"God does not exist coz evolution works on his creation too?"
What?!
Mate your statements are personal presuppositions and beliefs, not neutral logical arguments
Like
- God doesn't govern evolution
- underlying premise being Papa Ape theory
Hence god doesn't exist
"God didn't create every modern creature coz every modern creature sustained evolutionary changes"
What is your idea of God even We're talking about the initiator to the universe and you expect someone with that capability to not govern evolution, coz Papa Drawin theory? Tf?
You're acting salty and nit answering shit mate
Same ego is seen here:
Sure I'll provide one cosmological one and an ontological one I'm reading a book on them but this what I'm able to devise atm
Cosmological irrc :
- Universe didn't come out of nothing and is finite and expanding meaning its a has beginning and an will have an end eventually . Imagine random a explosion in midst of absolute void created cosmic forces that molded random particles into bonds and conducive pairs (elements and compounds) that inturn created systematic galaxies and solar systems with perplexing dimension, aesthetics, attributes . Everything that came out of then explosion came out inanimate yet functioned in a very systematic planned order to construct the universe we see and processes we observe. The consistency.. And the precision where
TThe 'it came out of nothing' claim is absolutly ignorant and reduced calim
There is something that provided a role and character to everything that came out of "Nowhere" even an atom worth of difference and we wouldn't have existed
Again the premise is the provision of agency in disorder that
developed into the cosmos we know
Where did it come form.. And why is the universe popin out of no where
Second Argument which i pose is an apriori argument called the Burhan argument ie: the contingency argument posed by Ibn Sena :
Everything in the universe is contingent upon something to mainstain and sustain its existence and the universe itself is a contingent entity
A contingent entity has composed parts and the universe is comprised of parts just like a Human with Organs
Since the universe is contingent and finite what is it contingent upon to sustain the parts within . something that depends on something else (contingent) cannot cause itself as it is contingent or dependant
You cannot have infinitely contingent things as that's an infinite regress paradox that would mean the there is no starting Necessary entity where all the contingent things depend upon. Infinitely contingent things would mean Universe never began to begin with because if there are Infinitely dependent thing there is no one source that brings those dependent things into exitence
Its like you telling the first person in a queue of infinite people to pass on a message to the last person.. The message never reaches
That's why there should be something where it all stops and that is the initiator. The creator
All of that text for you to just force an
ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Pretty much every cosmological and contingency argument falls for the same fallacies: assuming the initiator was a who and the who you randomly believe in, making assumptions on before the Planck epoch, thinking of the Big Bang as a start from nowhere... Nothing of this is even supported to begin with since, at best, we just don't know as our knowledge isn't that far beyond.
Again, arguments older than yourself. Even if we accepted all your
petitio principii, you'd still find yourself in a scenario where nothing at all of what you stated supports God's existence
per se.
Stop putting your own agenda as rule, ok?
Let's see what means evolution:
Biological evolution (from Latin evolutio — "expansion") — a natural process of the development of living nature, accompanied by a change in the genetic composition of populations, the formation of adaptations, the speciation and extinction of species, the transformation of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole.
Now, evolution doesn't mean something like pokemon, which is clear truth.
But because of your ignorance, you may believe that there is not much difference between a cat and a dog, even though they are completely different types of animals. And this is not about Pokemon, but about the real world.
I said that mutations are both good and bad. I will not go into the depths of human mutations because genetics is not a science that can determine the date and time when a certain change occurred.
Therefore, let's dwell on the issue that you raised: the existence of transitional links that evolve into something else. So, I will explain to those who do not understand: the Cro-Magnon was initially considered a transitional link, until they found evidence that the Cro-Magnon is no different from a modern person. The reason why the Cro-Magnon is depicted as an ape in the books for stupid people is that it is customary to believe in evolution. And if you take an orangutan, the ignorant will not notice too much difference between them and a person, hence the belief that people descended from a monkey came from. But the devil is in the details. The difference between an orangutan and a human is enormous.
However, I'm not talking here only about people, I'm talking about animals: there is no transitional link between species, or it has not been found. And evolution claims that such must exist. Moreover, due to the fact that only some mutations can be positive, there must be hundreds of thousands of subspecies that disappeared without completing their evolution. Animals cannot take and turn into something else. Believe it or not, each animal has its own mechanisms, its own system of behavior, its own instincts. Mutations are not selective - they are always spontaneous. At the same time, each animal is a complex living organism that does not need anything. Evolution says that due to poor conditions, animals can change completely, which implies the existence of transitional links and incomplete mutations. And there is no such thing.
In summary, evolution is the belief that all life on earth was formed from a rat. There is no evidence for this.
I will call people fools that they themselves do not know what they are talking about.
That's not what evolution is. Evolution never says that all life on Earth was formed from a rat.
The way you're depicting evolution it's clear that you truly believe it works like Pokémon, whether you realize it or not. The argument of the transitional links is by itself evidence that you don't get it and believe there must be a Charmeleon between a Charmander and a Charizard. When you say this:
But because of your ignorance, you may believe that there is not much difference between a cat and a dog, even though they are completely different types of animals. And this is not about Pokemon, but about the real world.
You're making yourself look dumb because the real world is indeed a continuum of similarities between subspecies.
Felis silvestris silvestris and
Felis silvestris catus are different animals but we can make the connection between them; and this process can be progressively made through the whole animal taxonomy, because
Felis silvestris and
Felis chaus share many similarities and therefore classify them both as
Felis; between
Felis and
Acionyx and therefore classify them both as
Felinae; between those in
Felinae and those in
Pantherinae and therefore classify them both as
Felidae; between
Felidae and
Hyaenidae and therefore classify them both as
Feliformia; and between
Feliformia and
Caniformia, and therefore classify them both as
Carnivora.
Since you understand evolution as Pokémon you think of animals as types or kinds (categories that creationists use but lack any scientific value) and therefore believe there's a Pokédex of animals where numer #001 is the Bulbasaur kind all the way to #151 Mew kind. And that's bullshit, because you may find no similarity between a cat and a dog, but not only they do have similarities that put them in the same taxonomical order but the differences can be progressively traced through the evolutionary continuum the way I just elaborated. Cats and dogs are more similar to each other than carnivorans to ungulates, but these two are more similar to each other than mammals to reptiles; yet we could keep noticing the similarities throughout the taxonomical links, while your made up "type" approach to classifying depicts cats as no more different from dogs than from cows, which is factually wrong at every level of zoological study.
Evolution doesn't claim that transitional forms exist; that's another made up assumption by creationists. Evolution works, again, as a continuum and therefore no Charmeleon is expected to be found. If we knew every creature to have ever existed we'd just fill a long series of minimal changes that gradually changed a Charmander into a Charizard, but this doesn't mean that a Charmeleon must exist. Even if I played Devil's advocate, believed that transitional forms must exist and provided you with them (Dipnoos, Tetrapodomorpha, Archaeopteryx, Basilosaurus, Australopithecus, synapsid cynodonts...), you'd just move the goalpost and argue that it just creates more holes to be filled; which is expected if you believe evolution works like Pokémon but is an absurdity for those who truly know how it works.
So next time shut up by claiming people who don't believe your creationist bullshit don't know what they're talking about.