Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Originally posted by furiousracer313
Maybe Darwin should have used a little logic to when u came up with the whole evolution process.

That's all well and good but maybe you should answer the question. Do you understand that chromosomes are duplicated all the time, or does that allude you? You answered a question with a statement not related to the question... and then followed up with another question. Redirecting because you don't know the answer at this stage in thread is quite ridiculous.

reply to post by furiousracer313


What an unfair debate when the individual shows up for a few minutes to say "YOUR WRONG" and then disappears offline until tomorrow, when he'll come back and do it again.

Originally posted by Yoda411

Originally posted by furiousracer313
So why dont we still have gills? Did they just stop growing on us? And i know you will say we adapted to our environment, so does that mean if i decided not to ever use my left leg my kids would be born without one? no it doesnt. another flaw in evolution.. explain that for me..

You do understand that whales, and dolphins, breathe air and do not have gills right?

Evolution teaches that through survival of the fittest, minor mutations occur which make a creature more apt to survival. This creature which is more apt to survival then lives on to breed. This happens for several hundreds of millions of years I might add, so your concept of "where did it go??" doesn't fit in to this massive time spectrum.

You should research evolution with an open mind my friend, in the same respect that you give your time to Kent Hovid (who I might add has evaded $500,000 worth of tax fraud and is currently serving in federal prison). Additionally Kent Hovid has a Ph.D. from an unaccredited institution.

So why havent we changed? Ill tell u wut the day i see a scientist get an amoeba or wutever single celled or multicelled organism that u say created all of us and have it evolve into a new species ill believe u. until then its not true. there isnt any evidence to prove it its just all theories. Just like when scientists thought that when u were sick ur blood was bad. We now know that blood and us having a cold have nothing to do with each other. And who really cares if Kent is in jail for tax fraud, wut the hell does tax fraud have to do with science and disproving evolution? nothing.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by noobfun

 

I'm just having fun with you. I don't expect you to change your mind on this but I still think you have a hard time defending Evolution. Darwin's Origin of the Species doesn't say anything about the origin of life. Darwin himself indicates that there is a Creator.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;

Charles Darwin - The Origin of Species

In the end I think that even if you were to prove Evolution to be fact, you would still have such a huge gap from the Big Bang and exploding stars to the cell that it would make Evolution look like the closing credits on a 2 hour film.

That is why I find Evolution to be a white wash on the origin of life. It doesn't address the origin of life at all. It merely picks up in the closing chapter of where we are today. I think you'll find that many who have problems with Evolution discredit it because it's only one piece of the puzzle. I doubt you can argue against that. Disagree maybe, but hard to argue with.

THANK YOU!!!

reply to post by Yoda411


I agree wholeheartedly. If this had been a real debate. As in a live debate before an audience where you would be judged based on performance he would have lost many times over at this point.

I don't know, with this hit and run mentality, I'm close to labeling him as nothing more than a troll and moving on with my life. You just can't get through to some people. Maybe he should at least research intelligent design instead of taking the Bible for literal truth.

Been on quite a few threads with you as of late, so let me take the time now to say that it is nice meeting you.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by furiousracer313

So why dont we still have gills? Did they just stop growing on us? And i know you will say we adapted to our environment, so does that mean if i decided not to ever use my left leg my kids would be born without one? no it doesnt. another flaw in evolution.. explain that for me..

Sigh, how can you debunk evolution when you dont even understand a thing about it

I could ask u the same thing...

Originally posted by Yoda411
reply to post by furiousracer313

 

What an unfair debate when the individual shows up for a few minutes to say "YOUR WRONG" and then disappears offline until tomorrow, when he'll come back and do it again.

Sorry man i have a life.. I dont sit at my comp 24/7 on ATS waiting for people to respond..

Originally posted by furiousracer313
We now know that blood and us having a cold have nothing to do with each other.

Influenza can also be transmitted by saliva, nasal secretions, feces and blood.

Sorry what were you saying about blood having nothing to do with a cold? Keep talking, you only keep showing your lack of knowledge about evolution and science

Originally posted by Osiris1953
reply to post by Yoda411

 

I agree wholeheartedly. If this had been a real debate. As in a live debate before an audience where you would be judged based on performance he would have lost many times over at this point.

I don't know, with this hit and run mentality, I'm close to labeling him as nothing more than a troll and moving on with my life. You just can't get through to some people. Maybe he should at least research intelligent design instead of taking the Bible for literal truth.

Been on quite a few threads with you as of late, so let me take the time now to say that it is nice meeting you.

I hope u had and every evolutionist in here had a fun time kissing Darwins ass to...

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by furiousracer313
If all creatures came out of the ocean, then the first creature on earth had lungs or gills?

Like blood clotting right? Some questions are better unasked.

It isn't that hard to answer the "Blood Clot" question, there is a viable and accurate answer dbates;

Blood coagulation is part of an important host defense mechanism termed hemostasis (the cessation of blood loss from a damaged vessel). Upon vessel injury, platelets adhere to macromolecules in the subendothelial tissues and then aggregate to form the primary hemostatic plug. The platelets stimulate local activation of plasma coagulation factors, leading to generation of a fibrin clot that reinforces the platelet aggregate. Later, as wound healing occurs, the platelet aggregate and fibrin clot are broken down. Mechanisms that restrict formation of platelet aggregates and fibrin clots to sites of injury are necessary to maintain the fluidity of the blood.

and

I. Coagulation in vitro

When blood is removed from the body and placed in a glass test tube, it clots fairly quickly (Table 1). Calcium ions are required for this process. Addition of EDTA or citrate prevents clotting by binding calcium. Clotting can be initiated in vitro at a later time by adding back an excess of calcium ions. As shown in Table 1, recalcified plasma (minus platelets and other blood cells) will clot in 2-4 min. The clotting time after recalcification can be shortened by adding an emulsion of negatively-charged phospholipids (PL). The clotting time is further shortened to 21-32 sec by preincubation of the plasma with particulate substances such as kaolin (insoluble aluminum silicate). The reaction initiated by kaolin, PL, and calcium is termed the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) test. Alternatively, the clotting time of recalcified plasma can be shortened to 11-12 sec by adding "thromboplastin" (a saline brain extract containing tissue factor, a lipoprotein described below). The reaction initiated by thromboplastin and calcium is termed the prothrombin time (PT) test.

tollefsen.wustl.edu...

Though I don't know why you had posted an already closed problem as blood clotting?

"Your point?"

Since i care for yall i will leave this tread with one last video, that isnt very long...


evolution

Fast forward to about 6:55mins and listen to wut he says about evolution. Tell me ur thoughts....

Keep in mind that this man was involved heavily in demon worship and was given alot of insight to satans plans.. He talks about evolition foe about 5 mins or so, just check the video out, and give me ur thoughts.. thanks...


[edit on 12/15/2008 by furiousracer313]

[edit on 12/15/2008 by furiousracer313]

Originally posted by furiousracer313

So that proves that Evolution is just a theory ant not actual science, right? it cannt be observed, right? (except for micro-evolution)

wrong

Panderichthys had a spiracle to aid breathing as well as gills

we know Tiktaalik had both lungs and gills as was still a fish, the presence of a deeply invaginated, wide spiracle, advanced internal spiracular architecture lead to a pair of lungs

the observed it in the fossil it really is a great find

guess what there is no macro evolution its a lie theres just evolution

macro is used to describe anything on or above species level which we have still seen

Did u know that apes or primates or cannot evolve into humans b/c humans have more chromosomes that apes/primates/monkeys wutever. Chromosomes cannot be duplicated, although de-evolution is possible b/c animals can lose chromosomes but it is highly unlikley..

UMMMMMMM we have LESS chromosones then primates where do people dream this stuff up?

but chromosones can fuse ...just like our chromosone number 2(which is near identical to chimpo chromeosons when split and compared)

so we had exactly the same number of chromosones and chimps etc still cant evolve into homo sapien sapien your right evolution says its impossible

they still have 48 we have 46

anyome else want to take a shot at the question? here it is again:

If all creatures came out of the ocean, then the first creature on earth had lungs or gills?

first creature out the sea was actually arthropods they breathed through thier skin and looked like giant scorpions

got any hard questions?

[edit on 16/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by furiousracer313

So why dont we still have gills? Did they just stop growing on us? And i know you will say we adapted to our environment, so does that mean if i decided not to ever use my left leg my kids would be born without one? no it doesnt. another flaw in evolution.. explain that for me..

umm we do still have the bone structure for gills we just use it for different purposes

they are the ears bones, the stirup bone of gils is part of the inner ear structure the other two were part of the system of jaw bones, we dont have as many jaw bones as aour ancestors they got smaller and now we can hear how good is that

if you did have gills you couldnt have heard ole kent talking twaddle ....dam wish i still had gills

Originally posted by furiousracer313

Chromosomes cannot be duplicated

they can in plants and still lead to helthy growth and whole new genus/family of plants

and they have in animals too

Maybe Darwin should have used a little logic to when u came up with the whole evolution process. Oh and did u know that before he died he recanted evolution saying that it wasnt true??

unfortunatley thats a lie he didnt reconvert last minute there were several people there of high standing his doctor who was a christian for one

lies lies lies that all you got?

The evidence shows that the story is not true. Lady Hope was not present at the deathbed of Darwin. The multiple independent accounts of his death, written by those who were there, make no mention of it. His children who were there at his death wrote articles and letters that specifically refuted the recantation and conversion story

www.cincinnatiskeptics.org...

so you were saying? its just another lie for jesus im afraid, like america was founded on christainity(it really wasnt) that the european legal system(borrowed by america) is founded on the ten comandments (it isnt only 2 of them show up and they show up in every cultures self governing social laws)

and darwin used plenty of logic and he used somthing severly lacking in you he observed learnt and understood things before he ran around going no no wrong cant be true *eyes closed fingers in ears* lalalallalalal



[edit on 16/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by dbates

I'm just having fun with you. I don't expect you to change your mind on this but I still think you have a hard time defending Evolution.

not really im answering every question thrown at me so far ^_^

Darwin's Origin of the Species doesn't say anything about the origin of life. Darwin himself indicates that there is a Creator.

yes it does and many people who beleive in evolution and religeon still think the same god started it and let the system run

personally put my cash on chemical evolution and rna world hypothesis

In the end I think that even if you were to prove Evolution to be fact,

it has to science the people who actually do things with it like make medicience like understanding possible mutations in virus's to preempt them becomeing drug resitant

altering retro viruses so when they deposit thier rna for your cells to be sequenced we switch the payload so they deliver things that are good for us(they are looking into doing this to overwrite hiv 1 and 2 to destroy it in the system of an infeced person)

you would still have such a huge gap from the Big Bang and exploding stars to the cell that it would make Evolution look like the closing credits on a 2 hour film.

thats exactly what it is its the last bit of the film of our universe

even if we find a better model then the big bang it still doesnt mean evolution is wrong, its been proven already

That is why I find Evolution to be a white wash on the origin of life.

its got nothing to do with the origins of life it is the origins of natural diversity

On the Origin of Species

the clues in the book name

its the origins of diversity in species not the origin of all life

I think you'll find that many who have problems with Evolution discredit it because it's only one piece of the puzzle. I doubt you can argue against that. Disagree maybe, but hard to argue with.

but its absurd, its like arguing a murder never happened becasue we have the body with a knife sticking out its back and the empty wallet lying next to the corpse but dont yet know who the killer is

[edit on 16/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by dbates

Like blood clotting right? Some questions are better unasked.

no thats a very good question to ask, www.millerandlevine.com...

yo8u should read Behe's court transcript its hilarious he states underoath its iredducably complex and theres no evidence other wise, then when presented with about 20 scientific papers covering its evolution and even college text books that explain its evolution he says he hasnt read any of them and they are still not enough to convince him...Behe is an ass

anyone else would read them then decide but not him

[edit on 16/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by furiousracer313
So why havent we changed? Ill tell u wut the day i see a scientist get an amoeba or wutever single celled or multicelled organism that u say created all of us and have it evolve into a new species ill believe u.

Chlorella spp, single celled organism when observed under lab conditions became multicellular and devolped colonial living sturctures to prevent predation

Martin E. Boraas, Dianne B. Seale, Joseph E. Boxhorn (1998). Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity Evolutionary Ecology, 12 (2), 153-164

see i even gave you the name of the paper so you can go find it aint i nice guy?

pleion.blogspot.com... heres a better explenation

until then its not true.

why do i get the feeling you wont actually chnage your mind

We now know that blood and us having a cold have nothing to do with each other. And who really cares if Kent is in jail for tax fraud, wut the hell does tax fraud have to do with science and disproving evolution? nothing.

the irony of this statement is lost on you it seems the fact scientists tested and proved why we get colds and not that its anything to do with blood means? they just might be right about evolution as its had the same rigerous method applied

the fact he has a history of fraud(lying for money) lied about his credentials lied about copyright infringments ...... if lyings a hobby and so is taking money ...do you think he might be lying about evolution to get peoples money?

[edit on 16/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by furiousracer313
I hope u had and every evolutionist in here had a fun time kissing Darwins ass to...

nope but i had fun kicking yours on the subject

the truth is out there, go read some of it you dont even have to read origins of species ...weve moved on since 1850

God does not exist DUMBASS

Originally posted by furiousracer313
Since i care for yall i will leave this tread with one last video, that isnt very long...

Fast forward to about 6:55mins and listen to wut he says about evolution. Tell me ur thoughts....

Keep in mind that this man was involved heavily in demon worship and was given alot of insight to satans plans.. He talks about evolition foe about 5 mins or so, just check the video out, and give me ur thoughts.. thanks...

i think he is talking as much twaddle as hovind

as smear tactics go to discredit evolution that has to be one of the most retarded

and now ive answered all your questions and used it as a way to wake me up ready for the day ahead ill go grab me asecond coffee and see what the rest of the day holds