Originally posted by Shakyamunison
“You will be Ruptured this year”: is just one of the many lies.
What's funny... people keep on believing it year after year. An in-law of mine who's a religious nut, actually believed that in year 2000, the world would end; Jesus would gather his "flock" and take them to heaven. Sad thing too, I think he's still waiting and looking for the next sign.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, sorry to burst your bubble but evolution is not a fact it is not even remotely scientific, it is pure urban legend, fairytale, and at most a fictionalized story about the origin of all life.[B]Questions for Evolutionists
by Dr. Kent HovindThe test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it? [/B]
1-5) Those questions are not even covered in the field of Biology. So, how can a biological theory even answer them?
6) Not all evolutionist support Abiogenesis.
7-8) Good question, I dunno if the theory has explained that one yet.
9) That's really irrelevant, because the theory of evolution is still valid without those theories.
10)Germline Mutations can effect phenotypes in such a way as to inadvertantly help a species.
11) The two theories are not at odds, just because some douche's says so.
ECT. . .
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
1-5) Those questions are not even covered in the field of Biology. So, how can a biological theory even answer them?6) Not all evolutionist support Abiogenesis.
7-8) Good question, I dunno if the theory has explained that one yet.
9) That's really irrelevant, because the theory of evolution is still valid without those theories.
10)Germline Mutations can effect phenotypes in such a way as to inadvertantly help a species.
11) The two theories are not at odds, just because some douche's says so.
ECT. . .
Thank you for at least attempting to answer the post Emperor Ashtar (I still think that you are one of the most noble KMC members, I have commended you in times past about this).
But I think that you could have done a better job at answering number 9.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Thank you for at least attempting to answer the post Emperor Ashtar (I still think that you are one of the most noble KMC members, I have commended you in times past about this).But I think that you could have done a better job at answering number 9.
Evolution is about "how", not really about "why".
Why do some people want children and others do not? I don't think there's a simple answer.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveAll of these things talk about the "start" of life and many are irrelevant. Evolution is something that is not in debate and can and has been shown and proven time and time again, it is only the start of life that is in debate.
Thank you for at least attempting to answer the post Emperor Ashtar (I still think that you are one of the most noble KMC members, I have commended you in times past about this).But I think that you could have done a better job at answering number 9.
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
All of these things talk about the "start" of life and many are irrelevant. Evolution is something that is not in debate and can and has been shown and proven time and time again, it is only the start of life that is in debate.
Evolution has not been proven (why do you believe that it has?).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is a fact. Do you believe that things never change over time?
Macroevolution is not a fact. Yes, I do believe that "things" change over time (people get older). But I am not gullible or naive to believe that one species transforms into another species (that is a downright lie/fairytale).
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Macroevolution is not a fact. Yes, I do believe that "things" change over time (people get older). But I am not gullible or naive to believe that one species transforms into another species (that is a downright lie/fairytale).
1. I don't believe Micro or Macro evolution are good science.
2. I think you are very gullible.
3. Species don't exist in the real world.
4. The bible is a downright lie/fairytale.
In answer to question number nine, they reproduce because it passes their traits onward into the future. If a Fox had a gene combo nation that made it unwilling to mate, then it would be very unlikely to have children. If it doesn't have children, then the trait dies with it. Animals that reproduce pass along genes that promote further reproduction, so we see animals that reproduce. The same goes for humans.
As to the 'increased competition' argument, let me try to set you straight. If there is food enough for 500 mice, then, assuming that all conditions remain constant, (including space, and lack of disease) then there will continue to be 500 mice indefinitely. If a group of well meaning tourists come along, and pick up the trash that the mice are living on, so that now there is only food enough for 200 mice, then pretty soon there will be 200 mice. Eventually though, the tourists must get back to the real world, so after 2 months they stop their morning trash patrol and go back to their jobs. The trash piles up again, and there is food for 500 mice again. The population will rise again. If the city officials LIKED having only 200 mice, then they don't have to pass out pamphlets telling mice to abstain from having baby mice until they are married, and since this is an ecologically friendly city poison is out of the question. What can the officials do? the answer is not in condoms for mice, but in food control. If they only leave enough food on the street for 100 mice, there will be 100 mice etc.
This same principal (Called by Daniel Quinn the ABC's of biology) applies to humans. We have increased food output on earth tremendously, and the population boom and starvation in Africa and in undeveloped countries worldwide is because of this principle.
Originally posted by Jbill311
In answer to question number nine, they reproduce because it passes their traits onward into the future. If a Fox had a gene combo nation that made it unwilling to mate, then it would be very unlikely to have children. If it doesn't have children, then the trait dies with it. Animals that reproduce pass along genes that promote further reproduction, so we see animals that reproduce. The same goes for humans.As to the 'increased competition' argument, let me try to set you straight. If there is food enough for 500 mice, then, assuming that all conditions remain constant, (including space, and lack of disease) then there will continue to be 500 mice indefinitely. If a group of well meaning tourists come along, and pick up the trash that the mice are living on, so that now there is only food enough for 200 mice, then pretty soon there will be 200 mice. Eventually though, the tourists must get back to the real world, so after 2 months they stop their morning trash patrol and go back to their jobs. The trash piles up again, and there is food for 500 mice again. The population will rise again. If the city officials LIKED having only 200 mice, then they don't have to pass out pamphlets telling mice to abstain from having baby mice until they are married, and since this is an ecologically friendly city poison is out of the question. What can the officials do? the answer is not in condoms for mice, but in food control. If they only leave enough food on the street for 100 mice, there will be 100 mice etc.
This same principal (Called by Daniel Quinn the ABC's of biology) applies to humans. We have increased food output on earth tremendously, and the population boom and starvation in Africa and in undeveloped countries worldwide is because of this principle.
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
That still doesn't answer the "why" question. Besides I thought the premise of natural selection presupposes that survival of the "fittest" is what prevails and lives on. How could an organism reproduce anyway without another organism to reproduce with female or male reproductive capacity? Did two single-cells form in the primordial gumbo batch?
I will ignore your obvious misunderstanding of the creation of life... for the time being... and answer your question.
An animal doesn't WANT to do anything- you are anthropomorphising. You are right about natural selection, what i was trying to say is that the animals (and humans) that reproduce ARE the fittest. The why is inside of the how. If they don't have the urge to reproduce then they won't, but if all creatures had this trait, then we wouldn't see any life other than human in the world at all.
You asked about compatibility between early life forms, but the answer is that most likely, many reproduced asexually (without a partner) as the generations passed forward, mutations in the genetic coding of their offspring caused changes to occur and pass onward through time.
Originally posted by Jbill311
I will ignore your obvious misunderstanding of the creation of life... for the time being... and answer your question.An animal doesn't WANT to do anything- you are anthropomorphising. You are right about natural selection, what i was trying to say is that the animals (and humans) that reproduce ARE the fittest. The why is inside of the how. If they don't have the urge to reproduce then they won't, but if all creatures had this trait, then we wouldn't see any life other than human in the world at all.
You asked about compatibility between early life forms, but the answer is that most likely, many reproduced asexually (without a partner) as the generations passed forward, mutations in the genetic coding of their offspring caused changes to occur and pass onward through time.
Empirical proof of this mutation?
Originally posted by Jbill311
I will ignore your obvious misunderstanding of the creation of life... for the time being... and answer your question.An animal doesn't WANT to do anything- you are anthropomorphising. You are right about natural selection, what i was trying to say is that the animals (and humans) that reproduce ARE the fittest. The why is inside of the how. If they don't have the urge to reproduce then they won't, but if all creatures had this trait, then we wouldn't see any life other than human in the world at all.
You asked about compatibility between early life forms, but the answer is that most likely, many reproduced asexually (without a partner) as the generations passed forward, mutations in the genetic coding of their offspring caused changes to occur and pass onward through time.
Why do they have to urge to reproduce?