Jump to content


Photo

Things Evolution Can't Evolve?


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#21 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 01 June 2013 - 11:22 AM

Megan

 

God, according the   biblical scenario is called "the life giver."  As humans we also pass life to our offspring. The rest of the scripture says,He breathed into Adam the breath of life.

 

As per the OP do you acknowledge that creationism as a theory is  scientific?

No because in this case the objects are being created by us humans. Objects like a tv were invented and then different people expanded upon that initial Idea. While there is more complexity in a tv or gun, a spear is in this category as well. It has been found that chimpanzees make tools as well, going so far as to make a primitive spear to hunt with. On a side note, most of the greater apes can in fact be taught to use language. But I digress, making tools and then expanding upon the original idea does not prove creationism. If our creations were "evolving" the way I think you mean, it would be that the creation was creating another iteration of it's self. 

 

As for the very first questions, yes it has (though this is debatable). Now this doesn't prove creationism, all it says is that humans are able to manipulate our environment and even genetics to some extent. However this can be seen as a trait that was selected for. Intelligence in its self is part of all animals. usually the more intelligent animal is the one to pass down its genetics. As such more intelligence meant more aptitude to survival and through this more offspring (technically). Evolving the intelligence to effect our surrounding would be counted as one of the greatest evolved traits.



#22 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 01 June 2013 - 11:32 AM

No because in this case the objects are being created by us humans. 

Ah now I get it. I'm sorry for not understanding. I guess this could be Intelligent design, though I don't really think that is how its is meant. I mean its more intelligent design with intelligent being an adjective. This doesn't prove (the theory?) intelligent design, but I guess we can "intelligently" design something.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#23 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 June 2013 - 01:28 PM

Ah now I get it. I'm sorry for not understanding. I guess this could be Intelligent design, though I don't really think that is how its is meant. I mean its more intelligent design with intelligent being an adjective. This doesn't prove (the theory?) intelligent design, but I guess we can "intelligently" design something.

Do  you have a theory other  than  intelligence  or evolution  to  account for things like telephones?

 

I did nor imply that animals were not intelligent.I do believe we are smarter.

 

Personally, I wish to enjoy life  not merely survive.

Acccording to evo theory  complexity  reequires vast amounts of time. Creativity by definition is a fairly quick process.  How long doo you think we will have to wait   before some ape joins our discussion?



#24 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 01 June 2013 - 02:25 PM

Do  you have a theory other  than  intelligence  or evolution  to  account for things like telephones?

 

I did nor imply that animals were not intelligent.I do believe we are smarter.

 

Personally, I wish to enjoy life  not merely survive.

Acccording to evo theory  complexity  reequires vast amounts of time. Creativity by definition is a fairly quick process.  How long doo you think we will have to wait   before some ape joins our discussion?

I'm not entirely sure how to answer your first question, as I'm not sure as to what your asking. As for implying that you implied that animal did not have intelligence, I was only stating how natural selection would work and I'm am sorry if I appeared to insult your intelligence. 

 

As far as the last question, I actually encourage you to look up thing on koko the guerrilla. This is actually really cool and I really think anyone can enjoy it. However, a planet of the apes thing would take a very long time indeed naturally, seeing that in the wild for most  apes communication isn't high in their priority lists excepting the grunts and howls for food and danger. While you are right that creativity is rather quick( which in turn might answer your first question) perhaps (and this is only my conjecture and not fact) creativity in apes is not as useful. It is also good to mention that creativity can be interpreted as intelligence in its own right.



#25 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 June 2013 - 07:54 AM

Despite all the rhetoric to the  contrary, evo is a theory obsessed with the past.  It has no practical applications  for humans.  From my point of view it is an attempt to deny  the possibility of a being or beings  that  are smarter than us  in the entirety of the vast unexplored universe. That in itself is  presumptuous and arrogant beyond belief,  No one in their right mind would try to use an alleged process  that is so time  consuming and  not know what the outcome will be.

 

Our best description as humans  is that we are creators. Observe all the things we have created and compare the two theories. Evo has no practical  application for intelligent beings,



#26 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 02 June 2013 - 09:41 AM

Despite all the rhetoric to the  contrary, evo is a theory obsessed with the past.  It has no practical applications  for humans.  From my point of view it is an attempt to deny  the possibility of a being or beings  that  are smarter than us  in the entirety of the vast unexplored universe. That in itself is  presumptuous and arrogant beyond belief,  No one in their right mind would try to use an alleged process  that is so time  consuming and  not know what the outcome will be.

 

Our best description as humans  is that we are creators. Observe all the things we have created and compare the two theories. Evo has no practical  application for intelligent beings,

 

Well to be put simply, evolutions evidence is in the past. This is why it seems to be obsessed with it, because although we can guess what might happen in the future and things that are happening now, the evidence for evolution is mostly in the past.

 

Truthfully I don't get how you see it as a way to deny the possibility of a being or beings that are more intelligent, in fact it could be seen as the opposite. I truthfully don't know of any evolutionist that denies any such claim of extra terrestrials having less intelligence. In fact, I my self can't wait to find one, seeing as that would answer the age old question of are we alone. But as far as I can guess from what your saying is that you think an intelligent alien-race created us like in Prometheus or 2001 space odyssey. This is possible I guess, however there is no evidence to prove this as of yet, but who knows maybe in a few years we will find some. As far as I can see this isn't arrogant at al since it has nothing to do with extra terrestrials at all.

 

As for an application, that is a bit more difficult and deep to understand. As far as I can see the biggest thing is understanding the past and perhaps predicting the future. Of course the are probably more applications that I can not remember or don't know of as of this moment. Still even if you were correct in this assumption that evolution has no practical use, this doesn't mean that it should be dropped. And while not in the way of natural selection is concerned, it has been used in the past to make different breeds of dogs, cats and other animals. Also the processes are being used in genetics to understand and perhaps use viruses and bacterium.

 

If you have any other questions or I got something wrong please tell me and I'll try to get it right this time.

 

p.s. I try to enjoy life too and not just survive it.



#27 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 June 2013 - 11:23 PM

Well to be put simply, evolutions evidence is in the past. This is why it seems to be obsessed with it, because although we can guess what might happen in the future and things that are happening now, the evidence for evolution is mostly in the past.
 
Truthfully I don't get how you see it as a way to deny the possibility of a being or beings that are more intelligent, in fact it could be seen as the opposite. I truthfully don't know of any evolutionist that denies any such claim of extra terrestrials having less intelligence. In fact, I my self can't wait to find one, seeing as that would answer the age old question of are we alone. But as far as I can guess from what your saying is that you think an intelligent alien-race created us like in Prometheus or 2001 space odyssey. This is possible I guess, however there is no evidence to prove this as of yet, but who knows maybe in a few years we will find some. As far as I can see this isn't arrogant at al since it has nothing to do with extra terrestrials at all.
 
As for an application, that is a bit more difficult and deep to understand. As far as I can see the biggest thing is understanding the past and perhaps predicting the future. Of course the are probably more applications that I can not remember or don't know of as of this moment. Still even if you were correct in this assumption that evolution has no practical use, this doesn't mean that it should be dropped. And while not in the way of natural selection is concerned, it has been used in the past to make different breeds of dogs, cats and other animals. Also the processes are being used in genetics to understand and perhaps use viruses and bacterium.
 the
If you have any other questions or I got something wrong please tell me and I'll try to get it right this time.
 
p.s. I try to enjoy life too and not just survive it.

 
So I guess you are not anti-supernauralistically biased--not an atheist?

Just   so you know, evo does not consider animal breeding evolution. For example,  humans are 99.99% genetically identical. The one tenth of a percent is scrambled   during  the conception process and accounts for the variety we find in the human species.    Mutation in genetic code is the alleged mechanism that provides new information for the  selection process.
 
As far as your quip about viruses, that would be intelligent engineering. To be evolution it has to be natural and unguided by intelligent beings. I am an old timer and I know of no claims for practical application for the process. Evo  is not intelligence friendly. If you want something that does not exist, it's going have to to be created. Since you are a true believer you would have to hold evo responsible the mess the world is in!

 

i am glad you enjoy life.



#28 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 03 June 2013 - 11:44 AM

 
So I guess you are not anti-supernauralistically biased--not an atheist?

Just   so you know, evo does not consider animal breeding evolution. For example,  humans are 99.99% genetically identical. The one tenth of a percent is scrambled   during  the conception process and accounts for the variety we find in the human species.    Mutation in genetic code is the alleged mechanism that provides new information for the  selection process.
 
As far as your quip about viruses, that would be intelligent engineering. To be evolution it has to be natural and unguided by intelligent beings. I am an old timer and I know of no claims for practical application for the process. Evo  is not intelligence friendly. If you want something that does not exist, it's going have to to be created. Since you are a true believer you would have to hold evo responsible the mess the world is in!

 

i am glad you enjoy life.

 

Now don't get me wrong, while I do believe it is possible for a "god"-like being to exist, I still consider it highly-improbable. I guess when I think about it, "Q" from star trek is probably the most likely thing out there. In the end I don't think it supernatural so much as something we don't understand yet.

 

You are correct in this in that animal breeding is not seen as evolution. And you are also correct in how evolution works. However, animal breeding is how evolution works in a sense. Desirable traits are brought out and undesirable traits are discarded.

 

As far as viruses goes, there are two things as far as biological evolution is concerned( or at least as far as I know at this time). One is the understanding of the mechanics of evolution, genes. Through this,we might be able to create (yes create through intelligence) a vaccine, way to cure cancer or even give the paralyzed the ability to move. The next is a little more natural in that we don't have direct control. Through the understanding of how viruses transfer and their ultimate "goal" we can potentially make these diseases become less deadly. If you want me to elaborate on how this works I can try but for now I think this will do.

 

As far as this being intelligently designed, you are correct, its "intelligently" designed. however with things like viruses, we are limited in how much we can change by their evolutionary data or genes. In the end we can't make a super virus that is a vaccine for all viruses. It is also good to note that we, humans, are a big factor in the natural evolution of animals at this time. As I said before, humans have evolved the ability to manipulate their environment. This means we can effect evolution to an extent.

 

In the end, how can I hold evolution responsible for the things wrong with the world? Even if I was a believer, which as I stated before I am not, I can't think of any reason to blame it. Evolution is a process, not a philosophy. It isn't morally right nor morally wrong, it just is.



#29 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:35 AM

 Raptor5 said

Now don't get me wrong, while I do believe it is possible for a "god"-like being to exist, I still consider it highly-improbable. I guess when I think about it, "Q" from star trek is probably the most likely thing out there. In the end I don't think it supernatural so much as something we don't understand yet.

We are "god" like beings. There are 7 billionon of us on the earth today. Conclusion; the universe allows for intelligent beings. God need only be smarter  than us.  No doubt there are beings on earth smarter than you and I.  We seem ro be super natural to this solar system. Logically, the existence of God would be no less surprising than you or I.

Dsirable traits are brought out and undesirable traits are discarded.

This  is a bit of a false analogy since  in the dog species tor ezample,,, poodles and german shepherd traits exist at the same . Both groups exist at the same time --no evolution as both groups seem to be surviving quite fine. See Mendelssohn's laws on heredity. Maybe you mean desirable from  a human point of  view.

In the end, how can I hold evolution responsible for the things wrong with the world? Even if I was a believer, which as I stated before I am not, I can't think of any reason to blame it. Evolution is a process, not a philosophy. It isn't morally right nor morally wrong, it just is.

Many evo-atheists are heartily materialistic.They believe there is no such thjng as free moral agency and essentially evo reigns supreme. You seem to be mixing world views (philosophies).

 

According to evo theory,,, there is no good or bad. Natural selection will select whether belief in God or disbelief will allow us to be more fit to survive.



#30 Raptor5

Raptor5

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denver,Colorado

Posted 04 June 2013 - 11:28 AM

 Raptor5 said

We are "god" like beings. There are 7 billionon of us on the earth today. Conclusion; the universe allows for intelligent beings. God need only be smarter  than us.  No doubt there are beings on earth smarter than you and I.  We seem ro be super natural to this solar system. Logically, the existence of God would be no less surprising than you or I.

This  is a bit of a false analogy since  in the dog species tor ezample,,, poodles and german shepherd traits exist at the same . Both groups exist at the same time --no evolution as both groups seem to be surviving quite fine. See Mendelssohn's laws on heredity. Maybe you mean desirable from  a human point of  view.

Many evo-atheists are heartily materialistic.They believe there is no such thjng as free moral agency and essentially evo reigns supreme. You seem to be mixing world views (philosophies).

 

According to evo theory,,, there is no good or bad. Natural selection will select whether belief in God or disbelief will allow us to be more fit to survive.

 

Now your first statement is very interesting in how you define a god-like being. As far as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, your definition states that a god-like being is a being that is sentient; able to create tools, weapons, ect.; and able to control ones environment. Under this definition, we are very much god-like. This is a very interesting theory in that the possibility then exists for god to be from another world and just be more advanced. In fact truthfully, to me at least, this is the most logical theory for god. Now mind you this isn't supernatural because the universe would more then allow for this. However to someone from the dark-ages or even from greece, we would seem like gods because we have flashlights or cell phones. Have you watched the new star trek movie? In the first part of the movie something similar happens. An alien race would then only be not concerned about a prime directive.

I'd love to talk about this more and maybe theorize with you more if you could make a new thread. Right now I fear I am only boring others reading this.

 

You are correct in that I accidentally made a false analogy, for that I apologize. What I meant was that evolution works in a similar way in that a desired trait are picked out and undesirable traits are weeded out. In this I'm comparing natural selection to human selection. However the reason dog breeding is not considered evolution is the fact that the original dog breed still exists. Two species can exist that came from one species, however the origin species is usually weeded out.

 

As far as evo-aitheists go, I find that most of those I have met have been good moral people and as far as I know them they aren't materialistic. Now just to clarify, when you say evo do you mean evolution or evolutionists? As far as evolution goes, this is their world view that evolution is the reason we are here. For myself, I follow along what one paleontologist said "I don't believe in evolution, I study it."As far as evolutionists, this may be true for some of them but I encourage to remember that we are not all the same and in fact I bet most do not believe this. Remember the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Its sort of like that in that those that believe this are perhaps just the loudest of the bunch.

 

As far as you last statement goes... yes yes and yes again. This is completely true.



#31 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 June 2013 - 01:27 PM

Now your first statement is very interesting in how you define a god-like being. As far as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, your definition states that a god-like being is a being that is sentient; able to create tools, weapons, ect.; and able to control ones environment. Under this definition, we are very much god-like. This is a very interesting theory in that the possibility then exists for god to be from another world and just be more advanced. In fact truthfully, to me at least, this is the most logical theory for god. Now mind you this isn't supernatural because the universe would more then allow for this. However to someone from the dark-ages or even from greece, we would seem like gods because we have flashlights or cell phones. Have you watched the new star trek movie? In the first part of the movie something similar happens. An alien race would then only be not concerned about a prime directive.

I'd love to talk about this more and maybe theorize with you more if you could make a new thread. Right now I fear I am only boring others reading this.

 

You are correct in that I accidentally made a false analogy, for that I apologize. What I meant was that evolution works in a similar way in that a desired trait are picked out and undesirable traits are weeded out. In this I'm comparing natural selection to human selection. However the reason dog breeding is not considered evolution is the fact that the original dog breed still exists. Two species can exist that came from one species, however the origin species is usually weeded out.

 

As far as evo-aitheists go, I find that most of those I have met have been good moral people and as far as I know them they aren't materialistic. Now just to clarify, when you say evo do you mean evolution or evolutionists? As far as evolution goes, this is their world view that evolution is the reason we are here. For myself, I follow along what one paleontologist said "I don't believe in evolution, I study it."As far as evolutionists, this may be true for some of them but I encourage to remember that we are not all the same and in fact I bet most do not believe this. Remember the saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Its sort of like that in that those that believe this are perhaps just the loudest of the bunch.

 

As far as you last statement goes... yes yes and yes again. This is completely true.

I have not seen the new Star Trek. Did you like it?

Yes sentient!

But I don't think our thinking is sacrosanct. Nor do I think our thoughts are made of

matter as in materialism (an evo idea].

I do believe evo is obsolete. Creativity or intelligent engineering is the choice of  intelligent beings.

Creativity rules!
 



#32 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:32 PM

This is a great thought experiment. Thanks for posting it Mike.

If, as they say everything was a result of evolution, i.e., the big bang, solar systems, life etc. How was anything created without evolution?

We now have it on record that cars are the result of intelligent design so what happened to evolution? Has it devolved by the wayside?

Maybe evolution is now seen as what I believe it truely is, limited to created beings and elements.

A related question would be, "which came first the chicken or the egg"?

You can't have an egg without a created chicken. You cannot have intelligent design without first having a created intelligent being which was first created by an eternal intelligent Being. In the beginning God created intelligent beings and therefore we now have the cars.
  • Mike Summers likes this

#33 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 06 June 2013 - 09:56 PM

Exacatly. No human bas yet to use evo to do anything!

#34 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 07 June 2013 - 08:34 PM

Some interesting points have been made in this thread. When I have the time I might come back and touch on some of them.



#35 Elohim888

Elohim888

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Brazil

Posted 08 June 2013 - 05:05 AM

Things evolution cannot evolve

 

- the echo location of bats and whales.

- consciousness

- s@x

- morality

- the hability of speech

- bombarier beetle mechanism

- the first living cell

- the beginning of the universe

- the cosmos

- the fine tuning of the cosmos

- chemicals

- wings of birds

- the eye

- blood ( its irreducible complex

- the flagellum

 

there are many more. Just to mention a few.....



#36 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 June 2013 - 09:27 AM

Well to be put simply, evolutions evidence is in the past.

 

Which means that its taken on an ad hoc basis... Ergo its not scientific (empirical) since there can be no experiments done to confirm past events.

 

Thanks for admitting this :)



#37 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,295 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 09 June 2013 - 12:44 AM

Which means that its taken on an ad hoc basis... Ergo its not scientific (empirical) since there can be no experiments done to confirm past events.

 

Thanks for admitting this smile.png

Just as Dawkins said it:
 

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

http://www.pbs.org/n...ll.html#dawkins



#38 Megan

Megan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Texas

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:26 AM

Things evolution cannot evolve

 

- the echo location of bats and whales.

- consciousness

- s@x

- morality

- the hability of speech

- bombarier beetle mechanism

- the first living cell

- the beginning of the universe

- the cosmos

- the fine tuning of the cosmos

- chemicals

- wings of birds

- the eye

- blood ( its irreducible complex

- the flagellum

 

there are many more. Just to mention a few.....

 

Are these things that reproductive evolution can't evolve? It seems as though you have included examples that would require different forms of evolution. Sometimes the term "evolution" can be used to describe change of any kind. Some of the things you listed have changed, even if only slightly over our short period of time observing them.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#39 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 10 June 2013 - 02:52 AM

Are these things that reproductive evolution can't evolve? It seems as though you have included examples that would require different forms of evolution. Sometimes the term "evolution" can be used to describe change of any kind. Some of the things you listed have changed, even if only slightly over our short period of time observing them.

 

Well, given any two objects which transformation from one to the other cannot be attributed to slight changes? And since everything in the known universe consists of matter you are setting up an assumption that is basically impossible to knock down. But if you feel up to it Megan, please describe the small steps that occur in the organization of matter that explain the emergence of interdependent systems such as the information system found in a cell, a S@xual system, morality, the mechanism in the bomadier beetle, plankton that has the ability to make clouds form in order to survive, how skin gained a survival advantage simply by becoming light sensitive, and so on. But don't simply equivocate by suggesting about how they might have developed once in place, but rather, tell me how they developed from the very beginning.



#40 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 June 2013 - 05:27 AM

My shirt has  changed  over the years I've owned it. It's wearing out! That could hardly be considered evolution. Nor have I ever observed a shirt evolve (change) into a pair of pants.

Consider the automobile. It has changed dramatically since its creation The changes, we all know, were brought about by intelligent engineering (design). If we compare  the time taken by alleged evolution, creationism  is lightening like! Moreover,  we can observe the changes in a reasonable amount of time. Creationism is a viable alternative to evo. Creationism has been demonstrated over and over and can and has produced variety.  Can natural selection  (evo) account for the  automobiles?   Or is it something no intelligent being would even remotely considered to have evolved?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users