What he says is absolute truth. If you deny provable fact, you are ignorant.

Views: 22401

Comment by Simon Paynton on February 26, 2013 at 4:03pm

"DNA causes traits. "

Or rather, the environment selects the organisms with the fittest traits, and these organisms pass on their DNA which has the traits encoded in them.  If you break your leg, or stretch your neck, it's not the case that your children will be born with broken legs or stretched necks.  These attributes are not genetic. 

Comment by Jesse on February 26, 2013 at 10:51pm

Jivko you keep bring up the eye. Which evolutionary eye are you talking about the octopus or the human? Both exist but developed at different times in different groups in different ways.

Comment by SteveInCO on February 27, 2013 at 8:55am

Irreducible complexity means that a complex organ like an eye cannot function without even one of its parts. According to Darwin's theory the changes are very subtle and happen over long periods of time. If this is true, a complex organ cannot evolve because it will not function for several billions of years while evolving to a certain goal (the fully formed organ).

The mistake "irreducible complexity" people make is to imagine the modern human eye, then assume that according to evolution the previous version of it, seen in some ancestor of ours has an eye *exactly* like the one we have now, except missing a part.  Of course THAT is ridiculous because such an eye could not function, so it's a good thing evolution doesn't actually make that claim!

Richard Dawkins actually goes over the eye in great detail to show how it could have evolved (You can watch, rather than read, the explanation in "Growing Up In the Universe").  Basically there's no reason to think the eye disproves evolution, none whatsoever.  It is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of what the theory of evolution says.  The problem is the people who keep pushing this line of poppycock in the media and in the books and through their "institutes" have seen this explanation by now, and are clearly intelligent enough to understand it, so I can only assume they are dishonest shits for continuing to use this example.  I am more charitable to the folks like you who have assumed these people are honestly representing evolution.  But I'll say it again, in a different way: IF the theory of evolution actually said what they claimed it said THEN I would be the first to argue against it.) 

But you will disagree automatically. Okay, I'm gonna bring in physics then - Darwin's theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that every system left on its own tends to disorder. And this is a law, not simply a theory. This contradiction is admitted by evolutionist scientists.

"Evolutionist Scientists" would in fact point out the at the second law applies to closed systems, ones which receive no energy input. and also output no energy.  No living being is a closed system, if, say, an animal were, it would die as soon as it consumed the oxygen in its bloodstream and/or the food in its stomach.  So by your logic there is a contradiction between the fact that you are alive, and the second law of thermodynamics.  FORTUNATELY, we aren't closed systems.  And neither is the biosphere (i.e., the sum total of all the living organisms on earth), it gets enormous inputs of energy from the sun, constantly, and radiates waste heat into space.

Again this has been told to the ID "intelligentsia" over and over again, and they are almost certainly smart enough to understand this explanation... yet they keep repeating it, because they are dishonest shits.

Liars for Jesus, and you've bought it, hook line and sinker.
Comment by Simon Paynton on March 1, 2013 at 8:03pm

I have no gods but Jedward. 

Comment by Simon Paynton on March 1, 2013 at 8:03pm

Comment by Ally G on July 14, 2013 at 12:35am

Or paranoid.  Mainstream creationist doctrine is that the scientific establishment is a politically and/or satanically motivated conspiracy to undermine Christianity, unquote. The tendency to ignore (not just be ignorant of) scientific evidence springs from the assumption that it is fudged, rigged, or fabricated, as much as from stupidity.  

Comment by H3xx on July 14, 2013 at 8:57pm

@ Dale Headley

Ignorant means uneducated, or poorly educated.

Comment by Jim Smith on June 1, 2014 at 3:42pm

Let us  not forget "hypocrite" too.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service