[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Many of these questions have been answered already, but because I'm in a nice mood today, I'll answer your faulty answers to these questions.

Because they have enough food in the sea and don't need to evolve.

You clearly are unfamiliar with the theory of evolution. Evolution teaches that organisms try to be as successful as possible, and creatures fit to occupy a niche better than their direct competitors tend to survive.
If this were true, then the sharks with the ability to hunt those riduiculous proto-amphibians evilutionists blabber about in shallow waters would have an advantage, and those with the ability to hunt them on the shore even more.
That there are no land sharks proves that evolution is untrue.

Because humans have higher brain functions ( although I do see them lacking here. ) we developed tools to keep us alive.

Don't you see the paradox in your answer? You say that tools kept us alive, but those tools could be made only if we had higher brain functions to begin with, in other words, if we were not stupid.

Intelligent people develop tools, stupid people don't. The very existence of tools would prove that there are no stupid people. As there definitely are stupid people, evolution can only be a ridiculous hoax.

Because we don't need them. In about a 1000 years we will look different. And why would three arms make a human perfect?

And again you show a stunning ignorance of the very theory you try to defend.

According to evolution, creatures do not evolve traits because they need them, but because they provide an advantage, and make the creature, which likely already was fit to begin with, even more fit.

Third arms would provide a huge advantage for you. For example, you could ride a bike and brush our teeth at the same time, or punch your opponent 1.5 times faster during a fistfight. That we haven't evolved a third arm, proves we didn't just accidentally happen, but that we were Created by God.

This happens in nature aswell with other animals.

Exactly. According to evolution, this character trait would have evolved away billions of years ago, as murdering your own offspring inhibits the spread of your genes.

Because it is dissolved, are you really that ignorant?

Dissolved? Dissolved in what? Human bodies do not just vanish in thin air, boy. Are you retarded?

Snakes don't have vocal cords, word.

Exactly. But True Science™ teaches that once they had:

Genesis 3:4-5:
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

If evolution were true, than speechless snakes would have evolved gradually from talking snakes, with a series of intermediates of speech-impaired snakes. We do not find these, which is prove that the ability to speak did not evolve away, but was taken away by God, as Intelligent Design Theory predicts.

Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist and is a myth.

Why do evilutionists dismiss every piece of evidence that do not support their speculations as "non-existant myths?"

Because they need oxygen ( like anything else on the planet ) and there is none up there.

1. How do you know there is no oxygen up there? Have you been there?
2. Trees could have evolved to need less oxygen to sustain themselves
3. Trees could have evolved to transport oxygen from lower airmasses to higher ones

That none of these two things happened is proof that evolution is a falsehood.

Because we have higher brain functions.

Of course. We are different from monkeys. Which is why it is stupid to suggest that we evolved from them.

explained this in a previous thread.

Which one?

They don't exist. Never have. Myths!

Again, you are woefully misinformed. Read what True Science™ teaches us:

Job 30:29:
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

Isaiah 13:21:
But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.

Job 30:10:
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

How did they evolve?

The bible isn't even 6000 years old, idiot.

So?

O'really? Spiders are the most perfect arachnide around

No, really...

and is the best predator existing on our planet. Everything gets eaten by something, it's the cycle of life.

And again, you do not even attempt to answer the question. For spiders, it can be considered an advantage to be immune to wasp poison, as being killed is detrimental for an animal's chances of survival. If evolution were true, these spider would have evolved an anti-wasp poison billions of years ago.

I laughed so hard at all these questions i'm not even going to bother to awnser the others.

Why not? We are thinking to include your answers in one of our documentaries about public schools, as final proof that people become stupid there. It would be helpful if you did.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I laughed so hard at all these questions i'm not even going to bother to awnser the others.

So, as the thread title says; questions evolutionists can't answer.

[IAmJustAMan]

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?
they didnt need too, the ocean has plenty of fish to eat
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?[/
what does that do with earth? are you saying Noah CAME FROM MARS? that'll convince people.
Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?
You survived didnt you?
Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?
we dont need one
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?
you cant kill whats not alive
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?
you are, along with the remains of millions of other animals and plants. decomposition man, 6th grade science

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?
they dont because they dont exist
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.
snakes never had the speech to lose
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
well no one knows if it even exists so its a moot point

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.

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 if they did that they would prevent smaller plants from receiving sunlight, herbivores would starve, carnivores would starve, everything would die, there would not be enough soil to support the amount of nutrition the strato-trees would need to survive from

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
because we evovled

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
because we have no need to do that

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. were did you hear that? the dodo was around as long as all the other animals until we hunted them to extinction

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. THEY DID NOT EXIST

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.
God didnt write the bible man did.
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.
Those same wasp could also catch a brain eating fungus from the spider they injected
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.theres no evidence to suggest that that had ever 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
Now lets think, this was a couple hundred years ago what sources would the geneaologist have to trace his tree that far back? NONE when he ran out of grandpas he used Adam and Eve as an excuse.
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
It would probably helped if they actually existed,
but say they did ,it would likely be a fighting tool.

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
There are some
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
What pot have you been smoking?
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 they are chemicals NOT life.
Bio-chemicals are chemicals inside organisms, not actual life
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
thats why our hair went away

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

Suck it.

[Petal]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Suck it.

no thanks you, Mr.Man! nows, i wanna no if we evolveds from fishes, then why come there still be fishes? it make no good sense, evilutions so sillys

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Very good question Petal,

Another question I have is why are there still single celled organisms, and multicellular organisms with billions of cells, but nothing in between? Where's the 5 celled organism? Or the 100 celled organism? There aren't even fossils for these. Did a billion cells just decide to join together to make a mushroom one day?

[Petal]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Another question I have is why are there still single celled organisms, and multicellular organisms with billions of cells, but nothing in between?

Mrs.BIGod, i thinks that be cuz lord God be a all or nothin type of lord God, he either real mads wiv us or be be nailings himselfs to the cross for us, an so them cells be a manifestashun of his holy mood swings

[Logan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

They also haven't a [un-Christian language deleted] clue as to how Amino Acids Came about, Their two points are Panstheiria and Abiogenisis, both make no sense. A meteorite would obviously destroy anything on it, and Abio is just plain dumb.

However, these attempts to explain our origins are probably giving God a good laugh.

[David McCoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

We have no problem admitting we're wrong... just show us where we conflict with the Bible.

That's a difference between Christians and atheists: when we find evidence that contradicts our views, then we analyze that evidence and adjust our views accordingly. That way, our views always strictly adhere to reality.

As for the Bible: if you have any evidence that the Bible is not God's Word, please present your evidence.

And by the way, an argument from incredulity such as "OMG, the Bible can't be right?!? It's intolermarant!?!?!" does not count as evidence.

The fact is, I can't show you where you conflict with the Bible, as you don't. Obviously, you aren't going to conflict with your own religion. Please stop using the Bible as your source of evidence, because from my point of view, the Bible is not at all "God's word", it's just a book that someone decided to write in order to enforce a sense of hope among people. I don't view the Bible as evidence.
Think of it this way. The Bible was supposedly written by men after God appeared and told them what to write. Just like the prophet Muhammad formed Islam after Allah appeared to him in a dream. Now, who's to decide which one is lying and which one is telling the truth between these two religions? Either one could be lying. In fact, they both could. In this very real scenario, the Bible could be lying and therefore cannot be counted as evidence, just as the Koran could be lying and also cannot be counted as evidence. Who decides which religion is real and which is not, and how do they decide? The truth is, you can't prove God is real. Just because the Bible says so does not make it true.

Just as you're tiring of my "childish ways", I'm tiring of your use of the Bible as evidence. You cannot prove anything for your point other than "the Bible says so", and I cannot prove anything for my point other than "scientists have discovered evidence to suggest/show".

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

The fact is, I can't show you where you conflict with the Bible, as you don't. Obviously, you aren't going to conflict with your own religion. Please stop using the Bible as your source of evidence, because from my point of view, the Bible is not at all "God's word", it's just a book that someone decided to write in order to enforce a sense of hope among people. I don't view the Bible as evidence.

As opposed to what friend? What other source of the Word of God is there? Seriously, in about six years on this forum that is the stupidest argument I have seen on the nature of Christianity. Were hear to discuss the teaching of Christ, not the teaching of David McCoy.

[NightStik]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

As opposed to what friend? What other source of the Word of God is there? Seriously, in about six years on this forum that is the stupidest argument I have seen on the nature of Christianity. Were hear to discuss the teaching of Christ, not the teaching of David McCoy.

Well, as the poster said, as opposed to the Qua'ran. Muslims believe it to be the true word of God. Truer than the Bible, in fact, as per any Muslim I've spoken to about it. And don't respond with the token "They're wrong" because, again, it's simply perspective -- they'd say the same about you.

And you are incorrect: we are here to discuss evolution, something that was not the teaching of Christ nor recorded in the Bible because evolution was not understood at the time the Bible was written.

So don't use the Bible as evidence against evolution. You cannot refute evolution, a scientific theory, with religion, as that simply reaffirms your religious beliefs.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Well, as the poster said, as opposed to the Qua'ran. Muslims believe it to be the true word of God. Truer than the Bible, in fact, as per any Muslim I've spoken to about it. And don't respond with the token "They're wrong" because, again, it's simply perspective -- they'd say the same about you.

And you are incorrect: we are here to discuss evolution, something that was not the teaching of Christ nor recorded in the Bible because evolution was not understood at the time the Bible was written.

So don't use the Bible as evidence against evolution. You cannot refute evolution, a scientific theory, with religion, as that simply reaffirms your religious beliefs.

You seem to think we have no proof that God exists and that the Holy Bible is correct. You are wrong. We have proof!

We humble people have limited capabilities. If you really read the entire KJV1611 Holy Bible you will notice it is so perfect, so extremely consistent, so crystal clear, that no ordinary person could ever have created it. So the sheer quality of the book proves that it is created by someone with capabilities far beyond that of a human being.

Since the Holy Bible clearly could not have been written by a mere mortal and also clearly states to be the word of God: 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" logic dictates there can be only one conclusion. God exists and the Holy Bible is His word!

I think your problem is that you did not actually read the entire Holy Bible. Your opinion of the Holy Bible is based on hearsay. If you actually paid some attention during that education of yours instead of masturbating all the time you would have learned that you have to research the facts before you draw your conclusion. The facts here being the contents of the Holy Bible.

Well what is it going to be? Heaven or hell ?

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Well, as the poster said, as opposed to the Qua'ran. Muslims believe it to be the true word of God. Truer than the Bible, in fact, as per any Muslim I've spoken to about it. And don't respond with the token "They're wrong" because, again, it's simply perspective -- they'd say the same about you.

Then you heard wrong from your token Muslim friend; Islam holds the Bible as a Holy Book too and they also believe in Creationism, like the Jews. (Genesis is Old Testament if you don't know)

As far as the origins of Islam. hehe Friend, are familiar with Barhia the Monk?

And you are incorrect: we are here to discuss evolution, something that was not the teaching of Christ nor recorded in the Bible because evolution was not understood at the time the Bible was written.

Because it didn't happen, at lest on a macro scale.

So don't use the Bible as evidence against evolution. You cannot refute evolution, a scientific theory, with religion, as that simply reaffirms your religious beliefs.

You are changing the subject of this thread. This is about questions you Darwnists REFUSE to answer. Care to respond to the original post in this thread?

[Logan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

And you are incorrect: we are here to discuss evolution, something that was not the teaching of Christ nor recorded in the Bible because evolution was not understood at the time the Bible was written.

So don't use the Bible as evidence against evolution. You cannot refute evolution, a scientific theory, with religion, as that simply reaffirms your religious beliefs.

Evolution is wrong, I bet you don't even know how Cells replicate: You've just blindly accepted "facts" written in some book that was written by a human. Our Book is written by God, making it reliable.

Creation and evolution cannot co-exist, and Creation is in the bible. what now?

[Stubornathiest]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

learn to spell Christian noobs!
God damn the ignorant ones!
so many spelling mistakes, i was trying to read this seriously, but i found it too difficult to main concentration without laughing.

It's funny, you ask for answers to evolution by asking evolution to explain Christianity.

[GOD=life]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Learn to spell Christian noobs!
God damn the ignorant ones!
So many spelling mistakes,. I was trying to read this seriously, but I found it too difficult to maintain concentration without laughing.

Beginning a sentence is not a spelling mistake

Besides, even if our spelling were as miserable as yours, it would still be a fallacy on your part to use this in rational discourse.

Even atheists are ashamed of retards like you.