Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

and you did this when?
on the rationality scale of 1-10 your score is .0001
on the rationalizing scale of 1-10 your score is off the scale.
you would'nt know reality if it bitched slapped you and it does every day.

Here are the questions again.

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?

asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.

BTW YWC plagiarized those questions from a creationist site Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
and is attempting to perpetrate a fraud..

Somebody is getting it handed to them.

When I origionally posted those questions I linked the site

But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.

Post
#5314

 

[Hollie]

So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.

You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.

Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.

Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.

You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.

No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.

Predictable. I've noticed a pattern whereby pressing you with facts causes you to beg off from offering any coherent response and you're left only to sputter snide remarks.

 

[daws101]

Here are the questions again.

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?

asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.

Another DODGE!

If they were answered at least one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical :LOL:

still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems or are too chicken shit (pun intended)to go back through it and see

 

[Youwerecreated]

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.

What about the other questions ?

 

[daws101]

So you didn't watch the debate I posted and you said you did. Dawkins admitted that Jesus existed and was crucified.

You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.

Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.

Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.

You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.

No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.

Daws ? I never renounced atheism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.

Another DODGE!

If they were answered at least one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical :LOL:

still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems or are too chicken shit (pun intended)to go back through it and see

Only the chicken and the egg question. You pasted an answer that is based on nothing more than an assumption. My opinion can be proven through direct observation you lose again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.

Another DODGE!

If they were answered at least one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical :LOL:

still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems or are too chicken shit (pun intended)to go back through it and see

There is a an ignorant liar here but it's not me.

 

[daws101]

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.

What about the other questions ?

those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
what obsevations ?
are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have this fascination with Richard Dawkins that seems to define your belief system.

Whether or not Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified is immaterial in connection with proving your gods. Similarly, Dawkins admitting or not admitting to the above is immaterial. Crucifixion was not uncommon during the period when Jesus was said to be crucified. Let's take a leap of faith and allow you and Dawkins the positive assertion that a man named Jesus was crucified. Now what? You are still left with the irresolvable dilemma of an earth that has existed for billions of years and a biological / fossil record that is similarly in irresolvable conflict with a 6,000 year of earth.

Your best efforts to resolve these dilemmas involved posting YouTube videos hosted by people representing the ICR and similar groups who have, as a matter of their policy statements, that their representatives shall not produce data that is in conflict with Biblical teaching. That's just absurd.

You seem to hang on every word that Dawkins utters as though his words will define legitimacy for your belief.

No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.

Daws ? I never renounced atheism.

No but your buddy Dawkins has.

 

[Youwerecreated]

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.

What about the other questions ?

those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
what obsevations ?
are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?

Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.

How can evidence get any stronger ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

ScienceMain article: Evolution
The theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and sexual reproduction. Since DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken eggs. These eggs then hatched into chickens that inbred to produce a living population.[12][13] Hence, in this light, both the chicken and the structure of its egg evolved simultaneously from birds that, while not of the same exact species, gradually became more and more like present-day chickens over time.

Not any mutation in one individual can be considered as constituting a new species. A speciation event involves the separation of one population from its parent population, so that interbreeding ceases; this is the process whereby domesticated animals are genetically separated from their wild forebears. The whole separated group can then be recognized as a new species.

The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl.[14] Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken.

This implies that the egg existed long before the chicken, but that the chicken egg did not exist until an arbitrary threshold was crossed that differentiates a modern chicken from its ancestors. Since this arbitrary distinction cannot be made until after the egg has hatched, one would have to first find the original chicken, then from this find the first egg it laid.

A simple view is that at whatever point the threshold was crossed and the first chicken was hatched, it had to hatch from an egg. The type of bird that laid that egg, by definition, was on the other side of the threshold and therefore not technically a chicken -- it may be viewed as a proto-chicken or ancestral chicken of some sort, from which a genetic variation or mutation occurred that thus resulted in the egg being laid containing the embryo of the first chicken. In this light, de facto, the argument is settled and the egg had to have come first

Chicken or the eggFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Illustration from Tacuina sanitatis, Fourteenth centuryThe chicken or the egg causality dilemma is commonly stated as "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" To ancient philosophers, the question about the first chicken or egg also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.[1]

Cultural references to the chicken and egg intend to point out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. It could be considered that in this approach lies the most fundamental nature of the question. A literal answer is somewhat obvious, as egg-laying species pre-date the existence of chickens. However, the metaphorical view sets a metaphysical ground to the dilemma. To better understand its metaphorical meaning, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

An equivalent situation arises in engineering and science known as circular reference, in which a parameter is required to calculate that parameter itself. Examples are Van der Waals equation and the famous Colebrook equation
Chicken or the egg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.

What about the other questions ?

those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
what obsevations ?
are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?

Now you have been reduced to a foul mouth idiot. How does a chicken egg become fertile ?

 

[daws101]

No it was Daws until he renounced atheism.

Daws ? I never renounced atheism.

No but your buddy Dawkins has.

still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.

 

[daws101]

Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.

What about the other questions ?

those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
what obsevations ?
are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?

Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.

How can evidence get any stronger ?

evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
wow!
that's a ground breaking obsevation!
you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
either way it's no proof of god.

 

[daws101]

Prove your assumption ?my assumption has been proven through observation.

What about the other questions ?

those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
what obsevations ?
are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?

Now you have been reduced to a foul mouth idiot. How does a chicken egg become fertile ?

by two fucking chickens how else!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Daws ? I never renounced atheism.

No but your buddy Dawkins has.

still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.

Lookie here you are exposing your own ignorance.


a·the·ist
&#8194; &#8194;[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective

pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective


Can be confused: &#8194;1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.


Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.


I love debating a dummy.

 

[daws101]

Another DODGE!

If they were answered at least one of your buddies would have answered them,so I think you are making things up again,typical :LOL:

still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems or are too chicken shit (pun intended)to go back through it and see

Only the chicken and the egg question. You pasted an answer that is based on nothing more than an assumption. My opinion can be proven through direct observation you lose again.

of what? chickens fucking? fly vagina's?

 

[Youwerecreated]

those are not assumptions. it's you who needs to prove that your assumptions are correct.
what obsevations ?
are you basing you conjecture on watching chickens fuck?

Fully fertile eggs come from sexual reproduction from a male and female or hen and rooster.

How can evidence get any stronger ?

evidence of what? that chickens make eggs ?
wow!
that's a ground breaking obsevation!
you forget that chickens were not the first creatures to lay eggs.
also you conveniently left out asexual reproducing!
either way it's no proof of god.

So give me proof of any creature that has laid an egg and a new family was born ?

Prove any new family came through sexual reproduction the burden of proof is on you since you admitted how chicken eggs are produced.

 

[Hollie]

Here are the questions again.

1) Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

2) Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

3) Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

Also explained how the chicken came before the egg. As far as we know it takes an already existing organism to produce an egg but it also needs both male and female to produce a fertilised egg to where the egg would produce off spring. How could an egg come first without an existing organism and start a new species ?

asked and answerd and you got your ass handed to you.

BTW YWC plagiarized those questions from a creationist site Three Devastating Questions To Ask Evolutionists & Three Points Which Destroy The Theory Of Evolution And Show That Intelligent Design Is A Reality
and is attempting to perpetrate a fraud..

Somebody is getting it handed to them.

When I origionally posted those questions I linked the site

But I did ask similar questions in another thread that were my own.

Post
#5314

Well, that was predictable. When I followed your link, I was confronted with Malcolm Muggeridge, a journalist and convert to Christianity.

As is the case so frequently with the creationist crowd, the references you cite have a consistent lack of training, study or background in the subject they comment on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

still lying to yourself ,you and I had this debate in this thread a while back, either you have memory problems or are too chicken shit (pun intended)to go back through it and see

Only the chicken and the egg question. You pasted an answer that is based on nothing more than an assumption. My opinion can be proven through direct observation you lose again.

of what? chickens fucking? fly vagina's?

Oh someone is getting frustrated.

 

[daws101]

No but your buddy Dawkins has.

still wrong: agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.

Lookie here you are exposing your own ignorance.


a·the·ist
&#8194; &#8194;[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

Related forms
an·ti·a·the·ist, noun, adjective

pro·a·the·ist, noun, adjective


Can be confused: &#8194;1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym note at the current entry ); 2. atheist, theist, deist.


Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.


I love debating a dummy.

then you must be the dummy :agnosticefinition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> the definitions are virtually the same!

either way they are both not christians!

proving ywc's willfull ignorance one post at a time.