Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The egg came first
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 111 (243079)
09-13-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
08-18-2005 8:08 PM


You assume that this egg could in fact survive. You have no idea what it came from. Its parent could be unnerved by this strange thing. Of course if this thing lays eggs then this egg will greatly differ from the others of its kind. It might also take longer to hatch than other of this creature's eggs. Predators may damage the egg. The parents would have to incubate it correctly on their first try. You see it is far more plausible for the creationist's "The chicken came first." That is one of the main problems with evolution. It assumes that everything has the knowledge it needs and that their is no trial and error process.

If life wasn't meant to be lived then why is there death?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 08-18-2005 8:08 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2005 6:47 PM igor_the_hero has replied
 Message 59 by bkelly, posted 09-14-2005 6:42 PM igor_the_hero has not replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 111 (243087)
09-13-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
09-13-2005 6:47 PM


Based on what-ifs? All evolution is is a game of what-ifs. Unnerved means the parents are not sure what they have and the may kill it. How would you feel knowing you gave birth to something new? Your instincts would tell you to destroy it. Also there are many predators that eat eggs. This parent may give birth to very hard-shelled young so that it can leave the nest. Instinct will tell it that it can leave the nest. Then predators may inspect and consume at their own will. Greatly diffrent means this is a whole new species. Are you trying to say this creature has given birth to something new and it will be a small difference? You ask if I have support and claim this is one of the greatest theories of all time. But what evolutionists fail to take into consideration is the instincts of animals. You also say my knowledge is flawed, which may be true, but all evolution is flawed. This chicken egg is going to hatch as a new species in a world that has never before seen it. Do you expect it to be able to live? Does "survival of the fittest" suddenly have no relevance? Please think up a good answer to this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2005 6:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 7:18 PM igor_the_hero has replied
 Message 46 by MangyTiger, posted 09-14-2005 12:24 AM igor_the_hero has not replied
 Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 09-14-2005 1:46 AM igor_the_hero has not replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 111 (243101)
09-13-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
09-13-2005 7:18 PM


Re: hmmmmmm
What you are taking as instincts are human feelings. Your red jungle fowl has instincts that tell it what its young should look like. Also there are others of this species that may kill this chicken. About predators, I am a little confused. I was saying that if this creature gives birth to very hard-shelled young so that it can leave the nest whenever it chooses. The chicken egg may be noticeably softer and thus a much larger chance to be eaten. In evolution you must think in individuals. If you think in mass evolution you would most likely have an extinction. You must consider the fact that this is the only one of its species. If no others are born in the chicken's lifetime then how will its species continue? You will probably answer this by saying it will reproduce with the kind of its parents. What then when its reproduction system changes? Will another with the same system be born all of a sudden? It seems like you are thinking of this as a change that adapted perfectly with no consideration to evolution's mechanism,mutation. Please continue to try to prove me wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 7:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 9:37 PM igor_the_hero has replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 111 (243147)
09-13-2005 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
09-13-2005 9:37 PM


Re: Evolution 101
I am sorry that this seems rude, I merely am doing a report on evolution and my teacher advised me to argue in a couple of forums.
About how the young should look like, the fowl should be able to compare its young with others. It is not a bare assertion. As individuals, I must argue with you there. Evolution must start with individuals. All those scientists are saying that a group of creatures appeared many years ago. These chickens had to start somewhere. A clutch, yes, it does work in population then. But what of the creatures that only bear one young? Did a bunch of animals all suddenly have the same young that was different from their parents? As for the fossil record, it can not be relied upon. It Texas there is a river clearly showing humans walking with dinosaurs. When the rock was excavated they found more footprints from the same time period. I am sorry to bring it into this, but in the Bible in the book of Job, he clearly describes a Brachiosaurus and Plesiosaurus. As of this reproduction, to advance farther it needs to have more of its own kind to reproduce to the next stage. Here is an example: Creatures A have young showing 50% of their charachteristics. Creature B, the young, has nothing to mate with of its own kind so has young with A. Their young has 75% of the charachteristics. This one mates with A so on and so forth. As for the hard-shelled eggs, thank you for showing me that idea.

If life wasn't meant to be lived then why is there death?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 9:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2005 10:26 PM igor_the_hero has replied
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 10:28 PM igor_the_hero has not replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2005 10:44 PM igor_the_hero has replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 111 (243164)
09-13-2005 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
09-13-2005 10:26 PM


Re: Evolution 101
Ah! You did not refer to the plesiousaur. If you have actually read the Bible through you will see that it does descrirbe a brachiosaur. Yes they did excavate the rock. Many evolutionists have stated the same thing you state now. They also dated it with the same equipment they date fossils. So if that is flawed then so is evolution's million years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2005 10:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 7:54 AM igor_the_hero has replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 111 (243166)
09-13-2005 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
09-13-2005 10:44 PM


Re: Evolution 101
Hmmm....so teaching a young mind is too good for you? First, I said I was sorry if it seemed rude. I give you the courtesy of manners so maybe you could do me the same thing. But if you cannot teach someone who is curious then maybe evolution should not be researched. If you can not tell the people who try to learn it then why research it? If the public can not be told the meaning of addition then maybe math should be destroyed. As for knowing the theory, I have researched it. From all points of few. I have read Scientific Creationism and Origin Of The Species. You speak of learning the difference between faith and science, but are you aware that evolution is as much a religion as creationism? Creationism actually has a better concept of scientific laws than evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2005 10:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 11:03 PM igor_the_hero has replied
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 09-14-2005 11:25 AM igor_the_hero has not replied
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2005 8:07 PM igor_the_hero has not replied
 Message 65 by Nuggin, posted 09-15-2005 1:00 AM igor_the_hero has not replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 111 (243172)
09-13-2005 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Modulous
09-13-2005 11:03 PM


Re: rudeness
Thanks for the info. Under other circumstances I would open this can anyways. But not when I am just mad at someone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2005 11:03 PM Modulous has not replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 111 (243381)
09-14-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
09-14-2005 7:54 AM


Re: Evolution 101
That is clearly a Brachiosaur. "He makes his tail stiff like a cedar." An elephant tail is loose while a brachiosaur tail is straight. "Under the lotus plant he lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh." Brachiosaur spent most its time in the water so that it would not have to support its weight. It is believed brachiosaur only had a long neck as counter-balance for its tail. They excavated the rocks and found others underneath it in the strata proving these could not be faked. If they could be forged that way then how can we trust that layers of rock can be used to tell how long they are from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 7:54 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 4:19 PM igor_the_hero has replied
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 6:49 PM igor_the_hero has not replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 111 (243399)
09-14-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by CK
09-14-2005 4:19 PM


Re: Evolution 101
Seeing as how this man owned plenty of livestock, I fail to see how he could mistake a tail for a penis. Also if this "creature" was seen in the water under the lotus trees then he would be seen submerged or partly submerged. The verse about the leviathan is found in Job chapter 40.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 4:19 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 4:47 PM igor_the_hero has replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 111 (243405)
09-14-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by CK
09-14-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Evolution 101
His stones refer to his knee caps. Also, since "He moveth his tail like a cedar" then it would have to be speaking of his tail. A cedar is a very large tree. This was a godly man who was modest. He would not be complimenting the animal upon its penis size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 4:47 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 4:55 PM igor_the_hero has replied

  
igor_the_hero
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 111 (243414)
09-14-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by CK
09-14-2005 4:55 PM


Re: Evolution 101
As this is getting far off topic, I am posting a new one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 4:55 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 5:10 PM igor_the_hero has not replied
 Message 58 by Wounded King, posted 09-14-2005 6:19 PM igor_the_hero has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024