I was just wondering....

Smindas wrote:

Believe what you want, I'm not trying to stop you. Just learn more about the theory you're attempting to deconstruct before doing so.

I did, it was called AP Biology.

You'll remember what I mentioned about built-in excuses and no matter what is said, no one will give it a second thought no matter what.

This conversation has played itself out.

Eyesore wrote:

You'll remember what I mentioned about built-in excuses and no matter what is said, no one will give it a second thought no matter what.

This conversation has played itself out.

Giving up so soon Eyesore, or have you run out of excuses and examples that don't make sense? You have just as much "built-in excuse" as the next guy. Don't try to play it off like you're innocent of this. It's just that you're on the opposite end. I think we all chipped in with legitimate examples of the fallacy of macro-evolution from a scientific viewpoint and not some religious conviction.

GrandNational wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

You'll remember what I mentioned about built-in excuses and no matter what is said, no one will give it a second thought no matter what.

This conversation has played itself out.

Giving up so soon Eyesore, or have you run out of excuses and examples that don't make sense? You have just as much "built-in excuse" as the next guy. Don't try to play it off like you're innocent of this. It's just that you're on the opposite end. I think we all chipped in with legitimate examples of the fallacy of macro-evolution from a scientific viewpoint and not some religious conviction.

This is why I'm bowing out. It's the pompous sarcasm that's coming through, the bubbling insults, the flippant "thanks for your input" replies.

There are archives full of scientific texts, that if laid out would stretch from Earth to Mars and back again three times. The counter-argument is the existence of a single story.

I've chosen my side. You can sit on yours and judge me with your nose in the air; I don't care. I'd rather just shake my head and walk away.

Troublezone wrote:

If reptiles turned into birds, as claimed, then we should also expect to find fossils with gradually extending of the front feet of the reptile into the form of wings like a bird…The fossil record ought to reveal many millions of transitional, intermediate life forms. They should fill museum collections (Joe White, Ed.D. and Nicholas Comninellis, M.D., Darwin's Demise, Master Books, 2001, p. 15).

And yes all those dinsaurs/birds are in the fossil record.

Eyesore wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

You'll remember what I mentioned about built-in excuses and no matter what is said, no one will give it a second thought no matter what.

This conversation has played itself out.

Giving up so soon Eyesore, or have you run out of excuses and examples that don't make sense? You have just as much "built-in excuse" as the next guy. Don't try to play it off like you're innocent of this. It's just that you're on the opposite end. I think we all chipped in with legitimate examples of the fallacy of macro-evolution from a scientific viewpoint and not some religious conviction.

This is why I'm bowing out. It's the pompous sarcasm that's coming through, the bubbling insults, the flippant "thanks for your input" replies.

There are archives full of scientific texts, that if laid out would stretch from Earth to Mars and back again three times. The counter-argument is the existence of a single story.

I've chosen my side. You can sit on yours and judge me with your nose in the air; I don't care. I'd rather just shake my head and walk away.

But you do the same. I made it clear earlier. Read your own pompous sarcastic replies and see if you don't agree.


The Bible is a not a scientific
book, nor should it be treated as such. This is where you seem to be
confused. I don't think anyone even brought that issue up here. I certainly wouldn't. Having information and applying it to theory does not equate
to truth.


See, you already don't care to hear the other
side because you've chosen your side. Your doing the same thing you
blame others of doing. I never judged you with my nose in the air.
Judging a person and judging his ideas are two separate things. You
shouldn't do the first kind, but your more than allowed to do the
second kind.

Eyesore, I thought you were a lot tougher than this. I like your sarcasms and funny posts. Don't ever lose sight that this is just a board to share ideas, no matter how different or ridiculous it may seem to you or others. That's why I like being here.

GrandNational wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

You'll remember what I mentioned about built-in excuses and no matter what is said, no one will give it a second thought no matter what.

This conversation has played itself out.

Giving up so soon Eyesore, or have you run out of excuses and examples that don't make sense? You have just as much "built-in excuse" as the next guy. Don't try to play it off like you're innocent of this. It's just that you're on the opposite end. I think we all chipped in with legitimate examples of the fallacy of macro-evolution from a scientific viewpoint and not some religious conviction.

This is why I'm bowing out. It's the pompous sarcasm that's coming through, the bubbling insults, the flippant "thanks for your input" replies.

There are archives full of scientific texts, that if laid out would stretch from Earth to Mars and back again three times. The counter-argument is the existence of a single story.

I've chosen my side. You can sit on yours and judge me with your nose in the air; I don't care. I'd rather just shake my head and walk away.

But you do the same. I made it clear earlier. Read your own pompous sarcastic replies and see if you don't agree.

I have not once been pompous or sarcastic here. I am fully aware that most of this forum's posters are Christians, and I completely respect that because I respect them. Do not tell me I've been anything but respectful here.

Walking away from this discussion does not imply weakness of any sort; it shows respect. And instead, you're throwing stones at my back and calling me a wimp.

Quote :

The Bible is a not a scientific book, nor should it be treated as such. This is where you seem to be confused. I don't think anyone even brought that issue up here. I certainly wouldn't. Having information and applying it to theory does not equate to truth.

Confused? I never implied once that the Bible was a scientific book.

Quote :

See, you already don't care to hear the other side because you've chosen your side. Your doing the same thing you blame others of doing. I never judged you with my nose in the air. Judging a person and judging his ideas are two separate things. You shouldn't do the first kind, but your more than allowed to do the second kind.

Wrong. I am very open to hear what others have to say, but I do not care to do just argue with someone that does nothing to prove his own opinion, only sits and picks apart the points of another.

You have one argument point, while those non-Christians have thousands. So instead of taking the Bible, digging into it and trying to prove the TRUTH of the Bible, you just tear down anything someone else gives to back up their opinion.

That, my friend, is the key difference here.

Quote :

Eyesore, I thought you were a lot tougher than this. I like your sarcasms and funny posts. Don't ever lose sight that this is just a board to share ideas, no matter how different or ridiculous it may seem to you or others. That's why I like being here.

Again, this has nothing to do with toughness. It is simply futile to discuss this further. The Bible is truth, remember? Can't compete with that.

rattpoison wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

If reptiles turned into birds, as claimed, then we should also expect to find fossils with gradually extending of the front feet of the reptile into the form of wings like a bird…The fossil record ought to reveal many millions of transitional, intermediate life forms. They should fill museum collections (Joe White, Ed.D. and Nicholas Comninellis, M.D., Darwin's Demise, Master Books, 2001, p. 15).

And yes all those dinsaurs/birds are in the fossil record.

Drawings? Isn't there some real pics?? They also have a ape to man chart rattpoison.

Quote :

Walking away from this discussion does not imply weakness of any sort; it shows respect. And instead, you're throwing stones at my back and calling me a wimp.

Back during the Limp Bizkit war no one walked away... just sayin...

xyz and GrandNational, I found an interesting article...



Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.

There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea.

However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They canot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

Walking away from this discussion does not imply weakness of any sort; it shows respect. And instead, you're throwing stones at my back and calling me a wimp.

Back during the Limp Bizkit war no one walked away... just sayin...

Actually, I did. And that's because I'm not an immature turd. Please stop.

I only mentioned it because it reminded me... The Limp Bizkit thread was shut down... "Your" insults are mature... remember? Ok i'm done.

Troublezone wrote:

I only mentioned it because it reminded me... The Limp Bizkit thread was shut down... "Your" insults are mature... remember? Ok i'm done.

Considering I couldn't defend myself against those silly accusations, I was clearly joking when I said my insults were mature.

Troublezone wrote:

xyz and GrandNational, I found an interesting article...

Why Transition From Water to Land
is Impossible

Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.

There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea.

However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

Thanks Troublezone. I hope Eyesore read this.

Eyesore wrote:

Again, this has nothing to do with toughness.

Obviously you didn't catch my sarcasm here or you took me too seriously when I was just messing around.

Quote :

Seems like that is evolution happening now, no?

No, that is adaptation. No genetic change has happened. I too think we should bow out, i've tried to post information without being a jerk but no matter what feelings get hurt. I've studied this subject immensely and while I do believe the Bible i've come at the subject from a scientific point of view and used to think from a Theistic evolution point of view. It's a heated subject that the press treats as if it's settled in acadamia which is not the actuality.

Troublezone wrote:

xyz and GrandNational, I found an interesting article...

Why Transition From Water to Land
is Impossible

Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.

There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea.

However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They canot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

People seem to think this all happened in one freaking second. It's called 'evolution' for a reason.

Schbopo wrote:

People seem to think this all happened in one freaking second. It's called 'evolution' for a reason.

Even a gazillion years would make it highly unlikely for those changes to happen gradually, because as the article scientifically demonstrated, it's impossible.

GrandNational wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

xyz and GrandNational, I found an interesting article...

Why Transition From Water to Land
is Impossible

Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.

There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea.

However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

Thanks Troublezone. I hope Eyesore read this.

I did, and it makes no sense considering what evolution actually represents. This was clearly written by an idiot with an agenda.

Schbopo wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

xyz and GrandNational, I found an interesting article...

Why Transition From Water to Land
is Impossible

Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.

There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea.

However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They canot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and all by chance.

People seem to think this all happened in one freaking second. It's called 'evolution' for a reason.

Quote :

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

Either you didn't read this or you have no comprehension. Did you not read the part that there is no possible way the sea creature could even physically handle the land's enviroment to evolve.

Quote :

This was clearly written by an idiot with an agenda.

Why is he a idiot? Because it refutes your stance? You were going on about your answers always getting shot down, well this is a perfectly logical answer and you shot it down. Please break down your reasons why.

Anyone know how I can remove a thread from my "New Posts" list?

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

This was clearly written by an idiot with an agenda.

Why is he a idiot? Because it refutes your stance? You were going on about your answers always getting shot down, well this is a perfectly logical answer and you shot it down. Please break down your reasons why.

You do realize a 12-year-old gets it, right? There is nothing logical about what this guy says, because he's not approaching it from a neutral stance.

It's like the people that suggest life outside this universe--or within it--cannot exist without water and oxygen. What a foolish statement, eh?

Eyesore wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

This was clearly written by an idiot with an agenda.

Why is he a idiot? Because it refutes your stance? You were going on about your answers always getting shot down, well this is a perfectly logical answer and you shot it down. Please break down your reasons why.

You do realize a 12-year-old gets it, right? There is nothing logical about what this guy says, because he's not approaching it from a neutral stance.

It's like the people that suggest life outside this universe--or within it--cannot exist without water and oxygen. What a foolish statement, eh?

Refute it and break down the reasons.

NumbskullakaNazgul wrote:

Quote :

Seems like that is evolution happening now, no?

No, that is adaptation. No genetic change has happened. I too think we should bow out, i've tried to post information without being a jerk but no matter what feelings get hurt. I've studied this subject immensely and while I do believe the Bible i've come at the subject from a scientific point of view and used to think from a Theistic evolution point of view. It's a heated subject that the press treats as if it's settled in acadamia which is not the actuality.

Bingo!

I'm in the same boat. I actually have college credits on this subject but I've long since given up debating it. What I've run into is the evolutionary wall created by the public school system and the media which generally treats evolution (and I'm talking MACROevolution; where species evolve into another species) as fact.

Do I have all the answers? No.

The evolutionists seem to think they do though.