100 reasons why evolution is stupid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk
The speaker in that video is an extremely smart guy who has studied both science and religion. If you're not interested in hearing him talk about the Bible then just fast forward to about the 2:00 mark in video. He starts giving many scientific common sense reasons why macro-evolution is stupid. He starts by breaking down the six different types of evolution:
1. Cosmic evolution
2. chemical evolution
3. Stellar and planetary evolution
4. organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution
...then he destroys one-by-one the arguments for each one and explains why all of them (besides the last one)doesn't make any sense whatsoever. For the most part, he uses SCIENCE to destroy the arguments for each one. As for the last one, micro-evolution, he acknowledges that there's plenty of proof for that (as do I) but then goes on to explain why the name "micro-evolution" is not a good description of what actually takes place. Adaptation is a much better term to use for number 6.
As he points out in the video, Darwinian evolution-that is, the first 5 types above are nothing more than a religion since it is based on assumptions/beliefs and no proof whatsoever. It's a highly educational video and very entertaining as well. Highly recommended.
Originally posted by Star428
100 reasons why evolution is stupid:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk
The speaker in that video is an extremely smart guy who has studied both science and religion. If you're not interested in hearing him talk about the Bible then just fast forward to about the 2:00 mark in video. He starts giving many scientific common sense reasons why macro-evolution is stupid. He starts by breaking down the six different types of evolution:
1. Cosmic evolution
2. chemical evolution
3. Stellar and planetary evolution
4. organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution...then he destroys one-by-one the arguments for each one and explains why all of them (besides the last one)doesn't make any sense whatsoever. For the most part, he uses SCIENCE to destroy the arguments for each one. As for the last one, micro-evolution, he acknowledges that there's plenty of proof for that (as do I) but then goes on to explain why the name "micro-evolution" is not a good description of what actually takes place. [b]Adaptation
is a much better term to use for number 6.As he points out in the video, Darwinian evolution-that is, the first 5 types above are nothing more than a religion since it is based on assumptions/beliefs and no proof whatsoever. It's a highly educational video and very entertaining as well. Highly recommended. [/B]
Made a slight mistake above where I said adaptation is a better term for number six. I meant to say that either adaptation or variation is a better term.
Originally posted by Star428I wish someone could give me 100 reasons why you are so stupid.
100 reasons why evolution is stupid:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk
The speaker in that video is an extremely smart guy who has studied both science and religion. If you're not interested in hearing him talk about the Bible then just fast forward to about the 2:00 mark in video. He starts giving many scientific common sense reasons why macro-evolution is stupid. He starts by breaking down the six different types of evolution:
1. Cosmic evolution
2. chemical evolution
3. Stellar and planetary evolution
4. organic evolution
5. macro-evolution
6. micro-evolution...then he destroys one-by-one the arguments for each one and explains why all of them (besides the last one)doesn't make any sense whatsoever. For the most part, he uses SCIENCE to destroy the arguments for each one. As for the last one, micro-evolution, he acknowledges that there's plenty of proof for that (as do I) but then goes on to explain why the name "micro-evolution" is not a good description of what actually takes place. [b]Adaptation
is a much better term to use for number 6.As he points out in the video, Darwinian evolution-that is, the first 5 types above are nothing more than a religion since it is based on assumptions/beliefs and no proof whatsoever. It's a highly educational video and very entertaining as well. Highly recommended. [/B]
Originally posted by Surtur
Star just gave you the best present ever meep.I also still indeed hope bluewaterrider is full of wonder over all of Star's recent posts...I sure as shit know I am wondering about them myself.
All it took was a few yo mama jokes. No harm was intended. Just trying to spread some juvenile humor. meh. No foxes.
Originally posted by Star428
Made a slight mistake above where I said adaptation is a better term for number six. I meant to say that either adaptation [b]or variation is a better term. [/B]
You don't really need all of that. They can't prove abiogenesis in the origin of life theory. Too many gaps missing for them to successfully reproduce it in a controlled experiment and have it become visble enough to eventually make a life form. We have no clue what the exact conditions were like at that time that made life possible. In that point, there is not much for them to argue against intelligent design.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
We have no clue what the exact conditions were like at that time that made life possible. In that point, there is not much for them to argue against intelligent design.
There is literally no actual evidence for intelligent design. That is all that needs to be said to "argue against" it. There is not a shred of concrete evidence of this.
The fact we have no clue about what certain conditions were like actually doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. This is a mistake I constantly see religious people making. They think the fact we don't have an explanation for something(yet) somehow equates to intelligent design. The other problem is intelligent design in itself doesn't come anywhere close to proving the existence of the biblical God. So it is strange when I see religious people using the phrase when I know deep down they don't believe in intelligent design they believe in the prick from the bible. They just try to science it up a bit because they wrongly assume it lends some kind of credibility to the entire thing.
Intelligent design could mean that whatever created us was a gay pink skinned alien named Bob. I wonder if Star would accept that though? Since he couldn't prove the entity behind intelligent design wasn't such a being.
It's also fascinating how Star can hone in on the people claiming evolution isn't a thing and say they "destroy" the arguments of it, but ALL the people of science who destroy arguments saying evolution isn't a thing? Not a peep about them, those people won't be addressed at all.
I mean I could provide videos of people who believe in evolution utterly dismantling religious people who do not. In an actual debates no less.
Originally posted by Surtur👆
There is literally no actual evidence for intelligent design. That is all that needs to be said to "argue against" it. There is not a shred of concrete evidence of this.The fact we have no clue about what certain conditions were like actually doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. This is a mistake I constantly see religious people making. They think the fact we don't have an explanation for something(yet) somehow equates to intelligent design. The other problem is intelligent design in itself doesn't come anywhere close to proving the existence of the biblical God. So it is strange when I see religious people using the phrase when I know deep down they don't believe in intelligent design they believe in the prick from the bible. They just try to science it up a bit because they wrongly assume it lends some kind of credibility to the entire thing.
Intelligent design could mean that whatever created us was a gay pink skinned alien named Bob. I wonder if Star would accept that though? Since he couldn't prove the entity behind intelligent design wasn't such a being.
It's also fascinating how Star can hone in on the people claiming evolution isn't a thing and say they "destroy" the arguments of it, but ALL the people of science who destroy arguments saying evolution isn't a thing? Not a peep about them, those people won't be addressed at all.
I mean I could provide videos of people who believe in evolution utterly dismantling religious people who do not. In an actual debates no less.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
You don't really need all of that. They can't prove abiogenesis in the origin of life theory. Too many gaps missing for them to successfully reproduce it in a controlled experiment and have it become visble enough to eventually make a life form. We have no clue what the exact conditions were like at that time that made life possible. In that point, there is not much for them to argue against intelligent design.
Oh, I agree but just wanted to show that there's a lot more than just that one point you're referring to that proves evolution is nothing more than a religion. The speaker in that video exposes at least a hundred holes in evolutionary so-called "theory".
Originally posted by Surtur
There is literally no actual evidence for intelligent design. That is all that needs to be said to "argue against" it. There is not a shred of concrete evidence of this.The fact we have no clue about what certain conditions were like actually doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. This is a mistake I constantly see religious people making. They think the fact we don't have an explanation for something(yet) somehow equates to intelligent design. The other problem is intelligent design in itself doesn't come anywhere close to proving the existence of the biblical God. So it is strange when I see religious people using the phrase when I know deep down they don't believe in intelligent design they believe in the prick from the bible. They just try to science it up a bit because they wrongly assume it lends some kind of credibility to the entire thing.
Intelligent design could mean that whatever created us was a gay pink skinned alien named Bob. I wonder if Star would accept that though? Since he couldn't prove the entity behind intelligent design wasn't such a being.
It's also fascinating how Star can hone in on the people claiming evolution isn't a thing and say they "destroy" the arguments of it, but ALL the people of science who destroy arguments saying evolution isn't a thing? Not a peep about them, those people won't be addressed at all.
I mean I could provide videos of people who believe in evolution utterly dismantling religious people who do not. In an actual debates no less.
Can you please calm down. I know we believe differently, but I don't hold anything against you. Don"t get ip in arms over what is said on here. It is just a discussion board.