Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem loli real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
evolution vs creationism
the thing about evolution
I dont need to cite evolution as a reason for evolution in the same vain that creationism does with itself
to prove my point, im going to make a comparison of some points and show how initial claim does not logically follow
Example 1
for creationism if you suppose a supernatural force created mankind isolated from the animals
then logically you would expect a entirely separate morphology and anatomy aswell as the existence of supernatural powers
yet we see no supernatural powers in humans or in animals if a supernatural force created us as the creationist supposes would we not see supernatural powers as to indicate a more super natural orgin
and b
We never see any extreme differaration in the anatomy of animals in humans infact we have the same organs in the same general areas and the same bones in the same general areas and the same reproductive organs in the same general area which wouldt make sense if we were all designed seperately from each other.
why would we be so much like animals in the anatomy we have and lacking the supernatural element which would be all around us if the fables of the bible were true
Example 1
for evolution
if you suppose that a biological change over countless millions of years are what caused humans to exist
then you would logically would find a couple things
we would find at the very least some evidence that their was lifeforms existing before humans did
Also if everything was created by magic exactly how it was today then we would find no evidence of long extinct animals. that only follows if you agree with evolution, there's no way to explain it from a creationist lens
and we would expect shared anatomy aswell as existing lifeforms which have close physical similarity
it would be absurd that if there was millions of years of biological change that only one lifeform looked human like, that kinda only follows if you think everything was created uniquely
Also it would follow that their would be groupings of ones that evolved more closely to one another
ie more related species and if everything was created magically isolated to each other then why does animals fit perfectly into groups as if they have a shared genetic relation
unless the creationist is arguing that horses and zebra's arent fitting in the same group or that ants arent fitting in the same group as bees
and if you wanna argue that fine but saying bees are as uniquely distinct from horses as they are ants would be fucking dumb
anyways
I think i proved my point
I dont need sources for evolution to say that it's a logically consistent position that follows from it's premise in the same way creationism does
none of it follows from it's premise and none of it makes any sense hence why creationism is only ever argued by fans bible of the bible who go bible right cause bible said so imagine if fans of science asserted that science is right cause the science says so, you would get laughed at
the thing about evolution
I dont need to cite evolution as a reason for evolution in the same vain that creationism does with itself
to prove my point, im going to make a comparison of some points and show how initial claim does not logically follow
Example 1
for creationism if you suppose a supernatural force created mankind isolated from the animals
then logically you would expect a entirely separate morphology and anatomy aswell as the existence of supernatural powers
yet we see no supernatural powers in humans or in animals if a supernatural force created us as the creationist supposes would we not see supernatural powers as to indicate a more super natural orgin
and b
We never see any extreme differaration in the anatomy of animals in humans infact we have the same organs in the same general areas and the same bones in the same general areas and the same reproductive organs in the same general area which wouldt make sense if we were all designed seperately from each other.
why would we be so much like animals in the anatomy we have and lacking the supernatural element which would be all around us if the fables of the bible were true
Example 1
for evolution
if you suppose that a biological change over countless millions of years are what caused humans to exist
then you would logically would find a couple things
we would find at the very least some evidence that their was lifeforms existing before humans did
Also if everything was created by magic exactly how it was today then we would find no evidence of long extinct animals. that only follows if you agree with evolution, there's no way to explain it from a creationist lens
and we would expect shared anatomy aswell as existing lifeforms which have close physical similarity
it would be absurd that if there was millions of years of biological change that only one lifeform looked human like, that kinda only follows if you think everything was created uniquely
Also it would follow that their would be groupings of ones that evolved more closely to one another
ie more related species and if everything was created magically isolated to each other then why does animals fit perfectly into groups as if they have a shared genetic relation
unless the creationist is arguing that horses and zebra's arent fitting in the same group or that ants arent fitting in the same group as bees
and if you wanna argue that fine but saying bees are as uniquely distinct from horses as they are ants would be fucking dumb
anyways
I think i proved my point
I dont need sources for evolution to say that it's a logically consistent position that follows from it's premise in the same way creationism does
none of it follows from it's premise and none of it makes any sense hence why creationism is only ever argued by fans bible of the bible who go bible right cause bible said so imagine if fans of science asserted that science is right cause the science says so, you would get laughed at
I know it's a Theory, and I'm saying Galaxies have been found further out than when the Theory suggests, meaning the Universe is older than initially thought, Why are you fighting me on this? SMH. God Damn
truly the Universe is beyond human comprehension like you said. But we humans love to categorize and to scale things.
Post automatically merged:
truly the Universe is beyond human comprehension like you said. But we humans love to categorize and to scale things.
