[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Tails.
Humans started walking upright to have an advantage over other animals. They were able to walk across large distances and move away from trees. As a result, tails were no longer useful to humans, as it was not needed for balance or it's other primary functions. The theory would probably follow the belief that the tail became a liability to humans, interfering with their ability to survive. The ones with shorter tails were able to survive and reproduce, handing down genes over time until all that is left of the human 'tail' is now the coccyx.

But kangaroos go "upright" and they still have their tails. I'm not kidding, a tail would come in very handy. You want to see something with a useless tail, look at the peacock.

The sharp teeth. I'm not entirely sure about the evolution of human teeth, but I do know that teeth evolve with respect to diet. Animals with the best adapted teeth to their environment can eat enough to thrive and reproduce.

Okay, then what about wisdom teeth? Why would we evolve wisdom teeth? Also, even a horses teeth are sharper than ours (ever been bitten by one of those things?)

The chimpanzee strength and the "top of the pile" questions can both be answered at once.
Brains are the reason we have climbed to the top. Humans evolved larger brains, giving them the essential ability to communicate with precision, use tools, think logically, and so much more. This is a huge advantage over any other animal. We do not need as much strength anymore because we can use our brains to build and create things that take away the need for physical effort.

Okay, so you say brains gave us the evolutionary advantage, and then scientists tell us that apes and whales are just as smart as we are. If this is true, then where is the "evolutionary advantage"?

Also, brains doesn't seem all that useful when being chased down by a lion or a pack of wolves. Some extra speed or some claws would be very handy.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

It really depends on what version of human history you'd like to believe.

No it doesn't. It really depends on the truth. The funny thing about facts is, they don't care whether or not you believe in them.

[Betty Sue]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I HAVE A cousine whow as born with a tail I DONT' konw if he still hass it though

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Son, that doesn't make any sense. In the 6000 years of human history, all of which has been recorded, there is no example of a person with a tail in any picture or story. I've seen photographs of my great-great grandmother's family when she was just a young girl. No one in my family had any tails, not even little stubby ones. People like that were freaks, and made a living in the circus because they were so rare.

This image has a tail, but he is a mythical creature. Note the wings. People never had wings. Don't be confused by art like this. It's not representative of reality.

Not a single tail on any human in this historical record.

It really depends on what version of human history you'd like to believe. When arguing with the secular type, you have to accept that they believe that the Earth is billions of years old.

In which case, modern humans appeared around 200,000 years ago, far before recorded history. However, hominids, to which humans are a subcategory, lost their tails around 20 million years ago, according to known fossil records.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Tails.
Humans started walking upright to have an advantage over other animals. They were able to walk across large distances and move away from trees. As a result, tails were no longer useful to humans, as it was not needed for balance or it's other primary functions. The theory would probably follow the belief that the tail became a liability to humans, interfering with their ability to survive. The ones with shorter tails were able to survive and reproduce, handing down genes over time until all that is left of the human 'tail' is now the coccyx.

The sharp teeth. I'm not entirely sure about the evolution of human teeth, but I do know that teeth evolve with respect to diet. Animals with the best adapted teeth to their environment can eat enough to thrive and reproduce.

The chimpanzee strength and the "top of the pile" questions can both be answered at once.
Brains are the reason we have climbed to the top. Humans evolved larger brains, giving them the essential ability to communicate with precision, use tools, think logically, and so much more. This is a huge advantage over any other animal. We do not need as much strength anymore because we can use our brains to build and create things that take away the need for physical effort.

Son, that doesn't make any sense. In the 6000 years of human history, all of which has been recorded, there is no example of a person with a tail in any picture or story. I've seen photographs of my great-great grandmother's family when she was just a young girl. No one in my family had any tails, not even little stubby ones. People like that were freaks, and made a living in the circus because they were so rare.



This image has a tail, but he is a mythical creature. Note the wings. People never had wings. Don't be confused by art like this. It's not representative of reality.





Not a single tail on any human in this historical record.

[sumdumgai808]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Bluntly, then why did we lose our tails? I think a monkeys tail would be a very useful appendage. Why did we lose the strength of the chimpanzees? Why did we lose sharp teeth?

How did we climb to the top of the pile when we have no claws, no sharp teeth, we're rather slow and weak, and made out of soft squishy flesh?

Not all members of the primate family have tails, as I'm sure someone of your intelligence can understand.

As for the teeth, our teeth adapted to our diet. I'm also sure that you know your different teeth are designed for different purposes. Your incisors are for biting into things, your canines are for ripping and tearing your food, and of course your bicuspids and molars are for grinding your food. Some of these teeth are also found in primates as well.

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Bluntly, then why did we lose our tails? I think a monkeys tail would be a very useful appendage. Why did we lose the strength of the chimpanzees? Why did we lose sharp teeth?

How did we climb to the top of the pile when we have no claws, no sharp teeth, we're rather slow and weak, and made out of soft squishy flesh?

Tails.
Humans started walking upright to have an advantage over other animals. They were able to walk across large distances and move away from trees. As a result, tails were no longer useful to humans, as it was not needed for balance or it's other primary functions. The theory would probably follow the belief that the tail became a liability to humans, interfering with their ability to survive. The ones with shorter tails were able to survive and reproduce, handing down genes over time until all that is left of the human 'tail' is now the coccyx.

The sharp teeth. I'm not entirely sure about the evolution of human teeth, but I do know that teeth evolve with respect to diet. Animals with the best adapted teeth to their environment can eat enough to thrive and reproduce.

The chimpanzee strength and the "top of the pile" questions can both be answered at once.
Brains are the reason we have climbed to the top. Humans evolved larger brains, giving them the essential ability to communicate with precision, use tools, think logically, and so much more. This is a huge advantage over any other animal. We do not need as much strength anymore because we can use our brains to build and create things that take away the need for physical effort.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Yes, evolution has logical answers supported by evidence, for all that it applies to.

Bluntly, then why did we lose our tails? I think a monkeys tail would be a very useful appendage. Why did we lose the strength of the chimpanzees? Why did we lose sharp teeth?

How did we climb to the top of the pile when we have no claws, no sharp teeth, we're rather slow and weak, and made out of soft squishy flesh?

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Yes, very convenient that. Somehow evolution has all the answers.

Yes, evolution has logical answers supported by evidence, for all that it applies to.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Cutting out the Bible-based questions for evolutionists may strengthen the thread's purpose as a whole, though, if I may point out, no one, religious or otherwise, has yet found credible evidence that disproves evolution, which is why the theory still stands.

Yes, very convenient that. Somehow evolution has all the answers.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Angels and demons are not part of the theory of evolution...

That's one of the things wrong with it, yes.

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

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

Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?
Please explain the earliest common ancestor with all animals, angles and demons. What is their ancestry and transitional form?

Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.

I chose specifically to answer this question as the purpose of this post is a little different.

Angels and demons are not part of the theory of evolution, they are part of the Bible. As True Christians have pointed out, the theory of evolution is directly incompatible with the Bible.

From a scientific perspective, this question is easily answered. There is no evidence that angels or demons ever existed. Evolutionists do not take the Bible as evidence.

A person with a religious perspective, however, has the idea that the Bible is always correct, therefore, angels and demons must exist and the lack of fossil evidence for these beings proves evolutionists wrong.

This leads to a question.
The intent of this thread is to ask questions that evolutionists cannot answer. Why is it that some of the questions view the facts from a religious perspective, rather than a scientific one as an evolutionist would? They would not be stymied by appeals to the Bible.

Cutting out the Bible-based questions for evolutionists may strengthen the thread's purpose as a whole, though, if I may point out, no one, religious or otherwise, has yet found credible evidence that disproves evolution, which is why the theory still stands.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

"There is no situation where a third arm would provide more beneficial to breeding and spreading genes." Nonsense. According to your flawed reasoning we would all have 1 arm with 3 or 4 fingers. 5 fingers is not better or worse than 4 or 6 fingers. It just happens to be the amount God choose when He created us.

Well I know that, as a mother, a third arm would be a wonderful "evilutionary" advancement. Then again, if we're from monkeys, I want my tail back. It may not be as useful as an extra arm, but I could rock a cradle while doing something else with both hands. Also reaching things on the top shelves would be easier.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

There, I did the best I could.

If by that you mean your wall of nonsense I pity those who have to live around you. Allow me to point out the highlights:

"Your opposition to contraception further fuels the abortion fire." Nonsense, if people practice abstinence, they won't get pregnant. It's as easy as that!

"Or it can happen if the beginning population was much larger than one man, one woman, and their two sons. Genetics has already proved it impossible for adam and eve to have happened." Nonsense, even if evolution would be true, there still would have been a very first man and a very first woman. Or do you claim that by some amazing coincidence this happened multiple times at different locations all over the world at exactly the same moment?

"There is no situation where a third arm would provide more beneficial to breeding and spreading genes." Nonsense. According to your flawed reasoning we would all have 1 arm with 3 or 4 fingers. 5 fingers is not better or worse than 4 or 6 fingers. It just happens to be the amount God choose when He created us.

[Evelyn123]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

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

Account for the missing land sharks
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 it ain't broke, don't fix it". Sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years because there was no evolutionary pressure to change.

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?[/
-------- I wasn't even aware anyone claimed there was a great flood on mars. Perhaps there was liquid water covering much of its surface in ancient times, but now it is contained to its polar ice caps, with the rest having evaporated? But again, I am not sure.

Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?
-------- Yeah your presence is rather contradictory. But that one's easy: living in a first world nation. no horrible diseases, everything has safety labels. you are living an incredibly comfortable life. If you think otherwise, try living in a third world location sometime.

Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?
-------- Homo Sapiens only started existing approximately 200,000 years ago. This is not enough time for evolution to incur such a drastic change. Furthermore, there is simply no evolutionary pressure for it. There is no situation where a third arm would provide more beneficial to breeding and spreading genes.

Explain infant murder
If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?
-------- Depends what you mean. Some abortions are to save a mother's life. Others are a result of irresponsibility. Your opposition to contraception further fuels the abortion fire.

Why no bodies?
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?
------- Human bodies decompose, and re-enter the carbon cycle. The air you breathe, the dirt you walk on, it's all made of the broken-down "building blocks" (for lack of a better term) of other living things. It is estimated that 100 billion humans have ever lived.

Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?
Please explain the earliest common ancestor with all animals, angles and demons. What is their ancestry and transitional form?
--------- The evolutionary tree only has room for things that exist or have been discovered.

Explain talking snake in the garden threw evolution.
Please tell me when serpents lost the power of speech and the process with which it happened. Please include any fossil of impaired speech snakes.
--------- The snake was the devil in disguise, or so the story goes. Which is funny, because god has a plan that takes thousands of years to pull off, ending with a blood sacrifice, all in a desperate attempt to undo what the snake accomplished with a single conversation: giving humans the gift of critical thinking.

Explain the Loch Ness Monster threw evolution.
I find it hard to believe that a whole species can sustain itself from so few individuals as observed in Loch Ness. Sounds like a hole in your theory to me
--------- The Loch Ness Monster is an urban legend. However, dinosaurs DID exist that look like it. Which is to say, a brontosaurus with flippers instead of legs.

If evolution is true, then why don't trees stretch up to the stratosphere?
Scientists say that trees grow taller and taller because natural selection forces them to compete for light with other trees. However, they have supposedly had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, but the tallest tree in the world is a mere 370 feet tall.
--------- Because 370 feet is enough. Also structural issues. Too tall and they snap like twigs with a breeze, or they collapse if weakened by disease.

If evolution were true, we should be living in pitch dark, because the entire troposphere would be encased in a big sheet of tree leaves. Asked by Pastor Billy-Rueben
--------- Because resources are not infinte. For example, bacteria could theorhetically cover the entire surface of the earth in a matter of weeks if there were enough resources for bacteria to grow so much. But limits like food and unfavorable environments keep unrestricted growth in check.

Why don't we act like monkeys
If we are evolved from monkeys why do we behave like them; service our selves constantly an throw our feces about? Asked by Eight or Better
---------- We didn't evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor. Monkeys are not our great great grandparents. They are our distant cousins. We also do not act like monkeys because we have civilization. Early humans acted like wild animals, but the capacity for our brains to learn results in us being far more civilized.


Why are there still monkey?
Evolution predicts the stronger species (humans) would crush and exterminate the weaker species(monkeys) it evolved from. Asked by ChristianSoldier
------ Monkeys exist for the same reason your cousins don't suddenly stop existing when you're born. On top of the fact that humans are not the predators of monkeys. We do not chase monkeys for the express purpose of killing them. Some animals can co-habitate with each other peacefully.

Please account for quick extinctions.
According to evolution theory it takes millions of years for a species to go extinct. Yet we have examples of species dying out in a few hunderd years like the Dodo. Please account for this.

------ Humans over-hunting the dodo, resulting in a death rate that far exceeded the birth rate of the species.

Were are ancestors and fossilizes remains of the dragon, satyr and unicorn?
I would say the lack of fossils for these three creatures presents a clear gap in the record.
------- Dragons, satyrs, and unicorns never existed. The record is full of many gaps, yes. But look at this example. "E V O L _ _ I _ N". this word has gaps in it, but you can still tell it's the word "Evolution".


Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible?
The very fact that Neandertals, Homo-Erectuces are not mentioned in The Bible proves they are made up. I mean you would think God would have mentioned them 6,000 years ago when He wrote The Bible. duh.
------ There are many things the bible does not mention. As well as being full of errors. The bible claims that bats are birds. Also, there are trees which are older than 6000 years. As well as indigenous people and ancient civilizations. (Furthermore, the Egyptians have no records of ever enslaving the jews/hebrews)

Explain wasps with evolution.
Wasp paralyze spiders and then implant their young in them to feed on living, but helpless insect. If evolution was true them spiders would have anti-wasp poison in their blood. But they don’t. The only way you can get such a horrific death as those countless spiders suffer is threw the power of God.
-------- Spiders aren't insects, for one. And two, you'd think after hundreds of thousands of years, the foods that humans eat would develop anti-human poisons.

How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?
If can was getting busy with his sister like The Bible relates then the human race should be a race of inbreed deformities like the English Royal Family. Instead we see the general population is healthy. This can only happen if Cain and his sister were of the pure first generation after Adam not corrupted by sins yet.
----- Or it can happen if the beginning population was much larger than one man, one woman, and their two sons. Genetics has already proved it impossible for adam and eve to have happened.

The Genealogy of Henry III
The "Evidence From Genealogy" display, donated by Edgar Nurnberg, is one of the more favorite displays of our visitors. These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the genealogy of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve.
Asked by Heathen Basher 8/18/09
----- I don't even know where to begin with this one. So I'll skip it.

Unicorn Horns
What so-called "evoloutionary role" does the horn on a unicorn play? I was taught evolutionary theory, and I can't figure it out! Asked by H. Montague Worthington's 8/24/09
------- Unicorns don't exist. But I will humor you and pretend they did. the horn was probably a mating signal (like a peacock's tail) and would have likely served a similar function to deer antlers, to fight other males over a mate.

Transitional fossils for single celled organism.
The Darwinists would have us believe that life evolved from single-celled organisms to more complicated forms. If that's true, then we should expect to see intermediaries between organisms with one cell and organisms with millions/billions/trillions of cells, but that's exactly what we don't see. Where are all the two-celled organisms that we should see if evolution was true? Where are all the five-celled organisms or twelve-celled organisms? Are we supposed to believe that 50 million amoebas randomly assembled into a fully formed flatworm by chance? Asked by Pastor Billy-Reuben. 8/25/09
--------- Fossilization has the best chance of happening only with living things that have hard parts. Cells were pretty squishy, so it is incredibly rare to find any fossils of them. But an easier example would be the journey of an embryo from being a single cell, to being a 100-trillion celled person.

Why is there still mud?
Darwinists claim that life originate in mud. If you really believe that a big pile of mud turned into a fish, which sprouted legs and arms and turned into monkeys, which turned into human beings, then you're more stupid than I thought. For a start, if that's true, why's there still mud around, and why do babies not have tails like monkeys when they're born? Asked by Rachel Pierce 11/4/09
-------- Babies have monkey tails because it is a leftover. Evolution is not "exact" like stairs or a ladder. It is more of a gentle slope. as for mud, um... water and dirt still exist. You can mix them to create mud.

Why don't chemicals think?
If our brains are just a mishmash of biochemistry, how come chemicals like gasoline or bug spray can't think? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10
-------- Because gasoline and bugspray are not a "mismash" of biochemistry.

Why don't we have natural clothing?
People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10
------- There's no need to have clothes. Animals don't have clothes! They have fur though. Also, the time scale for evolution to have any effects is millions of years, not thousands.

What was the "evolutionary advantage" of Adam's extra rib?
Why do women have an extra rib than men like the Bible tells us. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07
------- I encourage you to count the number of ribs you have, and, with consent, the ribs of someone of the opposite sex. To my knowledge, males and females have the same number of bones.

What is the evolutionary advantage of demonic possession
Please explain how demonic possesions humans, horses, dogs and pigs helps them to be a more successful species. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07
------ Psychological disorders are often detrimental to an organism's ability to spread its genes.

Do you believe that Jesus was more primitive and less "fit" than today's slugs and worms?
Christ earthly ministery was 2,000 years ago, a more primitive time than now. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07
------ Well he was presumably a homo sapien, so no. Again, evolution's time scale is millions of years, not thousands.

What did the rocks and lightning evolve from?
According to evolutionary theory, all life evolved out of rocks and lightning,Please show the evolutionary linage and transitional forums for rocks and lighting. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07
------ Rocks are clumps of minerals. A combination of carbon, iron, nickel, and other elements I can't recite off the top of my head. They 'evolved' from chemical reactions experienced under the earth's surface. Lightning is a (massive) displacement of electrical energy.

Please show the disorder inherent in evolution
Scientific "laws" regarding thermodynamics and entropy say that things go from ordered to disordered. ?]How do you explain evolution in light of this. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07
------- Well for once, disorder to what? the process of evolution itself? That's not how it works. Entropy applies to individual organisms though. That's why we die.

Where are those transitional forms???
asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07
------- https://www.dropbox.com/s/dvi53biv87...%20%285%29.png example of transitional horse stages.

Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.

There, I did the best I could.