Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Explains Everything - Doesn't It


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#81 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 July 2009 - 08:32 PM

I already referred you to one thread,but heres another one for you.

Pinned:
Carbon 14 - A Serious Problem For Old Earthers · * ...
http://www.evolution...hp?showforum=21 - 80k -

View Post


Hi Jason,

Not sure if the link didn't work properly or not. It only sent me to 'Young Earth vs Old Earth' overview of forums.

I'm still hoping you can show me something specific that explains how Creationists date the earth or the things on it. I'd prefer to not have to trawl through an entire forum looking for one or two posts explaining Creationist dating methods. Do you think you could point me to the exact posting?

Cheers mate.

Regards,

Arch.

#82 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 14 July 2009 - 06:56 PM

Hi Jason,

Not sure if the link didn't work properly or not. It only sent me to 'Young Earth vs Old Earth' overview of forums.

I'm still hoping you can show me something specific that explains how Creationists date the earth or the things on it. I'd prefer to not have to trawl through an entire forum looking for one or two posts explaining Creationist dating methods. Do you think you could point me to the exact posting?

Cheers mate.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Pinned:
Carbon 14 - A Serious Problem For Old Earthers


The thread is stickied at the top of the page.The helium diffusivity link works and Fred has a thread stickied for that too at the top of the page.

I've noticed that you've recently posted in both threads,but now you can't find either? :P

It's been a rough week for me too.LOL

#83 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 17 July 2009 - 09:11 PM

I moved some posts from here to:

http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=283

#84 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 July 2009 - 05:09 AM

I would be glad to.  But before I do, will you answer this question?  Do you believe that non-material forces exist in the universe?

View Post

Careful performedge, you're fixen to get anything but an answer for that question ;)

#85 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 July 2009 - 05:49 PM

I would be glad to.  But before I do, will you answer this question?  Do you believe that non-material forces exist in the universe?


Careful performedge, you're fixen to get anything but an answer for that question :lol:

View Post


Oh shoot, thanks Ron I completely forgot to answer that one.

I think every force has a material entity. So no, I don't believe in non-material forces. Do you? And if yes, can you demonstrate them?

Regards,

Arch.

#86 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:13 PM

Maybe you guys should consider defining what a material force is before you spend too much time talking past each other. Arch, why don't you start?

#87 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 19 July 2009 - 06:00 PM


Careful performedge, you're fixen to get anything but an answer for that question  :rolleyes:

View Post


Oh shoot, thanks Ron I completely forgot to answer that one.

I think every force has a material entity. So no, I don't believe in non-material forces. Do you? And if yes, can you demonstrate them?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



Thanks Arch for the reply, and Adam, I will be happy to explain in-material forces.

First, Arch, yes I do believe in in-material forces and they clearly exist as you will recognize shortly.

The reason I asked the question was to demonstrate that "most" atheists are materialists. That, they usually admit. They generally also believe in materialistic naturalism. Notice Arch, you admitted to "not believing in non-material forces in the universe." That by definition is a faith based statement from your faith in materialism.

Now I don't have a problem with anyone who believes this way as long as they recognize it.

However, this is why Christians have such a problem with atheistic science, is because their materialistic faith has blinded them to the in-material realities of our universe.

Yes, Arch, there are well known in-material forces in our universe. The words in-material or non-material simply mean not composed of real particles of matter. It means exactly what it says.

The first well known force is gravity. A force that everyone is aquainted with. We see it's physical reality, but we cannot descibe it scientifically very well. The reason we can't describe it is that it is not composed of matter. It has been descibed by Newton as obeying certain laws. But then Einsten blew that away with relativity, and it appears to be related to a curvature of the space time continuum. But even Einstein's theories don't work at the material particle level. So here we have a well known, in-material force, that is absolutely known to exist. But there is more!

According to scientific consensus....(BBT) gravity was at an infinite magnitude just before the singularity that caused the universe to exist. So let's recap. An in-material force with infinite magnitude was in place before the BB. Sounds sort of supernatural, doesn't it? But that's not all....

Gravity is everywhere in the universe. That has the ring of omni-presence, doesn't it?

The scripture clearly states that God and Jesus created the universe.

Col 1:16  For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.


So let's recap again....Gravity was infinite in magnitude (all powerful) at the singularity of the BB. It is an invisible, in-material force that is omni-present in the universe. And it is a force that holds all things together. In each case we have attributes of God, the supernatural, being defined as natural.

Rom 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21  For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22  Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23  and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom 1:24  Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25  For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


My argument is that science has evidence for God. They just have exchanged the truth of His existance for the lie that nature provided the means for creation and gravity and the other fundamental forces.

But Jason that's not all...God is Light! Light is an electromagnectic force in the universe that is in-material. Light carries energy. It acts like waves sometimes and acts like a particle sometimes. Science has a very difficult time describing light. It has some unique properties like it's speed, which is related to time and eternality. Everone knows that light exists, but some reject that God is responsible for this in-material/invisible force in the universe. Scientists have described light as being made up of photons. But that is just a definition attached to a word that means that this in-material thing carries energy. And of course light is what makes scientists "cleary see" the invisible attributes of God, yet they reject the truth.

But that's not all Jason...We have the stong nuclear force which literally holds all things together. Again a well known, invisible, in-material force that holds particles together in the nucleus of an atom. Scientists call the mediator of this force a gluon (definition). Which is bascally a vector gauge boson which is a virtual particle. An inmaterial particle that must exist for this force to exist. Science has once again found evidence for God, but their futile minds have defined it as natural. And once again, God has confused them with His wisdom, because they basically have no clue as to how or why this thing exists. And the release of this force is enormous. we make some pretty neat bombs from it!

And that's not all Jason...We have the weak nuclear force. The force that causes beta nuclear decay. A force that God created after the fall. A force that is part of the curse. Again, an invisible, in-material force that scientists have descibed by the means of virtual particles called bosons.

Christians and the Bible descibe God as the creator of the universe. One who is omnipotent, omni-present, and omniscient. Every single attribute above is now attributed to this thing defined as "nature". In fact, the current scientific definition of nature leaves the possibility of the supenatural a fallacy. So atheistic science has simply just defined God out, and redefined every aspect of the physical reality of God as natural. It's all a matter of logic and definitions.

To illustrate this, here is the definition of nature from the 1828 edition of Webster's dictionary....

NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]


1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe. Of a phoenix we say, there is no such thing in nature.

And look through nature up to natures God.

2. By a metonymy of the effect for the cause, nature is used for the agent, creator, author, producer of things, or for the powers that produce them. By the expression, trees and fossils are produced by nature, we mean, they are formed or produced by certain inherent powers in matter, or we mean that they are produced by God, the Creator, the Author of whatever is made or produced. The opinion that things are produced by inherent powers of matter, independent of a supreme intelligent author, is atheism. But generally men mean by nature, thus used, the Author of created things, or the operation of his power.


Now if you are honest enough to face this truth, then you will realize that it is all a matter of your logical paradigm which locks you into your conclusions about truth. If you will open your mind beyond the scientific paradigm, you will see that science has recognized many attributes of God and exchanged them for a lie. It is that simple.

#88 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 July 2009 - 06:44 PM

Maybe you guys should consider defining what a material force is before you spend too much time talking past each other. Arch, why don't you start?

View Post


:rolleyes: Sure thing

I guess I'd define it as any force that has a natural/physical grounding in reality, meaning it can be observed and measured.

Regards,

Arch.

#89 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 19 July 2009 - 07:13 PM

:rolleyes: Sure thing

I guess I'd define it as any force that has a natural/physical grounding in reality, meaning it can be observed and measured.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Something that can be observed and measured is not necessarily material (made up of matter)

A "natural/physical grounding in reality" is redundant, redundant, redundant. All things real are by definition natural. All things physical are by definition natural. All things are by definition natural according to science. Therefore, what you just said is logically meaningless.

#90 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 July 2009 - 08:54 PM

First, Arch, yes I do believe in in-material forces and they clearly exist as you will recognize shortly.

View Post


Rofl, thanks for the post Performedge. Thoroughly entertaining. There's some massive jumps in logic, but a jolly good read :rolleyes:

Let's begin...

The reason I asked the question was to demonstrate that "most" atheists are materialists.  That, they usually admit.  They generally also believe in materialistic naturalism.  Notice Arch, you admitted to "not believing in non-material forces in the universe."  That by definition is a faith based statement from your faith in materialism.

Now I don't have a problem with anyone who believes this way as long as they recognize it.

View Post


Actually by definition "not believing" is the exact opposite of faith. Unless of course you want to argue that not believing in Santa Clause and the Tooth fairy are of forms of faith?

Either way, we're debating semantics. I know where you're coming from and for the most part I agree. I can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, I'm just pretty certain he doesn't.

Yes, Arch, there are well known in-material forces in our universe.  The words in-material or non-material simply mean not composed of real particles of matter.  It means exactly what it says.

View Post


I think we're pretty well in agreement as to what it means :)

The first well known force is gravity.  A force that everyone is aquainted with.  We see it's physical reality, but we cannot descibe it scientifically very well.  The reason we can't describe it is that it is not composed of matter.  It has been descibed by Newton as obeying certain laws.  But then Einsten blew that away with relativity, and it appears to be related to a curvature of the space time continuum.  But even Einstein's theories don't work at the material particle level.  So here we have a well known, in-material force, that is absolutely known to exist.

View Post


"a curvature of the space time continuum" is the best definition I've heard for gravity. Definitely sounds physical to me B) As you say we don't understand it 100%, but current evidence leads us to believe it's physical. The logic you're using here is "We don't understand it properly, therefore it must be non-material". Considering where the evidence is leading at present, this is a massive jump in logic.

According to scientific consensus....(BBT) gravity was at an infinite magnitude just before the singularity that caused the universe to exist.  So let's recap.  An in-material force with infinite magnitude was in place before the BB.  Sounds sort of supernatural, doesn't it?

View Post


All current evidence points to it being material, so no not really. Again, you are appealing to a lack of understanding and claiming it as supernatural. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't immediately mean God did it.

Gravity is everywhere in the universe.  That has the ring of omni-presence, doesn't it?

View Post


Hmm, I've always thought of omnipresent as being attached to an intelligent being, rather than a force. But that's really only because I've associated it with God which isn't necessary. Yeah, I can go with that.

Gravity was infinite in magnitude (all powerful) at the singularity of the BB.

View Post


Lol, infinite gravity does not equal all powerful. All powerful implies it can do anything, not just squash stuff.

It is an invisible, in-material force that is omni-present in the universe.  And it is a force that holds all things together.  In each case we have attributes of God, the supernatural, being defined as natural.

View Post


Invisible? Are we making assumptions again from a lack of knowledge? The Hadron Collider is hoped to find gravitons; gravity particles. The hope is to be able to observe and measure these gravitons. Don't start jumping to conclusions just yet :)

I also can't see the logic in saying:

"Gravity is omni-present"
"God is said to be omni-present"
"We know gravity exists therefore God must also exist".

But Jason that's not all...God is Light!  Light is an electromagnectic force in the universe that is in-material.  Light carries energy.  It acts like waves sometimes and acts like a particle sometimes.

View Post


So what you're saying is that light has properties of things we know are physical in nature? But again, because we don't fully understand how it all works we'll lump it in the non-material category? Another jump in logic...and not a very good one I'm afraid :)

Science has a very difficult time describing light.  It has some unique properties like it's speed, which is related to time and eternality.

View Post


I agree with the part about speed and time...what do you mean by "eternality"? Do you mean the logarithmic decay?

......

#91 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 July 2009 - 08:54 PM

...continued....

Everyone knows that light exists, but some reject that God is responsible for this in-material/invisible force in the universe.  Scientists have described light as being made up of photons.  But that is just a definition attached to a word that means that this in-material thing carries energy.  And of course light is what makes scientists "cleary see" the invisible attributes of God, yet they reject the truth.

View Post


In-material and invisible? As I said, current evidence shows us it has physical properties.

As for invisible, I didn't think that was part of our definition?

"not composed of real particles of matter"

Nope, not part of your definition. Not being able to see something doesn't make it non-material. Light can also be measured, collected and it's effects observed. All these things make it sound physical to me.

But that's not all Jason...We have the stong nuclear force which literally holds all things together.  Again a well known, invisible, in-material force that holds particles together in the nucleus of an atom.

View Post


I have to admit Performedge, my knowledge of nuclear and atomic forces is quite limited. I think I'll have to leave this for someone else to cover, but I'd like to point out a few lines you've used that still lead me to think this is probably physical.

because they basically have no clue as to how or why this thing exists.


So, this would once again be an appeal to "we don't understand, therefore it's God?"

And that's not all Jason...We have the weak nuclear force.  The force that causes beta nuclear decay.  A force that God created after the fall.  A force that is part of the curse.  Again, an invisible, in-material force that scientists have descibed by the means of virtual particles called bosons.

View Post


Again, I have very limited understanding of these bonsons, but I did a quick search on them to see what I could find. This line from wikipedia struck me as interesting:

With a mass of 80.4 GeV/c2 and 91.2 GeV/c2, respectively, the W and Z particles are almost 100 times as massive as the proton—heavier than entire atoms of iron.


Can you explain to me how these particles that are non-material have mass? That just doesn't gel well with me :rolleyes:

In fact, the current scientific definition of nature leaves the possibility of the supenatural a fallacy.  So atheistic science has simply just defined God out, and redefined every aspect of the physical reality of God as natural.  It's all a matter of logic and definitions.

View Post


I'm not sure, but I think we may agree on this point. You don't think science can rule out the supernatural, and I'm not sure if it should. Before I came here I thought it was foolish to try searching for the supernatural, but now I'm not so sure. I think perhaps science should try looking for it, if for no other reason than to prove it doesn't exist. What I've failed to see so far, is anyone come up with a reasonable way to look for the supernatural.

To illustrate this, here is the definition of nature from the 1828 edition of Webster's dictionary....

View Post


Boy, was that a diplomatic, politically correct definition. I thought political correctness was a more modern thing. Apparently not. It's apparent even in a 200 year old quote.

You're point here was to show that mainstream science has eliminated God from the equation correct? If that's the point you were making we are in agreement.

Now if you are honest enough to face this truth, then you will realize that it is all a matter of your logical paradigm which locks you into your conclusions about truth.  If you will open your mind beyond the scientific paradigm, you will see that science has recognized many attributes of God and exchanged them for a lie.  It is that simple.

View Post


Sorry Performedge, but there's nothing of substance in any of the examples you've given. All evidence we have points to physical, natural, material answers. You claim evidence of the supernatural by showing we have a lack of knowledge in areas, nothing more. Not understanding something does not immediately lead to God as the explanation. I hope you can understand this.

Regards,

Arch.

#92 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 July 2009 - 02:32 AM

Maybe you guys should consider defining what a material force is before you spend too much time talking past each other. Arch, why don't you start?

View Post


Lots of luck trying to get a straight answer about the metaphysical from a materialist Adam. The problem isn’t on the empirical science of:

1-See
2-Feel
3-Smell
4-Hear
5-Taste

But more in the other-than-material items like

1-Thoughts
2-Philosophy
3-Logic
4-The Scientific Method
5-Love
6- On and on, ad infinitum (so many other that you cannot list them all).

that the materialists have no answer for, but they will give some slippery notions with no evidence to support them.

#93 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 July 2009 - 05:54 PM

Lots of luck trying to get a straight answer about the metaphysical from a materialist Adam. The problem isn’t on the empirical science of:

1-See
2-Feel
3-Smell
4-Hear
5-Taste

But more in the other-than-material items like

1-Thoughts
2-Philosophy
3-Logic
4-The Scientific Method
5-Love
6- On and on, ad infinitum (so many other that you cannot list them all).

that the materialists have no answer for, but they will give some slippery notions with no evidence to support them.

View Post


I gave a reply to Adams question Ron. If you've got a problem with my definition perhaps you could address that. If you want to discuss any of the points in your list there I'm happy to, but please direct them to me as questions, rather than just asserting all materialists have no answers without even having the decency to ask.

Regards,

Arch.

#94 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 07:55 AM

Girls are primed to fear spiders


He attributes the difference to behavioural differences between men and women among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. An aversion to spiders may help women avoid dangerous animals, but in men evolution seems to have favoured more risk-taking behaviour for successful hunting.


LOL -This is another example of how evolution proves everything. If a phenomena exists then evolution is the only answer for it- no proof needed. Evolution is true because it is assumed to be true, not proven to be true by any scientific standard.


Posted Image

#95 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 31 August 2009 - 08:26 AM

Can evolution make things less complicated?

Penny said, “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive.  We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”


If early bacteria did take the road toward greater simplicity, they would be in good company. Scientists have identified several cases of genome reduction in organisms as diverse as the malaria parasite and bakers’ yeast, Penny says.

The numerous examples “illustrate the Darwinian view of evolution as a reversible process in the sense that ‘eyes can be acquired and eyes can be lost.’ Genome evolution is a two-way street,” Kurland says.


Darwinists have taught that eukaryotes are a more complex product that emerged from the fusion of simpler, more primitive microbes. In other words evolution is progressive. Now eukaryotes could have just suddenly appeared , then became stripped down into the other two kingdoms of microbes.

Question: If evolution can be forward or backward what does that do the tree of life and homology?

#96 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 09 September 2009 - 05:38 PM

Molecular Decay Of Enamel-specific Gene In Toothless Mammals Supports Theory Of Evolution

change recorded in both the fossil record and the genomes of living organisms  … shows  simultaneous molecular decay of the gene that is involved in enamel formation in mammals.


Mammals without enamel are descended from ancestral forms that had teeth with enamel,” Mark Springer of UC said. “We predicted that enamel-specific genes such as enamelin would show evidence in living organisms of molecular decay because these genes are vestigial and no longer necessary for survival.


Mammals without enamel therefore must have descended from mammals with enamel-covered teeth.

Evolution is up, down and sideways.

#97 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 12 September 2009 - 10:28 AM

Large-scale Study Probes How Cells Fight Pathogens

Cells receive and process information much like computers. Information flows in, is read and processed through a complex set of circuits, and an appropriate response is delivered. But instead of tiny transistors, the internal circuitry of mammalian cells is made up of vast networks of genes and their corresponding proteins. A frontier of modern genomic research is to identify these molecular parts and their interconnections, which reflect the normal — and sometimes faulty — "wiring" that underlies human biology and disease. Until recently, research in this area focused on yeast and bacteria because it was nearly impossible to undertake in mammals.



Decoding this cellular computer was not easy. The researchers systematically knocked out genes and recorded the resulting changes. They discovered a vast genetic circuitry, with thousands of connections between components, divided into two major arms for defense against viral and bacterial infections. They also found a hierarchy of control, with some genes controlling a wide array of activities and others more narrowly focused. link

So evolution explains a truly amazing mind-boggling design.

#98 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 23 January 2010 - 11:41 AM

Survival of the Cutest' Proves Darwin Right

Domestic dogs have followed their own evolutionary path, twisting Darwin's directive 'survival of the fittest' to their own needs -- and have proved him right in the process, according to a new study by biologists Chris Klingenberg, of The University of Manchester and Abby Drake, of the College of the Holy Cross in the US.


Dr Drake explains: "We usually think of evolution as a slow and gradual process, but the incredible amount of diversity in domestic dogs has originated through selective breeding in just the last few hundred years, and particularly after the modern purebred dog breeds were established in the last 150 years."


What do you think of this last paragraph?

This dog was bread to be ugly, I guess evolution explains that to.

Posted Image

#99 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 23 January 2010 - 11:45 AM

Survival of the Cutest' Proves Darwin Right
What do you think of this last paragraph?

This dog was bread to be ugly,  I guess evolution explains that to.

Posted Image

View Post


LOL

Remember that breeding negates 'Natural Selection'.

Peace

#100 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 23 January 2010 - 11:49 AM

LOL

Remember that breeding negates 'Natural Selection'.

Peace

View Post



The point of the article was that breeding proves evolution.

The picture I added was my way of disproving the premise of the article.

So to you point: Selective breeding does negate the natural selection premise.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users