First off, the reasoning that evolution is true because there are variations in dogs turning into wolves, coyotes, etc, is not evidence because it is actually variations within kinds, not bacteria evolving into fully intelligent human beings. It's circular reasoning because the definition of evolution changes between the first and second examples, resulting in an absurdity. Creationists believe in and support the fact that one common DOG ancestor is the father of the wolves, coyotes, and other things, and that one common cat ancestor existed for cougars, tigers, etc, or one common horse for zebras, donkeys, etc. We are perfectly fine with that. What we aren't fine with is the idea that our ancestor is soupy bacteria that was stuck by lightning and evolved into all living things. This particular aspect of evolution is impossible because bacteria (1) must have a host, aka a more complex life form to survive or they die within 48 hours, meaning that they can't have been the first living thing, their very nature requires another body to live in and multiply in (2) they reproduce asexually, meaning that they cannot pass along genetic information that could evolve to their offspring. This is elementary science.
Also as for DNA "evidence of evolution, Charles Darwin himself calculated that 96 percent DNA similarity must exist between two species for them to have directly evolved from one another, whereas chimps and humans have only 85 percent similarity, according to more recent studies. The most problematic thing for evolution, however is that information cannot be created in DNA; indeed it can only be lost, meaning that while variations within kinds are possible, evolution on a large scale would violate one of the most elementary laws of genetics. So even if bacteria could breed, they couldn't pass on "new" information, such as that necessary to create algae, plants, and other life, through this process. Plus, evolutionists believe that algae was the next form of life after bacter… Read more
@moviebuff_mandyGreen10mos10MO
Again, a lot to fact check and correct here.
First, the idea that bacteria can only survive in a host body is not universally true. There are many free-living bacteria which exist independently in various environments, and some of these can actually form endospores to survive harsh conditions for extended periods.
Secondly, asexual reproduction in bacteria does not prevent the transfer of genetic information. Bacteria can exchange genetic material through processes like transformation, conjugation, and transduction. These processes can lead to genetic variation, which is the bedrock of evo… Read more
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
(It said my response was too long, so I'll have to include it in parts, labelled)
"First off, the reasoning that evolution is true because there are variations in dogs turning into wolves, coyotes, etc, is not evidence because it is actually variations within kinds, not bacteria evolving into fully intelligent human beings."
This is simply your own misunderstanding of what evolution is. Firstly, dogs did not "turn into" wolves, coyotes, etc. because wolves, coyotes, etc. ARE dogs. Modern dogs did not, and do not, evolve into wolves and coyotes, but modern dogs share aRead more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution6mos6MO
I've diligently read all of your rants against old TruthHurts101, and I have to ask why on earth you even care what ever people believe in if you do not believe in a God or higher power of any kind? Why does it matter to you? If other people can find meaning and value in religion why'd o you feel an obligation to intrude? It doesn't affect you. And yet you just either spent 3 hrs typing this up or asked ChatGPT to do it for you. Why invest all the time and effort when it doesn't affect you? I'm just asking.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
Well the first reason is because I use this site to pass the time while I'm at work, so taking hours of my time to write and respond to people like this is perfectly fine by me, preferable even. The second reason is because I just love debating ideas and engaging in discourse, even stupid discourse that I've heard and disproved a dozen times before; I just enjoy the mental stimulation. The third reason is because the stuff this guy is trying to argue and spread as fact is blatantly false (and that includes all the other political and socio-economic garbage he also advocates), and… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
How is it bad for society? You never addressed that? How is people believing in objective morality, a Higher Law, a Heaven, and a God who gives them purpose BAD for society? If anything that would be good! Even if that belief is "blatantly false" as you claim, why does it affect you if certain people derive meaning from Christianity? It doesn't at all.
@VulcanMan6 5mos5MO
I didn't say that "believing in objective morality or a god/religion" is bad for society, I said that "promoting religious beliefs/values as objective facts over actual science" is bad for society. This is bad for society because doing so is actively promoting misinformation and denying actual evidence, thus creating a society of people who value belief instead of truth.
Of course, this isn't a problem when people who hold religious beliefs accept that their beliefs are based on faith, as well as do not utilize their religious beliefs against others. And for most… Read more
@VulcanMan6 10mos10MO
(Part 2/2, continued...)
"As for the fossil evidence, there is none to speak of. No transitional fossils exist other than those that have been pieced together by imaginative and biased scientists hoping to prove their theory."
This is blatantly anti-scientific, conspiracy theory claims. All of science has long had consensus on this, and is an incredibly well-documented field of paleontology and biology. The original link I had sent you even explains this: "If two or more species share a unique physical feature, such as a complex bone structure or a body plan, they may all have… Read more