Evolution

RPGMasterTurk91 · 11-21-2009, 10:05 AM

Another controversial topic brought to you by me!

Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? Or more simply, just evolution? Why or why not?

Make it a calm and worthy debating environment.

Personally, I believe that the Theory of Evolution is a well-thought, brilliant-minded theory. Still, I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution is the end-all behind life on earth, rather, I believe in a uniquely single and infinitely powerful God that is responsible for creating everything and anything--including good, evil, and life itself.

DPrinny · 11-21-2009, 10:11 AM

Evolution was a ok film and a shite cartoon series
I do believe that the film exists as I have seen countless copy's of it in charity shops

prinplup · 11-21-2009, 10:18 AM

i dont know much about this but i dont believe in evolution hoe come monkeys dont evolve anymore?? i believe God Exist's & THere's and afterlife & you get to meet him & you understand everything " meaning of life"

RPGMasterTurk91 · 11-21-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DPrinny

Evolution was a ok film and a shite cartoon series
I do believe that the film exists as I have seen countless copy's of it in charity shops

Thanks a lot, I was wondering if it was real or not! I'm gonna have to go right now and get it...if I don't find it, it means you have evolved.

Napalmbrain · 11-21-2009, 10:45 AM

I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in gravity- I accept it. Scientists resolved this debate beyond all reasonable doubt decades ago. I already talked about it in the "Does God exist?" thread, so here's a copy-paste:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napalmbrain

As everyone knows, organisms have DNA in their bodies, and this DNA is passed on to children. Every so often however, there is a mutation (a 'mistake' in the copying process). Most mutations are harmless and don't make any noticeable difference, while a few of them are bad, and a few of them are good. A good mutation can give that organism the edge over its competitors, which makes it more likely that that particularly will survive to reproduce and pass on the mutation (for example, the giraffe with a longer neck can reach food in trees which its competitors can't reach, so it's got more food to itself). This is natural selection, or as you might call it, 'survival of the fittest' (although I don't particularly like the term- any organism which lives long enough to reproduce is basically 'fit').

So no, evolution doesn't 'know' what an organism needs to survive, nor does it 'know' anything- it's just a process. Organisms gain their features at random, and those features that aid survival are more likely to be passed on to their children.

I know how some people like to talk about the intelligent design hypothesis, saying how some features are supposedly "too complex" to have evolved (usually without any quantitative measure of 'complexity'), so I'm going to pre-empt it. Intelligent design is bad science made up by people who don't have a clue about genetics or biology. For example, let's take the old creationist favourite, the eye. It's certainly tempting to think something so complex could only have been designed, but consider this: some eyesight is better than no eyesight. The first eyes to have evolved would have been incredibly primitive, barely letting you see how bright it was. But that's still better than not being able to see at all. Over time, some organisms evolved more and more complex eyes, allowing for directional vision, better focus, colour vision, etc.

her01771 · 11-21-2009, 10:47 AM

Evolution and mutation are two different things.
one in africa can mutate, but one in europe can stay the same. how is that???

PrinceLink · 11-21-2009, 10:47 AM

I'm going to break your arm if you post one more thread this month. I say you have like a one month ban.

I mean its just making my life that much harder to read all of these. And they all are sooo similar. They could easily be combined into one thread.

I make a motion to end this thread until discussions in the other threads halt so we don't expire all of our discussion points for the year.

RPGMasterTurk91 · 11-21-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napalmbrain

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMasterTurk91

You can say "evolution" to anything you want. I say, it IS true that a butterfly "evolves" from a caterpillar to a winged butterfly.

So explain to me how the first creatures who "needed" very specific features in order to survive survived? They were still adapting to the planet. So how do birds evolve to grow longer beaks? How does genetics "know" that the bird needs a longer beak in order to survive? And apparently the original beaks were just fine because the species continued to live on to this day. Evolution claims that the original giraffes did not have long necks. How then did they survive without the proper features needed to survive? As anything evolves to protect itself from predators and consume food easier, so does everything else. The giraffe, according to the theory of evolution (which has definitely not in any way been proven, why do we have ape-like creatures from which we "evolved" from?), kept stretching its neck towards a tall tree where it needed to feed from. How did the original giraffes feed, and when they did, didn't the trees in which they fed on "evolve" to form some sort of defense? Anyways, over millions and millions of years the giraffes bred and bred until finally their necks got longer and longer. What were they feeding on for millions of years if they had been reaching for the top of a certain tree for all of those years?

Ask yourself, if someone has their arm chopped off, do they lose the ability to bear children who have two arms? Not at all, the arms won't even be deformed one bit, one would be a fool to think so. Evolution deals with every organism learning to "deal with their surroundings". If the water fowl developed clear vision in water over millions of years of "trying", how did they survive up to this day, and if they survived then, what would be the use of being able to see in water? Hows does genetics determine whether to give them this ability, and not something else "accidentally"?

There are many, many flaws in the argument of evolution--up next: "Survival of the Fittest" (this is more of a self-reminder for the next topic I want to talk about).

Alright, I can clearly see you don't know much about evolution. I think it would help if I explained the gist of it:

As everyone knows, organisms have DNA in their bodies, and this DNA is passed on to children. Every so often however, there is a mutation (a 'mistake' in the copying process). Most mutations are harmless and don't make any noticeable difference, while a few of them are bad, and a few of them are good. A good mutation can give that organism the edge over its competitors, which makes it more likely that that particularly will survive to reproduce and pass on the mutation (for example, the giraffe with a longer neck can reach food in trees which its competitors can't reach, so it's got more food to itself). This is natural selection, or as you might call it, 'survival of the fittest' (although I don't particularly like the term- any organism which lives long enough to reproduce is basically 'fit').

So no, evolution doesn't 'know' what an organism needs to survive, nor does it 'know' anything- it's just a process. Organisms gain their features at random, and those features that aid survival are more likely to be passed on to their children.

I know how some people like to talk about the intelligent design hypothesis, saying how some features are supposedly "too complex" to have evolved (usually without any quantitative measure of 'complexity'), so I'm going to pre-empt it. Intelligent design is bad science made up by people who don't have a clue about genetics or biology. For example, let's take the old creationist favourite, the eye. It's certainly tempting to think something so complex could only have been designed, but consider this: some eyesight is better than no eyesight. The first eyes to have evolved would have been incredibly primitive, barely letting you see how bright it was. But that's still better than not being able to see at all. Over time, some organisms evolved more and more complex eyes, allowing for directional vision, better focus, colour vision, etc.

What I wrote is actually what OTHER people say about evolution, not necessarily myself. So genetic mutations are the cause of certain traits being attributed to certain beings. Lets take the water fowl again. It has the ability to see underwater clearly, and uses it to catch fish--which is meat. The water fowl also happened to develop a digestive system which is designed to break down meat, more specifically the meat of a fish. A predator whose diet consists mainly of fish is coincidentally and "mistakenly" given the ability to see underwater? Giraffes would not survive if they did not have their long necks--nor would they resort to eating meat on the ground level--their digestive systems are not designed to break up such a thing, hence why they only eat plants and are not attracted to meat. Just look at all the different combinations of traits in nature--none of them contradict the other.

Take the antelope, for example. It has a long nose specifically designed to eat ants. What did its ancestor resort to when it hadn't accidentally grown its longer nose perfectly suited for feeding? Did they just randomly pick up an appetite for insects and "adapt" accordingly?

RPGMasterTurk91 · 11-21-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceLink

I'm going to break your arm if you post one more thread this month. I say you have like a one month ban.

I mean its just making my life that much harder to read all of these. And they all are sooo similar. They could easily be combined into one thread.

I make a motion to end this thread until discussions in the other threads halt so we don't expire all of our discussion points for the year.

What can I say, I like a discussion. You are not forced to read any of them, and they are INDEED different. Yes, they are linked in one way or another, but each topic will have something specific to it. And this thread will probably be my last controversial thread I will be making in a while. They are all different concepts, although you may find similarities when explaining them. Evolution, God existing, one's nationality and culture, atheism--these are all rather different but key topics of discussion and are worthy of debate. Just be glad I didn't post a "which religion are you" thread and attempt to start an ARGUMENT on who is right or wrong

Not to mention I don't see many people minding such topics, especially when a "Super Moderator" has posted and spent some of his time responding to them in a mature fashion.

Now back to the topic, contribute if you wish =D

PrinceLink · 11-21-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMasterTurk91

What can I say, I like a discussion. You are not forced to read any of them, and they are INDEED different. Yes, they are linked in one way or another, but each topic will have something specific to it. And this thread will probably be my last controversial thread I will be making in a while. They are all different concepts, although you may find similarities when explaining them. Evolution, God existing, one's nationality and culture, atheism--these are all rather different but key topics of discussion and are worthy of debate. Just be glad I didn't post a "which religion are you" thread and attempt to start an ARGUMENT on who is right or wrong

Not to mention I don't see many people minding such topics, especially when a "Super Moderator" has posted and spent some of his time responding to them in a mature fashion.

Now back to the topic, contribute if you wish =D

Atheism, Evolution and the God existing threads are pretty much the same. Actually in the God existing threads there are more posts about evolution in that one than there are in this one.

I'm just asking you to let one thread go on and die before you make another one. It just is making things messy and confusing.

Shadow*91 · 11-21-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napalmbrain

I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in gravity- I accept it. Scientists resolved this debate beyond all reasonable doubt decades ago. I already talked about it in the "Does God exist?" thread, so here's a copy-paste:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napalmbrain

As everyone knows, organisms have DNA in their bodies, and this DNA is passed on to children. Every so often however, there is a mutation (a 'mistake' in the copying process). Most mutations are harmless and don't make any noticeable difference, while a few of them are bad, and a few of them are good. A good mutation can give that organism the edge over its competitors, which makes it more likely that that particularly will survive to reproduce and pass on the mutation (for example, the giraffe with a longer neck can reach food in trees which its competitors can't reach, so it's got more food to itself). This is natural selection, or as you might call it, 'survival of the fittest' (although I don't particularly like the term- any organism which lives long enough to reproduce is basically 'fit').

So no, evolution doesn't 'know' what an organism needs to survive, nor does it 'know' anything- it's just a process. Organisms gain their features at random, and those features that aid survival are more likely to be passed on to their children.

I know how some people like to talk about the intelligent design hypothesis, saying how some features are supposedly "too complex" to have evolved (usually without any quantitative measure of 'complexity'), so I'm going to pre-empt it. Intelligent design is bad science made up by people who don't have a clue about genetics or biology. For example, let's take the old creationist favourite, the eye. It's certainly tempting to think something so complex could only have been designed, but consider this: some eyesight is better than no eyesight. The first eyes to have evolved would have been incredibly primitive, barely letting you see how bright it was. But that's still better than not being able to see at all. Over time, some organisms evolved more and more complex eyes, allowing for directional vision, better focus, colour vision, etc.

Napalm pretty much summed up the whole thread. looks like his sig is right, he does know about everything.

RPGMasterTurk91 · 11-21-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceLink

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMasterTurk91

What can I say, I like a discussion. You are not forced to read any of them, and they are INDEED different. Yes, they are linked in one way or another, but each topic will have something specific to it. And this thread will probably be my last controversial thread I will be making in a while. They are all different concepts, although you may find similarities when explaining them. Evolution, God existing, one's nationality and culture, atheism--these are all rather different but key topics of discussion and are worthy of debate. Just be glad I didn't post a "which religion are you" thread and attempt to start an ARGUMENT on who is right or wrong

Not to mention I don't see many people minding such topics, especially when a "Super Moderator" has posted and spent some of his time responding to them in a mature fashion.

Now back to the topic, contribute if you wish =D

Atheism, Evolution and the God existing threads are pretty much the same. Actually in the God existing threads there are more posts about evolution in that one than there are in this one.

I'm just asking you to let one thread go on and die before you make another one. It just is making things messy and confusing.

I know what you're saying and all, but people tend to say "let's stick to the topic of [insert topic] even when dragging on has to DO with that topic in the end. Overall, it breaks it down. Still, you can write whole BOOKS on each of these topics, so don't worry about it being messy, I think incorporating it all into one will make it all the more messy. In the end, I don't mind if one gets incorporated into the other--it's a discussion and it's bound to happen. May the "fittest thread" survive; as long as people respond to these threads, they're gonna remain...once they die, they die.

RPGMasterTurk91 · 11-21-2009, 11:12 AM

Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped the watch? Or would you suppose that the watch came by itself?

Of course no sane person would say that the watch just happened to emerge from the sand. All the intricate working parts could not simply develop from the metals the lay buried in the earth. The watch must have a manufacturer.

If a watch tells accurate time we expect the manufacturer must be intelligent. Blind chance cannot produce a working watch.

But what else tells accurate time? Consider the sunrise and sunset. Their timings are so strictly regulated that scientists can publish in advance the sunrise and sunset times in your daily newspapers. But who regulates the timings of sunrise and sunset? If a watch can not work without an intelligent maker, how can the sun appear to rise and set with such clockwork regularity? Could this occur by itself?

Consider also that we benefit from the sun only because it remains at a safe distance from the earth, a distance that averages 93 million miles. If it got much closer the earth would burn up. And if it got too far away the earth would turn into an icy planet making human life here impossible. Who decided in advance that this was the right distance? Could it just happen by chance?

Without the sun plants would not grow. Then animals and humans would starve. Did the sun just decide to be there for us?

The rays of the sun would be dangerous for us had it not been for the protective ozone layer in our atmosphere. The atmosphere around earth keeps the harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching us. Who was it that placed this shield around us?

We need to experience sunrise. We need the sun's energy and it's light to see our way during the day. But we also need sunset. We need a break from the heat, we need the cook of night and we need the lights to out so we may sleep. Who regulated this process to provide what we need?

Moreover, if we had only the sun and the protection of the atmosphere we would want something more-beauty. Our clothes provide warmth and protection, yet we design them to also look beautiful. Knowing or need for beauty, the designer of sunrise and sunset also made the view of them to be simply breathtaking.

The creator who gave us light, energy, protection and beauty deserves our thanks. Yet some people insist that he does not exist. What would they think if they found a watch in the desert? An accurate, working watch? A beautifully designed watch? Would they not conclude that there does exist a watchmaker? An intelligent watchmaker? One who appreciates beauty? Such is God who made us, and He is exalted.

her01771 · 11-21-2009, 11:18 AM

uh, ^i think that was a bad example.
the sceintists are just going to pop up here and give us a example....

Napalmbrain · 11-21-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by her01771

Evolution and mutation are two different things.
one in africa can mutate, but one in europe can stay the same. how is that???

Like I said, it's a chance mutation of a gene when passed from parent to child. In fact, mutations happening in only environment is the key to evolution. Let's say you have a species which lived millions of years ago when Africa and Europe were still part of one continent. But eventually, they separate, which leaves some members of the species stranded apart from the others. Over time, the two populations experience different mutations- even if a mutation occurs on both sides, what's good for one population may not be good for the other (for example, you don't want lots of fur in the hot Sahara desert, but you would for a colder place like Europe). Eventually, they build up enough differences that they can now be considered two separate species.

RPGMasterTurk91 · 11-21-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow*91

just because of the lack of a scientific answer does not mean a God. that's essentially what your arguement has been. if humanity cannot explain it the it's because of God. with the ants for instance, you're basically claiming that since we can't behave thier behavior, its because of God. no its not. we just haven't figured it out yet.

and now your doing the same thing you did in the "Meta is broken" thread. your offeeing up your opinions as fact despite the evidence pointing otherwise.

Well no the Meta thread is essentially opinion-based, and with that topic--majority rules is reasonable because it's deciding between two things for the people. Just because I said that your mind was closed and completely incapable of compromise doesn't mean I'm saying "mine are fact and you're wrong", I didn't think you were traumatized after I told you that. I did note that your perspective is too tight. If God really exists, then what I say is completely true. If not, then the opposite is true with me. However, I am saying that it only makes SENSE to see that God exists, that is how I view it.

The fact that we have all the technology that we have and that we have looked at ant behavior for decades and we still cannot determine what leads to their behavior isn't necessarily proof that there is God, that's not what the article is trying to prove completely. That's more of a "besides, [insert quick valid point]. It's more of a support; such tiny ants are so complex to humans who have developed so many different technologies yet we can't figure something that is seemingly so simple.

Ok, let's talk about the spider:

As one cleans his/her house, he/she might see a spider that has woven its web in a corner of the house. If he/she realizes that he/she ought to think about this creature which is normally of no importance to anyone, he/she will see new doors being opened for him/her. This tiny insect he/she sees before him/her is a miracle of design. There is perfect symmetry in the web the spider has woven. If, by any chance, he/she wonders how a tiny spider could achieve such astonishingly perfect design, and if he/she does some quick research, he/she will encounter some other extraordinary facts: the thread a spider uses is thirty percent more flexible than a rubber thread of the same thickness. The thread the spider produces is of such a superior quality that men use it as a model for the manufacture of bullet-proof vests. One must wonder how a spider is taught how to construct such complex-looking things with such precision and no faults.

her01771 · 11-21-2009, 12:19 PM

i have some proof.
THEY HAVE FOUND NOAH'S ARK!
it was on a mountain in syria in 3 pieces.
they have proof. and guess wut? dinos still exist. they have found so much proof thus, there was no evolution. and dont say no. recently they have found a inactive volcano w/ anciet minerals. it has some animals thought to be extinct, such as the calocath. and guess wut? during the "millions" of years, the calocath has not changed.

Napalmbrain · 11-21-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by her01771

i have some proof.
THEY HAVE FOUND NOAH'S ARK!
it was on a mountain in syria in 3 pieces.
they have proof. and guess wut? dinos still exist. they have found so much proof thus, there was no evolution. and dont say no. recently they have found a inactive volcano w/ anciet minerals. it has some animals thought to be extinct, such as the calocath. and guess wut? during the "millions" of years, the calocath has not changed.

The 'Noah's Ark' discovery was a hoax, and I have no idea what 'volcano' you're talking about- Coelacanths live in the Indian Ocean, and while it's true they haven't changed much in millions of years, that just means that were able to get by without needing to evolve, and it doesn't change the mountains of evidence I already mentioned.

RPGMasterTurk91 · 11-21-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by her01771

i have some proof.
THEY HAVE FOUND NOAH'S ARK!
it was on a mountain in syria in 3 pieces.
they have proof. and guess wut? dinos still exist. they have found so much proof thus, there was no evolution. and dont say no. recently they have found a inactive volcano w/ anciet minerals. it has some animals thought to be extinct, such as the calocath. and guess wut? during the "millions" of years, the calocath has not changed.

Actually, presently Noah's Ark is thought to be in Mount Ararat in Turkey. Look it up.

@Napalmbrain, now you're saying that the coelacanths didn't evolve much because they didn't need to? Again, this is what I mean by attributing genetics with "knowing" what to give and not to give to its species. Bees remain largely unchanged as well, but you're saying that evolution is caused due to a mutation in the genes, then adapting to the surroundings with those mutated genes. However, when you talk bout the Coelecanth, you note that it didn't "need to evolve" to get around and thus didn't. Couldn't the Mutations in the genes occur with anything--even if it doesn't seem favorable for that creature? Now you're saying only the useful, necessary things will come with evolution, yet before you questioned why "whales have leg bones that are obsolete to them". But you also noted that it is by chance what these species get, but nonetheless evolution will occur. And when it does, like with the antelope, they were either begin a craving the ant, or develop an easier way to eat the bug even though the species are alive to this day??

Let's talk about the bee:

The bactericide (bacteria-killing) property of honey is named "the inhibition effect". Experiments conducted on honey show that its bactericide properties increase twofold when diluted with water. It is very interesting to note that newly born bees in the colony are nourished with diluted honey by the bees responsible for their supervision - as if they know this feature of the honey.

When a flower has already been visited, the honeybee can understand that another bee has earlier consumed the nectar of that flower, and leave the flower immediately. This way, it saves both time and energy. Well, how does the bee understand, without checking the flower, that the nectar has earlier been consumed? This is made possible because the bees which visited the flower earlier marked it by leaving a drop on it with a special scent. Whenever a new bee looks in on the same flower, it smells the scent and understands that the flower is of no use and so goes on towards another flower. Thus, bees do not waste time on the same flower.

Honeybees are one of science's great mysteries because they have remained unchanged for 20 million years. Now that's is a big blow to the evolutionists!

Napalmbrain · 11-21-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGMasterTurk91

@Napalmbrain, now you're saying that the coelacanths didn't evolve much because they didn't need to? Again, this is what I mean by attributing genetics with "knowing" what to give and not to give to its species.

I explained this already. Genes don't "know" anything. For whatever reason, coelacanths have successfully managed to survive all these years without having an environmental imperative to evolve.

Quote:

Bees remain largely unchanged as well, but you're saying that evolution is caused due to a mutation in the genes, then adapting to the surroundings with those mutated genes. However, when you talk bout the Coelecanth, you note that it didn't "need to evolve" to get around and thus didn't. Couldn't the Mutations in the genes occur with anything--even if it doesn't seem favorable for that creature? Now you're saying only the useful, necessary things will come with evolution, yet before you questioned why "whales have leg bones that are obsolete to them". But you also noted that it is by chance what these species get, but nonetheless evolution will occur. And when it does, like with the antelope, they were either begin a craving the ant, or develop an easier way to eat the bug even though the species are alive to this day??

Evolution is not a perfect system. Perhaps it's better to think of it like a game of trade-offs: for example, a giraffe has a long neck to allow it to eat from tall trees, but it also means that the blood has to travel much further to get to the head. Basically, evolutionary advances often come with consequences.

Vesitigial organs, like those leg bones in the whale, are things that were once useful but no longer fulfill their primary role. The whale's ancestors lived on land, but they evolved to live at sea (unlike most of their mammal cousins such as us). As they evolved to live there, the leg bones become useless. They're not hindering the whales, they're just useless. Like I said, evolution is not perfect- it doesn't iron out these vestigial organs, and it has to work with what's already there.

Incidentally, whales are an excellent example of this- for animals that live in water it's much better than to have gills, but whales have lungs instead due to their mammalian ancestry, which means they have to keep coming up for air every few minutes. They can't just evolve gills straight away. But who knows, maybe in a few million years they will evolve gills.

11-21-2009, 10:05 AM	#1
RPGMasterTurk91 Turkish RPG Master Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Somewhere in New Jersey Posts: 744 Friends: 11	Evolution Another controversial topic brought to you by me! Do you believe in the Theory of Evolution? Or more simply, just evolution? Why or why not? Make it a calm and worthy debating environment. Personally, I believe that the Theory of Evolution is a well-thought, brilliant-minded theory. Still, I don't believe that the Theory of Evolution is the end-all behind life on earth, rather, I believe in a uniquely single and infinitely powerful God that is responsible for creating everything and anything--including good, evil, and life itself. __________________ "Many religions within a nation causes little conflict, but two religions within a nation is nothing less than conflict." "If you can speak three languages, you are trinomial. If you can speak two languages, you are binomial. If you can speak one language, you are American." "Speak softly and carry a big stick"--Theodore Roosevelt. Haha describes me nicely. SSBB: 0602-5954-4722 CURRENTLY RETIRED FROM ONLINE PLAY AND VIDEO GAMES IN GENERAL Last edited by RPGMasterTurk91; 11-21-2009 at 10:23 AM.

11-21-2009, 10:18 AM	#3
prinplup Main Server Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Nothern California Posts: 1,068 Friends: 33 2311-1123-4321-0974 Blog Entries: 1	i dont know much about this but i dont believe in evolution hoe come monkeys dont evolve anymore?? i believe God Exist's & THere's and afterlife & you get to meet him & you understand everything " meaning of life" __________________ Spoiler Alert! i'm not adding anyone unless i like you or your in my clan you could find here www.clanrec.webs.com my friend codes. my wii#:[1394-0622-4335-3626] Dbz bt3:[4941-4539-7422] Cod MWR:[5012-3169-0642] i also have a few other wifi games but i dont play them much anymore to save page downing

11-21-2009, 10:47 AM	#6
her01771 retired competive brawler Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: shhh....BoZ is watching... XD Posts: 348 Friends: 20 3653-1119-7805-0000 Blog Entries: 4	Evolution Evolution and mutation are two different things. one in africa can mutate, but one in europe can stay the same. how is that??? __________________ WIICHAT IS TOO DEAD FOR SIGS "I will remember you... You left an impression deep on my soul...to me, you will always be like a brother...farwell...." in honor of DG, SKing, Kingbowser, Klanola,BoZ94,and others I didn't mention... brawl code is where it says, that is not my wii code. SSBB4 ANNOUCMENT!! CLICK HERE

11-21-2009, 11:12 AM	#13
RPGMasterTurk91 Turkish RPG Master Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Somewhere in New Jersey Posts: 744 Friends: 11	Suppose you find a watch in the middle of a desert. What would you conclude? Would you think that someone dropped the watch? Or would you suppose that the watch came by itself? Of course no sane person would say that the watch just happened to emerge from the sand. All the intricate working parts could not simply develop from the metals the lay buried in the earth. The watch must have a manufacturer. If a watch tells accurate time we expect the manufacturer must be intelligent. Blind chance cannot produce a working watch. But what else tells accurate time? Consider the sunrise and sunset. Their timings are so strictly regulated that scientists can publish in advance the sunrise and sunset times in your daily newspapers. But who regulates the timings of sunrise and sunset? If a watch can not work without an intelligent maker, how can the sun appear to rise and set with such clockwork regularity? Could this occur by itself? Consider also that we benefit from the sun only because it remains at a safe distance from the earth, a distance that averages 93 million miles. If it got much closer the earth would burn up. And if it got too far away the earth would turn into an icy planet making human life here impossible. Who decided in advance that this was the right distance? Could it just happen by chance? Without the sun plants would not grow. Then animals and humans would starve. Did the sun just decide to be there for us? The rays of the sun would be dangerous for us had it not been for the protective ozone layer in our atmosphere. The atmosphere around earth keeps the harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching us. Who was it that placed this shield around us? We need to experience sunrise. We need the sun's energy and it's light to see our way during the day. But we also need sunset. We need a break from the heat, we need the cook of night and we need the lights to out so we may sleep. Who regulated this process to provide what we need? Moreover, if we had only the sun and the protection of the atmosphere we would want something more-beauty. Our clothes provide warmth and protection, yet we design them to also look beautiful. Knowing or need for beauty, the designer of sunrise and sunset also made the view of them to be simply breathtaking. The creator who gave us light, energy, protection and beauty deserves our thanks. Yet some people insist that he does not exist. What would they think if they found a watch in the desert? An accurate, working watch? A beautifully designed watch? Would they not conclude that there does exist a watchmaker? An intelligent watchmaker? One who appreciates beauty? Such is God who made us, and He is exalted. __________________ "Many religions within a nation causes little conflict, but two religions within a nation is nothing less than conflict." "If you can speak three languages, you are trinomial. If you can speak two languages, you are binomial. If you can speak one language, you are American." "Speak softly and carry a big stick"--Theodore Roosevelt. Haha describes me nicely. SSBB: 0602-5954-4722 CURRENTLY RETIRED FROM ONLINE PLAY AND VIDEO GAMES IN GENERAL

11-21-2009, 11:18 AM	#14
her01771 retired competive brawler Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: shhh....BoZ is watching... XD Posts: 348 Friends: 20 3653-1119-7805-0000 Blog Entries: 4	uh, ^i think that was a bad example. the sceintists are just going to pop up here and give us a example.... __________________ WIICHAT IS TOO DEAD FOR SIGS "I will remember you... You left an impression deep on my soul...to me, you will always be like a brother...farwell...." in honor of DG, SKing, Kingbowser, Klanola,BoZ94,and others I didn't mention... brawl code is where it says, that is not my wii code. SSBB4 ANNOUCMENT!! CLICK HERE


Wii News Wii Forum Wii Friend Codes Wii Groups Wii Blogs Wii Arcade

11-21-2009, 12:19 PM	#17
her01771 retired competive brawler Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: shhh....BoZ is watching... XD Posts: 348 Friends: 20 3653-1119-7805-0000 Blog Entries: 4	i have some proof. THEY HAVE FOUND NOAH'S ARK! it was on a mountain in syria in 3 pieces. they have proof. and guess wut? dinos still exist. they have found so much proof thus, there was no evolution. and dont say no. recently they have found a inactive volcano w/ anciet minerals. it has some animals thought to be extinct, such as the calocath. and guess wut? during the "millions" of years, the calocath has not changed. __________________ WIICHAT IS TOO DEAD FOR SIGS "I will remember you... You left an impression deep on my soul...to me, you will always be like a brother...farwell...." in honor of DG, SKing, Kingbowser, Klanola,BoZ94,and others I didn't mention... brawl code is where it says, that is not my wii code. SSBB4 ANNOUCMENT!! CLICK HERE Last edited by her01771; 11-21-2009 at 12:21 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pro Evolution Soccer 2009	AutumnWind	Nintendo Wii Gaming	19	09-07-2009 07:55 AM
Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 For Wii	Wii-Bhoy	Nintendo Wii Gaming	7	09-13-2007 11:15 AM
Pro Evolution Soccer 7	lilsam	Nintendo Wii Gaming	17	05-10-2007 03:32 PM
Evolution: Are you being brainwashed?	coolsmile	The Lounge	257	04-09-2007 04:15 PM
Fifa or pro evolution	monkey	Nintendo Wii Gaming	0	01-14-2007 11:24 AM