If evolutionary theory is wrong, can you explain…

how come viruses are becoming more resistant to antibiotics?

is it:

a) A virus with the strength to resist the antibiotic, passes that strength onto its siblings though its genes.

b) Mummy virus sits down with her siblings and explains this cool trick she learned.


c) It’s all part of gods divine plan. The virii shall inherit the earth.


d) It’s not our place to question the will of (the) god(s), therefore I shall not think about this…


e) ?

Oh, I think its only fair to warn you… anyone quoting vast swathes of scripture/holy text at me, being offensive, or trolling will have their comments removed. I want your thoughts.


Software developer by day, scale model builder and wargamer by night.

Posted in Creation vs. Evolution, Uncategorized
4 comments on “If evolutionary theory is wrong, can you explain…
  1. I think it’s hilarious how you continuously mix apples and oranges. 🙂

    The Apple; Fact: It’s a known fact that lifeforms change based on many different circumstances. Humans have changed based on regions they live in and the food they eat. Animals have changed based on what they eat or what has wanted to eat them. These are already known values, so it’s completely understandable that a virus can change to survive in a changing environment.

    The Orange; Theory: A virus will never change into a completely new entity that is no longer a virus. It will never grow legs and eyes and start walking around. There is no proof that this phenomenon will occur or ever has. It’s just a theory.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree = “Phylogenetic trees do not necessarily (and likely do not) represent actual evolutionary history.”

  2. Richard@Home says:

    I think its hilarious how you still ascribe naturally occurring phenomenon to the work of an ‘invisible friend’ 😉

    The Orange: Sigh. You are either deliberately not keeping up with things or (more likely) falling into the ‘no thinking here’ mentality your belief system promotes.

    There are many 1/2 way fossils. We have fossil evidence of eyes developing, of wings forming, of 1/2 lizard 1/2 birds and there are many living examples of 1/2 way creatures (lung fish for example).

    Don’t try the “Irreducible Complexity” argument here. It was laughed out of court in America and holds no water here for the same reasons. If you don’t know what it was laughed out of court you have some catching up to do.

    “A virus will never change into a completely new entity that is no longer a virus.”

    Do you have evidence to back that statement up?

    If you don’t require proof to back up YOUR assessment of the world I don’t see why I should have to 😉

    “But”, you will say, “by your own measure of evidence, we can’t prove a virus will mutate into a new species”. We also can’t prove there’s no Santa Clause. Just because we can’t prove something doesn’t automatically mean any other competing theory MUST be true.

    “It’s just a theory”. If you are going to argue ‘scientifically’ please make sure you know your science. Read the definition of what ‘Scientific Theory’ really means. It’s not what you, and seemingly every other creationist think.

    Your arguments against natural science are pure conjecture at best until you can offer ONE shred of evidence (and I don’t mean it’s written in some book), or better yet multiple, distinct sources of evidence to back them up. You might as well say imaginary pink elephants made the world. And its all true because you say so!

    Trying to punch holes in Evolutionary Theory is pointless. You can (and so far haven’t to any satisfactory measurement) try to pick holes in it, but there are countless others pieces of evidence that contribute to the whole. Take away the fossil record for example, and we still have a genome that contains neanderthal elements, we still have observable natural selection in the wild, we still have…

    Your arguments are betrayed by your own Coccyx!

  3. I don’t think you have been paying attention to what I’ve been saying. I’ve said in one of my previous postings that my “invisible friend” should not be factored in. A “creator” should only be viewed as simply another theory and proven/disproven just as any other theory. I completely agree with you, that we should search for the truth using scientific methods only.

    I believe science proves that there was a central point to existence. I believe science also proves that life is much more complex than Darwin could have ever expected, which may have required some form of external engineering.

    So my argument isn’t against science, but actually for it.

    Hypothetical: If an object falls to earth in the shape of a pyramid and this object is not made of a material we are currently aware of, would science assume logically that it was created by another civilization on another planet? There would be tons of “unknown” values, but both the known and unknown would be used to deduce a solution to its origin.

    My goal isn’t to punch holes in the Evolutionary Theory, it’s to get everyone to accept the parts of the theory that are scientifically true and to discard the parts that are scientifically false. True science looks at everything logically from a reproducible standpoint. One of the scientific knowns, is that we only have the fossil records of the tips of the evolutionary trees. Science does prove that natural selection does occur and that animals, insects, and plants do evolve to a certain point based on many different circumstances. Logically speaking we know that just as Word and Excel have a lot of the same code, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are even remotely the same program. We do logically assume that two different programs with the same basic “code” are written from the same source.

    You are doing the very same thing you are arguing against. You are filling in the holes of unknowns with further unknowns. Talk about your pink elephant. I’m saying both sides need to stop doing this and throw out anything that doesn’t make any logical sense.

    By the way, my virus statement was based on the billions of scientific experiments and scientific observations we have available today.

    Maybe you taught me something though. What fossil record displays a developing eye? As far back as I’ve seen, all animals have had fully developed eye sockets. I agree that an animal can lose their eyes/sockets, but I’ve never seen any examples of one that gained them? We can get into all the other so-called 1/2 examples later.

  4. Richard@Home says:

    hehe, I was 1/2 a bottle down a good bottle of red wine when I wrote my last comment. Apologies. I came across a little more abrupt than I intended. That’s the state of mind you get into when you go up against religious dogma day after day…

    To be honest, finding a religious believer who is willing to listen and discuss threw me off kilter 😉

    As to the 1/2 an eye. That wasn’t ‘strictly’ what I meant.

    I meant to say ‘primitive’ eye. That is to say, an eye capable of detecting light and dark without being able to identify shapes for example. We don’t need a fossil record to show this, we have living creatures currently in this state. We have living fossils currently in this state (horseshoe crab for example).

    A primitive eye destroys the ID main argument of irreducible complexity. A primitive eye IS still useful.

    What we can do is to look at how probable something is.

    The evidence (from the natural world around us and the evidence provided by the fossil record and pretty much every branch of science we have) point towards the most probable answer being that life has evolved slowly over 100’s of millions of years. This timescale is backed up by geological, radiological, astronomical and other sciences.

    One of the problems most people have with the Darwins theory is the time scales involved. Richard Dawkins offhandedly remarked it would probably take something in the region of 10,000 years for any significant change or new species to evolve. We are talking about macro level changes after all.

    As we don’t live for 10,000 years and we don’t have records (other than an incomplete fossil record) that stretch back that far it’s a little tricky to ‘prove’. You can’t hold a sensible discussion on this topic with someone who believes EVERYTHING is less than 10,000 years old…

    The probability of an intelligent designer by all counts, is rapidly approaching zero (we can never prove there is no god in the same way we can’t prove there never was a unicorn).

    Every time we discover a new scientific proof or a new fossil, it erodes the probability of their being a creator. It answers a question that used to be answered ‘ahh, thats easy: god did it – and we must never question god’.

    Fossils fit into a pattern, and every new fossil falls into their place in the pattern. They start of simple and get more complicated over time. You can’t argue with something written in stone can you? 😉

    When we see stratified rocks, we can see how the layers build up over time. We can observe how the fossils of creatures are arranged. We see how certain fossils never occur before a certain time. We have found no fossils of tyrannosaurids that occur more than 120 million years ago for example.

    God has been called ‘The God Of Gaps’ – that is to say, as our knowledge increases, the gaps that god fills by answering the unanswerable, diminish.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: