How about this one?

[quickdodge®]

What do Christians think about dinosaur fossils? Or just dinosaurs in general. Later, QD.

[Hulud]

hmmmmmmmmm
they had a discussion on this in another thread

[fight club]

the devil put them there to make humans believe there is no god. just another form of evil trying to corrupt your life, as if u believe there were dinosaurs, there isnt a god, or at least a god the bible speaks of, and such your soul would go to the devil....

...who uses it to buy new fossils.<jp>

[metalman]

I have already stated my thoughts on this in another thread...I'll do so again here.

As to dinosaurs...to me the Bible infers something. God destroyed the world by flood (Noah) because man "worshiped the creature more then the Creator" and because man was "evil continually". The Scripture states the God saved "that which he had made" or pairs and sevens etc of that life. That tells me he DIDNT save what he DID NOT make, in fact he destroyed it.

Think about it...mans lifespan before the flood was nearly 1000 years. Humans then were much more "pefect" and closer to what Adam was then are we. They were much more perfect in their knowlege and wisdom. Their worship of the creature obviously included manipulating God's creation...making, breeding, cloning whatever..dinasours. When God destroyed
the earth he destroyed those works of men too. The oil and coal we make energy from come from the buried vegetation and animal life that was destroyed in the flood.

The Bible states "as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in day of the coming of the Son...." (end days )
What are earthly scientists involved in today??? Hmmm...dabbling with "creation"...cloning...genetic manipulation etc etc

And contrary to popular opinion evidences of man and dinasour have been found in the same layer of earth.

I agree with cherry kool aid in one sense...they were created "of the devil" who inspired the antidelivian peoples to make them in the first place.

[Killer]

This is something i've always pondered upon myself.... i think the Bible gives some reference to dinosaurs in the Book of Genisis. It's just not very clear. And as metalman says i definitely think God destroyed them in the flood.

[Kelly]

Here's the verse I believe Killer is referring to... It just mentions "beasts"... I dunno if it is really referring to dinosaurs, but it's possible.

Genesis 1-30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

[Hulud]

This is something i've always pondered upon myself.... i think the Bible gives some reference to dinosaurs in the Book of Genisis. It's just not very clear. And as metalman says i definitely think God destroyed them in the flood.
ok ive got a question, if there is 100% scientific proof that the meteor killed them, what would you think then? jw not questioning your faith

[Kelly]

I know you're asking Killer, but my opinion is-

If there's proof, there's proof. I would just assume it was within the (however many) thousands of years before Adam and Eve which isn't mentioned in the bible.

There's scientific proof that the earth has been here for around 6,000 years...
2000 years- Before Christ
2000 years- From Christ til now
Where's the other 2000 years? It was either A) not talked about in the bible, or B) it took God "7 days" to create the earth- however, a day is as a thousand years in the eyes of God...

Just food for thought...

[Hulud]

you see thats one thing i never understood with the bible (when i was growing up going to church) is that it is all up for interpretation and people use the parts that they feel fit them and not all of it (not saying you do that since i dont know you). but its like back when christianity first came about people were taking the words from teh bible literally, but now that science has evolved and shed more light about the earth and other things, people start to interpret the bible differently.

[Kelly]

I'll give you that. It's very wish-washy and I don't think we'll ever truely understand everything til we get to Heaven, ya know.

[Hulud]

I'll give you that. It's very wish-washy and I don't think we'll every truely understand everything til we get to Heaven, ya know.
yea i see what your saying

[Kelly]

I think some things are meant literal and some aren't...
Don't know why it'd be confusing like that, but it sure keeps us Christians (and non christians) interested enough to keep reading and studying. Maybe that was the plan. :)

[Hulud]

I think some things are meant literal and some aren't...
Don't know why it'd be confusing like that, but it sure keeps us Christians (and non christians) interested enough to keep reading and studying. Maybe that was the plan. :)
that could be, but you can look at the flip side.
the bible was written by man (who supposedly was spoken to by god)
i mean look at all the people that claim themselves to be good christians, but are complete hypocrits. you never know if someone along the lines edited the bible for personal gain or made it vague because it could have been shown to be a fraud. its just that it was written by humans thats my main point, that you never know their real intentions.

*disclaimer* i am NOT attacking your religion, just putting my feelings out there

[Killer]

ok ive got a question, if there is 100% scientific proof that the meteor killed them, what would you think then? jw not questioning your faith


that's just it.. there is no 100% proof... and i didn't say that God killed them in the flood for sure i said i think... the dinosaur thing is something i'm not sure of.. and like i said it gives some reference to dinosaurs in genisis... that's about it for me... But it there was 100% proof that a meteor destroyed the dinosaurs i would say "golly gee God can throw a mean fast ball!" :goodjob:

[Hulud]

that's just it.. there is no 100% proof...
i know i was just throwing a hypothetical out there

and i didn't say that God killed them in the flood for sure i said i think... the dinosaur thing is something i'm not sure of.. and like i said it gives some reference to dinosaurs in genisis... that's about it for me... But it there was 100% proof that a meteor destroyed the dinosaurs i would say "golly gee God can throw a mean fast ball!" :goodjob:
i know you didnt say for sure i was just asking

hahaha fast ball

[Kelly]

Lol ^^^

[Kelly]

that could be, but you can look at the flip side.
the bible was written by man (who supposedly was spoken to by god)
i mean look at all the people that claim themselves to be good christians, but are complete hypocrits. you never know if someone along the lines edited the bible for personal gain or made it vague because it could have been shown to be a fraud. its just that it was written by humans thats my main point, that you never know their real intentions.
*disclaimer* i am NOT attacking your religion, just putting my feelings out there

True... The bible is man made(wrote)... There prob are faults in it, just not lots and lots of them.

[metalman]

Doubt of Scriptural validity is a human issue.

One way is to "test" the Bible. The Bible gives promises. It basicly says if you do certian things God promises certian results. To those who have "tested" this there is no doubt as to validity of the Word. They've lived it. Theyve seen it with their own eyes. Also it can be "tested" by seeing the things around us that have come about exactly like the Bible said they would.

Yet in part, Christianity and Bible believing will always require a measure of faith. Its ordained to be that way. The reason - God wants humans to believe Him, just on his word alone, and He wants to preserve/save only those that have that kind of faith in order to make an utter end of sin/evil.

As I have said before, if you believe in a God that can create the worlds with only his spoken word how can you not believe this same God has the power to preserve His Book and the integrity of it? But if you want to be sure just "test" it. ;)

[Hulud]

i just flat out dont trust many humans
most are out to do whats best for them, and take no prisoners attitude

[ISAtlanta300]

Dinosaurs would have been after the period of Adam and Eve. They would have been destroyed by the great flood.. or a meteor.. or both...

It could be that the meteor CAUSED the great "flood" :)

The general consensus amongst most christians is the mentioning of animals in the Bible:

"The Bible refers to many the common animals we know today. The list includes lions, wolves, bears, sheep, cattle and dogs along with various kinds of birds, rodents, reptiles, and insects. What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize. These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, b@hemowth and livyathan.

Tanniyn = Dragon, or Dinosaur
Behemoth = Brachiosaurus
Leviathan = Kronosaurus. "

[BluesClues]

I'll give you that. It's very wish-washy and I don't think we'll ever truely understand everything til we get to Heaven, ya know.
We are not meant to understand GOD's words exactly. We are to just interpret them the best we can

[Kelly]

Agreed...

[Jason04srt4]

In Job 40:17 There is mention to a behemoth thats tail moves like a cedar tree.
I believe that the earth is millions of years old and so are the dinosaur fossils.

[Kelly]

^^^ Very interesting point! I've never saw that before. Here it is:

Job 14- 15 "Look at the behemoth, [a]
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail [b] sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

The footnotes say this is "possibly" referring to an elephant or rhino and that the "tail" is referring to it's trunk, but I think it's possible that it's referring to dinosaurs. Not positive, but very interesting!

[ISAtlanta300]

More interesting is the statement "He Ranks First amongst the work of God".... Which would point more towards dinosaurs...

[BABY J]

http://www.creationevidence.org/

[{X}Echo419]

ok ive got a question, if there is 100% scientific proof that the meteor killed them, what would you think then? jw not questioning your faith

that dosen't question the "faith" at all.

like I've said b4. there are somethings in the Bible that had to be vague just b/c people at the time could not have comprehended it :2cents:

[man]

I like to see someone try to prove where the bible rejects the existince of dinosaurs. It's oblvious dinosaurs were real, and it's obvious that the bible never says they didn't exist. However, it never said elephants, crocodiles, toucans, sharks, octopuses, clams, turtles, mosquitos or any other animal existed that didn't directly affect the teachings of the Bible.

[Hulud]

that dosen't question the "faith" at all.

like I've said b4. there are somethings in the Bible that had to be vague just b/c people at the time could not have comprehended it :2cents:
did i EVER say it was questioning YOUR faith? NO

[Speedm0(\)key]

This is something i've always pondered upon myself.... i think the Bible gives some reference to dinosaurs in the Book of Genisis. It's just not very clear. And as metalman says i definitely think God destroyed them in the flood.


had this been true.. remains woul dhave been found in places that wouldnt make sense... but guess what.. they arent found in places that dont make sense

bible = man manipulated pretty story book of bullshit

[Speedm0(\)key]

that dosen't question the "faith" at all.

like I've said b4. there are somethings in the Bible that had to be vague just b/c people at the time could not have comprehended it :2cents:


people have to be vague NOW just to comprehend the bible. science is tearing it apart

[4dmin]

this is kind a dumb question for christians... they have found fossil remains that are from the Triassic period which is over 200million years old, so that blows the 1000's of years out of the water and how people like to explain it w/ the bible is beyond me.

it is amazing that there is not a human fossils dating back 200+ million years ago so that would explain that humans did not exsist... well not until a a monkey or some other form of primative animal turned into man.

[quickdodge®]

this is kind a dumb question for christians...

I don't think it was actually a dumb question. I just like to read what different beliefed people think of stuff that has a potential to "wreck"(can't think of the right word) the Creation. Later, QD.

[metalman]

I am sorry but you guys relying on "science" to prove a beginning other then creation obviously havent studied into carbon dating...the corner stone of evolutionary "time".
More holes in that than a rusted out Civic from northern Minnesota!

Then when you throw polonium halos into the discussion the rest of evolution's theory that everything (bedrock) forms over millions of years goes right out the window.

Add to that the "modern" objects that are in fact petrified (which many scientists say takes millions of years) and you slide even further down the slippery slope....and so one and so forth....the list continues.

Actually I give you evolutionists ALOT of credit...youre a very "religious" bunch! You have wayyyyyy more faith then any christian or group of christians. You actually believe that if you took an empty box, shook it for millions of years, then opened it, you'd have all the intricate parts needed to make up an organisim more sophisticated then the most complex Rolex watch. Then, you believe if you continued shaking that box for a few more million or billion years you'd end up with a perfectly assembled functioning creature (Rolex watch) that works just perfectly. Yeahhhhhh right!! Thats "science" all right! You are a faithful bunch!! I don't have that kind of "faith" ;)

...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred...

[quickdodge®]

You have wayyyyyy more faith then any christian or group of christians.

Nah. If anything, it would be the same amount of faith. Later, QD.

[4dmin]

I am sorry but you guys relying on "science" to prove a beginning other then creation obviously havent studied into carbon dating...the corner stone of evolutionary "time".
More holes in that than a rusted out Civic from northern Minnesota!

Then when you throw polonium halos into the discussion the rest of evolution's theory that everything (bedrock) forms over millions of years goes right out the window.

Add to that the "modern" objects that are in fact petrified (which many scientists say takes millions of years) and you slide even further down the slippery slope....and so one and so forth....the list continues.

Actually I give you evolutionists ALOT of credit...youre a very "religious" bunch! You have wayyyyyy more faith then any christian or group of christians. You actually believe that if you took an empty box, shook it for millions of years, then opened it, you'd have all the intricate parts needed to make up an organisim more sophisticated then the most complex Rolex watch. Then, you believe if you continued shaking that box for a few more million or billion years you'd end up with a perfectly assembled functioning creature (Rolex watch) that works just perfectly. Yeahhhhhh right!! Thats "science" all right! You are a faithful bunch!! I don't have that kind of "faith" ;)

...keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred...

personally i believe evolution and creation go hand and hand... not the christian point of view of creation, but some form of it. you can't make something from nothing, but evolution is just exactly what life is. we see it and live it every day. the bible was written for nothing more than for people to rationalize the unexplained (death). if the roman empire never crumbled we would all still be worshiping the emperor and the GODS. :goodjob:

[{X}Echo419]

did i EVER say it was questioning YOUR faith? NO

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say you did.

[{X}Echo419]

people have to be vague NOW just to comprehend the bible. science is tearing it apart

not true. science still can't explain the Creation of the Universe. sorry but a void of absolute nothing exploding and becoming the Uni-fucking-verse dosen't sound very plausable :king:

[quickdodge®]

not true. science still can't explain the Creation of the Universe. sorry but a void of absolute nothing exploding and becoming the Uni-fucking-verse dosen't sound very plausable :king:

For once, with you, I agree.

But at the same time, how pausible does it seem that an unseen, being/spirit, being God, just says, "Let it be." And it is. Ya know. Later, QD.

[metalman]

Nah. If anything, it would be the same amount of faith. Later, QD.

You are entitled to your opinion of course.
But your answer indicates clearly you havent studied much into the subject. ;)

Later,
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

^^^ Yeah. I can tell through all those words below that I don't know anything abou this.


Nah. If anything, it would be the same amount of faith. Later, QD.

Just as much as scientists or whomever believes that science is behind everything believe they are right, so do Christians. GO to a church and tell a goer that God doesn't exist. That person will go apeshit. You're a goddamn idiot if you think otherwise and if you think by your quote of me lets you know who I am and what I know. You're probably Christian, yourself. Right? Later, QD.

[metalman]

^^^ Yeah. I can tell through all those words below that I don't know anything abou this.



Just as much as scientists or whomever believes that science is behind everything believe they are right, so do Christians. GO to a church and tell a goer that God doesn't exist. That person will go apeshit. You're a goddamn idiot if you think otherwise and if you think by your quote of me lets you know who I am and what I know. You're probably Christian, yourself. Right? Later, QD.

No I am not an idiot. And I can read english too.
Youre statement was that BOTH beliefs require the same amount of faith.
That statement clearly tells me you havent studied the subject, thats all.
Later,
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

No I am not an idiot.

As you stated, you are entitled to your opinion.


And I can read english too.

Nice. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this topic.


Youre statement was that BOTH beliefs require the same amount of faith.

Here is where you fuck up. I never stated that they require the same amount of anything.


That statement clearly tells me you havent studied the subject, thats all.

Which leads back to my initial reply to your reply to me that you can't really tell anything from my post. Later, QD.

[metalman]

Obviously understanding english isnt your forte.


Nah. If anything, it would be the same amount of faith. Later, QD.

Is your exact quote. First you preface your apparantly staunch opinion with the word "IF" which implies you don't even know. Then you follow up with saying the amount of faith would be the same.

This implies clearly you DONT KNOW and HAVENT STUDIED. Thats all.

You then resort to roundabout name calling and insinuations about me. Both of those are typical responses of someone who cannot intelligently address the topic, in this case creation vs. evolution, to begin with.

Later,
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

Obviously understanding english isnt your forte.

Actually, never going under a 4.0 GPA in all years of school, including college, I would have to differ with your insinuation.


Is your exact quote.

A+ for QUOTING 101


First you preface your apparantly staunch opinion

Says someone of your calibur?


with the word "IF" which implies you don't even know.

And you do know? Do you know for certain that the faiths are the same, feeling-wise? I certainly doubt it. You type up on here giving off the impression that you're smarter than others, but I don't think you're really that much smarter than Google.


This implies clearly you DONT KNOW and HAVENT STUDIED. Thats all.

It really implies that scientists do NOT have "wayyyyyy more faith then any christian or group of christians." It implies that they have no more or less faith than any "Christian or group of Christians."


You then resort to roundabout name calling and insinuations about me.

It wasn't "roundabout." It was direct. I was really calling you a goddamn idiot. If you don't like being insinuated upon, don't do any insinuating yourself.


Both of those are typical responses of someone who cannot intelligently address the topic,

Which is why you are still in this conversation. I came in with an opinion and you tried to belittle me because of it instead of just stating that it was my opinion and leaving it at that. Maybe you should think about that. Hmmm. Your posts lead me more and more to think that you are, indeed, a Christian. Later, QD.

[metalman]

QD, No one tried to belittle you. I only pointed out the obvious.
I stand by that remark.
I see also that you don't like anyone to challenge you on your opinions and you lash out at them. Thats too bad. It may be okay for getting a 4.0 grade average but doesnt lend itself to real learning.
Maybe some time we could hear your brainpower on some of the science issues I already mentioned. When you get done with those I have a bunch more for you. I am always ready to learn.

Later,
Metalman

[{X}Echo419]

o God here we go again

[quickdodge®]

QD, No one tried to belittle you. I only pointed out the obvious.

Hmmm. And the ugly Ironic Monster rears it's head.


I stand by that remark.

As I shall stand, proudly, by mine. But without a Bible in hand.


I see also that you don't like anyone to challenge you on your opinions and you lash out at them.

Notice, if you will/can, that I only "lash out" when I am lashed at.


Thats too bad. It may be okay for getting a 4.0 grade average but doesnt lend itself to real learning.

As it does in most circumstances, insinuations lead to wrongful assumptions of (in this case) people. Especially ones you don't know or never met. Real learning? You mean "out in real life" learning? I don't know your age.....HEY! Maybe I should say "if" in this instance.....but I do know that I am 36 years old and have seen things I imagine you have not. I have quite a bit of knowledge, classroom and street/life in my brain.


I am always ready to learn.

Maybe you should learn that "insinuations" aren't always what you want them to be. Later, QD.

[metalman]

You mean "out in real life" learning? I don't know your age.....HEY! Maybe I should say "if" in this instance.....but I do know that I am 36 years old and have seen things I imagine you have not. I have quite a bit of knowledge, classroom and street/life in my brain.



Awesome. I am quite a bit older then you. Having lived longer then you I have also seen things you probably havent and probably studied things you probably havent. So then, what does that prove?
Nothing really. It just brings us back to the point...you have offered nothing to refute my position that you haven't really studied the creation science OR the evolutionary science to much extent. Instead you have attacked me and simply offered up what appears to be a firm opinion of yours.

I have no problem with you having an opinion or that it differs from mine.
I do challenge the notion that anyone should hold such a firm opinion without studying the subject matter....which I have and continue to do.

Furthermore I have raised a couple scientific issues which you have in no way addressed. And there are a bunch more. Thats cool, most people no nothing about them. I was in the same boat myself UNTIL I did some research and study...and, even now my knowlege on the subjects could be classified as "limited". But, I do know what I have studied thus far. And I do know that it poses real problems to evolutionist theory and I can honestly say "it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution then it does creation"....even though I agree creation does take a certain measure of faith.

Later,
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

Awesome. I am quite a bit older then you. Having lived longer then you I have also seen things you probably havent and probably studied things you probably havent. So then, what does that prove?

Well, it did prove that you assumed things you probably shouldn't have and that I did the exact opposite by not assuming things, like your age. Actually, I did assume you were a lot younger than me, but I sisn't post because I didn't know. And being at your age, whatever that is, I'm sure you do have more knowledge on some things as I'm sure I have over you.


..you have offered nothing to refute my position that you haven't really studied the creation science OR the evolutionary science to much extent.

I'm still trying to get around you attacking my opinion.


Instead you have attacked me and simply offered up what appears to be a firm opinion of yours.

I didn't attack as much as I retailated.


I have no problem with you having an opinion or that it differs from mine.

Same here.


I do challenge the notion that anyone should hold such a firm opinion without studying the subject matter....

It doesn't take a lot of brains to make an opinion on who has more faith out of the two. There has to be a LOT of faith to beleive that a spirit created everything just as there has to be probably an equal amount for scientists to beleive that it was evolution. Hail. For all everyone knows, the dating process they use could be totally wrong. Ya know.


Furthermore I have raised a couple scientific issues which you have in no way addressed.

I haven't looked at most of them. I thought of this subject and asked about people's opinions. Nothing more/nothing less.


Thats cool, most people no nothing about them.

I have faith that this word is supposed to be know.


I was in the same boat myself UNTIL I did some research and study..

I'm not in any boat. Just because I don't choose to learn about religion, doesn't classify me in any way.


.and, even now my knowlege on the subjects could be classified as "limited".

I understand that. I'm sure that most of the stuff I know, I don't know near the whole of.


"it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution then it does creation"..

I feel almost opposite on you on that.


..even though I agree creation does take a certain measure of faith.

Yessir.

Later, QD.

[metalman]

It doesn't take a lot of brains to make an opinion on who has more faith out of the two. There has to be a LOT of faith to beleive that a spirit created everything just as there has to be probably an equal amount for scientists to beleive that it was evolution. Hail. For all everyone knows, the dating process they use could be totally wrong. Ya know.



I haven't looked at most of them. I thought of this subject and asked about people's opinions. Nothing more/nothing less.





I'm not in any boat. Just because I don't choose to learn about religion, doesn't classify me in any way.





First I am glad we settled that, indeed it was as I suspected, you havent studied the subject much. Nothing unusual...youre typical of most people in this specific sense. No shame or insult infered.

Secondly, it isnt about any specific religion. If you want to disbelieve most of what preachers/priests/rabbis/religions etc say I am already there dude. They tell a ton of lies! However that doesnt change the truth from being what it is one bit. Its for us to discover/learn what THAT truth may be.

The items I have mentioned are not "religious" in nature, theyre scientific. The problem is this...they completely destroy evolutionary theory's cornerstones. Yet they (and other scienctific discoveries) are in complete harmony with a "creator" or "Intelligent design". Therein lies the problem for evolutionary theory. Therein lies the reason I say it takes more faith to believe evolution. The rolex watch scenario I gave is actually MORE plausible then evolution given these facts, yet is in fact basiclly what evolutionists would have us all believe, only they even wish for us to believe this origin in in more detail, on multiple levels, multiple species. The complexity of the human body alone with its delicate balance of electrochemical systems came about by accident? Over time???? Just by pieces bumping together?? Talk about a high faith belief!

You know what the REAL issue is for creation vs. evolution I suspect??? Man does NOT wish to believe in a judgement or accountibility for his actions. If man accepts even a hint of creation he then is faced with at least the possibilty of judgement, heaven, hell etc etc etc and all of that. I think thats possibly the greatest influence to mankind when considering the origin of the world/universe etc. We just don't want to be accountable in any eternal sense.

Anyway...nice chattin with ya. Gotta go work on a car.
Metalman

[quickdodge®]

indeed it was as I suspected, you havent studied the subject much.

I never said I had studied it.


...youre typical of most people in this specific sense. No shame or insult infered.

If it wasn't an insult, indulge me in the context to which you posted this. Cool chatting with you, as well. Later, QD.

[metalman]

If it wasn't an insult, indulge me in the context to which you posted this. Cool chatting with you, as well. Later, QD.

That being that I mean no insult in pointing out (what my original comment pertained to) that you havent studied creation/evolution science much. Its not intended to infer that youre stupid, unable to learn or anything of that nature. Neither should it be considered a personal attack. As I recall youre the one calling me names...not vice versa. Thats cool, I've been called worse. ;)

[ISAtlanta300]

all right, all right guys.... LOL both of you are cool peeps... let's get back on topic, shall we? :)

[b@d @pple]

i like dinosaurs...fuck the bible

[sina518]

i like dinosaurs...fuck the bible


:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

[b@d @pple]

sina dont be mad that i invited that little hooker to daytona..i just wanna get her naked and drunk

[sina518]

sina dont be mad that i invited that little hooker to daytona..i just wanna get her naked and drunk



im just worried shes gonna annoy the hell out of you and were gonna end up leaving her in daytona

[Kelly]

Just a (probably common) question for the evolutionists...

If we "evolved" from monkeys or whatever... Why aren't we still evolving?

[quickdodge®]

^^^ How does one know we aren't still evolving? Remember. Theory is that it took millions of years to evolve. Later, QD.

[Kelly]

^^^ Eh, doubt it. Anyways, your sig link doesn't work. Not for me at least.

[quickdodge®]

Doubt what? Later, QD.

[Kelly]

That we evolved. Just my opinion.

[quickdodge®]

Just my opinion.

Ummm. Exactly. Those last two posts of yours made completely no sense. Well, the first one did, but then you went somewhere. Later, QD.

[Kelly]

How did it not make sense? I just said that I "doubted" the fact that we evolved. It just seems ridiculous. And you think that it seems ridiculous that we were created by God. It's our own opinions...

[quickdodge®]

And you think that it seems ridiculous that we were created by God. .


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/quickdodge/jump.jpg

You'll need to quote me on that.

You asked if we evolved, why aren't we still evolving. I answered that it took millions of years (in theory) to evolve. That just because we won't see it in our life, doesn't mean we aren't. If evolution is where we came from, I doubt that Senior Rico Cavecrawler was a humpbacked, hairy caveman one evening and then after going to bed, woke up a sophisticated, well-groomed, proper-statured young lad. Later, QD.

[{X}Echo419]

maybe adapting is a better word

[Hulud]

How did it not make sense? I just said that I "doubted" the fact that we evolved. It just seems ridiculous. And you think that it seems ridiculous that we were created by God. It's our own opinions...
WOW
it seems ridiculous that we evolved?????

never heard that one before


so i guess since we never evolved we never learned how to make cars, planes etc. you would need some form of evolution to learn how to use these things

[metalman]

so i guess since we never evolved we never learned how to make cars, planes etc. you would need some form of evolution to learn how to use these things

There are two types of evolution.

One can be characterized as changes within a specie or lifeform, such as a flower changing color, or an animal developing a longer nose, or man developing a skill or knowlege etc

The other involves a flower becoming a squirrel, "nothing" becoming a monkey and then ultimately a complex human being etc.

The first does exist, we see it in various species of plants, animals etc...we could also call it adaptation. The second is a far fetched theory for which there is no real proof.

[{X}Echo419]

There are two types of evolution.

One can be characterized as changes within a specie or lifeform, such as a flower changing color, or an animal developing a longer nose, or man developing a skill or knowlege etc

The other involves a flower becoming a squirrel, "nothing" becoming a monkey and then ultimately a complex human being etc.

The first does exist, we see it in various species of plants, animals etc...we could also call it adaptation. The second is a far fetched theory for which there is no real proof.


maybe adapting is a better word
^like I said^ :cool:

[Kelly]

Thank you metalman. I agree, adapting IS in fact, a better word.

That's what I meant when I said that. Not mankind learning how to make cars, etc... Or a rabbit whose fur has changed to white to camoflauge itsself in the snow...

I'm talking about an ape turning into a human.

[4dmin]

There are two types of evolution.

One can be characterized as changes within a specie or lifeform, such as a flower changing color, or an animal developing a longer nose, or man developing a skill or knowlege etc

The other involves a flower becoming a squirrel, "nothing" becoming a monkey and then ultimately a complex human being etc.

The first does exist, we see it in various species of plants, animals etc...we could also call it adaptation. The second is a far fetched theory for which there is no real proof.

how can you say there is not proof of evolution? what do you call child birth? butterfly? frogs changing sex? cloning?

[quickdodge®]

how can you say there is not proof of evolution? what do you call child birth? butterfly? frogs changing sex? cloning?

Good point. Later, QD.

[metalman]

how can you say there is not proof of evolution? what do you call child birth? butterfly? frogs changing sex? cloning?

See above...

One (type of evolution) can be characterized as changes within a specie or lifeform, such as a flower changing color, or an animal developing a longer nose, or man developing a skill or knowlege etc

The things you mention have only occur within a set parameter within a species, AND in the case of childbirth one could make an excellent case for creation. Nothing that miraculous and delicate comes about by accident. Its even named after creation. And human babies come from other humans, not monkeys, frogs, or ferns.

There is no proof for man coming from "nothing" or a plant changing to animal etc.

[quickdodge®]

There is no proof for man coming from "nothing" or a plant changing to animal etc.

I agree with you, from my knowledge. But, not to upset you(?), but there is no definitive proof that we came from God's image either. There's no set proof of where we came from, on either side. I find both sides fascinating as hail, though, lolol. Later, QD.

[quickdodge®]

And you think that it seems ridiculous that we were created by God. It's our own opinions...

I still want to see this answered to. This chick just side-stepped the shit out of this. Later, QD.

[4dmin]

See above...


The things you mention have only occur within a set parameter within a species, AND in the case of childbirth one could make an excellent case for creation. Nothing that miraculous and delicate comes about by accident. Its even named after creation. And human babies come from other humans, not monkeys, frogs, or ferns.

There is no proof for man coming from "nothing" or a plant changing to animal etc.

no but man evolves from a single sperm into man... the sperm is created from single cell so isn't that the basis of what evolution is about? granted i'm not discounting the fact of some intervention of a higher power, but you can't discount the simple process for what it is.

i believe that creation/evolution goes hand and hand. some intervention is needed to explain the holes in evolution theory, but i don't think that creation can explain everything, b/c to believe in just creation is to believe that life itself is predestined.

[metalman]

no but man evolves from a single sperm into man... the sperm is created from single cell so isn't that the basis of what evolution is about? granted i'm not discounting the fact of some intervention of a higher power, but you can't discount the simple process for what it is.

i believe that creation/evolution goes hand and hand. some intervention is needed to explain the holes in evolution theory, but i don't think that creation can explain everything, b/c to believe in just creation is to believe that life itself is predestined.

How do you get predestination from creation? Please explain.

The miracle of the procreation is only reproduction within a specie, not "evolution" that entails changing into another lifeform. Its a huge jump from human reproduction to mankind evolving from slime/monkeys etc.
As I stated, the miraculous delicate nature of human reproduction is more evidence of Creation by a God then evolution.

[quickdodge®]

As I stated, the miraculous delicate nature of human reproduction is more evidence of Creation by a God then evolution.

I apologize but I didn't see it. Can you tell me what evidence is there for Creation by a God? Again, I'm not debating you or attacking you...just asking because I don't know. Later, QD.

[4dmin]

How do you get predestination from creation? Please explain.

The miracle of the procreation is only reproduction within a specie, not "evolution" that entails changing into another lifeform. Its a huge jump from human reproduction to mankind evolving from slime/monkeys etc.
As I stated, the miraculous delicate nature of human reproduction is more evidence of Creation by a God then evolution.

if you believe in just creation then you can't believe in evolution b/c everything is the way it is b/c of its creator... kinda defeats the point of life, life is predestined for what it is created for. there is no purpose.

i still disagree, humans are formed from single cells that is what the basis of evolution speaks of everything is made up of. i don't see that to be any different. we can grow you in a test tube what do you call that?

[metalman]

I apologize but I didn't see it. Can you tell me what evidence is there for Creation by a God? Again, I'm not debating you or attacking you...just asking because I don't know. Later, QD.

You ask for proof of creation...where is the proof for evolution? It is only a theory.


The evidence for Intelligent design, or creation by God is all around us.
Our world contains billions of systems and subsystems which are all balanced (except where man has screwed them up) and work in harmony. I am expected to believe this perfect balance all came about by accident?? Chance? Just the overwhelming detail alone would cause me to seriously doubt that. Please refer back up to my Rolex watch theory. That is what evolutionists would have me believe...only MUCH more detailed and far fetched.

Study of the human body will show that even that multiple/hundreds perhaps thousands of systems and subsystems. Our life is very delicate. Much too much so for it to be accidental, not to mention the procreation man particpates in, which itself is miraculous in nature and is repeated throughout all the mammals and other species as well. Thats just a couple things for starters.

[quickdodge®]

You ask for proof of creation...where is the proof for evolution?

Here, below, was a comment I made just a little bit ago:


There's no set proof of where we came from, on either side. I find both sides fascinating as hail, though, lolol. Later, QD.

As you can see, I stated that there isn't proof of either side. I'm not siding with one or the other. You see? I'm just reading, asking and learning. Later, QD.

[metalman]

if you believe in just creation then you can't believe in evolution b/c everything is the way it is b/c of its creator... kinda defeats the point of life, life is predestined for what it is created for. there is no purpose.

Ahhh this is where you are incorrect. There is a purpose. Because you may have not figured out what it is doesnt mean there isnt. ;)
Man invokes choice in his life each and everyday. Man was created to live forever but his choices dictated to following generations that would not be so. If youre saying we are "predestined" to live about 100 yrs give or take, youre correct at this point. Thats in the Bible too.


i still disagree, humans are formed from single cells that is what the basis of evolution speaks of everything is made up of. i don't see that to be any different. we can grow you in a test tube what do you call that?

Let me see, can you make a human from nothing...or from mud, or even a chimp?
Can't be done UNLESS you have a human CELL to start with.
Like I said, believe what you wish but its a HUGE leap of faith to assume since man PROCREATES HIMSELF from a cell to mankind evolves from NOTHING.

[metalman]

Here, below, was a comment I made just a little bit ago:



As you can see, I stated that there isn't proof of either side. I'm not siding with one or the other. You see? I'm just reading, asking and learning. Later, QD.

I would put it this way, the proof of creation is all around us, its there for the discerning human eye. The proof of man evolving from nothing is non existent. ;) But youre at least half right.... :D

[quickdodge®]

I would put it this way, the proof of creation is all around us, its there for the discerning human eye.

So, If I choose to see it, it is? I mean, I don't get it. I look outside and see trees and sky and shit like that and it's all God's doing? I mean it sounds cool and all and I don't have a problem believing that, but how is it definitive proof that He did it? There's no receipts, nothing tangible like a signature from Him saying He did it. Later, QD.

[4dmin]

Ahhh this is where you are incorrect. There is a purpose. Because you may have not figured out what it is doesnt mean there isnt. ;)
Man invokes choice in his life each and everyday. Man was created to live forever but his choices dictated to following generations that would not be so. If youre saying we are "predestined" to live about 100 yrs give or take, youre correct at this point. Thats in the Bible too.



Let me see, can you make a human from nothing...or from mud, or even a chimp?
Can't be done UNLESS you have a human CELL to start with.
Like I said, believe what you wish but its a HUGE leap of faith to assume since man PROCREATES HIMSELF from a cell to mankind evolves from NOTHING.

ok explain purpose of life since you have it figured out? seriously, sounds like you believe this is nothing more than a game and we are pons and your using the bible for your basis of thought... that in itself if funny.

funny you use the word FAITH when speaking of evolution; that is what you are basing your Creation Theory on. what is the difference?

well in evolution a single cell is the smallest form of life, so yes it is possibly that man could evolve from a chimp considering the dna is very similar; who says it can't be done? just b/c it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't. we can clone humans/animals, why don't evolve chimp dna into a man?

and since your so hell bent on disproving evolution, please show me right now how creation is creating a human... it is far more in the hands of evolution than GOD.

[metalman]

ok explain purpose of life since you have it figured out? seriously, sounds like you believe this is nothing more than a game and we are pons and your using the bible for your basis of thought... that in itself if funny.


People almost always laugh at what they don't understand.
I don't think this is a game either.
If you come to a greater understanding of whats going on in the big picture regarding good and evil the creation of earth and subsequent human events make alot of sense. If thats not something familiar to you then its not hard for me to understand why you'd laugh.


funny you use the word FAITH when speaking of evolution; that is what you are basing your Creation Theory on. what is the difference?

I have already explained it several times in several ways. What are you basing your belief in evolution on? So far I hear nothing...which is about right given thats amount of available proof for it. ;)



well in evolution a single cell is the smallest form of life, so yes it is possibly that man could evolve from a chimp considering the dna is very similar; who says it can't be done? just b/c it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't. we can clone humans/animals, why don't evolve chimp dna into a man?

Talk about faith! LOL Again NO PROOF!!! Just a theory.
Unlike the complex systems which are all around us, which comprise us, which are PROOF of some sort of intelligent design.


and since your so hell bent on disproving evolution, please show me right now how creation is creating a human... it is far more in the hands of evolution than GOD.

Already explained this one too....and I am not hell bent on anything. I am only calling to attention the lack of proof for evolution and what nonsense it is if one actually thinks about it, logically, or otherwise. Ya know...the empty box turns into Rolex watch theory.

Everytime we humans proCREATE we take part in creation...if but in a small way. The fact we all have a concience is proof of something...and thats damn sure not evolution. No specie needs a concience to survive. Animals prove this each day. In evolutionary theory the strongest survive...not the kindest. Humans are the only specie with a concience....which makes perfect sense IF you subscribe to creation.

I might ask, what is the real objection to creation if neither is truly "unprovable"? You know what I think it is? Accountability. Man doesnt want it. Man really doesnt want to reconcile his thinking to any concept of punishment or reward or anything of that nature. He prefers the predestination of evolution...which offers nothing more then eventual extinction to make way for another lifeform....death.....if man is evolved his future is indeed predestined....he has no choice but to follow that destiny. If there is a God, then there is choice, AND there is oh so much more then evolution offers. Just something to think about.

[4dmin]

People almost always laugh at what they don't understand.
I don't think this is a game either.
If you come to a greater understanding of whats going on in the big picture regarding good and evil the creation of earth and subsequent human events make alot of sense. If thats not something familiar to you then its not hard for me to understand why you'd laugh.



I have already explained it several times in several ways. What are you basing your belief in evolution on? So far I hear nothing...which is about right given thats amount of available proof for it. ;)




Talk about faith! LOL Again NO PROOF!!! Just a theory.
Unlike the complex systems which are all around us, which comprise us, which are PROOF of some sort of intelligent design.



Already explained this one too....and I am not hell bent on anything. I am only calling to attention the lack of proof for evolution and what nonsense it is if one actually thinks about it, logically, or otherwise. Ya know...the empty box turns into Rolex watch theory.

Everytime we humans proCREATE we take part in creation...if but in a small way. The fact we all have a concience is proof of something...and thats damn sure not evolution. No specie needs a concience to survive. Animals prove this each day. In evolutionary theory the strongest survive...not the kindest. Humans are the only specie with a concience....which makes perfect sense IF you subscribe to creation.

I might ask, what is the real objection to creation if neither is truly "unprovable"? You know what I think it is? Accountability. Man doesnt want it. Man really doesnt want to reconcile his thinking to any concept of punishment or reward or anything of that nature. He prefers the predestination of evolution...which offers nothing more then eventual extinction to make way for another lifeform....death.....if man is evolved his future is indeed predestined....he has no choice but to follow that destiny. If there is a God, then there is choice, AND there is oh so much more then evolution offers. Just something to think about.

i gave you a few examples of evolution, any birth(child/whatever), butteryfly, sex changing frogs, & cloning... all examples of. that is what i'm basing my support for evolution.

you said we as humans breeding is creation? how are we creating something from nothing? we aren't we are merely taking single cells and they are evolving inside a womb into a fetus which will grow into a man. if it was any other way then pregnacy would be no issue or work.

i don't have any objections to creation other then thinking that is the only way of thinking... i believe the cycle must be started by creation but after that evolution is the form of which life will sustain. if that is incorrect then why are we not all asexual?

[b@d @pple]

i gave you a few examples of evolution, any birth(child/whatever), butteryfly, sex changing frogs, & cloning... all examples of. that is what i'm basing my support for evolution.

you said we as humans breeding is creation? how are we creating something from nothing? we aren't we are merely taking single cells and they are evolving inside a womb into a fetus which will grow into a man. if it was any other way then pregnacy would be no issue or work.

i don't have any objections to creation other then thinking that is the only way of thinking... i believe the cycle must be started by creation but after that evolution is the form of which life will sustain. if that is incorrect then why are we not all asexual?

werd ,,,reps nigga

[metalman]

i gave you a few examples of evolution, any birth(child/whatever), butteryfly, sex changing frogs, & cloning... all examples of. that is what i'm basing my support for evolution.


That kind of "evolution" is COMPLETELY different then the type where MANKIND COMES FROM NOTHING! So...again...no proof my friend. :)
If thats your 'support' its extremely weak indeed.

[metalman]

i don't have any objections to creation other then thinking that is the only way of thinking... i believe the cycle must be started by creation but after that evolution is the form of which life will sustain. if that is incorrect then why are we not all asexual?

The "cyle"?? What cylce? Life? The earth? Human life?
If so, yes I agree...human life was created then we adapted to our enviroment. This type of "evolutuon" has its limits. Mankind doesnt evolve from nothing and plants dont become mammals.

If I moved to the desert of arabia its fair to say that in time my decendants would develop darker skin and wider nostrils due to the climate BUT they will NEVER turn into camels. ;)

Thats the difference in one kind of evolution and the BIG one many would have us believe.

[4dmin]

That kind of "evolution" is COMPLETELY different then the type where MANKIND COMES FROM NOTHING! So...again...no proof my friend. :)
If thats your 'support' its extremely weak indeed.

evolution is evolution... the basis is evolve from single cell organisms...

humans breeding is such that, it is far from creation.

creation = something from nothing; if that is true then there is no need for breeding we would be asexual

evolution is taking a single cell and evolving it into a man

you still haven't answered me on... if creation exsist why is there breeding? why aren't we asexual? there is no need for breeding if creation exsist, we all could be the virgin mary.

[metalman]

Even Darwin admitted....

"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record."

[4dmin]

Even Darwin admitted....

"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record."

ok.

you still haven't answered me about asexual. here is a diagram for life of a frog... this i guess is what you would call creation? please explain to me where the creation is in this on a daily process?

http://www.ipcc.ie/lifecycle.jpeg

[metalman]

ok.

you still haven't answered me about asexual. here is a diagram for life of a frog... this i guess is what you would call creation? please explain to me where the creation is in this on a daily process?

http://www.ipcc.ie/lifecycle.jpeg

Youve shown the answer to your own question.
The only purpose to any of that is to make MORE frogs of the same kind....which is the purpose of proCREATION.
There is no evolution in the major sense. Adaptation to preserve SAME species? Yes.
Change to make NEW species? NOPE!

[metalman]

Perhaps you'd (or anyone) care to explain one....

The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels of earth that has any fossils in it. All strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. WHY?????
Bacteria suddenly turned into animals???????
The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. The real question is: Where are their ancestors????

If all life came about suddenly then....hmmmmmmmm....not evolution. Even Darwin knew this was a huge problem to the theory.... He said..."To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST the views here entertained" (evolution)

[4dmin]

Youve shown the answer to your own question.
The only purpose to any of that is to make MORE frogs of the same kind....which is the purpose of proCREATION.
There is no evolution in the major sense. Adaptation to preserve SAME species? Yes.
Change to make NEW species? NOPE!

WTF are we looking at the same pic? i certainly see single cell evole into a full blown adult frog :thinking:

what is it adapting to? single cell can remain single cell, but it doesn't it grows a tail, from a tail to legs, to no tail... the enviroment is the same. and adaptation is a form of evolution.

[metalman]

where did the cell come from??????? a frog!!!
youre really not that dense are you? :D

[4dmin]

where did the cell come from??????? a frog!!!
youre really not that dense are you? :D

GOD? :lmfao: you got to be kidding me... of course a frog, how do you think the cycle of life works, how do you think you were made?

let me guess GOD came down and banged your mom and she woke up pregnant?


fine your still disputing evolution exsist explain WHAT IS A MULE?

[metalman]

GOD? :lmfao: you got to be kidding me... of course a frog, how do you think the cycle of life works, how do you think you were made?

let me guess GOD came down and banged your mom and she woke up pregnant?


fine your still disputing evolution exsist explain WHAT IS A MULE?

Have you carefully read my answers in this forum?? :)


I have already acknowledged THAT type of "evolution". Its the "man came from monkeys, which came from NOTHING" which I dispute. There is NO PROOF for that type in terms of ORIGIN OF MAN. There is NOT ONE example of ANY specie ever becoming another. There is no fern becoming a frog.

You confuse micro-evolution (adaptation, crossbreeding etc)with macro-evolution (orgins of life from nothing) There is no doubt frogs make frogs, people make people, sheep make sheep, elephants make elephants etc etc etc.....in addition we know that crossbreeding of many specie is possible. (MULES etc) We also know that if you put a man in the desert for centuries he will develop darker skin and larger nostrils BUT he will never become a scorpion!

However, to jump from THAT to a theory that maintains man came from NOTHING, remember... "The rolex from empty box theory" is a leap of immense faith based on NO PROOF. ;)

In fact the fossil proof indicates life SUDDENLY appeared. NOT gradually. ;)

[4dmin]

However, to jump from THAT to a theory that maintains man came from NOTHING, remember... "The rolex from empty box theory" is a leap of immense faith based on NO PROOF. ;)

In fact the fossil proof indicates life SUDDENLY appeared. NOT gradually. ;)

you keep trying to put words in my mouth that i disagree that man came from nothing, i stated the cycle starts w/ creation, but you are trying to complicate the fact tha evolution exsist. i don't give a shit if its adaptation, macro, micro, its still evolution at work... you can call an apple an orange but its still and apple. :goodjob:

[metalman]

you keep trying to put words in my mouth that i disagree that man came from nothing, i stated the cycle starts w/ creation, but you are trying to complicate the fact tha evolution exsist. i don't give a shit if its adaptation, macro, micro, its still evolution at work... you can call an apple an orange but its still and apple. :goodjob:

Yes indeed what you described can be called "evolution" but not in the larger sense in terms of what "science" tends to teach and mankind tends to accept.

Here's the issue that I was discussing....frogs come from frogs, whether it require a single frog or two is beside the point. Evolution in its largest sense the theory that the first frog came from nothing OR another lifeform.
That theory HAS NO PROOF, on the contrary, the proof would indicate instant creation by intellligent design, ORIGIN of life by creation of a God or super intelligent being far surpasing anything known in humans.

Somewhere along the line I guess you mistook the objection I have to this ultimate theory of evolution, which is the very heart and soul of it, for something else.

I glad you concur that LIFE started by creation, that is certainly what makes the most sense to me given the evidence. I might add...so far the evidence does not contradict the Bible account of creation. In particular the fossil record is in complete harmony with that account. ;)

[ISAtlanta300]

I believe that what Metalman is referring to with evolution is for example, mokeys banging each other and one day a human thinking baby plops out. Or the notion that Dolphins grew legs and started walking on land and became dogs. Thus evolving into something else. By that definition you believe that humans "evolved" from Animals, which are two different species.

That is the "hard to believe part". A cat is a cat, and was a cat thousand of years ago (Egypt times). A wolf is a wolf and is still one from tens of thousand of years ago. A fish is a fish still from millions of years ago. A cat did not become a dog. A wolf did not become a bird. And a monkey did not become a man.

What is more, how come we had to evolve from a monkey? I know of better candidates (smarter animals) for our "evolution", with a more advanced brain and of a higher intelligence, like dolphins, or a pig. Surely these animals would be talking to us by now, if they were evolving?

[David88vert]

Damn, I see this and it has already eroded from dinosuars to evolution!

Back to the original topic: Dinosaurs.

In the book of Job, it talks of the behemoth with a tail like a cedar. Cedars are huge trees in the Lebanon area. They are many times larger than an elephant or giraffes tail. In fact, there is no animal alive on earth today that could be mistake for having a tail like a cedar. Job is generally recognized as the oldest written book of the Bible. Job would not have had the scientific capabilites that we have today, so he would have had to observe it. The behemoth ate grass, and had large haunches, and a big belly. Sounds like a dinosaur to me.
It also speaks of a leviathan, that man cannot fish with hooks or spears. This creature has scales, like a reptile. This creature is more in line with an ancient dragon, but swims in the ocean, rather than flies, and there is no mention of wings.

Outside of the Bible, there is another compelling piece of physical evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together, but evolutionists remain quiet on this. It does not fit into the grand scheme that dinosuars died 1 million years or more before the first cavemen.
Do a little research on the Ica Stones. My question for you, "How could an ancient Peruvian civilization known what dinosaurs were if dinosaurs died out millions of years before them?".

[{X}Echo419]

^good point^


WTF are we looking at the same pic? i certainly see single cell evole into a full blown adult frog :thinking:

what is it adapting to? single cell can remain single cell, but it doesn't it grows a tail, from a tail to legs, to no tail... the enviroment is the same. and adaptation is a form of evolution.

the frog didn't evolve "from" a single cell organism. the frogs got busy and a baby frog "GREW".
I didn't evolve from a 8lbs baby to and adult I(just an example we all did...well most of us) GREW.
go shit in 1 hand and wait for a univerxe to bang into exsistence in the other and we'll see which 1 gets full 1st

[David88vert]

fine your still disputing evolution exsist explain WHAT IS A MULE?

BTW - a mule is a terrible way to try to prove evolution. Mules are sterile. It is a mating of a horse and a donkey.

HorseA + HorseB = HorseC
HorseC + HorseD = HorseE

DonkeyA + DonkeyB = DonkeyC
DonkeyC + DonkeyD = DonkeyE

HorseA + DonkeyA = MuleA (sterile hybrid)
HorseB + DonkeyB = MuleB (sterile hybrid)
MuleA + MuleB != MuleC (no evolution of a new species)

[Z33_kid]

hmmm