Prowler was born with huge genitalia!!

[The Bison King]

Also, the Magnets comment, once again, did make me laugh.

yeah that shit really is too funny

She's not home yet but I noticed something when I was hitting the boy with a pan moderatly hard. He's not a black kid at all and has the same lips, ears and several other features of my Dad. My Dad must be his dad. Darn, sorry about the beating bro.

oh well, I mean you might as well keep beating him now right?

[PLAYER57832]

You figure that people having sex with multiple partners causes their eventual offspring to have traits of all of them? Oh.

Second, why does a change take so long if I can go from two cells to a fully developed mammel in around 9 months?

Again, I am not really sure what you are asking.

Uh, do you believe in baby mammels?

I'm not very smart so I don't know how it works and maybe I've just flat out been lied to but I have two children. I have read and heard theories that my single cell sperm joined with a single cell egg to make them happen.

Depends. If they are fraternal, they came from 2 seperate eggs and 2 sperm.. Women can naturally produce more than one egg at a time, though twins are much rare than single births and triplets and beyond even more rare. If they are identical, they came from a single egg and a single sperm. The fertilized egg (zygot) divides at some point and you have identical twins. If it divides again, you can have quadruplets. There is at least one such example currently living today. (a set of 4 boys)

In aproximately 9 months the babies that came tearing out of my wife's vagina had more cells. Like a really lot more!! They had things like eye balls, feet and internal organs. While I can't prove any of this to you, I have to, by a certain amount of faith, believe they went from being two cells to a fully developed mammel in around 9 months.

Yes, such is very basic biology. I learned as much when I was about 7.

Yet even though my son is on his way to darker pigment skin and tight curly hair. It will take an unknown long time and many generations before people related to me make the transition to being Maori or upper egyptian.

Your son's appearance has sbsolutely nothing to do with your location. He has a combinatin of traits from you and your wife. Now you have to understand that genotype, the genetic type and phenotype, how one appears based on those genes, differ. Basically, you gave your son a set of genes, your wife gave a set. One-half of each chromosome went to your son (in a mish-mashed way). There might have been some kind of mutation, but I doubt that. More likely your son has traits that were passed on from some distant relatives of each of your relatives. One (or both) of you carry the gene, but it is not "expressed (you don't see the result) because the trait is recessive.

My father has blue eyes. My mother brown. Brown is dominant over blue. That is, if a child gets a brown eye gene and a blue eye gene, then the child will have brown eyes (with some very rare exceptions). So, I have blue eyes, I have a brother who has brown eyes and one who has blue eyes. This means that my mother must have one blue eyed gene and one brown eyed gene. My brother who has brown eyes has the same, a brown gene from our mother and a blue gene from our father. I, by contrast have only blue genes.

EDIT: Juan gave a much shorter answer.

So we can develop into a functioning thing during a relatively short gestation but it takes an extreamly long time to evolve noticably. Seems counter productive. We should get to work and evolve quicker.

Again, you persist in misunderstanding what evolution really does.

[PLAYER57832]

Another question they can't answer is how does an animal with 20 chromosomes acquire 26 over time? Or vise versa? But never mind the astounding amount of "faith" it requires to believe in evolution... just take their word!

The same organism does not. Its progeny might.

What I studied of genetics was a long time ago, and I have to get dinner going, so a full answer will have to wait until someone else can answer or I can do a little research.

However, the basic point is that it was either a mutation, a mistake in replication of a single-celled organism, a straight mutation or, its possible that sections of a gene may, in some circumstances be spliced in ways that mean the result is a longer strang.

At any rate, that the few people you have talked to did not have an answer (or me) hardly means there is no answer.

[2dimes]

Your son's appearance has sbsolutely nothing to do with your location.

All I know is we spent two months in hot places when my wife was impregnated (by my black dad) and he was born quite a bit darker than his sister. It went away while he was a baby like a regular tan would, he was born in september. He might have tanned in the womb, I don't know what happened. He was definately much darker than his mom, it wasn't like a tan colour though. I suspect the process would be his mom getting alot of sun caused the cells ( again with that bit ) that her womb used to build him were affected.

oh well, I mean you might as well keep beating him now right?

Nah, kids are pretty resiliant. He'll be ok in a couple of days. He's all ready gone all whitey on us. He does tan slightly better then the rest of us. I hope it stays with him for life. Sunburn sucks and without sunscreen the rest of us go from white to pink in under an hour.

So we can develop into a functioning thing during a relatively short gestation but it takes an extreamly long time to evolve noticably. Seems counter productive. We should get to work and evolve quicker.

Depends on what you mean by Evolve. Evolving positively in a massive scale probably takes a long time.

I'll go with my usual. Webbed feet and hands for superior swimming. Seems simple enough, a little extra skin in the right spot. You grew a bunch of skin wouldn't take much more.

[2dimes]

You figure that people having sex with multiple partners causes their eventual offspring to have traits of all of them? Oh.

Second, why does a change take so long if I can go from two cells to a fully developed mammel in around 9 months?

Again, I am not really sure what you are asking.

Uh, do you believe in baby mammels?

I'm not very smart so I don't know how it works and maybe I've just flat out been lied to but I have two children. I have read and heard theories that my single cell sperm joined with a single cell egg to make them happen.

Depends. If they are fraternal, they came from 2 seperate eggs and 2 sperm.. Women can naturally produce more than one egg at a time, though twins are much rare than single births and triplets and beyond even more rare. If they are identical, they came from a single egg and a single sperm. The fertilized egg (zygot) divides at some point and you have identical twins. If it divides again, you can have quadruplets. There is at least one such example currently living today. (a set of 4 boys)

In aproximately 9 months the babies that came tearing out of my wife's vagina had more cells. Like a really lot more!! They had things like eye balls, feet and internal organs. While I can't prove any of this to you, I have to, by a certain amount of faith, believe they went from being two cells to a fully developed mammel in around 9 months.

Yes, such is very basic biology. I learned as much when I was about 7.

You figure they might be twins? They are three and a half years apart. I have not heard of this either? I should have really tried to pick up something when I was in school. I'm really ignorant of so many wonderfull things. Apes coming close to making flying machines especially interests me. Here I thought the chimps that were signing was a big deal.

[Timminz]

I know, right. If evolution were anywhere near true, I would be able to decide what things I was naturally suited for. I choose thinking, so my head is going to be really, really big soon. Also, I was born with a tan.

[Frigidus]

I know, right. If evolution were anywhere near true, I would be able to decide what things I was naturally suited for. I choose thinking, so my head is going to be really, really big soon. Also, I was born with a tan.

Who was it that was saying for a while that evolution didn't make sense because humans weren't all muscle-bound beefcakes, since that would make them "better"? That shit was hilarious.

[PLAYER57832]

You figure that people having sex with multiple partners causes their eventual offspring to have traits of all of them? Oh.

Second, why does a change take so long if I can go from two cells to a fully developed mammel in around 9 months?

Again, I am not really sure what you are asking.

Uh, do you believe in baby mammels?

I'm not very smart so I don't know how it works and maybe I've just flat out been lied to but I have two children. I have read and heard theories that my single cell sperm joined with a single cell egg to make them happen.

Depends. If they are fraternal, they came from 2 seperate eggs and 2 sperm.. Women can naturally produce more than one egg at a time, though twins are much rare than single births and triplets and beyond even more rare. If they are identical, they came from a single egg and a single sperm. The fertilized egg (zygot) divides at some point and you have identical twins. If it divides again, you can have quadruplets. There is at least one such example currently living today. (a set of 4 boys)

In aproximately 9 months the babies that came tearing out of my wife's vagina had more cells. Like a really lot more!! They had things like eye balls, feet and internal organs. While I can't prove any of this to you, I have to, by a certain amount of faith, believe they went from being two cells to a fully developed mammel in around 9 months.

Yes, such is very basic biology. I learned as much when I was about 7.

You figure they might be twins? They are three and a half years apart.

You skipped that part. Of course I don't.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'll go with my usual. Webbed feet and hands for superior swimming. Seems simple enough, a little extra skin in the right spot. You grew a bunch of skin wouldn't take much more.

That's easy enough.
Webbing does happen to people... people have been born with it. However, humans do not spend a lot of time in water, so it's not even useful to turn into a Dolphin ya know?
But some races are, through all appearances, better suited to different tasks. This is pretty controversial and sometimes borderline offensive stuff, But IMO European Whites would be the swimmer class.

""Amongst competitors in both track and field events there are large significant racial differences," Tanner wrote. As nature would have it, different populations are better suited to excel at anaerobic activities such as sprinting, jumping, and lifting, than at aerobic sports such as distance running, cycling, and swimming."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

EDIT: Juan gave a much shorter answer.

sorry! I started typing a big response to that little quote too... then realized I could just sum it all up that way.

[PLAYER57832]

Your son's appearance has sbsolutely nothing to do with your location.

All I know is we spent two months in hot places when my wife was impregnated (by my black dad) and he was born quite a bit darker than his sister. It went away while he was a baby like a regular tan would, he was born in september. He might have tanned in the womb, I don't know what happened. He was definately much darker than his mom, it wasn't like a tan colour though. I suspect the process would be his mom getting alot of sun caused the cells ( again with that bit ) that her womb used to build him were affected.

Tell me you are not truly this ignorant.
He might have an abnormality in his pigmentation. However, the likely cause is that he resembles a distant relative of yours. I won't get into the other possibility. I assume you know that is not the case.

So we can develop into a functioning thing during a relatively short gestation but it takes an extreamly long time to evolve noticably. Seems counter productive. We should get to work and evolve quicker.

Depends on what you mean by Evolve. Evolving positively in a massive scale probably takes a long time.

I'll go with my usual. Webbed feet and hands for superior swimming. Seems simple enough, a little extra skin in the right spot. You grew a bunch of skin wouldn't take much more.

Now you are trolling. Or you really are utterly ignorant of evolution.

[PLAYER57832]

EDIT: Juan gave a much shorter answer.

sorry! I started typing a big response to that little quote too... then realized I could just sum it all up that way.

No, you did a better job. I just did not want to redo what I wrote. lol

[2dimes]

Your son's appearance has sbsolutely nothing to do with your location.

All I know is we spent two months in hot places when my wife was pregnant and he was born quite a bit darker than his sister. It went away while he was a baby like a regular tan would, he was born in september. He might have tanned in the womb, I don't know what happened. He was definately much darker than his mom, it wasn't like a tan colour though. I suspect the process would be his mom getting alot of sun caused the cells ( again with that bit ) that her womb used to build him were affected.

Tell me you are not truly this ignorant.
He might have an abnormality in his pigmentation. However, the likely cause is that he resembles a distant relative of yours. I won't get into the other possibility. I assume you know that is not the case.

Oh.

Strange how it went away and he's pretty much the same shade as his sister now. In fact I just called them over to look so I could be sure.

No one has to believe me but I know he had noticably darker skin when he was born, I remember very well because I was so facinated when it happened.

[jonesthecurl]

Player,


3. There's evidence that clearly suggests humans and dinosaurs have coexisted and we should be careful about making adamant statements about the past maybe. What do we know?

Thoughts on this?

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/history/history.htm

Or thoughts on this?

















































































































































There are images above with words that are not my own depending on definition at least and I will try to provide source information for stuff at request perhaps.

The stones are reported to have been found in caves and stream beds. Because they are rocks and contain no organic material, Carbon-14 dating cannot be used. No other method of radiometric dating has been applied to the stones. Furthermore, even a confirmation of the rocks' age would not prove that the engravings upon them had not been produced at a later date.

In 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared after four years of investigation that the evidence indicates that the stones are a hoax. Among the proofs presented by this investigator were microphotographs of the stones that showed traces of modern paints and abrasives. The strongest evidence of fraud as claimed is the crispness of the shallow engravings; stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces.

In 1973 Basilio Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Daniken, but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling artifacts.

In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. He continued to make and sell stones.

In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya, as under Peruvian law it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted that they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.

[PLAYER57832]

Your son's appearance has sbsolutely nothing to do with your location.

All I know is we spent two months in hot places when my wife was pregnant and he was born quite a bit darker than his sister. It went away while he was a baby like a regular tan would, he was born in september. He might have tanned in the womb, I don't know what happened. He was definately much darker than his mom, it wasn't like a tan colour though. I suspect the process would be his mom getting alot of sun caused the cells ( again with that bit ) that her womb used to build him were affected.

Tell me you are not truly this ignorant.
He might have an abnormality in his pigmentation. However, the likely cause is that he resembles a distant relative of yours. I won't get into the other possibility. I assume you know that is not the case.

Oh.

Strange how it went away and he's pretty much the same shade as his sister now. In fact I just called them over to look so I could be sure.

No one has to believe me but I know he had noticably darker skin when he was born, I remember very well because I was so facinated when it happened.

I don't dispute this, I assume you don't mean simple jaundice (that would mean a yellow tinge) and that you have checked with your pediatrician. There are other color abnormalities that happen with newborns and that they usually outgrow. I assume you mentioned it to your pediatrician, because I was serious when I said it could be a condition. At any rate, it was not an adaption due to location.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,


3. There's evidence that clearly suggests humans and dinosaurs have coexisted and we should be careful about making adamant statements about the past maybe. What do we know?

OK, read this because juan posted it.

Some would say we do coexist, since birds still survive.

[i]Seriously, The inca one is obviously a stylized llama or alpaca. (I get them mixed up). I can only guess at the others. Some look like real animals. Others look like mythological creatures, others .. who knows? Ancients did periodically find bones and they had pretty decent imaginations, plus knowledge of slaughtered animals and such so that they could discern some half-way reasonable guesses at times (and at times, not).

But a big point ist hat the whole supposed purpose of such questioning is just false. See, even if such evidence were found, it would not prove evolution wrong. It would most likely prove a strange anomoly occured and no more.

We DO have species surviving that were around at the time of the dinosaurs and even before. And, we have many descendents of dinosaurs.

Thoughts on this?
[pictures deleted]

I think if you keep posting long strings of pictures like that we will soon see a CC-wide rule banning posts with too many pictures.

Beyond that, I looked a few and answered above.

There are images above with words that are not my own depending on definition at least and I will try to provide source information for stuff at request perhaps.

yes, we know... you say this every time you post strings of pictures. How about going back and being sure before you post next time... no "maybe".. no "perhaps"

The stones are reported to have been found in caves and stream beds. Because they are rocks and contain no organic material, Carbon-14 dating cannot be used. No other method of radiometric dating has been applied to the stones. Furthermore, even a confirmation of the rocks' age would not prove that the engravings upon them had not been produced at a later date.

In 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared after four years of investigation that the evidence indicates that the stones are a hoax. Among the proofs presented by this investigator were microphotographs of the stones that showed traces of modern paints and abrasives. The strongest evidence of fraud as claimed is the crispness of the shallow engravings; stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces.

In 1973 Basilio Uschuya confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Daniken, but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling artifacts.

In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. He continued to make and sell stones.

In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya, as under Peruvian law it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted that they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.

[/quote]
I have no idea what you even are trying to assert by these last few paragraphs. But I don't know that I am interested in your answer.

[Lionz]

Jones,

There are over 15,000 Ica stones perhaps, but how much there does that refute even if over 15,000 Ica stones were secretely carved?

Due to the depictions of dinosaurs as well as relatively advanced technology on the Ica stones, Evolutionists dismiss the artifacts as hoaxes. It is claimed that Cabrera’s stone suppliers actually carved the stones themselves after being given drawings to work from. The suppliers went on record saying that they did forge the images. However, the "confessions" are not surprising even if the stones are genuine, since it is a crime punishable by imprisonment to sell national treasures. Furthermore, there is the sixteenth century Spanish account predating Cabrera by many years. Although it is confirmed that some of the stones are fakes, most are the real thing. As physical evidence, there is a layer of patina on the surface of many of the carvings, indicating that the images are several hundred years old at least, especially since they were found in a dry area. Additionally, stones dug up in the 50's and 60's have images of Apatosaurus with the correct head, but it was only in 1979 that it was revealed to the scientific community that paleontologists had been using the wrong skull for the Brontosaurus dinosaur.

That's leaving out hyperlinks and is a misquote maybe. You might want to go here and compare.
http://creationwiki.org/Ica_stones

[2dimes]

I know, right. If evolution were anywhere near true, I would be able to decide what things I was naturally suited for. I choose thinking, so my head is going to be really, really big soon. Also, I was born with a tan.

Who was it that was saying for a while that evolution didn't make sense because humans weren't all muscle-bound beefcakes, since that would make them "better"? That shit was hilarious.

Was that Prowler?

[AAFitz]

Evolution works very slowly, and can be much more random and accidental than it would seem at first, even though the results can often seem like a purposeful change in DNA, to directly combat a certain environmental factor.

In the days of the plague, there was a scandinavian town that decided to not let anyone in or out, and let the plague run its course, many died, but those that were left, went on to reproduce. It turns out, they had a mutated gene, that blocked bacteria and some viruses from attacking their cells. Now if you go to that town and check the descendants, they all have that mutated gene. That is evolution. An entire population changed significantly because of one outbreak of bubonic plague. Since it happened once, it no doubt happened before, and it explains all the various changes we have seen through the ages.

There is also one guy who has given blood over 1000 times in his life. It turns out he has a very rare enzyme which helps treat, and cure a disease that infants can get. Without him, those children with that disease would die, and theoretically the disease would die with it.

[Lionz]

Natural selection is like a quality control mechanism maybe. When has a mutation created something new that was not simply the result of a scrambling of pre-existing information?

[2dimes]

I have no issue with adaptation. Maybe darker skin, the mutated or improved gene that blocks a certain desease. How did things work out that some eventually adapted to become a turtle and I seemingly can type? Wretched seen of Cain?

[tzor]

If we all evolved from the same origional thing why are humans so vastly superior? Seriously, does anyone even think it's close.

Who said we are ... I'm being quite serious here. I'll even throw another question at you, why is it that the most technologically advanced cultures are from those places with the greatest climate change; ie neither the tropics nor the artic are known for their advancement of technology. This leaves us to the third question; what happens when the environment is peachy keen (and I'm talking about comfy cozy garden of eden peachy keen here)? So ask youself, as you work that 9-5 job while that dolphin swims all day thinking about having sex with another dolphin, who is superior?

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

[2dimes]

The one that could fly an airplane.

[AAFitz]

I have no issue with adaptation. Maybe darker skin, the mutated or improved gene that blocks a certain desease. How did things work out that some eventually adapted to become a turtle and I seemingly can type? Wretched seen of Cain?

Slowly. Very slowly over millions of years. That one gene effectively changed an entire population. There are lots of genes, and lots of opportunities for changes to them, the ones that make it better at a given time continue on, the combinations that dont, go away.

[AAFitz]

I have no issue with adaptation. Maybe darker skin, the mutated or improved gene that blocks a certain desease. How did things work out that some eventually adapted to become a turtle and I seemingly can type? Wretched seen of Cain?

or perhaps a hand that can grasp just a little better, a pelvis that enables one to walk upright just a little better, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power, a slightly bigger brain with gives more brain power. All small increments, but they add up over time, and once man stepped in and was able change the environment, all evolution changed dramatically, because anything that came close to competing, Ie neandrethals, were wiped out, though some of their genes no doubt still exist through cross breeding too.

[jonesthecurl]

Jones,

There are over 15,000 Ica Stones perhaps, but how much there does that refute even if a couple of dudes secretely carved over 15,000 Ica Stones?

Due to the depictions of dinosaurs as well as relatively advanced technology on the Ica stones, Evolutionists dismiss the artifacts as hoaxes. It is claimed that Cabrera’s stone suppliers actually carved the stones themselves after being given drawings to work from. The suppliers went on record saying that they did forge the images. However, the "confessions" are not surprising even if the stones are genuine, since it is a crime punishable by imprisonment to sell national treasures. Furthermore, there is the sixteenth century Spanish account predating Cabrera by many years. Although it is confirmed that some of the stones are fakes, most are the real thing. As physical evidence, there is a layer of patina on the surface of many of the carvings, indicating that the images are several hundred years old at least, especially since they were found in a dry area. Additionally, stones dug up in the 50's and 60's have images of Apatosaurus with the correct head, but it was only in 1979 that it was revealed to the scientific community that paleontologists had been using the wrong skull for the Brontosaurus dinosaur.

That's leaving out hyperlinks and is a misquote maybe. You might want to go here and compare.
http://creationwiki.org/Ica_stones

So: it's difficult to date them, but the evidence suggests they're old rocks recently carved. They could be fake or "maybe not".

People today carve similar things to sell as souvenirs.

But "maybe" some of them aren't fake.

If they aren't fake , maybe they show evidence of something which would revise our ideas as much as really discovering Conan Doyle's "Lost World" or Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Caprona", i.e. they would show something new, not something which would destroy hundreds of years of accumulated evidence supporting evolution.