Jump to content


Photo

Bacteria


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#1 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 10 December 2006 - 07:28 AM

What did bacteria do before the fall of man? As scientists you are no doubt aware that you cannot just say "they didnt do anything" simply because this conflicts with your religious beliefs. Furthermore, can you provide a mechanism - not a biblical passage- which would prevent an infection of any kind afflicting the organisms of the prefall world? Also, explain to me how biological waste was decomposed and recycled in the pre fall world.


Cheers.
Lord F

#2 D R

D R

    Mole troll. AKA dbs944

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Respectfully Withheld

Posted 10 December 2006 - 10:19 AM

What did bacteria do before the fall of man? As scientists you are no doubt aware that you cannot just say "they didnt do anything" simply because this conflicts with your religious beliefs. Furthermore, can you provide a mechanism - not a biblical passage- which would prevent an infection of any kind afflicting the organisms of the prefall world? Also, explain to me how biological waste was decomposed and recycled in the pre fall world.
Cheers.
Lord F

View Post


Your question is asking to explain a pre-curse world using solely post-curse sources. That’s the same as asking you to explain evolution but not to cite any evolutionary sources.

(Proverbs 26:4-5)

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2006 - 10:29 AM

What did bacteria do before the fall of man?


What do they do now?

As scientists you are no doubt aware that you cannot just say "they didnt do anything" simply because this conflicts with your religious beliefs.


Why would bacteria conflict with my religous beliefs?

Furthermore, can you provide a mechanism - not a biblical passage- which would prevent an infection of any kind afflicting the organisms of the prefall world?


How do you know bacteria extisted before the fall? Please note the word "know".....

Do all bacteria cause death and affliction today? How do you know that any pre-fall bacteria would necessarily result in death and affliction?

God created life such that soul death, and death of biological life that supports soual life, did not exist before the fall. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but caging questions to say that a creationist cannot use scripture to support his understanding is just trying to win the debate by definition.

Definitions are fine, but you have to have more than just your opinion to take preference of one over another.

Also, explain to me how biological waste was decomposed and recycled in the pre fall world.


How to you know there was waste?

Personally, I don't believe waste existed before the fall. The universe came into decay because of man's sin. So, my guess is that there was no waste before the fall, i.e. everything was processed perfectly.

Terry

#4 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 10 December 2006 - 02:04 PM

What do they do now?


Despite having enormous ecological significence - by recycling organic materials, bacteria cells are more numerous on you then human cells are. These organisms compete with others more efficently, thus preventing infection. ie. they keep you healthy. They also play integral roles in the digestion of your food. Some are also obligate pathogens, and kill on tremendous scales.




Why would bacteria conflict with my religous beliefs?


Bacteria cause infection and kill. A concept that conflicts with the belief in a perfect world.



How do you know bacteria extisted before the fall? Please note the word "know".....

Do all bacteria cause death and affliction today? How do you know that any pre-fall bacteria would necessarily result in death and affliction?

God created life such that soul death, and death of biological life that supports soual life, did not exist before the fall. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but caging questions to say that a creationist cannot use scripture to support his understanding is just trying to win the debate by definition.

Definitions are fine, but you have to have more than just your opinion to take preference of one over another.


Well that depends on your definition of where pre-fall sediments can be found. We have fossil bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago, making them and other protists the oldest forms of life. Also, large eukaryotic organisms cannot exist without the billions of bacteria that help us. Life is completely linked.
No not all bacteria cause death and affliction. Take E-coli, a harmless helpful bacteria that lives in your gut. Now assume that you drink some water infected with it. E-coli isnt so friendly anymore. Can you tell me which bacteria were around and how pathogenic species then "radiated" from them?
But dont you understand? you cannot use a book - pieces of paper - as your only evidence- your only argument. Whatever its words. I could write a new religion in an hour, and it would be no less valid than yours. God did create life - because the bible said so. Thats it.

#5 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 December 2006 - 03:16 PM

Bacteria cause infection and kill. A concept that conflicts with the belief in a perfect world.


Perhaps in a perfect world they did not do that.

Well that depends on your definition of where pre-fall sediments can be found. We have fossil bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago, making them and other protists the oldest forms of life.


I have no reason to believe that the earth is more than 10k years old. If you really think they are 3.5 billion years old, then just how much time are you allowing for a genetic code to evolve, i.e. A,G,C,T?

Also, large eukaryotic organisms cannot exist without the billions of bacteria that help us. Life is completely linked.


Then maybe beneficial bacteria live at that time, and at the point of the fall, they began to mutuate into other forms.

No not all bacteria cause death and affliction. Take E-coli, a harmless helpful bacteria that lives in your gut. Now assume that you drink some water infected with it. E-coli isnt so friendly anymore.


Ok, then so its entirely possible some bacteria existed, and as animals began to die, they spread.

Can you tell me which bacteria were around and how pathogenic species then "radiated" from them?


No, and neither can you....

But dont you understand? you cannot use a book - pieces of paper - as your only evidence- your only argument. Whatever its words.


Words are the primary method that God has given information to us. Information is information, its the source that matters, not the means of storing it.

I could write a new religion in an hour, and it would be no less valid than yours. God did create life - because the bible said so. Thats it.


People have been creating false religion for a long time. They are generally inspired by Satan, one of his most popular is Humanism, and from what I can tell you at least accept his system of origins for the Humanist/Atheist, i.e evolution. The difference is that one,(God's Word) is the truth, and the rest are lies.

Evoution is nothing but speculation, and certainly less evidence than the testimony of the person who was there when the earth was created.

Terry

#6 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 10 December 2006 - 08:02 PM

Also, large eukaryotic organisms cannot exist without the billions of bacteria that help us.

View Post


It seems evolutionists will often answer their own question without knowing it. ;) For the sake of argument you assumed that the fall is true. You then note that bacteria is helpful to us (in fact the vast majority is helpful). Therefore, doesn’t it make perfect sense that bacteria would also be part of this fall, and that some would mutate to be harmful, as Terry alluded to?

I could write a new religion in an hour, and it would be no less valid than yours.


This claim is completely irrational. Men throughout history have made up religions, and they are easy to spot because they have little or no evidence to support them. Even if you do not agree with most of the evidence that supports the Bible (see my website www.bibleevidences.com), surely you can at least admit that the Bible has more evidence to support it than say the Book of Mormon?

God did create life - because the bible said so. Thats it.


It seems there has been a rash of strawman arguments lately on the forum. Your claim is no different than arguing that Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist because it’s “circular reasoning” to rely on history books.

Fred

#7 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 11 December 2006 - 11:33 AM

It seems evolutionists will often answer their own question without knowing it. smile.gif For the sake of argument you assumed that the fall is true. You then note that bacteria is helpful to us (in fact the vast majority is helpful). Therefore, doesn’t it make perfect sense that bacteria would also be part of this fall, and that some would mutate to be harmful, as Terry alluded to?


Yes but its not as clean cut as that. Take my example of E-coli, helpful in some situations, deadly in others. There is no mutation. You simply cannot have "harmless" bacteria, you just cant. Tell me how im wrong. Show me evidence.



This claim is completely irrational. Men throughout history have made up religions, and they are easy to spot because they have little or no evidence to support them. Even if you do not agree with most of the evidence that supports the Bible (see my website www.bibleevidences.com), surely you can at least admit that the Bible has more evidence to support it than say the Book of Mormon?


Well of course, men have made up many religions. Some have evidence, some dont. Christianity has evidence - but its still a matter of faith. Faith to believe in a story that ignores all scientific evidence. Jesus was likely to exist, but was he of virgin birth? Thats where faith comes in. All i know is that ive never seen a virgin give birth, and im not prepared to devote my life to stories written 2000 years ago.






t seems there has been a rash of strawman arguments lately on the forum. Your claim is no different than arguing that Abraham Lincoln didn’t exist because it’s “circular reasoning” to rely on history books.


We have substantial evidence to suggest that abraham lincoln existed, we dont have evidence to say god exists.

#8 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 11 December 2006 - 11:50 AM

Jesus was likely to exist, but was he of virgin birth?


The fact that Jesus existed is not up for debate.

Thats where faith comes in. All i know is that ive never seen a virgin give birth, and im not prepared to devote my life to stories written 2000 years ago.


You've never seen a worm evolve into a rhinocerous, and yet you accept that it happened.

We have substantial evidence to suggest that abraham lincoln existed, we dont have evidence to say god exists.


The evidence is everywhere. You chose not to see it because you are blinded by the religion of evolution.

#9 SPQR

SPQR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bellingham, WA (college)

Posted 11 December 2006 - 02:52 PM

The fact that Jesus existed is not up for debate.


He wasn't debating that. He was debating whether or not Jesus was born to a virgin mother; a fairly debatable point IMO. Maybe not for this thread, but elsewhere.

You've never seen a worm evolve into a rhinocerous, and yet you accept that it happened.


Strawman, anyone? Show me any instance of any "evolutionist" claiming that's remotely how it happened and I'll convert to Christianity.

View Post



#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 December 2006 - 03:00 PM

Strawman, anyone?  Show me any instance of any "evolutionist" claiming that's remotely how it happened and I'll convert to Christianity.


How does from a microbe suit you? You do realize that's what you believe in, right???? That you are nothing more than an overstuffed self-aware microbe. Right???

Terry

#11 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 December 2006 - 03:10 PM

Yes but its not as clean cut as that. Take my example of E-coli, helpful in some situations, deadly in others. There is no mutation. You simply cannot have "harmless" bacteria, you just cant. Tell me how im wrong. Show me evidence.


I hope your not like Dee Pak Chopra, who I once heard say "I don't really believe anything I preach.". You stated above that harmless bacteria exit.

No not all bacteria cause death and affliction. Take E-coli, a harmless helpful bacteria that lives in your gut. Now assume that you drink some water infected with it. E-coli isnt so friendly anymore.


And now you say they don't. Which is it?

Jesus was likely to exist, but was he of virgin birth? Thats where faith comes in.


I'm sorry, but this is comical, your sure that bacteria existed 3.5 billion years ago, but your not sure that Christ existed.

We have substantial evidence to suggest that abraham lincoln existed, we dont have evidence to say god exists.


As previously stated, that evidence is all around you. If you hang around here long enough, you may learn a little bit about it.

Terry

#12 SPQR

SPQR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bellingham, WA (college)

Posted 11 December 2006 - 03:14 PM

How does from a microbe suit you?  You do realize that's what you believe in, right????  That you are nothing more than an overstuffed self-aware microbe.  Right???

View Post



I am not a microbe nor was I born from a microbe. I do, however, share common ancestry with microbes, as does all life on this planet. And I for one, unlike some others on this forum, am not insulted by that, even though you may think I would be. I find the fact that I share ancestry with all other life on this planet, that all life is akin, exciting. It serves to break down any artifical barriers such as religion or ideology. All humans are related, its as simple as that.

P.S.
With all due respect, do you think that calling me a microbe because you think its an insult is in keeping with the spirit of "civil dialogue" on which this forum was built?

#13 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 December 2006 - 04:01 PM

I am not a microbe nor was I born from a microbe.


Maybe not, but your do believe that your the great, great, great, great, etc...,etc..., grandchild of some father microbe...

I do, however, share common ancestry with microbes, as does all life on this planet.


So I guess a flu is kind of like a family fued.... :D

And I for one, unlike some others on this forum, am not insulted by that, even though you may think I would be.  I find the fact that I share ancestry with all other life on this planet, that all life is akin, exciting.  It serves to break down any artifical barriers such as religion or ideology.  All humans are related, its as simple as that.


Oh, I agree that were all related, but my starting point is scientifically, i.e. through emperical observation, tenable, while your conjecture on the other hand, is not.

P.S.
With all due respect, do you think that calling me a microbe because you think its an insult is in keeping with the spirit of "civil dialogue" on which this forum was built?


I wasn't calling you a microbe, I was just clarifying that you understand the bill of goods your being sold. A little sarcasm is fine once in a while as well, just as long as it makes a point, and is not too over the top.

Terry

#14 SPQR

SPQR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bellingham, WA (college)

Posted 11 December 2006 - 04:38 PM

Oh, I agree that were all related, but my starting point is scientifically, i.e. through emperical observation, tenable, while your conjecture on the other hand, is not.


What exactly is your starting point?

A little sarcasm is fine once in a while as well, just as long as it makes a point, and is not too over the top.


...and the comments are made by admins. I see how it goes. :D


View Post



#15 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 11 December 2006 - 05:12 PM

Strawman, anyone?  Show me any instance of any "evolutionist" claiming that's remotely how it happened and I'll convert to Christianity.

View Post

View Post


Please elaborate why that is a strawman argument... You believe DNA self-organized, formed unicellular life, and life subsequently evolved through generations of mutations. You believe that, if given enough time, a worm or a carrot or a mouse could evolve into a man. If there is something about the theory of evolution that precludes this from happening, please give a specific reason why this could not happen.

#16 SPQR

SPQR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bellingham, WA (college)

Posted 11 December 2006 - 05:32 PM

Please elaborate why that is a strawman argument...  You believe DNA self-organized, formed unicellular life, and life subsequently evolved through generations of mutations.  You believe that, if given enough time, a worm or a carrot or a  mouse could evolve into a man.  If there is something about the theory of evolution that precludes this from happening, please give a specific reason why this could not happen.

View Post



I can't even begin to fathom how anything about the theory of evolution would lead you to assume that "evolutionists" believe that, "given enough time, a worm or a carrot or a mouse could evolve into a man." This will simply not happen. EVER. Modern day worms fill a specific ecological niche. For lack of a better phrase they're happy there. Unless dramatic ecosystem changes occur, there is no reason for that worm to change. Besides, the ancestors of modern day worms took a completely different evolutionary path than the ancestors of mammals. I do accept that both worms and mammals had a common ancestor hundreds of millions of years ago, that does not mean that one will eventually evolve into the other.

Humans are not the evolutionary goal. Evolution has no goal. Perhaps in another half dozen hundred million years, maybe even a billion, a new form of intelligent life will arise on this planet which will be completely different from humans. Maybe in that time frame, mice will evolve to rival humans as the dominant species on Earth. My point is modern day mice will NEVER evolve into modern day homo sapiens; nor will worms, carrots, or any other form of life on this planet. If that's what you really think the thoery of evolution says, no wonder you don't accept it.

#17 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 11 December 2006 - 06:17 PM

I can't even begin to fathom how anything about the theory of evolution would lead you to assume that "evolutionists" believe that, "given enough time, a worm or a carrot or a  mouse could evolve into a man."  This will simply not happen.  EVER.
Modern day worms fill a specific ecological niche.  For lack of a better phrase they're happy there.  Unless dramatic ecosystem changes occur, there is no reason for that worm to change.

Are you saying that hundreds of millions of years ago worms were not "happy". If they didn't fill a specific niche then, they wouln't have evolved to become worms. You suggest that ecosystems changed over time... there's no reason to think they won't change again, unless you believe evolution has come to a screeching halt. You say evolution has no goal.... what's to prevent a worm from evolving back to the common ancestor with a man and then evolving into a man?
You say that a squid and human eye evolved independently by two seperate pathways. Why couldn't a man evolve again... this time from a worm or a carrot?

Besides, the ancestors of modern day worms took a completely different evolutionary path than the ancestors of mammals.  I do accept that both worms and mammals had a common ancestor hundreds of millions of years ago, that does not mean that one will eventually evolve into the other. 


You say evolution has no goal, but also believe it has no limits. There's no reason that a carrot's DNA couldin't undergo successive beneficial mutations until it becomes a human.



Perhaps in another half dozen hundred million years, maybe even a billion, a new form of intelligent life will arise on this planet which will be completely different from  humans.  Maybe in that time frame,  mice will evolve to rival humans as the dominant species on Earth.

So you do agree that ecosystems are constantly changing. Therefore, your assertion that a worm cannot ever evolve into a man is false, according to evolutionary theory.

My point is modern day mice will NEVER evolve into modern day homo sapiens; nor will worms, carrots, or any other form of life on this planet.


If you visted earth 3 billion years ago, you would have said that microbes could never evolve into turnips or elephants of man.

  If that's what you really think the thoery of evolution says, no wonder you don't accept it.


If you understood what the theory of evolution is actually claiming, perhaps you would rethink your position.

#18 odinmagick

odinmagick

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • az

Posted 11 December 2006 - 06:27 PM

I have to agree, what stops a carrot or a mouse from evolving into a sentient being? Given enough changes and over enough time, it can happen right?

#19 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 13 December 2006 - 06:19 AM

How does from a microbe suit you? You do realize that's what you believe in, right???? That you are nothing more than an overstuffed self-aware microbe. Right???


Actually... were not. Your non-descript "microbe" is likely to be a one celled prokaryotic organism. We are multicellular eukaryotic organisms. Completely different. Thats not what we "believe in".




I hope your not like Dee Pak Chopra, who I once heard say "I don't really believe anything I preach.". You stated above that harmless bacteria exit.


Im afaid you misunderstand me, you cannot have "harmless" bacteria and only harmless bacteria.




I'm sorry, but this is comical, your sure that bacteria existed 3.5 billion years ago, but your not sure that Christ existed.


I said he was likely to have existed.




Please elaborate why that is a strawman argument... You believe DNA self-organized, formed unicellular life, and life subsequently evolved through generations of mutations. You believe that, if given enough time, a worm or a carrot or a mouse could evolve into a man. If there is something about the theory of evolution that precludes this from happening, please give a specific reason why this could not happen.


Something about the theory of evolution? Well i can say that you dont understand the theory or indeed biology, if this is your genuine belief. It really is a shocking display of ignorance.
Man did not evolve from a worm. "Man" or his ancestors, evolved from primate species in africa 3 or so million years ago, sharing a common ancestor with the chimpanzee and chimpanzee subspecies, as evidenced by fossils and molecular genetics. Vetebrate animals in turn evolved from marine organisms which developed a backbone from a cartilaginous "skeleton" perhaps akin to that of the shark. The formation of hard parts is a process seen many many times in the natural world. For example, some marine protists secrete a Calcium carbonate shell for a protection - a common rock forming mineral. Not complicated, quite beautiful and simple.
A corrot is a plant, or rather the root of a plant. Plants evolved from green algae - which is still around today, a nice example of punctuated equilibrium. Eukaryotic cells contain large numbers of organelles - including mitochondria and choloroplasts - WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN DNA. They were once individual organisms. Now, a plant like the carrot would contain a large abundence of these organelles - crucially chloroplasts, which allow the plant to perform Photosynthesis - make its own food. Now springer, i ask you why would a organism that has a potentially unlimited supply of food and a simple yet extremely efficent form of life spend time and resources developing identical organs and a mode of life to us? How would the environment change to allow these "alterations" to have a benefit effect on the carrot? How would a carrot evolve limbs or a head or complicated organs? Why would a carrot need to use tools? Why would a plant need to run to catch food when it can make its own? Why wouldnt a carrot evolve into a more efficent predator then humans? How would a plant evolve muscle, and bone and blood? Tell me the science behind it. Maybe its me who is wrong - maybe you do have the correct understanding of evolution.
Spill the beans.

If there is something about the theory of evolution that precludes this from happening, please give a specific reason why this could not happen


Because this is real life were talking about.




Are you saying that hundreds of millions of years ago worms were not "happy". If they didn't fill a specific niche then, they wouln't have evolved to become worms. You suggest that ecosystems changed over time... there's no reason to think they won't change again, unless you believe evolution has come to a screeching halt. You say evolution has no goal.... what's to prevent a worm from evolving back to the common ancestor with a man and then evolving into a man?
You say that a squid and human eye evolved independently by two seperate pathways. Why couldn't a man evolve again... this time from a worm or a carrot?


see above...




You say evolution has no goal, but also believe it has no limits. There's no reason that a carrot's DNA couldin't undergo successive beneficial mutations until it becomes a human.


Yeah your right, despite being a plant.




If you understood what the theory of evolution is actually claiming, perhaps you would rethink your position.


I dont want to be rude, but educate yourself. Seriously. Your displaying a unforgiveable level of ignorance. I like the way you sound so sinister, kind of like emperor palpatine of star wars.

"...perhaps you would rethink your position"

I bet you were typing those badly chosen words with such a feeling of superiority and power.

YEAH boy do we look stupid right now.

#20 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 December 2006 - 08:10 AM

Something about the theory of evolution? Well i can say that you dont understand the theory or indeed biology, if this is your genuine belief. 


A knowledge of biology has nothing to do with evolution. If there is a fact of biology that I can’t understand without accepting evolution, let’s hear it.

                  Man did not evolve from a worm. "Man" or his ancestors, evolved from primate species in africa 3 or so million years ago, sharing a common ancestor with the chimpanzee and chimpanzee subspecies, as evidenced by fossils and molecular genetics. Vetebrate animals in turn evolved from marine organisms which developed a backbone from a cartilaginous "skeleton" perhaps akin to that of the shark. The formation of hard parts is a process seen many many times in the natural world. For example, some marine protists secrete a Calcium carbonate shell for a protection - a common rock forming mineral. Not complicated, quite beautiful and simple.
                  A corrot is a plant, or rather the root of a plant. Plants evolved from green algae - which is still around today, a nice example of punctuated equilibrium. Eukaryotic cells contain large numbers of organelles - including mitochondria and choloroplasts - WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN DNA. They were once individual organisms. Now, a plant like the carrot would contain a large abundence of these organelles - crucially chloroplasts, which allow the plant to perform Photosynthesis - make its own food.

All of this is pure conjecture… you speak of a carrot evolving from algae as if there's some empiric evidence to back it up.

Now springer, i ask you why would a organism that has a potentially unlimited supply of food and a simple yet extremely efficent form of life spend time and resources developing identical organs and a mode of life to us? How would the environment change to allow these "alterations" to have a benefit effect on the carrot? How would a carrot evolve limbs or a head or complicated organs? Why would a carrot need to use tools? Why would a plant need to run to catch food when it can make its own? Why wouldnt a carrot evolve into a more efficent predator then humans? How would a plant evolve muscle, and bone and blood? Tell me the science behind it. Maybe its me who is wrong - maybe you do have the correct understanding of evolution. 


According to ToE, the environment is always changing. Hence, the selective pressures causing evolution. Why would a microbe need to change? Why would a fish need to leave the sea and come onto land and eventually learn to use tools. That's what you think happened.

I dont want to be rude, but educate yourself. Seriously. Your displaying a unforgiveable level of ignorance. I like the way you sound so sinister, kind of like emperor palpatine of star wars.



I think it would be better for you do intelligently address my concerns rather than attempt to diffuse the argument by name calling. Rather than respond to my specific questions, you revert to insults. You are the one adhering to the ridiculous belief that, given enough time, a turnip could be selectively bred into a kangaroo. It could happen through selective breeding and it could happen without any influence other than natural selection. You say a microbe evolved into a kangaroo. You say evolution has no goal or direction. I repeat… there is nothing in the theory of evolution that would prevent a turnip evolving into a kanagaroo or a worm into man. You say environments and niches are always changing. You say all life is connected. Why couldn’t a turnip evolve back to a microbe and then to a kangaroo? If it went from a microbe to a turnip, it could go the opposite direction if the environment changed. There is nothing to say in your theory that this couldn’t happen, and there is certainly nothing that could prevent this from happening through selective breeding, given enough time. Perhaps when you come to grips with what you really believe in you’ll begin to understand how others view the absurdity of your position.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users