Why is atheistic evolution absurd? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Elessar evolution can't get started. End of discussion.

@hippyjoe1955 Neither a creator. End of discussion.

No reasoning. Typical!@Elessar

@Speedyman Can you see who ended the discussion first? 😂

Can you see who never gives a reason?@Elessar

@Speedyman I've given 2 in the first comment above, if you can read.

@Elessar Those are not reasons. They are faith statements. Evolution can't get started let alone cause any diversity. Simple observation shows that. The fossil record indicates that. Silly atheists can't get their head wrapped around the idea that science is not on the side of the evolutionists. The guy who wrote chemical predestination has since come to the realization that that theory is a lie. The guys who spout neo Darwinian evolution are starting to doubt the ideas behind the theory. Even if the impossible happened that life sprang from non living matter for no reason the rest of the evolution resulting in ever more complex beings is pure bunk. Either the life form has functioning ears, eyes, sense of touch from the outset or they will never develop them on their own. How would they. The life form has no way of processing sound after the ear 'evolves' since that requires information which neo Darwinians deny exists. Thus you have an increasing number of neo Darwinians who deny we even exist.

@hippyjoe1955 Fossils alone prove the Earth and life are much older than 6000 years, and that's enough to put your beloved original creationism on the corner. It's not a matter of faith when dating from the decay of isotopes tells you something is hundreds of millions years old and not thousands.

Evolution is observable even in the small scale, take viruses mutations for instance. Also, there is no certainty that life itself originated as complex as it is now, nor there is a net border between living and non living matter. Is a virus alive?

There isn't anything remotely objective excluding hypotheses of generation from evolution and/or randomness. There is nothing remotely objective supporting the possibility of a creator, either.

@Elessar no they don't. There is that minor problem of dating the fossils. If you knew how inaccurate that is.....

@hippyjoe1955 There is a problem determining the age of stuff beyond 50,000 years, that is anyway more than 8x as long as your fandom claims the world to be. We have 14,500 years fossilized poop for instance [1] or at least 40,000 years old mural paint [2].

1. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6091/223
2. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/worlds-oldest-known-figurative-paintings-discovered-borneo-cave-180970747/


Besides, there are alternatives to radiocarbon for many of those cases, it's not that we're moving in the dark. Like, for instance, the ones described at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/how-do-scientists-date-fossils-180972391/.

So yeah, unless one got educated more than 200 years old and/or is deliberately ignorant, the two points above are valid.

There is also the minor problem for you that the fossils are in a different order in so many places to evolution predicts@Elessar

@Speedyman And the minor problem for you that they're much older than 6000 years, and that there isn't a single one of a human dated to the same period of a dinosaur.

We are not saying that the Earth is Necessarily 6000 years old. Who told you that? The other thing your dating system is a circular argument @Elessar

@Speedyman Hardcore creationists told me that. They're in your ranks, you should know them better than myself. 🤔

Hmm, not really. Read the links above.

Yes and hardcore evolutionists think that something can come from nothing if you wait long enough. It’s their trick to deceive. They think if you take a pile of dust and wait long enough it will come to life @Elessar

@Speedyman I don't know if it's any worse than assuming humanity started from multigenerational incest, eh.

Aside from the fact there's no such thing as "hardcore evolutionists", just the fact that a normally slow process is usually safe to assume to have much larger consequences if let run in a million years or even billion years timeframe. Think of tectonic activity, in the short term they the only observable effect is some quakes, in the long run it's continents moving. The only who have a problem admitting this are biased religious cultists, guess why.

Humanity didn’t start from that. Another thing you’ve got wrong! In fact evolutionary cultists get most things wrong @Elessar

@Speedyman So you admit Adam and Eve was a myth? How did humanity start?

Not at all.. Not at all. But I’d like to know how life started on earth according to you. How did that pile of earth get life? @Elessar

@Speedyman I've asked first.. who did the progeny of Adam and Eve procreate with?

They created with each other. Has it occurred to your tiny mind that things might have been a bit different then? Your problem is that you cannot think out of your tiny little 21st-century box@Elessar

@Speedyman So you indeed imply we derive from multigenerational incest since roughly 6000 years ago? And you claim evolution is impossible, while this bullcrap is the only truth? How comes we have multiple ethnicities if so, shouldn't we all be white? Or maybe you can explain that with (pretty fast, 6k years) evolution? How was it different, sister and wife were synonyms back then? 😂 If you imply genetics worked differently, them maybe also evolution did, invalidating your own (already weak) point.

Even if you believe in evolution you still believe that the human race started from around a very small number of people. In fact they confused thinking of evolutionists on the subject is legendary. And if you believe in evolution there is no reason why species couldn’t have developed. You have your answer right in front of you. Your points are terribly weak. Let’s face it you don’t even know how the thing started so you are up the creek without a paddle for a start with the BS you believe @Elessar

@Speedyman As your always you evade my questions, because you don't have answers:

If humanity generated from incest - specifically the children of two (2) individuals - how comes we have way more than two ethnicities right now in this world? Especially excluding evolution altogether. How comes more ethnicities are more prevalent in some places and less in others?

If humanity generated from incest, how comes we didn't get extinct by becoming more and more genetically "weak", as we know to be the case with people who inbred?

The only one believing bullshit here is you. That's your problem, believing. Reality doesn't care about your retard beliefs.

@Elessar From my perspective @Speedyman answered your concerns very succinctly and so effectively you are reduced to insult.