DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

page: 12
5
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


The comment I made about people dont turn into fish and we have never had wings was regarding what is called interspecies mixing. It would be logical to say if evolution ruled the day we would have many examples of intermixing of traits, arms, gills, wings,web feet,etc




posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by boncho
 


What does the big bang have to do with evolution? wow , that is one of the main evolutionary talking points.
Why cant you debate that if you have such a solid understanding of evolution?

The reason the universe's expansion is INCREASING is because there was not one big release of energy,in fact since it is speeding up it is logical to say more energy is added every day to accomplish the acceleration.
Where does that energy come from and in what form?
I think it is definitive that the big bang did not happen like the science books teach us.


Link me to one scientific study, or peer reviewed work, that mentions the big bang.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by boncho
 


The reason the universe's expansion is INCREASING is because there was not one big release of energy,in fact since it is speeding up it is logical to say more energy is added every day to accomplish the acceleration.
Where does that energy come from and in what form?
I think it is definitive that the big bang did not happen like the science books teach us.


The reason stars, planets and galaxies are expanding, is because the Space between stars, planets and galaxies and so on are cooling Down.
Over 90% of all matter within the singularity make up the Space between stars, planets and galaxies. This matter is acting like compressed gas, and inflating Space as it is cooling Down.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by boncho
 


The comment I made about people dont turn into fish and we have never had wings was regarding what is called interspecies mixing. It would be logical to say if evolution ruled the day we would have many examples of intermixing of traits, arms, gills, wings,web feet,etc


Um, no it wouldn't. Mixed creatures like that would go AGAINST evolution. You're not going to find some half breed with human feet, duck wings and a pig snout. Evolution is very slow and only modifies organisms small bits at a time. You aren't going to just suddenly have a half human half duck, or have a human born with antlers and a tail. Plus lets keep in mind that they have already found the determined "halfway point" creature between ancient ape and modern human.

Denial of evolution is silly at this point. I could understand it 200 years ago before the theory was originally presented, but it's time to get with the program. We have better explanations now, backed by scientific evidence. There is no evolution vs creationism debate. There are only stubborn people who won't budge from their worldview and take their beliefs literally.
edit on 11-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Every one on this thread knows It is close to impossible to prove a piece of ice existed thousands of years ago. But every action has multiple secondary reactions that could be used to reconstruct the past.

So you have no evidence to provide in support of your claims of an ice canopy?


Specifically the mastodons died WITH FRESH FLOWERS in the stomach, they did not have time to digest indicating a very fast event.lets reverse engineer how this happened.

A mammoth was walking in a snowstorm eating lilies and died from eating to much. I hope none of you think that is remotely possible.
It is obvious to me that the animal was walking in a mild climate that promoted vegetation and a sudden and profound temp change occurred that went though the whole animal within minutes.
I dont even think a polar shift could do this that quickly.
Can any of you explain how this happened?

You do understand that this notion of a "flash frozen" mammoth is a popular notion and not a scientific one? Are you aware that you're engaging in an argument from ignorance -- that because you don't know how it could have happened, you're effectively reverting to "God did it"? Can you provide a source for your claim that they were "flash frozen" and in the pristine condition that you seem to suggest?

Let's add that to the pile...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


So you cant answer my question? How did these animals die so quickly the flowers in there stomach did not digest?
This is a debate and you must participate and provide your view and not deflect my questions.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Forgive my ignorance, but according to the laws of physics gas and matter SHRINK when cooled, and expand when heated, so saying space is cooling causing it to expand does not make since, please explain this.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


So you cant answer my question? How did these animals die so quickly the flowers in there stomach did not digest?
This is a debate and you must participate and provide your view and not deflect my questions.

If this is a debate, then it's up to the person making the positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. You are making the positive claim that mammoths were "flash frozen" in a near perfect state. Can you provide evidence that mammoths were found in the condition which you are claiming?

Please keep in mind that you have five other questions that you still haven't answered from earlier before tackling that one...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by spy66
 


Forgive my ignorance, but according to the laws of physics gas and matter SHRINK when cooled, and expand when heated, so saying space is cooling causing it to expand does not make since, please explain this.


The fall in temprature in space is a reaction from the inflating matter "expanding". (Space is quite cold already). The pressure is already very low.


A. Gas does not shrink unless it is being compressed.
B. Gas will not expand in a closed system. Space is not a closed of sytem.

Have you ever opened a gasscontainer and seen the vavle get frosty. Is it the gass that freeses or is it the hydrates? The gass will not freeze it will cool of hydrates,

A gass in motion will cool Down matter. The matter in Space is not contained it is expanding freely.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


I have posted about question 6 , Question 5 you misquoted me and are just confusing what I thought was a debate. the reason I want you to answer about a secondary reaction to possible canopy collapse is to go line by line and you assist in finding the truth.
I f you are going to turn it into your process and your own rules then this is no debate.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Thats exactly what i was going to say, you cant have one without the other in my opinion
and you only had two stars for the truth,make that three now



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Can you see they were ..."very well preserved" and ...."blood ran out of the carcass when moved"this was sudden and profound deep freezing.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Can you see they were ..."very well preserved" and ...."blood ran out of the carcass when moved"this was sudden and profound deep freezing.


No I can't see. Please post the link instead of PICTURES OF IT. Does it talk about the undigested flowers?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


I have posted about question 6 ,

No, you have posted no evidence to support your claims of mammoths being "flash frozen" in the way you describe.


Question 5 you misquoted me and are just confusing what I thought was a debate.

Misquoted? Here's the complete text of your own post:

There are some examples of small local evolution but people don't turn into fish and there is no evidence we once had wings.

You've obviously missed my point -- nowhere does evolution claim that "people turn into fish" or "once had wings". You're constructing a strawman argument against evolution, nothing more.


the reason I want you to answer about a secondary reaction to possible canopy collapse is to go line by line and you assist in finding the truth.

What secondary question have you posed to "assist me in finding the truth" about an ice canopy?


I f you are going to turn it into your process and your own rules then this is no debate.

You are making claims without providing any evidence to support them. You expect to do this in a debate about a scientific matter?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Can you see they were ..."very well preserved" and ...."blood ran out of the carcass when moved"this was sudden and profound deep freezing.

Perhaps you should read your own sources a little more closely, or even the sources that your sources are based on to see if your interpretation matches the interpretation of the people who actually found the mammoth and the facts as they are known at this point. I'll even help you out a bit. Here's an article from Nature about the latest find. I could post excerpts that give reasons for the preservation and fluidity of the blood that, rather startlingly, have nothing to do with an ice canopy for which you offer no other evidence than "flash frozen" mammoths. Which haven't actually been "flash frozen" by the description in your own source.

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?
edit on 13/6/2013 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 
You can remove the question about saturn's rings ,as I told you it is well known ,and violations are throughout the universe not just the rings.We will just have to disagree on the canopy.





posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


You can remove the question about saturn's rings ,as I told you it is well known

You have yet to present a single source that backs your claim that "Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity". I've actually read the paper your uncited source (Detection of dusty plasma near the E-ring of Saturn, Wahlund et al, 2009) -- you may want to learn how to properly cite a source and not just provide screenshots -- and nowhere does it claim that "Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity". It simply provides evidence that gravity isn't the only force acting on the matter found in the E-ring.


We will just have to disagree on the canopy.

Meaning that you can provide no evidence of an ice canopy?

Nearly twenty days and over twenty-five posts in this thread and you have yet to provide any evidence that supports any of your claims.

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

I know you are proud of what you think you know ,but never say never in science. You know nothing absolutely.
As you can see many people believe the canopy would explain many things about the earth.







posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 



posted on Jun, 16 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


25 posts and you have yet to disprove the canopy theory.







new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join