'100s of esteemed biologists' lied about evolution

AnyOldIron said:
I would imagine you would say genetic to my previous question, as if it is learned then you know the problems with this particular notion. Assuming you say genetic there are holes in your proposal.

You quite happily admit that physical traits can be vestigial, yet you deny that behaviours, similarly passed by genetics, can possibly be vestigial? Why do you claim that the one can, whilst the other can't?

And its not plausible to differentiate behaviours from the corporeal. Behaviours are physical responses to stimulation in the brain. Entirely corporeal.

You started this argument by stating it is a weak argument for the existence of deities and it has got weaker as it has gone along. You state that behavioural traits cannot be superfluous, yet agree that physical traits can be vestigial. Yet behaviours cannot be differentiated from the physical so easily, behaviours are part of the physical. A trout swimming upstream to spawn is following physical mechanisms originating from the trouts brain. And even if this weren't so, vestigial behaviours do exist.

So it is certainly possible, and with Occram's razor, far more likely that religious belief is a vestigial part of humanity's psyche, our former 'explanation tool'.

Surely you can think of better arguments for the existence of deities than this? But they are for another day. Sleep tight Dixie.
Click to expand...

Several problems here. First off, there is no such thing as vestigial behavior traits. Behaviors happen for a reason, and if the reason ceases to be necessary, the behavior is soon forgotten or discarded. You have still not given any examples of behavior without reason in any living organism, and I'll surmise you can't. Physical vestiges are the result of genetics and genetic coding, and they generally exist because at one time, the species required them. It's obvious the whale doesn't use his legs, but he has them. It would be quite silly to presume the whale didn't discard his legs out of a fear that he would one day need to walk... which is essentially the argument you make for human spirituality. Secondly, you are trying to argue that spirituality is a vestigial trait, but spirituality is intrinsically tied to human civilization for as far back as we have records, it's a consistent and prevalent human behavior, not a vestige.

Finally, you stated: You started this argument by stating it is a weak argument for the existence of deities... I'm not sure what thread you're reading, but I didn't post that argument. In fact, my argument is not an argument for the existence of deities at all, and I think such an argument is laughable. What do you mean by "existence" of a "deity?" A deity with physical proof of existence? Sounds like a pretty bizarre thing to have to prove, and I am glad I wasn't trying. My argument was for the possibility of creation by intelligent design. The basis of which, is nearly 100k years of human connection with spirituality, intrinsically tied to our behaviors as a species. I don't see a thing you've offered to refute this.
 
Evolutionists believe we evolved from a single-celled organism. Where did the single-celled organism come from? Evolutionists say primordial soup. All I had to do is figure out what primordial soup is, and how it was formed, and we’ll have the origin of the single-celled organism.

This proved to be rather impossible. As it turns out, evolutionists all believe in primordial soup, but they have no idea what it is, and cannot prove it ever existed. They do not know what chemicals it could have been, and it has never been successfully reproduced in the lab. People are still searching for a way to explain it. Well that presents a fundamental problem, doesn’t it? I guess we’re off to a bad start. Since no college professor, “scientist,” or anyone else has any idea about the first phase of evolutionary theory, lets move past that issue and try to figure out the next steps instead.

Next, the unknown inanimate matter morphed into a simple, single-celled organism. Sounds feasible enough, since “everyone knows” that single-celled organisms are the simplest form of life. All we have to do is research their limited complexity so we can figure out how non-living matter formed life.

As it turns out, single-celled organisms are extremely complex. Did you know that a single-celled organism can have thousands of parts, can reproduce, eat, expel waste, move, and respond to stimuli? There’s no way I’m going to ever figure out how inanimate matter can suddenly turn into a multi-thousand part, self propelled, eating, moving, reproducing, structured, organized cell. But it looks like I’m not alone.... evolutionists can’t begin to explain it either. This is probably because it’s genetic information would take up all the pages in a 1,000 page book, and have to be laid out in the right order. How much genetic information do rocks and other non-living matter have? None, of course. That’s akin to using zero letters of the alphabet, and watching that turn into the first 2 Harry Potter books, all by random chance. That’s a pretty impossible leap, but that is what evolutionists claim happens. Non-living matter would’ve had to jump from no genetic material to over a thousand pages of it, a cell structure would’ve had to somehow spontaneously form all at once, and the cell structure created would’ve had to magically come alive.

This is what evolutionists believe in, although they cannot explain how it happens or why. With all the millions of dollars put into the varieties of science experiments studying this issue, never before has life formed from non-living matter. Evolutionists just believe it happens.



http://www.themythofevolution.com/Site/Myth of Evolution.html
 
carbon dating is useless for scientific purposes, but at least there’s another method. Fossils can also be dated based on the layer of strata they are found in, i.e. Jurassic, Cambrian, etc. And we know that the layers of rock are dated accurately, because you just have to look at the fossils contained in them to see how old they are.

Did you catch that? That is a perfect example of the circular reasoning often used by evolutionists, and again useless for scientific research purposes. Using the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils isn't going to accomplish anything. It’s called circular reasoning. The whole idea of this “Geological Column” is disproven by the fact that trees and animals are found petrified and fossilized taking up several layers of rock strata that are supposedly millions of years apart. Can an animal fossil sit there exposed for millions of years while strata slowly builds up around it? Of course not. Again, logic interferes with evolutionist belief.


http://www.themythofevolution.com/Site/Myth of Evolution.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top