Thread: If we are all there is

Originally Posted by Truth Paradox

I think you misunderstand me. I haven't done much research on it, that's true... But I also haven't done much research on anything I can refute with pure logic. Is there any way to refute the proof I gave against evolution? It totally goes against the law of entropy. We find dinasaur bones, but yet magically there seems to be no evidence of the millions if not billions of transitional "missing links" between any species which would have to be to prove evolution with any validity. Darwin himself said on his deathbed that he was wrong about evolution.

To suggest that it took lungs millions of years to evolve to the working lungs that exist in the human body is completely ludicrous. So what? Our early ancesestors didn't breath? Maybe because they couldn't breath, their brain evolved so that it wouldn't need oxygen for the period of time it took for the lungs to then be complete and then... wait no... it doesn't make sense any way you slice it.

Many evolutionists believe that evolution happened(s) in a punctuated way. (very quick spurts of rapid changes - which would fit with the geological record where massive destructions have occured FORCING evolutionary adaptation) With this theory it is easy to see why there may not be many or any missing links found. Furthermore, in the creation story, it says that God rested on the seventh "day" (whatever that means). His primary work was finished - the primary evolutions had run their course.

The law of entropy does not in any way negate the laws of life. They are in struggle with each other but I assess that life is winning. According to the Bible, from which most of the creation story is understood, the earth will never be destroyed, life will go on eternally.

OMG how did I miss that?

@TP: There are no "missing links" bbecause evolution is not erratic and spontaneous, but smooth and continuous.

Simple definition? The change between the DNA molecule during reproduction. Refute that.

The carbon chauvinism theory does have some evidence to support it. Because compared to silicon, there is very little carbon in the earth, but yet we are carbon based life. showing that (at least on earth like planets) silicon doesn't work well for life.

Originally Posted by Truth Paradox

In other words, take the human heart. Scientists say it would take millions (if not billions) of years for such an organ to evolve to what it is today. However, without the human heart, we can't exist. So how did our early ancestors live up until the point that such a complex organ was "complete" in its evolution?
The eyes would take millions of years to evolve, in the mean time, how were animals able to find food which would sustain them? The deeper you look into it, the less it makes sense.

ummm.... I don't know why nobody has made this point to you... maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't the organ exist in a primitive state? Like how other species have primitive brain, hearts, eyes, and whatever else? Evolution isnt saying that is just came to be that complex, but was once simple, and became more and more complex because of the advantages the differences had.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong, I'm just throwing that idea out there.

I don't feel like telling you why your percieved weaknesses in the theory of evolution are nonexistent... to be honest I've grown tired of that, and at some point you have to learn to do the research by yourself. But just let me leave you with this: Any "flaw" that critics see in evolution is in fact only a flaw in their own knowledge of evolution. What you see as nonsensical elements of the theory are in fact simply voids in your knowledge of the theory. It's funny how people often accuse people very much based in science as close-minded, yet when someone starts reading about a scientific theory, the first time something doesn't make any sense to them they stop learning about it and declare "This theory makes no sense! This can't possibly be true!"