The question Evolutionsists can't answer

Isn't bearing false witness a sin, Collossians?

__________________
Support our troops. Don't ask them to fight for a lie.

Common creationist tactics.

You guys still refuse to wash the dust of your eyes?

Wash it with what? All you have to offer is mud.

__________________
To them, you're just a freak, like me! They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper!
You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other.

See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How can you tell that we have dust in our eyes when there is dust in your eyes?

__________________

Doubt is a powerful tool, it helps filter out lies. You can say that doubt is related to honesty, yet, religious followers will never doubt their beliefs.
The fact that God did not care to inspire mankind in the translation of his scriptures makes me doubt if he would care to inspire his scriptures in the first place
Being punished for holding an opinion that Jesus may not be God is as wacky as being punished for not having green as our favorite color.

Nothing like YEC stupidity to cheer me up after a week of work to figure out who's been hacking into my accounts all over the place. (Which is where I've been all this time, but I caught the person who did it and it should stop now.)

I think what Colossians may have been asking is how animals first started mating when they hadn't yet evolved the desire to do so. Here's something that may help make it clearer:

Mating first evolved as a variation on a much older tactic, which was for the male to fertilize the female's eggs after she had already laid them. At some point there was an animal (probably some sort of primitive reptile) whose instincts in this area were a bit different from the norm because he wanted to fertilize the female's eggs before she laid them, which enabled him to fertilize them more efficiently than waiting until she had already laid them.

This also enabled eggs to develop tough eggshells. Initially the eggshells had to be permeable enough for the male's sperm to get into them, but once the male was fertilizing them while they were still inside the female, her body could add the hard eggshells to them after they had been fertilized. That wasn't something she could do when the eggs were being fertilized after they had already left her body.

This was an important step in the evolution of land animals. The origin of hard eggshells enabled animals to lay their eggs in dry environments without the risk of them drying out from evaporation.

If anyone's interested in learning more about the natural history of sex there's a Yahoo! group about it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paleo_erotica/ . If you're wondering why I'm bothering to mention that, it's because I founded the group earlier this week.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think using "wanted" there is going to increase rather than decrease confusion for people new to evolutionary biology. It's not that that animal wanted to fertilize the eggs before they were laid, but that his instincts told him to do so (and his biology allowed it). This trait emerged by chance, not desire. It was passed on because it allowed more offspring to be sired.

__________________
Support our troops. Don't ask them to fight for a lie.

Ah, gotcha.

Time for Kindergarten Evolution.

Orgasm is a mutation, a mutation which is and evolutionary advantage, that is, it allows the organism possessing this mutation to be on the favorable side of natural selection, that is, the simple process which is rather like when one rock is harder than another, and so the harder rock survives a flood, while the softer rock crumbles.

Started as a mutation, a mutation that turned out to be beneficial to the organism that possess it. Beneficial mutations allow organisms that possess the the mutation to out-compete those that don't. Therefore, those that don't possess this mutation died out, and those that do survives. Simple.

Oh, the irony is so so strong in this one, young Padawan.

(From the pen of Aggie)
I think what Colossians may have been asking is how animals first started mating when they hadn't yet evolved the desire to do so.
Not quite, but you have preserved the conundrum, so I will let this one through.

Mating first evolved as a variation on a much older tactic, which was for the male to fertilize the female's eggs after she had already laid them. At some point there was an animal (probably some sort of primitive reptile) whose instincts in this area were a bit different from the norm because he WANTED to fertilize the female's eggs BEFORE she laid them,
At this point we will stop you: you have simply begged the question.

And you are also using an invalid example: one in which the participant is male, and therefore one in which such participant has come into existence by the very mechanism you are trying to evolve: sexual urge for pleasure. Once again, evolutionism is “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.





(From the pen of Nathan David)
It's not that that animal wanted to fertilize the eggs before they were laid, but that his instincts told him to do so
For the purposes of this thread, “wanted” and “instincts” are synonymic. You have simply begged the question.

This trait emerged by chance, not desire.
Attempting to bury a very motive force of desire under the inanimate “trait” is not permitted. You are simply concealing and diffusing, not answering.
And this "trait" being itself desire, it is contradictory to declare its emergence as exclusive of desire.

It was passed on because it allowed more offspring to be sired.
Redundant: you have the ends producing the path to it. You posit current utility as the path to current utility. We ask you how it got there, and you tell us why what is here is useful. You simply beg the question.
You should study some logic at tertiary level.






(From the pen of Sophorus)
Now tell us how it is that orgasm can evolve without the desire for it. (Try to avoid telling us that it is because there was a non-perceived need to reproduce, which reproduction came into being anyway just as effectively as if it had been perceived as a need.)
Time for Kindergarten Evolution.
Orgasm is a mutation, a mutation which is and evolutionary advantage, that is, it allows the organism possessing this mutation to be on the favorable side of natural selection
You have simply begged the question. Time for you to go back to kindergarten.

So your own perception is irrelevant to that which evolved it. So evolution actually evolves things that have no part in it, and militates against itself.
Started as a mutation,
Pray tell how perception started as a mutation. What did it mutate from?


Therefore, those that don't possess this mutation died out, and those that do survives. Simple.
Not simple: simplistic.
You have failed to address the issue of the thread at any stage during all your posts. Your parroting of the concept of natural selection is totally redundant from both the scientific aspect (natural selection cannot be applied to entities that do no reproduce – the most high-profile evolutionists admit to this), and from the logical aspect: you have rain falling because people are wearing rain-coats.