Evolution? Intelligent Design? God did it all in 7 days?

You're not paying attention.

The giraffe did not evolve that membrane. An earlier ancestor that was NOT a giraffe evolved it. It was much smaller, had a shorter neck, and the membrane, which I am assuming was in its blood vessels, was a valve tissue - which ALL mammals have.

As the ancestor species evolved over the course of millennia, specimens that had longer necks were better able to survive because they had a better chance at reaching leaves that were high up in trees. So the traits for longer necks were passed on. And the specimens that had a stronger valve somewhere near the brain also were better able to survive, so the traits for a better "brain" valve were also passed on. Both the neck and the valve evolved incrementally over many centuries.

You seem to believe that 20 foot giraffes evolved and were passing out all the time until one day - POOF!!! - a membrane magically appeared - fully formed - in one of the giraffes in the blood vessels nears the brain.

That is not what happened. That is a distorting lie proposed by creationists to discredit the evidence supporting evolution. Originally Posted by ExNYer

So where are the fossils of the species that lived before the giraffe, the "pre-giraffes?" You know the one's with short necks, then medium sized necks and then really long necks?

ok Joe the same logic applies- that early animal had hair right? Every picture I have seen of early man from the evolution standpoint shows a very hairy man- covered with fur- so why would man lose the fur and then hunt animals for fun- this dispels survival of the fittest- it makes no logical sense. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Could you possibly do a worse case of describing the mechanism behind evolution? I don't think so.

First you have never seen photo of early man. Cameras didn't exist back then.

You have only seen artists renderings of them. And those artists renderings are based - ironically enough - on the work of evolutionary scientists who study the fossil records and have found evidence of hair in certain amounts on certain species. But it mostly conjecture, because hair and tissue don't survive long after death - just bones.

For the same reason, we don't know exactly when man's ancient ancestors started wearing either animal skins or vegetation fibers as clothing. Those materials would also rot and not leave fossil records. There are 2.5 million year old skeletons. There are no 2.5 million year old animal hides or human hair.

In the warm climate of central Africa, there wasn't much need for humans to have a lot of hair. They only got cold if temperatures dropped an unusual amount and/or they got wet in the rain.

However, at SOME point in our ancient past, humans began wearing clothing. Even hairy humans got cold as they moved further north. And once they did that, the amount of hair on their bodies became less and less important for survival. in essence, hair was much less necessary, it not outright unnecessary.

So less hairy humans were able to survive and pass on their less hairy traits. So, overall we became less hairy.

Interestingly, we retained hair on our heads, which is where much of your body heat escapes (heat rises). And we retained pubic hair because it provides a friction cushion that makes sex easier. Those traits continued to be passed on.

Whereas, hair on our backs was passed on a lot less.

Who said the leopard is inferior design to a cheetah? They both kill in different fashion- the cheetah stalks it's prey and chases it down with superior speed. The leopard is ambush predator- the leopard is also bigger and stronger than the cheetah and can do other things the cheetah can't. A leopard can hoist it's prey(up to twice the leopard's own weight) up a tree and keep it away from other scavengers- leopards have great night vision- cheetahs have poor night vision and typically hunt in the early daytime- a cheetah many times loses it's hard earned prey to lions, hyenas and yes even cheetahs- so again your logic is flawed.
No, not my logic, but yours. You have just pointed out the error in your original "theory" that if the cheetah evolved to be fast, than all cats should be fast. You refuted yourself, as I said.

And no sorry I will not accept your design theory took place over thousands of you- so again I ask you was the cheetah once slow?
No, but the cheetah's ancestor probably was slower.

Did it take thousands of years for the cheetah to become fast- if so where's your proof? Sorry but you have it or you don't have it- I could give you literally hundreds of examples in nature- I guess snakes at one time "developed" venom? Are you telling me snakes at one time would bite their prey and it wouldn't die so the snake said :"aww shit I better evolve something deadly so when I bite my prey they die within seconds..??? and then another set of snakes called phythons they just said the hell with Venom I am just going to evolve so much larger than other snakes and just suffocate my prey????
Until you decide to turn your brain on, there is little likelyhood of you understanding much of anything.


Also, how do you explain animals appearing on different continents- what are the chances that the same animal evolved in different regions of the world? Or is it more likely it was created and placed in various parts of the world. And finally how does Chaos create create order???
They walked, swam, or flied. But you probably don't believe in continental drift either.


Believing in evolution is like telling someone- the U.S congress of library wasn't always there- one day a huge explosion happened and slowly after millions of years a building began to form than after the building formed- thousands years later books began to emerge until you have what you see today- i that basically evolution- big explosion - masses of gases became solid- forming the planets- than life began to form- but oh wait it o happened that the life that wa formed seemed to have everything it needed- wow what are those odds.
Nope. Not the same at all.

Also Old T go back to physic 101 the big bang theory say a big explosion eventually formed the planets- but if you know anything about physics if you have an explosion it would be virtually impossible to have the same objects spinning in different directions- how do you explain the some planets spin the opposite direction from the earth? How can that be if everything happened with the big bang? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You should probably quit while you're behind. Impossible to spin in opposite directions? Look up "conservation of angular momentum", you can find it in that Physics 101 text book you didn't read very well.

So where are the fossils of the species that lived before the giraffe, the "pre-giraffes?" You know the one's with short necks, then medium sized necks and then really long necks? Originally Posted by joe bloe

What makes you think they haven't been found - at least some of them?

Creationists need to understand that it is relatively RARE that a skeleton survives for millions of years. The moisture and chemicals in the soil have to be just right and it has to harden into rock in a very short time. So, only a tiny fraction of one percent of all animals skeletons ever become fossils.

If that was NOT the case, then every time you stuck a shovel in the ground, you would hit a bunch of fossils. Think of all of the TRILLIONS of animals - large and small, that have ever lived. If their carcasses did not completely rot in the vast majority of cases, then every square inch of the earth would have some fossils right below the surface.

Scientists are forced to piece the evolutionary record together with only a small fraction of the fossil evidence.

Creationists dishonestly point to a lack of a completely detailed record of fossils as proof that evolution is wrong. It isn't proof of that.

And the record for evolution is being put together by a small number of scientists who have only been been working on this for a couple of centuries at best. Perhaps in another few hundred years as thousands more fossils are found, the pieces of the puzzle will slowly fall into place.

Meanwhile, creationists will still be thumping a 4,000 year old book full of fables created by ancient, superstitious humans - in other words, no science at all.

To put it another way:

Could you possibly do a worse case of describing the mechanism behind evolution? I don't think so.

First you have never seen photo of early man. Cameras didn't exist back then.

You have only seen artists renderings of them. And those artists renderings are based - ironically enough - on the work of evolutionary scientists who study the fossil records and have found evidence of hair in certain amounts on certain species. But it mostly conjecture, because hair and tissue don't survive long after death - just bones.

For the same reason, we don't know exactly when man's ancient ancestors started wearing either animal skins or vegetation fibers as clothing. Those materials would also rot and not leave fossil records. There are 2.5 million year old skeletons. There are no 2.5 million year old animal hides or human hair.

In the warm climate of central Africa, there wasn't much need for humans to have a lot of hair. They only got cold if temperatures dropped an unusual amount and/or they got wet in the rain.

However, at SOME point in our ancient past, humans began wearing clothing. Even hairy humans got cold as they moved further north. And once they did that, the amount of hair on their bodies became less and less important for survival. in essence, hair was much less necessary, it not outright unnecessary.

So less hairy humans were able to survive and pass on their less hairy traits. So, overall we became less hairy.

Interestingly, we retained hair on our heads, which is where much of your body heat escapes (heat rises). And we retained pubic hair because it provides a friction cushion that makes sex easier. Those traits continued to be passed on.

Whereas, hair on our backs was passed on a lot less. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Do you actually believe human beings ascended from the primordial ooze with no guiding intelligence to control the process? First there was no life, then a single celled protozoa, then after billions of years, you get Jessica Alba?

Do you actually believe human beings ascended from the primordial ooze with no guiding intelligence to control the process? First there was no life, then a single celled protozoa, then after billions of years, you get Jessica Alba? Originally Posted by joe bloe

Now there is a real non-scientific argument.

First, why is that so hard to believe? After all, BILLIONS of years of change are involved.

Second, why Jessica Alba? Why not a rhinoceros? Do you not understand that beauty is very subjective aesthetic value - truly in the eye of the beholder?

So, while you may think Jessica Alba is hot and a rhino is ugly, try to remember that the rhino looks at Jessica Alba and a female rhino and thinks the exact opposite.

You think Jessica Alba is hot only because evolution has caused your brain to find her appearance attractive.

Kind of ironic when you think about it.

Now there is a real non-scientific argument.

First, why is that so hard to believe? After all, BILLIONS of years of change are involved.

Second, why Jessica Alba? Why not a rhinoceros? Do you not understand that beauty is very subjective aesthetic value - truly in the eye of the beholder?

So, while you may think Jessica Alba is hot and a rhino is ugly, try to remember that the rhino looks at Jessica Alba and a female rhino and thinks the exact opposite.

You think Jessica Alba is hot only because evolution has caused your brain to find her appearance attractive.

Kind of ironic when you think about it. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Sorry. I mistook you for someone capable of having an intelligent conversation.

Sorry. I mistook you for someone capable of having an intelligent conversation. Originally Posted by joe bloe

No problem. I made the same mistake.

Evidence against X3

No transitional fossils found.

The necessity of any living creature being
fully formed and functional from the beginning
of it's life.

Even the simplest one celled creature is very complex
in it's structure and has to have all of those complex
biological process in place and fully functioning
for it to have life. Same with plant life as well.

Take away any of those and the organism can't live.

No life form has ever been created in a lab even though
a lab can provide what would be considered ideal conditions.

The closest they have come is to use already existing cells.

Who created the Creator?

Who created the Creator?

Originally Posted by WTF

Where did it come from without a Creator?

Everything from nothing with no catalyst or greater
force behind it.

Even harder to believe and very bad science by the way.

Evidence against X2

No transitional fossils found. Who says there hasn't been? We have a lot of transitional fossils for the ancestors for humans - going all the way back to primitive apes. We also have them for horses. Read here:

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolut...eevolution.htm

Do we have to get ALL transitional fossils for ALL species before you will admit evolution is true?

The necessity of any living creature being fully formed and functional from the beginning of it's life. What does THAT mean?

Even the simplest one celled creature is very complex in it's structure and has to have all of those complex biological process in place and fully functioning for it to have life. Same with plant life as well. The process by which the first single-celled organisms were formed has very little in common with evolution from species to species. As DNA became more and more complex, so did the complexity of organisms.

Take away any of those and the organism can't live. Misleading nonsense. We don't care about ONE organism living. We are trying to explain small incremental changes between one generation and the next. Originally Posted by bojulay

Do you have any scientific explanation to explain the world around us?

Or do you just have some ancient text?

What if....COG is really God , just testing our patience?

Who created the Creator?
Originally Posted by WTF

The Bible says God has always existed. He wasn't created. As long as we're asking the question, who created the stuff that existed before the big bang?

Atheistic evolutionists say that the origin of everything was the big bang, but that still doesn't answer the basic question of where did everything come from?

From another thread:

Incrementalism. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Yep, a little at a time, just like taxes.

How many times have you heard, well it's only a 9 cent tax increase, it's only a 25 cent tax increase.

Put about two dozen of those together over a period of time and what do you have? Originally Posted by bojulay

An evolved species?

Looks like you DO believe in evolution...