Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?

[CJohnny54]

Originally Posted by CJohnny54

the used of privileged info from spying on me to inter-fear in my affair

+UP

[Old-T]

You are, without a doubt, one of the most illogical, obstinate people on here.
I don’t have time to pull apart your “argument” point by point—it doesn’t deserve that much effort. But I will summarize for you.
Yes, none of the hypotheses about how the universe got here have been “proved”. Most people on here don’t even comprehend what “prove” means and confuse evidence in favor of a theory as “proof”. Very few theories can ever be proved. HOWEVER other a theory can be disproved.
Was Darwin right? Probably not in total, but the overwhelming pile of evidence has been consistent with the core elements of Darwin’s ideas. The problem is, people like you will disavow accepting it. You will find a place where the mortar is cracked and claim the building does not exist because it isn’t the building you WANT to see.
The biblical literal or pseudo-literal creationism “theory” on the other hand has the overwhelming pile of evidence saying that it is wrong. 4,000 or 6,000, or 60,000 years is so far unbelievable as to be laughable. [I won’t even point out that the difference between 4B and 5B is only 25% uncertainty, while 4K to 6K is 50%, but that’s a minor issue in the bigger scheme]. To have ANY hope of being true, biblical creationism has to disavow essentially every branch of science as well as many oral histories alive today.
Look at the crux of your illogic: you say ExNYer is wrong because “he wasn’t there”, but there are mountains of data and measurements and facts that support most of what he has said. On the other hand, you stick to a literal belief based solely upon a document that—in the areas of creation—is supported by a comparative empty cupboard of facts, filled with contradictions if taken to be literal, and written by people who (as you admit earlier in this thread) were more interested in the moral implications than the literal recording of facts. You want it both ways: when the bible contradicts itself you claim it is NOT to be taken literally, but in the area of creation all of a sudden you DO claim it is factual truth.
I have to believe the evangelists would be laughing at the way the literalists have reinterpreted their words, and I am certain god is not happy that people have focused on the trappings of the bible instead of the moral message.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are, without a doubt, one of the most illogical, obstinate people on here.
I don’t have time to pull apart your “argument” point by point—it doesn’t deserve that much effort. But I will summarize for you.
Yes, none of the hypotheses about how the universe got here have been “proved”. Most people on here don’t even comprehend what “prove” means and confuse evidence in favor of a theory as “proof”. Very few theories can ever be proved. HOWEVER other a theory can be disproved.
Was Darwin right? Probably not in total, but the overwhelming pile of evidence has been consistent with the core elements of Darwin’s ideas. The problem is, people like you will disavow accepting it. You will find a place where the mortar is cracked and claim the building does not exist because it isn’t the building you WANT to see.
The biblical literal or pseudo-literal creationism “theory” on the other hand has the overwhelming pile of evidence saying that it is wrong. 4,000 or 6,000, or 60,000 years is so far unbelievable as to be laughable. [I won’t even point out that the difference between 4B and 5B is only 25% uncertainty, while 4K to 6K is 50%, but that’s a minor issue in the bigger scheme]. To have ANY hope of being true, biblical creationism has to disavow essentially every branch of science as well as many oral histories alive today.
Look at the crux of your illogic: you say ExNYer is wrong because “he wasn’t there”, but there are mountains of data and measurements and facts that support most of what he has said. On the other hand, you stick to a literal belief based solely upon a document that—in the areas of creation—is supported by a comparative empty cupboard of facts, filled with contradictions if taken to be literal, and written by people who (as you admit earlier in this thread) were more interested in the moral implications than the literal recording of facts. You want it both ways: when the bible contradicts itself you claim it is NOT to be taken literally, but in the area of creation all of a sudden you DO claim it is factual truth.
I have to believe the evangelists would be laughing at the way the literalists have reinterpreted their words, and I am certain god is not happy that people have focused on the trappings of the bible instead of the moral message.

Mico evolution has been proven, living organisms ability to adapt
and change somewhat to survive in a changing environment.

That is mainly what Darwin uncovered.

Macro evolution has never had any proofs uncovered and has only
been assumed, and has much more scientific evidence against it
than for.

Macro Evolution--Evolving from nothing to one celled organism to an Elephant,
Pig, Monkey, Man, Ect.

It is a big deception that has been perpetrated on the ignorant and gullible
public.

Believe it if you want but it takes just as much faith to believe as any religion.

[CJohnny54]

+UP

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CJohnny54

+UP

Shit. Marshall/ChoomCzar is back again.

ChicaChaser, it is time to run him out again.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Shit. Marshall/ChoomCzar is back again.

ChicaChaser, it is time to run him out again.

I'm still a sceptic. Choomshall was never able to make a post shorter than 10,000 words or so.

By the way, this is now the longest thread (in terms of # of posts) in the Sandbox. Wow.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are, without a doubt, one of the most illogical, obstinate people on here.
I don’t have time to pull apart your “argument” point by point—it doesn’t deserve that much effort. But I will summarize for you.
Yes, none of the hypotheses about how the universe got here have been “proved”. Most people on here don’t even comprehend what “prove” means and confuse evidence in favor of a theory as “proof”. Very few theories can ever be proved. HOWEVER other a theory can be disproved.
Was Darwin right? Probably not in total, but the overwhelming pile of evidence has been consistent with the core elements of Darwin’s ideas. The problem is, people like you will disavow accepting it. You will find a place where the mortar is cracked and claim the building does not exist because it isn’t the building you WANT to see.
The biblical literal or pseudo-literal creationism “theory” on the other hand has the overwhelming pile of evidence saying that it is wrong. 4,000 or 6,000, or 60,000 years is so far unbelievable as to be laughable. [I won’t even point out that the difference between 4B and 5B is only 25% uncertainty, while 4K to 6K is 50%, but that’s a minor issue in the bigger scheme]. To have ANY hope of being true, biblical creationism has to disavow essentially every branch of science as well as many oral histories alive today.
Look at the crux of your illogic: you say ExNYer is wrong because “he wasn’t there”, but there are mountains of data and measurements and facts that support most of what he has said. On the other hand, you stick to a literal belief based solely upon a document that—in the areas of creation—is supported by a comparative empty cupboard of facts, filled with contradictions if taken to be literal, and written by people who (as you admit earlier in this thread) were more interested in the moral implications than the literal recording of facts. You want it both ways: when the bible contradicts itself you claim it is NOT to be taken literally, but in the area of creation all of a sudden you DO claim it is factual truth.
I have to believe the evangelists would be laughing at the way the literalists have reinterpreted their words, and I am certain god is not happy that people have focused on the trappings of the bible instead of the moral message.

OlD T there are a lot of things in the Bible that has been proven accurate- if you start with just the Book of Genesis most scientist will not argue with the order of how the creation took place- if the Bible is a fable what are the chances of the author getting the creation correct in chronological order???
Are you going to deny that their are prophecies in the Old Testament that came true thousands of years later as mere coincindence

The Nation of Israel is one of the biggest evidence of the Bible being true- are you going to tell me that someone can write prophecy thousands of years ago and all of a sudden it comes true as told? Can you name me another book that predicted what would happen to a nation or it's people:


Through Moses, God brought the nation of Israel into a covenant, a solemn agreement to keep the complete set of laws and commandments He gave them. "These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the sons of Israel." (Deuteronomy 29:1 NASB) If they kept the covenant, they would receive a long string of blessings specifically listed as part of the agreement. But, if they broke the covenant, there would be punishments in store for the nation. The ultimate punishment would be the breakup of the nation and the scattering of the Jewish people to live as strangers in the territories of other nations.

"But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God...the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth." (Deuteronomy 28:15, 64 NASB)


Have you ever read the book of Daniel???? Is that book mere coincidence?

Here are some other interesting tidbits:

1) The percentage difference between chimps and humans. 2 percent or less sounds really close, right? But what is not being told is the actual number the percentage comes off of. Which by the way is 3 billion. You won't find that number printed anywhere in any school text book. This is because if people knew when being taught evolution the actual number, they would also figure out that not as close as it seems.

2) Evolution and the immune system. Evolutionists stay away from this subject like it's the plague. Why? The immune system, and how it works, debunks evolution all by itself. And what's even worse is an animal's immune system is much stronger than a human's so changes in animals will be fought harder. Just go and research what's involved in organ transplants, and the immune system, and find out. Even though the change is within the same species, the immune system will fight it unless immune system suppressants are taken for the person's whole remaining life. Which brings up the question: What suppressed the immune system during the changes of evolution?

3) The problems with the fossil record. The fossil record AKA Geological Column, has several problems. None of which evolutionists will address because the fossil record is the holy grail of the proof of evolution. But does it support evolution to the degree claimed? Nope. And here's why:

a) Evolution is about simple life evolving into more complex life, right? So if the fossil record solely supports evolution and nothing else. Then the fossil record should support this idea 100%, correct? But it does not. In the bottom most layer we should have only simple life. No fully formed organs or systems. But the trilobite and the nautilus both have complex organs and systems. So does complexity just poof itself onto the scene, or does it evolve? And since it has to evolve in the evolution process, where is the evidence of this for these lifeforms in the fossil record?

B) Living fossils also pose a problem for the fossil record. This is because the living fossil is found several layers down and alive today. Yet every living fossil has the same problem. There is no evidence of it surviving until today. Example: let's say one living fossil is found 7 layers down and alive today. Yet it is not found in any layer in between. Which means the record of it surviving until today, is missing in 6 layers of so called accurate record keeping of time. This would be fine if this were on one or two living fossils, but it applies to "every" living fossil found. And there are about 25-30 known, so that's 25-30 problems that cannot be explained away.

c) Age dating markers cross contaminate. If a layer dates 1 million years old. And you bury a bone that dates only 100 years old in that 1 million year aged layer. Over a period of time the dating markers will cross contaminate the bone and make it date the same age as the layer. So regardless of how long ago that animal lived, it will date according to what layer it's found in. Which does not prove how long ago it lived. This is because the layer determines this, not time.

4) Evolution has "always" bean about life adapting to it's surroundings. But what about life making it's surroundings adapt to it's needs in order to survive? Plankton have the ability to make clouds when the sun gets to hot for them to survive: http://www.nasa.gov/...nktoncloud.html

[wellendowed1911]

Evolution leaves way way and I mean way to many questions:
we have some animals abilities that are to complex to be explained by the evolution process. One as an example is the mimic octopus- How does the mimic octopus "evolve" the ability to "mimic" at least 5 other animals???? It can mimic the animals shape, texture and color- are you telling me that was "evolved" and not designed???? If it "evolved" those traits then the following must have happened:

a) The outer skin and tissue have to evolve to do this.
B) The nervous system has to evolve to support this.
c) The brain has to evolve to control this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bLxDwWXHz8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zh50pfG7d8

Tell me how the heck does evolution explain the mimic octopus??? In the 2nd video the narrator basically admits as marine biologist they have no idea how the mimic octopus evolved all those features because they have to have so many things going on at one time- which IMHO easily leads me to the obvious the mimic octopus is a result of intelligent design.

[JCM800]

who cares about the mimic octopus.... we still need the info on the Gulf Coast Jaguarundi

Attachment 200462

[forumguy456987]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Evolution leaves way way and I mean way to many questions:
we have some animals abilities that are to complex to be explained by the evolution process. One as an example is the mimic octopus- How does the mimic octopus "evolve" the ability to "mimic" at least 5 other animals???? It can mimic the animals shape, texture and color- are you telling me that was "evolved" and not designed???? If it "evolved" those traits then the following must have happened:

a) The outer skin and tissue have to evolve to do this.
B) The nervous system has to evolve to support this.
c) The brain has to evolve to control this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bLxDwWXHz8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zh50pfG7d8

Tell me how the heck does evolution explain the mimic octopus??? In the 2nd video the narrator basically admits as marine biologist they have no idea how the mimic octopus evolved all those features because they have to have so many things going on at one time- which IMHO easily leads me to the obvious the mimic octopus is a result of intelligent design.

How does something being complex instantly make it "designed"?

What purpose is there for this creature to have these abilities? why would someone design something so complex in order for this creature to merely survive? Why not just design everything else not to eat the poor bastard? I can't imagine the sheer terror this thing goes through when it's trying to hide from a predator, hoping he doesn't get eaten. Does this creator just enjoy watching the show, like some redneck watching NASCAR for the wrecks?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by forumguy456987

How does something being complex instantly make it "designed"?

What purpose is there for this creature to have these abilities? why would someone design something so complex in order for this creature to merely survive? Why not just design everything else not to eat the poor bastard? I can't imagine the sheer terror this thing goes through when it's trying to hide from a predator, hoping he doesn't get eaten. Does this creator just enjoy watching the show, like some redneck watching NASCAR for the wrecks?

Simple answer to your question is extinction!!!! I gave the example of the giraffe way earlier in the post: The Giraffe as we know it today has a flap around it's brain that cuts off at the right time- because the giraffe neck is so long when it bend it's neck down to take a sip of water and brinks it back up- if it didn't have the mechanism it would pass out everytime from a rapid drop in blood pressure. So my question is if it was "evolved" than there had to a period of time when the giraffe didn't have the mechanism and when it was drinking water it heard a lion approaching, lifted it's head and Bam the giraffe passed out and was eaten by the lion- so how did the gene get passed on if it was passing out and getting eaten every time????

Again, with the woodpecker- I assume if you follow evolution there just had to be tons of woodpeckers who were brain damaged from pecking into a tree??? A cardinal or crow can't drill into a tree like a jackhammer in the same manner as a woodpecker for many reason- the most notable is the woodpecker has basically a cushion surrounding it's brain that prevents it from having serious brain damage from drilling into trees- how is that evolved??? Also, google the anatomy of the woodpecker's brain and look at the woodpecker's tongue- no other bird has a tongue that is designed like the woodpecker's.
And your response is the mimic octopus got "scared" and evolved the ability to morph???? Really???? Than wouldn't it be nice if a poodle could mimic a pittbull???? The mimic octopus basically shit's on the theory of evolution.

[JCM800]

we1911 you are eccie's very own Jack Hannah... how does that woodpeckers tongue feel up your ass?

[forumguy456987]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

And your response is the mimic octopus got "scared" and evolved the ability to morph???? Really???? Than wouldn't it be nice if a poodle could mimic a pittbull???? The mimic octopus basically shit's on the theory of evolution.

My response was questioning why some all powerful creator wouldn't just simply make other animals not want to eat the little guys instead of this elaborate fashion of SIMPLY SURVIVING.

Science has links to ancestors of tons of species of animals... the bible says nothing about a mimic octopus, so the mimic octopus basically shits on the bible.

[forumguy456987]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Simple answer to your question is extinction!!!! I gave the example of the giraffe way earlier in the post: The Giraffe as we know it today has a flap around it's brain that cuts off at the right time- because the giraffe neck is so long when it bend it's neck down to take a sip of water and brinks it back up- if it didn't have the mechanism it would pass out everytime from a rapid drop in blood pressure. So my question is if it was "evolved" than there had to a period of time when the giraffe didn't have the mechanism and when it was drinking water it heard a lion approaching, lifted it's head and Bam the giraffe passed out and was eaten by the lion- so how did the gene get passed on if it was passing out and getting eaten every time????

They are genetic mutations that are advantageous to the animal's survival, the related animals that don't have the mutation die off. And as the mutation gets passed down and on(the animals fuck) they have babies with this mutation, if the spawn doesn't have the mutation then the species will die off. Evolution isn't a willful change that these animals are setting a goal to make.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by forumguy456987

How does something being complex instantly make it "designed"?

What purpose is there for this creature to have these abilities? why would someone design something so complex in order for this creature to merely survive? Why not just design everything else not to eat the poor bastard? I can't imagine the sheer terror this thing goes through when it's trying to hide from a predator, hoping he doesn't get eaten. Does this creator just enjoy watching the show, like some redneck watching NASCAR for the wrecks?

I guess, if the answer to that question isn't obvious to you, you may be beyond hope. Complexity, obviously has everything to do with the likelihood that something was designed; that's just common sense.

Here's a drawing of the anatomy of the human eye. The eye is enormously complex. The notion that the eye just happened through the process of natural selection is patently absurd. Natural selection is a plausible way to account for micro evolution, but it doesn't explain how life, in all its enormous complexity, came from the chaos of the big bang.

There is a principle in physics called entropy (the second law of thermodynamics). Entropy simply means that the natural tendancy of systems is to become less complex, to breakdown or disintegrate. Life on Earth has done the opposite of entropy; it has become more and more complex over time. There has to be an energy or intelligence that accounts for this contradiction.