Heartbrokenbrad #fundie

Heartbrokenbrad #fundie flyleaffans.com

[In response to science not dealing in absolute proof]

then it is unreliable.you say that evolution is science and that creation is not. well guess what mark? if that is true and that science doesn't deal in absolutes is also true then creation holds more validity then evolution because evolution doesn't deal in absolutes.the thing is that it does. gravity is an absolute. if you drop something it will fall.

[next response to being YEC and denying physics, chemistry, geology, biology, etc]

ummm mark I've already used all of those fields to pawn you. every single one of them disproves evolution. but I must remember that you didn't really learn those but whatever your teachers wanted to call those.

38 comments

old comment by worldsend

............................................________........................
....................................,.-”...................``~.,..................
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
.........................,/...............................................”:,........
.....................,?......................................................\,.....
.................../...........................................................,}....
................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
.............../...................................................,:”........./.....
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\...................
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__...........
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,....
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\........................
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\.......................
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__..
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\...............
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............

old comment by Horsefeathers

"then it is unreliable."

Really? That's odd. My computer works just as it should, NASA gets their probes into orbit and onto planets just like they planned and my doctor prescribes medicine that always seems to make me feel better.

Strange that something so unreliable seems to produce such consistent results.

"you say that evolution is science and that creation is not."

Yep.

"well guess what mark? if that is true and that science doesn't deal in absolutes is also true then creation holds more validity then evolution because evolution doesn't deal in absolutes."

What?

"the thing is that it does. gravity is an absolute. if you drop something it will fall."

True, things do fall when dropped, but we have no way of knowing that it's a universal absolute. It's entirely possible, though very very unlikely, that some unknown phenomenon causes things to fall "up" somewhere in the universe. Aside from that, "up" is a relative description and gravity is not a constant as it changes depending on the mass of the object in question.

"ummm mark I've already used all of those fields to pawn you."

I refuse to take anyone seriously who uses "pwn" (or, in this case, a poorly misspelled version) while discussing scientific fields.

"every single one of them disproves evolution."

Actually, they don't.

"but I must remember that you didn't really learn those but whatever your teachers wanted to call those."

Again, what?

old comment by Thejebusfire

then creation holds more validity then evolution
In opposite land maybe.

gravity is an absolute. if you drop something it will fall.
Gravity is only a theory too. Certian balloons float up when dropped.

I've already used all of those fields to pawn you.
Actually you just used all of those fields to make yourself look stupid.

every single one of them disproves evolution.
No they do not.

but I must remember that you didn't really learn those but whatever your teachers wanted to call those.
I admit, I was horrible in biology and science. I just barely passed both classes. Most of the stuff I learned about evolution I learned after finishing school. So you can't really say I learned what my teachers wanted.

old comment by TheLastCenturion

ummm, im pretty sure that chemistry(not even TOUCHING onto biology) in general poses a nice neat argument FOR evolution. anyone who knows jack shit about chemistry knows that anything and everything in chemistry has a degree of unpredictability. IN PRACTICE, anyways. theoretically, yes, that strand of dna should copy over perfectly, and never mutate only because the odds are so low, that you should never have to worry about it. but when its IN the cell doing it, any number of things can happen to that molecule. what if a sulfur ion just kinda floats in and bumps out a nitrogen atom in some gene somewhere? has it happened? statistically guaranteed to have happened, although it would never even be considered from a theoretical standpoint. this is how evolution works. shit happens, and then that shit affects some other shit. and then you have an individual who might have slightly better bone structure, because of that ion. then, because their bones are stronger, they get to live, then all its offspring have stronger bones, and they get to live, and so do their children and their children.

and if an individual with slightly stronger muscle fiber, by chance mates with the one with strong bones, then their offspring could feasibly have both stronger muscles AND stronger bones. 2000 generations later, is it really so difficult to believe that the slight changes might compound to change the species? what if for some reason humanity moves underground, and in 5000 years we have long(and effective) noses, and eyes that we can consciously control the level of dilation of? are we still homo sapiens? obviously not, but you could never accept such a possibility, because you think nothing ever changes ever.

Heartbrokenbrad #fundie flyleaffans.com

38 comments

Confused?