Creation Vs Evolution

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i think it would be awesome
i'd take it (and probably fail or get completely lost for the first couple of classes)

actually it would go really good for debating aswell

Mhm.

But fail? Naw. It wouldn't be that hard. Probably just a collages of knowledge.

really?
learning

Yep. And it'd be stuff you could actually use!

then i'd be all over that course

i want to take that course!

Tell people.

Get the word out.

oh k

also for creation
humans have no natural predators.
Every other animal does except humans
now explain that evolutionists

Technically anything that could possibly eat us can be considered a natural predator. Leopards hunted humans in the past. We have technology and brick houses which prevent the things which would eat us given the chance from having that chance.

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Love the avatar Titan ^_^

And hear is his point. There is no fossil evidence, none, ever found for proving that we evolved. If there was some evidence we'd end this here and now, but Evolutionists, have been searching for 150 years and haven't claimed a single fossil.

Furthermore, not only is there no fossils, but there is no intermediary species available. An intermediary species is one in the imbetween stages of Evolution. There should be trillions. Think of it this way, there are billions of different organisms on Earth, right? So each species needs at least 5 (And I am being so lenient it's not even funny) intermediary species to complete itself into a new organism. But the problem is we can't find a single one. All organisms are full, and not only perfectly functioning, but perfectly fit for the environment they find.

Here's an example of the environment problem. When we add new animals to an ecosystem the entire ecosystem changes, and many animals can go extinct. But why? Shouldn't some of these animals start evolving? You say, no Q! They don't have enough time to evolve, but I answer back, doesn't each animal evolve at different times, how then was it possible for each environment to be perfect before the new animals arrived, when there is supposedly always new animals arriving?

The Ugly Cat? Thank you ^_^
I appreciate you explaining. I guess scientists have been searching fossil evidence for years so it could point to the changes of evolution. The ancient eras were named by major changes in the types of fossils found in the rocks deposited
in those time frames. Now the overall collection of orgnaism stuff found in the rocks of a given age is recognizably different from the collection of stuff
found in the rocks above and below.
Simply put, this could prove fossil evidence for evolution bu just looking at these diverse changes over time, you see.

I had been thinking a lot about what you said and I realize if not one transitional species was found-then what?

Species must appear and disappear abruptly and fast like snap…!
It made me wonder, wouldn't that blow gradualism out the window,
I don't know, I never knew that could be a weak spot to the Evolution theory, it startles me to the point of being scary.

To call everyting perfect, in my opinion, is a bit of an overstatement because many a species have had to adapt to their environment, grow stronger through natural selection, and only then live on and truly "arrive". Then throught this process, they either die out (extinction) or they evolve.
Survival of the fittest, what can old Titan say?

then shouldn't the animals have evolve to break our defences?
Besides, you don't see people getting eaten left and right in afrieca or other places with less technology

and also techology doesn't mean we evolved. If anything we inovated but thats a different story adn debat

Titaniumxvx wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Love the avatar Titan ^_^

And hear is his point. There is no fossil evidence, none, ever found for proving that we evolved. If there was some evidence we'd end this here and now, but Evolutionists, have been searching for 150 years and haven't claimed a single fossil.

Furthermore, not only is there no fossils, but there is no intermediary species available. An intermediary species is one in the imbetween stages of Evolution. There should be trillions. Think of it this way, there are billions of different organisms on Earth, right? So each species needs at least 5 (And I am being so lenient it's not even funny) intermediary species to complete itself into a new organism. But the problem is we can't find a single one. All organisms are full, and not only perfectly functioning, but perfectly fit for the environment they find.

Here's an example of the environment problem. When we add new animals to an ecosystem the entire ecosystem changes, and many animals can go extinct. But why? Shouldn't some of these animals start evolving? You say, no Q! They don't have enough time to evolve, but I answer back, doesn't each animal evolve at different times, how then was it possible for each environment to be perfect before the new animals arrived, when there is supposedly always new animals arriving?

The Ugly Cat? Thank you ^_^
I appreciate you explaining. I guess scientists have been searching fossil evidence for years so it could point to the changes of evolution. The ancient eras were named by major changes in the types of fossils found in the rocks deposited
in those time frames. Now the overall collection of orgnaism stuff found in the rocks of a given age is recognizably different from the collection of stuff
found in the rocks above and below.
Simply put, this could prove fossil evidence for evolution bu just looking at these diverse changes over time, you see.

I had been thinking a lot about what you said and I realize if not one transitional species was found-then what?

Species must appear and disappear abruptly and fast like snap…!
It made me wonder, wouldn't that blow gradualism out the window,
I don't know, I never knew that could be a weak spot to the Evolution theory, it startles me to the point of being scary.

To call everyting perfect, in my opinion, is a bit of an overstatement because many a species have had to adapt to their environment, grow stronger through natural selection, and only then live on and truly "arrive". Then throught this process, they either die out (extinction) or they evolve.
Survival of the fittest, what can old Titan say?

Tautology
enough said
but animals didn't change did they?
evolution says one species changes from one to another
but most animals adapting don't do that
animals can adape to the surrounding like we can
but we don't evolve

Amaterasu wrote:then shouldn't the animals have evolve to break our defences?
Besides, you don't see people getting eaten left and right in afrieca or other places with less technology

and also techology doesn't mean we evolved. If anything we inovated but thats a different story adn debat

No, it's not neccessary to break our defences when there's easier sources of food, and people in Africa have the incredible inedible spear and have at least simple tools. In the past all our ancestors had was the acheulean hand ax, which though a useful tool would not have done all that much in the way of defending against a lion, or other predator.

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Love the avatar Titan ^_^

And hear is his point. There is no fossil evidence, none, ever found for proving that we evolved. If there was some evidence we'd end this here and now, but Evolutionists, have been searching for 150 years and haven't claimed a single fossil.

Furthermore, not only is there no fossils, but there is no intermediary species available. An intermediary species is one in the imbetween stages of Evolution. There should be trillions. Think of it this way, there are billions of different organisms on Earth, right? So each species needs at least 5 (And I am being so lenient it's not even funny) intermediary species to complete itself into a new organism. But the problem is we can't find a single one. All organisms are full, and not only perfectly functioning, but perfectly fit for the environment they find.

Here's an example of the environment problem. When we add new animals to an ecosystem the entire ecosystem changes, and many animals can go extinct. But why? Shouldn't some of these animals start evolving? You say, no Q! They don't have enough time to evolve, but I answer back, doesn't each animal evolve at different times, how then was it possible for each environment to be perfect before the new animals arrived, when there is supposedly always new animals arriving?

The Ugly Cat? Thank you ^_^
I appreciate you explaining. I guess scientists have been searching fossil evidence for years so it could point to the changes of evolution. The ancient eras were named by major changes in the types of fossils found in the rocks deposited
in those time frames. Now the overall collection of orgnaism stuff found in the rocks of a given age is recognizably different from the collection of stuff
found in the rocks above and below.
Simply put, this could prove fossil evidence for evolution bu just looking at these diverse changes over time, you see.

I had been thinking a lot about what you said and I realize if not one transitional species was found-then what?

Species must appear and disappear abruptly and fast like snap…!
It made me wonder, wouldn't that blow gradualism out the window,
I don't know, I never knew that could be a weak spot to the Evolution theory, it startles me to the point of being scary.

To call everyting perfect, in my opinion, is a bit of an overstatement because many a species have had to adapt to their environment, grow stronger through natural selection, and only then live on and truly "arrive". Then throught this process, they either die out (extinction) or they evolve.
Survival of the fittest, what can old Titan say?

Tautology
enough said
but animals didn't change did they?
evolution says one species changes from one to another
but most animals adapting don't do that
animals can adape to the surrounding like we can
but we don't evolve

Then tell me something.

You know on the cover of books right?
You know when you turn on tv?
You know when you talk about this stuff?

Everyone points at you and tells you that humans evolved from great apes.

Are you honestly going to tell me that all of those people were living a lie?

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Love the avatar Titan ^_^

And hear is his point. There is no fossil evidence, none, ever found for proving that we evolved. If there was some evidence we'd end this here and now, but Evolutionists, have been searching for 150 years and haven't claimed a single fossil.

Furthermore, not only is there no fossils, but there is no intermediary species available. An intermediary species is one in the imbetween stages of Evolution. There should be trillions. Think of it this way, there are billions of different organisms on Earth, right? So each species needs at least 5 (And I am being so lenient it's not even funny) intermediary species to complete itself into a new organism. But the problem is we can't find a single one. All organisms are full, and not only perfectly functioning, but perfectly fit for the environment they find.

Here's an example of the environment problem. When we add new animals to an ecosystem the entire ecosystem changes, and many animals can go extinct. But why? Shouldn't some of these animals start evolving? You say, no Q! They don't have enough time to evolve, but I answer back, doesn't each animal evolve at different times, how then was it possible for each environment to be perfect before the new animals arrived, when there is supposedly always new animals arriving?

The Ugly Cat? Thank you ^_^
I appreciate you explaining. I guess scientists have been searching fossil evidence for years so it could point to the changes of evolution. The ancient eras were named by major changes in the types of fossils found in the rocks deposited
in those time frames. Now the overall collection of orgnaism stuff found in the rocks of a given age is recognizably different from the collection of stuff
found in the rocks above and below.
Simply put, this could prove fossil evidence for evolution bu just looking at these diverse changes over time, you see.

I had been thinking a lot about what you said and I realize if not one transitional species was found-then what?

Species must appear and disappear abruptly and fast like snap…!
It made me wonder, wouldn't that blow gradualism out the window,
I don't know, I never knew that could be a weak spot to the Evolution theory, it startles me to the point of being scary.

To call everyting perfect, in my opinion, is a bit of an overstatement because many a species have had to adapt to their environment, grow stronger through natural selection, and only then live on and truly "arrive". Then throught this process, they either die out (extinction) or they evolve.
Survival of the fittest, what can old Titan say?

Tautology
enough said
but animals didn't change did they?
evolution says one species changes from one to another
but most animals adapting don't do that
animals can adape to the surrounding like we can
but we don't evolve

Then tell me something.

You know on the cover of books right?
You know when you turn on tv?
You know when you talk about this stuff?

Everyone points at you and tells you that humans evolved from great apes.

Are you honestly going to tell me that all of those people were living a lie?

yes

Sado wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:then shouldn't the animals have evolve to break our defences?
Besides, you don't see people getting eaten left and right in afrieca or other places with less technology

and also techology doesn't mean we evolved. If anything we inovated but thats a different story adn debat

No, it's not neccessary to break our defences when there's easier sources of food, and people in Africa have the incredible inedible spear and have at least simple tools. In the past all our ancestors had was the acheulean hand ax, which though a useful tool would not have done all that much in the way of defending against a lion, or other predator.

the axe came later, way later (according to evolutionists)
and in the bigginning if lion and leppards and them were our predators and humans hadn't invented the first tools why didn't they hunt down all the humans?
why did we stand up above all others?
to gain power over all animals on the land?

Psst, Titan we didn't evolve FROM great apes (unless you're talking austrolopithecus and homo erectus and so on and so forth, which is entirely possible) We share a common ancestor with great apes who we evolved from, or so the theory goes.

Sado wrote:Psst, Titan we didn't evolve FROM great apes (unless you're talking austrolopithecus and homo erectus and so on and so forth, which is entirely possible) We share a common ancestor with great apes who we evolved from, or so the theory goes.

thats the same thing

Sado wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:then shouldn't the animals have evolve to break our defences?
Besides, you don't see people getting eaten left and right in afrieca or other places with less technology

and also techology doesn't mean we evolved. If anything we inovated but thats a different story adn debat

No, it's not neccessary to break our defences when there's easier sources of food, and people in Africa have the incredible inedible spear and have at least simple tools. In the past all our ancestors had was the acheulean hand ax, which though a useful tool would not have done all that much in the way of defending against a lion, or other predator.

Lol, true that, but I feel that it is because we are the most naturally intelligent at the moment.

We stand on top of the ladder of life-nothing can touch us.
That is why we have no natual predators.

But by all rights, the human race worked hard for it. They worked dang right hard throughout the years to get our place.

Sado wrote:Psst, Titan we didn't evolve FROM great apes (unless you're talking austrolopithecus and homo erectus and so on and so forth, which is entirely possible) We share a common ancestor with great apes who we evolved from, or so the theory goes.

Work with me here, buddy. Thanks for the heads up!

The Acheulean hand ax good sir? The acheulean hand ax is no more than a tear-dropped shaped stone with a sharpened edge. Not an ax in the way that perhaps you are thinking of.
As for that, early humans were lucky in that their numbers were just enough to keep a breeding population alive until the tools became wide-spread. Also all animals have basic survival strategies, by your reasoning should not all animals with a natural predator be extinct. Though I could be wrong, and I should hate to be building a metaphorical straw man of your argument Ama. Perhaps you'd care to correct me if I have presented what you claim in a false manner, and if I have then could I also ask you to present it to me in a clearer manner.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Sado wrote:Psst, Titan we didn't evolve FROM great apes (unless you're talking austrolopithecus and homo erectus and so on and so forth, which is entirely possible) We share a common ancestor with great apes who we evolved from, or so the theory goes.

Work with me here, buddy. Thanks for the heads up!

Any time good sir.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Love the avatar Titan ^_^

And hear is his point. There is no fossil evidence, none, ever found for proving that we evolved. If there was some evidence we'd end this here and now, but Evolutionists, have been searching for 150 years and haven't claimed a single fossil.

Furthermore, not only is there no fossils, but there is no intermediary species available. An intermediary species is one in the imbetween stages of Evolution. There should be trillions. Think of it this way, there are billions of different organisms on Earth, right? So each species needs at least 5 (And I am being so lenient it's not even funny) intermediary species to complete itself into a new organism. But the problem is we can't find a single one. All organisms are full, and not only perfectly functioning, but perfectly fit for the environment they find.

Here's an example of the environment problem. When we add new animals to an ecosystem the entire ecosystem changes, and many animals can go extinct. But why? Shouldn't some of these animals start evolving? You say, no Q! They don't have enough time to evolve, but I answer back, doesn't each animal evolve at different times, how then was it possible for each environment to be perfect before the new animals arrived, when there is supposedly always new animals arriving?

The Ugly Cat? Thank you ^_^
I appreciate you explaining. I guess scientists have been searching fossil evidence for years so it could point to the changes of evolution. The ancient eras were named by major changes in the types of fossils found in the rocks deposited
in those time frames. Now the overall collection of orgnaism stuff found in the rocks of a given age is recognizably different from the collection of stuff
found in the rocks above and below.
Simply put, this could prove fossil evidence for evolution bu just looking at these diverse changes over time, you see.

I had been thinking a lot about what you said and I realize if not one transitional species was found-then what?

Species must appear and disappear abruptly and fast like snap…!
It made me wonder, wouldn't that blow gradualism out the window,
I don't know, I never knew that could be a weak spot to the Evolution theory, it startles me to the point of being scary.

To call everyting perfect, in my opinion, is a bit of an overstatement because many a species have had to adapt to their environment, grow stronger through natural selection, and only then live on and truly "arrive". Then throught this process, they either die out (extinction) or they evolve.
Survival of the fittest, what can old Titan say?

Yes, they find the age of the time by the age of the fossils found in the rock. But check how they find the Age of the Fossils. I will look it up for you.

"Fossils are found by the age of the rock they are discovered in"

What does that mean? It means the Age of Rock is found by age of fossils in rock found by age of rock. So if you haven't figured it out, there is nothing there.

Then there is not a single evolutionized animal found in existence and Evolution has no proof is what. Lizards needed millions of species between them and the first rat, if none can be found, then Evolution is missing some incredible evidence.

And there is a theory where that happens.

But here's the problem, if all of our DNA is from the original cell, and linked to the great ape, the isn't it possible that a woman could have a baby with the same DNA of an Ape or a horse, and have a horse, or at least part horse.

You say crazy, but there is only a 2% difference, and if we evolved from them, they are in our DNA Chain. So that kinda blows the fast idea out of action too. And yes, gradualism got told off Titan.

Titan, you are forgetting one important part. Our environments, in their natural state are perfect. Look at them, if nothing is added no animal, plant, or soil will be ruined, or destroyed, and as long as the climate stays relatively normal (No Tsunami's or earthquakes) a normal balance of animals will stay.

But according to evolution predators should always be arising and taking out new animals, there should always be growing new animal populations, and shrinking and extincting old ones. Since this is not the case, something is wrong with that theory.

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Love the avatar Titan ^_^

And hear is his point. There is no fossil evidence, none, ever found for proving that we evolved. If there was some evidence we'd end this here and now, but Evolutionists, have been searching for 150 years and haven't claimed a single fossil.

Furthermore, not only is there no fossils, but there is no intermediary species available. An intermediary species is one in the imbetween stages of Evolution. There should be trillions. Think of it this way, there are billions of different organisms on Earth, right? So each species needs at least 5 (And I am being so lenient it's not even funny) intermediary species to complete itself into a new organism. But the problem is we can't find a single one. All organisms are full, and not only perfectly functioning, but perfectly fit for the environment they find.

Here's an example of the environment problem. When we add new animals to an ecosystem the entire ecosystem changes, and many animals can go extinct. But why? Shouldn't some of these animals start evolving? You say, no Q! They don't have enough time to evolve, but I answer back, doesn't each animal evolve at different times, how then was it possible for each environment to be perfect before the new animals arrived, when there is supposedly always new animals arriving?

The Ugly Cat? Thank you ^_^
I appreciate you explaining. I guess scientists have been searching fossil evidence for years so it could point to the changes of evolution. The ancient eras were named by major changes in the types of fossils found in the rocks deposited
in those time frames. Now the overall collection of orgnaism stuff found in the rocks of a given age is recognizably different from the collection of stuff
found in the rocks above and below.
Simply put, this could prove fossil evidence for evolution bu just looking at these diverse changes over time, you see.

I had been thinking a lot about what you said and I realize if not one transitional species was found-then what?

Species must appear and disappear abruptly and fast like snap…!
It made me wonder, wouldn't that blow gradualism out the window,
I don't know, I never knew that could be a weak spot to the Evolution theory, it startles me to the point of being scary.

To call everyting perfect, in my opinion, is a bit of an overstatement because many a species have had to adapt to their environment, grow stronger through natural selection, and only then live on and truly "arrive". Then throught this process, they either die out (extinction) or they evolve.
Survival of the fittest, what can old Titan say?

Tautology
enough said
but animals didn't change did they?
evolution says one species changes from one to another
but most animals adapting don't do that
animals can adape to the surrounding like we can
but we don't evolve

Then tell me something.

You know on the cover of books right?
You know when you turn on tv?
You know when you talk about this stuff?

Everyone points at you and tells you that humans evolved from great apes.

Are you honestly going to tell me that all of those people were living a lie?

yes

Nice Support Amaterasu ^_^

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:Psst, Titan we didn't evolve FROM great apes (unless you're talking austrolopithecus and homo erectus and so on and so forth, which is entirely possible) We share a common ancestor with great apes who we evolved from, or so the theory goes.

thats the same thing

It's not the same thing, a chimp is not the same as proconsul. Chimps, humans, gorillas, and all other great apes are like branches in a family tree. Our ancestors (Proconsul, australopithecus africanus, homo erectus, homo habilis and all the others) are the trunk of said tree.

Sado wrote:The Acheulean hand ax good sir? The acheulean hand ax is no more than a tear-dropped shaped stone with a sharpened edge. Not an ax in the way that perhaps you are thinking of.
As for that, early humans were lucky in that their numbers were just enough to keep a breeding population alive until the tools became wide-spread. Also all animals have basic survival strategies, by your reasoning should not all animals with a natural predator be extinct. Though I could be wrong, and I should hate to be building a metaphorical straw man of your argument Ama. Perhaps you'd care to correct me if I have presented what you claim in a false manner, and if I have then could I also ask you to present it to me in a clearer manner.

i was thinking of a axe, but those bifaces (i think they were called that, resently had a prehistory test)
they were used for cutting meat, but they wouldn't be good for hunting or defending, they were simply not sharp enough

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Hey, yea, I was having a comp prob. but yea, I read and shall answer in this post since I couldn't, the last.
Ah, alrighty then.
I hear of Intelligent Design and I get that but no one has ever bothered to explain a possible creator for the many changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth. I know close to little on Theistic evolution (though it has been brought up, I've heard) but it sounds interesting, I might wanna do some more research on it though it isn't the typical stuff you'd find in a library.

Oui I see. Now I understand the conflicting views with you and Sabaku. I saw how she argued but I had no clue it was all for theistic evolution. That is strange for me for I considered many Christians as believing creation but I guess it's a stereotype.

No, I am not.

what type of changes of evolutions throughout the lovely life of Earth.
meaning what is it thgat evolved

Aye, yes, was that a question?

Organisms have evolved since the beginning of time.

but not turtles
or frogs
or fish
or birds
or trees
or flowers
or lions
or wolves
or elephants
or horses
or duck billed platypus'
or monkeys
just humains
ypu, makes perfect sense
that must have happened (sarcasm)

lol, uh, was I supposed to answer that seriously?

Amaterasu, You're confusing me now, Help

Love the avatar Titan ^_^

And hear is his point. There is no fossil evidence, none, ever found for proving that we evolved. If there was some evidence we'd end this here and now, but Evolutionists, have been searching for 150 years and haven't claimed a single fossil.

Furthermore, not only is there no fossils, but there is no intermediary species available. An intermediary species is one in the imbetween stages of Evolution. There should be trillions. Think of it this way, there are billions of different organisms on Earth, right? So each species needs at least 5 (And I am being so lenient it's not even funny) intermediary species to complete itself into a new organism. But the problem is we can't find a single one. All organisms are full, and not only perfectly functioning, but perfectly fit for the environment they find.

Here's an example of the environment problem. When we add new animals to an ecosystem the entire ecosystem changes, and many animals can go extinct. But why? Shouldn't some of these animals start evolving? You say, no Q! They don't have enough time to evolve, but I answer back, doesn't each animal evolve at different times, how then was it possible for each environment to be perfect before the new animals arrived, when there is supposedly always new animals arriving?

The Ugly Cat? Thank you ^_^
I appreciate you explaining. I guess scientists have been searching fossil evidence for years so it could point to the changes of evolution. The ancient eras were named by major changes in the types of fossils found in the rocks deposited
in those time frames. Now the overall collection of orgnaism stuff found in the rocks of a given age is recognizably different from the collection of stuff
found in the rocks above and below.
Simply put, this could prove fossil evidence for evolution bu just looking at these diverse changes over time, you see.

I had been thinking a lot about what you said and I realize if not one transitional species was found-then what?

Species must appear and disappear abruptly and fast like snap…!
It made me wonder, wouldn't that blow gradualism out the window,
I don't know, I never knew that could be a weak spot to the Evolution theory, it startles me to the point of being scary.

To call everyting perfect, in my opinion, is a bit of an overstatement because many a species have had to adapt to their environment, grow stronger through natural selection, and only then live on and truly "arrive". Then throught this process, they either die out (extinction) or they evolve.
Survival of the fittest, what can old Titan say?

Tautology
enough said
but animals didn't change did they?
evolution says one species changes from one to another
but most animals adapting don't do that
animals can adape to the surrounding like we can
but we don't evolve

Then tell me something.

You know on the cover of books right?
You know when you turn on tv?
You know when you talk about this stuff?

Everyone points at you and tells you that humans evolved from great apes.

Are you honestly going to tell me that all of those people were living a lie?

In fact yes.

People live millions of lies. They believe in Global Warming, they believe in "peace", and they believe that in the grand scheme of things they have it bad off, even though they live in America.

The greatest lie, is one told often enough, so as it becomes true.

Sado wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:Psst, Titan we didn't evolve FROM great apes (unless you're talking austrolopithecus and homo erectus and so on and so forth, which is entirely possible) We share a common ancestor with great apes who we evolved from, or so the theory goes.

thats the same thing

It's not the same thing, a chimp is not the same as proconsul. Chimps, humans, gorillas, and all other great apes are like branches in a family tree. Our ancestors (Proconsul, australopithecus africanus, homo erectus, homo habilis and all the others) are the trunk of said tree.

Just to let you know we have the same amount of DNA difference as a Horse, and are closer in bone structure to sheep. Which one did we evolve from again?