RE: Evolution/Creation debate

RE: Evolution/Creation debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

chatterbox24 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 6:40:32 AM)
lol your welcome. a damnation? Mules might get pissed about that if they weren't so stubborn.[:D][:D] quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 a horse and a donkey make a mule who is sterile and creation stops there. I just thought Id throw that in to act like IM smart. Unfortunately, what you typed would be more a damnation of evolution than creation but, thanks for playing.

GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 6:40:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Dose god make mistrakes? apparently. Unintelligent design is a much more viable option than creationism. Reality is more compatible with a creator if the creator is blacked out drunk. [image]local://upfiles/566126/AB724675E1F84DF9AFB04D5971BAF163.jpg[/image]

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 6:41:55 AM)
I used to go with a girl that looked like that once, but she was mean, so I left her.

chatterbox24 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 6:51:36 AM)
You must be mistraking me for drunk. Lets face it there are some things science will never explain not even in a million years. But I seriously doubt we will be around in a million years here. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Dose god make mistrakes? apparently. Unintelligent design is a much more viable option than creationism. Reality is more compatible with a creator if the creator is blacked out drunk. [image]local://upfiles/566126/AB724675E1F84DF9AFB04D5971BAF163.jpg[/image]

GotSteel -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 6:52:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 a horse and a donkey make a mule who is sterile and creation stops there. I just thought Id throw that in to act like IM smart. Here's the offspring of a mule: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6464853/mule-foal-fools-genetics-impossible-birth [image]local://upfiles/566126/5C8ED117A4D9435685B40AD9DACF35CE.jpg[/image]

chatterbox24 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 6:55:27 AM)
Its rare, very rare smarty pants!!!!! SO cute though. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 a horse and a donkey make a mule who is sterile and creation stops there. I just thought Id throw that in to act like IM smart. Here's the offspring of a mule: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6464853/mule-foal-fools-genetics-impossible-birth [image]local://upfiles/566126/5C8ED117A4D9435685B40AD9DACF35CE.jpg[/image]

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:08:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 You must be mistraking me for drunk. Lets face it there are some things science will never explain not even in a million years. But I seriously doubt we will be around in a million years here. Well, honey, I look like a million, but I'm considerably younger.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:15:35 AM)
It's kinda cute that you don't get it. Bless your heart. quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 lol your welcome. a damnation? Mules might get pissed about that if they weren't so stubborn.[:D][:D] quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 a horse and a donkey make a mule who is sterile and creation stops there. I just thought Id throw that in to act like IM smart. Unfortunately, what you typed would be more a damnation of evolution than creation but, thanks for playing.

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:28:26 AM)
Well bless your heart more of a damnation of creation than evolution, cuz otherwise dinosaurs would roam this earth.

chatterbox24 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:34:52 AM)
awwwwwwwww, bless your heart too. I had no idea you could be so sweet. Carry on, enough with my silliness. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr It's kinda cute that you don't get it. Bless your heart. quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 lol your welcome. a damnation? Mules might get pissed about that if they weren't so stubborn.[:D][:D] quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 a horse and a donkey make a mule who is sterile and creation stops there. I just thought Id throw that in to act like IM smart. Unfortunately, what you typed would be more a damnation of evolution than creation but, thanks for playing.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 7:41:18 AM)
Let me try to explain: There is fossil evidence to suggest that many creatures haven't undergone change in thousands or millions of years because they don't need to. Fossil evidence of an ancestor of the modern-day ant eater suggests that they are almost identical. Why is that? Well, there's also fossil evidence to suggest that ants and termites haven't changed much in millions of years. So, the ant eater is already "perfectly" adapted to continue as a species; just the way they are. There are other examples; alligators/crocodiles, sharks, whales, bats, ... the list goes on. Maybe mules aren't "needed" for the survival of the "hippo" genus? Maybe that's why (up until now) they're sterile and can't reproduce? The world abhors a vacuum but, it also doesn't suffer waste, gladly.

mnottertail -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 8:27:27 AM)
Which doesn't damn evolution in any way.

Tkman117 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 8:29:13 AM)
Just because an animal seems as though it hasn't changed for thousands of years, doesn't negate the possibility that other species have branched off to form new lineages. Yes, what you said is true, hell they found a fish species a few decades ago that was around during the dinosaurs. But just because they have existed for so long does not mean that other species didn't form from them. Sharks have been around since the dinosaurs, but have undergone evolutionary change like other species, becoming different and newer species. Hammer head, great white, etc. They didn't exist millions of years ago. Same as bats, they evolved from gliding rodents. I'll admit I'm have a hard time understanding how what your talking about is a damnation against evolution.

eulero83 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 9:54:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Let me try to explain: There is fossil evidence to suggest that many creatures haven't undergone change in thousands or millions of years because they don't need to. Fossil evidence of an ancestor of the modern-day ant eater suggests that they are almost identical. Why is that? Well, there's also fossil evidence to suggest that ants and termites haven't changed much in millions of years. So, the ant eater is already "perfectly" adapted to continue as a species; just the way they are. There are other examples; alligators/crocodiles, sharks, whales, bats, ... the list goes on. Maybe mules aren't "needed" for the survival of the "hippo" genus? Maybe that's why (up until now) they're sterile and can't reproduce? The world abhors a vacuum but, it also doesn't suffer waste, gladly. you should never play texas hold'em...

chatterbox24 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 10:20:48 AM)
Back for more silly![:D] Take the human race, do we look much different then we did a few hundred years ago? But internally I think we have made huge changes, we think differently. We used to breed like rabbits, and most don't anymore because there isn't a need for a half dozen kids to bring in the crops. We have more choices, freeing up more time then just for survival. Another thing a lot of women wait to have children. It appears a lot of women have more female problems then in the past at an earlier age, but it doesn't matter because science has made it possibly for almost any woman to carry a baby thus correcting the problem. Regardless on the average we have less children. I also have asked myself, are there more gay individuals then there once were, or are people just more comfortable admitting it, or do we think differently thus again less children generally being reproduced. Those are just a couple examples I could think of. Is that creation or evolution, that we are muling ourselves? AND NO I HAVE NOT BEEN SMOKING CRACK.[sm=couch.gif]

Lucylastic -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 10:37:28 AM)
as same sex pairings are abundant in nature... and the extinction rate of animals doesnt seem to be because of same sex animals I think not Women have bigger breasts than they did 150 years ago, by and large we are taller than we were two hundred years ago we live longer than we did 200 years ago evolution doesnt happen every friday afternoon at 3pm

jlf1961 -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 10:56:36 AM)
There are very easy examples of evolution. In homo sapiens all one has to do is look at skin pigmentation. Internally, with few exceptions, we are pretty much the same, difference is skin color. Now consider sharks. They share a common ancestor, however each has evolved differently, hammerheads evolved to more effectively scan the bottom for the electrical impulses from hiding fish. Bull sharks evolved to survive in both fresh and salt water (personally I feel this was so they could swim up rivers and chomp on unsuspecting humans who think they are safe from sharks) so that they could give birth to live young in rivers in order to prevent other sharks from eating them. Then there are fresh water dolphins. Jelly fish that evolved to not have tentacles, and human ginger haired women have evolved to eat souls.

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 2:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 human ginger haired women have evolved to eat souls. And spread chaos and misery.

Milesnmiles -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 5:29:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Maybe I missed it. But in all of this patting yourself on the back, I didn't see how the living things that exist all around us ended up with differing numbers of chromosomes, perhaps you could elucidate. ;-) is this the only concern about evolution you have or are there any others? anyway taking as example chimpanzees they have 24 chromosome couples, humans have 23 but looking the 2nd chromosome you can see it shows proof to be the fusion of two different chromosomes, this is a fact, you can do many hypothesys about how this fusion happended and test them, but it is a fact that humans had in the past 24 couples. Every hypothesys has to connect those two spots or it's not valid, But we know as a fact chromosomes can change their number in some way. Great, now put the two together and you get what I've saying all along. A "group" that has been mating and sharing their genes and evolving, sooner or later they have produce a change in the number of chromosomes or else today, every living thing would have the same number of chromosomes, which they don't. Now it would seem, in the world around us, a differing number of chromosomes seems to be a rather large hindrance to reproduction. Now what I have been saying is; no matter how much a "group" has mated and evolved, when that change in the number of chromosomes happens, a new "group" has to be formed because they can no longer mate with the "group" that evolved them. Great, that is what Evolution says happens and as far as I know there is no scientific evidence that shows that could not have happened. But being some what pragmatic, I have to ask; do I really believe that over the millions of times that happened, Evolution managed to produce at least a male and a female of that new "group" at the same time and place, every time? And as GotSteel was so kind to point out, one pair is not a viable start to a new "group" and so Evolution would have produce more than just two, each time. Perhaps that seems credible to you but to me it seems to be pushing credulity and would seem to take blind faith to believe. ;-)

DomKen -> RE: Evolution/Creation debate (2/25/2014 5:39:58 PM)
You really have no idea how reproduction works at the cellular level. Until you do you won't understand why this fixation on chromosome number is nonsensical.

Page: << < prev 31 32 [33] 34 35 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625