The better half of the joke

[Eloi]

... is that evolutionists not only say that some animal species come from previous ones, but they also say that each plant species comes from another previous one (or that they used to say BEFORE)... This, after, according to them, plants stopped living in the water to start living on land... kind of like when fish ceasing to be aquatic to become semi-terrestrial amphibians ... or humans stopped living in caves to start building houses

Did you know this part of the story? It is never ending.

Do you think that the millions of years that the planet has existed are enough for so many SUPERDUPERULTRASLOW transformations that these scientists talk about?

[brunumb]

Practically no fossil animal is so rare or exotic that a modern counterpart of it cannot be found. The fossil animals of millions of years ago are still fish, reptiles, birds, quadrupeds, etc like the modern ones are.

Is the earth millions of years old? I thought that the Bible indicates that it it in the order of 6000 years old.

[brunumb]

The fossil record does not prove that transmutation from one species to another is true... no matter how many fossils have been unearthed, none of them is something we cannot see today.

Actually, most of them are species that we no longer see today. What modern animals have you observed in the fossil record?

[Clownboat]

The fossil record does not prove that transmutation from one species to another is true... no matter how many fossils have been unearthed, none of them is something we cannot see today. In any case, the only thing they demonstrate is the biological diversity within each species; that is not the evolution that you want to defend.

I don't know what you're trying to make believe that the number of fossils found has something to do with transmutation from one species to another. One thing has nothing to do with another... except when they make up strange tales, making believe that fossils are missing links. They are not, except in your imagination.

Fossils of any species are found in the same strata. Do you know what that means? It means they all came up pretty much at once, not one after the other.

No one have to be an expert in evolutionary theory to know what's going on. It is a widely known and discussed theory since it was invented... it has never ceased to be fiction, interpretations of findings that unsuccessfully try to make believe that animals came from each other, plants from each other, etc.

Besides, I don't even have to be a believer to realize reality, so every time you try to make believe that my religion or the Bible has something to do with my reasoning, you're just being fallacious ... and show how desperate you are to hide the reasoning.

By rejecting established science, evolution deniers place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel like they're the experts and that's a good feeling. So why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?
That is all that is going on here.

[boatsnguitars]

No offense, but it appears to me that Eloi is doing this for attention, or to get his weekly dose of feeling persecuted.

I think we need to stop entertaining people who are obviously ignorant of the science they wish to discuss. This is grade school trolling and nothing more.

[Eloi]

Have you ever heard an evolutionist speculate about the process in which our eyes began to distinguish the beauty of nature and its colors, our ears to enjoy the sound of birds, our noses of the perfumes of flowers, or our palates of the rich flavors of fruits, and to be aware of all the benefits that we enjoy on our planet without having to do anything to make them there for us?

Do you think that those correlations between human sense enjoyment and specific qualities of nature are pure chance? If those had been blind processes, how long would it have taken to become the enjoyment of life that we human beings enjoy today?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #25]

Have you ever heard an evolutionist speculate about the process in which our eyes began to distinguish the beauty of nature and its colors ...

Sure have. You can read one paper here where evolution of the eye and how long that might have taken is considered via evolution (and this is just for the type of eyes humans and many other animals have ... eyes evolved multiple times in different types such as the compound eyes of insects):

http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfar ... c_1994.pdf

Do you think that those correlations between human sense enjoyment and specific qualities of nature are pure chance? If those had been blind processes, how long would it have taken to become the enjoyment of life that we human beings enjoy today?

Read the paper above. Your use of the phrase "pure chance" just illustrates, once again, that you don't understand even the basics of how evolution works. Google "natural selection" and get an understanding of what that means. It would be a good start. Most of your comments assume that humans just appeared, fully formed, as they are today (because of the creation story you believe). But since that is not how it happened, and we know that with 100% certainty, any ideas based on that false premise will obviously be wrong.

[Eloi]

Yeah, sure

So many things evolutioning in so short time, that a science fiction movie comes to mind.

Have you ever thought about how many finished things would have been required to be able to finish each one of the others? Nothing in creation is independent of the rest. You need more than the time of the entire Universe to make believable that fiction.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #27]

So many things evolutioning in so short time, that a science fiction movie comes to mind.

Is Covid a science fiction movie? How do you think it is changing over time into the different variants? That's right ... it is evolving, and in a very short time frame in front of everyone's eyes. But you somehow don't believe it can happen despite the fact that we can sequence the full genome and see it happen.

Have you ever thought about how many finished things would have been required to be able to finish each one of the others? Nothing in creation is independent of the rest. You need more than the time of the entire Universe to make believable that fiction.

Finished things needed to finish other things? Not sure I can decipher what that is supposed to mean. But clearly you don't need more time than the age of the universe for evolution to have produced mammals (of which humans are a member) from single-celled organisms because it happened just during the 4.6 billion years Earth has existed, which is billions of years younger than the universe. So however you arrived at a time longer than the universe has existed (pulled out of thin air most likely, or do you have anything to actually back that claim up?), it is demonstrably wrong.

[boatsnguitars]

Yeah, sure

So many things evolutioning in so short time, that a science fiction movie comes to mind.

Have you ever thought about how many finished things would have been required to be able to finish each one of the others? Nothing in creation is independent of the rest. You need more than the time of the entire Universe to make believable that fiction.

The problem with Evolution Deniers is that even if we were to show you how it's all possible, and how it makes perfect sense, you would invent some other objection.

You have exposed yourself: you are trying to talk about something you clearly have not researched and don't care to.

But, I imagine you feel special sitting at the adults table and they're actually responding to your silliness.

[Clownboat]

Yeah, sure

So many things evolutioning in so short time, that a science fiction movie comes to mind.

Have you ever thought about how many finished things would have been required to be able to finish each one of the others? Nothing in creation is independent of the rest. You need more than the time of the entire Universe to make believable that fiction.

So evolution is not possible in your mind?
Since that is your stance, did Noah have 8.7 million species of animals on the ark, or do you in fact believe in a level of evolution that would make a biologist blush?

Eloi = Evolution is not possible! Except for this crazy fast evolution that happened after the flood.

Eloi, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it can happen or it can't. You don't just get to have your preferred version of evolution while ignoring the one we have mountains of evidence for. Your reasoning is faulty and is rejected.