i thought this side of the forum was the evrything else side? this is off topic, but so is the other hundred how do i eat pussy or my dick is shooting out rockets threads. i think they’re stupid,they’re off topic, but guess what? i don’t read them, and you’re not forced to read this thread.
What is taught in public schools amounts to evolutionary propaganda (the dogmatic insistence of one view to the exclusion of any other). Scientific evidence supporting creation is censored. Therefore, people think “There is no such thing as scientific evidence for creation." But that’s because people are biased and have been taught that all their life.
Bascically, if evolution is true, then we should be able to see a progressive continuum of fossils forms. As Darwin once said: “…innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? …why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory”
Think about this:. in the human eye, there is a lens which focuses images on the retina in the back of the eye. On the retina visual images are displayed up-side-down. Within the retina, there is a highly complex chemical system which converts the photons of light to electrons. These electrons then travel down a “wire,” the optic nerve, to at least three different areas in the brain. The visual signal travels first to the geniculate body where the visual information is first organized. The visual signals are then sent to the occipital cortex where the visual information is displayed right-side-up, and finally to the frontal lobes of the brain where pattern recognition occurs. Unless all of these sub-systems are present and properly connected, the visual system does not function. A visual system composed of four-fifths of the necessary components does not give eighty percent vision. It provides no vision at all!
Explain how highly complex systems, such as the visual system, which is composed of multiple indispensable sub-systems, could have arisen over a long period of time when a partially evolved system is of no use to the organism. According to neo-Darwinian theory, complex systems, such as the visual system, would have arisen very gradually over millions of years through the step by step accumulation of mutations necessary to produce the separate parts.
Approximately 800 million years ago a blind primitive creature had a number of mutations which gave rise to a pigmented spot on the surface of its skin. This pigmented spot was the beginning of an early retina. Gradually, the pigmented cells became connected to a nerve which in turn became connected to the organism’s brain. Over many millions of years all the various parts of this primitive visual system became connected and the organism could sense light. LOL. Yeah right (wink wink) I believe in evolution. The fact is that mutations that supposedly gave rise to the early eye will provide no increased functional capacity to the organism. This is because a partially evolved visual system does not provide a little bit of vision, it provides no vision at all. Consequently, the mutations that produced the primitive eye (the pigmented spot) will not be beneficial and will not be concentrated in the population. They will be lost and the genetic experiment to create vision will be a bust!
Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all inter-dependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an insult to my intelligence. And that’s just one example.
Secondly, the environment does not consciously select the traits that are most fit. It is simply the fact that those organisms which possess a collection of traits that allows them to survive to reproductive maturity are considered most fit. So natural selection does not create anything. Nature simply preserves favorable traits that are already present in the breeding population.
Take this story: Imagine a population of lizards that are highly skilled in running and hunting. Then one day a “litter” of lizards is hatched who have, in their genetic code, a mutation that caused their scales to be four times longer than normal. At this point the lizards cannot fly because the scales do not provide any significant aerodynamic lift.
These lizards, in turn have offspring which have an additional mutation which lengthens the scales even further. From an evolutionary viewpoint the scales are well on their way to evolving into feathers. Over the next 1,000 generations hundreds of additional mutations occur which cause further lengthening of the scales. The scales are now about half the size necessary to allow for flight. However, there is a problem.
The long stiff scales now begin to hinder the lizards ability to run and climb. As the scales continue to lengthen in succeeding generations the problem worsens.
What was once a swift runner and climber has become a clumsy creature that cannot run nor climb as well as its adversaries. So natural selection, which allows for the “survival of the fittest,” becomes the enemy of this transitional form.
The point is that the lizard’s forelimb becomes a “bad leg” long before it becomes a “good wing.” So the transitional form is eliminated by natural selection because it is less fit. So natural selection tends to be a preserving force rather than a creative force.
This post is already getting too long so I’ll save the subject of the earth’s age, dinosaurs, and radiometric dating for another time. Good day.
I think the thread itself is hilarious! As far as off topic stuff goes I think people should post what they want in the “everything else” section, If nobody responds to it, then the thread goes bye-bye. Either way, it’s a nice change to see something different every once in a while just to break up the re-hashed “whats your favorite workout music”, “who’s your favorite t-man”, “what’s your favorite quote”, " how do I get cut", and the ten different messages to Coach Davies.
I know I shouldn’t respond to this thread, as I’m sure most people just want to vent and not learn, but why do people think that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive? If you do not wish to believe in Creation, you shouldn’t try to use science to back up your belief that God does not exist. On the same note, please try not to discredit science just because you do not have the mental capacity to apply modern science to your faith. The example of carbon dating being inaccurate is not a good one to use. Sure, recent deaths will be inaccurate, but remember carbon dating does correspond with the beginning of the bronze age, which is accredited to Tuval-Cain, which shows the bible accurate in that account. People should also not be so quick to point to Darwin as the one who “proved” that God is not real. One, Darwin, at the very end refers to Evolution as being one way that God arranged life. Also, it was Darwin’s assistant, T.X. Huxley, that claimed that Darwin proved that God didn’t exist. I could go on and on about how modern science actually points (but does not prove) that God is behind the design, but I don’t think most people would care. If you do not have a faith, then please don’t use science to try to discredit others. If you are threatened by science, don’t try to discredit that with half-baked faults. Also, don’t people realize that up until Copernicus (and even after, as the church continued to support him) religion (all kinds) have always been involved with science?