omg. not this argument again.
OK, this isn't where I wanted the topic to go, I'm going to say now that I am Christian, but I have not said anything about GOD in my topic. All I'm doing is Showing you that evolution doesn't work
^ A project I'm currently working on with another ^
Owner of Last Level Games (llgames.net)
I am coolsmile on the Game Maker Community (forums.gamemaker.nl)
omg. not this argument again.
Moderator @ Wii Chat [PM]
No, I will NOT add you to my friends list.
Mitch2025 - Stays crunchy, even in milk.
Thanks DBloke for the sig
you silly personOriginally Posted by evilprofessorzog
everyone knows that GOD created the flying spaghetti monster who then in turn created the world
Yes i clicked on the link, but only read a few lines and got bored
I dont need or want to prove to you or anyone else that GOD exist
he is more than capable of doing that all by himself
was the protochicken related to the protopet that makes a appearance in ratchet and clank 2 (playstation 2) ???Originally Posted by MaXiMiUS
and just to prevent any incidents where by you are struck down by lightning and suffer a horrible, horrible, painful Death.
God has a capital G in it
I am a very brave man, i will joyfully make fun and humiliate just about anything or anyone if i think theres a laugh in it
But i wont take the piss out of God
only a really stupid person would do that
unless of course its funny and in good taste
Even God enjoys a laugh, at least i think he does
Maybe God could come into this thread and clear all this up ?
There is no good evidence that god exists and deffinetly no scientific evidence. I will take science anyday because heres a newsflash: SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACTS.
Wii, 2 nunchucks and wiimotes, Wii Sports, Zelda:TP, Madden 07, Wario Ware: Smooth Moves and Super Paper Mario!
Are you a friend of Dr. Dino? How is Kent Hovind doing these days, still in trouble with the law? Or are you a Young Earth believer? How about an Intelligent Design follower?Originally Posted by coolsmile
The "theory" of evolution stands more true than any answers that we (as a species) has come up with so far.Introduction: In schools today they teach you how everything began and that was due to this theroy known as evolution. This theory is taught to students and through many "facts" these students are told, they come to beleive it. BUT is everything that you are told true? That is up for you to decide...
That's incorrect, Evolution is actually:What is evolution?
Evolution is the beleif that we all came from a common ancestor, but there are many different types of evolution and they are:Couldn't one also argue that if we believed in the Bible, that the common ancestor would be Adam and Eve?Originally Posted by wikipedia
Or the sister theory, the big crunch, which explains that the "nothing" that the universe was created from was the implosion of the previous one.Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space, and matter from nothing called the big bang
Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from the hydrogen supposedly produced in the big bangOr, with the viscosity of the explosion, one could assume that more than hydrogen was created at the moment of the big bang. Hydrogen has the same basic composition (albeit in smaller numbers) with every element on the periodic table. Is it not conceivable that in the singularity that was the big bang, some of the energy, and matter actually clung to itself. Saying that hydrogen was the only thing that could have been produced is misleading, a basic straw-man arguement.Originally Posted by wikipedia
Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of starts and planets from dust cloudsOriginally Posted by wikipediaYou equate evolution to explain something outside it's area. It's not about the origins of something, but about the progression.Organic Evolution: The origin of life from non living matter due to spontanious generation
----------------------------------------------------------------------Originally Posted by wikipedia
The reason many people cannot get their heads around the concept of change over extreme amounts of time, is because that bible teaches that the earth is too young for these kind of scientific "theories" to be correct. Also, one has to understand the changing conditions throughout time to be able to accomodate for 'evolution'. Take for example, the changing conditions a horse would have to evolve through:Macro Evolution: One kind of animal changes into another kind (ex: a microorganism to a bird)
Source: BBCThe horse-
One of the few animals for which we have a fairly complete evolutionary record is the horse, as all the main stages of horse evolution have been preserved in fossil form. Over 60 million years the horse evolved from a dog-sized rainforest-dwelling creature, into an animal adapted to plains-dwelling and standing up to 2 metres high.
In the process it traded-in its multi-toed feet, adapted for walking across the forest floor, for single-toed hooves, suited for running over open country.
Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)Hmm, this clearly contradicts what you have said above...Originally Posted by wikipedia
Originally Posted by wikipediaOk, now I'm convinced this is Kent Hovind. Interesting how you ill-define terms and then challenge people to find flaws with YOUR logic.The first 5 of these have absolutely NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting them. If you think there is, go ahead and try to prove me wrong
Now for the discussion topics...
Here are things you might be told...
Lets start with the carbon dating method:
There are many problems with dating with carbon 14. First off, there isn't a high percentage of C-14 in rocks.Originally Posted by wikipediaThree doesn't really constitutes as "many". If a person has 3 apples, you don't usually say he has "many apples".Second It assumes 3 things:
1. The only decay of C-14 is from time <-Bad
2. All the C-14 that is measured is from the rock
3. The rate of decay is constant
1. Actually, the decay is consided to be random:
Also, if anything else was a factor, wouldn't it have meant that the standard deviation of different C-14 particles would be greater...?Originally Posted by wikipedia
Also again, there are methods that calibrate the carbon-dating method to give us more accurate results:
2. I'd love to see some proof that C-14 is only taken from "rock".Originally Posted by wikipedia
3. Erm, depends on what you mean by constant. If you're talking half-life, then yes, it's constant, because after a particular number of years, it halves it's value.Originally Posted by wikipediaOriginally Posted by wikipediaThat's assuming that the C-14 was only created at the moment the earth was created. If it was created by other means, then it's perfectly possible. Also, you're not taking into account any other material's half life.Third, it's half life is only 5,730 years so... (bear with me here)
Lets say the earth is 6.4 billion years old, if you used C-14 dating to date a rock that old it would have gone through 1,116,928 half lives. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, there would be no C-14 left, but there is still some C-14 left! C-14 is not detectable after only 17 half lives! That means no rock with C-14 could be older than 97,410 years!
Originally Posted by http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/half.htmAre you talking about alpha radiation?Going on with dating methods
There are about 160 Geophysical Clocks (methods of dating rocks/earth)
Over 90% give an earth that would give a date less than 1 million years! Oddly, scientists don't use these methods...
One method that isn't used is using detecting the hydrogen from Radioactive decay which is much more accurate, but isn't used due to the low dates it produces
Or did you mean something else?Originally Posted by http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x43.htm
Are you actually Evangelical Christian or is it that you cannot be bothered to research this stuff?I've been sitting for 2 hours thinking so I'm going to post this now and add more on later. Any Questions Please Post
Also, for someone claiming they're so knowledgable at these concept, you sure have a lot of spelling mistakes...
Mail me if you want to add me on either the Wii or the 360.
wasnt evolution like:fish-monkey-neanderthal-cave man-'advanced' form of cave man(up right,fire,blah)-you an me...?
~if i owned a death note.you would be first!
Spoiler Alert!Wii:1-09-07!!! 2nd Person In Town To Get Diamond!
Spoiler Alert!Originally Posted by KiwiOriginally Posted by Iranian WiiOriginally Posted by Ssbb LoverOriginally Posted by 24tolifeOriginally Posted by SovietoOriginally Posted by Half EmptyOriginally Posted by Frogger
Excellent post Squall7, he got stuffed
Okay, to coolsmile and Squall, there are things wrong with both posts.
Um.....how about "intelligent design" I'll just say, if you walk into a woods and see a watch, do you think, maybe molecules randomly mutated into a watch, or did someome leave it there. Just a question.Originally Posted by Squall
First, c-14 is only living things. Rocks aren't living.
Second, coolsmile was correct about micro/macro evolution. Are you sure you have it correct Squall?
Actually, He was correct and your wikipedia quote agrees with him mainly the AT part. Remember Darwin and the finches?Originally Posted by Squall
The Bible doesn't teach directly 6000 years. I myself am a 6 billion kind of guy. (make a new thread for it coolsmile)
And to Mitch, if you don't like these threads, get i0n to put it in the rules or just don't open them. (unless you have to mod them, then I laugh cuz Squall likes to post reeeeaaaallllyyyyy long posts.
awesome, I knew someone had to say itOriginally Posted by thewiirules123