[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Interesting thread.

Did you guys know that some of the theories on evolution dictate that first life was not even a whole cell formation? In fact they are stipulating that some of the organelles existed separate from cellular hosts.

For example... Mitochondria has it own DNA. They believe that this organelle once lived outside of the cell, and of course by chance one happened to get with a cell and they began to live symbiotically. Now this does not even explain what happened to all the other exocellular mitochondria. I guess they all went and found their own cells to inhabit afterwards. No explanation as to why they did not attack each other, and whats even better is the fact that we have never witnessed an organelle natively living outside of a host.

That does not even speak to the transition of prokaryotes or eukaryotes.

It is true... evolution leaves MORE questions behind than it can even theorize an answer too.

None of that's in the Bible boy. That whole "DNA" nonsense is just crap pulled directly out of some joo scientists' behind.

I'll take Jesus anytime.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

That does not even speak to the transition of prokaryotes or eukaryotes.

You can bet your leather and gold inlay Bible no Christian came up with those two words. I PRAISE Jesus I do not know kind of depraved act a "transition of prokaryotes" is but it must be hideously disgusting to warned such a convoluted word. Eukaryotes in the streets is what we can expect if the Darwinists get their way.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Evolution works for all species, but one species cannot will a specific mutation in response to a mutation by another species.

Really, according to Darwnism the fish squirmed out of the water to avoid the sharks. The fish who did it the best didn’t get eaten and had kids, who were good at flopping around on the beach (why they didn‘t get eaten by a bird is beyond me). So why weren’t the sharks following up the beach eating the slowest? As I said right now sharks should be lobby Congress for school chumming not swimming in the ocean if Darwinsim is true.

The way you describe it there was the magical mutation and poof, there is the land fish who lived happily ever after. The only mechanism I know of that causes sudden, dramatic and benevolent changes is God or at lest a god. So you are saying Charles Darwin intervened to give those fish their legs. God Himself never claims to have done that so the only other agent would be your false god Charles Darwin.

[YesImHellbound]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Really, according to Darwnism the fish squirmed out of the water to avoid the sharks. The fish who did it the best didn’t get eaten and had kids, who were good at flopping around on the beach (why they didn‘t get eaten by a bird is beyond me). So why weren’t the sharks following up the beach eating the slowest? As I said right now sharks should be lobby Congress for school chumming not swimming in the ocean if Darwinsim is true.

The way you describe it there was the magical mutation and poof, there is the land fish who lived happily ever after. The only mechanism I know of that causes sudden, dramatic and benevolent changes is God or at lest a god. So you are saying Charles Darwin intervened to give those fish their legs. God Himself never claims to have done that so the only other agent would be your false god Charles Darwin.

Darwinism is a theory of evolution, I am simply an evolutionist. That does not require me to agree with that theory. Let me define mutation for you:

Genetics

1. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
2. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.

[Jesse]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I'm just gonna take a wild guess here and please correct me if I'm wrong, humans evolved from one of two bipedal apes right? Then going back even further, like way way back the only things on the Earth were single cell orgamisms like bacteria. Well I watched a programme on the discovery channel I think in which they claimed that in our very distant past before man had evolved there were flying pigs, is that actually routed in any research or did they just decide to say that?

I think the concept of evolution is really interesting, I'm not really keen on the idea that my first ancestors must have commited incest since you know Eve was a part of Adam meaning they were (in someway) related. I just don't really see how that could work as animals generally send their sons away so that incest is not commited, an example would be Lions being sent away from their prides to start anew. Also is the reason no two humans look a like because we're constantly in a state of evolution, subtle but constant? Oh and also do you sometimes get people who are prevolved if that's the right term, like less evolved than they should be?

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I'm just gonna take a wild guess here and please correct me if I'm wrong, humans evolved from one of two bipedal apes right?

Wrong.

Also is the reason no two humans look a like because we're constantly in a state of evolution, subtle but constant?

Um, I think something has to be true before there can be a reason for it. Are you sure you aren't getting humans and snowflakes mixed up, you vile hippy?

[Old Iron Crotch]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Really, then what are they, highly specialized sponges? No, according to your anti-Christian theology they are apes.

Only in the same biological sense that you are - members of the order Primates.

[Old Iron Crotch]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Really, according to Darwnism the fish squirmed out of the water to avoid the sharks. The fish who did it the best didn’t get eaten and had kids, who were good at flopping around on the beach (why they didn‘t get eaten by a bird is beyond me). So why weren’t the sharks following up the beach eating the slowest? As I said right now sharks should be lobby Congress for school chumming not swimming in the ocean if Darwinsim is true.

The way you describe it there was the magical mutation and poof, there is the land fish who lived happily ever after. The only mechanism I know of that causes sudden, dramatic and benevolent changes is God or at lest a god. So you are saying Charles Darwin intervened to give those fish their legs. God Himself never claims to have done that so the only other agent would be your false god Charles Darwin.

As usual, you either misunderstand, misrepresent, or both. Evolution does not consist of acts of will or sudden, drastic changes, but of small changes over long periods of time.
Where on earth did you get the idea that people who believe the theory of evolution think that Darwin was personally responsible for mutation?
And I don't worship Darwin or any other human being.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

As usual, you either misunderstand, misrepresent, or both. Evolution does not consist of acts of will or sudden, drastic changes, but of small changes over long periods of time.

How am I misunderstand this evil, dehumanizing doctrine? The same small changes that turned fish into amphibians were happening to the sharks and their dinner is up their on the beach.

Where on earth did you get the idea that people who believe the theory of evolution think that Darwin was personally responsible for mutation?
And I don't worship Darwin or any other human being.

My point is the only way you can get the sudden change you describe (and it has to be a sudden change or the sharks would have respounded) is not threw a natural change but the intervention of a High Power™. This is what theologians have described as “FM” (Functional Magic)

[Old Iron Crotch]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

How am I misunderstand this evil, dehumanizing doctrine? The same small changes that turned fish into amphibians were happening to the sharks and their dinner is up their on the beach.

Just because a specific mutation haooens in one species does not meant that the same mutation must occur in other species at the same time. And a fish jumping up onto the beach to evade a shark and immediately starting to breathe air is not how evolution from aquatic life to land life works.



My point is the only way you can get the sudden change you describe (and it has to be a sudden change or the sharks would have respounded) is not threw a natural change but the intervention of a High Power™. This is what theologians have described as “FM” (Functional Magic)

YOU are the only one who posited sudden change.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Just because a specific mutation haooens in one species does not meant that the same mutation must occur in other species at the same time.

So is it a series of small mutations or one huge mutation that turned fish fins into limbs? If was a series of small mutations over thousands of years then the sharks could do the same thing since they are under the same pressure to maintain their food source as the fish are to escape sharks. But you are saying there was this one big mutation and then these fish had legs. That obviously the sharks could respond to and it is equally obvious that big mutation is magic.

[Old Iron Crotch]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

So is it a series of small mutations or one huge mutation that turned fish fins into limbs? If was a series of small mutations over thousands of years then the sharks could do the same thing since they are under the same pressure to maintain their food source as the fish are to escape sharks. But you are saying there was this one big mutation and then these fish had legs. That obviously the sharks could respond to and it is equally obvious that big mutation is magic.

Given the alacrity with which you twist things, you will most likely be reincarnated as a corkscrew.
A mutation in one species does not mandate and cannot cause a countering mutation in another species.
And YOU are the one who keeps yammering about fins popping into legs like an evolutionary version of a Transformers cartoon.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Given the alacrity with which you twist things, you will most likely be reincarnated as a corkscrew.
A mutation in one species does not mandate and cannot cause a countering mutation in another species.
And YOU are the one who keeps yammering about fins popping into legs like an evolutionary version of a Transformers cartoon.

So you are saying that predators don’t evolve in response to better defensive strategies of their prey? What do they do, rely on charitable suicides when they can not longer catch things? This sounds like a very liberal idea, even animals don’t need to get out and work.

[Old Iron Crotch]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

So you are saying that predators don’t evolve in response to better defensive strategies of their prey? What do they do, rely on charitable suicides when they can not longer catch things? This sounds like a very liberal idea, even animals don’t need to get out and work.

Predators don't evolve specific traits in direct response to specific mutations in prey, and more than fish sprout legs and lungs and chase Pamela Anderson up the beach in order to evade sharks. . Those predators who are able to continue to catch prey survive and pass on their genes. Those that can't, die. And I don't know of any predators that depend on one species of prey for their entire diet. So even if one species became unavailable as prey, others would be.

[G-Baby]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo (lol ) 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?

Because they don't have a reason to do so. They fit well in their own niche (FOR NOW).

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

We're talking about Mars now, what does it have to do with the Earth? To go on: why would something that is written centuries ago mention planets which couldn't be discovered/proved because of the material arrears?

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

There can always happen a failure in the reproduction. Natural Selection then annihilates that weak branch.

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

Because we don't need to (FOR NOW). We fit perfectly in our niche 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?

Because some people aren't ready to have children or don't want to have.

• 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?

Because we decay and become organic material (and, yes, that takes long, but not so long that we get buried under the remains ) like for example crude oil...

Well evolutionist, I am waiting.

Problem solved