U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 03-18-2013, 03:49 AM
17,853 posts, read 12,186,814 times
Reputation: 4113


Originally Posted by Robin Rossi View Post
And let's no forget the plants. The number of species of animals alone is mind-boggling.

Now if you were a simpleton fool, whose world was a within radius of a few hundred miles, it might be limited to cat, dog, camel, snake, scorpion and a few others, but for the actual number of animal species, the mere counting is virtually insurmountable. For example, just the number of great cats, alone, some living high up in the mountains in frigid climes.
Did they have Koalas and Kangaroos and Platypi on the Ark?

Old 03-18-2013, 03:53 AM
17,853 posts, read 12,186,814 times
Reputation: 4113
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
I love how the zealots proudly show off any flimsy crap evidence that might sorta kinda sound like The Bible knows what its talking about.

"Behemoth" or whatever, isn't proof of anything. The only thing the Bible proves is that man existed a few thousand years ago and had the ability to write poorly constructed stories.
This is what they were probably referring to as 'Behemoth".

EPIC Hippo gets out of the water then POOPS & FARTS & SHAKES ITS TAIL LOL - YouTube
Old 03-18-2013, 05:06 AM
Location: Soldotna
2,268 posts, read 1,800,136 times
Reputation: 1067
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid View Post
we are apes man. I don't have a tail...

...Do you?
Yes you do. Take a look at a skeleton.

Vestigial tails abound! Lol
Old 03-18-2013, 06:36 AM
17,853 posts, read 12,186,814 times
Reputation: 4113
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
No, the fact that you believe all life forms came into being at the same time and that Dinosaurs and man co-existed on the planet at the same time, boggles the mind of actual rational thinkers.
And this:

Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
Just how old do you think the earth is?
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
between 5,000 and 15,000 years old.
Old 03-18-2013, 07:18 AM
11,780 posts, read 8,565,702 times
Reputation: 3425
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
"Behemoth" and "Leviathon" as mentioned in Job, chapters 40 and 41 are clearly dinosaurs and animals with which Job was familiar.
If humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time then humans would have been wiped out. Not even all dinosaurs lived at the same time. Technically, since birds are descended from dinosaurs we do coexist, but that is really stretching reality to fit your mold.
Old 03-18-2013, 09:42 AM
3,744 posts, read 2,585,581 times
Reputation: 891
Originally Posted by harrier View Post
anytime you evolutionists decide to agree with each other - let me know.
Old 03-18-2013, 10:25 AM
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,617,490 times
Reputation: 3949
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Anytime you evolutionists decide to agree with each other - let me know.
And Harrier continues to demonstrate in spades his complete ignorance regarding how science progresses. Disagreement in science is the raw material of discovery.

It's a bit harder to account for when God's supposed to be talking.
Old 03-18-2013, 10:38 AM
Location: Georgia, USA
23,287 posts, read 28,093,140 times
Reputation: 28753
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
Anytime you evolutionists decide to agree with each other - let me know.
Ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Family Hominidae: hominids ("great apes", including humans) The classification is based on genetic similarities.
Old 03-18-2013, 11:12 AM
9,065 posts, read 5,593,906 times
Reputation: 3824
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Ignoring that it would have exactly nothing to do with my comment, in that single statement you have demonstrated an understanding of Darwinian evolution that is a half century out of date. First and foremost, look up "punctuated equilibrium."
Oh but I am already familiar with the "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis, as well as other similar contrivances offered up by evolutionists to explain the lack of evidence for speciation. Truth be told, there is one unchallengeable instance of observable evolution at work that I simply cannot argue against ... that is the constant state to which the theory of evolution is evolving itself, as it adapts and changes form in order to explain away difficult problems. And for those unfamiliar with the gratuitous double talk which illustrates that, you offer up this perfect example!

So, now you claim that the flaws for which I point to in Darwinian theory just show how "out of date" I am ... by 50 years, no less? Of course that's the issue ... I'm just analyzing the old version of evolution, minus all of the bandages and splints and other treatments the theory continues to receive in order to keep it breathing. But really ... isn't this just another way of saying "you don't understand how evolution works"? Of course it is, and of course it is just another example of the extremely lame tactic which has already become the dominant response to every other challenge, now bordering on becoming a mantra. But the truth is, I'm not out of date at all. I'm very familiar with this particular evolution "update", as well as others of similarly transparent and self serving contrivance. Though I must admit that no one can be expected to keep up with the ever changing versions of Darwinism in it's numerous iterations, they all exude the same basic fragrance of freshly deposited bovine manure, so it's rather easy to spot them as they appear, and they all share similar traits.

This particular example ... "punctuated equilibrium" is THE perfect case in point highlighting the overt contradictions of the neo-Darwinists who don't seem to hesitate to directly contradict Darwin and the very foundation of his theories, while insisting that those theories are proven and undeniable. What a joke you people are!! You insist these theories are facts, while contradicting them yourselves. And even that obvious truth is sure to be met with the typical "you don't understand".

But as I promised you earlier, I'll not allow you to pass these childish diversions as some sort of fact, like this very "scientific sounding" contrivance termed "punctuated equilibrium", which is as far from scientific as it could possibly be. Fact is, the entire premise of this particular "answer" is precisely what my challenge of Darwinian theory claimed earlier. According to that out-of-date version of Darwinism ... the true and original version which cannot seem to stand on it's own without constant "updates" ... evolution occurs very slowly over Millions of years, by means of mutation and natural selection. But the lack of evidence in support of that, and the emergence of evidence that actually destroys the theory entirely required an answer ... "punctuated equilibrium", which postulates that species can remain virtually unchanged for Millions of years, only to undergo a rapid transformation at one point in time, emerging as a new species, thereby explaining the lack of those transitional fossils. So, it is very simple ... evolution does occur slowly over millions of years, just as Darwin claimed, except when it doesn't, which is also explained by "punctuated equilibrium". A very tidy little arrangement of heads I win, tails you lose.

Are there other such contrivances similar to "punctuated equilibrium" ? Well of course there are ... there's a new "update" always waiting in the wings, ready to address any problem that may arise in the theory. One very similar one is the equally self serving and contrived "Island Theory" which was also a manufactured response to the revelation that neanderthals, which were long misrepresented as our ancestor on the evolution tree, who evolved into modern homo sapiens, was later found to have actually coexisted with modern humans, and interbred, which totally crushed the evolutionist claims that neanderthals were the root species of homo sapiens. The moment that irrefutable evidence emerged, the evolutionists were forced to scramble for answers to that unfortunate discovery. In comes "Island Theory" which postulates that a certain community of neanderthals became isolated (hence the Island reference) from the rest of neanderthals, and were somehow shielded from the conditions which caused the others to evolve. Therefore, this group that was isolated and did not evolve, later met up with those neanderthals that did evolve, and viola! That explains the whole thing!! See how easy evolution provides answers? It's magical. Of course, you could swap out magical and put in it's place, "pure bovine excrement" and that would better define "Island Theory", which is not a scientific theory at all, since there is not one iota of actual evidence to support it ... other than evolutionists over active imaginations, and their no holds barred proclivity for manufacturing new fairy-tales to defend the old ones.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
No. It doesn't. As usual, you are attacking things that nobody ever said. This is at east partly because you are rarely in the same universe as the people you are arguing with. First off I offered no definition. Second, what I stated is a simple fact so obvious that only creationists and the more generalized class of pathologically oppositional nutburgers that you represent could object.

It's bad enough that all your information is creationist propaganda. What is finnier is that it's creationist propaganda so out of date that even creationists don't use it anymore.
You stated quite directly and I quote "For any organism to exist, it must be a member of a complete, fully evolved and adapted species."

That statement clearly insinuates that no species could have existed in a transitional state ... so either species do transition to a new species slowly over vast periods of time, as the Darwinian model of evolution claims, or they simply appear (spontaneously) on some point in a time line as a "fully evolved and adapted species" (your words). You cannot have it both ways ... I know you want it that way ... I know you insist that up is only up when it is, but could be down when it isn't ... but that's just the way you double talkers operate.

Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
See? Instead of understanding my post you have once again defaulted to the ignorance of the 19th century. Every species is "fully formed." Otherwise it would die. And what was true 150 years ago when Darwin wrote regarding the state of the fossil record is true no longer.

The fossil record as we have it today demonstrates in detail the transition of species, genera, families and classes as well as the development and modification of anatomical innovation, and the incremental stepwise origin of hundreds of thousands of identified species.

But every fossil species, even those perfectly intermediate between forms as different as reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, land mammals and whales, apes and humans are still "fully formed" species in and of their own right. At no point can any species not be "fully formed." Such a concept is reserved for crackpots and charlatans. I can only argue against those who are arguing with what I said rather than the voices in their own heads. Alas, you have never been of them.
Any rational person would understand that in order for an organism to undergo slow evolutionary change, by the mechanisms and processes defined by Darwin, they could NEVER be in such a state of completion as well as undergoing constant slow changes. The amphibians which are said to have evolved into land based animals, by means of millions of years of evolution could not be fully formed amphibians and fully formed land animals simultaneously. The incremental nature of the very slow accumulation of minute changes over the millions of years such a process is said to have occurred, would HAVE TO be partially formed, at varying stages along that pathway, until the transition was complete.

You cannot have this situation in which a species is undergoing transition while remaining fully formed, as you want to insist .... this is circular reasoning that makes not one bit of rational sense. You're obviously drinking your own kool-aide if your mind really does embrace such illogical gibberish.

Last edited by CaseyB; 03-26-2013 at 11:00 AM.. Reason: rude
Old 03-18-2013, 11:25 AM
4,743 posts, read 3,719,095 times
Reputation: 2481
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
There is nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory, along with creation as a theory. Neither should be taught as proven fact, because both are unproveable.

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism isn't a scientific theory. You seem to be confusing the term "scientific theory" with plain old "theory.

These are not the same. Theories do not belong in schools, well-substantiated and documented scientific theories do.

Scientific Theory

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force."


Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:20 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top