<p>There are many obscure (and in many cases silly) laws that no one seriously considers enforcing. Saying that "all illegal things are bad" is a ridiculous generalization. What point are you trying to make?</p>
<p>There is only one question that science cannot explain (At least not the current science), how did the universe come to be? As in pre-big bang, where did all that junk that got compressed together come from in the first place? Thats the only thing that keeps me from flat out saying the church is completely wrong. o_O</p>
<p>why is there still debate over this. it's well known that evolutionary processes occurred with or without the help of a higher power. whether God exists is a matter of faith, and discussion of that should be kept separate from discussing historical biological fact.</p>
<p>Concrete evidence lies in the changes we as a race have seen in ourselves and other organisms over the centuries. Did we witness creation? No. But we have found evidence that we can view objectively to support evolution.</p>
<p>Oh No! Not another of these evolution vs. creationism threads! I think it would behoove some of you to go check out the "How many of you believe in God" thread; would save you a lot of time and trouble. The thing spread like wildfire..........</p>
<p>The theory of evolution claims that all matter was formed by chance. By some extraordinary feat of magic, inorganic and unconcious matter "developed" the ability to come together and form life. If this holds true than the ability for me to suddenly evolutionise (if circumstance permits) into a giant spiky eyeball also becomes a likely reality.</p>
<p>If evolutionists bring together the elements that constitute the building blocks of life: carbon, nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, and add as many amino acids and proteins (of which one has the formation ability of 10-950) and mix these in a big barrel, the only thing that's formed is a sodding heap.</p>
<p>The law of Thermodynamics claims that natural conditions always lead to disorder and degeneration of information. Therefore it flies in the face of an evolutionary possibility.</p>
<p>Even though scientists were harping on about there being a link between invertebrates and fish, no transitional evidence has really ever been found. You know this, I know this, but obviously the only way to make scientists understand this is by throwing bricks at them.</p>
<p>Everyone knows that invertebrates and fish have different structural differences. Such an enormous "evolution" would have taken billions of steps, so there should be a wide array of transitional fossils to back this up. But, the custard pie truth is, there isn't.</p>
<p>Scientists hypothecised that some fish needed to pass from sea to land because of feeding problems, which quite frankly, moistens my gussets with laughter. The main reasons for this being impossible are thus:</p>
<p>Weight</p>
<p>Sea dwelling creatures have no problem in carrying their own weight. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume, say, thirty-forty % of their energy just lugging their bodies around. Creatures making their transition from water to land would have had to suddenly develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet the required energy need at the same time, which is impossible to have been formed by chance mutations, unless you're a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.</p>
<p>Heat Retention</p>
<p>We all know that on land, temperature fluctuates, however, remember that land dwelling creatures have a bodily mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes without them suddenly self combusting and blowing up in everyone's face. In the sea, the temperature changes slowly and the change doesn't occur within such a wide range. A living organism that has a body system regulated in accordance to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protection system to ensure minimum harm from the temp changes on land. So it's kind of proposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations (which aren't spurred by any suspect catalyst) as soon as they stepped onto land.</p>
<p>Use of water</p>
<p>Yes that's right: water, H20, sea-blood. This is essential to metabolism. Water and even moisture need to be used restrictively due to scarcity of water on land. Eg, an organism's skin has to be designed to permit losing water to a certain extent while also preventing excessive evaporation. Therefore, the land-dwelling creatures will have a sense of thirst, something which sea dwelling organisms don't have. One has to remember that sea-dwelling animals don't have skin which is suitable for a non-aquatic habitat... well... unless you're a little mermaid.</p>
<p>Kidneys</p>
<p>Sea dwelling organisms can easily discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, in their bodies by filtering them through gills, and since there is plenty of water in their habitat they're a-okay. On land though, water has to be used economically. This is why living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the almighty kidney, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea, meaning minimum amount of water is used during excretion. In addition to this, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. That means that in order for the passage from water to land to have occured, living things without a kidney would have had to suddenly develop a kidney system. LOL.</p>
<p>Respiratory System</p>
<p>Fish breathe by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they frantically pass through their gills, so they cannot live for more than a couple of minutes out of water. In order to live on land, they'd have to acquire a perfect damm system too.</p>
<p>Now you can see why it's impossible that all these dramatic psysiological developments could have happened in the same organism at the same time and by chance!</p>
<p>Have you read The Descent of Man?</p>
<p>Darwin is also a ****ing racist as explained thus:</p>
<p>" The break between man in a more civilised stat, as we may hope, even than the Caucasion, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and gorilla."</p>
<p>Apparently, social darwinism proposes that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder. Not only were his ideas theorised and not fact, but they also provided an important scientific platform for racism. So, a black man is actually more closer to a gorilla than a whitey. Hear that homie?</p>
<p>Just another nail in the coffin of evolution: Since evolution says that species gradually evolve, this means that there are organic links that denote a specific geneology. For example, when a dog breeder wants to develop a specific canine breed, he will keep on mating and mixing various dog breeds until the desired specifications are met. So in between the original dog and the "new" dog, there are about (usually) 70 generations, each one slightly different than the last, you can actually see the new breed evolving before your very eyes.</p>
<p>With evolution, it is the same, if specific species evolved out of others, then there should be a **** load of "in-between" fossils all over the place that show the step-by-step evolution of that species. These are called "inter-mediary" fossils. For every fully formed species, there should be millions of quarter-formed, half-formed and three quarters-formed species. The only problem is, they are NOT being found, even though they should FAR outnumber the number of fully-formed fossils. You might have heard of this little problem for evolutionary theory, it's better known as the "missing link" problem.</p>
<p>Just one more thing: towards the end of his life, Charles Darwin himself had grave misgivings about the theory he developed, he often couldn't sleep trying to explain how the eye, an organ that converts photons into electrical impulses that constitute images in our brain, evolved. He wondered, how does an organism know it needs an eye, how does it know how it will work and how will it survive in the meantime without a fully formed eye. He also worried a lot about reproductive systems: since reproductive systems also had to evolve, how did a half-developed reproductive system function? Did the organism have a back-up reproductive system? Who supervised the construction of this system?</p>
<p>Don't believe everything you are taught, the truth is much more complex and profound than you may think................</p>
<p>There is unsatisfactory evidence of evolution; much of which is hampered by the fact that evolutionists have countlessly lied about discovering breath-taking new fossils in order to complete their mind-boggling claims that primitive humans evolved from ape.</p>
<p>Something interesting to consider is how evolutionists also claim that human bipedalism (two-walk stride) evolved from the quadripal stride of monkeys. It's impossible for a bent ape skeleton fit for quadripal stride to evolve into upright human skeleton fit for bipedal stride.</p>
<p>Here is why:</p>
<p>First of all, bipedalism is not an evolutionary advantage. The way in which monkeys move is faster, easier and more convenient than a human's bipedal stride. Humans are disadvantaged in that they can't run and jump like chimps. This means that humans are an unprotected species in comparison to apes. As evolutionists claim we evolved from apes, why should there have been a need for human bipedalism to have evolved from efficient ape quadpedalism?</p>
<p>According to the supposed "logic" of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride : humans should instead have evolved to become quadpedal.</p>
<p>The transition from quadpedal to bipedal would have meant our ancestors having to endure the "in between" stage of being half-bipedal. Robin Crompton proved that apart from being an evolutionary advantage, such a stride was not possible because of extreme energy consumption. How would it have been logical for a certain animal to suddenly evolve into a creature which uses it's energy resources so unwisely; a stride invariably superior to humans?</p>
<p>Please consider a newborn human baby. This is a frail little creature that has just spent the last 9 months in it's mothers womb. During that time, it has gradually devloped i.e. evolved from a single-celled organism into a complex mammal. Human (and other) gestation provides an excellent example of why natural selection and evolution is improbable. Why? Read on.</p>
<p>*[continued]<a href="max..10000%20characters">/i</a>
When an egg is fertilized by a sperm, a new life is created. This life begins, as a tiny but rapidly multiplying group of cells. I assume you all know this. Now, as time passes, these cells begin to form (as per a pre-recorded program i.e. DNA) more and more complex structures i.e. organs, limbs, ect. As the foetus gradually develops i.e. evolves into a fully formed human, it's vital organs (brain, heart, lungs, kidney, ect) gradually develop inside it. Got that?</p>
<p>Now, what would happen if a few months old foetus was taken out if it's host's (mother's) body? Anybody? BZZZZZZZZZ!! Times's up! It would die!!! Why? Well, because it's vital organs are only half-evolved and therefore practically usesless. So then, how does this foetus stay alive inside the womb with no functioning brain, heart, lungs or kidney system to speak of? Simple. The host does all that for it. Namely, the mother's heart beat's for the fetus, the mother's lungs breathe for the fetus (no smoking while up the duff, ladies!!!), the mother eats for the fetus and nourishes it via the umbilical cord (that's where your belly-botton came from). In other words, the host is the fetus' life support system, it keeps the fetus alive while the foetus is developing i.e. evolving it's own vital organs, without the host, the fetus is dead ! Got that???</p>
<p>Now lets apply that to the theory of evolution: evolution says that all organisms gradually evolve to adapt to their surroundings and basically to survive. Since more complex organisms have complex bodily organs, these to had to evolve, right? And we're talking like tens of millions of years here!!</p>
<p>So the question must be asked (for like the 100th freaking time!!): What life support system did these evolving i.e. developing organisms have? What kept them alive while their hearts, brains, lungs, ect. were still being constructed? These organisms didn't have the benefit of a nice cozy womb, no, they lived out there in a cruel dog rape cat world. Do you see what I'm getting at? No? Let me explain. Evolutionists want you to believe that evolving organisms with effectively no brain, no heart, no lungs, no kidneys i.e. no vital organs lived healthy and productive lives. Have you ever seen a guy with no brain, no heart, no lungs walking around, pinching woman? NO! WHY? BECAUSE IT'S PHYSICALLY AND BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! Understand??????</p>
<p>So until evolutionary scientists come up with a feasable explanation as to to how evolving life forms with non-functional vital organs managed to keep themselves alive and healthy for all those tens of millions of years, I will continue to say "You guys are full"</p>
<p>
[quote]
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication [Jeffares et al, 1998; Pool et al, 1998; Leipe et al, 1999]. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids [Böhler et al, 1995]
[/quote]
The Could and likely are not an acceptability. We want, can and is - kapische?
[quote]
A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes [Levy and Ellington, 2003].
[/quote]
What sources suggest that deoxyribozyme is the specific trigger of such replication patterns and not any other? If deoxyribozyme has been isolated as the prominent catalyst of the evolutionary trigger mechanism, I would like to see concrete evidence.
[quote]
Claim CA005.1:
Charles Darwin was himself a racist, referring to native Africans and Australians, for example, as savages.</p>
<p>Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed negroes as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most; he vehemently opposed slavery [Darwin, 1839], and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.
[/quote]
And a serious matters this is. What a nice way to overlook the agenda - downplay Darwin's guiltiness by comparing his rotten values to the rank injustice of his own civilisation. Though it may be true, "measuring" one's degree of racism (is that even possible?) in direct correlation to the cultural opinions of the fellow men of that era, reduces the scientific insight of this website to ashes. That is why if Darwin opposed slavery, it was probably because he endured personal nightmares about the negro race becoming rampant fixtures of his time, thereby increasing the possibility of a mixed race - a backward move in his case. Perhaps this is something Hitler would identify with.</p>
<p>"The break between man in a more civilised state, as we hope, even than the caucasion, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
- Charles Darwin, The Descent Of Man, 2nd. ed., New York: A. L Burt Co,</p>
<p>The propensity to alike negro men to gorillas obviously devalues the scientific merit and achievements of Darwin - a fallen man, in my opinion. You might also like to know that Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology - so long for diploma mills.</p>
<p>Also, Darwin was aware that his theories faced a lot of problems. The difficulties in explaining fossil records, complex organs of living things that could not possibly be explained by coincidence, i.e, the eye, and the instincts of living beings. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome but that didn't stop him from coming up with a number of very inadequate explanations for some:</p>
<p>"On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled, "Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen."
- H. S Lipson, A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory, Evolution Trends in Plants, Vol 2, No. 1
[quote]
The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not people's opinions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the height of mediocrity - it is a poor attempt to dilute racial stigma. If I had a personal vendetta against a given subject, there would be more than a likely probability that I would assimilate and throw this negativity into the groundwork - even refraining from being proactive in this instance, would change the foundation of my subject to some extent.</p>
<p>Considering this is a man who fathered evolution, and also the fact that his work was an evidence of at least some racial prejudice, it is a disgusting reveal into the much hyped-up ******** perpetuated by many evolutionists, under the sickening guise of reason. Given such acclaimed and respected status, Darwin's intelligence should have prevented him from making such tragic speculations regarding the racial ladder. From here, it's plain to see Darwin is on a propaganda ride.</p>
<p>As reiterated, many scientists, do indeed, use farcical theories and lunatic theologies, funded by their own lack of cultural respect, to pave the way for the next heatwave of scientifical anarchy:</p>
<p>"Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixture of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin."
- Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York.</p>
<p>Conclusion: If I was ever convinced about the fallacy of bogus evolutionary theories, I am more so now. I believe that variance within a species is attainable - indeed, one can see this happening before our very eyes, but I draw the line at the merest mention that one species developed into another.Not only do I have time limitations, but I doubt we will ever achieve mutual understanding. We will only end up spiralling further into dissension and discord. However, I do have to say this: I apologise for creating a breeding ground of impertinence and secretly commiting to shove ten-inch needles in a voodoo doll of your liking.</p>
<p>Rest assured this was not a competition, but a mere exchange of beliefs, in which mine remain intact.</p>
<p>I just thought I copy and paste my posts, which are completely random, but suitable for this topic; and assuming you people have no lives, you'll read all of it</p>
<p>Damm....It took my a lot of time to write the original posts in the "Who created God" thread, so I have the right to repost this...therefore, God exists?</p>
<p>Only three pages?
Betting for about 6 by tomorrow</p>
<p>are you for evolution or against it?</p>
<p>thesloc, </p>
<p>What are you still doing writing 3 page arguments with your obscure data? I thought it was established in the last thread that you (or anyone else for that matter) weren't going to be able to change anyone's beliefs? </p>
<p>Just give it a rest. Your methods aren't working.</p>
<p>Helix14788,
Dude; I'm not trying to change anyone beliefs, I'm merely trying to inform people of what is really going on, in about 3,000 words....At least I'm doing something useful.</p>
<p>That's dudette, by the way.</p>
<p>"Trying to inform people of what's going on" ? You've got to be kidding me. Maybe if your idea of informing is by throwing a bunch of incoherent thoughts together in 3000 word essays that people can't be bothered to read because it is meaningless rambling. How can anyone be expected to read your "informative" essays and retain any sort of information when we don't know what you're talking about......actually, I don't think you do either. If you'd really like to be informative, maybe you can write a few concise, meaningful sentences instead of 3 page long posts.</p>
<p>As for doing something useful, you're deluding yourself if you think you're helping anyone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Weight</p>
<p>Sea dwelling creatures have no problem in carrying their own weight. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume, say, thirty-forty % of their energy just lugging their bodies around. Creatures making their transition from water to land would have had to suddenly develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet the required energy need at the same time, which is impossible to have been formed by chance mutations, unless you're a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.
[/quote]
Consider the lobster evolving in shallow waters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Heat Retention</p>
<p>We all know that on land, temperature fluctuates, however, remember that land dwelling creatures have a bodily mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes without them suddenly self combusting and blowing up in everyone's face. In the sea, the temperature changes slowly and the change doesn't occur within such a wide range. A living organism that has a body system regulated in accordance to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protection system to ensure minimum harm from the temp changes on land. So it's kind of proposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations (which aren't spurred by any suspect catalyst) as soon as they stepped onto land.
[/quote]
Again, we have shallow waters. Consider the lungfish.
[quote]
Use of water</p>
<p>Yes that's right: water, H20, sea-blood. This is essential to metabolism. Water and even moisture need to be used restrictively due to scarcity of water on land. Eg, an organism's skin has to be designed to permit losing water to a certain extent while also preventing excessive evaporation. Therefore, the land-dwelling creatures will have a sense of thirst, something which sea dwelling organisms don't have. One has to remember that sea-dwelling animals don't have skin which is suitable for a non-aquatic habitat... well... unless you're a little mermaid.
[/quote]
Is it a stretch to consider the lungfish a possible link?
[quote]
Kidneys</p>
<p>Sea dwelling organisms can easily discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, in their bodies by filtering them through gills, and since there is plenty of water in their habitat they're a-okay. On land though, water has to be used economically. This is why living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the almighty kidney, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea, meaning minimum amount of water is used during excretion. In addition to this, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. That means that in order for the passage from water to land to have occured, living things without a kidney would have had to suddenly develop a kidney system. LOL.
[/quote]
Evolved on the surface of amphibians, perhaps?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Darwin is also a ****ing racist as explained thus:</p>
<p>" The break between man in a more civilised stat, as we may hope, even than the Caucasion, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and gorilla."</p>
<p>Apparently, social darwinism proposes that existing human races are located at different rungs of the evolutionary ladder. Not only were his ideas theorised and not fact, but they also provided an important scientific platform for racism. So, a black man is actually more closer to a gorilla than a whitey. Hear that homie?
[/quote]
Ignorance from upbringing. It happened. Besides, a black man IS closer to a gorilla. By one trait: skin coloration. Yeah, small margin, but the couple genes in a few billion makes a difference, lol. jk, you know racism used to be very common. lack of interaction between races, etc. however this is a personal attack with no relation to Darwin's other ideas.
[quote]
According to the supposed "logic" of evolution, monkeys should not have evolved to adopt a bipedal stride : humans should instead have evolved to become quadpedal.
[/quote]
Consider possibly that human intelligence evolved first, enabling the creation of tools. It would be beneficial to be bipedal in order to use those tools. Most likely bipedalism evolved through an intermediary step where the ape could temporarily remain upright in order to use the tool in hand. Same concept as a dolphin evolving to be more efficient with oxygen in the lungs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Evolved on the surface of amphibians, perhaps?
[/quote]
We're looking for a full answer here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it a stretch to consider the lungfish a possible link?
[/quote]
You tell me; I'm sick of all this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ignorance from upbringing. It happened. Besides, a black man IS closer to a gorilla. By one trait: skin coloration. Yeah, small margin, but the couple genes in a few billion makes a difference, lol. jk, you know racism used to be very common. lack of interaction between races, etc. however this is a personal attack with no relation to Darwin's other ideas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aha! Did you just insult Black people?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Consider possibly that human intelligence evolved first, enabling the creation of tools. It would be beneficial to be bipedal in order to use those tools. Most likely bipedalism evolved through an intermediary step where the ape could temporarily remain upright in order to use the tool in hand. Same concept as a dolphin evolving to be more efficient with oxygen in the lungs.
[/quote]
LOL</p>
<p>
[quote]
So the question must be asked (for like the 100th freaking time!!): What life support system did these evolving i.e. developing organisms have? What kept them alive while their hearts, brains, lungs, ect. were still being constructed? These organisms didn't have the benefit of a nice cozy womb, no, they lived out there in a cruel dog rape cat world. Do you see what I'm getting at? No? Let me explain. Evolutionists want you to believe that evolving organisms with effectively no brain, no heart, no lungs, no kidneys i.e. no vital organs lived healthy and productive lives. Have you ever seen a guy with no brain, no heart, no lungs walking around, pinching woman? NO! WHY? BECAUSE IT'S PHYSICALLY AND BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! Understand??????
[/quote]
Flatworms have no separate tissues or organs.</p>
<p>No I didn't just insult black people. I'm just stating the quite obvious. The obvious difference is skin color, and that's just about the only difference. Because gorillas have black skin it would follow, yadda yadda yadda. Same way, you could say white people are closer to polar bears.</p>