which came first?

This one is better than the chicken and egg. Which came first, the heart or the blood? Or, the brain or the heart? Tell me which lump of flesh evolved it's miraculous ability first, and hung around waiting on the rest of them to "evolve". (we'll keep it simple... we won't bring up the eyes, lungs, central nervous system, spinal chord, and immune system)

How about I just kill the debate before it gets started. How did reproduction evolve without reproduction? How did living systems pass on there DNA information to supposedly evolve before it was able to reproduce? For us to exist today disapproves evolution since everything would be caught in a cycle of organic matter coming to be than dying off and repeating over and over again since they weren't able to reproduce yet.Damn, evolutionist are just such intellects aren't they.

well, your point is very good Retro, but I really want to hear what evolutionists have to say about the topic I brought up. I have never is 6 years gotten even a barely decent response to this theory blasting question. It must be defensable from the evolutionist standpoint since they whole-heartedly believe (uh-oh... there's the "B" word) that it happened.

I have thought about this one and tried to use rift vent worms for solution and ended up questioning meaning of metabolism seperate from replication (in Dyson molecular biology) specifically as to Sulfur. This does not answer the question but it should be clear that solutions are often more difficult to describe in fewer sentences than the question itself.

We evolutionists base our "belief" from observation and from that comes evidence. Your question can't be answered scientifically proven. Allthough several observations tend to lead us to some evidentual theories.Ask yourself this :
Why do we Humans have nails? They have no purpose to us anymore, but they are still there because once in time we did have use for them. Why do we have a tailbone (not sure if that's an english word , I translated it literally from Dutch, it's the bone on your backside that tends to break when falling on your behind ) , it has no purpose , yet it's there as an evidence that in our past we had a use for it.
Why do 99% of the mammals have the same reproductional system as we do? How come scientists have been able to teach Bonobo's (our closest genetic relative) to use/understand simplified language ? They have shown that they understand complex things as past and present and can plan things ahead several days?Does your god have so little imagination that he would create so many simularities between the species of our world?I can come up with hundreds if more examples that we have biolagical past that connects us with other species in our world.What is your oppinion about Scientists that can show you fossils of a species literally changing over time into a more specialized form of that species?Thanks for reading my postMaxime Hillaert
Belgium-Can't you understand that the world revolves around me???-

test

"Why do we Humans have nails? They have no purpose to us anymore, but they are still there because once in time we did have use for them."I think that there is a much more logical explination to why we have nails. One point being that saying for a moment that the biblical creation is true, God might have had us grow nails for beauty. But a scientific explination to why we have nails and what use we have for them is it is a good way to get rid of the dead cells containing the fibrous protein keratin. Also it is a very protective layer, If we didn't have that, our sensitive skin underneath would be exposed, it would not be nearly as sensitive as it would be now if you just took the nail off but slightly more sensitive as your skin on the back of your hand. The nail is very useful as to protect our sensitive skin in that area."Why do we have a tailbone (not sure if that's an english word , I translated it literally from Dutch, it's the bone on your backside that tends to break when falling on your behind ) , it has no purpose , yet it's there as an evidence that in our past we had a use for it."The tailbone is a common name given to it though the more proper term would be coccyx (I believe that is how you spell it). The coccyx is an extreamly important organ in the human body, if you would call it a 'bone' then I would have to say it is one of the most important bones in your body. Without this bone for one, it would be extreamly hard for you to do some very vital functions and I think you all would pretty much literally scream for mercy if you did not have this tailbone. Also it is vital to articulate our ability to sit upright and I believe to lay down. If someone really thinks it is an evolutionary discard then I would pay to have theirs removed (hehe bend over). I would have to say the coccyx is very good evidence for an intelligent designer."Why do 99% of the mammals have the same reproductional system as we do? How come scientists have been able to teach Bonobo's (our closest genetic relative) to use/understand simplified language ? They have shown that they understand complex things as past and present and can plan things ahead several days?"Why not the same? God isn't going to give every animal different reproductive attributes just to make evolution look bad, besides, even if this argument didn't exist the theory would most likely be not effected at all. I would like to give maxm007 a chance to tell me what a better mechenism would be for reproduction. Ofcourse you would be able to teach an animal to understand to a certain degree. They have a brain don't they? Can they think? Make decisions? Why not make them able to understand a couple words, or sounds, or colors? If God didn't give animals some sort of intelligence then God would not be able to use them unless used in a supernatural way. Such as the ability for an animal such as an ape/chimpanzee or dolphin that someone is in trouble or hurting, or needs help."Does your god have so little imagination that he would create so many simularities between the species of our world?"Why would someone think that because he gave similar animals similar mechanisms for preforming similar activities that this would mean that God has little imagination? Mabye this could mean that he does have imagination. If God had an imagination he would be able to create a unity within the kinds of animals in the world, to create this 'circle of life' persay. To give every needed attribute to survive to the best degree."I can come up with hundreds if more examples that we have biolagical past that connects us with other species in our world. "I would love to hear more. Post them and I will find time to post replies to them. If you are going to make a 'list' then don't make it too long, I do have a life you know ."What is your oppinion about Scientists that can show you fossils of a species literally changing over time into a more specialized form of that species?"My opinion would be that that does indeed happen. Specialization happens all the time. This is a vital attribute that an intelligent God would put on all of his creation. Now changing over time into a new kind of animal, say a Turtle into a dog or whatever can't be proven, It can be given the assumption that this is the way that it could have happend, but there is no 'proof' that it indeed happend that way and that it happend at all, only evidence that can be looked at in different ways logically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekimklaw:
This one is better than the chicken and egg. Which came first, the heart or the blood? Or, the brain or the heart? Tell me which lump of flesh evolved it's miraculous ability first, and hung around waiting on the rest of them to "evolve". (we'll keep it simple... we won't bring up the eyes, lungs, central nervous system, spinal chord, and immune system)

---

The ToE never proposes such a thing as happening, so your question is a non-question.Nowhere does the Theory of Evolution claim that a given structure is "fully-formed" and has to wait for other structures to "catch up".Creationists make this claim about the ToE all the time, but that's because most Creationists don't know what the ToE actually claims.There are animals without brains today.There are animals without circulatory systems today.Therefore, brains and hearts are not dependant upon each other.I really think you need to read some basic Biology to understand a little about what you are attempting to criticize.(I am willing to bet that I have read far more Creationist literature than you have read about science and Evolutionary Biology.)Here are some good basic sites: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beginners.htmlI mean, really, do you think that not a single scientist in the last 150 years could have thought of these questions?

Isn't it amazing how both evolutionist that replied tried to either avoid or change the subject. The first evolutionist went about trying to knock God's creations than the second fellow resorted to riticule. Please, just because there are animals without circulatory systems doesn't explain how the animals that do have a circulatory system got theres. The point I believe ekimklaw was trying to make was, why would blood evolve without the heart, or the heart without the blood, or how about I add something else, the veins (don't pop one now thinking about it now). A circulatory system must be fully "evolved" before it will work, why would a living system bother to keep it around if it weren't working. What, so its anescestors a billion years from now will have a use for it? It makes no sense, is there some little DNA fairy going around over seeing all this evolutionary change to decide upon what might be useful one day? Because in the light of real science there is no evidence for something to decide to evolve, evolutionist just try and justify there blind belief with stuff like "survival of the fittest", "natural selection", etc. Yet I have never seen any real science theories or evidence to support these primitive child like claims.

quote:

---

Nowhere does the Theory of Evolution claim that a given structure is "fully-formed" and has to wait for other structures to "catch up".

---

And this is where the ToE forgot to include something called comman sense. Nothing will work until it is complete you know. Much like a car without its engine, or a house without its frame. Could you live with only a half formed heart? Or no heart at all. Oh, but hang on, I forgot we evolved so this is useless reasoning with unreasonable people. What, were the laws of biology, or the universe for that matter different at the beginning of time? Trying to argue with something having nothing at all is plain dumb, it doesn't explain the middle ground. Just think how long something as complex as this would take to evolve, how did they possibly live with only 1/10 of a heart, no blood and veins that stretch a few inches? The simplest systems with in a living system are still terribly complex and if they weren't complete they wouldn't function. How did it just jump from nothing to a complete functioning system? Even more importantly, if there are living systems that can survive fine without these components what triggered it off to begin evolving in the first place?Anyway, back to reality, you won't be able to answer these questions simply because there isn't an answer as we never evolved.I noticed you avoided my reproduction question to, I guess that one is just a little tricky since once again there is no answer as it didn't happen that way.

quote:

---

I mean, really, do you think that not a single scientist in the last 150 years could have thought of these questions?

---

Well, there are still foolish believers so it makes you wonder doesn't it. Or is it just that only the non-evolutionist are asking these questions since you'd rather be ignorant as to the existance of our God and turn a blind eye to reality and be lead away by some really bad science fiction.

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-26-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]Isn't it amazing how both evolutionist that replied tried to either avoid or change the subject.[/QUOTE]

​

It is not avoiding the subject to point out that you are asking an inappropriate question.

​

quote:

---

The first evolutionist went about trying to knock God's creations than the second fellow resorted to riticule. Please, just because there are animals without circulatory systems doesn't explain how the animals that do have a circulatory system got theres.

---

​

You implied that there had to be both a brain and a heart together for there to be a functioning organism. I pointed out that this was not the case.

​

quote:

---

The point I believe ekimklaw was trying to make was, why would blood evolve without the heart, or the heart without the blood, or how about I add something else, the veins (don't pop one now thinking about it now). A circulatory system must be fully "evolved" before it will work,

---

​

There is no such thing as "fully-evolved", first of all. There is no "end product" to evolution.

​

Again, this is an utterly basic idea in Evolutionary Biology, and I urge you to take some time and effort and learn some science before you pretend to know what you are talking about when criticizing it.

​

quote:

---

why would a living system bother to keep it around if it weren't working. What, so its anescestors a billion years from now will have a use for it? It makes no sense, is there some little DNA fairy going around over seeing all this evolutionary change to decide upon what might be useful one day?

---

​

Read the links, and you might understand a little better. Sorry, I don't believe in spoon feeding people their basic science education.

​

quote:

---

Because in the light of real science there is no evidence for something to decide to evolve, evolutionist just try and justify there blind belief with stuff like "survival of the fittest", "natural selection", etc. Yet I have never seen any real science theories or evidence to support these primitive child like claims.

---

​

Oh, goodness, stop ranting and go read the links I provided. Come back after you have read them and thought about them and perhaps we can have a nice discussion.

​

quote:

---

Nowhere does the Theory of Evolution claim that a given structure is "fully-formed" and has to wait for other structures to "catch up".

---

​

And this is where the ToE forgot to include something called comman sense. Nothing will work until it is complete you know.

​

Much like a car without its engine, or a house without its frame. Could you live with only a half formed heart? Or no heart at all. Oh, but hang on, I forgot we evolved so this is useless reasoning with unreasonable people. What, were the laws of biology, or the universe for that matter different at the beginning of time?

---

All organisms are fully-formed and functional. It is a long-time Creationist (willful?) misunderstanding of the basics of the ToE which ends up in that old chestnut.

quote:

---

Trying to argue with something having nothing at all is plain dumb, it doesn't explain the middle ground. Just think how long something as complex as this would take to evolve, how did they possibly live with only 1/10 of a heart, no blood and veins that stretch a few inches?

---

At the risk of beating this to death, the ToE doesn't claim that this would happen, so your argument is a big, fat, strawman, and therefore meaningless.Read the links about what the ToE ACTUALLY claims, and then you will stop looking so uneducated (sorry, but you are kinda asking for it)

quote:

---

The simplest systems with in a living system are still terribly complex and if they weren't complete they wouldn't function. How did it just jump from nothing to a complete functioning system?

---

*sigh*The ToE doesn't claim that "complete functioning systems" jump from "nothing", so this is (the same) false argument.

quote:

---

Even more importantly, if there are living systems that can survive fine without these components what triggered it off to begin evolving in the first place?{/QUOTE

​

1)Random mutation selected for reproduction by environmental pressures, for one.

​

quote:

---

Anyway, back to reality, you won't be able to answer these questions simply because there isn't an answer as we never evolved.

---

​

The ToE doesn't claim any of the things you set it up to criticize it on, so your argument has no basis.

​

Please, please, read some basic Evolutionary Biology and at least learn a tiny little bit about what you are attempting to criticize.

​

quote:

---

I noticed you avoided my reproduction question to, I guess that one is just a little tricky since once again there is no answer as it didn't happen that way.

---

​

There is little point answering a meaningless question.

​

quote:

---

I mean, really, do you think that not a single scientist in the last 150 years could have thought of these questions?

---

​

Well, there are still foolish believers so it makes you wonder doesn't it. Or is it just that only the non-evolutionist are asking these questions since you'd rather be ignorant as to the existance of our God

---

The ToE has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God.It only bothers a minority of people who follow a particular sect of radical fundamentalist Protestant Christianity.

quote:

---

and turn a blind eye to reality and be lead away by some really bad science fiction.

---

So far, all you have shown me is a lot of angry ranting and misrepresentation of science. You have not presented a single shred of scientific evidence in support of your claims.You seem to claim that Biblical literalists are doing better science than scientists are.Why don't you start the scientific conversation with providing a detailed Scientific Theory of Creation, complete with confirming evidence, testable hypotheses, and potential falsification?

quote:

---

You implied that there had to be both a brain and a heart together for there to be a functioning organism. I pointed out that this was not the case.

---

Where did I imply that?This was completely contradictory.

quote:

---

I said:
Trying to argue with something having nothing at all is plain dumb, it doesn't explain the middle ground. Just think how long something as complex as this would take to evolve, how did they possibly live with only 1/10 of a heart, no blood and veins that stretch a few inches?

---

Then you went about blabbing about the ToE making no such claims, I was just trying to draw a picture on how evolution would have went about, was there not a middle ground, going by your next quote there was.

quote:

---

The ToE doesn't claim that "complete functioning systems" jump from "nothing", so this is (the same) false argument.

---

As you can see that made no sense. I was never claiming anything is finished I was referring that a functioning system must be complete to work, it won't work incomplete, so how did it go, from nothing at all > to incomplete (as in useless) > to complete (as in functioning) yet surviving the whole time. That really makes little sense. When talking about complete I mean, if you don't have the veins being redirected back to your heart then you'll die. Just like if you don't have a complete amount of blood you'll die. Or are doctors wrong and no one has died from having an incomplete amount of blood or an incomplete organ. Some where along the lines living systems if they supposedly evolved were incomplete (as in not yet working). So, in the light of reality, evolution couldn't have possibly taken place.

quote:

---

There is little point answering a meaningless question.

---

Seriously, calling reproduction meaningless would have to be one of the most idiotic things I'm yet to hear an evolutonist say. So how did living systems pass on there DNA before they had evolved to reproduce? Or am I wrong and I didn't get here by reproduction, did you get here some other way?

quote:

---

You have not presented a single shred of scientific evidence in support of your claims.

---

So where is it in science that says something can survive that cannot properly function except in evolution. I've never known anything incomplete (once again, as in not functioning) to survive. If presenting comman sense to the discussion is a problem with you, then so be it.

quote:

---

You seem to claim that Biblical literalists are doing better science than scientists are.

---

Really? I'd like to know where I said that. I've thought it through long and hard and living systems that are not complete (as in not functioning) cannot survive so I can easily come to a scientific conclusion through deductive thinking that God made everything at the exact same time as I've never known anything to make itself. Did your computer make itself?

quote:

---

Why don't you start the scientific conversation with providing a detailed Scientific Theory of Creation, complete with confirming evidence, testable hypotheses, and potential falsification?

---

One day I might.Anyway, after that last post you've lead completely astray from the topic since the questions are unanswerable. Not because they are not valid because somewhere along the line of evolution these cases have to be considered, or did we evolve without evolving since you are really making no sense. You try to twist everyones words to support your blind faith. Sorry, I have to much comman sense.

What came first the bood or the heart?Answer . Vascular fluid.Coelenterates contain a body cavitity , in which all transport of nutrients & Oxygen take place. ANYTHING that increases the motion of fluid in this cavity will give the organism a survival advantage, & nat sel kicks in. Echinoderms don't have hearts but are able to move blood/vascular fluid around using cilia & tube feet (muscular ampules, able to pump, very simple, but pumps nonetheless). Annelids are basically a body cavity with hearts pumping blood around, sans blood vessels. Although species exist that contain this body cavity AND a primitive vessel system with low function. An intermediate exists, sorry.So here are 3 living intermediates, 1 of which have body cavity fluid & nothing else, another has cavity/vascular fluid & simple muscular pumps as the driving force, another has hearts & no vessels, & other annelids have a bit of both.As Scraf alludes, perhaps more education & less personal incredulity?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
me-You implied that there had to be both a brain and a heart together for there to be a functioning organism. I pointed out that this was not the case.

​

RC-Where did I imply that?

​

This was completely contradictory.

---

quote:

---

From message number 1: "Which came first, the heart or the blood? Or, the brain or the heart? Tell me which lump of flesh evolved it's miraculous ability first, and hung around waiting on the rest of them to "evolve"."

​

So, it seemed to me that you were saying that you thought that both a brain and a heart were needed.

​

quote:

---

Trying to argue with something having nothing at all is plain dumb, it doesn't explain the middle ground. Just think how long something as complex as this would take to evolve, how did they possibly live with only 1/10 of a heart, no blood and veins that stretch a few inches?

​

Then you went about blabbing about the ToE making no such claims,

---

​

Which it doesn't. If you want to make claims about scientific theories, I don't think it is too much to ask that you understand what the theories actually claim.

​

Why don't you go find a good, short description from a science-based site of the ToE and cut n paste it here. That way, I will at least know that you have visited one, once. The three links I post below will be a good place to find such a thing.

​

quote:

---

I was just trying to draw a picture on how evolution would have went about,

---

​

Your problem is that life and evolution don't work the way you represented that they do.

​

quote:

---

was there not a middle ground, going by your next quote there was. The ToE doesn't claim that "complete functioning systems" jump from "nothing", so this is (the same) false argument.As you can see that made no sense. I was never claiming anything is finished I was referring that a functioning system must be complete to work,

---

​

Let's see; "complete" and "finished". Seem like pretty similar words to me.

​

quote:

---

it won't work incomplete, so how did it go, from nothing at all > to incomplete (as in useless) > to complete (as in functioning) yet surviving the whole time.

---

​

Look, just think about what I am saying, and what you are saying, for a minute, OK? This is your argument so far:

​

you-Evolution says that we evolve with 1/10th of a heart, etc, etc, etc., so this is why evolution is false.

​

me-Evolution doesn't claim that evolving "a 1/10th of a heart" happens, so your argument is a false one.

​

You-repeat first assertion.

​

Do you see something rather "brick-wallish" about your argument style here? Perhaps, if you were interested in an actual exchange of ideas, you might instead have said, "The ToE doesn't claim that? Well, what does it claim? Is there a scientific source on the issue that I might look at to see if I need to correct myself?"

​

quote:

---

That really makes little sense.

---

​

I agree that it makes little sense, and since the ToE DOESN'T CLAIM THAT, your argument is a strawman.

​

I repeat, read some biology. Read the links I provided. You will learn what the ToE ACTUALLY states instead of this other 9pardon the expression) crap you have been making up or been told.

​

quote:

---

When talking about complete I mean, if you don't have the veins being redirected back to your heart then you'll die. Just like if you don't have a complete amount of blood you'll die. Or are doctors wrong and no one has died from having an incomplete amount of blood or an incomplete organ. Some where along the lines living systems if they supposedly evolved were incomplete (as in not yet working).

---

​

Insects don't have a "complete circuit" circulatory system. Their bodily fluids just move around with the help of a pump, but there is no venious system needed.

​

Organisms were "simpler", not "incomplete" in our evolutionary past.

​

I will repeat; all organisms are fully-formed and functional. There is no such thing as "complete" in an evolutionary sense. Species are in a constant state of change, more or less, depending upon environmental pressures.

​

Evolution is not a process of adding complex parts (organs, systems, etc.) to an organism, the precursors of which were never there before, which is what you are claiming.

​

All present heritable traits are built upon past heritable traits.

​

We can begin discussing the genetic evidence for the ToE if you like.

​

quote:

---

So, in the light of reality, evolution couldn't have possibly taken place.

---

​

Repeating the same false arguments over and over again does not an effective strategy make.

​

You have indulged in the classic strawman tactic of misrepresenting your opponent's argument and then demolishing that false position.

​

Let me be perfectly clear here:

​

You have not been criticizing what the Theory of Evolution actually claims. You have been criticizing a incorrect, false, twisted, wrong, strawman of what the ToE claims.

​

Therefore, you have made no argument at all against the ToE.

​

quote:

---

There is little point answering a meaningless question.

---

​

Seriously, calling reproduction meaningless would have to be one of the most idiotic things I'm yet to hear an evolutonist say.

---

I didn't say that reproduction is meaningless.I said that discussing reproduction with someone who doesn't even know the basic concepts concerning the scientific theory they are supposed to be arguing against is meaningless. [QUOTE]So how did living systems pass on there DNA before they had evolved to reproduce? Or am I wrong and I didn't get here by reproduction, did you get here some other way?

quote:

---

Before things reproduced, we wouldn't call them living systems. Reproduction is but one of the criterion for calling something alive.

​

quote:

---

You have not presented a single shred of scientific evidence in support of your claims.

---

​

So where is it in science that says something can survive that cannot properly function except in evolution.

---

Evolution doesn't say this. Please read the links. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beginners.html

quote:

---

I've never known anything incomplete (once again, as in not functioning) to survive.

---

Right. That's why evolution doesn't claim that it would.

quote:

---

If presenting comman sense to the discussion is a problem with you, then so be it.

---

If continually repeating the same strawman argument about the ToE constitutes your best debating method, then that's pretty pathetic.

quote:

---

me-You seem to claim that Biblical literalists are doing better science than scientists are.

---

quote:

---

Really? I'd like to know where I said that.

---

You said "Because in the light of real science there is no evidence for something
to decide to evolve..."The only people who think this, and who also claim that they are doing science, live in Creation "Science" land.There are no non-Biblical literalists who hold this view, so naturally I assumed that the only science you consider "real" is that which bolsters your religious views; namely, Creation "science".

quote:

---

I've thought it through long and hard and living systems that are not complete (as in not functioning) cannot survive

---

I congratulate you on your logical thinking.Your accuracy in representing scientific theories, however, needs a lot of work.

quote:

---

so I can easily come to a scientific conclusion through deductive thinking that God made everything at the exact same time as I've never known anything to make itself.

---

Wow.You should win the Nobel prize with that amazing "scientific deduction" that you display. You just destroyed a couple of hundred years of scientific work in a couple seconds! Gosh, you're smart!But seriously, you do not understand how science works. Science uses naturalistic explanations to explain naturalistic phenomena. Here is a good, short explanation of what science is and how it is conducted. I beg you, read it. http://www.skepdic.com/science.htmlNo, people made my computer. What the heck is your point?me:[b]Why don't you start the scientific conversation with providing a detailed Scientific Theory of Creation, complete with confirming evidence, testable hypotheses, and potential falsification?

quote:

---

One day I might.

---

Why not right now? You have, after all, put in a lot of "long, hard thought" about this issue. I am particularly interested in seeing that Scientific Theory of Creation. I have never seen one, you see, despite years of asking and searching. Perhaps you can help me with this.

quote:

---

Anyway, after that last post you've lead completely astray from the topic since the questions are unanswerable.

---

You were never asking sensical questions in the first place, so I'm not sure how it's me that was leading any of us astray.You state that evolution couldn't have happened because living systems couldn't survive without being "fully-formed" and therefore, "non-functional".It is like being outraged that Physics cannot explain why all atoms do not fly apart because gravity isn't strong enough to bind atoms together, so Atomic Theory is all a bunch of hooey.The problem is, gravity is not the force that binds atoms together in the first place, and no physical law or theory EVER states that it is.This is exactly what you are doing with the ToE.

quote:

---

Not because they are not valid because somewhere along the line of evolution these cases have to be considered, or did we evolve without evolving since you are really making no sense.

---

Um, what? Read the links. You are so sure that you know what the ToE says, but you are so very wrong. Go read the links, read the links, read the links. [QUOTE]You try to twist everyones words to support your blind faith. Sorry, I have to much comman sense.[/b][/QUOTE]You also have a lot of misinformation.Read the links.Go read the links. What are you afraid of?

Firstly, I have read some of the stuff on the links and when I get the chance I'll read more. Don't get the idea that I ignore evolution or something (if that's possible), I spend a lot of time studying it and I'm yet to be able to work it all together. From what I've looked at so far I've been taught nothing I didn't no before, or that I couldn't work out myself. I also know that every evolution is just brain washed to say the same stuff. I find a terribly lot wrong with evolution that you seem to ignore. I still can't see how survival of the fittest helps anything to evolve, it just gets rid of the week but it doesn't make anything "better". One of the links you gave me, "Evolution for Beginners" is an absolute laugh. Just because it is for beginners doesn't mean they have to be so wrong. I can't believe how evolution tries to blur the difference between all the catergorising we've done for centuries. It is probably one of the most stable areas of biology except a few species which they are yet to work in. If evolution had its way they'd probably do away with that area so they can go on brain washing. Like human A and human B makes a completely different human C. What are they trying to do? Make out its not a human? You come from, half a human + half a human = a human. That is very, very basic biology. It will always be a human, following pretty much the same basic mathematical rules by which God created all things (except in the rare cases of deformities, etc.), SEE HERE. I think in another topic you went about saying what restrictions there are in biology. There is no real restrictions except that, if the DNA information isn't there, it won't get there. A reptile with no feathers + a reptile with no feathers doesn't = a reptile that begins to form feathers. It is plain ridiculous. You've all just been brain washed to think that it is actually feasible. Evolution is all backwards, look at everything around you, it is all degenerating. Humans are slowly getting dumber and more disordered, same with any other creature. It's not hard to see that, it is what all the evidence will have you believe. But no, in the light of evolution, we'll just forget that. It's like a cult or something, nobody can think for themselves. Everything you say is what they tell you to say, everything you think is what they tell you to think.I'd like to know what misinformation I'm giving off. Just because a question is just way to hard to answer doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Evolution is such a slow, dragged out process that something cannot go from nothing to a simple functioning system or organ. They are always saying we will never get to see the forming of something totally new as such because it takes so long, so how does it go from nothing, to complete (for the last time I mean as in functioning). No matter how simple it is, there has to be some sought of middle ground. Don't just say, evolution makes no such claim, because the question is just way to hard to draw any sought of conclusion. Not just you, but me and any other person out there, no one can work it out so they decided to brain wash all its followers into saying the question is irrelevent. Evolution is fixed around such major transformation, if a question such as how did reproduction evolve without reproduction is irrelevant then I can quite clearly see you are following blind faith, it is pretty important, actually, absolutely crucial. BTW, for the last time I'd like to know where I said which came first, the brain or the heart? Because my user name isn't ekimklaw you know.

I know I said in another topic that was my last post but while searching around I can now clearly see you cannot think for yourself. You must lean on a crutch of other peoples information. I wondered why you called me a straw men and I found it HERE.The site goes on to say it is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics. Or even funnier since you have so little confidence in your own position that you cannot even address the real position of your opponent. Which I could clearly see that this was the position you were taking. You even used it in the wrong place as I never brought up any of the dumb examples of questions that only the uninformed would bring up. I already understand all them little things and that evolution has no proper answer except a bit of philosophy so I wasn't going to bother bringing something up so useless. My questions were very relevant, how did reproduction evolve without reproduction is a damn good question and you had to resort to your lil straw men tactic because it was out of your grasp.LMAO, sorry, but I really know you are just brain washed to think a certain way. Why don't you try some of that objectional thinking you seem to have against creationists for your own faith? I look at both, if not everything very objectionally, you don't seem to. Just what is convenient then turn a blind eye if it goes against your blind faith.Don't resort to such low mantality again if you want to defend your cult. LOL