Logically speaking, if you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't believe in genes, or the passing down thereof.
A scientist could easily argue that rejecting evolution means denying the existence of sex; a theologian could easily argue that rejecting 6-day creation means denying the existence of morality.
Guys, we might as well stop. There's no getting through the thick shell that is Turtlekid's sheltered Christian upbringing.
If he outnumbered you 20 to 1, he could condescendingly dismiss your arguments by just remarking that there's no getting through your government brainwashing, if he wanted to.
Both.
So because you think he might not understand what you're saying and you know you don't understand what he's saying, he's the stupid one? Why? Because your ideas are inherently superior to his, or at least to your admittedly limited understanding of what his ideas are?
Plenty of mutations are helpful. Would you like to be unable to breathe oxygen?
This sounds suspiciously like circular reasoning to me. He believes evolution isn't true because mutations aren't helpful, and your response is to point to something that is a helpful mutation if evolution is true?
- The vibe I've gotten from the topic so far is that the only real evidence for evolution is the overall logical consistency of the idea and some incidents today, but there's no tangible evidence of historical evolution. If I'm wrong, can someone point me in the right direction (without implying I'm an idiot)?
- How many people who are mad at Turtlekid for not paying attention actually read all the stuff he posted?
- PL, if you don't mind my saying so, I think you could be a bit more gracious. The others are doing a pretty good job of beating Turtlekid up on their own, but there's a shortage of people arguing nicely with him.
- Anyone want to respond to my post from the beginning? Is it being ignored because it's too good or because it's too dumb? I'll take self-esteem wherever I can find it, so I'll assume the former for now.