Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Haven Of Wiidom. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Pages: (10) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Serious Debate Topic, Debate here
SilverSurfer092
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 01:31 AM


IT'S OVER 9000!!!!!!


Group: Admin
Posts: 9,072
Member No.: 67
Joined: 31-July 08



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.


--------------------
Points: OVER 9000!!!!!!
Top
Granobulax
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 03:28 AM


He's even got his hand over where I live...


Group: Admin
Posts: 7,880
Member No.: 35
Joined: 31-May 08



Yup biggrin.gif


--------------------
Points:


I scare little kids.
user posted image

QUOTE (treacherous @ Aug 16 2008, 12:12 PM)
RRRAOAAOAOAORRARRAA!!...  Blue lights and sirens rang through the night!! Yeah, they all wanna kill each other... HERE ME CITY!! THE STREETS BELONG TO THE GANGS NOW!! THIS IS THE NEW ORDER!! PREPARE FOR CHAOS!!

Solomon and I may be gangsta, but treach is the gangsta of the year!
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 01:52 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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)


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 01:58 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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"


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 02:01 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 02:06 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 02:10 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 02:21 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 02:24 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 02:25 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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?


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
M Bison
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 07:47 PM


Leader of Shadaloo, Soon ruler of the world


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,168
Member No.: 62
Joined: 30-July 08



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.


--------------------
Points: More than you


user posted image
"You know you're like the A-bomb? Everybody is laughing and having a good time, then you show up and BAM!"
http://hamish-campbell.mybrute.com
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 07:53 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
M Bison
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 08:15 PM


Leader of Shadaloo, Soon ruler of the world


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,168
Member No.: 62
Joined: 30-July 08



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.


--------------------
Points: More than you


user posted image
"You know you're like the A-bomb? Everybody is laughing and having a good time, then you show up and BAM!"
http://hamish-campbell.mybrute.com
Top
M Bison
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 08:19 PM


Leader of Shadaloo, Soon ruler of the world


Group: Admin
Posts: 2,168
Member No.: 62
Joined: 30-July 08



Now rather than trying and failing to disprove evolution, how about you prove creationism?


--------------------
Points: More than you


user posted image
"You know you're like the A-bomb? Everybody is laughing and having a good time, then you show up and BAM!"
http://hamish-campbell.mybrute.com
Top
Judge Death
Posted: Apr 22 2009, 08:20 PM


Busy with other things


Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 243
Joined: 3-April 09



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


--------------------
Quit being an @$$ SS
Top
« Next Oldest | Chit-Chat | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now

Topic OptionsPages: (10) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.1224 seconds · Archive