Evolution and Blood

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

Well, this is exciting. We proved him wrong in the first post!

[Minimalist]

Well, this is exciting. We proved him wrong in the first post!

Yep. And I didn't even insult the motherfucker.



Oops.

[Welsh cake]

Am I right or am I right?

You sound so sure of yourself don't you?

I don't think anyone can pull you out of that close-minded delusion.

[elunico13]

Oh, my....irreducible complexity AGAIN!

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[

Thanks for your Wikipedia reference LOL! Kenneth R. Miller uses a high school experience of a mousetrap used to launch spit wads as an argument. Wiki also says evolutionists don't have a "complete" argument about irreducible complexity (not surprised), and that coagulation is absent in whales therefore not needed to sustain life. Don't forget what Tobie said about the bumble bees. Those are definitely needed for life on Earth.

I took the time to read it anyway since you presented it to defend your faith.

---

What we have here is someone that thinks of "Evolution" as the "Atheist's Alternative Explanation"... and that it is used in place of "Goddidit". This upsets him (emotionally) and so he sets out to poke holes in what he thinks evolution means. He is desperately trying to find something, anything, that proves evolution wrong, so he can go back to feeling comfortable with his fairy tales. It's quite sad, really.

There I go... posting about emotions again. I keep forgetting that, as someone that lacks belief in fairy tales, I'm not supposed to have any.

Don't forget about all the arbitrary statements.

[Minimalist]

Creationist shitstains have rightly been discredited by the scientific community.

Before you can say "goddidit" you have to demonstrate that your fucking god exists, asshole.

Get busy. You have a big job ahead of you.

[elunico13]

Creationist shitstains have rightly been discredited by the scientific community.

Before you can say "goddidit" you have to demonstrate that your fucking god exists, asshole.

Get busy. You have a big job ahead of you.

So who are you really mad at? Me or Wiki LOL!

[Voltair]

See I am one of those atheists who hasn't taken the time to research evolution out fully, I have been doing other things. I also didn't get much from my education about it, LOL Florida and lol Christian College.

However let's say for the sake of argument Evolution is wrong. You still would have to prove the existence of a higher power. The fact that blood clotting is a complicated process does nothing to point to the idea of an uncaused, intelligent, etc designer. Looking at something and saying "That looks designed" is no more relevant than me saying "That looks like superman puked that up". Before any kind of evidence is introduced our claims have just as much backing them up.

I don't really get how people think disproving/arguing evolution proves God in the slightest. Here are two statements to illustrate the point:

The earth is a triangle
The earth is a square

Well the triangle person could say to the one who said its a square "AHA it is not a square therefore it is a triangle" and vice versa. The problem is it is neither a triangle or a square. They are both wrong and one being wrong does not make it more likely that the other is right. Your claims must be validated based on their own merit. If you want to try and prove the existence of God dealing with evolution is quite frankly a waste of your time. It is completely irrelevant to the idea of God existing or not existing. Unless of course you take the first two chapters of Genesis literally then it could be a HUGE issue.

[elunico13]

See I am one of those atheists who hasn't taken the time to research evolution out fully, I have been doing other things. I also didn't get much from my education about it, LOL Florida and lol Christian College.

However let's say for the sake of argument Evolution is wrong. You still would have to prove the existence of a higher power. The fact that blood clotting is a complicated process does nothing to point to the idea of an uncaused, intelligent, etc designer. Looking at something and saying "That looks designed" is no more relevant than me saying "That looks like superman puked that up". Before any kind of evidence is introduced our claims have just as much backing them up.

I don't really get how people think disproving/arguing evolution proves God in the slightest. Here are two statements to illustrate the point:

The earth is a triangle
The earth is a square

Well the triangle person could say to the one who said its a square "AHA it is not a square therefore it is a triangle" and vice versa. The problem is it is neither a triangle or a square. They are both wrong and one being wrong does not make it more likely that the other is right. Your claims must be validated based on their own merit. If you want to try and prove the existence of God dealing with evolution is quite frankly a waste of your time. It is completely irrelevant to the idea of God existing or not existing. Unless of course you take the first two chapters of Genesis literally then it could be a HUGE issue.

I do apologize for wasting my time. Thanks for posting. Are laws of logic universal, immaterial and unchanging? So is the God of scripture. Without him they do not exist. W/o the God of the bible how do you account for them???

[Aegrus]

I do apologize for wasting my time. Thanks for posting. Are laws of logic universal, immaterial and unchanging? So is the God of scripture. Without him they do not exist. W/o the God of the bible how do you account for them???

Laws of logic sharing qualities with your imagined god does not make your god exist. That's like saying "My pet fish has scales and never talks. My imaginary friend has scales and never talks. Therefore my imaginary friend is as real as my fish."

Laws of logic require no god. They are not things. They are human constructs.

Let me ask you this, though- how do you account for the god of the bible?

[elunico13]

I do apologize for wasting my time. Thanks for posting. Are laws of logic universal, immaterial and unchanging? So is the God of scripture. Without him they do not exist. W/o the God of the bible how do you account for them???

Laws of logic sharing qualities with your imagined god does not make your god exist. That's like saying "My pet fish has scales and never talks. My imaginary friend has scales and never talks. Therefore my imaginary friend is as real as my fish."

Laws of logic require no god. They are not things. They are human constructs.

Let me ask you this, though- how do you account for the god of the bible?

If they are human constructs than did laws of logic not exist before humans existed?