[Kazoo]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

• If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?

Well, why should they have? They have by no means been forced to leave their current habitat due to predators and have likewise adapted otherwise, in ways such as size, appendages, etc.

• If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?

Nice Yahoo! News article right here for 'ya

• If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?

Humans are not generally cannibalistic and will tend to flock together for general self-preservation. Stupidity is, in this case, overruled by sheer force of numbers.

• If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?

Why would we need a third arm? Two suit us perfectly, am I not right?

• If we are evolved to nurture our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?

Abortion is an issue completely separate of evolution: abortion deals with personal choice, circumstances, and psychology/sociology--evolution deals with natural/artificial selection and fitness.

• If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?

Well, first off, traces of intelligent human life have only been dated to approx. 17,000 years at the oldest, if I recall correctly. However, if you are referring to life in general, then you are entirely correct--we are living on 1,350 billion square feet of remains, though not buried under them as we are surface dwellers. But, I must remind you of the matter cycle--matter flows both ways, it flows out of things and is consumed by other things, thus roughly maintaining the balance throughout time.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

It never ends with the Darwnistas and their thought police. Well here we go again.

• If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?

Well, why should they have? They have by no means been forced to leave their current habitat due to predators and have likewise adapted otherwise, in ways such as size, appendages, etc.

As I have pointed before they sharks would have followed their prey. After all not all species of sharks are equal so there are going to be losers. No, if evolution was true sharks will be cruising our streets on mopeds looking for prey.

Are they? Show me one shark doing that Kaze. If you can do that I will accept evolution as fact.

• If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?

Nice Yahoo! News article right here for 'ya

Proving my point. The kind of massive upheavals we see on Mars would be consistent with The Flood in The Bible. Thank you Kaze.

• If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?

Humans are not generally cannibalistic and will tend to flock together for general self-preservation. Stupidity is, in this case, overruled by sheer force of numbers.

Open your eyes; massive groups of people are utterly dependent on Christian Americans for their very survival because they are too foolish to take care of themselves. The only way they can get their daily bread is working 14+ hours a day in our sweat shops. What did they do in that 169,800 years (according to your reckoning, which is WRONG!) before America came on the scene with its sweat shops to stay alive? Again, the hand of God is clear here.

• If we are evolved to nurture our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?

Abortion is an issue completely separate of evolution: abortion deals with personal choice, circumstances, and psychology/sociology--evolution deals with natural/artificial selection and fitness.

How many times must I repeat this? Evolution would make preservation of the young a major priority. If the one thing that counts is having kids that can have more kids than every edge is going to be critical, especially for hard to rear humans. It’s what, age seven or there about before child can fend for its own? No, only God and only the God described in The Bible will explain how we can kill our kids.

[Kazoo]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

It never ends with the Darwnistas and their thought police. Well here we go again.

Kindly do not get me started on 1984 and the proposed inherent atrocities in its governmental system--I absolutely abhor the very principle of thought-crime and would as soon commit Sepaku as soon as be fully accused of it.

As I have pointed before they sharks would have followed their prey. After all not all species of sharks are equal so there are going to be losers. No, if evolution was true sharks will be cruising our streets on mopeds looking for prey.

Are they? Show me one shark doing that Kaze. If you can do that I will accept evolution as fact.

However, sharks largely remained the undisputed upper-chain in their respective habitats and thus have absolutely no motive to migrate to land as their prey largely remains aquatic.

Proving my point. The kind of massive upheavals we see on Mars would be consistent with The Flood in The Bible. Thank you Kaze.

I never contradicted nor ratified your point, only presented a scientific explanation for such occurrences as you described. However, it would seem to me that you provided a false analogy in your original statement as when Christianity was only just budding, none had but the faintest idea that there were other celestial bodies, nor even the idea of space itself. Ergo, your statement is fallacious in reasoning and can by no means be compared with any supposed biblical occurrences on this planet.

Open your eyes; massive groups of people are utterly dependent on Christian Americans for their very survival because they are too foolish to take care of themselves. The only way they can get their daily bread is working 14+ hours a day in our sweat shops. What did they do in that 169,800 years (according to your reckoning, which is WRONG!) before America came on the scene with its sweat shops to stay alive? Again, the hand of God is clear here.

Of course, you are forgetting that in the process of colonization, we (by "we" I refer to the European powers that were largely responsible for colonization during the 19th century) got so caught up in militarism, nationalism, and imperialism that in the process we utterly destroyed the preceding culture and way of life, imposing a harsh new regime and government upon the populous. As such, when we withdrew from the countries, they were largely left in ruins without any coherent form of government and were ultimately forced to accept western ideals in the rapid attempt to modernize.

How many times must I repeat this? Evolution would make preservation of the young a major priority. If the one thing that counts is having kids that can have more kids than every edge is going to be critical, especially for hard to rear humans. It’s what, age seven or there about before child can fend for its own? No, only God and only the God described in The Bible will explain how we can kill our kids.

Eh... no. The point of evolution is to promote survival, not reproduction. Reproduction is inherent in our genetic coding and as such can not be classified as an evolutionary characteristic unless used to describe the reevolution of sexual tendencies from previous asexual tendencies. Evolution promotes longevity and adaptation to one's environment and habitat for increased fitness.

[Mrs. Mary Whitford]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Sepaku

Bless you. Do you need a tissue?

[Joo (Quarantined)]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;

• If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?
• If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?
• If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?
• If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?
• If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?
• If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?

Well evolutionist, I am waiting.

1. Sharks are more efficient in the water, why should they come onto land when they function just fine in the seas?
2. That's Mars, this is Earth. Simple.
3. Guns and Vehicles my friend. Mostly guns though.
4. Why would a third arm be beneficial? Evolution doesn't continually add things onto the body, sometimes things are taken away, if something ain't broke, don't fix it as it were.
5. Being a parent is essentially giving up your life for the next 18 years, not many are willing and/or ready to do that, but we are willing and able to make babies much sooner. Obviously we need to straighten our priorities.
6. Not everyone is buried, many are cremated, "buried at sea", and many more are eaten (such as in Africa) and the remains destroyed by various other methods and natural causes.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can answer, and creationist can't

They didn't change color. When the increase in coal use caused soot to be deposited everywhere, the lighter colored moths were more visible to predators, and were more likely to be eaten. The darker colored moths were camoflauged by the soot, not eaten by predators, and survived to produce young.

Your answer is far too simplistic. This represents sudden change, which is at odds with the theory of evolution that posits change over long periods of time. Time for you to hit the books again, and maybe pick up the Bible (KJV1611) in the process.

A highly developed brain gives the capacity for logic. Other animals have some capacity for problem-solving, just not to the same degree.

Now you are asserting that the difference of humans to lower animals is only one of degree and not of kind?

Maybe in your case it is, but there are far too many people who would disagree with you, including many sickularists. Come back when you have had a proper education.

[Old Iron Crotch]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can answer, and creationist can't

Your answer is far too simplistic. This represents sudden change, which is at odds with the theory of evolution that posits change over long periods of time. Time for you to hit the books again, and maybe pick up the Bible (KJV1611) in the process.


Individual moths did not change from white to black. The population changed because more white moths got eaten. That's not a sudden change in genetics, it's simply predation.



Now you are asserting that the difference of humans to lower animals is only one of degree and not of kind?

Maybe in your case it is, but there are far too many people who would disagree with you, including many sickularists. Come back when you have had a proper education.

In many instances, the only difference is degree. And my education was quite adequate, thank you very much.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Kindly do not get me started on 1984 and the proposed inherent atrocities in its governmental system--I absolutely abhor the very principle of thought-crime and would as soon commit Sepaku as soon as be fully accused of it.

Protest all you want, I know were the jackboots are that marching under the Monkey Man banner.
First they came for the Creationists.

However, sharks largely remained the undisputed upper-chain in their respective habitats and thus have absolutely no motive to migrate to land as their prey largely remains aquatic.

So no examples, not even one? Now we have an apex predator theory; human beings fling themselves into the water to get eaten by sharks.

I never contradicted nor ratified your point, only presented a scientific explanation for such occurrences as you described. However, it would seem to me that you provided a false analogy in your original statement as when Christianity was only just budding, none had but the faintest idea that there were other celestial bodies, nor even the idea of space itself. Ergo, your statement is fallacious in reasoning and can by no means be compared with any supposed biblical occurrences on this planet.

The Bible describes a great flood and huge changes in the landscape. This proves the Biblical story correct since those changes reached other planets.

Are you going to suggest God unable to flood the earth and mars at the same time?

Of course, you are forgetting that in the process of colonization, we (by "we" I refer to the European powers that were largely responsible for colonization during the 19th century) got so caught up in militarism, nationalism, and imperialism that in the process we utterly destroyed the preceding culture and way of life, imposing a harsh new regime and government upon the populous. As such, when we withdrew from the countries, they were largely left in ruins without any coherent form of government and were ultimately forced to accept western ideals in the rapid attempt to modernize.

If those people’s weren’t incompetent in the first place the European powers wouldn’t have been able to overrun them.

Eh... no. The point of evolution is to promote survival, not reproduction. Reproduction is inherent in our genetic coding and as such can not be classified as an evolutionary characteristic unless used to describe the reevolution of sexual tendencies from previous asexual tendencies. Evolution promotes longevity and adaptation to one's environment and habitat for increased fitness.

I don’t follow your definition of evolution. Bear with me that as a Christian I think it utterly false but I was told the point of evolution was to survive long enough to have children. In a human this requires the care of a parent in the first five to seven years of life.

[Andrew Shaw]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

AN EVILutionist told me that he's 33% Daffodil and 98% Chimpanzee. I told him I'm 100% Jesus!

We should make that into a T-shirt.
but..WHATS WITH THE AK-47!?

[Kazoo]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

So no examples, not even one? Now we have an apex predator theory; human beings fling themselves into the water to get eaten by sharks.

Two quick questions: of what would you like an example and are you arguing that the human is the shark's main prey?

The Bible describes a great flood and huge changes in the landscape. This proves the Biblical story correct since those changes reached other planets.

Are you going to suggest God unable to flood the earth and mars at the same time?

Regardless of the billion-year-or-so differentiation in proposed occurrences, I again must state that as of the start of Christianity none even were aware of the concept of outer space. As such, it is illogical to interpret the Bible's meaning to incorporate other astral bodies in any passages that may be cited from it.

If those people’s weren’t incompetent in the first place the European powers wouldn’t have been able to overrun them.

Incompetent? No. Technologically stunted? Yes. Japan for instance had a wonderful feudal system, the samurai class, highly skilled and trained warriors, etc. However, it did not possess guns and other such technologies that western powers did. As such, it was ultimately overrun and coerced into submission by said powers. This by no means suggests that the country was incompetent, only at a different level of technology.

I don’t follow your definition of evolution. Bear with me that as a Christian I think it utterly false but I was told the point of evolution was to survive long enough to have children. In a human this requires the care of a parent in the first five to seven years of life.

As I have stated before, reproduction is a trait coded into genetic memory and as such can not normally constitute a part of evolution and the evolutionary process. Evolution in it of itself promotes the longevity of species, thus inherently providing for the nurturing of one's young, as you mentioned.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

We should make that into a T-shirt.
but..WHATS WITH THE AK-47!?

Do you think the right to bear arms doesn't extend to women? Are you some kind of a misogynist?

Two quick questions: of what would you like an example and are you arguing that the human is the shark's main prey?

No, the Communists are arguing that humans evolved out of fish. If we evolved out of the shark's main prey, then they should have evolved to keep up.

Incompetent? No. Technologically stunted? Yes. Japan for instance had a wonderful feudal system, the samurai class, highly skilled and trained warriors, etc. However, it did not possess guns and other such technologies that western powers did. As such, it was ultimately overrun and coerced into submission by said powers. This by no means suggests that the country was incompetent, only at a different level of technology.

So, which of these statements do you agree with:
a) The heathen nips were very competent at making guns, or
b) The heathen nips were very incompetent at making guns?
BTW, I doubt whether many medieval Jap peasants would agree with your description of Japan's feudal system as "wonderful". But that doesn't matter, because no-one cares about what poor yellow people think, and they never will, right friend?

As I have stated before, reproduction is a trait coded into genetic memory and as such can not normally constitute a part of evolution and the evolutionary process. Evolution in it of itself promotes the longevity of species, thus inherently providing for the nurturing of one's young, as you mentioned.

That seems like a very long-winded way of saying you admit that BJ's right and only God can explain baby-killing.

[Unsaved and Loving It]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;

• If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?
• If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?
• If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?
• If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?
• If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?
• If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?

Well evolutionist, I am waiting.

A) All species evolve in different ways. I haven't seen a Lion use simple tools like a Monkey can yet.
Noah's flood have happened, yet it might not have encompassed the whole earth. Or perhaps it is simply the biblical name given to an already passed event.
C) Because we humans are an extraordinarily resilient species. And despite our apparent splendor, also there is our stupidity.
D) It's happened once before. So has someone with two heads. You say freak, I say genetic marvel.
E) Like I said in answer C, we humans are a stupid species. A key flaw of our design is our selfishness. That comes as an inherited nature from our history (not from not bowing to jesus, believe it or not)
F) Remember the baby boom last century? There's your answer. And also, cremations remove the physical body and turn it to ash. This was a common practice of the ancient greeks, who placed two coins over each eye (or one under the tounge) to give to the boatman when they got to the Underworld.

As you see, answers do exist. It may not be JESUS logic, but it's logic.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

A) All species evolve in different ways. I haven't seen a Lion use simple tools like a Monkey can yet.

Lions don’t need tools to zebras. Loins will follow zebras for dinner. Therefore the sharks that ate our supposed ancestors would have followed them when they allegedly left the water.

Noah's flood have happened, yet it might not have encompassed the whole earth. Or perhaps it is simply the biblical name given to an already passed event.

The evidence is clear that The Flood was so big it covered the earth and mars. Now that is the power of God for you.

C) Because we humans are an extraordinarily resilient species. And despite our apparent splendor, also there is our stupidity.

Humans can only be stupid with the help of God. Otherwise our stupidity would kill us.

D) It's happened once before. So has someone with two heads. You say freak, I say genetic marvel. .

I asked why we haven’t all got something cool like a third arm or heat vision.

E) Like I said in answer C, we humans are a stupid species. A key flaw of our design is our selfishness. That comes as an inherited nature from our history (not from not bowing to jesus, believe it or not)

Do you even understand what the concept of “survival of the fittest” means?

F) Remember the baby boom last century? There's your answer. And also, cremations remove the physical body and turn it to ash. This was a common practice of the ancient greeks, who placed two coins over each eye (or one under the tounge) to give to the boatman when they got to the Underworld.

That only accounts for 2500 years of the 123,000 years humans have been around according to your god Darwin.

[Kazoo]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

No, the Communists are arguing that humans evolved out of fish. If we evolved out of the shark's main prey, then they should have evolved to keep up.

You assume too much in this. Yes, it could be theorized that our ancestors were prey of sharks, but there is nothing to otherwise indicate that they were the main prey. Even if they were, there are untold other species that these primordial sharks could have easily preyed upon. My point? That just because one species migrates to a different biome does not mean that the entire community must adapt as such as well.

So, which of these statements do you agree with:
a) The heathen nips were very competent at making guns, or
b) The heathen nips were very incompetent at making guns?
BTW, I doubt whether many medieval Jap peasants would agree with your description of Japan's feudal system as "wonderful". But that doesn't matter, because no-one cares about what poor yellow people think, and they never will, right friend?

Neither is applicable to their situation. Had they the technology, they would have likely been quite capable of manufacturing such weapons. However, they did not possess the technology and as such can not fit under either option. Aside from that, yes, the feudal system was horrid in many aspects--the Samurai class held absolute power over the peasant majority, there was always the prospect of a corrupt Daimyo or Emperor... Yeah, in many ways, it was horrid.

That seems like a very long-winded way of saying you admit that BJ's right and only God can explain baby-killing.

Eh... no. It was a rather thorough answer to his posed question, further supporting my claims aforementioned.

[Andrew Shaw]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Do you think the right to bear arms doesn't extend to women? Are you some kind of a misogynist?

No, the Communists are arguing that humans evolved out of fish. If we evolved out of the shark's main prey, then they should have evolved to keep up.

So, which of these statements do you agree with:
a) The heathen nips were very competent at making guns, or
b) The heathen nips were very incompetent at making guns?
BTW, I doubt whether many medieval Jap peasants would agree with your description of Japan's feudal system as "wonderful". But that doesn't matter, because no-one cares about what poor yellow people think, and they never will, right friend?

That seems like a very long-winded way of saying you admit that BJ's right and only God can explain baby-killing.

To awnser your question no im not, it has nothing to do with the fact shes a woman just the fact its an AK-47 a common terrorist weapon i say she should have something more of an M-16 or M-4..Or better yet a smokey barret