Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
In your response you stated, "Both science and history prove that grass can not evolve into a higher primate or any animal."
That statement begs this question: If natural selection is by definition (unless it, too, has evolved) a random process, and if everything -from living to inanimate matter is related- why does everything that's supposed to have "evolved" become more complex? Why is the idea of devolution rejected by the majority of the "scientific community"?
Gosh darn it, it's a blind, random process, but everything seems to start as a molecule and end up as a man! This is what we call a "mutually exclusive truth claim."
In truth, Darwinists are simply practicing bad science, since their science is built on a false philosophy. Basically, it's their religion of naturalism that leads them to ignore actual empirical science.
But I congratulate Darwinists for managing to demonize actual empirically detectable scientific evidence, and dupe the public into believing just the opposite. This shows bad philosophy results in bad science.
For example, your belief system operates on the unreasonable idea of materialism. But the specified complexity in life cannot be explained by unintelligent natural laws any more than this post I'm writing now.
Also, the very thoughts of humans, including those theories of materialism and macroevolution, are not simply comprised of chemicals. Darwin's theory isn't just a bunch of molecules.
Next, if life were nothing more than materials, we'd be able to take dirt (which contains all the materials for life) and make a living being. We can't. There is something clearly beyond material makeup to a living thing. Can any atheist explain why one body is living and one is dead? They both contain the same chemicals. How can a body be alive one minute and dead the next? What material combinations account for consciousness? Explaining consciousness has always been a great problem for the Darwinist. (I know, I know, give it a trillion years and we'll finally understand it.)
Finally, if your religion of Darwinism is true, then reason cannot exist. After all, if mental processes are only chemical reactions in the brain, how can it be said that anything we see, touch, hear, smell, taste, or believe is true? Is your opinion about evolution true? Since your thoughts are just a mass of chemical interactions, how can anything you say be considered "true"? Chemicals and natural processes don't evaluate, they simply react.
I'm looking forward to more rants about it only being liars and shysters selling stuff who dispute Darwinism. :)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.