[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Indeed. When we can't understand His ways, we may yet rejoice in His promises.

Isaiah 55:9
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isn't God just so awesome?

Amen Brother, and the last 5 chapters of Job are so humbling....

Job 38:4-6 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

38:31-33 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

39:9-12 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Oohhh..... talking about peacocks....

39:13Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?

PRAISE JESUS, HE HAS SENT ME THE EXACT SCRIPTURE

Job 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.

[Jedediah]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

It just makes so much more sense that God created peacocks for his own reason and they fit into his divine clockwork which is the earth.

Indeed. When we can't understand His ways, we may yet rejoice in His promises.

Isaiah 55:9
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isn't God just so awesome?

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

And we're going in circles here (BTW, tigers don't see the tails, they grab the birds by the tail, so a definite a disadvantage). It just makes so much more sense that God created peacocks for his own reason and they fit into his divine clockwork which is the earth.

Interesting. I assumed it was both, but it would still work the same way.

Circles indeed.

And Pastor Zeke, the thread invites us to answer these questions, which is why I have.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

That's one crazy video. Wow.

Anyways, I don't think I was very clear on the whole peacock deal.

Here's how it works out.
There are a variety of peacocks. Some peacocks have amazing tails, others not so much. Predators spot the big colorful tails and eat the peacocks with those tails. They also eat the ones with less attractive tails, though not as frequently. The less attractive peacocks would be able to pass on their genes more frequently, when considering only this factor.

On the other hand, peacocks with huge tails are a sign of good genes/health to peahens. Peahens choose these peacocks to mate with more frequently than with the less colorful peacocks. The colorful peacocks are able to pass on their genes more frequently in this case.

So as you can see, these two factors, as well as many others, determines which peacocks survive and pass on their genes and which do not. Now we have to ask: which factors are more dominant? These factors are the ones that will determine which evolutionary path the animal takes. In the case of peacock, the factors favor colorful tails more than plainer ones, therefore, peacocks retain their colorful tails.

And we're going in circles here (BTW, tigers don't see the tails, they grab the birds by the tail, so a definite a disadvantage). It just makes so much more sense that God created peacocks for his own reason and they fit into his divine clockwork which is the earth.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Here's how it works out.
There are a variety of peacocks. Some peacocks have amazing tails, others not so much. Predators spot the big colorful tails and eat the peacocks with those tails. They also eat the ones with less attractive tails, though not as frequently. The less attractive peacocks would be able to pass on their genes more frequently, when considering only this factor.

On the other hand, peacocks with huge tails are a sign of good genes/health to peahens. Peahens choose these peacocks to mate with more frequently than with the less colorful peacocks. The colorful peacocks are able to pass on their genes more frequently in this case.

So as you can see, these two factors, as well as many others, determines which peacocks survive and pass on their genes and which do not. Now we have to ask: which factors are more dominant? These factors are the ones that will determine which evolutionary path the animal takes. In the case of peacock, the factors favor colorful tails more than plainer ones, therefore, peacocks retain their colorful tails.

What a boring story about a bunch of dumb birds. Who cares? This is a Christian forum. Talk about Jess or piss off.

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Somehow I don't think these guys think 'ape attacks' are so funny anymore.

And I've got to repeat myself with the peacocks tail and me having a tail. I think that a mother having a tail would be much more evolutionary advantage than something that just looks pretty but gets you in trouble. I mean, tigers seem to appreciate that tail, since it makes the peacock easier to catch, but I don't think that helps your point.

That's one crazy video. Wow.

Anyways, I don't think I was very clear on the whole peacock deal.

Here's how it works out.
There are a variety of peacocks. Some peacocks have amazing tails, others not so much. Predators spot the big colorful tails and eat the peacocks with those tails. They also eat the ones with less attractive tails, though not as frequently. The less attractive peacocks would be able to pass on their genes more frequently, when considering only this factor.

On the other hand, peacocks with huge tails are a sign of good genes/health to peahens. Peahens choose these peacocks to mate with more frequently than with the less colorful peacocks. The colorful peacocks are able to pass on their genes more frequently in this case.

So as you can see, these two factors, as well as many others, determines which peacocks survive and pass on their genes and which do not. Now we have to ask: which factors are more dominant? These factors are the ones that will determine which evolutionary path the animal takes. In the case of peacock, the factors favor colorful tails more than plainer ones, therefore, peacocks retain their colorful tails.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Somehow I don't think these guys think 'ape attacks' are so funny anymore.

And I've got to repeat myself with the peacocks tail and me having a tail. I think that a mother having a tail would be much more evolutionary advantage than something that just looks pretty but gets you in trouble. I mean, tigers seem to appreciate that tail, since it makes the peacock easier to catch, but I don't think that helps your point.

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

You're not listening, dear. BelieverInGod is telling you that a busy human mother would never have lost the need for a tail. If evolution were true, a useful tail would be proof enough.

Well, sadly, while a tail for the modern human may be useful, they are not necessary for survival.

So teeth, which are plentiful, hang around unnecessarily, but tails, which would come in so handily, "evolved out"?

Wisdom teeth were actually useful far longer in the human evolutionary line than tails were. Also, tails are still hanging around, though they've been reduced to only the coccyx.

Have you ever seen apes attack humans? They're relentless!

They are. But we have cages, tranquilizers, guns, and training to ensure that it doesn't happen. I like the animation, it's funny.

But not smart enough to keep the darn tail!

You are pulling our chain, son!

Well.. they didn't and don't really get to choose what to keep.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Well, somewhere along the line, far before us homo sapiens came along, hominids must have lost the need for it.

You're not listening, dear. BelieverInGod is telling you that a busy human mother would never have lost the need for a tail. If evolution were true, a useful tail would be proof enough.

Reasonable assumption, but vestigial organs sometimes serve small secondary functions, and we are still in the evolutionary process, so some remnants have not had time to evolve out of our bodies.

So teeth, which are plentiful, hang around unnecessarily, but tails, which would come in so handily, "evolved out"?

Okay.. that's interesting. The rights of a human thing is a little off, but I don't think humans should feel that apes and whales are a threat, as it is far more likely that a human will kill another human.

Have you ever seen apes attack humans? They're relentless!

I believe that's part of the fight or flight response, and, I don't know the details, but the brain attempts to deal with stress during those situations.

The leap to getting a brain was slow, very slow. The smarter humans, ones who could look for food and reproduce well without becoming food, had a greater chance of survival. Genes are inherited, and the smarter humans had a greater chance of passing on their genes, while the less gifted did not. This happens over and over until we get to smart modern humans.

But not smart enough to keep the darn tail!

You are pulling our chain, son!

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

All I'm saying is that a tail would be useful, and I can't see why evolution would make us give it up.

Well, somewhere along the line, far before us homo sapiens came along, hominids must have lost the need for it.

Well, as "pure vegetarians" those front teeth are VERY sharp. Meanwhile, human teeth fall out, my father had false teeth by the age of 18. As for wisdom teeth being vestigial, why do we have all of these vestigial organs? You'd think that evolution would do away with them.

Reasonable assumption, but vestigial organs sometimes serve small secondary functions, and we are still in the evolutionary process, so some remnants have not had time to evolve out of our bodies.

Well I know the California and Canadian biologists want apes and whales declared "non-human persons" which seems to mean that they'll have all the rights of being human, but none of the responsibilities. For example, we can't kill them, but they can kill us.

Okay.. that's interesting. The rights of a human thing is a little off, but I don't think humans should feel that apes and whales are a threat, as it is far more likely that a human will kill another human.

But so many people shut down and go blank in a panic situation. Also, this seems to imply a pretty fast leap at getting a brain, since if we were our weak little upstanding selves without developing the brains, we'd be food.

I believe that's part of the fight or flight response, and, I don't know the details, but the brain attempts to deal with stress during those situations.

The leap to getting a brain was slow, very slow. The smarter humans, ones who could look for food and reproduce well without becoming food, had a greater chance of survival. Genes are inherited, and the smarter humans had a greater chance of passing on their genes, while the less gifted did not. This happens over and over until we get to smart modern humans.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

A kangaroo's tail still has a primary function, maintaining balance, with which it could not survive. A peacock's tail is used for reproduction; the more attractive(big) the tail is, the more likely it is to find a mate.

All I'm saying is that a tail would be useful, and I can't see why evolution would make us give it up.

Wisdom teeth are vestigial organs, like the remaining coccyx. They were once useful, now, not so much. And no, I have never been bitten by a horse.

Well, as "pure vegetarians" those front teeth are VERY sharp. Meanwhile, human teeth fall out, my father had false teeth by the age of 18. As for wisdom teeth being vestigial, why do we have all of these vestigial organs? You'd think that evolution would do away with them.

I had to look that one up, never heard about that before. It seems like scientists are simply speculating about whale intelligence, stating that they may be as smart or that they might think in a different way than humans do. I'd also like to point out that a human's hands, capable of all sorts of manipulation, work extremely well with the human brain.

Well I know the California and Canadian biologists want apes and whales declared "non-human persons" which seems to mean that they'll have all the rights of being human, but none of the responsibilities. For example, we can't kill them, but they can kill us.

Brains are useful in this situation. They created weapons to fight back at lions, and the ability to cooperate and communicate with other humans in bringing lions down. They could also think of ways to distract or evade the lion. Some extra speed would be handy, but the slower humans obviously survived and reproduced just as well.

But so many people shut down and go blank in a panic situation. Also, this seems to imply a pretty fast leap at getting a brain, since if we were our weak little upstanding selves without developing the brains, we'd be food.

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

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.

A kangaroo's tail still has a primary function, maintaining balance, with which it could not survive. A peacock's tail is used for reproduction; the more attractive(big) the tail is, the more likely it is to find a mate.

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?)

Wisdom teeth are vestigial organs, like the remaining coccyx. They were once useful, now, not so much. And no, I have never been bitten by a horse.

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"?

I had to look that one up, never heard about that before. It seems like scientists are simply speculating about whale intelligence, stating that they may be as smart or that they might think in a different way than humans do. I'd also like to point out that a human's hands, capable of all sorts of manipulation, work extremely well with the human brain.

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.

Brains are useful in this situation. They created weapons to fight back at lions, and the ability to cooperate and communicate with other humans in bringing lions down. They could also think of ways to distract or evade the lion. Some extra speed would be handy, but the slower humans obviously survived and reproduced just as well.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

For the impartial, yes. For Christians, also yes, with the Bible being the truth. For secular people, yes as well, the truth is found through logical reasoning and experimentation.

The truth isn't relative, dear. It exists the way it is. Not every road leads to Rome, as they say.

So it depends on which viewpoint you have, rather than the truth, as people's views of the truth is are different. When trying to get the secular to reject evolution, you must either change their views of what the truth is or attempt to disprove evolution logically, the latter of which is what this thread is meant to do. This approach is extremely difficult, as no one has yet to point out logically why evolution is wrong.

No one has to. It's self-evident. The burden of proof is upon you because you are making the outrageous claim that our great-great-great grandparents had tails.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

For the impartial, yes. For Christians, also yes, with the Bible being the truth. For secular people, yes as well, the truth is found through logical reasoning and experimentation.

So it depends on which viewpoint you have, rather than the truth, as people's views of the truth is are different. When trying to get the secular to reject evolution, you must either change their views of what the truth is or attempt to disprove evolution logically, the latter of which is what this thread is meant to do. This approach is extremely difficult, as no one has yet to point out logically why evolution is wrong.

But what you believe to be true, is not necessarily true. If you believe you can walk on water and jump out of a boat, no matter how much you BELIEVE you can walk on water, you're going to drown.

Now if you have faith that JESUS can give you the ability to walk on water, then you've got a chance. But that faith better be unwavering.

Matthew 14:25-31 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

[Tool of satan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

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.

For the impartial, yes. For Christians, also yes, with the Bible being the truth. For secular people, yes as well, the truth is found through logical reasoning and experimentation.

So it depends on which viewpoint you have, rather than the truth, as people's views of the truth is are different. When trying to get the secular to reject evolution, you must either change their views of what the truth is or attempt to disprove evolution logically, the latter of which is what this thread is meant to do. This approach is extremely difficult, as no one has yet to point out logically why evolution is wrong.