Irony of the evolutionary belief

[ImmortalFlame]

My debate is about reasoning about ideas,

Then why are you ignoring the ideas other posters present to you and instead just posting one-sentence responses that have literally nothing to do with the ideas anyone presented?

I don't know why I'm bothering, at this point. You're obviously not here to debate.

 

[Eli G]

The evolutionary doctrine is a myth.

Just think about this: that doctrine preaches that in the past there were billions of chimeras, like the sphinx.

Only those who reason clearly can realize that reality. Jesus already said it:

John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

You have creative imagination to justify your agenda. None of the above represents the sciences of evolution and the objective verifiable evidence that verifies it

What objective verifiable independent evidence supports the myths of the Biblical Narratives?

 

[Eli G]

Then why are you ignoring the ideas other posters present to you and instead just posting one-sentence responses that have literally nothing to do with the ideas anyone presented?

... because they have nothing to do with the basic idea of my comment. In any case, I respond to what I want; I'm not in anyone's game.

I don't know why I'm bothering, at this point. ...

I don't know either.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

... because

CONGRATULATIONS! You used the quote feature!

they have nothing to do with the basic idea of my comment.

My earlier post was explaining explicitly why your assertions were wrong. You failed to respond to any of it.

In any case, I respond to what I want; I'm not in anyone's game.

Then stop pretending you're the arbiter of reasonable debate when you are deliberately ignoring posts that you can't respond to.

 

[Eli G]

The evolutionary doctrine is a myth.

Just think about this: that doctrine preaches that in the past there were billions of chimeras, like the sphinx.

Only those who reason clearly can realize that reality. Jesus already said it:

John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

I'm going to explain myself another way. Imagine this scenario of millions of years in the supposed genetic tree of the species... we are going to isolate a single line from that tree, the one that goes from the ancestor of the cockroach to the ancestor of the butterfly. (Clearly, those ancestors are hypothetical, because no evolutionist has ever seen them, so they have to make them up.)

These two supposed ancestors are relatives, the butterfly's is later than the cockroach's, so one appears after the other, as if it were a descendant of that one. But in the middle of that path there should exist an intermediate ancestor, which would be a being half almost-cockroach and half almost-butterfly... a chimera. Have you ever seen a cockroach-butterfly?

Nor will you ever see a shark-crocodile, nor a crocodile-turtle , nor a hippopotamus-whale ... because those chimeras never existed, although the evolutionary myth preaches that they did exist.

 

[Eli G]

Look, for example, at the following illustration of how evolutionists imagine the origin of species. It seems like a very clear illustration, right? Well it's not at all.

Did you notice that there is no animal name in any convergence vertex? It is because links between species never existed, and that is why they have never found any, so they cannot say what the common ancestor was of any pair of species that according to that myth are directly related.

 

[Eli G]

Now, imagine time passing...those millions of millions of years in which evolutionists say that species and the planet were changing and transforming into new species.

Do this exercise: in the illustration in my previous post, draw different imaginary lines that unites species that can coexist at the same time. How many lines can you draw? Those lines drawn are supposed to be different bio-planetary ages and supposedly only animals that had already appeared in that supposed ascending line of the tree could coexist.

Different eras of the planet are known, and we also know what the vegetation and climate were that accompanied those different eras. However, the known eras cannot be matched with the supposed hundreds of traces of exclusively contemporary species that someone may make on the above tree.

That both aspects of the doctrine cannot be made to coincide implies that there is a serious problem in the theory. Many major animal groups alive today coexisted in the Cambrian period. For example, mosquitoes were contemporaries with dinosaurs.

Excavation discoveries show that terrestrial epochs do not exceed just a few, in which ALL the different animal species that exist appeared. However, the imaginary lines drawn according to the previous exercise can amount to hundreds, because according to evolutionary doctrine, animals of later appearance cannot exist when their supposed ancestor has not yet appeared. In other words, facts does not coincide with that doctrine.

 

[metis]

That both aspects of the doctrine cannot be made to coincide implies that there is a serious problem in the theory. Many major animal groups alive today coexisted in the Cambrian period. For example, mosquitoes were contemporaries with dinosaurs.

Not all species evolve in the same way nor at the same rate.

Evolution is just plain old common sense: material objects change over time, and genes and dna are material objects.

 

[metis]

Who taught animals to migrate?

Food

 

[Eli G]

Not all species evolve in the same way nor at the same rate.

Evolution is just plain old common sense: material objects change over time, and genes and dna are material objects.

Why should anyone accept an assumption as fact?

 

[metis]

Why should anyone accept an assumption as fact?

It's not an assumption as we see pretty much all items change over time even though the rate of change is not a constant.

 

[Eli G]

Food

So, monarch butterflies in Mexico go to Canada to look for food ,
and their Canadian descendants return to Mexico because they run out of food .
The new ones that are born in Mexico go to school, so they learn where to look for food when it is their turn.

 

[Eli G]

It's not an assumption as we see pretty much all items change over time even though the rate of change is not a constant.

You see imaginary things ...

 

[metis]

So, monarch butterflies in Mexico go to Canada to look for food ,
and their Canadian descendants return to Mexico because they run out of food .
The new ones that are born in Mexico go to school, so they learn where to look for food when it is their turn.

I haven't talked to either one lately whereas I asked them why they flew to a different location based on the season, but maybe you did, right? BTW, did you ever consider weather as being a factor?

Now, it's your turn: please provide unbiased evidence that God supposedly programmed them to do this.

 

[metis]

You see imaginary things ...

Actually, I don't. I study. Maybe try it sometime.

 

[Eli G]

The first monarch butterflies ... who taught them where to go?
Why and how does this information pass to the DNA of the descendants?

If you ask me, a non-evolutionist... you should know the answer: it was the Creator who made them this way, and they follow orders pre-recorded in their DNA. It is the evolutionists who should answer these questions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The first monarch butterflies ... who taught them where to go?
Why and how does this information pass to the DNA of the descendants?

Take some science courses. Start with the basics and work your way up. You don't seem to even know the basics, which is probably why it all seems so confusing to you.

If you ask me, a non-evolutionist... you should know the answer: it was the Creator who made them this way, and they follow orders pre-recorded in their DNA. It is the evolutionists who should answer these questions.

Prove it.

 

[metis]

you should know the answer: it was the Creator who made them this way, and they follow orders pre-recorded in their DNA. It is the evolutionists who should answer these questions.

I asked you in my last post for objective evidence for this, but you obviously haven't done so. I answered yours, so why not return the favor?

 

[Eli G]

I asked you in my last post for objective evidence for this, but you obviously haven't done so. I answered yours, so why not return the favor?

So, you believe in the doctrine of the evolution just because you don't want to believe in the existence of the Creator?