Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ol advocacy |
RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>On 2024-06-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:>Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:>
>On 2024-06-25 07:59, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:>Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:>
On 2024-06-24 18:06, chrisv wrote:Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>Considering how Darwin's Theory of Evolution is complete excrement which>
can be debunked in seven seconds, God is the best explanation for
everything around us. <https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/>
That's some kooky shit, there.
Indeed, they pretty much have no idea.
Feel free to believe the contrary, countless Darwinists have too only to
eventually realize that the theory that has consumed their entire lives
needs constant lies to be supported. We're supposed to believe that life
emerged from nothing even though that is scientifically impossible, and
that a series of mutations, all beneficial, led to us becoming what we
are today. Meanwhile, mutations are almost always negative and/or fatal.
We're also supposed to believe that we evolved from apes even though it
would take several hundred million mutations, all beneficial, for them
to turn into us. This is somehow science even though it is not only
contrary to all scientific laws but logic.
:-D
You find it far easier to believe in a universal invisible entity that
has a thing for mankind, than to believe in some natural results of physics and
chemistry. It's not all "mutations", bub.
That is the point though: Darwinism _ignores_ physics, chemistry,
genetics and the rest to reach its conclusion.
Darwinism, IIRC, doesn't speculate on the cause of changes, only that they do
occur and some yield a higher probability of survival.
Unfortunately that's not good science. That's guesswork or speculation. But
atheistic "scientists" (so-called) glommed on to it because it gave them an
alternative to God.
>But speciation is not just about survival. For example, a population (say,>
insects) that gets divided all of a sudden by some natural barrier, will start
to grow ever more different, and ultimately cannot interbreed.
That's called adaptation, or "micro-evolution." That's not what
evolutionists mean when they speak of evolution, where (for example) a
land-bound lizard turns into a flying bird. That's called "macro-evolution."
One does not lead into the other. For evolution to make sense we have to
have a lot better explanations for so-called "macro-evolution" then we
currently have.
>
I won't be holding my breath.
LMAO at "macro-evolution". You don't even know what it is.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.