[wait_what]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

Maybe because of how they walk, along with their dominance displays? I don't know, I'm not an expert on gorillas. I'm sure that if you're interested you could google it, or if not then I'd be happy to tell you lots of adaptations that birds have made.

Changing your story won't help your cause at all. I am not going to google anything until you have read the KJV 1611 cover to cover. You came here, remember?

If you knew my secular training, you would know that I actually have a firm understanding of the "theory" you atheists think is true. I tolerated it so that I could get a profession where I can really do some good missionary work while making great money to pay tithing with.

[Twiggy]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

Now Gorillas have HUGE freaking deltoids. Why do they have such huge deltoids if they walk on the ground compared to spider monkeys who spend their lives in trees?

Based on your earlier claims and how your story keeps changing, or "evolving" you know little about the theory you want to believe in. I suggest you first read a KJV 1611, then if you want to still rant about your little idea, you go read from the fathers of the concept every journal and publication written on it so that you can keep a consistent story with the lie they made up.

Maybe because of how they walk, along with their dominance displays? I don't know, I'm not an expert on gorillas. I'm sure that if you're interested you could google it, or if not then I'd be happy to tell you lots of adaptations that birds have made.

[wait_what]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

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.


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

Now Gorillas have HUGE freaking deltoids. Why do they have such huge deltoids if they walk on the ground compared to spider monkeys who spend their lives in trees?

Based on your earlier claims and how your story keeps changing, or "evolving" you know little about the theory you want to believe in. I suggest you first read a KJV 1611, then if you want to still rant about your little idea, you go read from the fathers of the concept every journal and publication written on it so that you can keep a consistent story with the lie they made up.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

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.

Dear Retard:

Please show us where in "On the Origin of Species" Charles Darwin talked about his discoveries of fossils and that this is where he generated his theory of evilution.

[Saint Elmo]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

We'll see who is laughing last when you antitheists are burning in heck with the dinosaurs.

[Virginia Day Templeton]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

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

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

[Twiggy]

Re: evolutionists get owneds again!

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

There are several, and you should be able to find out about them in any good museum. There was Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis and Homo erectus for example.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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?

[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!

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!

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 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.