Author Topic: Evolution = Myth (Read 1756 times)

Vulcan · « **Reply #45 on:** April 05, 2004, 08:05:27 PM »

I want to see the creationists try and explain the excessive hair on my butt.

Chairboy · « **Reply #46 on:** April 05, 2004, 08:12:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
I want to see the creationists try and explain the excessive hair on my butt.

Proof of Satan?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #47 on:** April 05, 2004, 08:40:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
I want to see the creationists try and explain the excessive hair on my butt.

You said "butt." Reprimand and $150 fine, per the rules!!!

Check the rules here:

http://www.liberty.edu/StudentAffairs/index.cfm?PID=1378

Vulcan · « **Reply #48 on:** April 05, 2004, 09:08:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Proof of Satan?

No that would be my farts.

Mini D · « **Reply #49 on:** April 05, 2004, 09:29:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Silly Mini.

Water to Land - Absurdly obvious. We still have existant transitional species that perform the miracle of "amphibiousness" while still remaining "fishy". One example off the top of my head is the Mudskipper of the Southern US. Natural slection would favor an animal that could move further from pond to pond during dry seasons or climactic changes. No need to make up anything. It is right in front of us.

Land to Flight - Tired of typing now... go HERE Explanations and references.

LOL! read that link yourself MT. The words "probable", "likely" and "could have" are quite predominate.

And you're right... Natural selection would favor an animal that could move farther from pond to pond... it's a wonder more haven't survived as compared to the animals that can't move from the water nor from the land.

But fear not... those aren't really holes in the whole theory of evolution... nor even "survival of the fittest". It's just holes waiting to be filled, forcefully or not... by the wonders of science.

MiniD

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #50 on:** April 05, 2004, 09:42:50 PM »

I see no one is still absolutely certain about anything regarding evolution or creation... so, everything stated here from either side means nothing. Kind of like wamalama ding dong or give peace a chance.
-SW

Torque · « **Reply #51 on:** April 05, 2004, 09:54:33 PM »

The only difference being one can produce somewhat tangible evidence as the main thesis and the other advocates the gates of hell.

Nash · « **Reply #52 on:** April 05, 2004, 10:11:07 PM »

Evolution is the tangible evidence of a god. How about THEM apples?

who the hell really knows....

midnight Target · « **Reply #53 on:** April 06, 2004, 12:16:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! read that link yourself MT. The words "probable", "likely" and "could have" are quite predominate.

And you're right... Natural selection would favor an animal that could move farther from pond to pond... it's a wonder more haven't survived as compared to the animals that can't move from the water nor from the land.

But fear not... those aren't really holes in the whole theory of evolution... nor even "survival of the fittest". It's just holes waiting to be filled, forcefully or not... by the wonders of science.

MiniD

You know, for someone who really doesn't know biological science you sure do talk good.

Pei · « **Reply #54 on:** April 06, 2004, 12:53:17 AM »

Proof that evolution has failed:

http://www.liberty.edu/StudentAffairs/index.cfm?PID=1378

Nash · « **Reply #55 on:** April 06, 2004, 01:01:22 AM »

Nahh... The ultimate proof that evolution has failed comes once a year, every year, when people post AH con pics.

Tuomio · « **Reply #56 on:** April 06, 2004, 03:48:35 AM »

Existence of god is only relevant to me if he will interrupt this process that has been seemingly uninterrupted by external entities for billions of years. I am not holding my breath like millions of people around the world are. Its like getting exited when the lottery numbers are about to be announced.

Forces that worked around big bang are most likely beyond our capacity of understanding.

Tuomio · « **Reply #57 on:** April 06, 2004, 04:38:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
There simply isn't anything out there that substantiates the migration from water to land nor from land to flight nor from reptile to mamal. This is the fundamental flaw of evolution and glaringly highlights just exactly what "scientific theory" is based on. Agree or disagree with it... just don't pretend it's not a religion.

There are lots of things that tell about how the transition happened.When talking about transitional species you should first try to define what is exactly a transitional species.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran

"The fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land"