>> ^arsenault185:
Ignorant dumb fuck? Well, since he was able to mention 3 separate theories, then i would have to say hes not ignorant. Dumb? meh. He couldn't formulate a sentence to save his life. Fuck? yeah hes a fuck for giving creationists a bad name.
There is plenty of scientific fact to prove God and plenty to disprove and support evolution, life seeding, or other methods.
The biggest one that comes into my head is, if evolution were true, than large series of small mutations would have had to take place over millions of years. Well, in recorded history, there have been very few if any, mutations that led to a positive change in the biological make up of an organism. However, there have been more than enough mutations to argue against evolution. Heres a video that shows such mutations. Granted some of these may have been caused my chemicals and shit, affecting the fetal development, but things like this also occur in nature.
Now humans have evidently peaked in what we are capable of "evolving" to despite what Heroes and X-Men have to say. Because after thousands and thousands of years of recorded history, there seem to be no further evolutions, besides from rare genetic abnormalities, which are good for nothing more than conversation starters.
So if evolution is real, in the sense that man is "the retarded offspring of 5 monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel," then why did we stop evolving? Evolutionists say that evolution took place over millions of years. But man has only been around for a fraction of that. That means that the "missing link" isn'/t that far behind us, and was more than likely around for a long time as well. Another hole to the evolution theory is the "missing link" itself. Its not like there were only one or two of these man-apes. There had to be thousands of them in order to generate a populace capable of surviving the thousands of years it took to evolve into humans. So why is it we cant find them? What the hell is this about?
I could go on forever. You wont catch me berating others for their beliefs, even thought they might differ from mine. So to call some one an "Ignorant dumb fuck" for not agreeing with you, doesn't exactly help your argument.


One of the points they were trying to make to the guy in the video, which the caller completely seemed oblivious to, was that simply disproving evolution does not mean creationism is true. Creationism needs its own evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny before it can be considered true. It's not a coin with only two possibilities.

I'm assuming your first argument is that evolution can't be true because we've been unable to record it happening over time. Recorded history is an extremely small amount of time, and detailed accounts of human and animal biology have been fairly rare except since the last 100-200 years. That's really not even enough time to adequately observe small changes. You'd have to know exactly where and when to look at every point in time along history, and there would have to had have been someone there to record the exact change at each point. And what might you end up with? The brown nosed rock lizard is 1 cm longer on average than it was 4000 years ago.

Also most of the "mutations" in your video appear to be conjoined, aka two or more animals joined together because they failed to separate somewhere in the incubation process.

Also you seem to be under the impression evolution occurs at a constant rate, and at a constant rate among all species. I don't think any evolutionist worth their weight in salt thinks that. Some animals change much faster than other (like bacteria) others change much slower. Though crocodiles have changed very, very little over the millions of years they've been around. And just because people don't have laser eyes doesn't mean we have stopped evolving and reached our peak. There are tons of minor genetic differences floating around in the human species right now. Some people are taller than others, some are smarter, some have darker melanin others more readily store fat. Given the right condition one of these traits could be comes essential to survival.

This brings me to another point, just because a new condition develops doesn't mean it immediately becomes the new standard for whatever species. The a trait which later becomes and adaptive one, can exist in a species over millions of years, it is only when it becomes more advantageous does that trait become the new standard for the species. For example, if for some reason being tall became and advantageous trait, to the point where short people were much less successful at reproducing, people would become taller, and after a million or so years of this you'd almost never see a short person. My point is tall people already exist in great numbers in our population, there just isn't anything to make being tall enough of an advantage (or short enough of a disadvantage) to where the human species would collectively become tall.

And I see in the time it's taken me to write this, a few other people have responded. Hopefully quick response time for internet discussions doesn't become a mark for survival, or I'm in trouble :-(