LoginRegister
Nintendo Wii / Wii U Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 26 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 258
  1. #11
    Owner of Last Level Games coolsmile's Avatar
    Member #
    13970
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    US...
    Posts
    62
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    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)

  2. #12
    UNACCEPTABLE The_Mitch's Avatar
    Member #
    648
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Milford Ohio
    Posts
    3,145
    Friends
    8
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    2025-2025-2025-2025
    omg. not this argument again.

    KARPMOD SUCKS
    Moderator @ Wii Chat
    [PM]
    No, I will NOT add you to my friends list.
    [/SIZE]
    Mitch2025 - Stays crunchy, even in milk.


    Thanks DBloke for the sig

    I miss my weighted companion cube

    Spoiler Alert!


  3. #13
    Banned AussieWii's Avatar
    Member #
    8276
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    196
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    Quote Originally Posted by evilprofessorzog
    Evolution is false. The world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was him that created all the so called scientific evidence, just to trick us.
    If you don't believe me, look here:
    http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
    you silly person

    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

  4. #14
    Banned AussieWii's Avatar
    Member #
    8276
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    196
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    Quote Originally Posted by MaXiMiUS
    The egg came first.

    Protochicken, which is not a chicken, has a mutant baby egg, which IS a chicken. Chicken hatches, Protochicken species is dying out, Chickens continue to exist.

    Unless you'd like to believe that creatures just all of a sudden decide "shit, I'm going to start laying eggs instead of giving live birth", or vice versa. In which case,

    If I ever see god, I plan on asking him what the hell he did to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both of those things are as likely as the other to exist.

    *sigh*
    was the protochicken related to the protopet that makes a appearance in ratchet and clank 2 (playstation 2) ???

    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 ?

  5. #15
    Wii Gamer thewiirules123's Avatar
    Member #
    16426
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    117
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    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.

    I OWN:
    Wii, 2 nunchucks and wiimotes, Wii Sports, Zelda:TP, Madden 07, Wario Ware: Smooth Moves and Super Paper Mario!

  6. #16
    A li'l bit different Squall7's Avatar
    Member #
    89
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cornwall, UK
    Posts
    1,743
    Friends
    4
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    8420-0141-9022-6948
    Quote Originally Posted by coolsmile

    Are you being brainwashed?
    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?

    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...
    The "theory" of evolution stands more true than any answers that we (as a species) has come up with so far.

    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:
    That's incorrect, Evolution is actually:
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    evolution is the change from generation to generation in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits. These traits are encoded on genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Minor random changes in these genes produce new or altered traits, resulting in differences between organisms. Evolution occurs when these different traits become more common or rare in a population, either at random in genetic drift, or based on how helpful traits are for reproduction in natural selection.
    Couldn't one also argue that if we believed in the Bible, that the common ancestor would be Adam and Eve?

    Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space, and matter from nothing called the big bang
    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.

    Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from the hydrogen supposedly produced in the big bang
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Chemical evolution has two meanings and uses. The first refers to the theories of evolution of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and through nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovas.

    The second use of chemical evolution or chemosynthesis is as a hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed or evolved from non-life (see abiogenesis).
    Or, 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.

    Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of starts and planets from dust clouds
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Gravity versus gravitation
    In scientific terminology gravitation and gravity are distinct. Gravitation is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. Although these terms are used interchangeably in everyday use, in theories other than Newton's, gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity. For example in general relativity, gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which causes inertially moving object to tend to accelerate towards each other.
    Organic Evolution: The origin of life from non living matter due to spontanious generation
    You equate evolution to explain something outside it's area. It's not about the origins of something, but about the progression.
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    The origin of life from self-catalytic chemical reactions is not a part of biological evolution, but rather of pre-evolutionary abiogenesis. However, disputes over what defines life make the point at which such increasingly complex sets of reactions became true organisms unclear.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Macro Evolution: One kind of animal changes into another kind (ex: a microorganism to a bird)
    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:

    The 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.
    Source: BBC

    Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
    Hmm, this clearly contradicts what you have said above...

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.
    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
    Ok, now I'm convinced this is Kent Hovind. Interesting how you ill-define terms and then challenge people to find flaws with YOUR logic.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    If there is little carbon-14 to begin with, a half-life that long means that very few of the atoms will decay while their detection is attempted (4 atoms/s) /mol just after death, hence e.g. 1 (atom/s)/mol after 10,000 years). Sensitivity has since been greatly increased by the use of accelerator-based mass-spectrometric (AMS) techniques, where all the 14C atoms can be counted directly, rather than only those decaying during the counting interval allotted for each analysis. The AMS technique allows one to date samples containing only a few milligrams of carbon.
    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
    Three doesn't really constitutes as "many". If a person has 3 apples, you don't usually say he has "many apples".
    1. Actually, the decay is consided to be random:
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    On the premise that radioactive decay is truly random (rather than merely chaotic), it has been used in hardware random-number generators and is a valuable tool in estimating the absolute ages of geological materials and young organic matter.
    Also, if anything else was a factor, wouldn't it have meant that the standard deviation of different C-14 particles would be greater...?
    Also again, there are methods that calibrate the carbon-dating method to give us more accurate results:
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Relatively recent (2001) evidence has allowed scientists to refine the knowledge of one of the underlying assumptions. A peak in the amount of carbon-14 was discovered by scientists studying speleothems in caves in the Bahamas. Stalagmites are calcium carbonate deposits left behind when seepage water, containing dissolved carbon dioxide, evaporates. Carbon-14 levels were found to be twice as high as modern levels.[2] These discoveries improved the calibration for the radiocarbon technique and extended its usefulness to 45,000 years into the past. [3]
    2. I'd love to see some proof that C-14 is only taken from "rock".
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Additional error is likely to arise from the nature and collection of the sample itself, e.g., a tree may accumulate carbon over a significant period of time. Such old wood, turned into an artifact some time after the death of the tree, will reflect the date of the carbon in the wood.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    Half-life
    A more intuitive characteristic of exponential decay for many people is the time required for the decaying quantity to fall to one half of its initial value. This time is called the half-life, and often denoted by the symbol t1 / 2. The half-life can be written in terms of the decay constant, or the mean lifetime, as:


    When this expression is inserted for τ in the exponential equation above, and ln2 is absorbed into the base, this equation becomes:


    Thus, the amount of material left is 2 − 1 = 1 / 2 raised to the (whole or fractional) number of half-lives that have passed. Thus, after 3 half-lives there will be 1 / 23 = 1 / 8 of the original material left.
    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!
    That'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.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/half.htm
    All radionuclides have a particular half-life, some of which a very long, while other are extremely short. For example, uranium-238 has such a long half life, 4.5x109 years, that only a small fraction has decayed since the earth was formed. In contrast, carbon-11 has a half-life of only 20 minutes.
    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
    Are you talking about alpha radiation?
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x43.htm
    At any rate, the most important and widely-used radioactive dating methods use nuclei that decay by the alpha or beta process.
    Or did you mean something else?

    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
    Are you actually Evangelical Christian or is it that you cannot be bothered to research this stuff?

    Oh, and come to my website: Last Level Games
    Err, this is against the rules.

    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.


  7. #17
    Man Points: Over 9000 kiraownsurmom's Avatar
    Member #
    14656
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    somewhere stealin` nintendocam's cookees
    Posts
    1,913
    Friends
    26
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    6958-3537-3855-1215
    wasnt evolution like:fish-monkey-neanderthal-cave man-'advanced' form of cave man(up right,fire,blah)-you an me...?
    PKMN446793374997
    MMSF356599059396
    ~if i owned a death note.you would be first!
    Spoiler Alert!

    Spoiler Alert!

  8. #18
    Like A Stone A RAND0M TAC0's Avatar
    Member #
    9127
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    631
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    0882-4030-9133-6768
    Excellent post Squall7, he got stuffed

  9. #19
    Anglophobiphile Brawny's Avatar
    Member #
    8228
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ann Arbor, MI, USA
    Posts
    6,546
    Friends
    25
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    5385-4035-7079-0395
    Okay, to coolsmile and Squall, there are things wrong with both posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squall
    The "theory" of evolution stands more true than any answers that we (as a species) has come up with so far.
    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.

    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squall
    Hmm, this clearly contradicts what you have said above...
    Quote Originally Posted by coolsmile
    Micro Evolution: Mutations that occur in an animal that changes the species (wolf => dog)
    Actually, He was correct and your wikipedia quote agrees with him mainly the AT part. Remember Darwin and the finches?

    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.

  10. #20
    WiiChat Member DeathsHand's Avatar
    Member #
    2564
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    73
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    Quote Originally Posted by thewiirules123
    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.
    awesome, I knew someone had to say it

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Similar Threads

  1. Pro Evolution Soccer 2009
    By AutumnWind in forum Nintendo Wii Gaming
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-07-2009, 08:55 AM
  2. Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 For Wii
    By Wii-Bhoy in forum Nintendo Wii Gaming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 12:15 PM
  3. Pro Evolution Soccer 7
    By lilsam in forum Nintendo Wii Gaming
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-10-2007, 04:32 PM
  4. Fifa or pro evolution
    By monkey in forum Nintendo Wii Gaming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2007, 12:24 PM

Search tags for this page

drives us to worship dna

,

how was dna created

Click on a term to search for related topics.