evolutionists get owneds again!

[Petal]

Mr.EvolutionMyAss kick evolutionist butts in this here videos

his account not been deliteds, an that mean that none of them evolutions folk been ables to answers his kwestions,yay!

[josh_cjr]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

1. scientist have found missing links between animals thats why the theroy exists charles darwin didnt just have the idea pop into his head scientist
found these fossils and created the theroy of evolution. here are some of ur missing links you were talking about.

http://www.livescience.com/11326-top-10-missing-links.html

2. well when the earth had all the right conditions you know water, atmosphere, oxygen just the right living conditions life was formed.

3. thats a hard one the main theroy is the big bang theroy. there are over theroys out there but the most likely therory is that one.
and besides you said something can not come from nothing but isnt that exactly what "god" did, created something from nothing.

[wait_what]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

1. scientist have found missing links between animals thats why the theroy exists charles darwin didnt just have the idea pop into his head scientist
found these fossils and created the theroy of evolution. here are some of ur missing links you were talking about.

http://www.livescience.com/11326-top-10-missing-links.html

2. well when the earth had all the right conditions you know water, atmosphere, oxygen just the right living conditions life was formed.

3. thats a hard one the main theroy is the big bang theroy. there are over theroys out there but the most likely therory is that one.
and besides you said something can not come from nothing but isnt that exactly what "god" did, created something from nothing.

1. So, where is the missing link between man and chimp?

2. Why is it we can't recreate this in a lab then? 4000 years of alchemy and chemistry, and still no neo-biogenesis.

3a. What is a theroy?

3b. God created the universe from His hands, not nothing. Silly atheists.

[Lanfeust]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

1. So, where is the missing link between man and chimp?

2. Why is it we can't recreate this in a lab then? 4000 years of alchemy and chemistry, and still no neo-biogenesis.

3a. What is a theroy?

3b. God created the universe from His hands, not nothing. Silly atheists.

There is no missing link between man and chimpansee, because we and chimps have a common ancestor, if you simply read that theory a bit more seriously, you wouldn't ask so stupid questions. We don't decend from chimp but a now vanished species evolved in humans AND chimps.

Besides alchemy isn't a science practiced today.

A 'theroy' is something very different in the science world, a theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts (wikipedia, even wikipedia knows it better).

We have actually recreated the conditions in the beginning stage of the earth, there were some basic 'lifeforms' like proteins and RNA-strings. But you can read all about it in the scientific reports that can be verified and retested.

Also, it's not because something can't be explained naturally, that it is supernatural.

That's being just crazy, you can't always assume that all mysteries is god. It's just a question of time for being naturally answered like everything else.

Anyway, read some books, learn about it, THEN you complain.

[Titus Templeton]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

I just want to say that there is no question who made the universe. The Bible Genesis 1:1 tells us that God made everything. Why bringing up questions which are already answered?

[Why_Lol]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

I just want to say that there is no question who made the universe. The Bible Genesis 1:1 tells us that God made everything. Why bringing up questions which are already answered?

So a book told you that god made everything? Well I read in a book that everything was created through a giant bird with magical powers does that make it true? You got some really great logic. /facepalm.

[wait_what]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

So a book told you that god made everything? Well I read in a book that everything was created through a giant bird with magical powers does that make it true? You got some really great logic. /facepalm.

There is a difference. Our book us true. Silly atheist.

[wait_what]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

There is no missing link between man and chimpansee, because we and chimps have a common ancestor, if you simply read that theory a bit more seriously, you wouldn't ask so stupid questions. We don't decend from chimp but a now vanished species evolved in humans AND chimps.

Besides alchemy isn't a science practiced today.

A 'theroy' is something very different in the science world, a theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts (wikipedia, even wikipedia knows it better).

We have actually recreated the conditions in the beginning stage of the earth, there were some basic 'lifeforms' like proteins and RNA-strings. But you can read all about it in the scientific reports that can be verified and retested.

Also, it's not because something can't be explained naturally, that it is supernatural.

That's being just crazy, you can't always assume that all mysteries is god. It's just a question of time for being naturally answered like everything else.

Anyway, read some books, learn about it, THEN you complain.

First, lying atheist, I am not complaining. You are the one getting her panties in a bunch.

Second, where is this common ancestor and how did he evolve twice? He had a tail and no tail at once? He was hairless and furry at the same time? You should see how silly your argument is.

Third, you gave me a definition for a "theory" not a "THEROY." Even so, by your own definition it is something that can be recreated
. Make evolution happen again, otherwise your "theory" has been scientifically proven false.

Fourth, alchemy is still being researched. elements are converted in nuclear chemistry all the time. it is where most of the bottom row, actinides, and lanthanides have come from.
biochemistry has yet to form cells from chemicals. you avoided the question like a coward.

how about you read a book? I call it the KJV 1611. Afterwards I might skim one of your propaganda rags just to show you how wrong you are.

[Twiggy]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

1. So, where is the missing link between man and chimp?

There isn't a missing link between man and chimps because man didn't evolve from chimps. Instead we share a common ancestor.

[wait_what]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

There isn't a missing link between man and chimps because man didn't evolve from chimps. Instead we share a common ancestor.

See my above post. Anyways your broken view on evil-lution says it involves time travel. You are hardly an authority. You are just a lunatic witch sent to confuse the righteous and innocent.

[Twiggy]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

See my above post. Anyways your broken view on evil-lution says it involves time travel. You are hardly an authority. You are just a lunatic witch sent to confuse the righteous and innocent.

I didn't say time travel was involved at all actually.
Basically when we say "one common ancestor" we mean that there was a species that both humans and apes evolved from. Say half the species went and lived in the jungle and the other half lived in the desert. Those in trees might keep their fur and continue to walk on four legs, whilst those in the deserts could keep cool by losing their hair, walking on two legs and developing darker skin to protect them from the sun (over many generations of course). Then eventually, after many generations, they would be so different from each other that they would be considered two different species. They would continue to evolve depending on the environment e.g. some may move to a colder part of the world and develop paler skin as they need less protection from the sun, and so on.

[wait_what]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

I didn't say time travel was involved at all actually.
Basically when we say "one common ancestor" we mean that there was a species that both humans and apes evolved from. Say half the species went and lived in the jungle and the other half lived in the desert. Those in trees might keep their fur and continue to walk on four legs, whilst those in the deserts could keep cool by losing their hair, walking on two legs and developing darker skin to protect them from the sun (over many generations of course). Then eventually, after many generations, they would be so different from each other that they would be considered two different species. They would continue to evolve depending on the environment e.g. some may move to a colder part of the world and develop paler skin as they need less protection from the sun, and so on.

I thought tree dwellers were climbers with mongaloid deltoids. How are they walking on 4 legs if they are climbing and swinging about?

Why don't camels walk on two legs, and why have all that fur if evolution is right according to your example?

[BelieverInGod]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

I didn't say time travel was involved at all actually.
Basically when we say "one common ancestor" we mean that there was a species that both humans and apes evolved from. Say half the species went and lived in the jungle and the other half lived in the desert. Those in trees might keep their fur and continue to walk on four legs, whilst those in the deserts could keep cool by losing their hair, walking on two legs and developing darker skin to protect them from the sun (over many generations of course). Then eventually, after many generations, they would be so different from each other that they would be considered two different species. They would continue to evolve depending on the environment e.g. some may move to a colder part of the world and develop paler skin as they need less protection from the sun, and so on.

If desert creatures lose their fur to keep cool, then why are coyotes so furry? Fur is an insulator, which keeps you cool just like it keeps you warm. Or do your parents pull all of the insulation out of your attic each summer?

Why would we start walking on 2 legs? After all, creatures that run on all 4 are much faster than we are. As for the darker skin, I'm glow in the dark, white. so what happened? Oh and if people from the colder parts of the world developed paler skin, explain Eskimos.

Face it, if "evolution" was true, humans wouldn't have made it. We've got no teeth, no claws, no shells, we're slow and have poor senses. On the eat or be eaten scale, we would have been nothing more than lunch meat for lions.

[Twiggy]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

I thought tree dwellers were climbers with mongaloid deltoids. How are they walking on 4 legs if they are climbing and swinging about?

Why don't camels walk on two legs, and why have all that fur if evolution is right according to your example?

I'm giving examples, and trying to simplify things for you. There are these things called ecological niches, and different creatures fit in different ones. It depends on the exact species you are talking about. Gorillas, for example, spend a reasonable amount of time on the ground as well as climbing.

If desert creatures lose their fur to keep cool, then why are coyotes so furry? Fur is an insulator, which keeps you cool just like it keeps you warm. Or do your parents pull all of the insulation out of your attic each summer?

Why would we start walking on 2 legs? After all, creatures that run on all 4 are much faster than we are. As for the darker skin, I'm glow in the dark, white. so what happened? Oh and if people from the colder parts of the world developed paler skin, explain Eskimos.

Face it, if "evolution" was true, humans wouldn't have made it. We've got no teeth, no claws, no shells, we're slow and have poor senses. On the eat or be eaten scale, we would have been nothing more than lunch meat for lions.

Walking on two legs is one of the things that gives us the ability to make tools- the fact that we have two limbs that are not needed to walk means that they can be used for other things. You are right in the sense that humans aren't physically superior to all animals, the reason that we've done so well is because of our advanced intellect and ability to make tools and fire, and then later, machinery and so on.
If you are very pale then I would assume that your ancestors came from a part of the world where there was not a lot of sunlight. One theory is that it's because of their diet: http://scienceline.org/2007/06/ask-d...-inuiteskimos/ whilst others think that it might be due to the reflective effect of the ice an snow in the artic causing them to have higher exposure to the sun

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

There isn't a missing link between man and chimps because man didn't evolve from chimps. Instead we share a common ancestor.

Then where is the missing link between us and our common ancestor?