[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Jesse

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

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]

Originally Posted by Dances with Joy

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.

Originally Posted by Dances with Joy

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

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]

Originally Posted by Dances with Joy

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

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]

Originally Posted by Dances with Joy

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

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

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Originally Posted by Dances with Joy

YOU are the only one who posited sudden change.

How do you explain the sudden change in the coloration of the English Moth (well documented) in response to the use of coal in the 19th century?

[Old Iron Crotch]

Originally Posted by WilliamJenningsBryan

How do you explain the sudden change in the coloration of the English Moth (well documented) in response to the use of coal in the 19th century?

They didn't change color. When the increase in coal use caused soot to be deposited everywhere, the lighter colored moths were more visible to predators, and were more likely to be eaten. The darker colored moths were camoflauged by the soot, not eaten by predators, and survived to produce young.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

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

Sharks still have enough food in the water so they don't need to come to land.

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

It's not because there was a flood on Mars that there was a flood here.

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

Normally they would die, but by the medical knowledge we can let them live.

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

Because we don't need 3 arms, we can live perfectly with 2 arms.

• If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?

Some people don't want children, because they aren't ready for children yet, or if they just don't like children.

• 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?

The dead bodies get consumed by fungus or worms.
Well evolutionist, I am waiting.

Jesus sees your dirty words Peter

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Peter

Jesus sees your dirty words Peter Some people don't want children, because they aren't ready for children yet, or if they just don't like children.

Wrong sinner! If the Magical Monkey Man Theory was true then humans would be frantic not to kill their children. The very though should fill a human with horror. The very fact that we can kill our childern proves there is a God and evolution is wrong.

Originally Posted by Peter

Jesus sees your dirty words Peter The dead bodies get consumed by fungus or worms.

The mass of a 150 billion bodies is sill going to be there.

[Old Iron Crotch]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

Wrong sinner! If the Magical Monkey Man Theory was true then humans would be frantic not to kill their children. The very though should fill a human with horror. The very fact that we can kill our childern proves there is a God and evolution is wrong.



The mass of a 150 billion bodies is sill going to be there.

Much of human body mass is water.

[G-Baby]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

Wrong sinner! If the Magical Monkey Man Theory was true then humans would be frantic not to kill their children. The very though should fill a human with horror. The very fact that we can kill our childern proves there is a God and evolution is wrong.
And how does it do so...

The mass of a 150 billion bodies is sTill going to be there.

Like organic stuff, yes. Not as bodies...

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

Wrong sinner! If the Magical Monkey Man Theory was true then humans would be frantic not to kill their children. The very though should fill a human with horror. The very fact that we can kill our childern proves there is a God and evolution is wrong.


We sometimes don't want children, because the earth is already overpopulated so it's actually logic that we want to limit the number of humans alive.


The mass of a 150 billion bodies is sill going to be there.

All the atoms are still there, but other combinations.
Ever heard of the food chain?
I shall explain it: The fungus and worms consume the dead bodies, the worms and fungus get eaten by bigger animals who get eaten by other animals,... At the end of this chain are the humans, so actually we eat always a little bit of our ancestors, but in other organic combinations that we know as food.

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Peter

We sometimes don't want children, because the earth is already overpopulated so it's actually logic that we want to limit the number of humans alive.

Logic has nothing to do with it. If we were just hairless apes, like your failing theory has it, we have an overriding inspective urge to preserve our children’s lives at all costs. After all the future, genetically speaking, is the children so the parent who does his utmost to preserve their life is the one most likely to pass their genes on.

No, the ability to slaughter our children without hesitation because it is the logical, not instinctive, thing to do argues against a biological origin of man. Only a benevolent supreme being could gift humanity with the ruthlessness to callously dispatch it’s own young because reason tells it to. Nature tells man to preserve their kids, God tells man to butcher them.

[Old Iron Crotch]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

Logic has nothing to do with it. If we were just hairless apes, like your failing theory has it, we have an overriding inspective urge to preserve our children’s lives at all costs. After all the future, genetically speaking, is the children so the parent who does his utmost to preserve their life is the one most likely to pass their genes on.

No, the ability to slaughter our children without hesitation because it is the logical, not instinctive, thing to do argues against a biological origin of man. Only a benevolent supreme being could gift humanity with the ruthlessness to callously dispatch it’s own young because reason tells it to. Nature tells man to preserve their kids, God tells man to butcher them.

Not so. Nature sometimes tells females to eat their young. It does not seek to preserve all progeny equally.

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Dances with Joy

Not so. Nature sometimes tells females to eat their young. It does not seek to preserve all progeny equally.

That still is instinct! I am talking about killing your children out of cold logic. Only God can give you that.