I was just wondering....

Quote :

You do realize a 12-year-old gets it, right

Get's what? Freshly programmed darwinian propaganda.

Quote :

he's not approaching it from a neutral stance.

I'm sure he had looked into the possibilities before taking his stance.

And the peppered moth illustration is simply an example of natural selection, which no thinking person would deny as a fact.

The key is that the peppered moth merely changed its colors; it didn't morph into some burrowing insect that bored into trees to escape predators. It didn't become a "non-moth"

Quote :

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?

Oh life can exist, on The X Files...

You know what, I have a hard time believing these people that deny the possibility of God yet welcome the idea of cosmic visitors.

Troublezone wrote:

You know what, I have a hard time believing these people that deny the possibility of God yet welcome the idea of cosmic visitors.

"The surest sign of life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".

-Calvin

Quote :

"The surest sign of life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".

-Calvin

I see he had a sense of humor.

Troublezone wrote:

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.

Sorry. I have better things to do with my time.

Troublezone wrote:

Quote :

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?

Oh life can exist, on The X Files...

You know what, I have a hard time believing these people that deny the possibility of God yet welcome the idea of cosmic visitors.

Can't you just reply to the ENTIRE post, instead of doing individual replies for each sentence?

Eyesore wrote:

Sorry. I have better things to do with my time.

But you seem to be coming back here again and again even though you said you were done with it. And of course you called the writer of the article an "idiot" because you're not the judgmental type, of course. Eyesore, you're a cool guy who knows a ton about music, but most us can see right through you.

Troublezone wrote:

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.

Those are drawings based on actual fossils found and documented, real species that existed.....what more do you want, pictures of real life dinosaurs?

If you want to see the legacy of the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.......next time you see a chicken check out the the very reptilian scales on it's legs and feet.

Troublezone wrote:

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.

Do you want me to bring out my old pal the Lungfish again? He totally smashes that point into oblivion, no argument end of story.

The other points you could find living extant examples that debunk those points.......think of any amphibious animal that spends its time both in water and out of water. Whether it be a seal, crocodile, hippo, lungfish, frog, penguin etc. Issues like heat retention, kidney function, weight bearing etc are no problem either in or out of the water for these animals.

What happened is not that the animal was living in water then next it was living out of water.......it was living in both and then the next step was being fully terrestrial.......or vice versa from land to water with the whales relatives.

GrandNational wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Sorry. I have better things to do with my time.

But you seem to be coming back here again and again even though you said you were done with it. And of course you called the writer of the article an "idiot" because you're not the judgmental type, of course. Eyesore, you're a cool guy who knows a ton about music, but most us can see right through you.

Exactly! It's the hit and run tactic.

Quote :

what more do you want, pictures of real life dinosaurs?

Umm, YES! Forget the drawings, they should be proud to show their findings.

Scientists have never fabricated proof... Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man etc... Drawings based on theory are useless.

Quote :

What happened is not that the animal was living in water then next it was living out of water.......it was living in both and then the next step was being fully terrestrial.......or vice versa from land to water with the whales relatives.

Nope! They never turned into another animal. They have always been what they are since the beginning. Surf and turf creatures just happen to feed from two enviroments. Ever have a steak and shrimp dinner?

Quote :

Do you want me to bring out my old pal the Lungfish again? He totally smashes that point into oblivion, no argument end of story.

You need to make new friends. It's a slimy relationship.




Many living fish are air-breathers and “walkers”

But air-breathing fish are not uncommon among living fish species. For example, many popular aquarium fish (such as the paradise fish, betta and gourami) are surface air-breathers that can actually drown if kept under water! Evolutionists are not even in agreement on whether lungs evolved before gills (as propose by the famous vertebrate evolutionist Alfred Romer), or gills evolved before lungs.
Even the sort of “walking” that lungfish engage in is not uncommon among living fish species. Many fish are known to pull themselves along on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of mud flats and even dry land. For example, the northern snakehead and the “walking catfish” (Clarias batrachus) are air-breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and “skip” along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins—indeed some of the larger species are said to skip faster than the average person can run! The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even said to be capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish. In fact there are even “flying fish” (with specialized fins that permit them to fly or glide in the air for hundreds of yards over water), but evolutionists have never considered them to be ancestors of birds.

One more thing... If this lungfish is a missing link then why did it not continue to change? Do they have it's fossil record? From then to now it would have continued to change...

Here we go kids... It pays to excel in art class. Even the Flintstones had K.F.C.



El Chupacabra or Chicken Lizard?

Evolution is also racist...

Quote :

Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race!

Darwin and his disciples were not only pseudo-scientists, but they were also radical, rabid racists! Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who laid the foundation of racism and imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

I wonder what the "climate" is doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of Darwinism? I am convinced this is so, for if one believes that life has no purpose, and man came from beasts, then dignity, fairness, kindness, honesty, faithfulness and justice have no relevance and importance.

Sir Arthur Keith, a well-known evolutionist, assessed Darwin's impact on Hitler and Germany: "We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy....The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter which has drenched Europe in blood."

The unreasonable, unbiblical, unscientific philosophy of Darwin and his disciples laid a foundation for hundreds of years of hatred, barbarity and unbelief reaching into the future and impacting millions of innocent lives.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race! Wonder what Jesse Jackson thinks of that?

Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

"Dusky cousins!" How would that be received down at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? But it gets worse. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." Blacks aren't human! Wow! the most KKK nut doesn't believe that!

Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be." Well, there goes any possibility of Ed ever becoming a life member of the NAACP. Too bad.

The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth. It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship at Darwin's shrine.

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching.

Troublezone wrote:

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching.

Sure, religion has had nothing to do with racism, hatred and violence .

Forgive my ignorance, but is it possible to believe in both evolution and God?

Olafsto wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching.

Sure, religion has had nothing to do with racism, hatred and violence .

Forgive my ignorance, but is it possible to believe in both evolution and God?

I think it is. While I don't subscirbe to Darwinism, over the years I realize that one can believe in this and still be a Christian. The bible says god created all but he didn't say how he did it. As for me, I don't know and I don't spend my time wondering about it. I rest in the belief that God is creator and all the semantics don't really matter much. As Uncle Saxon pointed out, we won't know for sure until the end.

Quote :

Sure, religion has had nothing to do with racism, hatred and violence .

There are deviants in every aspect of life but were talkin about the founder of a belief system. The message of the bible is for everyone (all men, all races).

Quote :

While I don't subscirbe to Darwinism, over the years I realize that one can believe in this and still be a Christian

Million-year man from dust?

If the Bible is the God-breathed Word of God, authoritative and correct, then the theistic evolutionist who ‘accepts’ the scriptural account of man’s creation does have to stretch it a little to say that man’s creation from dust just took millions of years through transforming life-forms. If it happened this way, God must have been deceiving us when He said He made man from dust. What prevented Him from telling it like it was?

The fact that death came by one man, Adam (Romans 5:12), is a serious challenge to theistic evolution, as many creatures already would have died in the evolutionary process. The death that came through Adam was two-fold, even as Christ’s death was twofold:

1. physical death and
   
2. spiritual death—separation from God.
   

It was from physical death that Jesus rose. Let us not think that this death that Adam brought in was only spiritual. The result of his sin was that he was not allowed to eat of the tree of life. As a result of this, he died physically many years later. Chapter 5 of Genesis tells us ‘And he died …’ some eight times, no doubt to emphasize the consequences of Adam’s sin.

As some degree of apeman, Adam was going to die, so what was the use of God’s warning to Adam, ‘In the day you eat of it, dying you will die’? (literal translation). Did God give Adam the ability to live for ever and then after Adam’s sin take it away?

In Scripture we read ‘for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead, for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22, 23). If Adam was the end of the evolutionary line, then thousands of evolving men had already died, and death did not come by Adam. Chapter 15 also tells of the second Adam, who was Christ. If the first Adam ‘ex–apeman’ was as real a person as the second Adam, then there came a day when God must have said: ‘You are of this moment man, Adam!’

DallasBlack wrote:

Olafsto wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Yes, the foundation of racism, hatred and violence in the last hundred years is based in evolutionary teaching.

Sure, religion has had nothing to do with racism, hatred and violence .

Forgive my ignorance, but is it possible to believe in both evolution and God?

I think it is. While I don't subscirbe to Darwinism, over the years I realize that one can believe in this and still be a Christian. The bible says god created all but he didn't say how he did it. As for me, I don't know and I don't spend my time wondering about it. I rest in the belief that God is creator and all the semantics don't really matter much. As Uncle Saxon pointed out, we won't know for sure until the end.

Thanks DallasBlack, I think so too.
But what do I know, i`m either a scientist or a theology professor, like a lot of the members on this message board...

Troublezone wrote:

One more thing... If this lungfish is a missing link then why did it not continue to change? Do they have it's fossil record? From then to now it would have continued to change...

It's perfectly adapted. Things don't evolve if they don't need to.