[SalvationSeeker]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

It is pure instinct, it has EVOLVED to develop that as a habit. It has clearly evolved with the instinct to ensure its young is cared for and provided nutrition. It doesn't think. Wasps don't THINK, they do things by instinct.

Why would they devolop instincts to inject their eggs into spiders?
It doesn't make sense, and it isn't an advantage!
It's a disadvantage since the wasps has to rely on spiders for their survival.

You've completely twisted the point upside down and inside out. The spiders en masse would exist as per normal. Mate, eat, weave web, whatever spiders do to occupy themselves all day. Now some of these spiders would get stung then infected. More than likely they would have already mated, already have young. All the sting would do is prevent them from mating AGAIN.

And just why would these spiders offsbring ever evolve resistance to wasp poison?
They might as well devolop poison vs the polarbears mentioned earlier..
You cannot have "evilution" without "natural selection", that is "survival of the fittest", even your own scientists say so.
And no natural selection has taken place whatsoever.

No spiders have ever become resistant to wasp poison and none never will, because evilution isn't true!

And the relationship between the wasp and the spider is clearly demonstrative of a behavior evolved over time.....that of host and parasite

No it isn't, the behavior might have been created by an intelligent designer just as well. And it was!
The Holy Bible tells us that God created all things and so He did. Praise God!
Surely, He has made wasps to disprove silly ideas like evilution.

To Bobby Joe, the Cain question. Why are you presenting me with an argument that supports evolution? Lol, obviously if the bible were true and we all descended from the one source, we'd all be very much inbred by now. The fact that we aren't, and that we have a very wide gene pool clearly shows that the bible is wrong.

A very wide what? The Holy KJV1611 doesn't recognise genes..
Also, you too believe all life comes from a single source!
The so-called "primordial soup" of "amino acids."
So we'd all been inbred if evilution and genetics were true!

So why aren't we? Because "genes" doesn't exist and evilution isn't true!!
PRAISE JESUS!

[Dr. Ernest C. Ville, D.C.S.]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

It is pure instinct, it has EVOLVED to develop that as a habit. It has clearly evolved with the instinct to ensure its young is cared for and provided nutrition. It doesn't think. Wasps don't THINK, they do things by instinct.

As a scientist, I think that I am far more qualified to determine why wasps do things and why they don't. And I can tell you for CERTAIN that they didn't "evolve" instincts. First you guys say that they evolve away some things, then, in the same breath, you say that they evolved insome things. Can't even get your story straight can you?! There is a simple answer to all this: Jesus tells these wasps what to do! There is your so-called "instinct"!

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

You're dodging the real question like a demoncrap dodges a Godly draft..
Where would it get the idea to inject eggs into another living being?
Answer me, harlot!

It is pure instinct, it has EVOLVED to develop that as a habit. It has clearly evolved with the instinct to ensure its young is cared for and provided nutrition. It doesn't think. Wasps don't THINK, they do things by instinct.

But before they were stung, no evilution could have taken place, as no "natural selection" would have taken place.
As such, any kind of "gene" would get passed on, not just "wasp resistant" ones..
And once stung, they have no chance of survival, nor mating.

You've completely twisted the point upside down and inside out. The spiders en masse would exist as per normal. Mate, eat, weave web, whatever spiders do to occupy themselves all day. Now some of these spiders would get stung then infected. More than likely they would have already mated, already have young. All the sting would do is prevent them from mating AGAIN.
And the relationship between the wasp and the spider is clearly demonstrative of a behavior evolved over time.....that of host and parasite.

**
A note to whosever reading:
For the sake of debate and understandability; (hey, another Spirit-inspired word, praise God!)
I'm talking like I would actually recognise the existance of these "genes"..
Know I truly don't however, as the holy KJV1611 doesn't mention them.
**

Yeah, what gives? I thought you believed genetic studies are merely a form of devil worship!

To Bobby Joe, the Cain question. Why are you presenting me with an argument that supports evolution? Lol, obviously if the bible were true and we all descended from the one source, we'd all be very much inbred by now. The fact that we aren't, and that we have a very wide gene pool clearly shows that the bible is wrong.

[OnYourKnees]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

You're dodging the real question like a demoncrap dodges a Godly draft..
Where would it get the idea to inject eggs into another living being?
Answer me, harlot!

What I'm sure she won't say, is that these wasps were designed by God to paralyze spiders and lay eggs in them, so their little larvae could eat the spider alive as they grew, then burst out of it, much like the little critter in Alien.

Why aren't there photos in the Proof of God's Wondrous Creation thread?!

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Does it START OFF LIFE paralyzed? Don't be stupid, the spiders more than likely would have had ample chance to mate before getting stung and infected by the wasp. It doesn't get stung the moment it comes into being! Sheesh!

Read my third point (counting this one.)

And the wasp merely has developed instincts, plain instincts over time. Reproduction. Survival. The two most basic instincts there are.

You're dodging the real question like a demoncrap dodges a Godly draft..
Where would it get the idea to inject eggs into another living being?
Answer me, harlot!

It is no different from the wasp ridden spiders. The spiders would have most probably had ample chance to mate BEFORE getting stung initially and implanted. Don't you ever think outside the square?

But before they were stung, no evilution could have taken place, as no "natural selection" would have taken place.
As such, any kind of "gene" would get passed on, not just "wasp resistant" ones..
And once stung, they have no chance of survival, nor mating.

Don't you ever think at all?



**
A note to whosever reading:
For the sake of debate and understandability; (hey, another Spirit-inspired word, praise God!)
I'm talking like I would actually recognise the existance of these "genes"..
Know I truly don't however, as the holy KJV1611 doesn't mention them.
**

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

And how could it ever mate if it's paralysed?
Also, once more: where would the wasp ever get the idea of starting to lay eggs inside of living things?
It wouldn't! It must be because of God!
It isn't even wise from an evilutional point of view as spiders could be hard to come by.

Does it START OFF LIFE paralyzed? Don't be stupid, the spiders more than likely would have had ample chance to mate before getting stung and infected by the wasp. It doesn't get stung the moment it comes into being! Sheesh!
And the wasp merely has developed instincts, plain instincts over time. Reproduction. Survival. The two most basic instincts there are.

And I'm not talking about spiders eating their mates, nor am I interested in that argument since it's pointless.
As once they've mated, these "genes" will obviously be passed on already (as they've already mated), so it makes no difference then.

It is no different from the wasp ridden spiders. The spiders would have most probably had ample chance to mate BEFORE getting stung initially and implanted. Don't you ever think outside the square?

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Uhhh, your idea is silly. And who says that counter measures will never be developed? Evolution does take time you know. And remember, the predator is one step ahead of the prey.
Not to mention the spider probably would have mated before being eaten. Thus the eating not stopping it from mating. As with the species which eat their mate after mating. On that reasoning, do you see those species dying out?

God says counter-measures will never be devoloped since evilution isn't mentioned in the Holy Bible.
And I see you have all these fancy excuses when you cannot meet our arguments..
"It takes time" yap yap yap.. "The predator is one step ahead" yap yap yap...

And how could it ever mate if it's paralysed?
Also, once more: where would the wasp ever get the idea of starting to lay eggs inside of living things?
It wouldn't! It must be because of God!
It isn't even wise from an evilutional point of view as spiders could be hard to come by.

And I'm not talking about spiders eating their mates, nor am I interested in that argument since it's pointless.
As once they've mated, these "genes" will obviously be passed on already (as they've already mated), so it makes no difference then.

I know very well that the bible god is not loving, and oddly enough, so do you folk, however, a great many creationists do maintain the idea of a loving god.
And what I said STILL disproves intelligent design.

It doesn't disprove jack. It only disproves that you could be intelligent.

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Why would the spiders that hasn't been attacked by a wasp (and thus not died) evolve poision versus wasps?
The spiders would not perceive any threat of wasps anymore than a threat from polar bears. (not that it would matter)
Nor would there be any "natural selection" (as EVERY spider ever attacked by a wasp ALWAYS die!) so they might as well have started to develop hands!
It's just as silly.

Uhhh, your idea is silly. And who says that counter measures will never be developed? Evolution does take time you know. And remember, the predator is one step ahead of the prey.
Not to mention the spider probably would have mated before being eaten. Thus the eating not stopping it from mating. As with the species which eat their mate after mating. On that reasoning, do you see those species dying out? (Smart spiders, though, no pesky men)

A loving God?
Read the Bible dear, God isn't very loving when it comes to animals.
Not even towards humans if they aren't Saved!

I know very well that the bible god is not loving, and oddly enough, so do you folk, however, a great many creationists do maintain the idea of a loving god.
And what I said STILL disproves intelligent design.

If this is your idead of "clear thought" then I wouldn't want to know your thoughts while they're not clear!

Shaddup.

[SalvationSeeker]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Nonsense. Not every spider is going to get killed by a wasp. There would be plenty that did not and went on to reproduce. Not to mention that the eaten spiders would have more than likely reproduced before being eaten, thus having the chance to pass on its genes.

Why would the spiders that hasn't been attacked by a wasp (and thus not died) evolve poision versus wasps?
The spiders would not perceive any threat of wasps anymore than a threat from polar bears. (not that it would matter)
Nor would there be any "natural selection" (as EVERY spider ever attacked by a wasp ALWAYS die!) so they might as well have started to develop hands!
It's just as silly.

Would a loving god create such an animal? No. Clearly, the wasp is an example of UN-intelligent design, and evolution in action when you think about it.

A loving God?
Read the Bible dear, God isn't very loving when it comes to animals.
Not even towards humans if they aren't Saved!

Amazing what a little sleep can do to clear up thought!

If this is your idead of "clear thought" then I wouldn't want to know your thoughts while they're not clear!

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Do the wasps eventually kill the spiders or not? If so, are the spiders still capable of reproducing after they die? Face it, the only way the spiders would've died out is if evilution made sense - WHICH IT DOESN'T!

Nonsense. Not every spider is going to get killed by a wasp. There would be plenty that did not and went on to reproduce. Not to mention that the eaten spiders would have more than likely reproduced before being eaten, thus having the chance to pass on its genes.
Not only that, but think about spiders themselves. Many of the females bit the head off of males when they're done mating. Does this cause the end of the species? NO, the male is done passing on its genes, thus it gets eaten by its own mate.

You don't know the first thing about Darwinista mumbo-jumbo, do you? Just trying to wrap my head around your nonsense makes it ache. The proposition here is that spiders which are better adapted for survival in a particular environment will have more baby spiders than those spiders which aren't so well-adapted. You seem to be arguing that spiders which are well-adapted for survival in a particular environment will have more baby wasps than spiders which are dead, who will only have baby spiders.

Well, I was rather sleep deprived at the time of my last post, thinking straight isn't easy. But the wasps actually support evolution more than they do intelligent design. Would a loving god create such an animal? No. Clearly, the wasp is an example of UN-intelligent design, and evolution in action when you think about it.
As to why counter measures have not yet been developed, the predator is always one step ahead of the prey.
And it's probably still a thing in action.
Not to mention the spiders have probably figured out better ways to hide from the wasps.
Such creatures show
1)Evolution in action and
2)That there is no intelligent design.

You said that the reason ancient forged bones weren't in the Bible was because there was some dirt on them. You also said that ancient cities were covered in dirt. But the Bible mentions ancient cities, thus proving that it mentions things which are covered in dirt. Therefore, your proposition cannot explain why forged monkey-man bones aren't mentioned in the Bible, so we are thus forced to turn to more likely explanations, such as THE MAGICAL MAN-MONKEY BONES BEING FORGED!

They are not mentioned in the bible because HUMANS had not discovered them yet.

Amazing what a little sleep can do to clear up thought!

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Van Hellsinger is still evading the question over Cain. Since other people mentioned in The Bible have been proven to be real like King David, Pharaoh Ramses and Nebakanezer then it is reasonable to say there was a man named Cain who as the Bible shows,hid the love sasage with his sister. Now why aren't Cain's children inbreed sinners like the liberals you find in Arkansas?

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Those spiders live with the wasps as part of the natural cycle. They are still able to live long enough to reproduce, it seems, or else they would have died out long ago.

Do the wasps eventually kill the spiders or not? If so, are the spiders still capable of reproducing after they die? Face it, the only way the spiders would've died out is if evilution made sense - WHICH IT DOESN'T!

And they aren't competing with other spiders, it seems the threat to them is the wasps.

You don't know the first thing about Darwinista mumbo-jumbo, do you? Just trying to wrap my head around your nonsense makes it ache. The proposition here is that spiders which are better adapted for survival in a particular environment will have more baby spiders than those spiders which aren't so well-adapted. You seem to be arguing that spiders which are well-adapted for survival in a particular environment will have more baby wasps than spiders which are dead, who will only have baby spiders.

How on Earth does that support your point? Tell me, have you found the site of the Garden of Eden yet?

You said that the reason ancient forged bones weren't in the Bible was because there was some dirt on them. You also said that ancient cities were covered in dirt. But the Bible mentions ancient cities, thus proving that it mentions things which are covered in dirt. Therefore, your proposition cannot explain why forged monkey-man bones aren't mentioned in the Bible, so we are thus forced to turn to more likely explanations, such as THE MAGICAL MAN-MONKEY BONES BEING FORGED!

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

According to the nonsensical mumbo-jumbo of "natural selection", those animals which are resistant to a certain threat (in this instance, wasp poison) will have a greater chance of survival than those who aren't. This means they will breed more, and over time will become the dominant group. Explain to me how spiders that aren't being eaten by wasps don't have an advantage over those that are, again?

Those spiders live with the wasps as part of the natural cycle. They are still able to live long enough to reproduce, it seems, or else they would have died out long ago.
And they aren't competing with other spiders, it seems the threat to them is the wasps.

But there are ancient cities mentioned in the Bible, so that just goes to support my point.

How on Earth does that support your point? Tell me, have you found the site of the Garden of Eden yet?

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Ok. Look at our bodies. When we are exposed to certain diseases we develop antibodies for them. And for some we are injected with the virus so that our body can recognize and deal with it so if we ever get the real virus it won't be debilitating or fatal. Now look at what happened on some islands (I think where Al lives, even) when settlers came carrying their diseases, those people were wiped out, having no previous exposure. The body is able to fight when it properly understands a threat.

According to the nonsensical mumbo-jumbo of "natural selection", those animals which are resistant to a certain threat (in this instance, wasp poison) will have a greater chance of survival than those who aren't. This means they will breed more, and over time will become the dominant group. Explain to me how spiders that aren't being eaten by wasps don't have an advantage over those that are, again?

GRR!!
I'm saying by the time the bible was written, layers of dirt would have been on top of these bones. Like how a lot of ancient cities have been excavated, because the dirt has piled over them.

But there are ancient cities mentioned in the Bible, so that just goes to support my point.

[Rachael Van Helsing]

Re: Questions for Evolutionist to answer

Riiight. The spider's consciousness doesn't need to recognise it, as long as their body understands it. If it caused instant death, then they'd be fine. I see what you mean now.

Ok. Look at our bodies. When we are exposed to certain diseases we develop antibodies for them. And for some we are injected with the virus so that our body can recognize and deal with it so if we ever get the real virus it won't be debilitating or fatal. Now look at what happened on some islands (I think where Al lives, even) when settlers came carrying their diseases, those people were wiped out, having no previous exposure. The body is able to fight when it properly understands a threat.

Right, so in the olden days, when a monkey-man died, their bones instantly disappeared into the ground before anyone could see them? I love these fairytales, tell me another.

GRR!!
I'm saying by the time the bible was written, layers of dirt would have been on top of these bones. Like how a lot of ancient cities have been excavated, because the dirt has piled over them.