Great Atheist Bomb Drops!

[Universe]

Advantageous traits passing down has the most to do with a natural selection.

But why did natural selection favor useless stuff that I explained above? It shouldn't be the case.
In the case of flightless birds (like Emu) it's not really useless because they have ancestors that flew.

[Ford]

According to the theory of evolution, advantegous traits get passed down to the next generation.
Okay. So how did the first flying animals came to existance? Evolution supposedly builds up animals little by little, that means among the ancestors of flying animals there were many many generations that had weak and useless limbs (that later supposedly turned into wings). Why did the genes responsible for those useless semi-wings spread if the "wings" didn't provide advantage? (there were many generations that couldn't fly)
There are flightless birds like Emus and ostriches, but their wings are degenerated. According to mainstream science they have ancestors that could fly. So saying "but emus can't fly either" doesn't answer my question. Why was having a useless limb that was a half-wing half-arm an evolutionary advantage?

Note: I'm not an evolution denier, just playing the devil's advocate here. (I'm not a huge "fanboy" of either side, but I believe evolution more than creationism).

Also: how could african monkeys accidentally sail to South America? (That's what evolutionists claim - this is how they explain the existance of monkeys in South America).

Advantageous traits are not inherently passed down to the next generation but species with advantageous traits run a larger chance of surviving and reproducing. However, there might just aswell be useless traits left in certain species for various reasons; such as it plays no important role in the actual selection, for one. So even if the Emu's ancestor used to fly, its descendants lost that trait because it was either not an important factor in its propagation or if the animal maybe developed some sexual selection or whatever. So the useless limb is there not because it's advantageous, but because it wasn't relevant and couldn't just disappear on its own.

[Ford]

This also poses a more relevant question: why would an omnipotent being create creatures with worthless traits for no apparent reason?

[SouthDutch7991]

I don't think there's any sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe without God, or something that "God" would be a very apt term for. It just doesn't satisfy, logically there's something missing. There's just way too much to be a coincidence, to me.

[JosephK]

I don't think there's any sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe without God, or something that "God" would be a very apt term for. It just doesn't satisfy, logically there's something missing. There's just way too much to be a coincidence, to me.

Yeah but if we had a sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe with God, then we'd have to wonder how to explain God's existence.

[Universe]

Yeah but if we had a sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe with God, then we'd have to wonder how to explain God's existence.

Yeah, I thought about this as well. If god created everything, then how did god come into existence?

[Ajeje Brazorf]

Religion in general is a bunch of bullshit and stories made up to cope with life's hardships.

[Valkyrion]

I don't think there's any sufficient explanation to the creation of the universe without God, or something that "God" would be a very apt term for. It just doesn't satisfy, logically there's something missing. There's just way too much to be a coincidence, to me.

Concepts of certain creative cosmic energy that brought spark of creation and intelligent design are maybe partially acceptable views from logical stand-point, but believing in mainstream concept of allegedly all-good, all-knowing and all-mighty divine entity like concepts of biggest world religions is beyond absurdity.

Fundamentally speaking, just solely believing as mental conception is irrational and self-delusional in it's core. Tragedy is that now in 21st century some people deny clearly visible scientifically proven facts, while in the same time they believe in supernatural beings none ever saw.

[Loki]

Science is based on facts; religion on the other hand is pure belief - I don´t think that believing in something even if its not proofed is bad, but its just speculation.

Well then evolution is not science, because it's not based on facts but on beliefs.

And science is not everything. Science is pretty much the same as magic. It's an occult knowledge and practice.

You must realise that this physical dimension that you currently experience is not all there is. There are higher dimensions, like the spiritual where you can fellowship with God. And that is not temporary or time bound, but eternal and actually the source of everything physical you see.

[Loki]

Religion in general is a bunch of bullshit and stories made up to cope with life's hardships.

You have much to learn my friend...what you said here is incredibly ignorant and totally false.