Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nuggin & Carico - Evolution Explained
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 36 (272392)
12-24-2005 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Nuggin
12-24-2005 3:10 AM


Re: Carico? You ready?
It sounds fair. I'm ready.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 3:10 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 1:50 PM Carico has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 36 (272511)
12-24-2005 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nuggin
12-24-2005 1:50 PM


Re: Basics
Everything but the age of the earth. I just read an article where scientists now say that we aren't as old as we think. They said that our "ancestors" are now only 7 million years old. Funny, they keep chaning the age of man ever decade. And I can assure you of one thing; it will change again.
So the age of man and the earth is not an established fact, nor will it ever be an established fact. But one thing is certain: Eye-witnesses put the age of man at under 5,000 years. The rest is all guesswork for scienitists, but not for God. But if they think they know better than God what the age of the earth is, then they will simply be held accountable for it one day since they aren't humble or honest enough to admit their ignorance about it now.
So since the age of man and the age of the earth keeps changing by scientists, then that cannot be an established premise on which we can debate. Debate should only contain facts that don't change with the seasons and that's what I'm interested in in this debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 1:50 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 5:00 PM Carico has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 36 (272628)
12-25-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Nuggin
12-24-2005 5:00 PM


Re: Basics
Sorry, but I'm not going to disagree with God about this. If you think you know better than God about how the world was created, then you are free to pass your wisdom along to others. But I don't think you know better than God, particularly when scientists show their fallibility by changing their minds about the age of the earth. But if you want to believe in shifting sand, then be my guest. I prefer to believe God because His truth is absolute and never changes.
So since we disagree about this, then this premise can't be establisehd. I'm more interested in how one species can turn into another species on its own without being able to breed with that species. And that is what I thought we were debating. Otherwise, we can get sidetracked about anything and everything and never get to the topic at hand.
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 01:00 PM
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 01:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Nuggin, posted 12-24-2005 5:00 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminNosy, posted 12-25-2005 1:15 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 2:42 PM Carico has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 36 (272685)
12-25-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Nuggin
12-25-2005 2:42 PM


Re: Basics
You challeneged me to a debate, not simply for me to agree with everything you say.
My questions are not advanced at all. They are the basic questions about the feasibility of the theory of evolution: Is it possible for one species to turn into another species without being able to breed with that species? This question gets to the root of whether or not evolution is even possible and one that should have been asked by Darwin himself before expounding on a premise that itself is in question. And since it has not been established by any facts that it's even possible for one species to turn into another one on its own, the rest of the theory is a waste of time if this is not possible. So we're debating the root of the thoery, not "advanced" questions.
Also, since you have not proven that anyone can know the exact age of the earth, seeing as how scientists change their minds all the time about it, then it cannot be used as a fact in a debate. So simply begin explaining how one species can turn into another one without being able to breed with that species and we can begin the debate.
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 06:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 2:42 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 7:26 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 8:09 PM Carico has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 36 (272723)
12-25-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Nuggin
12-25-2005 8:09 PM


Re: Your one and only question
Actually, that did not nswer my question. Again, how can one species change into another species without being able to breed with that species to begin with? In other words, the theory of evolution is suggesting that what creates a new species, is one species simply turning into that species, i.e., an ape turning into a human being. Is that correct? If not, then how could an ape have turned into a human when humans weren't around to begin with? If the answer to my question is yes, then again, please explain how one species can simply turn into another species, i.e., an ape into a human without breeding with humans. And I no longer want to hear that they are the same species when the dictionary clearly defines a species as members who are capable of breeding with each other and exchanging genes, which humans and apes clearly cannot do.
Also, how do you know that the ancestors of the fox lived that long ago when scientists keep changing their minds about when apes turned into human beings, especially when the carbon dating methods have been shown to be unreliable due to any intense heat on the surface of the ground that renders carbon dating unreliable? And how do you know that species was the ancestor of a fox except that some people have simply said so? Thank you.
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 11:04 PM
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 11:07 PM
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-25-2005 11:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 12-25-2005 8:09 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2005 1:10 AM Carico has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 36 (272790)
12-26-2005 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Nuggin
12-26-2005 1:10 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Who says humans are apes? If we are apes, then why can't we breed with apes? It is very clear what the differences between humans and apes are. Humans rule over the animals and apes are found in the jungle and in zoos where man put them. So why make no distinction between them? Apparently the boundaries are very blurred to evolutionists between animals and humans, but not so to children. Since evolutionists can't see the differences between apes and humans, I will explain them to you.
1)Apes cannot form complex analyses
2) Apes cannot walk on 2 legs
3) Apes cannot talk
4) Apes cannot contemplate spirituality
5) Apes cannot rule the world
6) Apes do not have blue eyes, blond hair or transparent skin
7) And most importantly, apes cannot breed with humans
So calling a human an ape is not only a misnomer, it is absurd. And it still does not prove that humans came from the wombs of apes one bit!
AND YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED HOW AN APE TURNED INTO A HUMAN. yOU HAVE SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT THEY DID WITH ZERO PROOF OF IT.
Your analogy doesn't apply at all! It isn't difficult to determine the date when the "Sound Of Music" was first played in theatres. There are playbills and receipts to document it. But there is nothing, zero, zip to document that the ancestor of a fox was a different animal. Nothing. That again, only comes from the imaginations of men. So again, facts please, not guesses.
Sorry, but it appears that it is you who doesn't understand that the breeding between 2 parents is what passes along genes to their offspring. My children are not going to turn into tigers on their own because they simply don't have tiger genes, nor can they breed with tigers. And neither do apes have human genes or they would be breeding human offspring! But they clearly are not.And until you understnd that, then you will make up whatever story suits your fancy even though it has nothing to do with reality whatsoever.
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-26-2005 08:54 AM
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-26-2005 08:55 AM
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-26-2005 08:56 AM
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-26-2005 08:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2005 1:10 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2005 3:59 PM Carico has replied
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 12-28-2005 10:37 AM Carico has replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 36 (273136)
12-27-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuggin
12-26-2005 3:59 PM


Re: Your one and only question
Now you ARE suggesting bestiality by saying that we can breed with apes. Not only is that perverse, but it is impossible. It is also a desperate attempt to make evolution true but shows instead, that evolution is based on a lie. All you have shown is that humans can breed with humans and apes can breed with apes. But you have NOT shown that a human can breed with an ape.
But this is the kind of lie that happens when one calls a human an ape. It also proves that trying to turn one species into another just because you say so can't make it true. So you either don't know that apes and humans can't interbreed, or you know it and are deliberately lying about it. So which is it, Nuggins? I'd like to know before we go any further.
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-27-2005 03:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 12-26-2005 3:59 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 4:05 AM Carico has not replied
 Message 27 by Nuggin, posted 12-27-2005 10:12 AM Carico has not replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 36 (273137)
12-27-2005 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Carico
12-27-2005 3:52 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Actually, to save you the trouble of either contradicting yourself or incriminating yourself, Nuggins, you have just proven that evolution is based on a lie. Your overt declaration that humans can breed with apes has said it all. It is not only again, pervserse, but a lie as well. It also shows the myriad of contradictions in the theory of evolution because when I've said that evolutionists suggest bestiality, I was severely chastized for it but now an evolutionist himself has verified that that's what evolutonists believe which is a false belief. So since I previously stated that I will not debate with an evolutionist if he contradicts himself, or takes back any staments,I have proven the theory of evolution a lie and this debate is over. But I must admit, it didn't take very long to prove evolution a lie, and by an evolutionist himself in a formal debate, no less.
This message has been edited by Carico, 12-27-2005 04:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Carico, posted 12-27-2005 3:52 AM Carico has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 6:48 AM Carico has replied
 Message 28 by Nuggin, posted 12-27-2005 10:19 AM Carico has not replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 36 (273165)
12-27-2005 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mark24
12-27-2005 6:48 AM


Re: Your one and only question
Again, you contradicted yourself because you said that humans can breed with apes. Are you saying that the apes in the jungles are not apes? What are you calling them? Therefore, when you claim that humans can breed with apes, you are also including the beasts in the jungle unless you are saying they are not apes. Therefore, you cannot claim that humans can breed with apes unless you change the name of the beasts in the jungle to a different name which then defeats the whole point of evolution by saying that humans came from apes. But again, this kind of contradiction and irrationality is what happens when people try to make one species into another.
So this becomes so convoluted and contradictory, all to counter the biblical account of creation. The fact is that you cannot claim that humans came from apes without contradicting yourself. This has been apparent by the endless changing of stories on this forum. But you can NEVER admit you're wrong, even with the incessant contradictions staring you in the face. Therefore, it will serve no useful purpose to debate with people who openly lie without a conscience. It's bad enough that you can lie to yourselves, but its reprehensible that you opnely make false statements to our school children. You guys are trying so hard to make an impossible theory possible, that you contradict yourselves incessantly to the point that none of you can get your stories straight. You have no idea what a human is and what an ape is, nor do you have any idea that humans and an apes cannot interbreed. So I'd suggest you not only brush up on basic biology, but go to a zoo where you can see what apes breed and what they are before you can even think about having an honest and serious conversation about how genes are passed along to offspring. Only when you are able to understand that apes and humans are different species because they cannot breed with each other, will you be able to have an honest and rational conversation with those who understand that. Therefore, it serves no useful purpose to converse with people who cannot be honest. You can call humans anything you like and it still does not make it possible for humans to breed with apes. But unfortunately, that is another fact you don't understand either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 6:48 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mark24, posted 12-27-2005 9:38 AM Carico has not replied
 Message 29 by Nuggin, posted 12-27-2005 10:25 AM Carico has not replied

  
Carico
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 36 (273626)
12-28-2005 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Nuggin
12-28-2005 10:37 AM


Re: Carico's Definitions
The debate between you and me is over because you can't see the difference between humans and apes and cannot see that we cannot breed with apes. Therefore, I will not debate with someone who makes false statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 12-28-2005 10:37 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Nuggin, posted 12-28-2005 6:37 PM Carico has not replied
 Message 35 by Nuggin, posted 12-30-2005 9:55 AM Carico 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