-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
What the heck? Seriously??
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Why would you think that??If human evolution is such a magnificent process that supposedly took so many millions and millions of years... how is it that diseases based on human anatomy still exist? Isn't it supposed that after so much evolution there would no longer be human conditions like a simple seasonal flu?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You don't seem to answer to much of anything ...
Yeah and like if we evolved, why are there no bicycles on Mars?If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?
Viruses have never stopped being viruses, even if they have adapted. Humans (supposedly evolved) would have already self-generated a capacity to overcome the ancient diseases that still affect them, and it would be expected that long-range life is an innate need more valuable than the simple fact of multiplying and prolonging the species.
So instead of saying that they adapt and try to reproduce so that the species continues, the most logical thing would be that they look for a way to survive and perpetuate the proper individual existence, the true primary purpose of any living being. The desire to live forever is primary, but no evolutionary change will be able to reach that level of adaptation, immortality, because the adaptive capacity of animals is not what evolutionists believe.
So instead of saying that they adapt and try to reproduce so that the species continues, the most logical thing would be that they look for a way to survive and perpetuate the proper individual existence, the true primary purpose of any living being. The desire to live forever is primary, but no evolutionary change will be able to reach that level of adaptation, immortality, because the adaptive capacity of animals is not what evolutionists believe.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That's funny. I just explicitly responded to your earlier argument and you completely ignored the post and responded to it with a one-liner comment that was completely unrelated to what I wrote.
Weird how these rules of yours seem to apply to everyone except you. Not my fault you can't form a cogent argument.
At the end of the Cretaceous a huge asteroid hit the earth in the are aof today's Yucatan peninsula 66 million years ago leaving a crater 180 km across. debri from the impact is found all over the earth. All large animals and many other species perished including dinosaurs. There was also evidence of the change in the environment of the earth that was causing the decline of the larger animals and the dinosaurs.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Gee, I wonder what name we give to the process that results in viruses adapting?
Except those viruses, as already explained, are evolving too. We do and have developed immunity and resistance to many natural ills, but because these ills are ALSO evolving and changing over time, we can't somehow magically conjure up immunity to diseases that haven't yet evolved.
This is a facile argument.
This paragraph just makes no sense. Can you re-state your argument?
Honestly, I have no intention of dwelling on imaginary scenarios. The evolutionary doctrine is created based on speculations of what the past may have been like... My questions are based on realities that I contemplate, not on imaginary ideas that are like myths. I am not going to adapt my dialogue to those myths other than what they really are: assumptions.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There is no "evolutionary doctrine."
Your premise is false.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
A humble reminder.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That you don't actually debate. Gotcha. Why are you here, then?
As much as I try to imagine the scenario where some animals change shape and become other species at the same time as the conditions of their environment change, I cannot see any coherence in that.
Each animal requires a specific environment. This is how they were created, and changes (some small and some drastic) in the environment that surrounds them can lead them to vary certain characteristics, but with well-established limits.
We have seen flies trapped in ancient ambers. They have no basic differences with modern flies. They were as flies as the ones now. If the environment of their time was so different from ours, how come they are so similar to modern flies?
This happens because the changes that evolutionists attribute to the adaptation process are not as drastic as they suppose.
Each animal requires a specific environment. This is how they were created, and changes (some small and some drastic) in the environment that surrounds them can lead them to vary certain characteristics, but with well-established limits.
We have seen flies trapped in ancient ambers. They have no basic differences with modern flies. They were as flies as the ones now. If the environment of their time was so different from ours, how come they are so similar to modern flies?
This happens because the changes that evolutionists attribute to the adaptation process are not as drastic as they suppose.
My debate is about reasoning about ideas, not about winning arguments.
I am content to help others take into account some reasoning on some topics of discussion.
The more alternative reasoning readers have, the more information they can have to draw intelligent conclusions.
PS: this was a clarification ... NO FOR DEBATE.
I am content to help others take into account some reasoning on some topics of discussion.
The more alternative reasoning readers have, the more information they can have to draw intelligent conclusions.
PS: this was a clarification ... NO FOR DEBATE.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You've not debated anywhere in this thread.My debate is about reasoning about ideas, not about winning arguments.
I am content to help others take into account some reasoning on some topics of discussion.
The more alternative reasoning readers have, the more information they can have to draw intelligent conclusions.
PS: this was a clarification ... NOT FOR DEBATE.
You mean like the Biblical Creation myth and Noah's Ark and the World Flood.
Evolution in response to changing environments driven by seasonal availability of food.Who taught animals to migrate?
Last edited: