Evolution...

**Jason** · May 28th, 2009, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by SkoalSpitter

A lot of us came from Vagina's

True story.

I believe in evolution. I also believe in god. The god that is in the bible. I don't have a problem believing that he is quite capable of creating things that can evolve.

I kind of have that mind set too. If things do evolve the God allows it too. That being based on Faith alone.

**Gotch** · May 28th, 2009, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

Then tell me where you think we came from?

Evolution teaches a common ancestor, not that man evolved form monkeys. In fact at its core evolution teaches that all living things from trees to amoeba's to earthworms to us evolved from the same basic source (a puddle of goo). Some evolutionists will claims different branches of origin all starting the same way, some others stick to the original single source for all life.

**R13** · May 28th, 2009, 08:29 PM

[QUOTE=Gotch;1776889]All Of the ones I listed above (and many more) have had Peer-reviewed work published.

On Intelligent Design? I'm sure they have, but I haven't found really any peer-reviewed publishing's expkaining ID.

"So, you are saying it developed the necessary cushion for surviving the impact with the tree while not impacting the tree? Well, anyway, you did give the only answer that can be given, and the only one I've ever received."

Not all woodpeckers have this "shock absorber" like we're talking about, not all have the tongue like that...they are not all the same, it's what their food source is. Their are different species around today that don't have those adaptations and are living, obviously. Animals adapt to their surroundings, that's a fact.

" woodpecker has a huge tongue...."

Interesting that you brought that up. The Woodpeckers tongue extends 6 to 10 inches beyond the end of it's beak, has barbs on the tongue for spearing insects, and is tipped with a small glue supply (glue like substance) that the woodpecker produces. The woodpecker also produces a solvent for the glue.

"So which adaptation (mutation) occurred first the glue or the solvent or were they simultaneous?"

I haven't looked into it, I don't know much about woodpeckers honestly. The whole argument sounds a lot like the "Chicken or the egg?" argument, which isn't a very good one.

**R13** · May 28th, 2009, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gotch

Once you get this out of the way we will go back to the Big Bang and the matter / anti-matter problems, followed by the origins of life without the correct gases existing to even produce the amino acids and then make the jump to life, then on to single cell issues and some mathematical problems, and work our way back towards the woodpecker and related issues.

How about we go into the claim you made about ID having more evidence than the theory of evolution? What I've seen so far is nothing of that, there is an attempt to pick apart evolution and point out these "missing links" and I'm guessing at the end it will be "See, it can have only came from a Designer" sort of thing.

**Jason** · May 28th, 2009, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Burton13

How about we go into the claim you made about ID having more evidence than the theory of evolution? What I've seen so far is nothing of that, there is an attempt to pick apart evolution and point out these "missing links" and I'm guessing at the end it will be "See, it can have only came from a Designer" sort of thing.

How about some concrete evidence of Evolution? I have yet to see that either.

**R13** · May 28th, 2009, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

How about some concrete evidence of Evolution? I have yet to see that either.

Go look up Darwinism. You've said yourself you stopped listening to it at the "woodpecker", which I'm guessing was not at the end of that show. Because you ignore the fossils, thousands of experiments and overwhelming evidence..doesn't mean it isn't true. The Theory of Evolution is accepted as fact and has been fact for quite some time now, there's no real argument there. ID has no fact or at least any I've heard.

**buckeye_fan** · May 28th, 2009, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Jason

How about some concrete evidence of Evolution? I have yet to see that either.

Have you heard of the "Ice Fish"?
I'm sure Gotch has. It's just had to have come up in an evolution debate somewhere.

**Gotch** · May 28th, 2009, 09:55 PM

"On Intelligent Design? I'm sure they have, but I haven't found really any peer-reviewed publishing's expkaining ID."

They aren't hard to find. Like with all things in opposition of the evolutionary doctrine they are often attacked and claims, sometimes ridiculous ones, are made as to why they do not qualify.

"Not all woodpeckers have this "shock absorber" like we're talking about, not all have the tongue like that...they are not all the same..

Actually all do have the shock absorber, some are more defined than others. The tongues vary in length but even the shortest ones are longer than in other birds.

"it's what their food source is."

Or their food source matches their traits.

"Their are different species around today that don't have those adaptations and are living, obviously."

Those species don't beat their heads into trees with that type of speed and force.

"Animals adapt to their surroundings, that's a fact."

To some degree that is true. At no point will that create a species to species jump. They will adapt within their species.

"The whole argument sounds a lot like the "Chicken or the egg?" argument, which isn't a very good one."

No, the whole argument goes to the question of mutation and it's ability to eventually create species to species evolution.