• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why evolution is an atheist hoax (in 50 items)

wellwisher said:
If you look at evolution, it is connected to natural selection and reproduction. Reproduction passes on the genes which define evolution. The problem with homosexuality is this does not reproduce, and therefore does not follow the path of evolution as described by science.

Pick any genetic trait, besides homosexuality so it is not political. Next, do not allow that trait to breed. What does science predict in terms of genetic and evolutionary theory? Those genes should be lost. If homosexuality is natural, than the theory of evolution is wrong, and/or needs to be revised. Being able to pass genes on without reproduction, would imply that sexual reproduction is not needed for evolution. This contradicts Darwin. Does this imply a type of virgin birthing affect, where the mother makes internal change in her eggs, before conception? That would totally change evolution.

Homosexuality has more in common with Creationism, since it appears to be selected in a way that is different from evolution.
Click to expand...

<alt>doxygen said:
Just pointing out that your premise is flawed.
Click to expand...

You've misunderstood evolution, wellwisher. Natural selection is not some "all-powerful" magical guiding force that's planning to produce The Perfect Organism. It's a unfair, ambling process that punishes/rewards individual organisms by almost sheer chance, because the environment is ever-changing. It'll be hot one day, cold the next, and thus evolution has no master plan. It never follows a linear progression. An individual's genome will get passed to the next generation of the species simply because it's good enough.

That's why it takes thousands of generations or hundreds of thousands of years to result in even minor changes.

Additionally that's why horrendous genetic diseases, or hereditary behaviors and traits that are completely antithetical to successful reproduction continue to exist in humans and other species. Sure, the environment may select against those traits, but if the organism is just good enough at surviving, those anti-reproductive behaviors and traits will continue to be passed down to the next generation unaffected.
 
Last edited:
Nickyjo said:
Agreed. The nuns taught me in the 1950s that the Bible tells us who made the world. Science tells us how He did it.

Case closed.

Cf. "Inherit the Wind"
Click to expand...

Yeahs. I'm not sure its Yahweh, but I believe the university is an artefact of some kind. A mad thing. A construct.

And evolution as the mechanism of creation was patently obvious at like 8 years old.

Totally resolves the conflict.
 
Elvira said:
She is still a dog and she is not a little Chihuahua either...:roll:
Click to expand...

But developed during the same period using the mechanisms of evolution.

I actually like to think that whatever created all of this they chose to start it and watch it unfold.

Baked a cake instead of just manifesting it frosted and ready to eat.

Time is part of the construct. It wouldn't affect its creator.

There's a lot of pushback against evolution because of pride, I believe.

People.don't think their ancient ancestors were descended from the apes.

But it is clear that the creator was riffing on a theme.

Think apes are bicycles and hominids motorcycles.

Vastly different in complexity, but two wheeled, gyroscopically stable, usually chain driven.

One came first and the other later. The latter built on the successes of the former.
 
brothern said:
You've misunderstood evolution, wellwisher. Natural selection is not some "all-powerful" magical guiding force that's planning to produce The Perfect Organism. It's a unfair, ambling process that punishes/rewards individual organisms by almost sheer chance, because the environment is ever-changing. It'll be hot one day, cold the next, and thus evolution has no master plan. It never follows a linear progression. An individual's genome will get passed to the next generation of the species simply because it's good enough.

That's why it takes thousands of generations or hundreds of thousands of years to result in even minor changes.

Additionally that's why horrendous genetic diseases, or hereditary behaviors and traits that are completely antithetical to successful reproduction continue to exist in humans and other species. Sure, the environment may select against those traits, but if the organism is just good enough at surviving, those anti-reproductive behaviors and traits will continue to be passed down to the next generation unaffected.
Click to expand...

What happens is not that some random chance effects survival, but that an organism has a need ans sends forth a desire and orders up from the Godhead, "How can I have this next time?"

It is not true that all mutations are bad, so whether the beam was sent up the cores by one experience, or many over generations, the necessary mutations are produced, or come along statistically and are held on to and built upon.

Eventually, the gene is spread across the population

In five thousand years everybody is descended from everybody five thousand years before.
 
Last edited:
Elvira said:
She is still a dog and she is not a little Chihuahua either...:roll:
Click to expand...

Is there some reason you were afraid to even answer the question?
 
Deuce said:
Is there some reason you were afraid to even answer the question?
Click to expand...

There is no question to answer...they're all of the same species...that does not/has not changed...
 
Elvira said:
There is no question to answer...they're all of the same species...that does not/has not changed...
Click to expand...

Wolves are the same species as dogs? Man, someone tell science.
 
Deuce said:
Wolves are the same species as dogs? Man, someone tell science.
Click to expand...

Don't need to, science already knows this.

Can wolves breed with dogs ?

The answer is yes.

QED: Wolves and Dogs are of the same species.
 
Rich2018 said:
Don't need to, science already knows this.

Can wolves breed with dogs ?

The answer is yes.

QED: Wolves and Dogs are of the same species.
Click to expand...

Thank you for demonstrating one of the issues with defining species.

Well, rather for naming an example of thus. There's interbreeding issues with fox/wolf/coyote/dog/etc. Gets complicated..

Chihuaha's and timberwolves are physically incapable of interbreeding despite hypothetical genetic compatibility.
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
Don't need to, science already knows this.
Can wolves breed with dogs ? The answer is yes.
QED: Wolves and Dogs are of the same species.
Click to expand...
Elvira said:
There is no question to answer...they're all of the same species...that does not/has not changed...
Click to expand...

That's not true. The capability to breed and produce offspring doesn't mean that two organisms are the same species. There are many animals that are different species, but are able to produce offspring via forced mating or artificial insemination: lions/tigers, killer whales/dolphins, zebras/horses, donkeys/horses, sheep/goat, camel/llama. (Though many of the offspring are infertile or unhealthy.)

Likewise think of ring species like larus gulls or greenish warblers. This is a situation where species A can mate with B and B can mate with C, but C cannot mate with A. Some groups of species even complete the ring and hybridization will occur in A-B, B-C, C-D and D-A; but none of the pairings can produce offspring say between B and D or A and C.
 
azgreg said:
animaciya_86.gif
Click to expand...

I love those animals, they have such a wonderful and long neck, the gerenuk, also known as the giraffe gazelle.
 
gulfman said:
I'm convinced I am a direct decendant of the cave man
Click to expand...

I have seen men you could mistake for hairless gorilla's, face's you could mistake for a monkey's face. Hell it is said that even the president has some ape like characteristics

de1a58c308c8c93ea03b0d2d6da5187a.jpg

hqdefault.jpg
 
Islam scholar said:
Modern Western "science" is not credible evidence, Western "scientists" say that homosexuality is normal and genetic and that a baby is a "fetus" instead of a person - despite this contradicting what God has revealed to be truth. It is simply deception motivated by a secular agenda.
Click to expand...


The only agenda by science is to follow evidence where it leads, which really doesn't fit the definition of "agenda".

Where the evidence doesn't lead is that the universe was created by a God.

It's not that they don't want it to lead to that conclusion, it's just that the evidence doesn't support it. If it did, they would uphold it.

Believer's in God, their only "evidence" is what is told to them in their respective book, the Quran, The Bible, etc.

But that is not evidence. What it actually is is circular logic. I.e., "The Bible says it was written by God", but the only evidence for God is the bible.

If I wrote a book and in the book it declared I was God, could I offer the book as proof that I'm God?

Of course not, it's circular reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom