@Palkia01234 It's from an old-ish movie called "Cock a doodle", you can find it on YouTube. It should be called something like "Rock a doodle part 2".
I learned about furries because I was called one because I like Lion King. And I was like, what the crap is a furry? So I looked it up on wikipedia. And my word. What a bad reputation we have.
@mutput7 He said "Im all furry". i have the dvd WITH subtitles. Gosh, if you do not know for sure about something do not act like its true because of the internet. the internet itself IS unreliable altogether -_-
@Missmodified92 What? The internet is unreliable? Of all the possible things. THIS IS THE. WORST. POSSIBLE. THING. I can't trust anyone... I can't trust you. I CAN'T TRUST ME. *shot* (by self). No, seriously, I know he said "all", it's just... that accent...
Lol. I think it's hilarious/sad that millions of fights get started on youtube because of a cartoon saying "I'm all furry". Don't see why furries are hated on so much anyway... people gotta find SOMEONE to pick on I guess. :1
I still don't get it. What am I missing? He said, "I'm all furry." So? I mean, it was great review, but I'm still not entirely sure why NC made that comment.
@SickSilckMan It SOUNDS like he's saying, "I'M A FURRY!" A 'furry' is something is a very confusing subject to me. It's either a person who is an animal with human characteristics, a person who likes to fuck animals with human characteristics, or countless other things. I really don't know that wll...
Looks like some serious(ley stupid) crap went down with that WhiteVV guy. Let him be. I'm Christian (well more agnostic) and I agree with evolution. No serious deal.
@TheFoxTank me too. I believe in christianity and believe in evolution (because I think that making man out of dirt and making women out of Adam's rib is pretty ridiculous) I believed that god only created the universe, then let everything play out on its own, (the colission of Earth and Theia ,google it, evolution, ect.) until and after biblical times.
I guess the answer to No. 2 is that not too many ppl. knew that this movie exists at all. Even I realized that it exists, when I bought my first DVD player, and I got a 10 pack of, well...not really good films. And this was one of them. Also, at those times I thought it was kinda cool, but looking back now, it just ruined my childhood.
Science? What the crap? What does science have to do with a boy getting turned into a cat? Since when does...? No. You know what? No. Never mind.
Anyway, I'm still fairly certain that this kid is not, in fact, a furry, unless he finds anthropomorphic animals fascinating, and draws or writes stories about them on the... In his school newsletter. Not all cartoon animals are furries, after all.
@mytruepower2 Nah. What happened is that troll dude was spewing some self righteous Christian crap, and he made a comment about "evolutionists". And so I spent a week telling him he was wrong. So we sorta got off topic.
Well, I happen to be a Christian myself, but I just don't see what it has to do with horrible child actors being turned into kittens, and saying questionable... Well, whatever. It's probably... hopefully... over now.
Ooookay. Well, as far as I know, furries don't, by their nature, steal, kill, covet goods, commit adultery, dishonor their parents or fall victim to lust, greed, gluttony, pride, selfishness, etc, so I can't see why they're evil.
I mean, sure, there are some furries who aren't so nice, or who play the bad guy in cartoons, but they're usually beaten by the good guys by the time the episode ends, so... yeah.
I don't need to form sugars, just the basis of a genetic code, RNA. Earth's atmosphere was not nitrogen/oxygen based before photosynthesis. In the chemicals present, and one was amonia, when added to the presence of water and an electrical charge, the end result was ancient RNA compounds, which is the basis of life. Once chemicals bond together and cells are formed, mitosis takes over after millions of years and you end up with multicellular organisms. I'm not looking for sugar.
@OreoTheWolf It doesn't matter much time you speculate. No matter what the conditions are, you don't get anything biologically structured from it.
And the bacterial fossils on meteorites can be explained by the the flood. Subterranean water that gushed out of the earth at particularly fast speeds could send pieces of rock into space. It's theorized in the hydroplate theory.
Anyway, as much as I like watching you be wrong so many times a day, I'd have to request we end the conversation. I have a feeling there just isn't enough room in my comments section to contain all the various ways you can be wrong, and it really is cluttering up the real estate under the video.
However, if you'd like a more in depth explanation of the furry fandom (your original topic), I'd be glad to inform you via private message.
Meteorites are tracked as they FALL FROM SPACE, not gush up out of the Earth. When the space rock hit, in Russia, they took samples. The rock is dated to billions of years old (iron mostly, little rock) and in that SPACE rock they found fossilized bacteria. If the rock, metal, was exposed to gushing water, it would've washed away the fossil and not left it nice and frozen in place as it traveled through trillions of miles for billions of years. There is life throughout the universe.
And that is pretty much what creation science is. It's elimination of the impossible, and selection of the only options. A good example of that method can be found in the first part of Veith's lecture titled, "The Genes of Genesis".
I know there is no "flight" gene. The point is that the disablement of the use of a biological part, does not suggest development of new biological machinery. That is all I'm saying.
and if there was a cat with really abnormally long whiskers, the odds of it having no other characteristics different from the initial species are astronomically against. Then it would be a new species, because not ALL of the original species would get the super long whiskers. Its still a cat, but so is a tiger, and you're not actually telling me a tiger and a housecat are the same animal are you?
we're talking about thousands of cumulative tiny changes that trend in a direction over millions of years, each generation becomes just that tiny little bit more prevalent, more pronounced, and thousands of generations later you have something different than what you started with.
@thinredpaste Your not getting it. What is longer whiskers + longer whiskers + longer whiskers? REALLY LONG WHISKERS. Now the cat is still a cat. And well, we don't see any gills.
its more trial and error than anything. Its entirely possible that sometime, tens of millions of years ago, there WERE bright blue cats. but the bright blue ones died off faster than they could reproduce, and pow, no more blue cats. That's also evolution. Some tiny mutation happens, we're talking like .00000000000000000001% difference. maybe it catches on - maybe that creature reproduces like crazy, and its offspring do the same, and so on and so on. Then that creature has evolved.
i was calling this done with, but i'm dragged back in.
"doesn't mean new organs have developed, doesn't mean a new part of biological machinery has developed"
NOT NECESSARY FOR EVOLUTION. if, over time, cats with bright blue fur became common, that would be evolution. They don't have to turn into fucking seagulls. Even tiny changes like whisker length are part of evolution. At first, its just a mutation. But if the mutation catches on, becomes a common trait, then that's evolution.
@thinredpaste Evolution is a funny word. If you define it as small changes within an animal, then it is very possible. However, I'm referring to megaevolution (I.e development of wings, one phyla into another, sharks developing into land mammals). That I oppose.
Now you can leave if you want. I'm not going to your house to kill you if you leave.
@thinredpaste Alright. That is something we agree on. I oppose man made religions as well. And I oppose they're misuse of the Bible.
And what exactly is it you mean by archeology proving evolution? Do you mean fossils? Do you mean the made up connections people say fossils have with one another? Pure conjecture. Look up Ph.D. qualified Walter Veith's lecture titled "Bones in Stones".
so, what is religion, in general? They basically all have elements in common - a creation myth, stories, and an overarching goal of being a sort of "moral compass." That's what they all want to be - a guide. "Here's how to not be a dick." That's cool, but I can figure that out on my own.
The problem is that people take them WAY too seriously. They believe THEIR stuff is perfect. Its not. Not in any religion, not in no religion. So when people ruckus about it, people will ruckus back.
I have, in fact, heard of archeology. Its part of how they proved evolution. Neat how it "proves" both sides of an argument like that. Unless they found a video recording or something, its pretty tricky to say that finding Object A in Location B means Event C MUST have happened there. It just means that Object A existed.
continued: Entire books were discarded, based on little more than the whims of those in control of the religion. The teachings were horrifically distorted, causing the crusades. Countless men have gone to war, basing their justification on "the will of God."
Between the crusades, the bygone catholic practice of literally paying your way into heaven, and the recent incidents with the catholic priests, its safe to say that not all the people surrounding the bible had its best interests at heart
On the note of "distortion of ones mind and the practices that lead to it," Lets discuss your proverb book. What is it? Its a book. Who wrote it? Man. Several men. Even IF God, or A god, gave the men the inspiration, he also gave them free will to alter, change, or ignore any part of that inspiration. After it was written by man (hundreds of years after the events depicted, in the case of the new testament), it was edited by man, translated by man, and interpreted by man. I'm out of space
@thinredpaste Ever heard of archeology? It's a neat little study. You see, what archeologists have found is that the Bible describes real events. You kind of get a double witness when you find an event described in the Bible and also from ancient findings.
Laughing hysterically is not a problem. I can see how you would think that, though. Fits your MO as a hateful zealot, opposed to anything that isn't in church.
@thinredpaste I would say your own statement defines your own hateful attitude, especially the last part. Now, I don't hate you. We are all the God's children. I do, however, highly oppose the distortion of one's mind and the practices that lead to that. Satan tries to get to the best of us.
"No, officer, I can't be the one you're after. My name is spelled with two Vs instead of a W, its totally different despite being pronounced exactly the same!"
I had no idea 1337speak worked that way; I always thought it was just some juvenile bullshit. Might come in handy. Anyway, you're right, that's not an argument. Its just fucking hilarious, especially since you defended it.
if you want an actual argument, look up Russell's Teapot or something.
I find it funny that the guy arguing against furries (and that people who have nothing in common except that they all happen to like something fairly innocuous can be inherently evil) not only shares a name with a rare animal, but also the company responsible for the World of Darkness pen and paper RPGs such as Vampire: The Requiem (where players are vampires), Mage: the Awakening (players can rewrite reality by smoking a blunt and willing it so), and most importantly: Werewolf: the Forsaken.
@thinredpaste Lets get something straight. Furries are human/creature abominations, not animals. God created animals, men created furries. BIG DIFFERENCE. You don't mix animals with humans. And by the way, my user-name is spelled with two Vs one 0 and one 1. Therefore, it does not match the company name, nor do I intend it to match. And who bases an argument off of one's user-name?
@OreoTheWolf Well, of course. It was very close to the dawn of time that Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And first the mixing of humans with animals started with pagan deities as men became continually wicked. Later it became more simulated in art. At the same time, it always was a festering area for corruption.
However, were you suggesting that since this has been happening over long periods of time it, therefore, makes it OK?
I could have sworn that you were speaking of the Bible. Which is, after all, a book of well constructed myths. But if you weren't, then I suppose I apologize.
Right and wrong is entirely relative. It is a construct of society.
@OreoTheWolf Yes, I was talking about the Bible. I guess this "Furry Fandom" thing is in leagues with evolutionary mindset. Evolutionary mindset also teaches one's self can construct right and wrong. Therefore, consequently, one can construct murder to be a right.
And if you have any proof that the Bible is just a collection of myths, I beg of you to provide it.
Evolutionary mindset? You mean the scientifically proven system by which animals evolved from lesser organisms in an attempt to adapt to their surroundings to better allow themselves to survive?
Yes. This most definitely pertains to a group of people who enjoy cartoon animals. It has come full circle. I'd suggest you go to the press with this groundbreaking discovery. The world needs to know.
@OreoTheWolf Would you like to start on the subject of abiogenesis? You see, life consists of proteins, and a protein is only synthesized by a protein. So, if you were to say life came about without creation...then that is very confusing. Evolution itself, is more like a religion. It takes a heck load of faith to believe that biological machinery just popped out of inanimate matter without anyone putting the pieces together.
Never, anywhere, does evolution speak of where life came from. It explains diversity of life, not origin. So to claim that evolution claims to explain where life originated from is putting words in peoples' mouths, and insulting scientific fact based on points it doesn't attempt to explain is slander.
Nothing about science is "belief". Science is only what can be proven. And evolution is science fact.
@OreoTheWolf Oh yes, I know that is what would be said. Abiogenesis is not evolution, of course, because natural selection does not operate at a genotype level. I was just assumed that you believed in the origin of life without God in it since you oppose the Bible and God thereof. So I thought I would start with abiogenesis.
@OreoTheWolf And correct again, science is what can be proven. However, the theory that claims bacteria eventually formed all of life's diversity is truly an unprovable "belief". Even now, animals do not become other animals. Canines give rise to canines, cats to cats. Even for supposed "millions of years" insects of stayed the same without any evolution. (Amber encased insects dated as millions of years old are identical to today's insects)
Animals are constantly becoming other animals. Dogs were made from wolves in a relatively short amount of time. Evolution is a process that takes more time than a single lifetime to witness. There is more than enough fossil record to trace the origin of every species back to the prehistoric ancestor it developed from. So why there is even debate about this is baffling.
Insects don't need to evolve because they no longer need to adapt. They've survived just fine, they don't need to change.
@OreoTheWolf Ahah, there you've been fooled. Wolves did give rise to dogs. But they are the same animal nonetheless. Canidea Family ring a bell? (I study wolves man. Check out my channel.) Although canines are grouped in different categories called "species" they have the same basic organ structures and have never grown new, more complex organs. For the organ is a carefully tuned piece of machinery. It can't come from a mistake in the genetic code.
Familial ties do not mean they are the same species. "Family" is the third most basic biological classification, with both genus and species being more specific.
Your understanding of biology is poor at best. Organs DO generate, but only when they are needed for complex life to evolve, and only very slowly. Gills were developed for sea creatures, who later developed lungs when some of those species started to traverse land regularly. It's called "adaptation", not a "mistake".
@OreoTheWolf Did I say they were the same "species"? I said they're the same animal. Wolf, dog, both canines. Same basic structures. Both easily identified as canines just from looks.
However, you say organs generate without the proof that they do. If the "evolution" of gills to lungs is scientific, it can be tested. And it has already been tested. The results showed that gills don't even begin to develop. Using time for an argument is like trying to take evidence from thin air.
You said they were the same animal. And the basic classification of animal is species. If they aren't the same species, they aren't the same animal. Sorry.
There is proof everywhere that water creatures develop into land creatures. Not only are there fossil records proving this transition, but amphibians are a perfect example of a creature that can do both. Which is the missing link between the two, explaining how one became another.
Evolution is scientific fact because it has evidence.
@OreoTheWolf Yes, its a mind twisting trick the play on you. They'll tell you new animals evolved because they're system qualifies slight variations as different "species" and they define "species" as different animals. So, whether or not a new animal has emerged; based on the system of terms they made up they'll say evolution has happened.
So you're claiming that, despite the irrefutable proof, despite that you can go see these fossils in a museum and connect these dots yourself, despite years of scientists putting the pieces together, that the entire thing is a conspiracy theory.
Yet you believe that a being that is untouchable, unreachable, unidentifiable, unquantifiable, and completely undetectable is the source of all the diversity in life on this planet.
@OreoTheWolf When you say "irrefutable proof" and "connect the dots yourself", what exactly are you talking about? All the evolutionist will tell you is, "this gave rise to this because we say it did". Pure conjecture. Like I said to the other guy, watch the lecture titled "Bones in Stones" by Walter Veith. It explains they're circular reasoning.
I'm speaking of the fossil records that document slight alterations that species make over time. How one animal slowly becomes another animal by tiny mutations, which eventually leads to full blown evolution into another animal. If you trace one animal's slowly developing fossils, it's clear to see animals that we coexist with now.
I don't have to be "told anything" by scientists. Proof is right there. YOUR reasoning is the circular reasoning, as you quickly dismiss any credible evidence.
"The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Today there are more than twenty genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, nearly all of which are theropods."
This is an example of dinosaurs that had bird traits before they fully evolved into modern birds.
@OreoTheWolf So someone tells you there are underdeveloped wings in dinosaurs. And...
"New research show that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is "almost impossible" for the species to be closely related" published in the journal "Science"
And it's being suggested that this single bone could in no way, shape or form be modified or assimilated into the skeletal structure of modern birds where it would no longer be recognizable?
Several species of dogs had the circulation to their tails cut off at birth, in an attempt to have the appendage fall off. After several generations of breeding these dogs, they were born with the tails already removed.
A lack of a particular bone does not entirely debunk an evolutionary timeline.
You still speak of limits. These limits you speak of don't make any sense. They seem to only apply to make your argument, and pop up to act as a deus ex machina whenever you have no better argument.
There are no limits to the adaptations that organisms can experience. The only hindrance is time.
@OreoTheWolf It's midnight here in Indiana and I really want to go to sleep. However, everything I would continue to say to you would be all contained in Watler Veith's lecture series titled "The Genesis Conflict". It explains the flood, fossils, genetics, and so on.
To me, it sounds like you're simply repeating what a lot of creationists attempt to pass off as science, but only half connecting dots in an attempt to prove an obviously unscientific and ludicrous piece of antiquated fiction as fact.
So far, you have only managed to explain your lack of knowledge towards anything resembling concrete, reputable science. I suggest you do more research than watching a few lectures from fundamentalist Christians that were laughed out of the scientific community.
@OreoTheWolf So limitless change is possible as long as time is used as an excuse and despite that new biological machinery never generates? Dang.
The CRS Quarterly and the lectures by Veith are two good sources of research by Ph.D. qualified creation scientists. And regardless of your scoffing, creditable information is in there. So whether you call it "obviously unscientific" or not, it'll always be there. And no matter how much you assume of it, you won't change its content.
I already explained, over and over, how organisms develop new traits. Whether they be organs or appendages, they develop the same way. You are both a broken record and a brick wall, refusing to take in any new information, being perfectly content with your ignorance. You are the prime example of the most detrimental type of person to human advancement.
Creation is not a science. Saying "God did it" kills the process of analyzing new data and coming to conclusions. Ergo, not a science.
@OreoTheWolf No, you do not "explain" anything. To just say it is inevitable that new organs "develop" over time without actually explain anything on the genetic level; does not explain anything. You think it's all rapped up as long as you mention the words "develop", "adapt", "mutate", "evolve" and "change". That is way I am denying your "information". Because it is not even informing me about anything!
By the way, they don't just say "God did it". Need proof? Look up the sources I mentioned.
I never said anything was "inevitable". I explained that, as the need arises, animals will slowly begin to adapt to allow themselves to survive. The reason you continue to be uninformed is because you WANT to remain uninformed. No amount of explanation will seep in to your thick skull, because you're either ignorant or stupid. Maybe a little of both.
I can only explain it so many times.
They basically do say "God did it" in a sneaky, conniving way to attempt to pose as credible science.
If you want to learn, then let me know. I'll be glad to help you understand. But if you're going to keep wearing the blinders of "creation science" while saying "LA LA LA, CAN'T HEAR YOU" then you're wasting my time and you need to stop posting right now.
Those are not explanations. Those are examples. Do you not know the difference between these two things?
"Organs DO generate, but only when they are needed for complex life to evolve, and only very slowly."
"Evolution is a process that takes more time than a single lifetime to witness."
These are explanations.
Also, "a gene has been turned off" is now how genetics works. There is no "flight or no flight" gene. There is an appendage that cannot be used for flight, so it is not.
You want an example of how a a flightless bird counts for development?
The ostrich. We can look at it's inability to fly and large, powerful legs as a clue to how it developed. It most likely evolved from a bird that could fly, but that bird started to settle in the ostrich's current habitat. Over time, it started to spend more time on the ground, likely due to an available food source. So the wings went unused and it developed into an animal with strong legs for traversing land.
@OreoTheWolf I'm talking about the developer of "new" parts. Not the strengthening or uselessness of existing ones.
To just say new organs DO generate does not explain literally, physically, and genetically that they do generate.
To say evolution is the process that takes more then a lifetime to witness does not explain literally, physically, genetically how new organs can generate.
The truth is, we're not quite sure how cells begin to create a new organ. Evolution doesn't claim to explain how this process takes place. It only explains why it happened, and how these parts slowly changed over time to become the animals that inhabit the Earth today.
It is simply the explanation of how a basic, single celled organism became increasingly complex and eventually sprung into a huge diversity of life.
All of science is theoretical. Gravity is still a theory. We don't know HOW it works, just that it does. Yet you still have your feet firmly planted on the ground.
Science is about finding the most logical answer to a question, and then further investigating it in hopes of understanding more. That's why, for decades, evolution was fact. The only people who DON'T think it's fact are Christian pseudo-scientists that think they can wrap their religion up in a pretty bow and call it science.
@OreoTheWolf No, not all science is theoretical. Science gets theoretical when something can not actually be explained by science.
Now, what determines the most logical answer? Something can seem perfectly logical according to what you've been told, and it can be completely wrong at the same time. Creation is made a logical answer when you eliminate all other possibilities. For example, when abiogenesis is eliminated for the origin of life, an intelligent creator is the only other option.
Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing. I've already explained that evolution explains diveristy of life, not the origin of it.
Abiogenesis is also referred to as spontaneous generation. That has been disproven. Evolution, or adaptation of a species has not been disproven. The origin of life is not associated with abiogenesis, but a period of time when complex chemical reactions occurred on a planet that is very different from today. This, however, can't be duplicated in a lab.
@OreoTheWolf Did I say abiogenesis was evolution? I was just giving an example of the method of elimination.
However, abiogenesis is completely conjecture. You can't literally get life from dead matter out of chemical reactions. I hasn't even plausibly been theorized on paper. See the CSRQ publication, "Why Abiogenesis is Impossible" by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. Its a lengthy article, that systematically debunks abiogenesis. The first part of "The Genes of Genesis" is also a good one.
You have misunderstood. I didn't say chemical reactions occurred from dead matter. Chemical reactions occurred in water with microscopic organisms that were definitely alive. In an atmosphere that was heavy in amonia. Conditions that can only be partially duplicated in a lab. Catalyst - electricity (lightning).
I would like to recommend "The Origin of the Species" by Darwin; who subscribes to the idea that new species evolves from an old species that has been forced to adapt to survive.
@OreoTheWolf Let me explain this to you, before the existence of life (an organism) there is....no life. Simple concept, great. Now that we have that figured out, we can clearly conclude that at some point, if life originated through natural processes, life would have to originate from non-life. However, this occurrence is only considered to be theoretical (imagined) because biological machinery of any kind will not form from dead matter.
I agree that life does not form from no life, but you seem to be hung up on that point. I said things started as microscopic organisms. How did they get here? They are still bombarding our planet in the form of meteorites. Billions of years ago there were more collisions, but there are still an adequate number now. And yes, they have found fossilized bacterial remains in recovered meteorites. I can't prove where they came from, but I know it is not from non-living sources.
@OreoTheWolf So I separate animal from animal based on what they are physically made up of. Not by simply words and terms. I'd say, basing your biology off of imaginary terms, is at best, poor evaluation.
These are not imaginary terms. This is what science uses to identify life. I'm sorry if you've never heard of these terms before. They're in every science textbook in the country intended for 6th grade up. So either you need to do more research about the points you are arguing, or you need to stop talking.
@OreoTheWolf Don't you get it? Those are the terms of classification they use. BUT! Just because they're system of classification may claim new animals have formed doesn't mean new organs have developed, doesn't mean a new part of biological machinery has developed, and doesn't mean evolution (in the context of something like wings developing) is possible!
I already explained that there is ample proof for these things. I have proven that life adapts when it needs to, and these adaptations take place slowly over long periods of time. This is science, and science is NEVER based on belief. It is based on fact. So choosing to ignore scientific fact is ignorance, and you need to realize that fact cannot be misconstrued with "what you believe".
When you refuse to subscribe to reality, you get thrown in an insane asylum.
@OreoTheWolf Ah, reality, like pretending your a furry? Anyway, I NEVER said adaptions do not take place over time. In fact they do very often. However, every animal has built in genetic material to make slight changes to fit its environment. These changes also have a limit. And that is that, fact.
Am I the only one who hears bully instead of furry?
malkatamutra 1 month ago
what episode is this
MegaAuraStar 3 months ago
hai guise
trololololo lololo lololo
lololololo
duhdundun dun
VinnyVanYiffy 3 months ago
@missgeekqueen :3 Two comedic geniuses.
SakuraAvalon 3 months ago
I really don't understnd what that fluffiness is saying :| :)))
leathoforganicplasti 5 months ago
not to ruin this comedic moment but... edmond said i'm all furry, his accent and age made it sound like he said i'm a furry
animehunter23 5 months ago
he's saying "im all furry"
msladysaurus 6 months ago
Comment removed
crazyviewer109 7 months ago
Comment removed
crazyviewer109 7 months ago
Comment removed
crazyviewer109 7 months ago
Comment removed
crazyviewer109 7 months ago
Lets yiff
Pokerit 8 months ago
I learned the term furry after watching Yu Gi Oh the abridged series.
lanie200 9 months ago
You can blame Disney for furries V:
Sokiris 11 months ago
@Sokiris That's not Disney. It's Don Bluth.
danibilbocascante 10 months ago
@danibilbocascante I know, just saying Disney started furries, Don came after. :U
Sokiris 10 months ago
@Sokiris no actually the concept of anthropromorphics or "furry" has existed for a long time.no specific company started anything.
Missmodified92 2 months ago
Nostalgia Critic's reaction was the same is mine. 0.o
NintendoBoy1995 1 year ago
What video was this from 0_o
Palkia01234 1 year ago
@Palkia01234 It's from an old-ish movie called "Cock a doodle", you can find it on YouTube. It should be called something like "Rock a doodle part 2".
NintendoBoy1995 1 year ago
I'm confused. What did the Critic bring to your attention? Are you a furry now and you found out about it by watching this video? What?
SamhainTheDark 1 year ago
@SamhainTheDark That this clip exists.
OreoTheWolf 1 year ago 8
NOSTALGIA critic future leader of future Furries of america LOL
oli36999 1 year ago
They have already made a gif of this
Seargent363 1 year ago
wow im 16 and i know wat a furry is but OMFG im not going to say it
metakight4 1 year ago
@metakight4
Then you don't know what it is because it isn't what you think it is and that makes things go all backwards which means you're really Jack Sparrow.
HTFFanOfFlaky 1 year ago
what episode is this?
fearless2375 1 year ago
I learned about furries because I was called one because I like Lion King. And I was like, what the crap is a furry? So I looked it up on wikipedia. And my word. What a bad reputation we have.
Monjaru 1 year ago
I learned about furries the hands-on way. I dated one in high school.
Yonkage 1 year ago
I think what he said was; "I'll all furry."
IdiosyncraticCat 1 year ago
I first learned about furries in a sorta random way.
I saw an episode about them on CSI.
VTPPGLVR 1 year ago
@VTPPGLVR i saw that episode and was like "WTF, who would do these things?"
a year later, i became a furry. now im like "WTF, who WOULDNT do these things?"
thenan7 1 year ago
@VTPPGLVR
Then you basically unlearned. That show is nothing but shit. The laws are shit. The forensics are shit. The pop culture is shit.
HTFFanOfFlaky 1 year ago
@VTPPGLVR Ahaha, That episode... Ugh...
OnlyRemaining 6 months ago
Get on the ball! The OxiClean Detergent Ball!
I guarantee it!
AuburnAttack21 1 year ago
His reaction makes this scene truly hilarious.
hawkjohenson 1 year ago
I saw this with subtitles he really said "Im all furry"
Petuxsleft 1 year ago 23
@Petuxsleft
We know. It's just funny that it SOUNDS like he said "I'm a furry" instead of "I'm all furry".
TheAmazingBlackStar 1 year ago
@Petuxsleft See people? Of course he said that. Because we all know the Google subtitles are completely reliable, right? Right?!
...
No.
mutput7 2 months ago
@mutput7 lol to be frank Edmond is about as easy to understand as Donald Duck
Petuxsleft 2 months ago
@mutput7 He said "Im all furry". i have the dvd WITH subtitles. Gosh, if you do not know for sure about something do not act like its true because of the internet. the internet itself IS unreliable altogether -_-
Missmodified92 2 months ago
@Missmodified92 What? The internet is unreliable? Of all the possible things. THIS IS THE. WORST. POSSIBLE. THING. I can't trust anyone... I can't trust you. I CAN'T TRUST ME. *shot* (by self). No, seriously, I know he said "all", it's just... that accent...
mutput7 2 months ago
@mutput7 lol? first time i have ever been confused by a single comment o_o
Missmodified92 2 months ago
@Missmodified92 Sorry, when I'm tired I tend to be slightly (read: completely and totally) insane.
mutput7 2 months ago
@mutput7 besides he said he saw this with subtitles.Not google specifically.
Missmodified92 2 months ago
Joey: Can't beat my, can't beat my Brooklyn Rage. I don't wanna be a furry.
SakuraAvalon 1 year ago 34
Lol. I think it's hilarious/sad that millions of fights get started on youtube because of a cartoon saying "I'm all furry". Don't see why furries are hated on so much anyway... people gotta find SOMEONE to pick on I guess. :1
AnimeShineChihiro 1 year ago
HI BILLY MAYS HERE!!!
ARE YOU ON THE BALL?!
codemaster667 1 year ago
GET ON THE BALL. THAT'S RIGHT. I GUARANTEE IT. FOR ONLY $19.99! :D
2007excalibur2007 1 year ago
I still don't get it. What am I missing? He said, "I'm all furry." So? I mean, it was great review, but I'm still not entirely sure why NC made that comment.
SickSilckMan 1 year ago
@SickSilckMan
It's an adult term.
RockXIII 1 year ago
@SickSilckMan Google it. @RockXIII Not really.
Pyrosity 1 year ago
@SickSilckMan It SOUNDS like he's saying, "I'M A FURRY!" A 'furry' is something is a very confusing subject to me. It's either a person who is an animal with human characteristics, a person who likes to fuck animals with human characteristics, or countless other things. I really don't know that wll...
MetaKnightlover12 1 year ago
@MetaKnightlover12 A furry is commonly someone who's turned on by anthromorphic animals and in some occasions dresses as such.
An animal with human charchteristics is an anthromorph.
SakuraAvalon 1 year ago
I lol'd too.
Looks like some serious(ley stupid) crap went down with that WhiteVV guy. Let him be. I'm Christian (well more agnostic) and I agree with evolution. No serious deal.
TheFoxTank 1 year ago
Comment removed
PvtGaryRoach 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFoxTank me too. I believe in christianity and believe in evolution (because I think that making man out of dirt and making women out of Adam's rib is pretty ridiculous) I believed that god only created the universe, then let everything play out on its own, (the colission of Earth and Theia ,google it, evolution, ect.) until and after biblical times.
PvtGaryRoach 1 year ago
Hm, why did this show up in my recommended videos section?
Anyway, the boy says "I'm ALL furry". End of controversy, and who cares anyway.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
Did Doug say "Though I wish to find out" or "Nor do I wish to find out"?
ytuber19 1 year ago
@ytuber19 The second one.
OreoTheWolf 1 year ago 3
I guess the answer to No. 2 is that not too many ppl. knew that this movie exists at all. Even I realized that it exists, when I bought my first DVD player, and I got a 10 pack of, well...not really good films. And this was one of them. Also, at those times I thought it was kinda cool, but looking back now, it just ruined my childhood.
Termiborger 1 year ago
Holyshit argument comment thread.
And it sure lasts loooooooooong.
remick0 1 year ago
What movie was this from?
thunderstudent 1 year ago
@thunderstudent Rock a doodle. This was from the NC's review on his show.
Salukiara 1 year ago
Science? What the crap? What does science have to do with a boy getting turned into a cat? Since when does...? No. You know what? No. Never mind.
Anyway, I'm still fairly certain that this kid is not, in fact, a furry, unless he finds anthropomorphic animals fascinating, and draws or writes stories about them on the... In his school newsletter. Not all cartoon animals are furries, after all.
mytruepower2 1 year ago
@mytruepower2 Nah. What happened is that troll dude was spewing some self righteous Christian crap, and he made a comment about "evolutionists". And so I spent a week telling him he was wrong. So we sorta got off topic.
OreoTheWolf 1 year ago
@OreoTheWolf
Well, I happen to be a Christian myself, but I just don't see what it has to do with horrible child actors being turned into kittens, and saying questionable... Well, whatever. It's probably... hopefully... over now.
mytruepower2 1 year ago
@mytruepower2 He was talking about furries being evil or something. I dunno. He blocked me.
OreoTheWolf 1 year ago
@OreoTheWolf
Ooookay. Well, as far as I know, furries don't, by their nature, steal, kill, covet goods, commit adultery, dishonor their parents or fall victim to lust, greed, gluttony, pride, selfishness, etc, so I can't see why they're evil.
I mean, sure, there are some furries who aren't so nice, or who play the bad guy in cartoons, but they're usually beaten by the good guys by the time the episode ends, so... yeah.
mytruepower2 1 year ago
@OreoTheWolf LOL
crazzygirl100 1 year ago
he actually says "im all furry" but we all want him to say that
malefurry 1 year ago
time to use this >:3
ilovemadnesscombat 1 year ago
sounds more like "I'm ALL furry"
gamefreak391 1 year ago
WhiteWolf got told.
Shredlight 1 year ago
"Jeepers, I'm a furry!"? That's too mature for kids.
IAMBLUERANGERELECTRO 2 years ago
....wow..i took the time and actually read most of the stuff below till the "show more comments button" stopped working for some reason.
littlefrank103 2 years ago
Secondly, in an atmosphere heavy amonia, sugars wont form. So no, that wont work.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I don't need to form sugars, just the basis of a genetic code, RNA. Earth's atmosphere was not nitrogen/oxygen based before photosynthesis. In the chemicals present, and one was amonia, when added to the presence of water and an electrical charge, the end result was ancient RNA compounds, which is the basis of life. Once chemicals bond together and cells are formed, mitosis takes over after millions of years and you end up with multicellular organisms. I'm not looking for sugar.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf It doesn't matter much time you speculate. No matter what the conditions are, you don't get anything biologically structured from it.
And the bacterial fossils on meteorites can be explained by the the flood. Subterranean water that gushed out of the earth at particularly fast speeds could send pieces of rock into space. It's theorized in the hydroplate theory.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
@WhiteVV01F Vieth explains it very well in his lecture. Google search "105 - The Genes of Genesis (Med)" and start at (11:00).
Anyway, I got to go man. So, see ya.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Anyway, as much as I like watching you be wrong so many times a day, I'd have to request we end the conversation. I have a feeling there just isn't enough room in my comments section to contain all the various ways you can be wrong, and it really is cluttering up the real estate under the video.
However, if you'd like a more in depth explanation of the furry fandom (your original topic), I'd be glad to inform you via private message.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
Meteorites are tracked as they FALL FROM SPACE, not gush up out of the Earth. When the space rock hit, in Russia, they took samples. The rock is dated to billions of years old (iron mostly, little rock) and in that SPACE rock they found fossilized bacteria. If the rock, metal, was exposed to gushing water, it would've washed away the fossil and not left it nice and frozen in place as it traveled through trillions of miles for billions of years. There is life throughout the universe.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
And that is pretty much what creation science is. It's elimination of the impossible, and selection of the only options. A good example of that method can be found in the first part of Veith's lecture titled, "The Genes of Genesis".
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I know there is no "flight" gene. The point is that the disablement of the use of a biological part, does not suggest development of new biological machinery. That is all I'm saying.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
and if there was a cat with really abnormally long whiskers, the odds of it having no other characteristics different from the initial species are astronomically against. Then it would be a new species, because not ALL of the original species would get the super long whiskers. Its still a cat, but so is a tiger, and you're not actually telling me a tiger and a housecat are the same animal are you?
thinredpaste 2 years ago
@thinredpaste Technically, tigers and housecats are cats. The chihuahua came from the wolf. Things can shrink.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
we're talking about thousands of cumulative tiny changes that trend in a direction over millions of years, each generation becomes just that tiny little bit more prevalent, more pronounced, and thousands of generations later you have something different than what you started with.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
You're really not getting it, though. tiny change + tiny change + tiny change and so on countless times becomes a large change.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
@thinredpaste Your not getting it. What is longer whiskers + longer whiskers + longer whiskers? REALLY LONG WHISKERS. Now the cat is still a cat. And well, we don't see any gills.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
its more trial and error than anything. Its entirely possible that sometime, tens of millions of years ago, there WERE bright blue cats. but the bright blue ones died off faster than they could reproduce, and pow, no more blue cats. That's also evolution. Some tiny mutation happens, we're talking like .00000000000000000001% difference. maybe it catches on - maybe that creature reproduces like crazy, and its offspring do the same, and so on and so on. Then that creature has evolved.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
i was calling this done with, but i'm dragged back in.
"doesn't mean new organs have developed, doesn't mean a new part of biological machinery has developed"
NOT NECESSARY FOR EVOLUTION. if, over time, cats with bright blue fur became common, that would be evolution. They don't have to turn into fucking seagulls. Even tiny changes like whisker length are part of evolution. At first, its just a mutation. But if the mutation catches on, becomes a common trait, then that's evolution.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
@thinredpaste Evolution is a funny word. If you define it as small changes within an animal, then it is very possible. However, I'm referring to megaevolution (I.e development of wings, one phyla into another, sharks developing into land mammals). That I oppose.
Now you can leave if you want. I'm not going to your house to kill you if you leave.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
in conclusion - shut the fuck up.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
@thinredpaste Alright. That is something we agree on. I oppose man made religions as well. And I oppose they're misuse of the Bible.
And what exactly is it you mean by archeology proving evolution? Do you mean fossils? Do you mean the made up connections people say fossils have with one another? Pure conjecture. Look up Ph.D. qualified Walter Veith's lecture titled "Bones in Stones".
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
so, what is religion, in general? They basically all have elements in common - a creation myth, stories, and an overarching goal of being a sort of "moral compass." That's what they all want to be - a guide. "Here's how to not be a dick." That's cool, but I can figure that out on my own.
The problem is that people take them WAY too seriously. They believe THEIR stuff is perfect. Its not. Not in any religion, not in no religion. So when people ruckus about it, people will ruckus back.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
I have, in fact, heard of archeology. Its part of how they proved evolution. Neat how it "proves" both sides of an argument like that. Unless they found a video recording or something, its pretty tricky to say that finding Object A in Location B means Event C MUST have happened there. It just means that Object A existed.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
continued: Entire books were discarded, based on little more than the whims of those in control of the religion. The teachings were horrifically distorted, causing the crusades. Countless men have gone to war, basing their justification on "the will of God."
Between the crusades, the bygone catholic practice of literally paying your way into heaven, and the recent incidents with the catholic priests, its safe to say that not all the people surrounding the bible had its best interests at heart
thinredpaste 2 years ago
On the note of "distortion of ones mind and the practices that lead to it," Lets discuss your proverb book. What is it? Its a book. Who wrote it? Man. Several men. Even IF God, or A god, gave the men the inspiration, he also gave them free will to alter, change, or ignore any part of that inspiration. After it was written by man (hundreds of years after the events depicted, in the case of the new testament), it was edited by man, translated by man, and interpreted by man. I'm out of space
thinredpaste 2 years ago
@thinredpaste Ever heard of archeology? It's a neat little study. You see, what archeologists have found is that the Bible describes real events. You kind of get a double witness when you find an event described in the Bible and also from ancient findings.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
also, regarding your response to shredlight's post - way to take a modified clerks 2 quote super seriously.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
Laughing hysterically is not a problem. I can see how you would think that, though. Fits your MO as a hateful zealot, opposed to anything that isn't in church.
Go suck a dick, for Christ's sake.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
@thinredpaste I would say your own statement defines your own hateful attitude, especially the last part. Now, I don't hate you. We are all the God's children. I do, however, highly oppose the distortion of one's mind and the practices that lead to that. Satan tries to get to the best of us.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
But god also created man. And if man created furries then furries are like a gift from god.
Shredlight 2 years ago
@Shredlight To better define the word "Wrong" I will now refer to you whenever I explain the word's definition to another.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
"No, officer, I can't be the one you're after. My name is spelled with two Vs instead of a W, its totally different despite being pronounced exactly the same!"
I had no idea 1337speak worked that way; I always thought it was just some juvenile bullshit. Might come in handy. Anyway, you're right, that's not an argument. Its just fucking hilarious, especially since you defended it.
if you want an actual argument, look up Russell's Teapot or something.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
@thinredpaste Do you actually have no idea it was you who decided you had a problem with user-names? Figure it out man.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I find it funny that the guy arguing against furries (and that people who have nothing in common except that they all happen to like something fairly innocuous can be inherently evil) not only shares a name with a rare animal, but also the company responsible for the World of Darkness pen and paper RPGs such as Vampire: The Requiem (where players are vampires), Mage: the Awakening (players can rewrite reality by smoking a blunt and willing it so), and most importantly: Werewolf: the Forsaken.
thinredpaste 2 years ago
@thinredpaste Lets get something straight. Furries are human/creature abominations, not animals. God created animals, men created furries. BIG DIFFERENCE. You don't mix animals with humans. And by the way, my user-name is spelled with two Vs one 0 and one 1. Therefore, it does not match the company name, nor do I intend it to match. And who bases an argument off of one's user-name?
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Thor was here. WhiteVV01F is a fag.
Shredlight 2 years ago
Their is just something unnatural and wrong about furries. There's just something about mixing humans and animals that's just so obviously wrong.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Except humanity has been anthropomorphizing animals since the dawn of time.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Well, of course. It was very close to the dawn of time that Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And first the mixing of humans with animals started with pagan deities as men became continually wicked. Later it became more simulated in art. At the same time, it always was a festering area for corruption.
However, were you suggesting that since this has been happening over long periods of time it, therefore, makes it OK?
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that the myth of Adam and Eve is fact, and suggesting that paganism is somehow an "evil" system of beliefs?
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf I wasn't suggesting any myth at all. Are you suggesting there is no real line between right and wrong? That is utter confusion.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I could have sworn that you were speaking of the Bible. Which is, after all, a book of well constructed myths. But if you weren't, then I suppose I apologize.
Right and wrong is entirely relative. It is a construct of society.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Yes, I was talking about the Bible. I guess this "Furry Fandom" thing is in leagues with evolutionary mindset. Evolutionary mindset also teaches one's self can construct right and wrong. Therefore, consequently, one can construct murder to be a right.
And if you have any proof that the Bible is just a collection of myths, I beg of you to provide it.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Evolutionary mindset? You mean the scientifically proven system by which animals evolved from lesser organisms in an attempt to adapt to their surroundings to better allow themselves to survive?
Yes. This most definitely pertains to a group of people who enjoy cartoon animals. It has come full circle. I'd suggest you go to the press with this groundbreaking discovery. The world needs to know.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Would you like to start on the subject of abiogenesis? You see, life consists of proteins, and a protein is only synthesized by a protein. So, if you were to say life came about without creation...then that is very confusing. Evolution itself, is more like a religion. It takes a heck load of faith to believe that biological machinery just popped out of inanimate matter without anyone putting the pieces together.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Never, anywhere, does evolution speak of where life came from. It explains diversity of life, not origin. So to claim that evolution claims to explain where life originated from is putting words in peoples' mouths, and insulting scientific fact based on points it doesn't attempt to explain is slander.
Nothing about science is "belief". Science is only what can be proven. And evolution is science fact.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Oh yes, I know that is what would be said. Abiogenesis is not evolution, of course, because natural selection does not operate at a genotype level. I was just assumed that you believed in the origin of life without God in it since you oppose the Bible and God thereof. So I thought I would start with abiogenesis.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf And correct again, science is what can be proven. However, the theory that claims bacteria eventually formed all of life's diversity is truly an unprovable "belief". Even now, animals do not become other animals. Canines give rise to canines, cats to cats. Even for supposed "millions of years" insects of stayed the same without any evolution. (Amber encased insects dated as millions of years old are identical to today's insects)
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Animals are constantly becoming other animals. Dogs were made from wolves in a relatively short amount of time. Evolution is a process that takes more time than a single lifetime to witness. There is more than enough fossil record to trace the origin of every species back to the prehistoric ancestor it developed from. So why there is even debate about this is baffling.
Insects don't need to evolve because they no longer need to adapt. They've survived just fine, they don't need to change.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Ahah, there you've been fooled. Wolves did give rise to dogs. But they are the same animal nonetheless. Canidea Family ring a bell? (I study wolves man. Check out my channel.) Although canines are grouped in different categories called "species" they have the same basic organ structures and have never grown new, more complex organs. For the organ is a carefully tuned piece of machinery. It can't come from a mistake in the genetic code.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Familial ties do not mean they are the same species. "Family" is the third most basic biological classification, with both genus and species being more specific.
Your understanding of biology is poor at best. Organs DO generate, but only when they are needed for complex life to evolve, and only very slowly. Gills were developed for sea creatures, who later developed lungs when some of those species started to traverse land regularly. It's called "adaptation", not a "mistake".
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Did I say they were the same "species"? I said they're the same animal. Wolf, dog, both canines. Same basic structures. Both easily identified as canines just from looks.
However, you say organs generate without the proof that they do. If the "evolution" of gills to lungs is scientific, it can be tested. And it has already been tested. The results showed that gills don't even begin to develop. Using time for an argument is like trying to take evidence from thin air.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
You said they were the same animal. And the basic classification of animal is species. If they aren't the same species, they aren't the same animal. Sorry.
There is proof everywhere that water creatures develop into land creatures. Not only are there fossil records proving this transition, but amphibians are a perfect example of a creature that can do both. Which is the missing link between the two, explaining how one became another.
Evolution is scientific fact because it has evidence.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Yes, its a mind twisting trick the play on you. They'll tell you new animals evolved because they're system qualifies slight variations as different "species" and they define "species" as different animals. So, whether or not a new animal has emerged; based on the system of terms they made up they'll say evolution has happened.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
So you're claiming that, despite the irrefutable proof, despite that you can go see these fossils in a museum and connect these dots yourself, despite years of scientists putting the pieces together, that the entire thing is a conspiracy theory.
Yet you believe that a being that is untouchable, unreachable, unidentifiable, unquantifiable, and completely undetectable is the source of all the diversity in life on this planet.
I think you've got things backwards.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf When you say "irrefutable proof" and "connect the dots yourself", what exactly are you talking about? All the evolutionist will tell you is, "this gave rise to this because we say it did". Pure conjecture. Like I said to the other guy, watch the lecture titled "Bones in Stones" by Walter Veith. It explains they're circular reasoning.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I'm speaking of the fossil records that document slight alterations that species make over time. How one animal slowly becomes another animal by tiny mutations, which eventually leads to full blown evolution into another animal. If you trace one animal's slowly developing fossils, it's clear to see animals that we coexist with now.
I don't have to be "told anything" by scientists. Proof is right there. YOUR reasoning is the circular reasoning, as you quickly dismiss any credible evidence.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Hah! Provide one transitional fossil please.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
"The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Today there are more than twenty genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, nearly all of which are theropods."
This is an example of dinosaurs that had bird traits before they fully evolved into modern birds.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf So someone tells you there are underdeveloped wings in dinosaurs. And...
"New research show that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is "almost impossible" for the species to be closely related" published in the journal "Science"
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
And your source would be...?
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Larry Martin, Alan Brush.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Walter Veith points out the exact quote on the second part of his lecture "Bones in Stones".
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
And it's being suggested that this single bone could in no way, shape or form be modified or assimilated into the skeletal structure of modern birds where it would no longer be recognizable?
Several species of dogs had the circulation to their tails cut off at birth, in an attempt to have the appendage fall off. After several generations of breeding these dogs, they were born with the tails already removed.
A lack of a particular bone does not entirely debunk an evolutionary timeline.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf What are you talking about? Nothing is developing outside of limits when it loses its tail.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
You still speak of limits. These limits you speak of don't make any sense. They seem to only apply to make your argument, and pop up to act as a deus ex machina whenever you have no better argument.
There are no limits to the adaptations that organisms can experience. The only hindrance is time.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf It's midnight here in Indiana and I really want to go to sleep. However, everything I would continue to say to you would be all contained in Watler Veith's lecture series titled "The Genesis Conflict". It explains the flood, fossils, genetics, and so on.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
To me, it sounds like you're simply repeating what a lot of creationists attempt to pass off as science, but only half connecting dots in an attempt to prove an obviously unscientific and ludicrous piece of antiquated fiction as fact.
So far, you have only managed to explain your lack of knowledge towards anything resembling concrete, reputable science. I suggest you do more research than watching a few lectures from fundamentalist Christians that were laughed out of the scientific community.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf So limitless change is possible as long as time is used as an excuse and despite that new biological machinery never generates? Dang.
The CRS Quarterly and the lectures by Veith are two good sources of research by Ph.D. qualified creation scientists. And regardless of your scoffing, creditable information is in there. So whether you call it "obviously unscientific" or not, it'll always be there. And no matter how much you assume of it, you won't change its content.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I already explained, over and over, how organisms develop new traits. Whether they be organs or appendages, they develop the same way. You are both a broken record and a brick wall, refusing to take in any new information, being perfectly content with your ignorance. You are the prime example of the most detrimental type of person to human advancement.
Creation is not a science. Saying "God did it" kills the process of analyzing new data and coming to conclusions. Ergo, not a science.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf No, you do not "explain" anything. To just say it is inevitable that new organs "develop" over time without actually explain anything on the genetic level; does not explain anything. You think it's all rapped up as long as you mention the words "develop", "adapt", "mutate", "evolve" and "change". That is way I am denying your "information". Because it is not even informing me about anything!
By the way, they don't just say "God did it". Need proof? Look up the sources I mentioned.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I never said anything was "inevitable". I explained that, as the need arises, animals will slowly begin to adapt to allow themselves to survive. The reason you continue to be uninformed is because you WANT to remain uninformed. No amount of explanation will seep in to your thick skull, because you're either ignorant or stupid. Maybe a little of both.
I can only explain it so many times.
They basically do say "God did it" in a sneaky, conniving way to attempt to pose as credible science.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
Oh, and it's "wrapped", not "rapped".
If you want to learn, then let me know. I'll be glad to help you understand. But if you're going to keep wearing the blinders of "creation science" while saying "LA LA LA, CAN'T HEAR YOU" then you're wasting my time and you need to stop posting right now.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OreoTheWolf "I explained that, as the need arises, animals will slowly begin to adapt to allow themselves to survive."
To adapt does not require and does not mean a new part will develop. Is that so confusing?
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OreoTheWolf "They basically do say "God did it" in a sneaky, conniving way to attempt to pose as credible science."
Again, no explanation. Completely and entirely no explanation.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Here are some of your "explanations"...
"There are no limits to the adaptations that organisms can experience. The only hindrance is time."
"Look at the T-Rex with it's stubby arms, or flightless birds.
There are several links between birds and dinosaurs, even without taking feathers into account."
Flightless birds are just birds without flight! A gene has been turned off, that is all.
How can stubby arms even account for any development? It doesn't!
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Those are not explanations. Those are examples. Do you not know the difference between these two things?
"Organs DO generate, but only when they are needed for complex life to evolve, and only very slowly."
"Evolution is a process that takes more time than a single lifetime to witness."
These are explanations.
Also, "a gene has been turned off" is now how genetics works. There is no "flight or no flight" gene. There is an appendage that cannot be used for flight, so it is not.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
You want an example of how a a flightless bird counts for development?
The ostrich. We can look at it's inability to fly and large, powerful legs as a clue to how it developed. It most likely evolved from a bird that could fly, but that bird started to settle in the ostrich's current habitat. Over time, it started to spend more time on the ground, likely due to an available food source. So the wings went unused and it developed into an animal with strong legs for traversing land.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf I'm talking about the developer of "new" parts. Not the strengthening or uselessness of existing ones.
To just say new organs DO generate does not explain literally, physically, and genetically that they do generate.
To say evolution is the process that takes more then a lifetime to witness does not explain literally, physically, genetically how new organs can generate.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
The truth is, we're not quite sure how cells begin to create a new organ. Evolution doesn't claim to explain how this process takes place. It only explains why it happened, and how these parts slowly changed over time to become the animals that inhabit the Earth today.
It is simply the explanation of how a basic, single celled organism became increasingly complex and eventually sprung into a huge diversity of life.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf And that is why it is theoretical, not empirical. You nailed it.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
All of science is theoretical. Gravity is still a theory. We don't know HOW it works, just that it does. Yet you still have your feet firmly planted on the ground.
Science is about finding the most logical answer to a question, and then further investigating it in hopes of understanding more. That's why, for decades, evolution was fact. The only people who DON'T think it's fact are Christian pseudo-scientists that think they can wrap their religion up in a pretty bow and call it science.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf No, not all science is theoretical. Science gets theoretical when something can not actually be explained by science.
Now, what determines the most logical answer? Something can seem perfectly logical according to what you've been told, and it can be completely wrong at the same time. Creation is made a logical answer when you eliminate all other possibilities. For example, when abiogenesis is eliminated for the origin of life, an intelligent creator is the only other option.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing. I've already explained that evolution explains diveristy of life, not the origin of it.
Abiogenesis is also referred to as spontaneous generation. That has been disproven. Evolution, or adaptation of a species has not been disproven. The origin of life is not associated with abiogenesis, but a period of time when complex chemical reactions occurred on a planet that is very different from today. This, however, can't be duplicated in a lab.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Did I say abiogenesis was evolution? I was just giving an example of the method of elimination.
However, abiogenesis is completely conjecture. You can't literally get life from dead matter out of chemical reactions. I hasn't even plausibly been theorized on paper. See the CSRQ publication, "Why Abiogenesis is Impossible" by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. Its a lengthy article, that systematically debunks abiogenesis. The first part of "The Genes of Genesis" is also a good one.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
You have misunderstood. I didn't say chemical reactions occurred from dead matter. Chemical reactions occurred in water with microscopic organisms that were definitely alive. In an atmosphere that was heavy in amonia. Conditions that can only be partially duplicated in a lab. Catalyst - electricity (lightning).
I would like to recommend "The Origin of the Species" by Darwin; who subscribes to the idea that new species evolves from an old species that has been forced to adapt to survive.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Let me explain this to you, before the existence of life (an organism) there is....no life. Simple concept, great. Now that we have that figured out, we can clearly conclude that at some point, if life originated through natural processes, life would have to originate from non-life. However, this occurrence is only considered to be theoretical (imagined) because biological machinery of any kind will not form from dead matter.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I agree that life does not form from no life, but you seem to be hung up on that point. I said things started as microscopic organisms. How did they get here? They are still bombarding our planet in the form of meteorites. Billions of years ago there were more collisions, but there are still an adequate number now. And yes, they have found fossilized bacterial remains in recovered meteorites. I can't prove where they came from, but I know it is not from non-living sources.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf So I separate animal from animal based on what they are physically made up of. Not by simply words and terms. I'd say, basing your biology off of imaginary terms, is at best, poor evaluation.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
These are not imaginary terms. This is what science uses to identify life. I'm sorry if you've never heard of these terms before. They're in every science textbook in the country intended for 6th grade up. So either you need to do more research about the points you are arguing, or you need to stop talking.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Don't you get it? Those are the terms of classification they use. BUT! Just because they're system of classification may claim new animals have formed doesn't mean new organs have developed, doesn't mean a new part of biological machinery has developed, and doesn't mean evolution (in the context of something like wings developing) is possible!
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago
I already explained that there is ample proof for these things. I have proven that life adapts when it needs to, and these adaptations take place slowly over long periods of time. This is science, and science is NEVER based on belief. It is based on fact. So choosing to ignore scientific fact is ignorance, and you need to realize that fact cannot be misconstrued with "what you believe".
When you refuse to subscribe to reality, you get thrown in an insane asylum.
OreoTheWolf 2 years ago
@OreoTheWolf Ah, reality, like pretending your a furry? Anyway, I NEVER said adaptions do not take place over time. In fact they do very often. However, every animal has built in genetic material to make slight changes to fit its environment. These changes also have a limit. And that is that, fact.
WhiteVV01F 2 years ago