evolution

Started by yerssot156 pages

that she gives me her dvd-recorder then 😛

What Tpt said, I'm flat broke at the moment cry

Originally posted by yerssot
that she gives me her dvd-recorder then 😛

Can't, it's on my mom's computer, not mine 😛

that's ok, give me her pc then 😛

No. Because then I'd have no internet 😛

unplug the cable first and stick it in your ear, you might get to hear it then 😉

😛

*looks around for something to give Yerss*

Here you go...a blank CD-R 😄

ah thankies, I just needed one to copy this illegaly downloaded C..erm... they can track this to you I hope 😖hifty:

Hey, isn't there a creationist in the Atheist thread? Why isn't he coming in here? Why!? I need some entertainment.

I don't know, me and Tpt told him repeatedly last night to take his argument over here, but he won't...probably scared of what'll happen when everyone gets on his case 😉

Here - play with this. I read this somewhere today:

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Oooh, I did a project on that last year in AP Bio!!!

...too bad I have to get ready to leave for school...damnit...

Also, here is an interesting site. http://www.answersincreation.org/ You might check out some of the articles. That is, if you guys haven't already been there & torn the site apart on this thread. I haven't read through some of the pages here, as it has gotten so long. 😉

One more thing for you to play around with (target practice anyone?)...

Two Sidewinders
Here in the Mojave Desert we are all too familiar with the sidewinder rattlesnake. The sidewinder doesn’t make sense in light of evolution. How could a snake evolve an organ that manufactures and stores toxic substances in its own body without killing itself? How likely is it that the toxic chemical storage facility would accidentally become connected to hollow fangs? Is there some plausible explanation for how the action of biting would naturally cause the venom to squirt out the fangs? How is it that the poison that kills the rat doesn’t kill the snake that eats the poisoned rat?
Here in the Mojave Desert we are also familiar with the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile. (It was designed here at China Lake.) How did an infrared seeker get connected to an autopilot which is connected to steering fins on a tube containing a rocket motor and high explosives attached to a triggering mechanism? Clearly, those things were consciously assembled to create something that destroys airplanes. It is just as clear that the venom delivery system in a sidewinder rattlesnake is a weapon system that is the result of planning and execution, not accident and selection.

It doesn’t make sense that poison would evolve in snakes. Nor does it make sense that similar chemical warfare systems would evolve in jellyfish, frogs, insects, and plants.

Born-again Caterpillars
Consider the life-cycle of a monarch butterfly. 1 The monarch butterfly egg hatches into a caterpillar. The caterpillar eats leaves and grows until such time as it gets the irresistible urge to hang, upside-down, helpless for about 12 hours, while its body undergoes some internal changes. Then, it starts wiggling, and the caterpillar’s skin breaks just behind the head. As it wiggles, the head, skin, and legs fall off, leaving just a capsule-shaped chrysalis. This chrysalis hangs there helpless for a week or two. During this time, its innards dissolve into a jelly-like substance that is comparable to the yolk and white of an egg. Just as the yolk and white of an egg congeal somehow into a chicken, the goo inside the chrysalis congeals into a butterfly. Finally, the chrysalis breaks, a butterfly wiggles out, and migrates 3,000 miles.
How does this make sense in light of evolution? What is the survival advantage of hanging helpless for a week or two? What series of genetic accidents could have caused this to happen? Why must a butterfly become an egg a second time and be born again?

One could argue that this makes sense in a world view that teaches that nature is full of spiritual object lessons; but it doesn’t make sense in a world view that teaches everything happens by chance, and the most advantageous processes survive while less efficient ones go extinct.

I've ALMOST been to that site... But it was called answersingenesis.com... 😛

Hmm. I just went to the "genesis" one. It looks really "churchy". I like the other one better.

Evolution isn't based on chance. It's based on natural selection and adaptation. Their argument falls apart with that sentence right there. They didn't even use the correct argument. What douches.

Arachnoidfreak> Ay, they should go take that test I posted the link for a few pages back...!!! Where was that again...

ANYWAYS> We need to lure some Creationists in here again.

AND> Hitchiker fans: The movie's coming out next year! 😄

The Omega> H2G2! C'mon time, speed up!

Hmm... luring Creationists. Just attach a faulty argument to a fishing line and leave it out overnight. When you wake up, dozens of 'em will be hooked (then the gutting begins😄).

Originally posted by The Omega
Arachnoidfreak> Ay, they should go take that test I posted the link for a few pages back...!!! Where was that again...

ANYWAYS> We need to lure some Creationists in here again.

AND> Hitchiker fans: The movie's coming out next year! 😄

Yay!!! Can't wait for that movie...

There's some Creationists over in the "Why are you an atheist" thread in the Philo forum...we've been trying to lure them back here but so far have been unsuccessful. I think they're afraid. 😆

Even though learning about evolution and stuff is my favorite part of school, in a way, I don't think they should be teaching it, because it confuses people about their religion, because it is contradictory. At least I am kind of confused.