[Optimism]

To begin, your statement is completely absent of fact(s). Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
My post was full of facts dude o.O You just foolishly disagree with them before you even consider them, because your apparently yet-to-evolve mind is too stubbornly arrogant to realize another more logical point of view. IF BY CHANCE you can refute what I stated in that post, with facts and proof, not some rapper's lyrics, then you will have single-handedly disproved all factual evidence put forth by science. Good luck, college kid -.-.

If you can explain, in depth, evolutionary processes and their biological//biochemical properties and then elaborate on several real-world examples, I'll begin my explanation. You refute evolution outright, why would I waste my time attempting to explain something that you've yet to understand?
No in-depth explanation is needed because there are no evolutionary processes to explain. Thank you come again.
I understand the thin-air-based concept. In fact, here's a simple argument that completely refutes the concept of "evolution" and all it entails. If you are indeed as mature as you'd like me to believe, you'll watch it and educate yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRcOxCczzus
Now, prove him wrong?

Until this is accomplished, you'll deny all empirical evidence supporting anything//everything relating to evolution.
...

Read, and inform yourself, instead of believing everything mommy and daddy taught you. My parents are both Christian, and they are both, idiots.
Apparently "evolution" hasn't given you respect yet. Wonder how many years it'll take for that to come along?

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2808%2900068-8/abstract

Plenty more where this came from. Don't come *****ing to me for proof. Find it yourself. And if you can't understand the scientific language, go to college, get an education and then try again.
Nice language you used there.

Good day sir. You're ignorance once again, disappoints me.
Happy to disappoint you with my alternative point of view that you, out of your great maturity and wisdom, apparently overlooked.

\bluntness
/Stubborn, bullheaded foolishness.



EDIT:
Allie, even though this debate will probably go nowhere, I ask that you allow it to continue.

This debate won't continue. I'm finished wasting my time, given you didn't answer the questions asked of you. Your lack of knowledge (and the man's in the video) enable such a mindset regarding evolution.

\OMFGFACEKNEE

[Yz]

This debate won't continue. I'm finished wasting my time, given you didn't answer the questions asked of you. Your lack of knowledge (and the man's in the video) enable such a mindset regarding evolution.

\OMFGFACEKNEE

u mad kid

[Connor]

u mad kid

Plush 1, Wai cant i find that comment

[Xrow]

My knowledge is fine - Evolution is flawed and foolish.

True, Christianity and creative design cannot be proven, but it also has never been proven false by science.
Darwinism - evolution - on the other hand, has.

If evolution was correct, there would be a bunch of giraffes with blown-up heads laying all over Africa.

You lack the knowledge to understand your own flaws and the flaws that your belief bases itself upon.

Gg.


"I hope when he dies he does become a tree. I hope he's in the wilderness, doing his tree thing. Wouldn't it be fantastic if while he's out there enjoying his treeness, through the woods a huge sweaty guy with an axe comes along, See's him, *Chop! Chop! Chop!* Chops him down, *Smash*, put a chain around him - drags him through the mud and the muck, throws him into a saw mill and grind him up, *Sawblade sounds*. Then you pound him down to paper. And once he's paper, you print the Bible on him."

[Allie]

If evolution was correct, there would be a bunch of giraffes with blown-up heads laying all over Africa.

Why?

I'm pretty sure that'd be if evolution was not correct.

[Xrow]

Why?

I'm pretty sure that'd be if evolution was not correct.

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2808%2900068-8/abstract
Watch.

[Allie]

You gave me the wrong link.
And I watched the video posted.
And I completely disagree with it.
All it said was basically "Evolution can not exist because animals currently have all it needs to survive".
However, evolution is changing in order to adapt to your surroundings.
How will those giraffes adapt when the next ice age comes.
It will have to evolve to adapt to its surroundings, or it will die.

[Optimism]

King, define evolution in your own words for me please?

[Xrow]

You gave me the wrong link.
And I watched the video posted.
And I completely disagree with it.
All it said was basically "Evolution can not exist because animals currently have all it needs to survive".
However, evolution is changing in order to adapt to your surroundings.
How will those giraffes adapt when the next ice age comes.
It will have to evolve to adapt to its surroundings, or it will die.

Oh, apparently Opti edited my post.
K.

That's not even close to what it said.
Basically, it said "The currently existing animals shown in this video had to have all parts of their body at the same time to have the ability to exist without dying."
Therefore, if "evolution" were correct, the giraffe would not exist. Why? Because evolution occurs over time and parts would have been added over time. This means that they would not have had all the necessary parts at the same time, resulting in the animals almost immediate death and then it's extinction.

Well, if the concept that 'We must adapt to our surroundings in order to survive' is true, then why do we have planes instead of wings? Cars instead of greater running speed?
Why do we even breathe? Surely animal would have "evolved" a mechanism in their body to live without breathing (breathing water in a fish's case).

[Xrow]

King, define evolution in your own words for me please?

The concept that, over time, species "evolve" the mechanisms they require to operate and survive, the ability to alter themselves to adapt to an environment.
(I do not agree or believe in this statement or concept.)

[Allie]

Okay, I'm officially on Opti's side.
Sorry.
o.O.

Why don't we have wings?
Can you tell me why humans need wings to survive?
Planes are a luxury, not a need.

And if the video says that the animals needed to have everything at the same time, yet evolution takes time to add all the parts.
I'll name one example I remember from the little video.
Giraffes need the immediate ability to get oxygen to their brain if a lion or other predator came to attack it.
Prove that giraffes always had a predator: if giraffes never had to worry about running as soon as they finish drinking, then they wouldn't need this.
However, then say predators come.
They start dying off.
They evolve so they CAN get enough oxygen and run immediately.

[Mihax]

Oh, apparently Opti edited my post.
K.

That's not even close to what it said.
Basically, it said "The currently existing animals shown in this video had to have all parts of their body at the same time to have the ability to exist without dying."
Therefore, if "evolution" were correct, the giraffe would not exist. Why? Because evolution occurs over time and parts would have been added over time. This means that they would not have had all the necessary parts at the same time, resulting in the animals almost immediate death and then it's extinction.

Well, if the concept that 'We must adapt to our surroundings in order to survive' is true, then why do we have planes instead of wings? Cars instead of greater running speed?
Why do we even breathe? Surely animal would have "evolved" a mechanism in their body to live without breathing (breathing water in a fish's case).

Whoa @ bold. Why does that phrase sounds way off to me? o.O

On topic: I'm ok with it, as long as those people stay away from me and keep doing..whatever they're doing. After all, let's look at the bright side: more girls for us. 

[Xrow]

Okay, I'm officially on Opti's side.
Sorry.
o.O.
It's fine - no hard feelings towards either of you personally.

Why don't we have wings?
Can you tell me why humans need wings to survive?
Planes are a luxury, not a need.
That was just an example. We don't really. Let's use something more simple - the fishing pole. We cannot catch and kill fish on our own, and have not yet "evolved" the ability to do so. Therefore the fishing pole came about. Why did we not just evolve the ability?

And if the video says that the animals needed to have everything at the same time, yet evolution takes time to add all the parts.
I'll name one example I remember from the little video.
Giraffes need the immediate ability to get oxygen to their brain if a lion or other predator came to attack it.
Prove that giraffes always had a predator: if giraffes never had to worry about running as soon as they finish drinking, then they wouldn't need this.
Why wouldn't there be predators?
Fine, even if they didn't have a predator to attack it, they would die from a rush of blood to the brain when they bent over to drink. If they somehow survived this massive blood rush (and they wouldn't), when they stood up to eat from a tree, the loss of air would kill them.
However, then say predators come.
They start dying off.
They evolve so they CAN get enough oxygen and run immediately.
But they evolve over time. Which means the predator would be eating the giraffe's leg off while it tried to grow complicated bones in the neck in order for it to run away.
Once again, the result would be extinction of giraffes.

[Xrow]

Whoa @ bold. Why does that phrase sounds way off to me? o.O

On topic: I'm ok with it, as long as those people stay away from me and keep doing..whatever they're doing. After all, let's look at the bright side: more girls for us. 

I don't know, but I could always use a third person to debate with...

[Xrow]

(Sorry for the triple post)

Opti, describe "evolution" in your own words please.