View Full Version: Serious Debate Topic

Haven Of Wiidom > Chit-Chat > Serious Debate Topic

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Title: Serious Debate Topic
Description: Debate here


Judge Death - April 21, 2009 08:54 PM (GMT)
I decided to open it up here. I'm laying... half my cards on the table, and there are a few up my sleeve.

Before getting into the debate, I would like to quote Professor D.M.S. Watson:
QUOTE
Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible

and also like to correct anyone who says God used evolution.
If there is a God, as described in my Bible, the following is true:
When Adam and Eve were in the garden, they ate of the tree, and since they sinned, everyone after them will sin, and because they sinned, they will die.
So: From man came death

If evolution is true, as told in the textbooks:
A tiny microbe started us all, but he wasn't as mighty as the generations that came before him, so the weak had to die off. And with all the weak dying off, eventually, came man.
So: From death came man

There is a great difference between "Evolution" and "Adaptation."
Evolution= Going from a rock, to a single-celled being, to a fish, to a frog, to an ape, to a man.
Adaptation= The atmosphere having less oxygen, so man's body learns to deal with it, and use less air.

If you want an illustration of adaption (also known as micro-evolution); Take a man who lives near ground level (+/- 200') and see how far he can run. Then have him go up a mountain, a high mountain where the air is thinner, and see how far he can run. You'll find the distance is much shorter and he is heavily exhausted. But, anyone living there can usually run as far as the man originally came from. They have used 'adaption' to live. And animals can be bred to adapt to the job the job their owner requires of them (all dogs today have been selectively bred to adapt to the job that is needed of them.) This paragraph is about micro-evolution which we see every day.

One commonly given "evidence" for evolution is "Darwin's finches". It is said that these 13 birds evolved wider beaks to be able to crack the harder nuts that come about in drought season (year) (with thinner shelled nuts available in the rest of the decade). Here's a more likely possibility:
There are many different breeds of finches with many different beaks on that island. The year of drought comes along, and those with thinner beaks cannot eat, so they either migrate, or die off. Leaving: big beaked finches.

So this theory supports both evolution and creation

Also the geologic columns are supposed "evidences" for evolution. But this also supports creation. One major catastrophe could answer several questions; the great flood. Look at it this way:
If it starts to rain, and a flood is evident, where are plants going to go? So, obviously, plants will be near the bottom. Then, sea creatures will be able to go higher, because they would be in the water, which is why you find them all through the "columns." Amphibians will be all over as well, due to their ability to survive for a lengthened amount of time in the water, but will start heading up. Reptilians will go higher, but not very high. Larger, smarter beings would be able to fend for themselves, so they would make it even higher. (And also, beings of each category were found in each column) The great flood would also be a way for the animals to
1: be rapidly buried (to avoid predators and being eaten)
2: being buried in something that keeps them from deterioration (by creating a cement like mud mixture)

So if anything, this supports creation.

According to evolutionists, it takes millions of years to fossilize items, but look at the following picture:
user posted image

It shows a fossilized fish giving birth. My mother, and everyone I know, know (and thank, well whoever you want to thank) that it doesn't take millions of years to give birth.

Look at the following changes just the reproductive system would need to go through in order to change from reptilian to mammal.
The shell of the egg
The two new membranes; the amnion and the allantois
Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid, rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo)
Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water
Yolk for food
A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before it hardens.

Other things are:
Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chamber, instead of three, and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.
Mammals produce milk to feed their young
Mammalian skin has two extra layers
Mammals have a diaphragm, vital to our breathing. Reptiles breathe much differently
Mammals keeps their blood temperature at a constant (more or less)
The mammalian ear has a very complex organ called the corti, absent from all reptilians
The mammalian kidneys are very different than that of reptilians

Now, what happens when you get in the middle of any of these?

What about the archaeoptryx, you say? Well, further analysis (by scientists, of both parties) has proven the archaeoptryx to have no reptilian features (unless you include the teeth, which can be found on any modern day chicken, look at its beak soon after it hatches.)
"Feathers" found on fossilized reptiles have proven not to be so, but just parallel arrays of fibers (probably collagen).
The latest findings of protarchaeoptryx robusta and caudipteryx zoui (may have misspelled) are claimed to be the immediate ancestors of modern day birds. But where "dated at 120 MYA to 136 MYA, while the earliest findings of archaeoptryx were "dated" at 140 to 150 MYA. The two "ancestors" had many similarities to the ostritch, and were flightless, and even had gizzards. Look at the differences between the avian lung and the reptilian lung:
user posted image
The poor animal wouldn't be able to breathe.

There are also vast problems in the cosmos. One is:
"Supposedly, stars condensed out of vast clouds of gasses, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars. They need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions of how to get the process started, and all of them require having stars to start with (e.g. a shockwave from another star can condense the gasses enough) It's the old 'chicken or the egg?' question"

So, another score for creation.

IonKidMax - April 21, 2009 08:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 21 2009, 08:54 PM)
I decided to open it up here. I'm laying... half my cards on the table, and there are a few up my sleeve.

Before getting into the debate, I would like to quote Professor D.M.S. Watson:

and also like to correct anyone who says God used evolution.
If there is a God, as described in my Bible, the following is true:
When Adam and Eve were in the garden, they ate of the tree, and since they sinned, everyone after them will sin, and because they sinned, they will die.
So: From man came death

If evolution is true, as told in the textbooks:
A tiny microbe started us all, but he wasn't as mighty as the generations that came before him, so the weak had to die off. And with all the weak dying off, eventually, came man.
So: From death came man

There is a great difference between "Evolution" and "Adaptation."
Evolution= Going from a rock, to a single-celled being, to a fish, to a frog, to an ape, to a man.
Adaptation= The atmosphere having less oxygen, so man's body learns to deal with it, and use less air.

If you want an illustration of adaption (also known as micro-evolution); Take a man who lives near ground level (+/- 200') and see how far he can run. Then have him go up a mountain, a high mountain where the air is thinner, and see how far he can run. You'll find the distance is much shorter and he is heavily exhausted. But, anyone living there can usually run as far as the man originally came from. They have used 'adaption' to live. And animals can be bred to adapt to the job the job their owner requires of them (all dogs today have been selectively bred to adapt to the job that is needed of them.) This paragraph is about micro-evolution which we see every day.

One commonly given "evidence" for evolution is "Darwin's finches". It is said that these 13 birds evolved wider beaks to be able to crack the harder nuts that come about in drought season (year) (with thinner shelled nuts available in the rest of the decade). Here's a more likely possibility:
There are many different breeds of finches with many different beaks on that island. The year of drought comes along, and those with thinner beaks cannot eat, so they either migrate, or die off. Leaving: big beaked finches.

So this theory supports both evolution and creation

Also the geologic columns are supposed "evidences" for evolution. But this also supports creation. One major catastrophe could answer several questions; the great flood. Look at it this way:
If it starts to rain, and a flood is evident, where are plants going to go? So, obviously, plants will be near the bottom. Then, sea creatures will be able to go higher, because they would be in the water, which is why you find them all through the "columns." Amphibians will be all over as well, due to their ability to survive for a lengthened amount of time in the water, but will start heading up. Reptilians will go higher, but not very high. Larger, smarter beings would be able to fend for themselves, so they would make it even higher. (And also, beings of each category were found in each column) The great flood would also be a way for the animals to
1: be rapidly buried (to avoid predators and being eaten)
2: being buried in something that keeps them from deterioration (by creating a cement like mud mixture)

So if anything, this supports creation.

According to evolutionists, it takes millions of years to fossilize items, but look at the following picture:
user posted image

It shows a fossilized fish giving birth. My mother, and everyone I know, know (and thank, well whoever you want to thank) that it doesn't take millions of years to give birth.

Look at the following changes just the reproductive system would need to go through in order to change from reptilian to mammal.
The shell of the egg
The two new membranes; the amnion and the allantois
Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid, rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo)
Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water
Yolk for food
A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before it hardens.

Other things are:
Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chamber, instead of three, and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.
Mammals produce milk to feed their young
Mammalian skin has two extra layers
Mammals have a diaphragm, vital to our breathing. Reptiles breathe much differently
Mammals keeps their blood temperature at a constant (more or less)
The mammalian ear has a very complex organ called the corti, absent from all reptilians
The mammalian kidneys are very different than that of reptilians

Now, what happens when you get in the middle of any of these?

What about the archaeoptryx, you say? Well, further analysis (by scientists, of both parties) has proven the archaeoptryx to have no reptilian features (unless you include the teeth, which can be found on any modern day chicken, look at its beak soon after it hatches.)
"Feathers" found on fossilized reptiles have proven not to be so, but just parallel arrays of fibers (probably collagen).
The latest findings of protarchaeoptryx robusta and caudipteryx zoui (may have misspelled) are claimed to be the immediate ancestors of modern day birds. But where "dated at 120 MYA to 136 MYA, while the earliest findings of archaeoptryx were "dated" at 140 to 150 MYA. The two "ancestors" had many similarities to the ostritch, and were flightless, and even had gizzards. Look at the differences between the avian lung and the reptilian lung:
user posted image
The poor animal wouldn't be able to breathe.

There are also vast problems in the cosmos. One is:
"Supposedly, stars condensed out of vast clouds of gasses, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars. They need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions of how to get the process started, and all of them require having stars to start with (e.g. a shockwave from another star can condense the gasses enough) It's the old 'chicken or the egg?' question"

So, another score for creation.

Please don't start this thred! :angry:

Judge Death - April 21, 2009 09:08 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (IonKidMax @ Apr 21 2009, 08:56 PM)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 21 2009, 08:54 PM)
I decided to open it up here. I'm laying... half my cards on the table, and there are a few up my sleeve.

Before getting into the debate, I would like to quote Professor D.M.S. Watson:

and also like to correct anyone who says God used evolution.
If there is a God, as described in my Bible, the following is true:
When Adam and Eve were in the garden, they ate of the tree, and since they sinned, everyone after them will sin, and because they sinned, they will die.
So: From man came death

If evolution is true, as told in the textbooks:
A tiny microbe started us all, but he wasn't as mighty as the generations that came before him, so the weak had to die off. And with all the weak dying off, eventually, came man.
So: From death came man

There is a great difference between "Evolution" and "Adaptation."
Evolution=    Going from a rock, to a single-celled being, to a fish, to a frog, to an ape, to a man.
Adaptation=  The atmosphere having less oxygen, so man's body learns to deal with it, and use less air.

If you want an illustration of adaption (also known as micro-evolution); Take a man who lives near ground level (+/- 200') and see how far he can run. Then have him go up a mountain, a high mountain where the air is thinner, and see how far he can run. You'll find the distance is much shorter and he is heavily exhausted. But, anyone living there can usually run as far as the man originally came from. They have used 'adaption' to live. And animals can be bred to adapt to the job the job their owner requires of them (all dogs today have been selectively bred to adapt to the job that is needed of them.) This paragraph is about micro-evolution which we see every day.

One commonly given "evidence" for evolution is "Darwin's finches". It is said that these 13 birds evolved wider beaks to be able to crack the harder nuts that come about in drought season (year) (with thinner shelled nuts available in the rest of the decade). Here's a more likely possibility:
There are many different breeds of finches with many different beaks on that island. The year of drought comes along, and those with thinner beaks cannot eat, so they either migrate, or die off. Leaving: big beaked finches.

So this theory supports both evolution and creation

Also the geologic columns are supposed "evidences" for evolution. But this also supports creation. One major catastrophe could answer several questions; the great flood. Look at it this way:
If it starts to rain, and a flood is evident, where are plants going to go? So, obviously, plants will be near the bottom. Then, sea creatures will be able to go higher, because they would be in the water, which is why you find them all through the "columns." Amphibians will be all over as well, due to their ability to survive for a lengthened amount of time in the water, but will start heading up. Reptilians will go higher, but not very high. Larger, smarter beings would be able to fend for themselves, so they would make it even higher. (And also, beings of each category were found in each column) The great flood would also be a way for the animals to
1: be rapidly buried (to avoid predators and being eaten)
2: being buried in something that keeps them from deterioration (by creating a cement like mud mixture)

So if anything, this supports creation.

According to evolutionists, it takes millions of years to fossilize items, but look at the following picture:
user posted image

It shows a fossilized fish giving birth. My mother, and everyone I know, know (and thank, well whoever you want to thank) that it doesn't take millions of years to give birth.

Look at the following changes just the reproductive system would need to go through in order to change from reptilian to mammal.
The shell of the egg
The two new membranes; the amnion and the allantois
Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid, rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo)
Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water
Yolk for food
A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before it hardens.

Other things are:
Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chamber, instead of three, and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.
Mammals produce milk to feed their young
Mammalian skin has two extra layers
Mammals have a diaphragm, vital to our breathing. Reptiles breathe much differently
Mammals keeps their blood temperature at a constant (more or less)
The mammalian ear has a very complex organ called the corti, absent from all reptilians
The mammalian kidneys are very different than that of reptilians

Now, what happens when you get in the middle of any of these?

What about the archaeoptryx, you say? Well, further analysis (by scientists, of both parties) has proven the archaeoptryx to have no reptilian features (unless you include the teeth, which can be found on any modern day chicken, look at its beak soon after it hatches.)
"Feathers" found on fossilized reptiles have proven not to be so, but just parallel arrays of fibers (probably collagen).
The latest findings of protarchaeoptryx robusta and caudipteryx zoui (may have misspelled) are claimed to be the immediate ancestors of modern day birds. But where "dated at 120 MYA to 136 MYA, while the earliest findings of archaeoptryx were "dated" at 140 to 150 MYA. The two "ancestors" had many similarities to the ostritch, and were flightless, and even had gizzards. Look at the differences between the avian lung and the reptilian lung:
user posted image
The poor animal wouldn't be able to breathe.

There are also vast problems in the cosmos. One is:
"Supposedly, stars condensed out of vast clouds of gasses, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars. They need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions of how to get the process started, and all of them require having stars to start with (e.g. a shockwave from another star can condense the gasses enough) It's the old 'chicken or the egg?' question"

So, another score for creation.

Please don't start this thred! :angry:

Sorry, can't stop it.

SilverSurfer092 - April 21, 2009 09:58 PM (GMT)
Changed the name so that it isn't restricted to one Debate topic.

M Bison - April 21, 2009 10:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
It shows a fossilized fish giving birth. My mother, and everyone I know, know (and thank, well whoever you want to thank) that it doesn't take millions of years to give birth.

You just called the Ichthyosaurus a fish. Fail. And it didn't take millions of years to give birth, it merely died during the process.

More in depth response, with other points addressed to come. I'm going to see the other updated threads first though.

Judge Death - April 21, 2009 10:19 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:04 PM)
You just called the Ichthyosaurus a fish. Fail. And it didn't take millions of years to give birth, it merely died during the process.

More in depth response, with other points addressed to come. I'm going to see the other updated threads first though.

It's a fish, not a reptile, whatever you may say. It has no reptilian qualities to it, including the organs

M Bison - April 21, 2009 10:34 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
There is a great difference between "Evolution" and "Adaptation."
Evolution=    Going from a rock, to a single-celled being, to a fish, to a frog, to an ape, to a man.
Adaptation=  The atmosphere having less oxygen, so man's body learns to deal with it, and use less air.

Evolution is a form of adaptation. You can adapt without evolving, but evolution is a form of adaptation.

QUOTE
One commonly given "evidence" for evolution is "Darwin's finches". It is said that these 13 birds evolved wider beaks to be able to crack the harder nuts that come about in drought season (year) (with thinner shelled nuts available in the rest of the decade). Here's a more likely possibility:
There are many different breeds of finches with many different beaks on that island. The year of drought comes along, and those with thinner beaks cannot eat, so they either migrate, or die off. Leaving: big beaked finches.


So... explain how many animals seen PEFECTLY capable of eating food in the environment around them, and why animals in different parts of the world are all different.

Heck, it's pretty much impossible to explain Australia without evolution, the animal life their is so unique because it was cut off from the rest of the world for a huge amount of time, and animals evolved differently.

QUOTE
Also the geologic columns are supposed "evidences" for evolution. But this also supports creation. One major catastrophe could answer several questions; the great flood. Look at it this way:
If it starts to rain, and a flood is evident, where are plants going to go? So, obviously, plants will be near the bottom. Then, sea creatures will be able to go higher, because they would be in the water, which is why you find them all through the "columns." Amphibians will be all over as well, due to their ability to survive for a lengthened amount of time in the water, but will start heading up. Reptilians will go higher, but not very high. Larger, smarter beings would be able to fend for themselves, so they would make it even higher. (And also, beings of each category were found in each column) The great flood would also be a way for the animals to
1: be rapidly buried (to avoid predators and being eaten)
2: being buried in something that keeps them from deterioration (by creating a cement like mud mixture)

So why are plants on all levels? Why aren't weaker mammals drowning at the bottom? What of insects, being as they are on all levels? Why are the majority of those on lower levels all extinct, with those n higher levels less likely to be so (with, granted, a few exceptions, such as living fossil-type animals).

QUOTE
It shows a fossilized fish giving birth. My mother, and everyone I know, know (and thank, well whoever you want to thank) that it doesn't take millions of years to give birth.

As I already said, the creature died in that position, during childbirth. It was a reptile, not a fish.

QUOTE
Look at the following changes just the reproductive system would need to go through in order to change from reptilian to mammal.
The shell of the egg
The two new membranes; the amnion and the allantois
Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid, rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo)
Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water
Yolk for food
A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before it hardens.

Other things are:
Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chamber, instead of three, and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.
Mammals produce milk to feed their young
Mammalian skin has two extra layers
Mammals have a diaphragm, vital to our breathing. Reptiles breathe much differently
Mammals keeps their blood temperature at a constant (more or less)
The mammalian ear has a very complex organ called the corti, absent from all reptilians
The mammalian kidneys are very different than that of reptilians

user posted image
Egg laying mammal right there.

QUOTE
Now, what happens when you get in the middle of any of these?

Instead of "something that does neither", how about "something that does both, but lost one ability over time as it fell out of use." Look at our appendix. Useless now, it was used by our ancestors to digest grass. In our evolutionary future, we will most likely lose it.

QUOTE
What about the archaeoptryx, you say? Well, further analysis (by scientists, of both parties) has proven the archaeoptryx to have no reptilian features (unless you include the teeth, which can be found on any modern day chicken, look at its beak soon after it hatches.)

Erm, no. It has a repletion tail, for example.

QUOTE
"Feathers" found on fossilized reptiles have proven not to be so, but just parallel arrays of fibers (probably collagen).
The latest findings of protarchaeoptryx robusta and caudipteryx zoui (may have misspelled) are claimed to be the immediate ancestors of modern day birds. But where "dated at 120 MYA to 136 MYA, while the earliest findings of archaeoptryx were "dated" at 140 to 150 MYA. The two "ancestors" had many similarities to the ostritch, and were flightless, and even had gizzards. Look at the differences between the avian lung and the reptilian lung:
user posted image
The poor animal wouldn't be able to breathe.

Yeah. The Archeopterix is the ancestor of the protarchaeoptryx robusta and caudipteryx zoui.

Obviously, it's lung was one of the other. Random change is what drives evolution after all.

QUOTE
There are also vast problems in the cosmos. One is:
"Supposedly, stars condensed out of vast clouds of gasses, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars. They need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions of how to get the process started, and all of them require having stars to start with (e.g. a shockwave from another star can condense the gasses enough) It's the old 'chicken or the egg?' question"

I told you I've no need to debate this to debate evolution.

M Bison - April 21, 2009 10:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 21 2009, 10:19 PM)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:04 PM)
You just called the Ichthyosaurus a fish. Fail. And it didn't take millions of years to give birth, it merely died during the process.

More in depth response, with other points addressed to come. I'm going to see the other updated threads first though.

It's a fish, not a reptile, whatever you may say. It has no reptilian qualities to it, including the organs

Pseudonym - April 21, 2009 10:40 PM (GMT)
Organs? On the "fishyosaur"

It's a fossil, we don't know jack about its organs.

MarvelFan15 - April 21, 2009 10:45 PM (GMT)
:mellow:
Oh, wow!

Judge Death - April 21, 2009 11:02 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Pseudonym @ Apr 21 2009, 10:40 PM)
Organs? On the "fishyosaur"

It's a fossil, we don't know jack about its organs.

Yeah, you can tell by looking at some of the things that were fossilized

SilverSurfer092 - April 21, 2009 11:07 PM (GMT)
That platypus is one of the cutest things ever.

MarvelFan15 - April 21, 2009 11:48 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (SilverSurfer092 @ Apr 21 2009, 11:07 PM)
That platypus is one of the cutest things ever.

:unsure:

Bandit - April 22, 2009 12:19 AM (GMT)
TROLL IN THE DUNGEON!

Thought you ought to know....

faints.

Granobulax - April 22, 2009 01:15 AM (GMT)
There's so much "proof" into reasons why there's evolution.

There's so much "faith" into the reasons for creationism.

It all depends on what your perspective is. I personally believe in both the proof and the faith.

It is said that on an evolutionary scale, the likelyhood that a DNA strand would spontaneously form on the ocean shores of the world billions of years ago without creation from god would be stagering.

According to scientists, the earth is 4.6 billion years old. According to these same scientists, first single celled life came at around 3.8 billion years ago. That means that life supposedly was created within the first 800 million years.

The chances of that to occur is said to be the same as if a tornado tore through a junk yard and completely assemble a jumbo 747 airplane. Not likely to happen.

But, on the other hand, if god had created the world, I believe it to be equally unlikely that he would have created it without making all of the creatures capable of adapting throughout the ages.

See? it is possible to believe in both aspects of this debate.

SilverSurfer092 - April 22, 2009 01:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Granobulax @ Apr 22 2009, 02:15 AM)
There's so much "proof" into reasons why there's evolution.

There's so much "faith" into the reasons for creationism.

It all depends on what your perspective is. I personally believe in both the proof and the faith.

It is said that on an evolutionary scale, the likelyhood that a DNA strand would spontaneously form on the ocean shores of the world billions of years ago without creation from god would be stagering.

According to scientists, the earth is 4.6 billion years old. According to these same scientists, first single celled life came at around 3.8 billion years ago. That means that life supposedly was created within the first 800 million years.

The chances of that to occur is said to be the same as if a tornado tore through a junk yard and completely assemble a jumbo 747 airplane. Not likely to happen.

But, on the other hand, if god had created the world, I believe it to be equally unlikely that he would have created it without making all of the creatures capable of adapting throughout the ages.

See? it is possible to believe in both aspects of this debate.

Grano: Always finding the middle ground.

Granobulax - April 22, 2009 03:28 AM (GMT)
Yup :D

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 01:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE
One commonly given "evidence" for evolution is "Darwin's finches". It is said that these 13 birds evolved wider beaks to be able to crack the harder nuts that come about in drought season (year) (with thinner shelled nuts available in the rest of the decade). Here's a more likely possibility:
There are many different breeds of finches with many different beaks on that island. The year of drought comes along, and those with thinner beaks cannot eat, so they either migrate, or die off. Leaving: big beaked finches.


So... explain how many animals seen PEFECTLY capable of eating food in the environment around them, and why animals in different parts of the world are all different.

Heck, it's pretty much impossible to explain Australia without evolution, the animal life their is so unique because it was cut off from the rest of the world for a huge amount of time, and animals evolved differently.

Well, if there's an animal, in its environment, perfectly capable of eating its food, the animals that couldn't eat either died or migrated, and the animals that could eat could flourish.

No, no it's not. There's a couple of different possibilities. Such as:
1: The ark landed there, so some animals stayed there that no one took with them, and some of them went with the people who went their different ways.
2: Those animals could have gone to Australia with someone (via the sea of course) and died off in their other habitat (evolution is full of this)

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 01:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE
Also the geologic columns are supposed "evidences" for evolution. But this also supports creation. One major catastrophe could answer several questions; the great flood. Look at it this way:
If it starts to rain, and a flood is evident, where are plants going to go? So, obviously, plants will be near the bottom. Then, sea creatures will be able to go higher, because they would be in the water, which is why you find them all through the "columns." Amphibians will be all over as well, due to their ability to survive for a lengthened amount of time in the water, but will start heading up. Reptilians will go higher, but not very high. Larger, smarter beings would be able to fend for themselves, so they would make it even higher. (And also, beings of each category were found in each column) The great flood would also be a way for the animals to
1: be rapidly buried (to avoid predators and being eaten)
2: being buried in something that keeps them from deterioration (by creating a cement like mud mixture)

So why are plants on all levels? Why aren't weaker mammals drowning at the bottom? What of insects, being as they are on all levels? Why are the majority of those on lower levels all extinct, with those n higher levels less likely to be so (with, granted, a few exceptions, such as living fossil-type animals).


Plants are found on all layers because, look around, no matter where you go here are plants. Weaker mammals were found at the lower levels, the evolutionists just moved them before anyone noticed (in fact I knew a guy who used to be an evolutionist, and he confirmed this for me) Insects, again, are everywhere. There were probably already some at the top of the mountain.
And those on the lower levels were weaker, so they may have died out or not been found yet. As you guys say "Survival of the fittest"

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 02:01 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)



As I already said, the creature died in that position, during childbirth. It was a reptile, not a fish.

Yes, it died, than all its children died, and were rapidly buried (kept away from predators), and what they were buried in happened to be a natural cement (kept away from total deterioration).
YOU FAIL!
The only way to explain this is the flood

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 02:06 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE
Look at the following changes just the reproductive system would need to go through in order to change from reptilian to mammal.
The shell of the egg
The two new membranes; the amnion and the allantois
Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid, rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo)
Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water
Yolk for food
A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before it hardens.

Other things are:
Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chamber, instead of three, and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.
Mammals produce milk to feed their young
Mammalian skin has two extra layers
Mammals have a diaphragm, vital to our breathing. Reptiles breathe much differently
Mammals keeps their blood temperature at a constant (more or less)
The mammalian ear has a very complex organ called the corti, absent from all reptilians
The mammalian kidneys are very different than that of reptilians

user posted image
Egg laying mammal right there.


Okay, so you have one thing in a mammal. But what about the uric acid rather than urea? So you may say, there was an in-between, which would not support either type of young. Or maybe it could use both, which would kill both types of young. Therefore it is technically a sterile being

Or the yolk, how did that "evolve"?

And did the animals magically obtain a v@g!^@? Where did that come from?

Plus, look at the rest

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 02:10 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE
Now, what happens when you get in the middle of any of these?

Instead of "something that does neither", how about "something that does both, but lost one ability over time as it fell out of use." Look at our appendix. Useless now, it was used by our ancestors to digest grass. In our evolutionary future, we will most likely lose it.

Look at this

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 02:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)


Erm, no. It has a repletion tail, for example.

You could just as easily put some feathers on this as scales

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 02:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE
"Feathers" found on fossilized reptiles have proven not to be so, but just parallel arrays of fibers (probably collagen).
The latest findings of protarchaeoptryx robusta and caudipteryx zoui (may have misspelled) are claimed to be the immediate ancestors of modern day birds. But where "dated at 140 MYA to 150 MYA, while the earliest findings of archaeoptryx were "dated" at 126 to 136 MYA. The two "ancestors" had many similarities to the ostritch, and were flightless, and even had gizzards. Look at the differences between the avian lung and the reptilian lung:
user posted image
The poor animal wouldn't be able to breathe.

Yeah. The Archeopterix is the ancestor of the protarchaeoptryx robusta and caudipteryx zoui.

Obviously, it's lung was one of the other. Random change is what drives evolution after all.

Woops, I had mixed up the dates, I fixed it in the quote though

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 02:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)


QUOTE
There are also vast problems in the cosmos. One is:
"Supposedly, stars condensed out of vast clouds of gasses, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars. They need to be pushed somehow to be started. There have been a number of suggestions of how to get the process started, and all of them require having stars to start with (e.g. a shockwave from another star can condense the gasses enough) It's the old 'chicken or the egg?' question"

I told you I've no need to debate this to debate evolution.

Why? Because you know as the root of evolution there are tons of fallacies and errors to it?

M Bison - April 22, 2009 07:47 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 02:10 PM)
Look at this

QUOTE
And other 'spare parts'

* Male nipples

Men have nipples and mammary tissue which can be stimulated to produce milk. They can also get breast cancer.

* Wisdom teeth

Early humans had an extra row of molars to help with the vast quantity of vegetation they had to chew .

* Coccyx

The remains of a tail lost long before man began to walk upright six million years ago.

* Spare ribs

Humans have 12 ribs but about eight per cent of people have an extra pair, as do chimps and gorillas.

Note how many of these are only attributed to evolution.

I'll reply to the rest in a few minutes.

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 07:53 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 07:47 PM)
QUOTE
And other 'spare parts'

* Male nipples

Men have nipples and mammary tissue which can be stimulated to produce milk. They can also get breast cancer.

* Wisdom teeth

Early humans had an extra row of molars to help with the vast quantity of vegetation they had to chew .

* Coccyx

The remains of a tail lost long before man began to walk upright six million years ago.

* Spare ribs

Humans have 12 ribs but about eight per cent of people have an extra pair, as do chimps and gorillas.

Note how many of these are only attributed to evolution.

I'll reply to the rest in a few minutes.

Male Nipples
Has nothing to do with evolution or creation. I once saw a man nursing a child... don't ask please


Wisdom teeth
According to Creation, there was a time when people grew much larger, and there was much more oxygen, so people would have had bigger mouths

Coccyx
This is just the tip of your spine, it helps support your body when you sit down

Spare Ribs
Some people have extra fingers, some people have extra nipples, some people have another head. It's just the same thing, extra body parts which every type of animal gets

M Bison - April 22, 2009 08:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 01:52 PM)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE
One commonly given "evidence" for evolution is "Darwin's finches". It is said that these 13 birds evolved wider beaks to be able to crack the harder nuts that come about in drought season (year) (with thinner shelled nuts available in the rest of the decade). Here's a more likely possibility:
There are many different breeds of finches with many different beaks on that island. The year of drought comes along, and those with thinner beaks cannot eat, so they either migrate, or die off. Leaving: big beaked finches.


So... explain how many animals seen PEFECTLY capable of eating food in the environment around them, and why animals in different parts of the world are all different.

Heck, it's pretty much impossible to explain Australia without evolution, the animal life their is so unique because it was cut off from the rest of the world for a huge amount of time, and animals evolved differently.

Well, if there's an animal, in its environment, perfectly capable of eating its food, the animals that couldn't eat either died or migrated, and the animals that could eat could flourish.

No, no it's not. There's a couple of different possibilities. Such as:
1: The ark landed there, so some animals stayed there that no one took with them, and some of them went with the people who went their different ways.
2: Those animals could have gone to Australia with someone (via the sea of course) and died off in their other habitat (evolution is full of this)

QUOTE
Plants are found on all layers because, look around, no matter where you go here are plants. Weaker mammals were found at the lower levels, the evolutionists just moved them before anyone noticed (in fact I knew a guy who used to be an evolutionist, and he confirmed this for me) Insects, again, are everywhere. There were probably already some at the top of the mountain.
And those on the lower levels were weaker, so they may have died out or not been found yet. As you guys say "Survival of the fittest"

Not all paleontologists are evolutionist. Excavations are often open to the public. Moving the mammals is bullsh!t. Prove that this friend of yours said what he said, and prove he wasn't lying.

QUOTE
Yes, it died, than all its children died, and were rapidly buried (kept away from predators), and what they were buried in happened to be a natural cement (kept away from total deterioration).
YOU FAIL!
The only way to explain this is the flood

Yeah. You don't need a flood to explain that. it's the sea, there are natural cement type minerals all over the ocean floor.

QUOTE
Okay, so you have one thing in a mammal. But what about the uric acid rather than urea? So you may say, there was an in-between, which would not support either type of young. Or maybe it could use both, which would kill both types of young. Therefore it is technically a sterile being

Or the yolk, how did that "evolve"?

And did the animals magically obtain a v@g!^@? Where did that come from?

Plus, look at the rest


Random change, which is what evolution is based on.


QUOTE
You could just as easily put some feathers on this as scales

Not saying they are not feathers. The bone structure is reptilian.

QUOTE
Woops, I had mixed up the dates, I fixed it in the quote though

Yeah, the archeopteryx is an ancestor also, it came from the same family of animal, merely later.

QUOTE
Why? Because you know as the root of evolution there are tons of fallacies and errors to it?

Look at granos post. i personally believe in the big bang, but you don't have to to believe in evolution.

QUOTE
Male Nipples
Has nothing to do with evolution or creation. I once saw a man nursing a child... don't ask please


Wisdom teeth
According to Creation, there was a time when people grew much larger, and there was much more oxygen, so people would have had bigger mouths

Coccyx
This is just the tip of your spine, it helps support your body when you sit down

Spare Ribs
Some people have extra fingers, some people have extra nipples, some people have another head. It's a just the same thing.

MN: Fine.

WT: No, it would be more likely they had larger teeth.

C: Again, no. it actually has no function. It doesn't help support our body.

SR: No, 8 percent is to high for something like that. It's from out ancestors.

M Bison - April 22, 2009 08:19 PM (GMT)
Now rather than trying and failing to disprove evolution, how about you prove creationism?

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 08:20 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 01:52 PM)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 21 2009, 10:34 PM)
QUOTE
One commonly given "evidence" for evolution is "Darwin's finches". It is said that these 13 birds evolved wider beaks to be able to crack the harder nuts that come about in drought season (year) (with thinner shelled nuts available in the rest of the decade). Here's a more likely possibility:
There are many different breeds of finches with many different beaks on that island. The year of drought comes along, and those with thinner beaks cannot eat, so they either migrate, or die off. Leaving: big beaked finches.


So... explain how many animals seen PEFECTLY capable of eating food in the environment around them, and why animals in different parts of the world are all different.

Heck, it's pretty much impossible to explain Australia without evolution, the animal life their is so unique because it was cut off from the rest of the world for a huge amount of time, and animals evolved differently.

Well, if there's an animal, in its environment, perfectly capable of eating its food, the animals that couldn't eat either died or migrated, and the animals that could eat could flourish.

No, no it's not. There's a couple of different possibilities. Such as:
1: The ark landed there, so some animals stayed there that no one took with them, and some of them went with the people who went their different ways.
2: Those animals could have gone to Australia with someone (via the sea of course) and died off in their other habitat (evolution is full of this)

QUOTE
Plants are found on all layers because, look around, no matter where you go here are plants. Weaker mammals were found at the lower levels, the evolutionists just moved them before anyone noticed (in fact I knew a guy who used to be an evolutionist, and he confirmed this for me) Insects, again, are everywhere. There were probably already some at the top of the mountain.
And those on the lower levels were weaker, so they may have died out or not been found yet. As you guys say "Survival of the fittest"

Not all paleontologists are evolutionist. Excavations are often open to the public. Moving the mammals is bullsh!t. Prove that this friend of yours said what he said, and prove he wasn't lying.

Well, he was doing his thing one day, and he found mammoths under reptilians along with his team. He wanted to show this to the public, but was told if he did he would be fired. So he quit anyway. He released the pictures... and put them on a website. But the website has been removed from the internet

M Bison - April 22, 2009 08:22 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 08:20 PM)
Well, he was doing his thing one day, and he found mammoths under reptilians along with his team. He wanted to show this to the public, but was told if he did he would be fired. So he quit anyway. He released the pictures... and put them on a website. But the website has been removed from the internet

I smell bullsh!t.

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 08:22 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE
Yes, it died, than all its children died, and were rapidly buried (kept away from predators), and what they were buried in happened to be a natural cement (kept away from total deterioration).
YOU FAIL!
The only way to explain this is the flood

Yeah. You don't need a flood to explain that. it's the sea, there are natural cement type minerals all over the ocean floor.


Okay, then explain to me the thousands of fossils found everywhere around the world. Including on mountains, plains, in deserts, and nearly everywhere else in the world away from such materials that could create a cement.

M Bison - April 22, 2009 08:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 08:22 PM)


Okay, then explain to me the thousands of fossils found everywhere around the world. Including on mountains, plains, in deserts, and nearly everywhere else in the world away from such materials that could create a cement.

The continents are always drifting and moving. The Sahara desert was actually a part of the ocean just a few million years ago, the position of the ocean is constantly changing.

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 08:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 08:15 PM)

Not saying they are not feathers. The bone structure is reptilian.

Go to this website and scroll down to the dinosaurs evolving into birds section.

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 08:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 08:15 PM)


Look at granos post. i personally believe in the big bang, but you don't have to to believe in evolution.


You're still acting afraid to discuss this subject

M Bison - April 22, 2009 08:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 08:28 PM)

You're still acting afraid to discuss this subject

Because I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the origins of the universe. Doesn't mean I have to to say evolution is correct.

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 08:32 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 08:15 PM)

QUOTE
Male Nipples
Has nothing to do with evolution or creation. I once saw a man nursing a child... don't ask please


Wisdom teeth
According to Creation, there was a time when people grew much larger, and there was much more oxygen, so people would have had bigger mouths

Coccyx
This is just the tip of your spine, it helps support your body when you sit down

Spare Ribs
Some people have extra fingers, some people have extra nipples, some people have another head. It's a just the same thing.

MN: Fine.

WT: No, it would be more likely they had larger teeth.

C: Again, no. it actually has no function. It doesn't help support our body.

SR: No, 8 percent is to high for something like that. It's from out ancestors.

WT: Their jaw would have also grown, so they would have had bigger teeth, and bigger wisdom teeth.

C: (I'm quoting evolutionist sources here)
Additionally, it is also part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which act as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.

The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e. defecation, continence, etc): The levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through the anococcygeal raphé, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.

SR: Ever think of some of our ancestors were bigger, so they had more ribs.

Judge Death - April 22, 2009 08:34 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 08:22 PM)


Okay, then explain to me the thousands of fossils found everywhere around the world. Including on mountains, plains, in deserts, and nearly everywhere else in the world away from such materials that could create a cement.

The continents are always drifting and moving. The Sahara desert was actually a part of the ocean just a few million years ago, the position of the ocean is constantly changing.

Bison, there's land under those continents! They don't just float! Besides, if a continent moved as far as your little toe, it would cause an earthquake the that would go around the earth 90 degrees (+/-, depending on where it originates)

Pseudonym - April 22, 2009 08:36 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 04:34 PM)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 08:22 PM)


Okay, then explain to me the thousands of fossils found everywhere around the world. Including on mountains, plains, in deserts, and nearly everywhere else in the world away from such materials that could create a cement.

The continents are always drifting and moving. The Sahara desert was actually a part of the ocean just a few million years ago, the position of the ocean is constantly changing.

Bison, there's land under those continents! They don't just float! Besides, if a continent moved as far as your little toe, it would cause an earthquake the that would go around the earth 90 degrees (+/-, depending on where it originates)

and under that land is liquid rock, so they do "just float"

M Bison - April 22, 2009 08:41 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Judge Death @ Apr 22 2009, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (M Bison @ Apr 22 2009, 08:15 PM)

Not saying they are not feathers. The bone structure is reptilian.

Go to this website and scroll down to the dinosaurs evolving into birds section.

Willo, the dinosaur with a heart.

Fossilised heart. Clearly designed for pumping WARM blood.

And yeah, archaeopteyx outdated some feathered dinosaurs... but there were feathered dinosaurs before it too.




Hosted for free by zIFBoards