Creation Vs Evolution

Amaterasu wrote:

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

Exactly, they were used to skin animals and get meat off of a bone, however it allowed our ancestors to have a food source which enabled survival until later tools could be created such as the spear, which became invaluable in hunting and defending.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

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 ^_^

\

why thanks you Titan

quater wrote:

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?

We have the same DNA difference as a horse? Perhaps you could clarify that statement, we have the same DNA difference to what as a horse has to what?

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.

well all branchs are a part of a trunk
so all apes must go back to one species. which was most likely a ape or ape like. I see where your comming from actually know that i think about it, but its not really any different because that means we are kinda brothers to apes.

Sado wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

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

Exactly, they were used to skin animals and get meat off of a bone, however it allowed our ancestors to have a food source which enabled survival until later tools could be created such as the spear, which became invaluable in hunting and defending.

mhm, but during that period before tools, how come we weren't whipped out?

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

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?

We have the same DNA difference as a horse? Perhaps you could clarify that statement, we have the same DNA difference to what as a horse has to what?

he means we have roughtly the same DNA as horses
and more so or equal to monkeys/apes

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

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?

We have the same DNA difference as a horse? Perhaps you could clarify that statement, we have the same DNA difference to what as a horse has to what?

We are just as similar in DNA structure to a gorilla as we are to a horse.

Q, my friend, may I ask where I can find a detailed copy of this information. I think I'd like to give it a look over, if you would be so kind as to point me toward a source.

lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding dense but how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
alone getting a child of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

Sado wrote:Q, my friend, may I ask where I can find a detailed copy of this information. I think I'd like to give it a look over, if you would be so kind as to point me toward a source.

Geez I hat searching for things I lost a year ago.

And Sado, the tone in that line is drenched in "Q is bullcrapping me there is no way he is right"

But let me see if I can find this badboy again ^_^

Titaniumxvx wrote:lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding dense but how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
alone getting a child of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

but your wrong on the hunting, predators also take out stronger animals
not just weaker ones.

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

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?

We have the same DNA difference as a horse? Perhaps you could clarify that statement, we have the same DNA difference to what as a horse has to what?

he means we have roughtly the same DNA as horses
and more so or equal to monkeys/apes

Hey Amaterasu?

I just researched tautology or whatver it was on dictionary.com...

Then the tone of my normal voice has been conveyed well! Though I didn't intend for it to come across in that way eh as I'd never think theres no way you could be right, you've always got some trick in your hat of magic.

Titaniumxvx wrote:lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding densbe ut how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
ialone getting a chld of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

This proves: If they find the age of the rock based on fossils, based on the rock, then it's all Conjecture. If a scientists says "This is 30 million years" then the fossils become 30 million years.

Things that show for Intelligent Design:
Age of the Earth being between 15 and 6 thousand years
Evidence of a "Noah's Flood"
Newly found fossils
Young Sediment Deposits
Etc

There is a Darwin of it. We call him The Big G, aka God. Sometimes Jesus. ^_^ There are tons of different scientists out there if you need proof look em up. They don't get famous because the Media hates Intelligent Design and would never praise one of ours.

Titan don't cross that line. There are hundreds of books, full of scientific evidence for my theory, and for the world, not many of the side items even get disowned.

Ok? We are also similar to any mammal, and even lizards. But so what? We are also similar to rocks in that we are made of elements. Problem is, you can't grow intelligence, something humans have far more than the apes do.

And yes, you have agreed that the environment is perfect, and we have no explanation for it.

As I said, evolution should have predators constantly overcoming Herbivores. And the stronger predator eating out the smaller one. And yet they don't. Almost all populations stay on average. Shouldn't one predator evolve and throw this whole system off? No. He doesn't.

Sado wrote:Then the tone of my normal voice has been conveyed well! Though I didn't intend for it to come across in that way eh as I'd never think theres no way you could be right, you've always got some trick in your hat of magic.

anyway
when evolutionist say creation couldn't have happened, they can't disprove the bible in any means
in fact science has proven the bible on all occasions that it tried to prove it

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding dense but how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
alone getting a child of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

but your wrong on the hunting, predators also take out stronger animals
not just weaker ones.

It all comes down to which is easier to get or which will provide the most benefit. Though just out of curiousity, what point are you exactly trying to convey here Ama?

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

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?

We have the same DNA difference as a horse? Perhaps you could clarify that statement, we have the same DNA difference to what as a horse has to what?

he means we have roughtly the same DNA as horses
and more so or equal to monkeys/apes

Hey Amaterasu?

I just researched tautology or whatver it was on dictionary.com...

really?
well see what I meant then?

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding densbe ut how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
ialone getting a chld of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

This proves: If they find the age of the rock based on fossils, based on the rock, then it's all Conjecture. If a scientists says "This is 30 million years" then the fossils become 30 million years.

Things that show for Intelligent Design:
Age of the Earth being between 15 and 6 thousand years
Evidence of a "Noah's Flood"
Newly found fossils
Young Sediment Deposits
Etc

There is a Darwin of it. We call him The Big G, aka God. Sometimes Jesus. ^_^ There are tons of different scientists out there if you need proof look em up. They don't get famous because the Media hates Intelligent Design and would never praise one of ours.

Titan don't cross that line. There are hundreds of books, full of scientific evidence for my theory, and for the world, not many of the side items even get disowned.

Ok? We are also similar to any mammal, and even lizards. But so what? We are also similar to rocks in that we are made of elements. Problem is, you can't grow intelligence, something humans have far more than the apes do.

And yes, you have agreed that the environment is perfect, and we have no explanation for it.

As I said, evolution should have predators constantly overcoming Herbivores. And the stronger predator eating out the smaller one. And yet they don't. Almost all populations stay on average. Shouldn't one predator evolve and throw this whole system off? No. He doesn't.

Before I lauch an argument on this may I completely lower the tone and have a juvenile chuckle because you said eating out the smaller ones?

Sado wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding dense but how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
alone getting a child of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

but your wrong on the hunting, predators also take out stronger animals
not just weaker ones.

It all comes down to which is easier to get or which will provide the most benefit. Though just out of curiousity, what point are you exactly trying to convey here Ama?

well darwins law say the weak die out because they can't defend themselves.
well If that were true, then Why would predators attack the strong?
even though they have done so
also how come weak animals are still around?
rabbits aren't strong at all but they have lasted
and frogs aren't strong but they lasted since the dinosaurs

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding densbe ut how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
ialone getting a chld of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

This proves: If they find the age of the rock based on fossils, based on the rock, then it's all Conjecture. If a scientists says "This is 30 million years" then the fossils become 30 million years.

Things that show for Intelligent Design:
Age of the Earth being between 15 and 6 thousand years
Evidence of a "Noah's Flood"
Newly found fossils
Young Sediment Deposits
Etc

There is a Darwin of it. We call him The Big G, aka God. Sometimes Jesus. ^_^ There are tons of different scientists out there if you need proof look em up. They don't get famous because the Media hates Intelligent Design and would never praise one of ours.

Titan don't cross that line. There are hundreds of books, full of scientific evidence for my theory, and for the world, not many of the side items even get disowned.

Ok? We are also similar to any mammal, and even lizards. But so what? We are also similar to rocks in that we are made of elements. Problem is, you can't grow intelligence, something humans have far more than the apes do.

And yes, you have agreed that the environment is perfect, and we have no explanation for it.

As I said, evolution should have predators constantly overcoming Herbivores. And the stronger predator eating out the smaller one. And yet they don't. Almost all populations stay on average. Shouldn't one predator evolve and throw this whole system off? No. He doesn't.

Before I lauch an argument on this may I completely lower the tone and have a juvenile chuckle because you said eating out the smaller ones?

Haha I did. Silly Q ^_^

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

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?

We have the same DNA difference as a horse? Perhaps you could clarify that statement, we have the same DNA difference to what as a horse has to what?

he means we have roughtly the same DNA as horses
and more so or equal to monkeys/apes

Hey Amaterasu?

I just researched tautology or whatver it was on dictionary.com...

really?
well see what I meant then?

Yea, did so, thanks man -___-,

And what you said about not all large predators taking out smaller predators..

Ok, maybe they're truly strong or are traveling in a pack (or are on steroids), there are exceptions. Like Sado said, I cannot see the relevance.

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding dense but how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
alone getting a child of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

but your wrong on the hunting, predators also take out stronger animals
not just weaker ones.

It all comes down to which is easier to get or which will provide the most benefit. Though just out of curiousity, what point are you exactly trying to convey here Ama?

well darwins law say the weak die out because they can't defend themselves.
well If that were true, then Why would predators attack the strong?
even though they have done so
also how come weak animals are still around?
rabbits aren't strong at all but they have lasted
and frogs aren't strong but they lasted since the dinosaurs

It's true.

Humans are better "evolved" Then monkeys so why do monkeys still exist?

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

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?

We have the same DNA difference as a horse? Perhaps you could clarify that statement, we have the same DNA difference to what as a horse has to what?

he means we have roughtly the same DNA as horses
and more so or equal to monkeys/apes

Hey Amaterasu?

I just researched tautology or whatver it was on dictionary.com...

really?
well see what I meant then?

Yea, did so, thanks man -___-,

And what you said about not all large predators taking out smaller predators..

Ok, maybe they're truly strong or are traveling in a pack (or are on steroids), there are exceptions. Like Sado said, I cannot see the relevance.

darwins theory is tautology
it doesn't get anywhere
and so it ends up with a cycle we are not in
because today we have both weak and strong. Also most species in danger and considered strong animals, tioger for instence

I'll come back in an hour or an hour and a half later gents.

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:lol, I wanna see the information, too, I know I typed alot, I can;t find the darn quote no more

Nothing there? I'm afraid I don't understand. I know I'm going to risk
sounding densbe ut how they find the age of the fossils by the age of rock, like
you said. My first reaction is.. Ok...so....How does that prove nothing?

If you can find nothing between lizards in the myriad of reptiles that there
are, then I guess so. But I've noticed something, folks for intelligent design
love poking holes in evolution theories but what could possibly show for
intelligent design.

Why is there no "Darwin of the Intelligent Design" movement with possible
answers?

You like to call this improbable, I understand, but at least this argument has
some substance. Heck, It even had books backing by it! This is a scientific side
to creation not taught in school.

It's not possible, we've passed that by, it hard telling ape semblence now, let
ialone getting a chld of a different species. That's crazy talk. But I am
talking about anatomical structure and the lovely things scientists find to
compare us to them. Are you dismissing similar anatomy of long ago? Not our DNA.
Never that.

It is, at this stage, Yes. But predators take out the weaker animals. That
leaves a balance. When there are no weaker animals to be found, the big
predators die out. When there is dry seasons and wet spells, a cycle of life
goes out with it, too. The theory of life continues to remain despite what you
may think is perfect.

This proves: If they find the age of the rock based on fossils, based on the rock, then it's all Conjecture. If a scientists says "This is 30 million years" then the fossils become 30 million years.

Things that show for Intelligent Design:
Age of the Earth being between 15 and 6 thousand years
Evidence of a "Noah's Flood"
Newly found fossils
Young Sediment Deposits
Etc

There is a Darwin of it. We call him The Big G, aka God. Sometimes Jesus. ^_^ There are tons of different scientists out there if you need proof look em up. They don't get famous because the Media hates Intelligent Design and would never praise one of ours.

Titan don't cross that line. There are hundreds of books, full of scientific evidence for my theory, and for the world, not many of the side items even get disowned.

Ok? We are also similar to any mammal, and even lizards. But so what? We are also similar to rocks in that we are made of elements. Problem is, you can't grow intelligence, something humans have far more than the apes do.

And yes, you have agreed that the environment is perfect, and we have no explanation for it.

As I said, evolution should have predators constantly overcoming Herbivores. And the stronger predator eating out the smaller one. And yet they don't. Almost all populations stay on average. Shouldn't one predator evolve and throw this whole system off? No. He doesn't.

Before I lauch an argument on this may I completely lower the tone and have a juvenile chuckle because you said eating out the smaller ones?

I need to recheck.
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I say, that was funny, Seriously. Wow.