Creation Vs Evolution

ok, i'll be gone by then though

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

You know what?

I think it's called reproduction, actually.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

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

You know what?

I think it's called reproduction, actually.

Thanks for the info.

And what makes a rabbit reproducing better then a predator? In reality, a predator would just evolve a larger stomach according to your system.

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

Later Q

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

The reason predators attack the strong can be easily explained in that they may be tastier, or they may provide more nutrients and thus make for a better diet than the weaker ones.
As for why rabbits are still around, that comes down to the fact that they breed quickly, and thus can create a larger group and ensure survival, also rabbits have the advantage of being able to burrow underground and are relatively quite quick.
Frogs also have a defense strategy in that they can fake the ability to appear poisonous or they simply are poisonous. Predators have learned over time that brightly colored frogs do not make for a good meal and may, on occasion, cause a severe case of what I believe the professionals refer to as "deadness"

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

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

You know what?

I think it's called reproduction, actually.

Thanks for the info.

And what makes a rabbit reproducing better then a predator? In reality, a predator would just evolve a larger stomach according to your system.

Because without the rabbits, there would be no predators. The reason they have lasted is because, their species is in abundance, yes. Shortages in its population would totally crush the circle of life.

Sado wrote:

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

The reason predators attack the strong can be easily explained in that they may be tastier, or they may provide more nutrients and thus make for a better diet than the weaker ones.
As for why rabbits are still around, that comes down to the fact that they breed quickly, and thus can create a larger group and ensure survival, also rabbits have the advantage of being able to burrow underground and are relatively quite quick.
Frogs also have a defense strategy in that they can fake the ability to appear poisonous or they simply are poisonous. Predators have learned over time that brightly colored frogs do not make for a good meal and may, on occasion, cause a severe case of what I believe the professionals refer to as "deadness"

although there are some animals that are immune to the poison of frogs
and also some animals like foxes also burrow and catch a lot of rabbits
and by darwin theory the predators would just have evolved to immunity over these defenses of frogs and they would reproduces faster aswell to counter rabbits

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:

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

The reason predators attack the strong can be easily explained in that they may be tastier, or they may provide more nutrients and thus make for a better diet than the weaker ones.
As for why rabbits are still around, that comes down to the fact that they breed quickly, and thus can create a larger group and ensure survival, also rabbits have the advantage of being able to burrow underground and are relatively quite quick.
Frogs also have a defense strategy in that they can fake the ability to appear poisonous or they simply are poisonous. Predators have learned over time that brightly colored frogs do not make for a good meal and may, on occasion, cause a severe case of what I believe the professionals refer to as "deadness"

although there are some animals that are immune to the poison of frogs
and also some animals like foxes also burrow and catch a lot of rabbits
and by darwin theory the predators would just have evolved to immunity over these defenses of frogs and they would reproduces faster aswell to counter rabbits

Isn't it pointless to keep second guessing the nature of organisms in the quest to destroy Evolution?

You see, not a soul can tell exactly what an organism specifically does, all we see is the big picture. This can solve nothing thinking about what should and shouldn't have happened

Amaterasu wrote:

Sado wrote:

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

The reason predators attack the strong can be easily explained in that they may be tastier, or they may provide more nutrients and thus make for a better diet than the weaker ones.
As for why rabbits are still around, that comes down to the fact that they breed quickly, and thus can create a larger group and ensure survival, also rabbits have the advantage of being able to burrow underground and are relatively quite quick.
Frogs also have a defense strategy in that they can fake the ability to appear poisonous or they simply are poisonous. Predators have learned over time that brightly colored frogs do not make for a good meal and may, on occasion, cause a severe case of what I believe the professionals refer to as "deadness"

although there are some animals that are immune to the poison of frogs
and also some animals like foxes also burrow and catch a lot of rabbits
and by darwin theory the predators would just have evolved to immunity over these defenses of frogs and they would reproduces faster aswell to counter rabbits

If an organism doesn't have the genetic code to produce an antibody which would negate the poison of a frog then it would be impossible for it to arise just out of neccessity. There is no human who has the ability to produce an antibody, and thus there shall never BE a human who can produce that antibody we just have to live with the fact we can't eat poison frogs.
Similarly, by your logic, as soon as a species evolved to have a way to get over or through another species defenses then the species with said defenses would simply develop a new one.
Once again, if I am wrong in the point you're attempting to make feel free to correct me.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

quater wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

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

You know what?

I think it's called reproduction, actually.

Thanks for the info.

And what makes a rabbit reproducing better then a predator? In reality, a predator would just evolve a larger stomach according to your system.

Because without the rabbits, there would be no predators. The reason they have lasted is because, their species is in abundance, yes. Shortages in its population would totally crush the circle of life.

But I thought predators could evolve?

Oiy this whole predator animal kingdom stuff is getting kinda old. Want to move onto something else like mutations or life's beginnings? I mean I can handle talking evolution but I can only handle circling around the same points for so many days.

The move is Ama's he started this sub-topic, it's his to end.

i learn so much from you guys...

Uhuh.

Alright then Yo Sado, explain to me life's beginnings.

creation? >_<

vs evolution

ok its settled life begginning@@@@@ (those were supposed to be !!!!!)

YAY!! GOD!

ok, seriously thats not helping much
your acting liek a brainless game support character

im not brainless.....i just chose that's all...
God doesn't want us to have blind faith... after all the reason he made the tree of knowledge is so that we have a choice to chose our own fate. He did not want blid followers.

nevermind
i'm lost

YAY!!!! i like to confuse people!

Don't worry, I was lost too.

Predators do evolve, for all you know, the human race could be slowly
evolving. All organisms have to step up and stand the test of time,
rabbits and predators.
---------------------------------------------------
Ok so. Right. So.
I know this topic is getting old and you want new points on the table. I'm going to try not to bias this stuff.

Life Beginnings...I've heard so many things on this, many ahypothesis, some quite difficult to understand.

I've heard of the Universe's beginning from a theory called The Big
Bang. Our universe must have had some beginning, no? About 10 maybe 15
billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion
of the universe. The universe has been continuously expanding and in
that way, it was able to set up the theory as to how the universe was
created.

Not only that but finding out about the first organisms interested Titan a great deal..

So, I won't answer this question.

Were bacteria/microbes (microorganism) the first forms of life found on Earth?

Think about it: If amino acids could come together out of raw
ingredients, then bigger,
more complex stuff could presumably form given enough time. Hot spring,
volcanic vents on the ocean floor, and beneath the earthly surface are
possible places where cell life may have begun.

Titaniumxvx wrote:Don't worry, I was lost too.

Predators do evolve, for all you know, the human race could be slowly
evolving. All organisms have to step up and stand the test of time,
rabbits and predators.
---------------------------------------------------
Ok so. Right. So.
I know this topic is getting old and you want new points on the table. I'm going to try not to bias this stuff.

Life Beginnings...I've heard so many things on this, many ahypothesis, some quite difficult to understand.

I've heard of the Universe's beginning from a theory called The Big
Bang. Our universe must have had some beginning, no? About 10 maybe 15
billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion
of the universe. The universe has been continuously expanding and in
that way, it was able to set up the theory as to how the universe was
created.

Not only that but finding out about the first organisms interested Titan a great deal..

So, I won't answer this question.

Were bacteria/microbes (microorganism) the first forms of life found on Earth?

Think about it: If amino acids could come together out of raw
ingredients, then bigger,
more complex stuff could presumably form given enough time. Hot spring,
volcanic vents on the ocean floor, and beneath the earthly surface are
possible places where cell life may have begun.

The predators point was so stupid I can't believe you missed it.

I'd like to address your last point.

"
If amino acids could come together out of raw
ingredients, then bigger,
more complex stuff could presumably form given enough time. Hot spring,
volcanic vents on the ocean floor, and beneath the earthly surface are
possible places where cell life may have begun.
"

You have many wrong assumptions with this. First, Ammino Acids have never been found to come together on their own. They were forced in a Lab, by a creator. In a natural habitat, where they weren't saved these Ammino Acids should have been destroyed instantaneously.

Second, Amino Acids are not even a big deal. We have never reproduced anything bigger, and sadly it's just the best we can do. These are like building the walls of a building, and not giving it windows, roof, doors, and everything else and expecting it to become a raging business. DO NOT underestimate the complexity of a cell. Cells have lot's of organelles, which have never been reproduced. They have DNA chains that are limitless without computers to help us analyze them. They have the most incredible thing in history, a vast warehouse of information that came from rocks. And they have processes they do hundreds of timed to the nanosec.

It's unlikely that with warmth and ocean vents life surfaced. Louis Pasteur proved that life comes from somewhere in a very famous experiment. Even given a billion years, life will rarely just explode into being. Ask any scientist who has spent his life wasting away dollars looking for an ideal spot for that to happen.

Your first assuming a cell formed. I disagree. And furthermore, Titan answer this: How did the first cell, and under what conditions did it decide to grow a new cell?