Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Cyber Nations Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

THIS FORUM IS NOW A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE.
PLEASE GO TO http://forums.cybernations.net FOR THE CURRENT CYBER NATIONS FORUM.

Pages: (31) « First ... 29 30 [31]  ( Go to first unread post )

:. The evidence for evolution., Since it comes up... over and over...
Eagare the Alenthin
Posted: Sep 1 2007, 09:24 AM


Warmaster of the Cult of Richard
*

Group: Members
Posts: 129
Member No.: 9,213
Joined: 9-August 06



I have no trouble at all believing in God AND Evolution. I hate fundamentalists...


--------------------
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v394/Fingolfin_King/richardsig.jpg[/IMG]

"No one puts Richard in a corner." LFG (74:9).
Top
Magicman657
Posted: Sep 1 2007, 07:39 PM


^ Golbez ^
*

Group: Members
Posts: 273
Member No.: 27,015
Joined: 27-February 07



QUOTE (Vladimir @ Aug 31 2007, 05:00 AM)
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...dpost&p=8441560

(I found an excellent solution to the "Quoting Long Walls of Text" problem- link to the post :D)

This man has now become the second person to make it onto my very exclusive "List of People's Graves That I Want To Piss On" (the other being Fred Phelps).

Crazy beliefs aside, taunting legitimate research and people for not being able to fulfill an impossible task and purposely misleading people to think he's being genuinely sincere is an action I generally never forgive people for doing. Especially when done in front of millions of people.


--------------------
Current Minister of Foreign Affairs for LoSS

Visit beautiful Alriqu City located in the heart of Magi Nation!

~Quote made of win~
QUOTE (SAmulticore @ Jul 31 2007, 12:51 AM)
Man you think you got what it takes to defeat me? ***** please, you got guerilla camps and a stadium. What the **** use is that? See you at update, *****. Yeah. Rest in peace mode, mother******.
Top
benjamin1776
Posted: Sep 1 2007, 08:04 PM


Lieutinant-The Marines Alliance
*

Group: Members
Posts: 347
Member No.: 19,237
Joined: 12-December 06



God could have made monkies evolve, that doesn't disagree with the Bible!


--------------------
too late, mr. alabama, a great football team btw. i am bleeding profusely! smiles, only a twelve year old can say that
Top
Akadian
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 07:22 PM


Full time game ruiner
Group Icon

Group: \m/
Posts: 125
Member No.: 22,941
Joined: 19-January 07



I haven't been terribly active on these forums but that's changing... I didn't have a chance to read through all 31 pages, so if this is a repeat feel free to disregard (but if so would someone please tell me that so I know that you're not just dodging a bullet?)

Dating methods:
Carbon dating (and every other radioactive dating method) requires 3 pieces of information to work.
Piece 1: How much carbon (or whatever material we're using to find the age) was in the organism when it started to decompose.
Piece 2: How much carbon (or other blah blah blah) is currently in the organism
Piece 3: Rate of decomposition for said radioactive substance.

Now, pieces 2 and 3 are (relatively) easy to figure out, but piece 1 is impossible (unless of course someone was there and had the tools to do so, and then left the recorded information conveniently buried right next to the organism.

Simply put: Carbon dating simply uses circular logic to "prove" the age of something. Example:
"This organism existed 45,000 years ago. With the rate of decomposition at x, and with y left, that must mean that there was z amount to begin with. Since there was z, y is left, and it decomposes at the rate of x, that must mean it's 45,000 years old!!!"

tl;dr: Carbon dating =/= valid method for figuring out how old something is.

Now, I'm not saying that I have an alternative, I'm just saying it don't work.


--------------------
[IMG]http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/AkadianCN/sig.jpg[/IMG]

Proud \m/ember. MEMBER ID: 1005

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine and in no way represent my alliance unless otherwise stated.

QUOTE

"Hello, police? I'm playing a game called Cybernations and an alliance called \m/ is trying to get Cybermoney off of me. Can you go and arrest them please?"


QUOTE (benjamin1776 @ Sep 1 2007, 10:58 PM)
in real life im not this inmature, really. and i am way more intelligent.
Top
Akadian
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 07:28 PM


Full time game ruiner
Group Icon

Group: \m/
Posts: 125
Member No.: 22,941
Joined: 19-January 07



QUOTE (benjamin1776 @ Sep 1 2007, 10:04 PM)
God could have made monkies evolve, that doesn't disagree with the Bible!

Actually, it does. God made monkeys and man. If man is already around then why would monkeys need to evolve?

And as far as believing in the Bible and evolution:
I believe in micro-evolution (evolution within a specie), but macro evolution is something that requires just as much faith and interpretation of the same facts as creationism.
Example:
Evolutionist can look at the Grand Canyon and say "Wow, look what the Colorado River did over billions of years!" while a creationist scientist can say "Wow, look what the flood did over the course of a year or two!"

Micro-evolution is proven every time a new baby is born or a new breed of dogs is "invented," but macro evolution has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no fossil evidence displaying ANYTHING in the middle stages between money and man (or any other claimed evolutionary step). Just tossing that out there.


--------------------
[IMG]http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/AkadianCN/sig.jpg[/IMG]

Proud \m/ember. MEMBER ID: 1005

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine and in no way represent my alliance unless otherwise stated.

QUOTE

"Hello, police? I'm playing a game called Cybernations and an alliance called \m/ is trying to get Cybermoney off of me. Can you go and arrest them please?"


QUOTE (benjamin1776 @ Sep 1 2007, 10:58 PM)
in real life im not this inmature, really. and i am way more intelligent.
Top
timewarp
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 07:37 PM


‮(_).ti ekorb I
*

Group: Members
Posts: 455
Member No.: 13,060
Joined: 9-October 06



QUOTE (Akadian @ Sep 2 2007, 09:22 PM)
I haven't been terribly active on these forums but that's changing... I didn't have a chance to read through all 31 pages, so if this is a repeat feel free to disregard (but if so would someone please tell me that so I know that you're not just dodging a bullet?)

Dating methods:
Carbon dating (and every other radioactive dating method) requires 3 pieces of information to work.
Piece 1: How much carbon (or whatever material we're using to find the age) was in the organism when it started to decompose.
Piece 2: How much carbon (or other blah blah blah) is currently in the organism
Piece 3: Rate of decomposition for said radioactive substance.

Now, pieces 2 and 3 are (relatively) easy to figure out, but piece 1 is impossible (unless of course someone was there and had the tools to do so, and then left the recorded information conveniently buried right next to the organism.

Simply put: Carbon dating simply uses circular logic to "prove" the age of something. Example:
"This organism existed 45,000 years ago. With the rate of decomposition at x, and with y left, that must mean that there was z amount to begin with. Since there was z, y is left, and it decomposes at the rate of x, that must mean it's 45,000 years old!!!"

tl;dr: Carbon dating =/= valid method for figuring out how old something is.

Now, I'm not saying that I have an alternative, I'm just saying it don't work.

Protip: When posting in a thread, it is generally wise to read the first post.


--------------------
dry.gif wub.gif angry.gif happy.gif content.gif mad.gif demon.gif ouch.gif xptdr.gif blumen.gif clap.gif lol.gif nooooo.gif ehm.gif
Top
Jormungand
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 07:38 PM


President of Teynalet
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2,892
Member No.: 244
Joined: 11-February 06



QUOTE (Akadian @ Sep 2 2007, 07:28 PM)
Actually, it does. God made monkeys and man. If man is already around then why would monkeys need to evolve?

And as far as believing in the Bible and evolution:
I believe in micro-evolution (evolution within a specie), but macro evolution is something that requires just as much faith and interpretation of the same facts as creationism.
Example:
Evolutionist can look at the Grand Canyon and say "Wow, look what the Colorado River did over billions of years!" while a creationist scientist can say "Wow, look what the flood did over the course of a year or two!"

Micro-evolution is proven every time a new baby is born or a new breed of dogs is "invented," but macro evolution has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no fossil evidence displaying ANYTHING in the middle stages between money and man (or any other claimed evolutionary step). Just tossing that out there.

Read the first post which is the whole point of this thread. No fossil evidence for the inbetween stages? Good god man, I'm feeling nice so I'll copy the picture on the original post that shows the 'inbetween stages'.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Also, what do you think happens when you have microevolution over a long period of time?

This post has been edited by Jormungand on Sep 2 2007, 07:38 PM


--------------------
user posted image
Top
Kenadian_2006
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 07:45 PM


Canuck Extraordinaire
Group Icon

Group: GGA
Posts: 1,352
Member No.: 33,470
Joined: 30-May 07



QUOTE (Eagare the Alenthin @ Sep 1 2007, 11:24 AM)
I have no trouble at all believing in God AND Evolution. I hate fundamentalists...

One of the better stances of the Catholic church.


--------------------
Kevin= bringer of truth and all that is holy, AKA he is God.
QUOTE (Kevin the Great @ Jul 2 2007, 10:09 PM)
Neocons are just fascists in nice suits.


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10
Top
Genre
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 07:45 PM


A logic of global terror.
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,745
Member No.: 9,082
Joined: 7-August 06



QUOTE (Akadian @ Sep 2 2007, 07:22 PM)
I haven't been terribly active on these forums but that's changing... I didn't have a chance to read through all 31 pages, so if this is a repeat feel free to disregard (but if so would someone please tell me that so I know that you're not just dodging a bullet?)

Dating methods:
Carbon dating (and every other radioactive dating method) requires 3 pieces of information to work.
Piece 1: How much carbon (or whatever material we're using to find the age) was in the organism when it started to decompose.
Piece 2: How much carbon (or other blah blah blah) is currently in the organism
Piece 3: Rate of decomposition for said radioactive substance.

Now, pieces 2 and 3 are (relatively) easy to figure out, but piece 1 is impossible (unless of course someone was there and had the tools to do so, and then left the recorded information conveniently buried right next to the organism.

Simply put: Carbon dating simply uses circular logic to "prove" the age of something. Example:
"This organism existed 45,000 years ago. With the rate of decomposition at x, and with y left, that must mean that there was z amount to begin with. Since there was z, y is left, and it decomposes at the rate of x, that must mean it's 45,000 years old!!!"

tl;dr: Carbon dating =/= valid method for figuring out how old something is.

Now, I'm not saying that I have an alternative, I'm just saying it don't work.

Lets think a little bit here. I don't know the answer to your question, and I have wondered the same thing. Do you think that if there was something so obvious wrong with it anyone would use it? There is obviously a suitable answer to this, and that is a horrible argument against anything.



--------------------
[IMG]http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc125/Genre1/firsthalf-waygoodsig.png[/IMG]
Remember, remember the Fifth of November....
╔╗╔═╦╗
║╚╣║║╚╗
╚═╩═╩═╝

Top
Genre
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 08:00 PM


A logic of global terror.
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,745
Member No.: 9,082
Joined: 7-August 06



Ohh I understand it now. At least I think I do.

Since organisms are constantly exchanging CO2 with the atmosphere the ratio of carbon14 to carbon12 in the organism gets pretty damn close to the ratio of carbon in the atmosphere. After an organism dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, therefor it is isolated from the atmosphere and the carbon is free to decay without being exchanged. So you compare the carbon ratio in the carbon in the organism you are trying to date to that of the atmosphere. I could be wrong about this also :D, but either way it wouldn't be used by science unless it made sense.


--------------------
[IMG]http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc125/Genre1/firsthalf-waygoodsig.png[/IMG]
Remember, remember the Fifth of November....
╔╗╔═╦╗
║╚╣║║╚╗
╚═╩═╩═╝

Top
Gustave5436
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 09:33 PM


Colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2,325
Member No.: 17,398
Joined: 27-November 06



QUOTE (Akadian @ Sep 2 2007, 06:28 PM)
I believe in micro-evolution (evolution within a specie), but macro evolution is something that requires just as much faith and interpretation of the same facts as creationism.
Example:
Evolutionist can look at the Grand Canyon and say "Wow, look what the Colorado River did over billions of years!" while a creationist scientist can say "Wow, look what the flood did over the course of a year or two!"

Ah, so genetics can change a little bit but, magically, no matter how much time passes and how much the genetics of a population change, that population will still have similar enough genetics with the rest of the species to mate?

Come on. If you acknowledge the fact that the genetics in a population of organisms can change over time, you have to acknowledge that if this population is separated from the rest of the species, eventually the genetic changes in that isolated population will become so great that it can no longer produce viable offspring with the "rest" of the species and will therefore be a new species.

The Grand Canyon? No, a geologist can look at the canyon and say what the Colorado river did over many thousands of years. (billions of years ago, the Colorado river didn't exist, and neither did North America.) Evolution is biology. Evolution is not the scientific theory of everything, it has nothing to do with geology, or astronomy, or anything else.

Yes, a creationist can say that. But that creationist will also be wrong, while the geologist will be right.

QUOTE
Simply put: Carbon dating simply uses circular logic to "prove" the age of something. Example:
"This organism existed 45,000 years ago. With the rate of decomposition at x, and with y left, that must mean that there was z amount to begin with. Since there was z, y is left, and it decomposes at the rate of x, that must mean it's 45,000 years old!!!"


Because it's certainly not possible for us to know the half-life of a particular radioactive isotope. I agree, scientists are evil liars who make up silly things that even a child could see through, and then somehow convince everyone to believe it. Meanwhile, the great creationists use their secret evidence that no one but them can see and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the world was created six thousand years ago and even though DNA exists and obviously mutates, evolution is an impossible lie.

This post has been edited by Gustave5436 on Sep 2 2007, 09:38 PM
Top
Delta1212
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 09:57 PM


Major General
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5,958
Member No.: 8,127
Joined: 27-July 06



You're missing the point. There isn't any "evidence" for creationism. Why would you need that? Evolution obviously has so many flaws, all that is needed to prove creationism is to disprove evolution. Because, obviously, if evolution is wrong, creationism must be right. There can't possibly be any other options.


--------------------
R.I.P. NPO - Time of Death: Aug 14 2007, 09:36 PM
Member of the Margrave Fan Club
DO NOT CLICK ->
QUOTE (admin @ Feb 14 2007, 08:50 PM)
Wow this thread is epic

QUOTE (The Fireman @ July 26 2007, 05:31 PM)
It's ok Delta, the mods still love you. But the forum skin is not a user and we cannot warn it.
Top
Magicman657
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 10:33 PM


^ Golbez ^
*

Group: Members
Posts: 273
Member No.: 27,015
Joined: 27-February 07



QUOTE (Delta1212 @ Sep 2 2007, 09:57 PM)
You're missing the point. There isn't any "evidence" for creationism. Why would you need that? Evolution obviously has so many flaws, all that is needed to prove creationism is to disprove evolution. Because, obviously, if evolution is wrong, creationism must be right. There can't possibly be any other options.

Lol, how ironic would it be for both Creationism and Evolution to be wrong?

The thing that kinda ticks me off is that people keep assuming because Creationists incorporate geology and cosmic creation into their beliefs, that Evolution somehow magically has those as a part of it to completely counter Creationism. Evolution is only biological evolution and NOTHING else- If you're interested in things like how the universe was created, I'd advise you look at something else like the Big Bang theory instead of just accrediting it as part of Evolution.


--------------------
Current Minister of Foreign Affairs for LoSS

Visit beautiful Alriqu City located in the heart of Magi Nation!

~Quote made of win~
QUOTE (SAmulticore @ Jul 31 2007, 12:51 AM)
Man you think you got what it takes to defeat me? ***** please, you got guerilla camps and a stadium. What the **** use is that? See you at update, *****. Yeah. Rest in peace mode, mother******.
Top
lamuella
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 10:38 PM


Major General
Group Icon

Group: GOONS
Posts: 9,376
Member No.: 9,984
Joined: 18-August 06



QUOTE (Akadian @ Sep 2 2007, 09:22 PM)
I haven't been terribly active on these forums but that's changing... I didn't have a chance to read through all 31 pages, so if this is a repeat feel free to disregard (but if so would someone please tell me that so I know that you're not just dodging a bullet?)

Dating methods:
Carbon dating (and every other radioactive dating method) requires 3 pieces of information to work.
Piece 1: How much carbon (or whatever material we're using to find the age) was in the organism when it started to decompose.
Piece 2: How much carbon (or other blah blah blah) is currently in the organism
Piece 3: Rate of decomposition for said radioactive substance.

Now, pieces 2 and 3 are (relatively) easy to figure out, but piece 1 is impossible (unless of course someone was there and had the tools to do so, and then left the recorded information conveniently buried right next to the organism.

Simply put: Carbon dating simply uses circular logic to "prove" the age of something. Example:
"This organism existed 45,000 years ago. With the rate of decomposition at x, and with y left, that must mean that there was z amount to begin with. Since there was z, y is left, and it decomposes at the rate of x, that must mean it's 45,000 years old!!!"

tl;dr: Carbon dating =/= valid method for figuring out how old something is.

Now, I'm not saying that I have an alternative, I'm just saying it don't work.

actually, number one is very easy to determine, because we know how much carbon-14 to expect in living creatures.

Carbon-14 occurs in living creatures when they breathe it in in the form of carbon dioxide. Thus, a living creature that has been breating the atmosphere can be expected to have the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as all other living creatures that breathe the atmosphere. We can test this and have tested this. Living creatures that breathe the air all have almost exactly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

Thus, we have our starting point.

To further determine this, we can "date" things we know the age of. For example, if we know that a table was made in 1757, we can estimate how much carbon-14 it should have in it, compared to carbon-12, based on it being 250 years old, and then test it to see.



--------------------
QUOTE (Slayer of Cliffracers @ Apr 26 2007, 11:56 AM)
contrary to mythology, knowledge is not actually power.


QUOTE (Slayer of Cliffracers @ May 27 2007, 01:05 PM)
I would love it if my kind of "ignorant bigots" had enough influence to drive any homosexual to suicide.
Top
lamuella
Posted: Sep 2 2007, 10:41 PM


Major General
Group Icon

Group: GOONS
Posts: 9,376
Member No.: 9,984
Joined: 18-August 06



QUOTE (Akadian @ Sep 2 2007, 09:28 PM)
There is no fossil evidence displaying ANYTHING in the middle stages between money and man (or any other claimed evolutionary step). Just tossing that out there.

and I'm tossing it back.

If there is nothing whatsoever between "money" and man, please look at the following image:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

Please indicate to me which of these is the last ape and which is the first man.

EDIT: beaten to it.

This post has been edited by lamuella on Sep 2 2007, 10:42 PM


--------------------
QUOTE (Slayer of Cliffracers @ Apr 26 2007, 11:56 AM)
contrary to mythology, knowledge is not actually power.


QUOTE (Slayer of Cliffracers @ May 27 2007, 01:05 PM)
I would love it if my kind of "ignorant bigots" had enough influence to drive any homosexual to suicide.
Top
Esau of Isaac
Posted: Sep 3 2007, 02:04 AM


Breviloquent Spectacle
*

Group: Members
Posts: 10,499
Member No.: 5,252
Joined: 14-June 06



QUOTE (Genre @ Sep 2 2007, 06:00 PM)
Ohh I understand it now. At least I think I do.

Since organisms are constantly exchanging CO2 with the atmosphere the ratio of carbon14 to carbon12 in the organism gets pretty damn close to the ratio of carbon in the atmosphere. After an organism dies, it stops exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, therefor it is isolated from the atmosphere and the carbon is free to decay without being exchanged. So you compare the carbon ratio in the carbon in the organism you are trying to date to that of the atmosphere. I could be wrong about this also :D, but either way it wouldn't be used by science unless it made sense.

However, it doesn't really matter since carbon dating can't go back very far at all. You can use it to date things back to, say, the Neanderthal, but not much farther. Instead of dating the fossil itself the rock surrounding it is dated. This way one can get a more or less perfect reading of what time the animal lived in. It's only off by a couple hundred years, really.


--------------------
The Dragon Reborn of GATO

Esau of Isaac vs. Deep Blue! A battle for the ages! Who'll win?

To know, is to know you know nothing; That is the meaning of true knowledge.

By three methods may we learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; And third by experience, which is the bitterest.

Want a good alliance? Try GATO, you'll be among the best.

Top
Akadian
Posted: Sep 3 2007, 09:15 AM


Full time game ruiner
Group Icon

Group: \m/
Posts: 125
Member No.: 22,941
Joined: 19-January 07



QUOTE (lamuella @ Sep 3 2007, 12:38 AM)
To further determine this, we can "date" things we know the age of. For example, if we know that a table was made in 1757, we can estimate how much carbon-14 it should have in it, compared to carbon-12, based on it being 250 years old, and then test it to see.

You were serious?

Thank you for PERFECTLY proving my point. Circular logic.


--------------------
[IMG]http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/AkadianCN/sig.jpg[/IMG]

Proud \m/ember. MEMBER ID: 1005

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine and in no way represent my alliance unless otherwise stated.

QUOTE

"Hello, police? I'm playing a game called Cybernations and an alliance called \m/ is trying to get Cybermoney off of me. Can you go and arrest them please?"


QUOTE (benjamin1776 @ Sep 1 2007, 10:58 PM)
in real life im not this inmature, really. and i am way more intelligent.
Top
Akadian
Posted: Sep 3 2007, 09:39 AM


Full time game ruiner
Group Icon

Group: \m/
Posts: 125
Member No.: 22,941
Joined: 19-January 07



QUOTE (Gustave5436 @ Sep 2 2007, 11:33 PM)
Ah, so genetics can change a little bit but, magically, no matter how much time passes and how much the genetics of a population change, that population will still have similar enough genetics with the rest of the species to mate?

Come on. If you acknowledge the fact that the genetics in a population of organisms can change over time, you have to acknowledge that if this population is separated from the rest of the species, eventually the genetic changes in that isolated population will become so great that it can no longer produce viable offspring with the "rest" of the species and will therefore be a new species.

The Grand Canyon? No, a geologist can look at the canyon and say what the Colorado river did over many thousands of years. (billions of years ago, the Colorado river didn't exist, and neither did North America.) Evolution is biology. Evolution is not the scientific theory of everything, it has nothing to do with geology, or astronomy, or anything else.

Yes, a creationist can say that. But that creationist will also be wrong, while the geologist will be right.

QUOTE
Simply put: Carbon dating simply uses circular logic to "prove" the age of something. Example:
"This organism existed 45,000 years ago. With the rate of decomposition at x, and with y left, that must mean that there was z amount to begin with. Since there was z, y is left, and it decomposes at the rate of x, that must mean it's 45,000 years old!!!"


Because it's certainly not possible for us to know the half-life of a particular radioactive isotope. I agree, scientists are evil liars who make up silly things that even a child could see through, and then somehow convince everyone to believe it. Meanwhile, the great creationists use their secret evidence that no one but them can see and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the world was created six thousand years ago and even though DNA exists and obviously mutates, evolution is an impossible lie.

Genetics change due to sexual reproduction. 23 genes from the mommy and 23 from the daddy (in humans, but half and half in every case). Mommy is all human. Daddy is all human. No mutation is occurring, simply a new mix of the existent genes. You have enough genes that between you and one woman (or man if you're a woman) you can produce (hypothetically speaking) many many different children before you run out of options. I heard the statistic, and I want to say it's 14 million, but I could be wrong with it being 14 thousand, but either way, your parents could have many 14 thousand kids, you can make 14 thousand, not to mention if you have more than one mate...

Now, from an evolutionary perspective, what sense would it make for an isolated specie to reproduce something that can't possibly reproduce? The point of existence according is to reproduce, right? What good would it do to have one "person" ( " " because it would technically no longer be a human and we don't have a word for whatever would be next in the evolutionary process, so...) who can't reproduce? Unless of course we're going to have 2 of these somehow come about at the same time, and then of course they need to find each other, and be able to mate....

I was not saying that all evolutionary scientists simply study biology, but last time I checked, a geologist is a scientist, and if he believes in evolution that makes him an evolutionary scientist. Golly gee willickers, it makes sense!!!

Wow, so that statement was completely pointless. Why would the evolutionist be right? Why would the creationist be wrong? When Mt. St. Helen exploded however many years back there was a canyon formed over the course of a month. Now, let's imagine a world wide flood. Presto, you have the grand canyon.

Now, I said that we know the half life (I used the term "decomposition rate", but heck, why not).

Creationists don't use evidence that no one can see, they interpret the same evidence differently. (fossils as proof of the flood... grand canyon as proof of the flood... silt levels as proof of a young Earth...)


--------------------
[IMG]http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/AkadianCN/sig.jpg[/IMG]

Proud \m/ember. MEMBER ID: 1005

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine and in no way represent my alliance unless otherwise stated.

QUOTE

"Hello, police? I'm playing a game called Cybernations and an alliance called \m/ is trying to get Cybermoney off of me. Can you go and arrest them please?"


QUOTE (benjamin1776 @ Sep 1 2007, 10:58 PM)
in real life im not this inmature, really. and i am way more intelligent.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free

Topic OptionsPages: (31) « First ... 29 30 [31] 



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.5863 seconds | Archive