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

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Yes, it evolved. No it did not happen "one day", but over a long time, in gradual steps. And when it started out, it wasn't a cheetah at all.

But to your point about cheetahs and leopards: different tool sets to take advantage of different parts of the ecological sysyem. Just like football teams or many other things. Just as giraffes and antelope do not fight over the same plants.

However, if you believe as you do, let me ask you this: if god "designed" the cheetah overnight--poof! it just appeared fully formed as it is now--and you believe the cheetah is a superior design than the leopard, then why did a loving god (or "designer") hate the leopard and cause it to live life with an inferior design?

The reality is, WHATEVER answer you come up with, quit being a litteralist and accept that the "design" process may well have had an intelligence behind it but the designer may have chosen to do his/her work over thousands or millions of years, not a few hours. Keep your god as the designer, just don't fixate on putting litteralism into the bible (or Koran, or .... ) and you will find most folks don't disagree with you or laugh at you so hard.

Who said the leopard is inferior design to a cheetah? They both kill in different fashion- the cheetah stalks it's prey and chases it down with superior speed. The leopard is ambush predator- the leopard is also bigger and stronger than the cheetah and can do other things the cheetah can't. A leopard can hoist it's prey(up to twice the leopard's own weight) up a tree and keep it away from other scavengers- leopards have great night vision- cheetahs have poor night vision and typically hunt in the early daytime- a cheetah many times loses it's hard earned prey to lions, hyenas and yes even cheetahs- so again your logic is flawed. And no sorry I will not accept your design theory took place over thousands of you- so again I ask you was the cheetah once slow?

Did it take thousands of years for the cheetah to become fast- if so where's your proof? Sorry but you have it or you don't have it- I could give you literally hundreds of examples in nature- I guess snakes at one time "developed" venom? Are you telling me snakes at one time would bite their prey and it wouldn't die so the snake said :"aww shit I better evolve something deadly so when I bite my prey they die within seconds..??? and then another set of snakes called phythons they just said the hell with Venom I am just going to evolve so much larger than other snakes and just suffocate my prey????

Also if you want to subscribe 100% to the evolution theory- man evolve from apes- apes are hairy so early man must have been extremely hairy with fur all over their body- so I guess it makes perfect sense for early man to be draped with hair/fur over their body and to evolve to lose all their hair/fur and than began hunting animals and wearing their fur on their body- yeah that makes perfect sense- it would be equivalent to modern man getting rid of cars/airplanes and traveling by means of horses and camels.

Also, how do you explain animals appearing on different continents- what are the chances that the same animal evolved in different regions of the world? Or is it more likely it was created and placed in various parts of the world. And finally how does Chaos create create order???

Believing in evolution is like telling someone- the U.S congress of library wasn't always there- one day a huge explosion happened and slowly after millions of years a building began to form than after the building formed- thousands years later books began to emerge until you have what you see today- i that basically evolution- big explosion - masses of gases became solid- forming the planets- than life began to form- but oh wait it o happened that the life that wa formed seemed to have everything it needed- wow what are those odds.

Also Old T go back to physic 101 the big bang theory say a big explosion eventually formed the planets- but if you know anything about physics if you have an explosion it would be virtually impossible to have the same objects spinning in different directions- how do you explain the some planets spin the opposite direction from the earth? How can that be if everything happened with the big bang?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Who said the leopard is inferior design to a cheetah? They both kill in different fashion- the cheetah stalks it's prey and chases it down with superior speed. The leopard is ambush predator- the leopard is also bigger and stronger than the cheetah and can do other things the cheetah can't. A leopard can hoist it's prey(up to twice the leopard's own weight) up a tree and keep it away from other scavengers- leopards have great night vision- cheetahs have poor night vision and typically hunt in the early daytime- a cheetah many times loses it's hard earned prey to lions, hyenas and yes even cheetahs- so again your logic is flawed. And no sorry I will not accept your design theory took place over thousands of you- so again I ask you was the cheetah once slow?

Did it take thousands of years for the cheetah to become fast- if so where's your proof? Sorry but if you have it or you don't have it- I could give you literally hundreds of examples in nature- I guess snakes at one time "developed" venom? Are you telling me snakes at one time would bite their prey and it wouldn't die so the snake said :"aww shit I better evolve something deadly so when I bite my prey they die within seconds..??? and then another set of snakes called phythons they just said the hell with Venom I am just going to evolve so much larger than other snakes and just suffocate my prey????

Also if you want to subscribe 100% to the evolution theory- man evolve from apes- apes are hairy so early man must have been extremely hairy with fur all over their body- so I guess it makes perfect sense for early man to be draped with hair/fur over their body and to evolve to lose all their hair/fur and than began hunting animals and wearing their fur on their body- yeah that makes perfect sense- it would be equivalent to modern man getting rid of cars/airplanes and traveling by means of horses and camels.

Darwin's theory was that humans and apes have common ancestry, not that humans evolved from apes. That means, according to Darwin, once upon a time there was animal that was neither human nor ape. From that animal, both species evolved.

I imagine the creature looked similar to Assup.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Darwin's theory was that humans and apes have common ancestry, not that humans evolved from apes. That means, according to Darwin, once upon a time there was animal that was neither human nor ape. From that animal, both species evolved.

I imagine the creature looked similar to Assup.

ok Joe the same logic applies- that early animal had hair right? Every picture I have seen of early man from the evolution standpoint shows a very hairy man- covered with fur- so why would man lose the fur and then hunt animals for fun- this dispels survival of the fittest- it makes no logical sense.

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Every picture I have seen of early man from the evolution standpoint shows a very hairy man- covered with fur- so why would man lose the fur and then hunt animals for fun- this dispels survival of the fittest- it makes no logical sense.

those pics are artist rendered.. nobody knows what the fuck they looked like

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

ok Joe the same logic applies- that early animal had hair right? Every picture I have seen of early man from the evolution standpoint shows a very hairy man- covered with fur- so why would man lose the fur and then hunt animals for fun- this dispels survival of the fittest- it makes no logical sense.

WE, just an FYI regarding one of your earlier posts: At its peak, Rome had conquered all peoples and territories adjoining the Mediterranean. In doing so, Rome introduced Roman civilization, i.e., roads, chariots, wagons, commercial trade, etc. Roman roads were always difficult and expensive to maintain. After the fall of Rome, and as Roman roads fell into disrepair, Bedouin camels came to be utilized as the principal means for commercial transport. Camels didn't require roads – so roads; hence, wheeled vehicles, such as wagons and carts, were abandoned in Arabia and other locales: a known instance of “devolution”.

On another issue you mention, there is the "Out of Africa" hypothesis to consider wherein climate played a role in body hair and skin pigmentation. Note in the pictures below that it is not the Africans who remained in Africa who needed to replace their body hair with animal skins – it was the peoples who migrated into colder, northern climes that needed to augment their body hair with the protection afforded by animal skins.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

ok Joe the same logic applies- that early animal had hair right? Every picture I have seen of early man from the evolution standpoint shows a very hairy man- covered with fur- so why would man lose the fur and then hunt animals for fun- this dispels survival of the fittest- it makes no logical sense.

I'm not particularly interested in speculating on the finer points of evolution. By far the most interesting aspect of the issue, to me, is the fact that evolution is not sufficient to account for life, without assistance from a supreme being.

If you just look at the amazing complexity of the human eye, it's obvious to any reasonable person that such a thing could not have been created by natural selection alone, not in a billion years, a trillion years or an infinite amount of time.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I'm not particularly interested in speculating on the finer points of evolution. By far the most interesting aspect of the issue, to me, is the fact that evolution is not sufficient to account for life, without assistance from a supreme being.

If you just look at the amazing complexity of the human eye, it's obvious to any reasonable person that such a thing could not have been created by natural selection alone, not in a billion years, a trillion years or an infinite amount of time.

Joe I 100% agree with you- that was the reason why I mentioned the Giraffe, woodpecker, and the cheetah- there is no way they are able to do what they can do by chance- someone or something designed it- yes the eye is a fantastic design- way may not think of it as much but the eye is an incredible design.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Joe I 100% agree with you- that was the reason why I mentioned the Giraffe, woodpecker, and the cheetah- there is no way they are able to do what they can do by chance- someone or something designed it- yes the eye is a fantastic design- way may not think of it as much but the eye is an incredible design.

Imagine that, we actually agree on something!

For a human to say there is no proof that God's exists is like a fish denying that water exists.

Not believing in God is willful ignorance.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Joe I 100% agree with you- that was the reason why I mentioned the Giraffe, woodpecker, and the cheetah- there is no way they are able to do what they can do by chance- someone or something designed it- yes the eye is a fantastic design- way may not think of it as much but the eye is an incredible design.

No one knows how that could of happened through evolution.
Scientist certainly don't---Why?--- Because there would need
to be literally thousands of missing link fossils and they have
never even found one. Not even one true missing link fossil.

So all of their speculations about evolution are still just theory.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

i think you'd be better served keeping your faith yours and not tell someone to quit whatever it is you say they are being

People can believe whatever they wish.

However, if they want to believe in litteral interpretations that do not logically hold together well, then they need to realize a lot of people will not agree, and will at times laugh at them.

That is true with bible litteralists, or those who beliefe Ptah spit (or masturbated) the world into existance, or that humans crawled up from the underworld through a hole in the earth.

[I B Hankering]

When a man’s life expectancy was only 35 years of age, a disease that usually killed a man at 45 wasn’t an issue. Sickle cell was once a life enhancing genetic mutation that has outlived its usefulness.



"A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria, a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.

"How could a "bad" gene -- the mutation that causes the sometimes lethal sickle cell disease -- also be beneficial? On the other hand, if it didn't provide some survival advantage, why had the sickle gene persisted in such a high frequency in the populations that had it? . . . .

"Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene."



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_012_02.html

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by bojulay

No one knows how that could of happened through evolution.
Scientist certainly don't---Why?--- Because there would need
to be literally thousands of missing link fossils and they have
never even found one. Not even one true missing link fossil.

So all of their speculations about evolution are still just theory.

That's one of the primary weaknesses of Darwin's theory. Darwin wrote that fossils of transitional species would eventually be found that supported his theory. They have not been found.

I think the reason that the theory of evolution is so zealously defended in spite of it's obvious flaws, is that it provides a way explaining life without necessarily admitting the existance of God.

[Old-T]

no message

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

That's not what is stated- the membrane sole purpose is when the giraffe dips it's neck to drink the membrane closes off rapidly thus preventing a rapid drop in blood pressure- it would make no sense for the membrane to have been there if it had a short neck- you are really fishing with that one.

You're not paying attention.

The giraffe did not evolve that membrane. An earlier ancestor that was NOT a giraffe evolved it. It was much smaller, had a shorter neck, and the membrane, which I am assuming was in its blood vessels, was a valve tissue - which ALL mammals have.

As the ancestor species evolved over the course of millennia, specimens that had longer necks were better able to survive because they had a better chance at reaching leaves that were high up in trees. So the traits for longer necks were passed on. And the specimens that had a stronger valve somewhere near the brain also were better able to survive, so the traits for a better "brain" valve were also passed on. Both the neck and the valve evolved incrementally over many centuries.

You seem to believe that 20 foot giraffes evolved and were passing out all the time until one day - POOF!!! - a membrane magically appeared - fully formed - in one of the giraffes in the blood vessels nears the brain.

That is not what happened. That is a distorting lie proposed by creationists to discredit the evidence supporting evolution.

[bojulay]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

That's one of the primary weaknesses of Darwin's theory. Darwin wrote that fossils of transitional species would eventually be found that supported his theory. They have not been found.

I think the reason that the theory of evolution is so zealously defended in spite of it's obvious flaws, is that it provides a way explaining life without necessarily admitting the existance of God.

Exactly.