Well creationism offers very little in the way of explanatory power for the diversity of life on the planet and relies largely on "God done it for reasons". Young Earth Creationism is entirely precluded by numerous lines of evidence.
As for Evolution, is it mathematically impossible? How so?
@Pikachu Again, why must you repost my comments? Does it make you feel superior? Ok Mr google for brains. Snow flakes, really. Just as the wind carves beautiful patterns in the sand in the desert, so also snow flakes. There was an outdoor table the top looked like one giant snow flake beautifully formed over the entire table top snow was 5 or 6 inches thick. The wind was responsible. I wonder why? God! Wind doesn’t blow boulders into a pattern. You can do better than that. About the eye. Every single time what?? has been demonstrated? Evolutionists agree the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems absurd in the highest possible degree. They go on to say that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty in believing that could hardly be considered real. They then proceed to roughly, without any proof, as there is no fossil evidence of ancient eyes, assume a likely course for evolution using examples of more complex eyes of various species like the octopus, of course the octopus. All assumptions no way to prove it! Different species have different eye complexities because God gave them the eyes a particular species needs, the eagle, the hawk, the octopus, or the human. Every single time they can only assume what they want to believe with no proof whatsoever. Bacteria? Again it could have, assumption! Now you don’t believe there are optimal structures in evolution?? Look who doesn’t understand evolution!! Man you need to do some research and get a better idea of what you’re talking about. Ok now the chicken, just blam that’s where it came from. It’s quite a bit more complicated than that to figure out. Again assumptions have been made but nice try. What about which was first the chicken or the egg?
I find it makes it more clear to what i am responding and it helps me organize my thoughts. You prefer ai-generated walls of text, i prefer doing it this way. Deal with it.
The wind was responsible. I wonder why? God!
Nah, that's just something you claim but can't demonstrate. And you failed to address the defeater for your argument: Every time the creationist seeks to show nature is designed they do so by contrasting nature with something known to be designed.
About the eye. Every single time what?? has been demonstrated?
Oh do try to keep up. The eye was brought up with reference to the concept of irreducible complexity. That concept has been demonstrated to be false in every example. The eye in particular has been shown to have functionality at every stage because we have living organisms with versions of an eye at every stage. Google Dawkins eye evolution and you can watch a video demonstrating the concept.
Evolutionists agree the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems absurd in the highest possible degree. They go on to say that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty in believing that could hardly be considered real
....i think what you were trying to say there was that evolutionists agree that it's absurd that the eye could evolve and therefore if it could be shown to be possible...they wouldn't find it absurd? lmao woof, that was rough going. It's also a lie. Evolutionary biologists do not agree that the eye could not have evolved step-wise. Quite the contrary.
Now you don’t believe there are optimal structures in evolution??
Nope. Your eyeball has a blind spot because the optic nerve runs straight through the retina. That's not optimal. The Giraffe has a 5 meter long recurrent laryngeal nerve. That's not optimal. The human back is prone to injury in ways that other great apes are not because it's basically a quadruped spine stood up. That's not optimal. You see what i'm saying here? Evolution doesn't produce optimal structures, it produces "good enough" because the only thing that evolution is "concerned" with is making sure you live long enough to pass on your genes and that your kids do the same. Additionally, evolution will take an existing structure and modify it, while a designer (or at least an intelligent one) would just make a new optimal structure.
Congratulations: You learned something today! 😃👍
Ok now the chicken, just blam that’s where it came from. It’s quite a bit more complicated than that to figure out
lol no shit, sherlock. Of course the evolutionary pathway between dinosaurs and birds is more complicated than that. What it also is, is well understood and documented in the fossil record. There's a clear progression of more ancient animals that look fully dinosaur, later animals that start to have bird-like qualities and last of all, full birds. And wouldn't you know it: the transitional forms in the middle get hard to tell apart for sure, to the point that creationists (who deny that birds evolved from dinosaurs) can't agree on if a given animal is actually a bird or actually a dinosaur. A mosaic of features is exactly what evolution predicts and exactly what creationists struggle to explain.
Aaaaanyway. This has been fun but frankly you're not putting in enough effort to hold my attention so i'ma dip out. Feel free to do some research into these things! Facts over feelings! Data over dogma!
@Pikachu What’s the mater son? Thought you said this would be fun?? Ok I get it I guess. You need to repost mine giving yourself a reference so you don’t get lost. Makes sense. You want to look like you know what you’re talking about I guess so you insist this AI thing going on. lol nothing could be further from the truth. It’s backfiring miserably. Something I claim but can’t demonstrate?? What? My examples of the desert sand and the giant snow sculpture on the table top, which is identical to a snow flake are inarguable evidence. Do you need a picture? An eye at every stage. Really, please reread my statement about the eye. Obviously each individual eye from sea creatures to man has different eyes. You can’t conjure these differences with evolution just because there’s no fossil evidence. No sir! That dog won’t hunt. Again if you do your research correctly and carefully you will understand that your claim can only be under the assumptions of evolutionists. Not proven as you are so fondly insistent upon. Not so good of a job with your googling skills here. Dinosaurs and birds are not well understood because the only fossil record that was considered the missing link wasn’t discovered until fairly recently and now very recently there apparently are a few more. None of which can prove anything of the kind. Only assumptions. No more than living animals of today which is all you have to go on concerning the eye. In fact these so called missing links have been proven to have no genetic link whatsoever from dinosaurs to birds. Strange indeed. No comment on which was first the chicken or the egg?
If you had a bit of personal curiosity and just learned about the wonders of this amazing world not only would you believe in evolution, you'd be convinced it's the only way any of this could have happened.
