Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Desert Snake]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

 

[Sapiens]

Flamingos are only pink when they eat shrimps, they are actually (sans shrimp in their diet) white. First, get your facts right. Then take a good course in probability.

Flamingo feathers obtain their wonderful rosy pink color from pigments in the organisms they eat. The flamingos’ feathers, legs, and face are colored by their diet, which is rich in alpha and beta carotenoid pigments.

Carotenoids in crustaceans such as those in the flamingo diet are frequently linked to protein molecules, and may be blue or green. After being digested, the carotenoid pigments dissolve in fats and are deposited in the growing feathers, becoming orange or pink. The same effect is seen when shrimp change color during cooking. The amount of pigment laid down in the feathers depends on the quantity of pigment in the flamingo’s diet. An absence of carotenoids in its food will result in new feather growth that is very pale; the existing pigment is lost through molting.

 

[Jumi]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism.

Can you explain why you think they prove creationism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is this a serious thread?

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

How on earth could you see the idea of a supernatural, omnipotent and omnipresent entity, responsible for all creation as is, but still existing in some other reality as more likely than a natural process governed by natural selection over billions of years?!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Is this a serious thread?

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Yes it is.

It was hard to discern this because pink flamingos are such kitschy, comical, & common
creatures. (I've posed their plastic brethren in my yard when I'm in a tacky mood.)
So without an accompanying argument for how they debunk evolution, it looked humorous.

 

[Quetzal]

Is this a serious thread?

I hope not...

 

[Iti oj]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

... @Sapiens ended the thread ...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

Actual creationist theory is along the lines of that the mathematical ordering of the DNA system, is the same as that of the physical universe. It means the DNA system is alike a 3D computer simulation. In this DNA world representations of fully functional adult organisms are chosen to be as a whole. That theory also explains development of organisms to adulthood. The full 3D adult organism in the DNA world, guides development of the physical organism to adulthood.

I am just saying, to support creationism, just look for the best theory around which regards freedom as real and relevant in the universe, and post it.

 

[leibowde84]

Actual creationist theory is along the lines of that the mathematical ordering of the DNA system, is the same as that of the physical universe. It means the DNA system is alike a 3D computer simulation. In this DNA world representations of fully functional adult organisms are chosen to be as a whole. That theory also explains development of organisms to adulthood. The full 3D adult organism in the DNA world, guides development of the physical organism to adulthood.

I am just saying, to support creationism, just look for the best theory around which regards freedom as real and relevant in the universe, and post it.

It seems like you base the accuracy of a scientific theory on your opinion as to whether it acknowledges this idea of "freedom" that you hold so dear. Can you explain why this is not simply confirmation bias, in that you are assuming that the idea of freedom must exist and anything that does not adhere to it must be wrong?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It seems like you base the accuracy of a scientific theory on your opinion as to whether it acknowledges this idea of "freedom" that you hold so dear. Can you explain why this is not simply confirmation bias, in that you are assuming that the idea of freedom must exist and anything that does not adhere to it must be wrong?

Sort of, but acceptance that freedom is real is from direct evidence in my life. That is the mainstay of establishing the fact, then a little philosophy is added to make the specific evidence part of a general theory.

And anybody who denies freedom is real, such as evolutionists, is up to no good in science, politics or life. It is also a moral discipline to accept freedom is real, where there are well known temptations to deny it, such as with original sin.

 

[leibowde84]

Sort of, but acceptance that freedom is real is from direct evidence in my life. That is the mainstay of establishing the fact, then a little philosophy is added to make the specific evidence part of a general theory.

And anybody who denies freedom is real, such as evolutionists, is up to no good in science, politics or life. It is also a moral discipline to accept freedom is real, where there are well known temptations to deny it, such as with original sin.

By "up to no good", do you mean that they are going down a dangerous path unknowingly, or are you accusing them of some kind of intended harm?

 

[Yerda]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism....

Obviously. We were just hoping no-one would mention that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

By "up to no good", do you mean that they are going down a dangerous path unknowingly, or are you accusing them of some kind of intended harm?

The intentionality of a drug addict mostly. They get high on factual certitude about what is good and evil. As a side effect they destroy knowledge about how things are chosen. Like with nazi's, they propose to know worth of people as fact, and as a side effect of that they propose people's behaviour is predetermined by their heridity.

 

[leibowde84]

The intentionality of a drug addict mostly. They get high on factual certitude about what is good and evil. As a side effect they destroy knowledge about how things are chosen. Like with nazi's, they propose to know worth of people as fact, and as a side effect of that they propose people's behaviour is predetermined by their heridity.

But, the ToE doesn't speak to the "worth of humans" in any way. So, how can you support the claim that evolutionists "propose to know the worth of people as fact"? I've never heard of this even being spoken aboout in the context of the ToE. Can you elaborate a bit?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But, the ToE doesn't speak to the "worth of humans" in any way. So, how can you support the claim that evolutionists "propose to know the worth of people as fact"? I've never heard of this even being spoken aboout in the context of the ToE. Can you elaborate a bit?

On account of natural selection theory scientists are convinced that organisms struggle for survival, and reproductive success. That's already proposing an ought of survival.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

Sadly, this is about as good as it gets when it comes to arguments for creationism or "id." This post is, essentially, no less silly than most of the creationist arguments that are meant to be more serious.

 

[Desert Snake]

Actual creationist theory is along the lines of that the mathematical ordering of the DNA system, is the same as that of the physical universe. It means the DNA system is alike a 3D computer simulation. In this DNA world representations of fully functional adult organisms are chosen to be as a whole. That theory also explains development of organisms to adulthood. The full 3D adult organism in the DNA world, guides development of the physical organism to adulthood.

I am just saying, to support creationism, just look for the best theory around which regards freedom as real and relevant in the universe, and post it.

I don't think that there is anything 'wrong', about the OP. I think you might have a point with your proposal, but I need to research your ideas further, as I'm not totally sure what it entails.

 

[leibowde84]

On account of natural selection theory scientists are convinced that organisms struggle for survival, and reproductive success. That's already proposing an ought of survival.

It doesn't say that organisms do this. There is no intent. It just claims that those more capable of survival and reproduction will have a better shot at passing on their DNA. How can you argue with that?