GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Drake · 09-20-2005, 05:29 AM

I can't say that it doesn't exist, but I can say that their isn't enough evidence for it. I believe that natural selection exists but that it only selects for trait(s) qualitatively good or bad depending on the environment. For example, an environment of chaos would benefit mass murderers better than kind folks. So, it's really not a wonderful barometer of merits, morality, or intelligence.

When people say that we observe mutations in germs I agree. Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it. I believe that germs and those living things smaller than germs are more complex then we think. Even when we observe a mutation or evolution of a germ, whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean it has evolved. It could simply mean that it was exposed to a catalyst allowing the mutation to find expression. For example, my cells are healthy but if I'm exposed to radiation they are likely to mutate into cancer cells. They have a disposition to always become cancer cells but they don't because the environment I live in ensures that expression of the cells never comes to the fore. And if the cancer winds up killing me (the host in which the cancer cells dwell), how can this be considered evolution. If this happened to everybody, their would be no more humans.

After evolutionists failed to convingly demonstrate evolution based on fossils records and natural selection, they've moved on to the study of 'speciation', a study that has as many scientists who say it's been demonstrated as those who say it hassn't. It's a study that tries to determine at which point a simple life form can be considered having changed into new species.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why evolution is implausible to me. I could go on at length why for example a cell changing a millions times into something supposedly new doesn't mean man evolved from single cells because at some point those cells would have to become a multi-faceted, multi-celled creature, which is something that has never been observed. I could go on at length about how statistically believing in evolution flies in the face of mathematics. I could go on at length about the gross assumptions about how the environment would have had to exist for millions of years in order to preserve life while in its infancy and most delicate stages. And so much more...

09-20-2005, 05:29 AM
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	I can't say that it doesn't exist, but I can say that their isn't enough evidence for it. I believe that natural selection exists but that it only selects for trait(s) qualitatively good or bad depending on the environment. For example, an environment of chaos would benefit mass murderers better than kind folks. So, it's really not a wonderful barometer of merits, morality, or intelligence. When people say that we observe mutations in germs I agree. Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it. I believe that germs and those living things smaller than germs are more complex then we think. Even when we observe a mutation or evolution of a germ, whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean it has evolved. It could simply mean that it was exposed to a catalyst allowing the mutation to find expression. For example, my cells are healthy but if I'm exposed to radiation they are likely to mutate into cancer cells. They have a disposition to always become cancer cells but they don't because the environment I live in ensures that expression of the cells never comes to the fore. And if the cancer winds up killing me (the host in which the cancer cells dwell), how can this be considered evolution. If this happened to everybody, their would be no more humans. After evolutionists failed to convingly demonstrate evolution based on fossils records and natural selection, they've moved on to the study of 'speciation', a study that has as many scientists who say it's been demonstrated as those who say it hassn't. It's a study that tries to determine at which point a simple life form can be considered having changed into new species. This is just the tip of the iceberg of reasons why evolution is implausible to me. I could go on at length why for example a cell changing a millions times into something supposedly new doesn't mean man evolved from single cells because at some point those cells would have to become a multi-faceted, multi-celled creature, which is something that has never been observed. I could go on at length about how statistically believing in evolution flies in the face of mathematics. I could go on at length about the gross assumptions about how the environment would have had to exist for millions of years in order to preserve life while in its infancy and most delicate stages. And so much more... Last edited by Drake; 09-20-2005 at 05:32 AM..