The Moon and Design

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
To limit evolution to randomness merely demonstrates you haven't bothered to learn what evolution is.

Go away, read up on the theory of evolution, then come back with better questions.

Are you saying that evolution had a purpose?

If so, then intellect is involved.

Originally posted by chaney3
Are you saying that evolution had a purpose?

If so, then intellect is involved.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying you have made no effort to understand what evolution actually entails.

Why is that?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
No, I am not saying that. I am saying you have made no effort to understand what evolution actually entails.

Why is that?

You are assuming that evolution cares about survival.

If evolution has no intellect, it would be neutral and random.

Your claims that evolution made adjustments to benefit survival only serve to assign purpose and intellect.

Originally posted by chaney3
You are assuming that evolution cares about survival.

If evolution has no intellect, it would be neutral and random.

Your claims that evolution made adjustments to benefit survival only serve to assign purpose and intellect.

Again, where have I stated ' evolution made adjustments to benefit survival?'

I'm beginning to think you're hearing voices.

Originally posted by chaney3
This sounds like deflection to me, since you are assuming science has a clue how the human body first began. Which they do not.

Most on this forum seem to pick up on the theory of evolution 'after' there was something to work with, while blatantly pushing aside what took place to begin with.

Creation is much more logical than science offering no explanation at all.

The burden falls on science, not the creator.

Why couldn't the human body have come about without "design"?

Originally posted by chaney3
It sounds like you are giving evolution an intellect,.

no it doesn't, moron.

Originally posted by chaney3
If evolution has no intellect, and is random, then evolution would not care about survival.

Evolution doesn't care about ANYTHING moron and natural selection and therefore evolution is certainly not completely random but is at least partially predictable.
Before you babble totally ignorant crap about science, you should at the very least have the absolute minimum decency to first LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Why don't you ever do that? What are you afraid of?

Originally posted by humy
Evolution doesn't care about ANYTHING moron and natural selection and therefore evolution is certainly not completely random but is at least partially predictable.
Before you babble totally ignorant crap about science, you should at the very least have the absolute minimum decency to first LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Why don't you ever do that? What are you afraid of?

Since you don't have a clue regarding origin of life, you are merely making assumptions about evolution.

You pick up on evolution after 'something' happened.

Whether you admit it or not, you are giving evolution intellct by assuming 'it' cares whatsoever about survival of the fittest.

It's not my problem that you worship Darwin, as your god.

Originally posted by chaney3
Since you don't have a clue regarding origin of life, you are merely making assumptions about evolution.

You pick up on evolution after 'something' happened.

Whether you admit it or not, you are giving evolution intellct by assuming 'it' cares whatsoever about survival of the fittest.

It's not my problem that you worship Darwin, as your god.

Evolution doesn't care. Evolution is brutal.

If creation is a result of design, is God brutal?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Evolution doesn't care. Evolution is brutal.

If creation is a result of design, is God brutal?

It was and never will be my intent to explain 'why', regarding God.

The 'how' of creation makes more sense with design, than explanations given by Darwin and science.

Originally posted by chaney3
Since you don't have a clue regarding origin of life, you are merely making assumptions about evolution.

You pick up on evolution after 'something' happened.

Whether you admit it or not, you are giving evolution intellct by assuming 'it' cares whatsoever about survival of the fittest.

It's not my problem that you worship Darwin, as your god.

Since you don't have a clue regarding origin of life, you are merely making assumptions about evolution.

I DO have a clue regarding origin of life, moron. This has been well researched.

But even if hypothetically I didn't, that is a totally illogical gibberish assertion;
How I can I be making 'assumption' about evolution by not not having a clue regarding origin of the first life when evolution is NOT a theory about the origin of the first life?
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

you are giving evolution intellct by assuming 'it' cares whatsoever about survival of the fittest.

I just CLEARLY asserted that it doesn't care about anything. And evolution is NOT about survival of the fittest you ignorant moron.
It is the tendency for inheritable adaptations favoring greater probability to pass on genes to be naturally selected and, in the process, the survival of the individual, no matter how 'fit', is often sacrificed. Worker bees may sacrifice their lives to defend the hive and natural selection favors that because that maximizes them passing on their genes which they share with the queen bee. So how 'fit' and the survival of any particular one of those bees that sacrifice themselves is is pretty much irrelevant to evolution.
You obviously don't have a clue to what you are talking about. Learn what evolution IS before talking about it.

Originally posted by humy

Since you don't have a clue regarding origin of life, you are merely making assumptions about evolution.

I DO have a clue regarding origin of life, moron. This has been well researched.

But even if hypothetically I didn't, that is a totally illogical gibberish assertion;
How I can I be making 'assumption' about evolution by not not h ...[text shortened]... on't have a clue to what you are talking about. Learn what evolution IS before talking about it.

Sorry humy, but your 'scientific' opinion is sounding more like magic, with all the 'probabilities' that needed to occur. You assume too much.

Do you believe in Merlin?

Originally posted by chaney3
Sorry humy, but your 'scientific' opinion is sounding more like magic,

Only to the ears of a moron. And they aren't just 'opinions' but established proven scientific facts.

Originally posted by humy
Only to the ears of a moron. And they aren't just 'opinions' but established proven scientific facts.

Science doesn't know.

The fact that you reduce your argument to name calling with "moron", only proves that your science is based on Darwin, which gets proven wrong as the years go by.

Can you prove origin of life? No. Can you explain how the sun, moon and earth are positioned where they are? No.

Stop assuming humy.

Originally posted by chaney3


Can you prove origin of life? .

Yes, I can prove Earth life has an origin by deduction;
Life exists on Earth.
The Earth once didn't exist.
Therefore there once existed no Earth life.
Therefore there existed a first Earth life.
That first Earth life must have had an origin.

That inference isn't assuming anything because it is valid deduction.

Can you prove no origin of life?

Can you prove magic/Goddidit?
If not, you are assuming.