Sponge Bob disproves Darwin?

[justsayin']

I was kinda wondering........where can one get a pair of square pants???

(Ha ha ha) I laugh so hard. Maybe he's got a spare pair you could borrow

[crawfish]

I'm a biologist and I have proven that Python is an infinitely better language than Java.

[BrianW]

I'm so glad to see some with knowledge about the subject trying to edify the OP by discussing his theory and offering helpful suggestions in area's that may need correction.
I'm also glad to see others that do not seem to have knowledge of this subject offering loving encouragement to a brother because we are after all commanded to love each other.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8


⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

[SirToady]

Darwin will never be wholly disproved, because some aspects of the theory of evolution are incontrovertible.

You can now return to your silliness.

It is true that changing geological and ecological environments affect all species over periods of time. But, what is even more silly are those who assert that everything in the universe just magically came out of nothingness. The complexity, conditions, and requirements required for a living being are so unique that there is no chance that life - any kind of life - was accidental. It is amazing how much vanity blinds the obvious.

[Athanasius]

It is true that changing geological and ecological environments affect all species over periods of time. But, what is even more silly are those who assert that everything in the universe just magically came out of nothingness. The complexity, conditions, and requirements required for a living being are so unique that there is no chance that life - any kind of life - was accidental. It is amazing how much vanity blinds the obvious.

I don't recall Darwin ever claiming that the universe 'came out of nothingness', and the claim is anachronistic at best (vindictive against Darwin, at worst). If you're going to 'disprove Darwin' then stick to Darwin. Don't suddenly jump into the philosophy of today and confuse the two.

[SirToady]

I don't recall Darwin ever claiming that the universe 'came out of nothingness', and the claim is anachronistic at best (vindictive against Darwin, at worst). If you're going to 'disprove Darwin' then stick to Darwin. Don't suddenly jump into the philosophy of today and confuse the two.

LOL, that's real cute! I did not say Darwin said the universe came out of nothingness - even though IT DID! If it were not for intelligent design in regard to all that is in the universe, we would not be here to argue. Again, I believe there is ample scientific support for Darwin's evolutionary theory through varying conditions over time. It is the initial conditions (creation) that is an abomination to the vanity of atheists and others who will accept ANY explanation - no matter how ridiculous - other than a logical one. The philosophy of today you mentioned is the same as it has been since the beginning.

[Athanasius]

LOL, that's real cute! I did not say Darwin said the universe came out of nothingness - even though IT DID! If it were not for intelligent design in regard to all that is in the universe, we would not be here to argue. Again, I believe there is ample scientific support for Darwin's evolutionary theory through varying conditions over time. It is the initial conditions (creation) that is an abomination to the vanity of atheists and others who will accept ANY explanation - no matter how ridiculous - other than a logical one. The philosophy of today you mentioned is the same as it has been since the beginning.

Oh, I see. When I replied to you regarding Darwin you immediately started talking about something else. Yeah, real cute.

[SirToady]

Oh, I see. When I replied to you regarding Darwin you immediately started talking about something else. Yeah, real cute.

Thanks for making my point - now try reading ALL of it again.

[adampjr]

I strongly suspect many people who attack Darwin of having not read any Darwin.

[Diggindeeper]

I strongly suspect many people who attack Darwin of having not read any Darwin.

You strongly suspect wrongly. Many of us have read Darwin as well as the contradictory evidence!

[Ceegen]

Darwin will never be wholly disproved, because some aspects of the theory of evolution are incontrovertible.

You can now return to your silliness.

Amino acids do nothing on their own. It takes DNA to "instruct" amino acids on what to do and how to join together to form chains. Amino acids can not construct DNA without DNA.

DNA is information, and this structured and organized information has a source. It didn't evolve. These letters didn't magically arrange themselves on the screen for you by random, I typed them.

We see design in the world around us as it relates to ourselves, and yet when we see this design structure based on information in biological entities, we ignore the source of that.

[Athanasius]

Amino acids do nothing on their own. It takes DNA to "instruct" amino acids on what to do and how to join together to form chains. Amino acids can not construct DNA without DNA.

DNA is information, and this structured and organized information has a source. It didn't evolve. These letters didn't magically arrange themselves on the screen for you by random, I typed them.

We see design in the world around us as it relates to ourselves, and yet when we see this design structure based on information in biological entities, we ignore the source of that.

I'll let you quote to me where Darwin talks about amino acids, DNA and more importantly, unguided natural selection as the evolutionary method.

Good luck!

[Ceegen]

I'll let you quote to me where Darwin talks about amino acids, DNA and more importantly, unguided natural selection as the evolutionary method.

Good luck!

So you agree that Darwin's theory doesn't solve the problems for the origins of life, just the origins of the species? I think his whole theory is based on an assumption that is false: The claim that life could have formed without God?

Take it on faith if you want, but I don't see any evidence for Evolution to be true. Every supposed missing link has been a fraud, and yet it is still taught as fact.

http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contenti.../dp/0801056772
"Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow.

A great read if you have some extra cash laying around, but I'm sure we'll find excuses to not search out alternative answers. Maybe even answers that have a perspective of the evidence, with God in mind?

I'm sure your impenetrable mind through superior logic could keep you for falling for a Creationist world-view, right? So there's no harm in reading the book, right? What do you have to lose, your credibility?

[Athanasius]

So you agree that Darwin's theory doesn't solve the problems for the origins of life, just the origins of the species?

Did I, or Darwin, ever say it did?

I think his whole theory is based on an assumption that is false: The claim that life could have formed without God?

Darwin himself never made such a claim, although it is (and was) a legitimate question that arose after Darwin proposed his theory.

Take it on faith if you want, but I don't see any evidence for Evolution to be true. Every supposed missing link has been a fraud, and yet it is still taught as fact.

Evolution is more than missing links. Evolution is also those small adaptive changes within species. It is to this later aspect of evolution which I was referring to in my previous reply.

http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contenti.../dp/0801056772
"Bones of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow.

A great read if you have some extra cash laying around, but I'm sure we'll find excuses to not search out alternative answers. Maybe even answers that have a perspective of the evidence, with God in mind?

I'm sure your impenetrable mind through superior logic could keep you for falling for a Creationist world-view, right? So there's no harm in reading the book, right? What do you have to lose, your credibility?

Did I ever say I was not a creationist, or that I was an adherent to a theistic-evolutionary (or purely evolutionary) world-view? Careful with such presumption.

[Ceegen]

Did I, or Darwin, ever say it did?

No, and that's my whole point about that. It doesn't solve the issue of origin of life. The bible does solve this issue, so evolution from inorganic compounds is then, in that regards, a silly notion.

Darwin himself never made such a claim, although it is (and was) a legitimate question that arose after Darwin proposed his theory.

The theory is intended to get people to doubt what God says.

Evolution is more than missing links. Evolution is also those small adaptive changes within species. It is to this later aspect of evolution which I was referring to in my previous reply.

"Micro-evolution" are small changes within a group of animals. This however does not make macro-evolution possible, simply because micro-evolution is true.

Did I ever say I was not a creationist, or that I was an adherent to a theistic-evolutionary (or purely evolutionary) world-view? Careful with such presumption.

It's a great read no matter who you are. For those with faith, it reinforces the faith. Those without faith, it causes a person to think about the truth of the matter.