[James Hutchins]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

Is this some kind of joke, like are you serious. What a fool animals do not adapt instanly to a change in the enviorment you don't understand evolution at all so stop poorly attempting to disprove it.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

I gave your 'evillution' 6,001 years to 'evlove' Nothing, nada, zilch, zip. Do you need more time?

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

Is this some kind of joke, like are you serious. What a fool animals do not adapt instanly to a change in the enviorment you don't understand evolution at all so stop poorly attempting to disprove it.

They will die out quickly however. Not die off slowly over generation after generation like Evolution predicts.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

Is this some kind of joke, like are you serious. What a fool animals do not adapt instanly to a change in the enviorment you don't understand evolution at all so stop poorly attempting to disprove it.

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

Well, it takes thousands of years to evolve in the meaning that it takes thousands of generations with variations of time to have evolution.

Also, the problem with oil is that no animal can survive this toxic waist, and you need surviving individuals to transmit it's 'properties' it's immunity to oil. Oil waists on shores is like no more than 50 years old, and no animals can survive it, so no evolution because no animals carries an immunity because oil is too toxic to oil till there are animals than can survive this and give it's genes to future generations.

This is one example of "fuzzy logic" that evolutionists use. Now, I understand how you people claim your theory works. I understand that a mutated otter would have to survive the oil spill, and he would therefore pass on his genes to other otters, creating an oilproof otter. It's what Darwinists call Natural Selection.

Now, like you said, no individual animals can survive that so no evolution can happen. Yet, the evolutionists ignore this altogether, for example, when trying to explain how fish became land-breathing animals. How could a fish survive being on land to pass on its genes? Even if you took a million, even a billion fish, then put them on land, not a single one would be able to survive that. How then, could fish ever evolve into land-breathing animals?

So, when it comes to filling in the gaps in the evolutionary theory, Darwinists will ignore this and claim that fish evolved lungs, but when there is evidence in front of them (oil slicks and otters), they clam up and say that no animal can survive it.

So, which is it?

[Lukandersen]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

EdwardCurrent is an atheist.

In all his videos, he is sarcastic ( ) , if that did not occur to you yet.

[Alphonse Alban]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

In all his videos, he is sarcastic ( ) , if that did not occur to you yet.

I would not expect Lurpak-worshiper to understand science.

[Lukandersen]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

This is a quote from EdwardCurrent's YT page.

My religion videos are comedies. I am not a Christian. Through the medium of humor, I try to challenge people to question their beliefs and assumptions so that collectively, we can find ways to accept the world "as is" — that personal purpose and meaning from beyond are *not* behind every event, as many wish were the case. In the 21st century, reasonable, realistic, intelligent people admit that chance is chance, life is finite, and some things are simply unknown. Others feel the need to pump each other up with heartwarming stories that promise comprehensive answers and eternal life...provided you do as you're told.

[Alphonse Alban]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

This is a quote from EdwardCurrent's YT page.

My religion videos are comedies. I am not a Christian. Through the medium of humor, I try to challenge people to question their beliefs and assumptions so that collectively, we can find ways to accept the world "as is" — that personal purpose and meaning from beyond are *not* behind every event, as many wish were the case. In the 21st century, reasonable, realistic, intelligent people admit that chance is chance, life is finite, and some things are simply unknown. Others feel the need to pump each other up with heartwarming stories that promise comprehensive answers and eternal life...provided you do as you're told.

So some guy who post videos in web, is your evidence for evilution.

Creation wins again!

[Titus Templeton]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

I'm not sure that the animals die. I think they just play in the oil, maybe the oil has minerals that are good for their health. So they surely don't do that evolution thing because creationism is right, but they don't die. Its like elephants bathing in dirt and the dirt helps against the sun. Some people do oil on their skin, too. They say it is a sun-protection.

[Lukandersen]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

Proof for evolution?

That quote was not intended as proof.

I am sick of being talked down to, I think I'll just leave you to your preaching.

[Alphonse Alban]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

I think I'll just leave you to your preaching.

Figures, some people just can't handle the truth.

[Lukandersen]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

Can't handle the truth?

I am perfectly aware that evolution might be false.

How is it that you can disprove something which has at least some evidence, and then believe in something that only has a 1900 year old book as evidence?

Please be logical, and type without insults.
Have I ever insulted you? No. Then don't insult me.

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
—Tobit 4:15

[Alphonse Alban]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

I'm not sure that the animals die. I think they just play in the oil, maybe the oil has minerals that are good for their health. So they surely don't do that evolution thing because creationism is right, but they don't die. Its like elephants bathing in dirt and the dirt helps against the sun. Some people do oil on their skin, too. They say it is a sun-protection.

I thought of that as well, brother Titus, so I tested it myself. I used my daughter's remaining guinea pigs (the ones that survived from tests with liquid nitrogen) to see if they evolve any better than wildlife. Other one I held under the surface in bucket filled with oil, another I just left to paddle in the oil. The one held under the oil died quite a lot faster than one left on surface. Eventually, it died as well, only slower.

I examined both very closely, but I saw absolutely no signs of any improved skin condition or oil breathing gills. Absolutely no evilution happened.

[Alphonse Alban]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
—Tobit 4:15

Quoting false Mary-worshiper scripture won't get you far here, heathen.

[Lukandersen]

Re: Oil, disproving evilution!

A short run-down of what Evolution is. (This is not to prove evolution, since that is impossible, but to state what it really is)

Variation:

A group (or population if you like) must have individuals with different abilities, and a mechanism for adding new variation. (Random changes in the genome of an individual - Mutation)

Reproduction/Heredity:

The individuals must be able to reproduce, and the new abilities must be hereditary. Two variations can only change into a third via reproduction.

Selection:

The individuals inherited abilities must affect the individuals ability to reproduce, by survival (being able to get food easier, like better eyes, or more muscle mass, or perhaps being more heat-resistant) The changes are incredible subtle from generation to generation, but if you see a picture of a coyote in year 20.000 BC, and then see it today, the changes will be more obvious.

All in all: Something changes, if that change is bad, the ability will probably not be passed on, due to death. If it is good, and gets passed on, it will then be inherited by future generations.

The fact that oddors die because of oil on some coast is not proof that evolution is false.