1. As I said I dont believe the earth is 7,000 years old. I keep an open mind that it could be billions of years old and perhaps even more. But what do fossils have to do with anything? Once again, you are putting the entire evolution of an entire species on one units mutation. You actually think that this one mutated and evolved reptile spawned the entire new generation of reptiles with the same trait, and that information was never lost. Thats nonsense. The odds of every member of a species evolving a trait and being able to pass that along is already disproved in labs. When virus's are subjected to harsh conditions, they die. When a species is subjected to harsh conditions, they die. Its possible a few survived, but the idea that the entire species can then be reborn with the new traits forever onward is NONSENSE. and your fossils prove it. The same dinosaurs found on the western hemisphere adapted the same traits as the same type of dino found on the eastern hemisphere separated by thousands of miles well after pangea split apart...yet somehow that uncommon adapted and evolved trait formed around the world? Lol is all i can say to that one.
2. That is 100% your opinion and not fact in the slightest degree. You'd never be able to tell if this species was related and the evolved form of another. Over billions of years, the changes would be so drastic, you'd not be able to see it. The simple fact that you said this is proof that you think sudden drastic changes have to had occurred all at the same time across the entire species.
3. Carbon Dating is proven to be dreadfully inaccurate. There was a discovery program on recently that showed a scientists trying to date a synthetic something with a real thing, both were dated the same and one was created hours before in a lab. Its a joke of a test and not at all credible. Your textbooks say it, therefore its true to you.
4. If you could prove that, you would be the absolutely first being on earth to do so. The only thing that connects us in my mind is that we are born of the same atoms and material found after stars explode. That entire logic in nonsense.
5. Once again, that is not a logical defense in the slightest. You again think that one mutated creature in a species that is composed of possible hundreds of billions like insects, repopulated the entire species with that one trait that lingered onward for billions of years. Sorry, but flies that exist in Russia adapted the same traits as those found in Canada. Separated by thousands of miles and subjected to different conditions but all of them adapted the same way? You think because we have remnants of a tailbone that we are somehow related to another species? Thats not at all proven or scientific fact and is 100% fabricated opinion.
Getting back to what this was about, I believe that evolution is set forth by a control, a god or whatever you wish to call it. I do not believe that 0 can produce a number that not only repeats itself infinitely, but is a specific number that adapted itself to fit the conditions around it on a universal scale. The day you can justify 0+0=any number is the day I wont believe in god.
the idea that God is 1 and always existed is mathematically and scientifically accurate, and that 1 always existed and created. 1+x=y
the idea that there is no god and the universe always existed as a singularity represented by 0, but then created something else on an infinitely repeating and SPECIFIC to the needs of life at the start of all things is NONSENSE. 0+0=0. Those who dont believe in god denounce all mathematics. the idea that nothing created itself and then something else and again something else repeating a specific number
deadpool86x
1. DNA is passed forward. This is why people tend to look awfully similar to other members of their family. It is true that unused DNA generally mutates over time in a population, as there is no selective force preventing it from changing. But advantageous mutations will always be passed on because if it wasn't the organism would likely die. Furthermore, you do not need two copies of an advantageous gene for it to manifest, so the "two animals with the same mutation" example you had is completely fallacious.
2. He's pointing out phenotypic (and genetic for more recent species) similarities that only exist because of common descent.
3. Err, it's not just textbooks, but the consistent radiometric decay of elements is what a large amount of chemistry is based on. Carbon dating is not "dreadfully inaccurate" as you put it, it has been able to successfully cross-date things that we know the age of. It's not ideal in all situations, especially for many synthetic materials due to the methods we use to create them, but we can use other elements to verify that certain things are the age we think they are.
4. Look at any taxonomy system.
5. How are these two flies exactly the same? I'd be willing to be they have significant differences based on when they both diverged genetically. Are you saying that vestigial traits that line up exactly with common evolutionary descent are just coincidences? That we just happen to share specific genes and DNA codes in exactly the same places with other organisms, and those genes become more similar based on how closely we are related to said organisms?
Log in to comment