small part of the evidence.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth When did historians prove that Jesus was the Son of God? Isn't there actually a notable number of historians who question whether Jesus even existed? We can't use the Bible for justification until the Bible itself has been justified, and it hasn't. In fact, it's been shown wrong on numerous counts, both historical and scientific, and even contradicts itself on many matters, including basic chronology.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian wrote that Jesus "claimed" to be the Son of God...and said Jesus "was" the Jewish Messiah.
The only place we find anything about the personal life and his teaching is found in the writings of Biblecal historians. But, the writing of these men were curculated during the time they were written. All the enemies of Jesus had to do was prove one a historical event written about to stop Christianity dead. They did not because the could not.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
Your have challenged yourself with another problem. All you have to do is show me one fact that anyone has given that proves the historical accuracy of the Bible is wrong...with specific evidence. Good luck!
I have been offering this challege for a long time and have never had anyone provide verifiable evidence. The real challenge is to prove Jesus was not who he claimed to be!
It is difficult to honestly read/study the Bible and accept your premise.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth Google Biblical errors, Biblical inaccuracies, Biblical contradictions or inconsistencies and ye shall find what I would provide.
Beyond that, I refuse to answer any further challenges from you as you've not answered a single one of mine, and the count is well into the double digits. Until you do so, you will receive no further correspondence from me. The burden is overwhelmingly on your shoulders at this point.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
@AcidRain64 In fairness, you did attempt to answer one -- the malicious claim. While unsatisfactorily, this is one answer you did provide. Still, far too many remain for me to allow this exchange to continue. I won't let 99% of the points I've made slide by unanswered.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Do you believe everything you read on Google? If you do, I agree...there is no reason to continue this conversation.
You have refused to think for youself and answer logical questions.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth That is so ironic it hurts.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Suggestion:
Do not believe anything I have said. Just take time to read the Bible book of John. It is an historical book written to establish that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God and that by believing you might have life.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth historical accuracy of the Bible is wrong
The bible says there was a flood, this is WRONG
There is NO geologic evidence for a flood, all evidence shows an old earth.
The Egyptians lived 6000 years ago and were not killed in a flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I know you're going to object -- but dogs are still dogs and cats are still cats! They're the same kind! And I will ask, can you breed a house cat with a tiger? No, you cannot. They are distinct species. Domesticated cats evolved from wild animals.. so much to the point where we have a new species of animal. And as I've already said, if we continue this process long enough and on a large enough scale, we could create a horse from a cat. There's nothing stopping us, would just take a LONG time.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
The only thing that you are proving is that you don't understand evolution, and that you don't have an interest in studying evolution.
If you were serious about understanding evolution, why not follow the line from single-cell to full nervous structure, and point out where the gap is insurmountable.
I take it you will not, because you have no interest in scientific truth.
sagarat 2 years ago
Answer one question: Which came first, blood, blood-vessels, heart or brain?
Without blood there is no need for blood-vessels or a heart. Blood-vessels have no purpose without blood. The heart has not purpose and cannot live without blood. And...none of this makes any sense without the brain that controls the whole business...and depends on blood to survive.
All this had to be in place at the same time to make it work.
Which came first?
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
Tgivkabd 420
Gravity is a great example off the impossibility of evolution. How did the complex, process of gravity happen by chance? Without gravity there would be nothing for things to evolve from...or in.
It takes more faith to believe that this all happened by pure chance, than to believe it evolved.
Nice try, but you need a stronger argument than this!
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
Gravity has nothing to do with evolution at all.
BUT, that said, we DO actually have a couple of theories about "how" gravity comes to be. So all you're doing here is making a god of the gaps argument, and unfortunately for you, one that is actually already in the process of being figured out through science. Look into the LHC at CERN, and the Higgs boson.
Another point-- it makes no sense to ask "WHY" the laws of physics are as they are. They just are. We can only know the "HOW."
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Without gravity there would be no evolution because there would be no primordial soup for evolution to happen...the soup would be floating around somewhere.
You say there are a couple of theories about gravity. Until theories are proven truth, there is no absolute truth....and we get back to blind-faith. Even if your theories are proven true, it still does not answer the question of how everything needed for such a complex process just happened to be available at just the right time.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
You say science has already proven it. Show me the science. There is no verifyable science that proves evolution is true...that is why it is called a "theory". Changes in the genetic code are mutations..and are almost always damaging.
The real question is: why is it hard to see that the only sensible explanation of our compex world is that every creature is intricately designed by God for a purpose in an incredibly complex world?
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
Theory huh? I suppose you don't believe in the Theory of Gravity either.
thovland420 2 years ago
Actually "theory" in the scientific sense is THE most powerful thing in all of science. You cannot get any higher than a theory, except *perhaps* a law.. but even that is debatable. A theory is arguable much stronger. You're using theory in the colloquial sense, which is a very dishonest (or ignorant) thing to do.
Correct most mutations are damaging. That's why natural selection necessarily selects for the ones that are not.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
I claim ignorance.. I do not know how God created the world and everything in it...just like Job claimed ignorance after hearing the material found in Job 40,41.
Theory is valuable only in the search for verifiable truth. Gravity is no longer a theory because it has been proven. You have admited that even after hundreds of years of inlightenment, the "how" it happened originally has not been proven.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
You know that natural selection can only happen within species, not between species...which explains changes within species, not the evolutionary process.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
That is incorrect. There is no difference in the process. In fact, it would be quite difficult to conceive of any way to PREVENT evolution "between" species. If you think it only applies within species, then you still don't understand the theory.
If enough changes occur WITHIN species, eventually you will have so many changes that the most recent one cannot breed with the original. Now you have a new species (roughly speaking). Continue the process, and soon you won't even recognize it.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
You are right. There is not difference in the process. The difference is...does the process actually works. Can you breed a horse with a monkey?
I know what you say the evolutionary process is, but I do not understand your claims because there is no verifiable proof that it works...only theories.
You say it is inconceivable! Great, just give me one verifiable example of one species successfuly breeding with another.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth "Can you breed a horse with a monkey?"
- NO, of course not! That is the definition of being a distinct "species!"
But you can breed a horse with another horse, which makes a slightly different baby horse. And you can mate the new slightly different horse with another, which makes another even more different horse that's more like a monkey. The next baby is even more like a monkey. Repeat MANY times and eventually you have a monkey. It's extremely simple, not hard to understand.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Extremely simple! You must be joking. With your argument we could keep breeding horses long enough to produce a monkey or even a sperm whale. The differences are so vast that the question has to be. How long would it take, and how could it possibly happen? And, what if just one link in this incredible process is accidentally killed?
Why do you insist on believing an indefensible theory...instead of accepting the fact that living beings are so complex that they had to be designed?
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth "With your argument we could keep breeding horses long enough to produce a monkey or even a sperm whale."
- That is correct. Congratulations, you're beginning to understand!
"How long would it take?"
- Depending on the scale of breeding, anywhere from thousands to millions of years.
"How could it possibly happen?"
- Exactly the way described previously. Mate, select for traits, repeat.
Link killed? No problem..another can take its place. A link is only a link after the fact.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Actually, if the breeding sample was large enough, we could probably do that in hundreds of years.. if not less. It all depends on the size of your population.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
So simple, but impossible!
You fall back on positions that can, and never have been proven.
But, you did not answer my question. Why do you cling to an indefensible position...and refuse to accept the fact that the horse, monkey and Sperm whale are all remarkably designed, very different creatures...which demand a remarkable designer.
Of course the answer is the creator of the universe and everything in it...God!
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
@friendsfortruth They've been proven thousands of times over. Thus, the reason I do not answer your question is because your question has a false premise built into it. The question is invalid. If these creatures were designed, then we must conclude that the designer was at least a) incompetent and b) malicious. The design is not very impressive AT ALL, even by HUMAN standards. This does not reflect well on your asserted "intelligent" designer. Also, there's no reason to automatically say God.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
It is easy to make statements without backing them up. So, provide specific examples of how evolution "has been proven" and how the designer is "incompetent" and "malicious".
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
This is the irreducible complexity argument and it's invalid. These systems are, in fact, NOT irreducibly complex. Science has already shown and continues to show that these features all served OTHER, DIFFERENT purposes as they evolved, thus negating the entire irreducible complexity argument at its very foundation.
Also, could these things evolve by pure chance? Actually, yes though it's beyond unlikely. But my point is they DIDN'T evolve by chance. You've forgotten the Natural Selection part.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
My question is simple: How has science already shown that complex systems accidentally evolved to serve other purposes. With your logic, how do we know which purpose is the original purpose?
Why would you have so much confidence in the fact that it is beyond unlikely that things could evolve by pure chance. It sound like blind faith to me.
Hmmm! Now we are talking about religion. It makes more sense to believe in an all-powerful creator that designed and powered the universe.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
No sir, scientists agree it would be fleetingly unlikely for these complex systems to have evolved by pure chance. Natural selection is precisely the opposite of chance. It is what makes evolution non-random. You've apparently missed the entire basis of the theory that makes it NOT a random process.
There are no original purposes, either. Evolution is blind. Purpose is something we assign to something after the fact, in this case.
It seems you have major misconceptions about the theory.
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Ever hear of artificial selection? Do you believe in it? I hope so, because we do it every single day. It's how we have domesticated pets (dogs, cats) as well as the fine fruits (bananas in their current form) we have today. It happens, we do it. It's fact. It's also absolutely NO DIFFERENT from natural selection except that humans are the ones consciously applying the selective pressures. Nature applies its own pressures in the case of natural selection (e.g. cold temps up north).Works same way
AcidRain64 2 years ago
Fleetingly unlikely, beyond unlikesly, artificial selection, natural selection (chance), theories, selective pressures...it sounds like blind-faith to me.
I would be laughted out of the room if I told a scientist that the theory of gravity is more powerful than the law of gravity.
My question stays the same...why do you choose a theory that is not verifiable over a truth that has been verified over and over...the fact that the world and everything in it has a designer.
friendsfortruth 2 years ago
Everything you just said demands justification. I don't accept any of the statements you just made. All these theories sound like blind faith? Very funny...
I invite you to try. You very well may be laughed out of the room, but not because of the assertion.. rather, because of your inability to defend it, which is because you lack a solid understanding of science.
How has design been proven? If it has, then it's also been proven that the designer is quite incompetent and very malicious.
AcidRain64 2 years ago