Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 96
Entire Site: 3 & 808
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-29-24 08:36 AM

Forum Links

Related Threads
Coming Soon

Thread Information

Views
3,040
Replies
36
Rating
0
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
Sword Legion
02-11-13 11:57 PM
Last
Post
hypermonkey
05-01-13 04:40 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 581
Today: 0
Users: 1 unique

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
Posts


<<
2 Pages
 

Creation vs Evolution

 

02-18-13 09:20 PM
rcarter2 is Offline
| ID: 742364 | 148 Words

rcarter2
Level: 161


POSTS: 5978/8463
POST EXP: 758515
LVL EXP: 53462407
CP: 33586.4
VIZ: 1689508

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Brigand : Nope. Nobody has yet. But that also brings up another question on top of it.

I also would like to ask that if everyone except for those on the Ark survived the flood, why do we look so different? Even more so, why are those differences more based on your National heritage? No way just a handful of people could could spawn that many different looks in such a short time. Even if the inbreeding factor was taken out of the equation, we would all look pretty much the same since there wouldn't be much variety in genes that are being passed down. But it has been quite a while since I have read that story in the Bible, so maybe I'm not correct on how many people survived the flood. But I am pretty sure it was supposed to be only the people on the Ark.
Brigand : Nope. Nobody has yet. But that also brings up another question on top of it.

I also would like to ask that if everyone except for those on the Ark survived the flood, why do we look so different? Even more so, why are those differences more based on your National heritage? No way just a handful of people could could spawn that many different looks in such a short time. Even if the inbreeding factor was taken out of the equation, we would all look pretty much the same since there wouldn't be much variety in genes that are being passed down. But it has been quite a while since I have read that story in the Bible, so maybe I'm not correct on how many people survived the flood. But I am pretty sure it was supposed to be only the people on the Ark.
Vizzed Elite
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table!


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-01-11
Location: Kansas
Last Post: 2439 days
Last Active: 748 days

02-20-13 11:18 PM
Sword Legion is Offline
| ID: 742607 | 692 Words

Sword Legion
Sword legion
Sword egion
Level: 102


POSTS: 105/3034
POST EXP: 699562
LVL EXP: 10831710
CP: 16237.8
VIZ: 148715

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
sonicmcmuffin :
MegaRevolution1 :

I'd like to say thanks to the both of you for your sense of humour.
Where has mine been during this period of time?

     One day a farmer's cow started to give birth to a calf, but the legs were starting to come out first and that's not
good, but it happens sometimes. So the farmer got out a calf puller help the mamma cow get that calf out.
A city fellow was driving by and the strange sight caught his eyes. He stopped the car to check out what in the world was
going on.

     "You ever seen anything like this?" (farmer)

     "No sir"

     "You got any questions?' the farmer asked.

     "Yes sir, I've got one that's been bugging me for 'bout ten minutes"

     "What's that?"

     "How fast do you think that the small cow was going when it ran into the big cow?"






Yeah.
I think that I've been like an emotionless robot most of the time, that's probably why I come across as imposing.
Sorry about that.

I have actually wondered "What is the proper attitude to have in a debate? What is the balance between confidence and 
open mindedness?" I'll take advice on the matter, and I have considered the evidence others have presented.
If it's false then I don't believe it. If it stands then it could be true.

I know a Bible verse that says a wise person profits from rebuke but a fool hates correction.
Go ahead and read below.

hypermonkey :
I believe that debate is a search for truth. I debate to find out which views are correct and which are false.
The point system was not meant to impose anything, just to bring a little order, not stack things in my favor.
I wanted to keep track of what had been proven wrong and what still stood, ya know?

Sorry about that.

Please, if I'm going to examined then look at Traduweise, he has broken these rules as well, and he even posted a video with offensive content toward creationists.

I'm not really experienced when it comes to debating, and am not always sure as to what is the best way to say something without being offensive.
Some of the stuff that I have typed I made pretty static--to avoid offending people.

Light Knight isn't exactly on my side of debate, we differ in a few issues.

Could we host some sort of debate like this with a little more order then?
We could plan a rooster and prepare ahead of time-- If you guy (and gals) want to.
I do enjoy debating but this one's kinda unfair because I have to constantly answer questions from several people and don't have that much time.

smotpoker: I think that you misunderstood what some of my questions meant.
And the character of God is. . . hard to grasp sometimes.
God does put people through tests sometimes. If the people obey he rewards them, if they don't, then he disciplines them.

And about Noah's genes? That's a bigger problem for evolution because of the amount of time that it says humans were on the earth.

to decide how many animals there are you need to know how many basic kinds of animals there were, not species.
Also the cubit used by Noah and his sons may have been a LOT bigger, if people were bigger and living longer back then.

And I already talked about Bible verses saying different things to rcarter.

It's like blueprint: you get multiple views of the same account.
Two people may describe the same thing accurately but leave out different parts in their descriptions.

Read the joke above.

rcarter2 :

Read the joke above, if you like.

The flood (LOL I almost misspelled flood as food!) was probably much different than you think it was, you know about the canopy and the fountains of the deep?

Humans have developed into different peoples over the years, kind of how like dogs have.
Ya know how earlier you said that human artifacts are poor date indicators?


Uhhh. . .  no offense but, how can that be?



sonicmcmuffin :
MegaRevolution1 :

I'd like to say thanks to the both of you for your sense of humour.
Where has mine been during this period of time?

     One day a farmer's cow started to give birth to a calf, but the legs were starting to come out first and that's not
good, but it happens sometimes. So the farmer got out a calf puller help the mamma cow get that calf out.
A city fellow was driving by and the strange sight caught his eyes. He stopped the car to check out what in the world was
going on.

     "You ever seen anything like this?" (farmer)

     "No sir"

     "You got any questions?' the farmer asked.

     "Yes sir, I've got one that's been bugging me for 'bout ten minutes"

     "What's that?"

     "How fast do you think that the small cow was going when it ran into the big cow?"






Yeah.
I think that I've been like an emotionless robot most of the time, that's probably why I come across as imposing.
Sorry about that.

I have actually wondered "What is the proper attitude to have in a debate? What is the balance between confidence and 
open mindedness?" I'll take advice on the matter, and I have considered the evidence others have presented.
If it's false then I don't believe it. If it stands then it could be true.

I know a Bible verse that says a wise person profits from rebuke but a fool hates correction.
Go ahead and read below.

hypermonkey :
I believe that debate is a search for truth. I debate to find out which views are correct and which are false.
The point system was not meant to impose anything, just to bring a little order, not stack things in my favor.
I wanted to keep track of what had been proven wrong and what still stood, ya know?

Sorry about that.

Please, if I'm going to examined then look at Traduweise, he has broken these rules as well, and he even posted a video with offensive content toward creationists.

I'm not really experienced when it comes to debating, and am not always sure as to what is the best way to say something without being offensive.
Some of the stuff that I have typed I made pretty static--to avoid offending people.

Light Knight isn't exactly on my side of debate, we differ in a few issues.

Could we host some sort of debate like this with a little more order then?
We could plan a rooster and prepare ahead of time-- If you guy (and gals) want to.
I do enjoy debating but this one's kinda unfair because I have to constantly answer questions from several people and don't have that much time.

smotpoker: I think that you misunderstood what some of my questions meant.
And the character of God is. . . hard to grasp sometimes.
God does put people through tests sometimes. If the people obey he rewards them, if they don't, then he disciplines them.

And about Noah's genes? That's a bigger problem for evolution because of the amount of time that it says humans were on the earth.

to decide how many animals there are you need to know how many basic kinds of animals there were, not species.
Also the cubit used by Noah and his sons may have been a LOT bigger, if people were bigger and living longer back then.

And I already talked about Bible verses saying different things to rcarter.

It's like blueprint: you get multiple views of the same account.
Two people may describe the same thing accurately but leave out different parts in their descriptions.

Read the joke above.

rcarter2 :

Read the joke above, if you like.

The flood (LOL I almost misspelled flood as food!) was probably much different than you think it was, you know about the canopy and the fountains of the deep?

Humans have developed into different peoples over the years, kind of how like dogs have.
Ya know how earlier you said that human artifacts are poor date indicators?


Uhhh. . .  no offense but, how can that be?



Trusted Member
Dark knight of the blackened sun. I am Sword Legion, one of many. My mask is thick, and my armor is strong. All the more necessary in a world such as this. . .


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 09-27-12
Location: Faxanadu
Last Post: 990 days
Last Active: 427 days

(edited by Sword legion on 02-20-13 11:21 PM)    

02-21-13 01:19 AM
rcarter2 is Offline
| ID: 742631 | 1172 Words

rcarter2
Level: 161


POSTS: 5981/8463
POST EXP: 758515
LVL EXP: 53462407
CP: 33586.4
VIZ: 1689508

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Sword legion : Not one time did I ever say that human artifacts are poor indicators of anything. You flat out just made that up. Please, show me where I said that. 2nd, dogs haven't really 'developed'. Pretty much the biggest reason why we have different breeds is human controlled breeding. We specifically mated dogs with desired traits to get desirable kinds of dogs. That speeds up the process of change drastically because you are completely bypassing the Hardy Weinberg mating side of the equation. In non human controlled nature, it does not work like your dog example. That isn't even an evolution concept/argument. That is an accepted genetic rule.  

Next, the question about inbreeding was brought up that you still have not addressed. You also mentioned Noah's genes being a problem for evolution. Your explanation makes no sense. All you said is "it's a problem for evolution because of how long it it says humans have been on the earth". That tells us nothing. What do you mean by that? Noah's genes have pretty much nothing to do with Evolution, so they can't be a problem for evolution. Noah applies only to creationist belief. The way your statement was made, it gives the impression that you are saying this: "The story of Noah is true, so evolution can't work". That is in no way a proper argument because it just tries to disprove a belief with an equally unproven belief. 

My next question is this. If all the animals were on the Ark, and the Ark supposedly landed on the mountains of Ararat, that would mean every animal in existence only lived in Turkey (at the moment the Flood ended). So how did all the non aquatic or flight animals get to all of the other continents? Do you really think that all of the animals were just transported across the Oceans by boats over the years to repopulate the other continents? 

Next, I was discussing a few things with my old university adviser. He gave me a copy of a peer reviewed study dated only 5 years ago. You said in your other thread that macroevolution has never been observed. You are officially wrong. A species developing into a new species is a perfect example of macroevolution, and it has happened. But first, just in case you are unfamiliar with what the term 'species' really means, I'll clarify this. 2 things are separate species if they are unable to mate and produce a reproductive fertile offspring. Here are examples. We know that a tiger and a lion can indeed mate and produce an offspring. But the offspring is always sterile, so tigers and lions are different species. Different breeds of dogs are the same species because they can make offspring that can still have offspring of their own. Anyway, onto the study I read over. A particular species of sea urchin have been the subject of study in this particular case. This particular species only bred in the summer. With climate change in their waters, some started breeding closer and closer to the winter until they normally bred in the winter. In many animal cases, this wouldn't really be a big deal. But recent attempts to mate one that breeds in the winter and one that breeds in the summer showed that even when they mate, they cannot produce any offspring. A species of Urchin that existed as a single sect less than 50 years ago has now been one of the first to be officially observed to have formed real new species. The same thing has been observed in a few flowering plants. So evolution on a macro level HAS been observed.

I will also set strait your 'petrifying' argument from a little while ago. You claim that gives '2 points for creationism', but your whole thing was completely wrong. First, you are comparing petrifying to coal formation. You claim that they are practically the same thing since you said "coal doesn't take millions of years to form" based off of other things petrifying. Petrifying is a completely different process than coal formation, and not everything petrifies at the same rate. More specifically, organic matter petrifies insanely quicker than non. As for your Ripley's Jellyfish story, you completely butchered that one. They did not find a petrified jellyfish giving birth. That is because JELLYFISH DO NOT GIVE BIRTH. They reproduce 2 ways, one of which is an asexual process called budding. The other simply involves sexual reproduction in which the larvae hatches inside the jellyfish, and openly swim out of the female's mouth. There is no 'birthing' process for the adult jellyfish. What REALLY happened in that Ripley's segment was that they found a petrified jellyfish that had larvae inside of it, which were also petrified. This means that the adult jellyfish died, preventing the larvae from swimming out of the mouth, so they died too. They became petrified along with the adult jellyfish. You are right that it doesn't take millions of years to give birth, but jellyfish don't give birth  in the first place, so that example doesn't even remotely support your argument. I believe according to your point system, you should now take away 2 undeserved points from your side.

I would also like to point out a quote from you. 

"Humans have developed into different peoples over the years"

What do you think the theory of evolution is ALL about? Going through changes over the years. If your next post says that Evolution says anything different than that, then it is official that your knowledge of the concept of Evolution is severely lacking.

Lastly, you claim you are being unbiased with your score system, but you are 100% biased. You immediately judge your argument as correct, even though you have time and time again butchered, misquoted, and misused almost every scientific concept you have used to support your ideas. But because you are the one doing the scoring, you believe you are correct, so automatically give your arguments points. You have not correctly represented a single scientific concept in your debate, so none of them merit any 'points'. Why do you get points when what you are saying is incorrect information that you are just pulling off other websites? This is why you need to actually acquire some knowledge of the thing you are debating. No wonder evolution sounds like hocum to you. You clearly don't know the first thing about any scientific concepts you try to use to support your side. You are doing to science concepts what Fred Phelps does to the Bible. You are pretty much completely altering everything it/they say to support your belief. Do us all a favor, and stick to the Biblical arguments, and leave the science concepts alone. You flat out don't understand it, and no amount of Internet reading will change that. If you want to use science to prove your side, study it as a major so you can actually know what you are talking about.
Sword legion : Not one time did I ever say that human artifacts are poor indicators of anything. You flat out just made that up. Please, show me where I said that. 2nd, dogs haven't really 'developed'. Pretty much the biggest reason why we have different breeds is human controlled breeding. We specifically mated dogs with desired traits to get desirable kinds of dogs. That speeds up the process of change drastically because you are completely bypassing the Hardy Weinberg mating side of the equation. In non human controlled nature, it does not work like your dog example. That isn't even an evolution concept/argument. That is an accepted genetic rule.  

Next, the question about inbreeding was brought up that you still have not addressed. You also mentioned Noah's genes being a problem for evolution. Your explanation makes no sense. All you said is "it's a problem for evolution because of how long it it says humans have been on the earth". That tells us nothing. What do you mean by that? Noah's genes have pretty much nothing to do with Evolution, so they can't be a problem for evolution. Noah applies only to creationist belief. The way your statement was made, it gives the impression that you are saying this: "The story of Noah is true, so evolution can't work". That is in no way a proper argument because it just tries to disprove a belief with an equally unproven belief. 

My next question is this. If all the animals were on the Ark, and the Ark supposedly landed on the mountains of Ararat, that would mean every animal in existence only lived in Turkey (at the moment the Flood ended). So how did all the non aquatic or flight animals get to all of the other continents? Do you really think that all of the animals were just transported across the Oceans by boats over the years to repopulate the other continents? 

Next, I was discussing a few things with my old university adviser. He gave me a copy of a peer reviewed study dated only 5 years ago. You said in your other thread that macroevolution has never been observed. You are officially wrong. A species developing into a new species is a perfect example of macroevolution, and it has happened. But first, just in case you are unfamiliar with what the term 'species' really means, I'll clarify this. 2 things are separate species if they are unable to mate and produce a reproductive fertile offspring. Here are examples. We know that a tiger and a lion can indeed mate and produce an offspring. But the offspring is always sterile, so tigers and lions are different species. Different breeds of dogs are the same species because they can make offspring that can still have offspring of their own. Anyway, onto the study I read over. A particular species of sea urchin have been the subject of study in this particular case. This particular species only bred in the summer. With climate change in their waters, some started breeding closer and closer to the winter until they normally bred in the winter. In many animal cases, this wouldn't really be a big deal. But recent attempts to mate one that breeds in the winter and one that breeds in the summer showed that even when they mate, they cannot produce any offspring. A species of Urchin that existed as a single sect less than 50 years ago has now been one of the first to be officially observed to have formed real new species. The same thing has been observed in a few flowering plants. So evolution on a macro level HAS been observed.

I will also set strait your 'petrifying' argument from a little while ago. You claim that gives '2 points for creationism', but your whole thing was completely wrong. First, you are comparing petrifying to coal formation. You claim that they are practically the same thing since you said "coal doesn't take millions of years to form" based off of other things petrifying. Petrifying is a completely different process than coal formation, and not everything petrifies at the same rate. More specifically, organic matter petrifies insanely quicker than non. As for your Ripley's Jellyfish story, you completely butchered that one. They did not find a petrified jellyfish giving birth. That is because JELLYFISH DO NOT GIVE BIRTH. They reproduce 2 ways, one of which is an asexual process called budding. The other simply involves sexual reproduction in which the larvae hatches inside the jellyfish, and openly swim out of the female's mouth. There is no 'birthing' process for the adult jellyfish. What REALLY happened in that Ripley's segment was that they found a petrified jellyfish that had larvae inside of it, which were also petrified. This means that the adult jellyfish died, preventing the larvae from swimming out of the mouth, so they died too. They became petrified along with the adult jellyfish. You are right that it doesn't take millions of years to give birth, but jellyfish don't give birth  in the first place, so that example doesn't even remotely support your argument. I believe according to your point system, you should now take away 2 undeserved points from your side.

I would also like to point out a quote from you. 

"Humans have developed into different peoples over the years"

What do you think the theory of evolution is ALL about? Going through changes over the years. If your next post says that Evolution says anything different than that, then it is official that your knowledge of the concept of Evolution is severely lacking.

Lastly, you claim you are being unbiased with your score system, but you are 100% biased. You immediately judge your argument as correct, even though you have time and time again butchered, misquoted, and misused almost every scientific concept you have used to support your ideas. But because you are the one doing the scoring, you believe you are correct, so automatically give your arguments points. You have not correctly represented a single scientific concept in your debate, so none of them merit any 'points'. Why do you get points when what you are saying is incorrect information that you are just pulling off other websites? This is why you need to actually acquire some knowledge of the thing you are debating. No wonder evolution sounds like hocum to you. You clearly don't know the first thing about any scientific concepts you try to use to support your side. You are doing to science concepts what Fred Phelps does to the Bible. You are pretty much completely altering everything it/they say to support your belief. Do us all a favor, and stick to the Biblical arguments, and leave the science concepts alone. You flat out don't understand it, and no amount of Internet reading will change that. If you want to use science to prove your side, study it as a major so you can actually know what you are talking about.
Vizzed Elite
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table!


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-01-11
Location: Kansas
Last Post: 2439 days
Last Active: 748 days

(edited by rcarter2 on 02-21-13 04:57 AM)    

02-21-13 03:57 AM
hypermonkey is Offline
| ID: 742636 | 32 Words

hypermonkey
Level: 102


POSTS: 2655/2808
POST EXP: 106752
LVL EXP: 10919196
CP: 1174.5
VIZ: 57583

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Be that as it may, you should still remove the points tally. You don't need to numerically track these things in a debate. Just keep the arguments in mind when you rebut.
Be that as it may, you should still remove the points tally. You don't need to numerically track these things in a debate. Just keep the arguments in mind when you rebut.
Vizzed Elite
Affected by 'ADHD' and 'Insanity'


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-01-09
Location: Quincy, MA
Last Post: 2900 days
Last Active: 1004 days

02-21-13 12:37 PM
Traduweise is Offline
| ID: 742767 | 135 Words

Traduweise
Level: 37

POSTS: 135/277
POST EXP: 37660
LVL EXP: 324938
CP: 1133.5
VIZ: 231856

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Sword legion : Remind me. What rules, exactly, have I broken? I simply came into your thread to correct the gross scientific errors you made. There was nothing I said or posted that was out of line. I'm not going to bother typing out a long and detailed response like Rcarter does because the claims and questions you pose didn't warrant that, and from your responses to me, it was clear that you didn't read my posts very thoroughly anyway. It's easier to just post a pre-existing video debunking your claims. If you don't like having people contradict you, if you don't want to put in effort and consider alternative ideas, don't start a debate.

And unless you want to address my points for once, I am done here. Elara was right: this is silly.
Sword legion : Remind me. What rules, exactly, have I broken? I simply came into your thread to correct the gross scientific errors you made. There was nothing I said or posted that was out of line. I'm not going to bother typing out a long and detailed response like Rcarter does because the claims and questions you pose didn't warrant that, and from your responses to me, it was clear that you didn't read my posts very thoroughly anyway. It's easier to just post a pre-existing video debunking your claims. If you don't like having people contradict you, if you don't want to put in effort and consider alternative ideas, don't start a debate.

And unless you want to address my points for once, I am done here. Elara was right: this is silly.
Trusted Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 08-22-10
Last Post: 3000 days
Last Active: 2992 days

(edited by Traduweise on 02-21-13 12:41 PM)    

02-21-13 12:55 PM
rcarter2 is Offline
| ID: 742780 | 77 Words

rcarter2
Level: 161


POSTS: 5985/8463
POST EXP: 758515
LVL EXP: 53462407
CP: 33586.4
VIZ: 1689508

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Traduweise : Haha, my long posts are no longer for him. I know it is pointless because he will just keep on using grossly intense errors in his 'science poinst'. At this point, I am only bothering to make these long posts for those people who actually might read through this thread so they don't take his errors in scientific concepts as fact. Last thing we need is more people with the misconceptions he has about these things.
Traduweise : Haha, my long posts are no longer for him. I know it is pointless because he will just keep on using grossly intense errors in his 'science poinst'. At this point, I am only bothering to make these long posts for those people who actually might read through this thread so they don't take his errors in scientific concepts as fact. Last thing we need is more people with the misconceptions he has about these things.
Vizzed Elite
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table!


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-01-11
Location: Kansas
Last Post: 2439 days
Last Active: 748 days

02-21-13 02:55 PM
smotpoker86 is Offline
| ID: 742870 | 234 Words

smotpoker86
Level: 46


POSTS: 461/465
POST EXP: 89805
LVL EXP: 685980
CP: 27.3
VIZ: 19337

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Sword legion :
Perhaps I did misunderstand some of your questions but that is most likely due to the vagueness of them. The questions/arguments of "why are comets still around?" and "why are Saturn's rings still intact?" are so vague that I have no idea what argument are trying to make. I would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to explain how comets or rings around planets has anything to do with biological evolution or a god creating static life forms. I just can't seem to wrap my head around the argument of 'Comets exist therefore creationism is true' or any similarly structured argument.

"And about Noah's genes? That's a bigger problem for evolution because of the amount of time that it says humans were on the earth."

Do you have any idea of how long various sciences say humans have been around? Here's a hint, its a hell of a lot longer than your ancient bedouin book suggests.

"to decide how many animals there are you need to know how many basic kinds of animals there were, not species."
Are you implying that Noah only saved some animals and they later evolved into other species? I'm not an expert regarding Christian apologetics but this seems like an absurd way to argue against evolution. When the bible says "a male and a female, of all animals" I assume it means what it says.
Sword legion :
Perhaps I did misunderstand some of your questions but that is most likely due to the vagueness of them. The questions/arguments of "why are comets still around?" and "why are Saturn's rings still intact?" are so vague that I have no idea what argument are trying to make. I would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to explain how comets or rings around planets has anything to do with biological evolution or a god creating static life forms. I just can't seem to wrap my head around the argument of 'Comets exist therefore creationism is true' or any similarly structured argument.

"And about Noah's genes? That's a bigger problem for evolution because of the amount of time that it says humans were on the earth."

Do you have any idea of how long various sciences say humans have been around? Here's a hint, its a hell of a lot longer than your ancient bedouin book suggests.

"to decide how many animals there are you need to know how many basic kinds of animals there were, not species."
Are you implying that Noah only saved some animals and they later evolved into other species? I'm not an expert regarding Christian apologetics but this seems like an absurd way to argue against evolution. When the bible says "a male and a female, of all animals" I assume it means what it says.
Trusted Member
maximus extraordinarius


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 06-06-11
Location: Edmonton
Last Post: 4011 days
Last Active: 3693 days

02-21-13 04:14 PM
rcarter2 is Offline
| ID: 742952 | 109 Words

rcarter2
Level: 161


POSTS: 5988/8463
POST EXP: 758515
LVL EXP: 53462407
CP: 33586.4
VIZ: 1689508

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
smotpoker86 : I completely forgot to mention that. The thing about Noah only taking one of each kind of animal, not every species. If he only took one species of each Order (or even Genus), then he needs to explain how we got more species afterward. Really, at this point, each argument just digs him further into a hole that he can't explain his way out of, no matter what he says the 'score' is. 


EDIT-- looks like this thread is pretty much dead. Sword Legion has been on and made posts in other threads since not only his last post, but days past the latest comments made here. 
smotpoker86 : I completely forgot to mention that. The thing about Noah only taking one of each kind of animal, not every species. If he only took one species of each Order (or even Genus), then he needs to explain how we got more species afterward. Really, at this point, each argument just digs him further into a hole that he can't explain his way out of, no matter what he says the 'score' is. 


EDIT-- looks like this thread is pretty much dead. Sword Legion has been on and made posts in other threads since not only his last post, but days past the latest comments made here. 
Vizzed Elite
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table!


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-01-11
Location: Kansas
Last Post: 2439 days
Last Active: 748 days

(edited by rcarter2 on 02-25-13 09:31 PM)    

02-27-13 10:12 AM
Sword Legion is Offline
| ID: 745784 | 994 Words

Sword Legion
Sword legion
Sword egion
Level: 102


POSTS: 109/3034
POST EXP: 699562
LVL EXP: 10831710
CP: 16237.8
VIZ: 148715

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
rcarter2:
smotpoker86 :


No the thread isn't dead but I haven't had time to make a mega post and reply, plus i'm not allowed on the computer that often.
My parents don't let me spend a bunch of time on the computer. but I have gotten some smaller posts in other places.


The example of the Sea urchins is just a case of micro evolution. It doesn't prove macro evolution.
You still have sea urchins.
As the Bible says each creature shall produce after it's kind.
Some scientists tried to speed up the evolution process of fruite flies by exposing them to radiation.
They exposed flies produced a new generation of fruite flies, but they had several defects.
Some had curled wings, some had small wings, and some didn't have wings at all.
The flies were mutated but the mutations weren't helpful.
A mutation never produces new genes.
When an animal produces a baby animal, it follows a blue print, DNA .
The new animal's blueprint takes genes from both parents.
But the new animal never has more genes than ethier parent.
I understand the argument, but animals refuse to abondon their genetic blueprint.
No matter how many generations of crockodiles you breed you'll never get chickens.
    OK, So, how did Noah and his family repopulate the earth, without running out of genes or
how did they get to the other continents as well as the animals?
Maybe you've heard of this before, but a long, shallow strip of land was found connecting Asia
and North america. People just crossed to North America back when the sea level was lower, years after the flood.
Or, of course, they may have used boats, taking certain animals with them.
I think that it was a combination of the two, maybe.
    And about running out of genes?
Genesis 9:1 says: God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them,
"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth"
God blessed them, so they were perfectly capable of repopulating the world.
Running out of genes is huge problem for evolution though, evolution says that life has existed
for millions of years, so why haven't we run out genes since then?
    And about all the varieties of humans? As you said, we bred dogs to obtain many of the varieties that
exist today. Humans don't come in nearly as adverse varieties as Dogs do. The difference between humans
is much less than the difference between dogs. At the tower of Bable, God confused man's language, so
that we could no longer comunicate with one another.
The groups that could understand one another stuck together. They would probably marry someone
whose language they could understand. They spread out from the people who they couldn't understand
and eventually became different peoples.
Birds of a feather stick together.
    Were you suggesting that people evolved separately on different continents?
Were you suggesting that some races of people are more highly evolved than others?
How about Black people? After all, if they are lessere evolved than the rest of us, perhaps we
should treat them that way. That's what people were doing two hundred years ago.
Would you tell a black person that he is lesser evolved than a white person?
The germans thought that they were one of the most highly evolved people on the face of the earth.
They thought that the black africans were mostly ape and that the jews were close to pure ape.
Did you know that the teenagers who pulled off the Coumbine Shooting on hitlers birthday on purpose?
One of they bots T shirts read "natural selection". All of the students that went to that school were
ferverent believers in evolution. They shot one man just because he was black.
    And about the coal, I'm not aware of any experiments showing that coal can be formed quickly,
but they have found human artifacts inside of coal. when Itold you this earlier, you said that human
artifacts ar a poor way to date stuff, or something like that.
And there is the petrified trees stand ing up through mutiple layers of coal.
I think that we may be thiking of different petrified fish. THe one that I"m talking abou
wasn't featured in ripleys if I'm correct.
    The mods wnat the piont tally gone, so I removed it.
Why are you bringing up something that the mods want removed?
    I'll go into more detail on Saturns rings.
Saturns rings are made of camplex braiding process that is slowly coming undone.
I believe that the max amount of time that they could exist is 1.2 million years.
So, why is it still here? Or was it even more complicated milllions of years ago?
How did the Big Bang produce something like this?
    Also , comets can only exist about ten- thousand years before they completely disolve.
My question is: Why are they still around? WHere they created at the time of the Big Bang?
Or do they come from another source
    The Shara desert is slowly getting bigger. Did you know that if you calculate the speed of it's growth
that you will find that the dessert started growing about four-thousand years ago.
Question: If the Earth is millions of years old why isn't there a bigger deseret somewhere else?
    In Australia, some scientists studied the Great Reef growing there.
They concluded that the reef began growing around four thousand years ago.
So, why isn't there a bigger reef somewhere else?
    How much of the BIble do consider historically accurate?
Am I right at supposing that  you guys would accept the BIble as an accurate historical account
from the time of the Israelite kings and forward, since other cultures have recorded the same accounts
as the Israelites did?
    And rcarter, Did you know that Jesus made reference to Genesis a fair amount of times.
He mentioned the creation story. Was Jesus lying? Can he be the saviour if he lied?
rcarter2:
smotpoker86 :


No the thread isn't dead but I haven't had time to make a mega post and reply, plus i'm not allowed on the computer that often.
My parents don't let me spend a bunch of time on the computer. but I have gotten some smaller posts in other places.


The example of the Sea urchins is just a case of micro evolution. It doesn't prove macro evolution.
You still have sea urchins.
As the Bible says each creature shall produce after it's kind.
Some scientists tried to speed up the evolution process of fruite flies by exposing them to radiation.
They exposed flies produced a new generation of fruite flies, but they had several defects.
Some had curled wings, some had small wings, and some didn't have wings at all.
The flies were mutated but the mutations weren't helpful.
A mutation never produces new genes.
When an animal produces a baby animal, it follows a blue print, DNA .
The new animal's blueprint takes genes from both parents.
But the new animal never has more genes than ethier parent.
I understand the argument, but animals refuse to abondon their genetic blueprint.
No matter how many generations of crockodiles you breed you'll never get chickens.
    OK, So, how did Noah and his family repopulate the earth, without running out of genes or
how did they get to the other continents as well as the animals?
Maybe you've heard of this before, but a long, shallow strip of land was found connecting Asia
and North america. People just crossed to North America back when the sea level was lower, years after the flood.
Or, of course, they may have used boats, taking certain animals with them.
I think that it was a combination of the two, maybe.
    And about running out of genes?
Genesis 9:1 says: God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them,
"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth"
God blessed them, so they were perfectly capable of repopulating the world.
Running out of genes is huge problem for evolution though, evolution says that life has existed
for millions of years, so why haven't we run out genes since then?
    And about all the varieties of humans? As you said, we bred dogs to obtain many of the varieties that
exist today. Humans don't come in nearly as adverse varieties as Dogs do. The difference between humans
is much less than the difference between dogs. At the tower of Bable, God confused man's language, so
that we could no longer comunicate with one another.
The groups that could understand one another stuck together. They would probably marry someone
whose language they could understand. They spread out from the people who they couldn't understand
and eventually became different peoples.
Birds of a feather stick together.
    Were you suggesting that people evolved separately on different continents?
Were you suggesting that some races of people are more highly evolved than others?
How about Black people? After all, if they are lessere evolved than the rest of us, perhaps we
should treat them that way. That's what people were doing two hundred years ago.
Would you tell a black person that he is lesser evolved than a white person?
The germans thought that they were one of the most highly evolved people on the face of the earth.
They thought that the black africans were mostly ape and that the jews were close to pure ape.
Did you know that the teenagers who pulled off the Coumbine Shooting on hitlers birthday on purpose?
One of they bots T shirts read "natural selection". All of the students that went to that school were
ferverent believers in evolution. They shot one man just because he was black.
    And about the coal, I'm not aware of any experiments showing that coal can be formed quickly,
but they have found human artifacts inside of coal. when Itold you this earlier, you said that human
artifacts ar a poor way to date stuff, or something like that.
And there is the petrified trees stand ing up through mutiple layers of coal.
I think that we may be thiking of different petrified fish. THe one that I"m talking abou
wasn't featured in ripleys if I'm correct.
    The mods wnat the piont tally gone, so I removed it.
Why are you bringing up something that the mods want removed?
    I'll go into more detail on Saturns rings.
Saturns rings are made of camplex braiding process that is slowly coming undone.
I believe that the max amount of time that they could exist is 1.2 million years.
So, why is it still here? Or was it even more complicated milllions of years ago?
How did the Big Bang produce something like this?
    Also , comets can only exist about ten- thousand years before they completely disolve.
My question is: Why are they still around? WHere they created at the time of the Big Bang?
Or do they come from another source
    The Shara desert is slowly getting bigger. Did you know that if you calculate the speed of it's growth
that you will find that the dessert started growing about four-thousand years ago.
Question: If the Earth is millions of years old why isn't there a bigger deseret somewhere else?
    In Australia, some scientists studied the Great Reef growing there.
They concluded that the reef began growing around four thousand years ago.
So, why isn't there a bigger reef somewhere else?
    How much of the BIble do consider historically accurate?
Am I right at supposing that  you guys would accept the BIble as an accurate historical account
from the time of the Israelite kings and forward, since other cultures have recorded the same accounts
as the Israelites did?
    And rcarter, Did you know that Jesus made reference to Genesis a fair amount of times.
He mentioned the creation story. Was Jesus lying? Can he be the saviour if he lied?
Trusted Member
Dark knight of the blackened sun. I am Sword Legion, one of many. My mask is thick, and my armor is strong. All the more necessary in a world such as this. . .


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 09-27-12
Location: Faxanadu
Last Post: 990 days
Last Active: 427 days

(edited by Sword legion on 02-27-13 10:15 AM)    

02-27-13 10:23 AM
mister sandman is Offline
| ID: 745789 | 50 Words

mister sandman
Level: 46


POSTS: 90/486
POST EXP: 9604
LVL EXP: 682968
CP: 229.8
VIZ: 16591

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
evolution is just to complex for a normal person to understand.  but for creation there is no edvence only thing people got is the bible and THAT WAS MADE BY HUMANS and it's just annoys me to no end. religion is just silly and i have little tolerance for it. 
evolution is just to complex for a normal person to understand.  but for creation there is no edvence only thing people got is the bible and THAT WAS MADE BY HUMANS and it's just annoys me to no end. religion is just silly and i have little tolerance for it. 
Member
~vizzed agnostic user~


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-11-13
Last Post: 3315 days
Last Active: 3315 days

02-27-13 07:11 PM
Brigand is Offline
| ID: 746007 | 103 Words

Brigand
Level: 89


POSTS: 314/2233
POST EXP: 116430
LVL EXP: 6762960
CP: 2057.5
VIZ: 112856

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I just read the most juvenile piece of science fiction I have ever read in my entire life. I know I should atleast try to start from somewhere to "discuss" but... I am sorry guys. I know its wrong and juvenile for me to laugh and not to even try to discuss the matter at hand but this is really too much for me. My bad. Maybe later.

My favourite parts were though that america had no animals before people brought them in with boats and the fact that Noahs family could incest to repopulate the world because it was blessed by god.
I just read the most juvenile piece of science fiction I have ever read in my entire life. I know I should atleast try to start from somewhere to "discuss" but... I am sorry guys. I know its wrong and juvenile for me to laugh and not to even try to discuss the matter at hand but this is really too much for me. My bad. Maybe later.

My favourite parts were though that america had no animals before people brought them in with boats and the fact that Noahs family could incest to repopulate the world because it was blessed by god.
Trusted Member
Not even an enemy.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-29-12
Location: Yurop.
Last Post: 2701 days
Last Active: 2687 days

02-28-13 12:04 AM
rcarter2 is Offline
| ID: 746121 | 2713 Words

rcarter2
Level: 161


POSTS: 6011/8463
POST EXP: 758515
LVL EXP: 53462407
CP: 33586.4
VIZ: 1689508

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Brigand : couldn't agree more.

Sword legion : this will be my last post on here. Sorry, but I cannot argue with someone who clearly has absolutely, 100%, undeniably no freaking idea what they are talking about. All I do time after time is just clear up your butchered up interpretation of science. So I'll just touch on a few parts of your butchery, and be done with you completely. If you would rather skip all that, I will at least ask that you read the last 3 paragraphs, as they are a personal message to you.

"Running out of genes is a huge problem for evolution"

You kept saying "Run out of genes". Do you have no idea how genes work? Seriously. Do you? You can't run out of genes. Where in the world did you hear that pile of crap? Run out of genes. Oh dear Lord. Genes REPLICATE. You don't run out of genes. And nobody said Noah's family ran out of genes. It doesn't work like that. The issue that is brought up is that in humans, when you mate people of immediate blood family, you run into the problem of incest breeding. You run into problems. Your chromosomes run into things like polyploidy chromosomes, shortening of the 21st chromosome, etc. Many of the complications that come from incest breeding lead to sterility, physical/mental disorder, and also often early death. So you said Noah's family was blessed. So really, every person in existence is a part of Noah's bloodline. So why are we not all blessed from the ill effects of incest breeding? I mean, we are a part of Noah's family, right? Oh wait. You didn't say Noah's family was blessed from the effects of incest breeding. You said Noah's family was blessed to be so fruitful that they never 'run out of genes'. But here is a news flash. You can't run out of genes in the first place because that is not how procreation freaking works. 

As for your fruit fly example, you only reported a tiny portion of that research. Just by saying that mutations weren't helpful, you clearly only read what you could find on the Internet. I have access to many direct studies of radiation on fruit flies. A few were helpful. For example, mutating a specific part in the fly brain caused them to no longer attract to fluorescent lighting, making them no longer attracted to a bug zapper. 

But as for your overall argument about how the mutations weren't helpful, well duh. They were unnatural. It is true, everything has a blueprint. But the blueprint allows for deviation. If they didn't, everything in each species would be essentially clones eventually. But evolution never once said that things evolve to better fit their surroundings. That is a serious misconception not only on your part, but by over 3/4 of the whole population. Mutations are going to be bad 999,999/1million times (that is just a figure of speech, not accurate percentages). It is those 1 in a million times where slight mutation doesn't kill the offspring or make it less likely to survive that starts the chain. You get a small number of things with barely noticeable change, and that will get passed down. As long as it continues to pass, the more noticeable shifts you see. There is far more to it than that, but that is about as simplified as I can make it. Not that it matters, you would just butcher the facts with your made up ideas.

And another thing. Don't you dare twist my words again. You said I implied that some people were less evolved than others. I never implied that. That is what YOU took from it. My question to you was if we all came from a single family, why do we have such different physical characteristics? This had absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This was bringing up a known fact that discredits that we all came from Noah's family a couple thousand years ago. Have you heard of 'family resemblance'? People of immediate family will look very similar. If only Noah's family survived the flood, there would not be any genes coding for different skin pigmentation. There would be no genes coding for such different skull structures. There would be no genes coding for such significant differences. So why is it that people of Asian descent have such distinguished physical characteristics? Why do people of Latino descent have such distinguished characteristics? Tell me. Why do we have such similar characteristics. Back to the dog example, if you were to wipe out every breed of dog except for the Beagle, according to your point of view, we would never get any breed of dog except for Beagles. The reason for that is because there are no longer any different traits to mix with to have different kinds of dogs. So if Noah's family was the only one to survive the flood, then there would be no new genetic traits to mix to make new physical features. We would all be pretty much immediate blood family relatives of each other. No new traits to pass down, so no real large varieties of looks/features. 

So again, don't you dare put words in my mouth. I never said anyone was more evolved than others. I never said we should treat anyone else differently. the first person to say that in this thread was YOU. Not me. YOU. You are no better than Fred Phelps. The way you twisted the whole meaning of my question is absurd, and I now have less respect for you than almost anyone on this site. 

As for your re-comment saying that I said it was a poor indicator, you still have yet to show me where I said it. Point me to that post of mine. I read through all my post yet again looking for it, and I never said it. You are flat out making that up., Stop it. If you are going to make that claim, back it up with some proof other than just "oh, I remember you said something like that". Show me the post, or shut up about it. 

I have decided to try to explain the coal thing to you, but I doubt you will understand it. Especially since you can't even seem to understand any science experiment or study that you have tried to use as evidence so far. When you date coal, you are not dating that specific rock. You are dating the actual carbon atoms in that coal. It is proven that earth crust is constantly moving. We have been able to pretty much completely map out the fault lines around the globe that show where new crust emerges, and where than carries the current crust. The issue is this. The actual coal that is dated is dating the coal ATOMS as millions of years old. But it is NOT saying those coal fields are millions of years old. Even coal us susceptible to erosion. Those rocks slowly erode both by a combination of physical and chemical erosion, just as any material does. Those carbon atoms will eventually get carried away to another location, and another, and another. The spots where human artifacts found in coal does not mean there are any contradictions. Yes, the coal formed at that spot is only thousands of years old. But carbon dating isn't dating those coal rocks. It is dating the carbon atoms that make them up. Those carbon atoms don't stay in those rocks permanently. Again, it is proven that even coal is subject to erosion. The atoms that make up that coal are still millions of years old. They just didn't always make up those coal rocks that have only been formed for thousands. Your mistake (as well as the mistake of everyone who uses this argument) is believing that carbon dating means that we are dating the actual coal rocks as millions of years old, when we are actually dating the atoms. Those are completely different things. Again, I doubt you will understand this. You will probably just look off the first askyahoo page or the first creationist made website that tries to explain carbon dating as something entirely off base what it really is. That is, after all, all you have clearly done for all your other 'scientific support'. But whatever.

The Big Bang does not produce complex planets or Saturn's rings. It's not like the supermass that started just exploded into whole rocks and planets. But I tire of explaining these concepts to you. Just thought I would let you know that you are wrong in assuming so. But for Saturn's rings, who said those rings were always around Saturn? If they can only remain there for about 1.2 million years, okay. Cool. Nobody said that they have been there for longer than that. It is very possible that those rings formed far less than a million years ago. We haven't had telescopes capable of seeing Saturn's rings for very long. You argument makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. Nobody knows how long Saturn's rings have been there. Odds are, they weren't always there. The only way to know for sure is if we were able to observe the rings when they first appeared. We weren't able to, so why the argument about it? If you are implying scientists say that the rings have been there for billions or trillions of years, you are again mistaken. Nobody said that. Nobody could possibly know that, and there is no possible way to even test that to make the claim without a time machine. Same thing goes with the comets. Nobody said that the comets we see in our system have been around for longer than they can last. You seem to just be assuming that scientist said that.

As for the Sahara desert, yes, it is technically growing. But you fail to realize that desert does not mean the big areas of sand. The term desert refers to a specific climate. Those areas are for the most part unchanged as long as the Earth remains on it's polar tilt. But anyway, you fail to take into account that the continents are moving. So the desert climate is going to technically shift, but not really. It will stay exactly where it is, but the land itself is moving. So different parts of the continent will slowly move into the climatic desert region determined by the Earth's polar angles. You can map out the spreading of the sand and have it eventually meet to a small point about 4,000 years ago. But another thing you fail to mention that the desert sand is limited. It will keep spreading , and get thinner and thinner as continues to blow to other areas. Eventually, we won't have a desert (as far as the sand aspect goes) in that location of the continent anymore. Once the more plantation rich areas slowly move towards the desert region of the Earth's climate zones, they will slowly get drier and drier and die. Then that area will become less and less rich in soil and form desert sand instead of fertile terrain. Then the process starts all over again. 

So in short terms to answer your desert question, they desert sand is limited anyway, so it won't just eventually cover the earth. The sand would reach the point to where it couldn't really spread anymore. But regardless, because of the earths crust's constant slow movement, different areas are becoming the new deserts. The areas that used to be in the desert climate get pushed out into more fruitful climates. They slowly will lose it's soft unhinged sand as the wind blows it away until it reaches it's tightly packed terrain again. As it moves, it will eventually become fertile gain. We live in a constantly changing world. Your mistake there is assuming that that part of Africa was always in the desert region. You have no problem following the science part of the spreading sand, but completely ignore the part about plate tectonic movement, which causes parts of the continents to be in different climatic regions over long periods of time. The part that is now the Sahara Desert was not always a desert.

As for your question to me about Jesus, I already told you my belief in Genesis. You pointed out that it is referred to as Gap Theory. I don't think Jesus was lying. Yes, he mentioned Genesis many times. But I believe his point in mentioning it was the same as the book's point. To tell the general order that the world and it's life was created, and that God was the one who did it. I don't believe the important part of the message would be the little details in exactly how God did it. Those are just unimportant details that distract from the message. So the book (and Jesus) focused on the message it gave. I believe that Genesis and the theory of Evolution work hand in hand. I think Evolution is just the details that were left out of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus because it isn't important in the message of God. The thing is, you would say I imply he is lying because of you have no respect for my religious belief. Specifically the part about 7 days. I interpret the 7 days as being 7 days in the eyes of God. The term days is not very specific. Many planets have different lengths of days. Why would it be so wrong to think that maybe the days in Heaven are not the same as the days we have on this planet? 

But the thing is, I already know you have no respect for my religious belief. You call my religious interpretation as 'compromised', meaning you are no different than the radicals who only truly respect religious interpretations that are the same as yours. You have already treated my religion with obvious bigotry. Because of that, I know you will look at my answer to you you about my belief in the word of Jesus and just fail to show me any respect. It might seem like I am disrespecting your belief, but there is a difference in what I am doing and what you have done to me. All I have done is correct the huge mistakes you have made in the scientific concepts that are not meant to be open to interpretation. But I never once said that you were wrong. I never once said evolution was fact. You, on the other hand, have blatantly said that your belief is the only one that is right here and you would set out to disprove everyone else. You have failed to do that. All you have done is posed questions. Questions to which you don't know the answer. So all you have proven here is that there are questions to which you don't know the answer. That isn't disproving anything. When you asked questions, I gave you tested answers. When anyone here asked you questions, you gave examples from the Bible (which have not been tested) and answered with science concepts that were completely misused and untrue do to your own lack of understanding. 

You are entitled to your religious belief. I respect it and would never try to tell you that my belief is right and yours is wrong. I might not respect you, but I respect your equal right to have faith in your belief. You, on the other hand, call my religion compromised. You twist my words to make me sound like a racist. You claim that I make statements that I never made. You take your interpretation of the Biblical text, and try to tell me that I am saying that I believe that my Lord and Savior lied. By saying that, you have solidified the fact that you have no respect for my religion, and have no problem throwing comments of insult and bigotry. As I said, this will be my final post here, because you are not a person that I feel is even worth the time to even bother with anymore. 
Brigand : couldn't agree more.

Sword legion : this will be my last post on here. Sorry, but I cannot argue with someone who clearly has absolutely, 100%, undeniably no freaking idea what they are talking about. All I do time after time is just clear up your butchered up interpretation of science. So I'll just touch on a few parts of your butchery, and be done with you completely. If you would rather skip all that, I will at least ask that you read the last 3 paragraphs, as they are a personal message to you.

"Running out of genes is a huge problem for evolution"

You kept saying "Run out of genes". Do you have no idea how genes work? Seriously. Do you? You can't run out of genes. Where in the world did you hear that pile of crap? Run out of genes. Oh dear Lord. Genes REPLICATE. You don't run out of genes. And nobody said Noah's family ran out of genes. It doesn't work like that. The issue that is brought up is that in humans, when you mate people of immediate blood family, you run into the problem of incest breeding. You run into problems. Your chromosomes run into things like polyploidy chromosomes, shortening of the 21st chromosome, etc. Many of the complications that come from incest breeding lead to sterility, physical/mental disorder, and also often early death. So you said Noah's family was blessed. So really, every person in existence is a part of Noah's bloodline. So why are we not all blessed from the ill effects of incest breeding? I mean, we are a part of Noah's family, right? Oh wait. You didn't say Noah's family was blessed from the effects of incest breeding. You said Noah's family was blessed to be so fruitful that they never 'run out of genes'. But here is a news flash. You can't run out of genes in the first place because that is not how procreation freaking works. 

As for your fruit fly example, you only reported a tiny portion of that research. Just by saying that mutations weren't helpful, you clearly only read what you could find on the Internet. I have access to many direct studies of radiation on fruit flies. A few were helpful. For example, mutating a specific part in the fly brain caused them to no longer attract to fluorescent lighting, making them no longer attracted to a bug zapper. 

But as for your overall argument about how the mutations weren't helpful, well duh. They were unnatural. It is true, everything has a blueprint. But the blueprint allows for deviation. If they didn't, everything in each species would be essentially clones eventually. But evolution never once said that things evolve to better fit their surroundings. That is a serious misconception not only on your part, but by over 3/4 of the whole population. Mutations are going to be bad 999,999/1million times (that is just a figure of speech, not accurate percentages). It is those 1 in a million times where slight mutation doesn't kill the offspring or make it less likely to survive that starts the chain. You get a small number of things with barely noticeable change, and that will get passed down. As long as it continues to pass, the more noticeable shifts you see. There is far more to it than that, but that is about as simplified as I can make it. Not that it matters, you would just butcher the facts with your made up ideas.

And another thing. Don't you dare twist my words again. You said I implied that some people were less evolved than others. I never implied that. That is what YOU took from it. My question to you was if we all came from a single family, why do we have such different physical characteristics? This had absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This was bringing up a known fact that discredits that we all came from Noah's family a couple thousand years ago. Have you heard of 'family resemblance'? People of immediate family will look very similar. If only Noah's family survived the flood, there would not be any genes coding for different skin pigmentation. There would be no genes coding for such different skull structures. There would be no genes coding for such significant differences. So why is it that people of Asian descent have such distinguished physical characteristics? Why do people of Latino descent have such distinguished characteristics? Tell me. Why do we have such similar characteristics. Back to the dog example, if you were to wipe out every breed of dog except for the Beagle, according to your point of view, we would never get any breed of dog except for Beagles. The reason for that is because there are no longer any different traits to mix with to have different kinds of dogs. So if Noah's family was the only one to survive the flood, then there would be no new genetic traits to mix to make new physical features. We would all be pretty much immediate blood family relatives of each other. No new traits to pass down, so no real large varieties of looks/features. 

So again, don't you dare put words in my mouth. I never said anyone was more evolved than others. I never said we should treat anyone else differently. the first person to say that in this thread was YOU. Not me. YOU. You are no better than Fred Phelps. The way you twisted the whole meaning of my question is absurd, and I now have less respect for you than almost anyone on this site. 

As for your re-comment saying that I said it was a poor indicator, you still have yet to show me where I said it. Point me to that post of mine. I read through all my post yet again looking for it, and I never said it. You are flat out making that up., Stop it. If you are going to make that claim, back it up with some proof other than just "oh, I remember you said something like that". Show me the post, or shut up about it. 

I have decided to try to explain the coal thing to you, but I doubt you will understand it. Especially since you can't even seem to understand any science experiment or study that you have tried to use as evidence so far. When you date coal, you are not dating that specific rock. You are dating the actual carbon atoms in that coal. It is proven that earth crust is constantly moving. We have been able to pretty much completely map out the fault lines around the globe that show where new crust emerges, and where than carries the current crust. The issue is this. The actual coal that is dated is dating the coal ATOMS as millions of years old. But it is NOT saying those coal fields are millions of years old. Even coal us susceptible to erosion. Those rocks slowly erode both by a combination of physical and chemical erosion, just as any material does. Those carbon atoms will eventually get carried away to another location, and another, and another. The spots where human artifacts found in coal does not mean there are any contradictions. Yes, the coal formed at that spot is only thousands of years old. But carbon dating isn't dating those coal rocks. It is dating the carbon atoms that make them up. Those carbon atoms don't stay in those rocks permanently. Again, it is proven that even coal is subject to erosion. The atoms that make up that coal are still millions of years old. They just didn't always make up those coal rocks that have only been formed for thousands. Your mistake (as well as the mistake of everyone who uses this argument) is believing that carbon dating means that we are dating the actual coal rocks as millions of years old, when we are actually dating the atoms. Those are completely different things. Again, I doubt you will understand this. You will probably just look off the first askyahoo page or the first creationist made website that tries to explain carbon dating as something entirely off base what it really is. That is, after all, all you have clearly done for all your other 'scientific support'. But whatever.

The Big Bang does not produce complex planets or Saturn's rings. It's not like the supermass that started just exploded into whole rocks and planets. But I tire of explaining these concepts to you. Just thought I would let you know that you are wrong in assuming so. But for Saturn's rings, who said those rings were always around Saturn? If they can only remain there for about 1.2 million years, okay. Cool. Nobody said that they have been there for longer than that. It is very possible that those rings formed far less than a million years ago. We haven't had telescopes capable of seeing Saturn's rings for very long. You argument makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. Nobody knows how long Saturn's rings have been there. Odds are, they weren't always there. The only way to know for sure is if we were able to observe the rings when they first appeared. We weren't able to, so why the argument about it? If you are implying scientists say that the rings have been there for billions or trillions of years, you are again mistaken. Nobody said that. Nobody could possibly know that, and there is no possible way to even test that to make the claim without a time machine. Same thing goes with the comets. Nobody said that the comets we see in our system have been around for longer than they can last. You seem to just be assuming that scientist said that.

As for the Sahara desert, yes, it is technically growing. But you fail to realize that desert does not mean the big areas of sand. The term desert refers to a specific climate. Those areas are for the most part unchanged as long as the Earth remains on it's polar tilt. But anyway, you fail to take into account that the continents are moving. So the desert climate is going to technically shift, but not really. It will stay exactly where it is, but the land itself is moving. So different parts of the continent will slowly move into the climatic desert region determined by the Earth's polar angles. You can map out the spreading of the sand and have it eventually meet to a small point about 4,000 years ago. But another thing you fail to mention that the desert sand is limited. It will keep spreading , and get thinner and thinner as continues to blow to other areas. Eventually, we won't have a desert (as far as the sand aspect goes) in that location of the continent anymore. Once the more plantation rich areas slowly move towards the desert region of the Earth's climate zones, they will slowly get drier and drier and die. Then that area will become less and less rich in soil and form desert sand instead of fertile terrain. Then the process starts all over again. 

So in short terms to answer your desert question, they desert sand is limited anyway, so it won't just eventually cover the earth. The sand would reach the point to where it couldn't really spread anymore. But regardless, because of the earths crust's constant slow movement, different areas are becoming the new deserts. The areas that used to be in the desert climate get pushed out into more fruitful climates. They slowly will lose it's soft unhinged sand as the wind blows it away until it reaches it's tightly packed terrain again. As it moves, it will eventually become fertile gain. We live in a constantly changing world. Your mistake there is assuming that that part of Africa was always in the desert region. You have no problem following the science part of the spreading sand, but completely ignore the part about plate tectonic movement, which causes parts of the continents to be in different climatic regions over long periods of time. The part that is now the Sahara Desert was not always a desert.

As for your question to me about Jesus, I already told you my belief in Genesis. You pointed out that it is referred to as Gap Theory. I don't think Jesus was lying. Yes, he mentioned Genesis many times. But I believe his point in mentioning it was the same as the book's point. To tell the general order that the world and it's life was created, and that God was the one who did it. I don't believe the important part of the message would be the little details in exactly how God did it. Those are just unimportant details that distract from the message. So the book (and Jesus) focused on the message it gave. I believe that Genesis and the theory of Evolution work hand in hand. I think Evolution is just the details that were left out of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus because it isn't important in the message of God. The thing is, you would say I imply he is lying because of you have no respect for my religious belief. Specifically the part about 7 days. I interpret the 7 days as being 7 days in the eyes of God. The term days is not very specific. Many planets have different lengths of days. Why would it be so wrong to think that maybe the days in Heaven are not the same as the days we have on this planet? 

But the thing is, I already know you have no respect for my religious belief. You call my religious interpretation as 'compromised', meaning you are no different than the radicals who only truly respect religious interpretations that are the same as yours. You have already treated my religion with obvious bigotry. Because of that, I know you will look at my answer to you you about my belief in the word of Jesus and just fail to show me any respect. It might seem like I am disrespecting your belief, but there is a difference in what I am doing and what you have done to me. All I have done is correct the huge mistakes you have made in the scientific concepts that are not meant to be open to interpretation. But I never once said that you were wrong. I never once said evolution was fact. You, on the other hand, have blatantly said that your belief is the only one that is right here and you would set out to disprove everyone else. You have failed to do that. All you have done is posed questions. Questions to which you don't know the answer. So all you have proven here is that there are questions to which you don't know the answer. That isn't disproving anything. When you asked questions, I gave you tested answers. When anyone here asked you questions, you gave examples from the Bible (which have not been tested) and answered with science concepts that were completely misused and untrue do to your own lack of understanding. 

You are entitled to your religious belief. I respect it and would never try to tell you that my belief is right and yours is wrong. I might not respect you, but I respect your equal right to have faith in your belief. You, on the other hand, call my religion compromised. You twist my words to make me sound like a racist. You claim that I make statements that I never made. You take your interpretation of the Biblical text, and try to tell me that I am saying that I believe that my Lord and Savior lied. By saying that, you have solidified the fact that you have no respect for my religion, and have no problem throwing comments of insult and bigotry. As I said, this will be my final post here, because you are not a person that I feel is even worth the time to even bother with anymore. 
Vizzed Elite
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table!


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 05-01-11
Location: Kansas
Last Post: 2439 days
Last Active: 748 days

(edited by rcarter2 on 02-28-13 12:08 AM)    

03-01-13 12:58 PM
janus is Offline
| ID: 746851 | 34 Words

janus
SecureYourCodeDavid
Level: 124

POSTS: 8/4808
POST EXP: 565097
LVL EXP: 21405786
CP: 62622.0
VIZ: 459233

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Just wondering : if Creation is indeed "how it happened", then why has no one ever wrote about it and have it peer-reviewed? So far, no credible "alternative" to evolution has been brought forward
Just wondering : if Creation is indeed "how it happened", then why has no one ever wrote about it and have it peer-reviewed? So far, no credible "alternative" to evolution has been brought forward
Site Staff
YouTube Video Editor
the unknown


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-14-12
Location: Murica
Last Post: 43 days
Last Active: 2 hours

03-01-13 04:55 PM
Brigand is Offline
| ID: 746967 | 129 Words

Brigand
Level: 89


POSTS: 330/2233
POST EXP: 116430
LVL EXP: 6762960
CP: 2057.5
VIZ: 112856

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I find it sad that rcarter2 decided to call it quits on the subject, since his posts are very thorough and logical. But he makes a very good point. If you have no actual concept of science even at a least basic level, it is totally impossible to have an actual conversation about it. You might as well talk to a brick wall or try to baptise a cat. It is hard, frustrating and often pointless.

And seriously, I cant blame him for that. Trying to give a reasonable answer time after time again to opinionated hogwash over the internet is a thankless and frustrating job. But read his post. Even though it is an answer to another user, it makes lots of very good points on the subject.
I find it sad that rcarter2 decided to call it quits on the subject, since his posts are very thorough and logical. But he makes a very good point. If you have no actual concept of science even at a least basic level, it is totally impossible to have an actual conversation about it. You might as well talk to a brick wall or try to baptise a cat. It is hard, frustrating and often pointless.

And seriously, I cant blame him for that. Trying to give a reasonable answer time after time again to opinionated hogwash over the internet is a thankless and frustrating job. But read his post. Even though it is an answer to another user, it makes lots of very good points on the subject.
Trusted Member
Not even an enemy.


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 12-29-12
Location: Yurop.
Last Post: 2701 days
Last Active: 2687 days

(edited by Brigand on 03-01-13 04:57 PM)    

03-05-13 12:12 AM
macaman is Offline
| ID: 749547 | 34 Words

macaman
Level: 3

POSTS: 1/1
POST EXP: 34
LVL EXP: 63
CP: 65.3
VIZ: 10469

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
Has the thought eever begun maybe not every question has a solution? Maybe we just always existed. If we were created why dose it matter ,and why would this being not present its self?
Has the thought eever begun maybe not every question has a solution? Maybe we just always existed. If we were created why dose it matter ,and why would this being not present its self?
Newbie

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 01-30-13
Last Post: 4042 days
Last Active: 3534 days

03-07-13 11:00 PM
Sword Legion is Offline
| ID: 751440 | 1014 Words

Sword Legion
Sword legion
Sword egion
Level: 102


POSTS: 111/3034
POST EXP: 699562
LVL EXP: 10831710
CP: 16237.8
VIZ: 148715

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0

rcarter2:


Deserts require three major things to exist: heat, mountains, and sand. Deserts become bigger
when the sand that makes it up gets blown around by the wind. There also has to be mountains around
that will keep rain from falling on the desert. Anyways, what you're saying is that the Sahara Desert's shape has
somewhat shifted to stay within its boundaries on Africa to stay in the climate zone?
And there is still plenty of sand there, have you seen the hills of sand there?
If pangea theory is correct, even then Africa hasn't moved that much int the last million years.
Of course we should have a bigger desert there or somewhere else, at least more than a few million years of age,
the continents haven't moved around that much. They're still about as close to the equator as they were
even a million years ago.
A desert does not have to be that close to the equator. We have a few in the United States.
    And yes, I pressed the racist question, it can be a hard question for an evolutionist to answer.
I meant nothing against you when I asked it, and I certainly didn't manipulate anything that you said!
And you didn't answer the question, perhaps you realized that it could only go two ways.
    Is it believed by some evolutionists that people evolved separately on different continents?
I thought that the odds of evolution were low enough, but now are you suggesting that different humans
evolved separately on different continents at the same time? The odds are tenfold against that happening
as opposed to humans evolving on just one continent.
    The problem of family resemblance was already answered.
Noah and his family was blessed, so The genetic information that was lost was restored. They didn't have to
worry about genetic defects and mutations happening all over the place.  Also, humans scattered across the
earth after the tower of Babel. Those who spoke the same language intermarried with each other,
thus humanity divided into various tribes.
    One thing that evolution suggests is that we as humans are still evolving. They will point to body parts
such as the appendix and say "This part of the human body is no functions as an active member of the body.
Therefore it will eventually be lost". or they will point out other body parts and suggest that these body parts
are evolving they serve no fuction currently.
Such members of the body are called vestigle organs.
But. . .
    The appendix actually works with the immune system, it's what activates your killer B cells.
And just because you can live without it doesn't mean it's a vestigle organ- you can live without arms you know.
Another one is the tail bone. They say that we don't have a tail because it's no longer needed.
    No longer needed? Do you know how useful a tail would be?
Ok, imagine you've just come home from the grocery store, you're holding two bags of groceries.
You walk up to the door, it's shut. Wouldn't you wish that you had a tail so that you could turn around
and open up that door?
    A tail would be so useful.
Also the tail bone has nine little muscles that are very important.
    They will also piont out "vestigle" organs on various animals such as the snake and whale.
The snake and whale have limbs coming off of their pelvis, so these limbs were once legs?
Actually these limbs are used in mating to help the male grasp the female properly in order to mate.
    About the fruit flies.
So, they got a fruit fly that isn't attracted to a bug zapper? Would that be, by chance the blind fruit flies
that you would be talking about? Or was there some other harmful mutation that it had?
If your talking about the blind fruit flies, then that's like saying that if you cut off your legs you
won't get athletes foot, which is true, but in the long run it's more harmful to the individual.
Bacteria does this all the time, but it's always a loss of genetic information, not a gain, and not neccesarilly
helpful in the long run.
    I looked up the meaning of the word creation as was used by Jesus.
He referenced creation three times.Jesus mentioned creation in Mark 10:6 and 13:19.
The definition of the word creation is boiled down into four meanings in Strong's Concordinance:
building
creation
creature
ordinance
    Ok, let's look at the word creation, Webster's dictionary has this insert:
         The act of creating or of being created;esp:the bringing of the world into existense out of nothing.
So the world was created out of nothing.
       Also notice the use of the word building to describe creation, a building is designed not evolved.
I looked up the word day as it was used in Genesis, it is described as:
    A period of time
    From sunrise to sunset
A second is a period of time, so is a day, a period of time is an accurate description,
but how long is this period of time? A second is 1/60 of a minute, a day is from sunrise to sunset.
    Anyways, the days of genesis were actually millions of years, what about the seventh day? Was it
also millions of years? Did Adam and Eve live for millions of years during this seventh day?
  God created the plants before he created the sun and moon, if each day is actually millions of years
then those plants are waiting for millions of years for some sunlight.
The only Bible verse that I'm aware of that Christians use to suggest that the days of Genesis
are actually millions of years is the verse that says: "a thousand years is as a day and a day is as
a thousand years unto the Lord".
I think that this is just an allegory showing the timelessness of God.

I understand science, not as well as some people, and I appreciate the time that you spend on this debate.

rcarter2:


Deserts require three major things to exist: heat, mountains, and sand. Deserts become bigger
when the sand that makes it up gets blown around by the wind. There also has to be mountains around
that will keep rain from falling on the desert. Anyways, what you're saying is that the Sahara Desert's shape has
somewhat shifted to stay within its boundaries on Africa to stay in the climate zone?
And there is still plenty of sand there, have you seen the hills of sand there?
If pangea theory is correct, even then Africa hasn't moved that much int the last million years.
Of course we should have a bigger desert there or somewhere else, at least more than a few million years of age,
the continents haven't moved around that much. They're still about as close to the equator as they were
even a million years ago.
A desert does not have to be that close to the equator. We have a few in the United States.
    And yes, I pressed the racist question, it can be a hard question for an evolutionist to answer.
I meant nothing against you when I asked it, and I certainly didn't manipulate anything that you said!
And you didn't answer the question, perhaps you realized that it could only go two ways.
    Is it believed by some evolutionists that people evolved separately on different continents?
I thought that the odds of evolution were low enough, but now are you suggesting that different humans
evolved separately on different continents at the same time? The odds are tenfold against that happening
as opposed to humans evolving on just one continent.
    The problem of family resemblance was already answered.
Noah and his family was blessed, so The genetic information that was lost was restored. They didn't have to
worry about genetic defects and mutations happening all over the place.  Also, humans scattered across the
earth after the tower of Babel. Those who spoke the same language intermarried with each other,
thus humanity divided into various tribes.
    One thing that evolution suggests is that we as humans are still evolving. They will point to body parts
such as the appendix and say "This part of the human body is no functions as an active member of the body.
Therefore it will eventually be lost". or they will point out other body parts and suggest that these body parts
are evolving they serve no fuction currently.
Such members of the body are called vestigle organs.
But. . .
    The appendix actually works with the immune system, it's what activates your killer B cells.
And just because you can live without it doesn't mean it's a vestigle organ- you can live without arms you know.
Another one is the tail bone. They say that we don't have a tail because it's no longer needed.
    No longer needed? Do you know how useful a tail would be?
Ok, imagine you've just come home from the grocery store, you're holding two bags of groceries.
You walk up to the door, it's shut. Wouldn't you wish that you had a tail so that you could turn around
and open up that door?
    A tail would be so useful.
Also the tail bone has nine little muscles that are very important.
    They will also piont out "vestigle" organs on various animals such as the snake and whale.
The snake and whale have limbs coming off of their pelvis, so these limbs were once legs?
Actually these limbs are used in mating to help the male grasp the female properly in order to mate.
    About the fruit flies.
So, they got a fruit fly that isn't attracted to a bug zapper? Would that be, by chance the blind fruit flies
that you would be talking about? Or was there some other harmful mutation that it had?
If your talking about the blind fruit flies, then that's like saying that if you cut off your legs you
won't get athletes foot, which is true, but in the long run it's more harmful to the individual.
Bacteria does this all the time, but it's always a loss of genetic information, not a gain, and not neccesarilly
helpful in the long run.
    I looked up the meaning of the word creation as was used by Jesus.
He referenced creation three times.Jesus mentioned creation in Mark 10:6 and 13:19.
The definition of the word creation is boiled down into four meanings in Strong's Concordinance:
building
creation
creature
ordinance
    Ok, let's look at the word creation, Webster's dictionary has this insert:
         The act of creating or of being created;esp:the bringing of the world into existense out of nothing.
So the world was created out of nothing.
       Also notice the use of the word building to describe creation, a building is designed not evolved.
I looked up the word day as it was used in Genesis, it is described as:
    A period of time
    From sunrise to sunset
A second is a period of time, so is a day, a period of time is an accurate description,
but how long is this period of time? A second is 1/60 of a minute, a day is from sunrise to sunset.
    Anyways, the days of genesis were actually millions of years, what about the seventh day? Was it
also millions of years? Did Adam and Eve live for millions of years during this seventh day?
  God created the plants before he created the sun and moon, if each day is actually millions of years
then those plants are waiting for millions of years for some sunlight.
The only Bible verse that I'm aware of that Christians use to suggest that the days of Genesis
are actually millions of years is the verse that says: "a thousand years is as a day and a day is as
a thousand years unto the Lord".
I think that this is just an allegory showing the timelessness of God.

I understand science, not as well as some people, and I appreciate the time that you spend on this debate.
Trusted Member
Dark knight of the blackened sun. I am Sword Legion, one of many. My mask is thick, and my armor is strong. All the more necessary in a world such as this. . .


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 09-27-12
Location: Faxanadu
Last Post: 990 days
Last Active: 427 days

05-01-13 04:40 PM
hypermonkey is Offline
| ID: 791541 | 99 Words

hypermonkey
Level: 102


POSTS: 2775/2808
POST EXP: 106752
LVL EXP: 10919196
CP: 1174.5
VIZ: 57583

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
I just read through this again, and I've decided to close it. This is the debate forum, yet at no point has this ever been a debate. The only thing going on here is Sword Legion presenting some *cough* "scientific facts", someone else trying to answer or present a point, and Sword Legion responding with "Nope. Nuh-uh. You're wrong on that, and here is the absolute undeniable truth with absolutely zero chance for you to rebut."

I'm sorry Sword Legion, but this is not a debate. It's pretty much you dumping on the arguments and theories of everyone else.
I just read through this again, and I've decided to close it. This is the debate forum, yet at no point has this ever been a debate. The only thing going on here is Sword Legion presenting some *cough* "scientific facts", someone else trying to answer or present a point, and Sword Legion responding with "Nope. Nuh-uh. You're wrong on that, and here is the absolute undeniable truth with absolutely zero chance for you to rebut."

I'm sorry Sword Legion, but this is not a debate. It's pretty much you dumping on the arguments and theories of everyone else.
Vizzed Elite
Affected by 'ADHD' and 'Insanity'


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 07-01-09
Location: Quincy, MA
Last Post: 2900 days
Last Active: 1004 days

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×