Creationism Versus Evolution

[Nick]

Ok guys, just out of interest, given that some of you chaps seem to have an inability to accurately choose a President capable of independant intelligent thought I would stir things up and see just how many of you happen to believe that whole wacky bible adam and eve story over the concept of evolution.

Don't disappoint!

[Akaran_D]

How about option D: Both.
The Bible says it was. The Bible does not explicitly say how. The Bible does not say we were God's first attempt at humans, et al.

It is entirely possible that the theory of evolution AND creationism can exist at thte same time.

[Animalor]

I think that on a bet with other deities, God tried to create intelligent fish with nubs that would constantly poke each other. When the fish would only swim around and fuck each other, God said fuck it and went back to playing celestial lawn darts for the next 3 million years. After his convincing win, he came back 3 million years later and cavemen were there.

He decided to be mean and fuck with those people for a few million other years(the old testament) then he realised he was being mean, invented becoming a born again christian and became all nice and forgiving.

This phase has lasted till present day.

I also chose the Midnyte option.

[Shaerra]

Yeah...it could happen.

Shit explodes all the time, leaving in it's wake a planet full of incredibly complex checks and balances, gravity, animals, everything...

Some of you are very intelligent. It disappoints me to know that you stand firm in the belief that you can throw a bunch of clock parts in a bucket and shake the hell out of it and end up with a clock. Do you realize how complex we, our planet and our universe are?

This IS NOT coincidence. And by the way, it says something about your self esteem to adamantly argue that you are nothing but a hairless ape that started out as less than a slug.

Oh, also, Carbon dating is complete bullshit, so don't even bring it up. The Mt. St. Helens area has fossils that register as 40 million years old too, Spock.

Evolution is nothing but retarded theories supported by circular references.

[Akaran_D]

Shae.. I'm confused.
You slam evolution to a pulp durring your entire argument, then you turn around and bash Creationism.

What do you believe?

[archeiron]

Yeah...it could happen.

Shit explodes all the time, leaving in it's wake a planet full of incredibly complex checks and balances, gravity, animals, everything...

Some of you are very intelligent. It disappoints me to know that you stand firm in the belief that you can throw a bunch of clock parts in a bucket and shake the hell out of it and end up with a clock. Do you realize how complex we, our planet and our universe is?

This IS NOT coincidence. And by the way, it says something about your self esteem to adamantly argue that you are nothing but a hairless ape that started out as less than a slug.

Oh, also, Carbon dating is complete bullshit, so don't even bring it up. The Mt. St. Helens area has fossils that register as 40 million years old too, Spock.

Creationism is nothing but retarded theories supported by circular references.

As a disclaimer, this post by Shaerra is designed to shir up shit in both camps. Please do not feed the troll.

[archeiron]

Shae.. I'm confused.
You slam evolution to a pulp durring your entire argument, then you turn around and bash Creationism.

What do you believe?

Damnit, my disclaimer came too late. I hate it when that happens!

[Animalor]

The fact that procreation is so fucking pleasant is proof enough for me that there is a benevolent god out there.

[Zaelath]

Yeah, I'll buy that the first theory we came up w/ for existance was the right one. That happens all the time too...

I'm not saying creation is impossible, or even improbable, or contradictory with evolution (unless you're a real fundie that believes 7 days is 7 days), but to call people that are provably far smarter than I, and by extension you, idiots w/ self-esteem issues is perhaps a little short sighted.

There are all sorts of decent theories to explain existance that don't necessarily rely on God (and where the fuck did s/he come from anyway?) creating anything.. the anthropic principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) come to mind..

[Zaelath]

Shae.. I'm confused.
You slam evolution to a pulp durring your entire argument, then you turn around and bash Creationism.

What do you believe?

That incoherent rambling doesn't require proof reading.

[Shaerra]

Shae.. I'm confused.
You slam evolution to a pulp durring your entire argument, then you turn around and bash Creationism.

What do you believe?

My bad.. haha was on the phone at the end.

[Lynks]

I would just like to point out that we didn't directly come from monkeys, but we do share the same ancestros.

That is all.

[Shaerra]

I would just like to point out that we didn't directly come from monkeys, but we do share the same ancestros.

That is all.

Ummm... No.

Genesis is pretty clear on this.

[Lynks]

Phil Collins never sang about this.

[Nick]

.....

[Lynks]

It was a joke. Much like the fact she stands by a book written 2000+ years ago by men who didn't know much about anything, including their own planet.

[Forthe]

The world is flat motherfuckers!

Also...Burn all the witches!

[Lynks]

The world is flat motherfuckers!

Also...Burn all the witches!

She's a round, lika dis baseball.

[Fat]

Oh, also, Carbon dating is complete bullshit, so don't even bring it up. The Mt. St. Helens area has fossils that register as 40 million years old too, Spock.

Well, first of all you cant Carbon date fossils period. They have no organic matter left to them at all and therefore contain no carbon. Beyond that what we can date by Carbon radioactive decay can only be dated at best back to about 50,000 years. Beyond this point the amount of Carbon 14 left is too small to get a real count on.

All fossils (this is what I presume you're talking about) are dated by the rock layer they are found in. The rock record essentially tells us how old fossils are. We can date some igneous rocks (Granite mainly) because they contain a mineral called Zircon which attracts Uranium isotopes. The science really isn't that hard and is pretty concrete. Therefore it is perfectly feasible to date fossils back millions of years if they are found in a conclusive rock layer (which are soundly mapped at this point) that have not been messed with.

This is an oversimplified method, but what essentially constitutes our fossil dating.

-Alfan

[Nick]

Lynks, you posted just before I did, my .... wasnt to u mr touchyface

[vn_Tanc]

Some of you are very intelligent. It disappoints me to know that you stand firm in the belief that you can throw a bunch of clock parts in a bucket and shake the hell out of it and end up with a clock. Do you realize how complex we, our planet and our universe are?

And some of "you" aren't. Yes it's a complex universe. So why simplify it and say it's all because a big dude with a white beard said so?

It's also a big fucking universe. If you throw the parts of several trillion clocks into several billion buckets the chance that at least one comes out as a clock are pretty high. Then of course if the clock is retarded it says it was made by the bearded dude.

[Voronwë]

what does the Bible say about Gravity?

i want to know whether to believe in it or not.

[Lynks]

God created gravity. It doesn't really say it, but God created everything, he even created this answer.

[Cartalas]

It was a joke. Much like the fact she stands by a book written 2000+ years ago by men who didn't know much about anything, including their own planet.

Now to be honest with you I was going to rip you a new asshole on this statement and qoute Isaiah 40:22

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in"

And tell you that the Bible did know stuff about the earth, but after reading it for myself over and over again that statement does not prove shit, not only that I found as much as 10 other versus in the bible that might be stating the Earth is flat, For me this is very disheartning and concerning.

I will have to think about this one.

[Voronwë]

i can't wait for Bible 2.0 that has Grand Unification Theory in it.

[Shaerra]

All fossils (this is what I presume you're talking about) are dated by the rock layer they are found in. The rock record essentially tells us how old fossils are. We can date some igneous rocks (Granite mainly) because they contain a mineral called Zircon which attracts Uranium isotopes. The science really isn't that hard and is pretty concrete. Therefore it is perfectly feasible to date fossils back millions of years if they are found in a conclusive rock layer (which are soundly mapped at this point) that have not been messed with.

This is an oversimplified method, but what essentially constitutes our fossil dating.

-Alfan

"The Fatal Flaw In Evolution's Dating System"

One of the chief pillars of the theory of evolution is the dating of the fossils. Animal remains found in geological layers of a certain age are deemed to be the evolutionary descendants of animals whose fossils are unearthed in layers considered even older. How do evolutionists date these geological layers? By the fossils found in them! In other words, Fossil Y is considered an evolutionary descendant of Fossil X because Y is found in a geological layer deemed younger than the layer containing X, and this geological layer is deemed younger because it contains the evolutionary ancestor of Fossil Y.

Biblically-based scientists have always leveled the charge against evolutionists that this method of dating is blatantly self-serving and useless — it uses the fossils to date the rock layers, and the rock layers to date the fossils. Astonishingly, evolutionists have admitted that this is exactly what they are guilty of. A stark example of this can be found in a statement by one of America’s leading paleontologists, Dr. Edwin H. Colbert, the author of numerous books on evolution, dinosaurs, and other ancient life. He is also Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Museum of Northern Arizona and Curator Emeritus of the prestigious American Museum of Natural History.

In his book The Age of Reptiles (New York: W. W. North & Co., 1965), he makes a surprisingly frank admission that the evolutionary method of dating goes in circles. The quote is rather lengthy, but it is so revealing that it must be cited in its entirety. This staunch proponent of evolution writes:

The sedimentary rocks which enclose fossils in such variety are found all over the world as sheets of limestone, shale and sandstone of diverse extent and thickness. Originally these were, of course, deposited as horizontal or nearly horizontal beds, by the waters of oceans and lakes, by river and stream currents, by wind, and even by glaciers. During the long history of the earth such sheets of sediments, eventually hardened into layers of rock, are commonly tilted, broken and distorted by immense earth forces — the forces that are usually manifested to us as earthquakes. Moreover, sedimentary rocks are frequently cut by volcanoes and long dikes of volcanic rock that push through them from below. Many sedimentary rocks are removed from the area which they formerly occupied by erosion. Consequently the interpretation of the sediments in which the fossils are contained is a complex and exacting discipline. But such interpretation is of importance if the sequence of the fossils and the consequent evolutionary conclusions as based on this sequence are to be correctly understood. This is the study of stratigraphy, and it involves the correlation of sediments in different parts of a continent and in different parts of the world. Correlation depends primarily upon the restriction of particular fossils to particular sediments. The occurrence of similar or closely related fossils in sediments at two separated localities generally implies a similar or nearly similar age for the beds. By comparing back and forth, by making allowances for distortions of beds or the absence of beds and so on, the stratigrapher builds up a comprehensive picture of the succession of sediments the world over, and the succession of life contained within these sediments.
WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IS, IN A WAY, CIRCULAR REASONING. The ages of sediments are determined by the fossils they contain. The evolutionary sequence of life as revealed by the fossils is determined by the succession of these fossils in the sediments. (pp. 29-30) [emphasis added]

Evolutionists do not seem to be bothered by this gargantuan flaw in their theory, even though they openly admit that the flaw exists. Evolutionism rests heavily on interpreting the fossil record as showing a chronological procession of primitive to more advanced life-forms, but this interpretation is bogus because it is based on circular reasoning designed to fit a pre-determined theory rather than the objective facts. The theory of evolution, thus, rests not on a foundation of stone but of shifting sand.

From: http://www.creationism.org/caesar/fatal.htm

[Voronwë]

Satan planted those bones there to deceive us!!!

[Shaerra]

voro r da end all b all uv intelijints!

[vn_Tanc]

Animal remains found in geological layers of a certain age are deemed to be the evolutionary descendants of animals whose fossils are unearthed in layers considered even older. How do evolutionists date these geological layers? By the fossils found in them!

Source please. I'm no geologist so I'd like to see this corroborated.

As far as I knew rock dates were approximated from the alarming scientific observation that deeper = older.
But then I was also under the impression that the theory of evolution was devised by a man who had fuck all to do with fossils but observed an isolated ecosystem and the differences between species found their and their genetic relatives found elsewhere.

[Voronwë]

watch the semantics.

The "theory of evolution" is often used to describe Darwin's "Theory of Natural Selection".

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. Natural Selection is a theory to explain how that observed phenomena came to pass.

but as for Shaerra's quote, it is probably just another in a series of misquotations and outright fabrications commonly found on Creationist websites.

anybody who does want to get trolled into quotation cock fencing match can start at http://www.talkorigins.org

have fun =)

[masteen]

Yes, those damn scientists for trying to correlate evidence found at different locations to form a complete picture. FUCK YOU EMPIRICISM!!! If God wanted us to know shit, he would have given us large brains and complex communication skills... oh wait a sec...

[Drasta]

deeper doesn't always means its older .... subduction throws that off but generally yes deeper = older

[Voronwë]

it is generally easy to determine where suduction zones are though I think.

[masteen]

I don't know, Voro. Those million ton sections of sheared rock are easy to miss

[*~*stragi*~*]

aaron the archipelago says: i am comprised of many small islands!
stop eating my seasame cake!

[archeiron]

I hate it when those damn scientists want to back everything up with fact and logic! Why can't those heathen fuckers just listen to The Word of God?


This thread is leading us down a path to damnation, and I will have none of it.


Oh, yes, while I am here....

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

"The facts are simple," says Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society. "The earth is flat."

As you stand in his front yard, it is hard to argue the point. From among the Joshua trees, creosote bushes, and tumbleweeds surrounding his southern California hillside home, you have a spectacular view of the Mojave Desert. It looks as flat as a pool table. Nearly 20 miles to the west lies the small city of Lancaster; you can see right over it. Beyond Lancaster, 20 more miles as the cueball rolls, the Tehachepi Mountains rise up from the desert floor. Los Angeles is not far to the south.

Near Lancaster, you see the Rockwell International plant where the Space Shuttle was built. To the north, beyond the next hill, lies Edwards Air Force Base, where the Shuttle was tested. There, also, the Shuttle will land when it returns from orbiting the earth. (At least, that's NASA's story.)

"You can't orbit a flat earth," says Mr. Johnson. "The Space Shuttle is a joke--and a very ludicrous joke."

His soft voice carries conviction, for Charles Johnson is on the level. He believes that the main purpose of the space program is to prop up a dying myth--the myth that the earth is a globe.

"Nobody knows anything about the true shape of the world," he contends. "The known, inhabited world is flat. Just as a guess, I'd say that the dome of heaven is about 4,000 miles away, and the stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston."

As shown in a map published by Johnson, the known world is as circular and as flat as a phonograph record. The North Pole is at the center. At the outer edge lies the southern ice, reputed to be a wall 150 feet high; no one has ever crossed it, and therefore what lies beyond is unknown.

The sun and moon, in the Johnson version, are only about 32 miles in diameter. They circle above the earth in the vicinity of the equator, and their apparent rising and setting are tricks of perspective, like railroad tracks that appear to meet in the distance. The moon shines by its own light and is not eclipsed by the earth. Rather, lunar eclipses are caused by an unseen dark body occasionally passing in front of the moon.

Johnson's beliefs are firmly grounded in the Bible. Many verses of the Old Testament imply that the earth is flat, but there's more to it than that. According to the New Testament, Jesus ascended up into heaven.

"The whole point of the Copernican theory is to get rid of Jesus by saying there is no up and no down," declares Johnson. "The spinning ball thing just makes the whole Bible a big joke."

Not the Bible but Johnson's own common sense allowed him to see through the globe myth while he was still in grade school. He contends that sensible people all over the world, not just Bible believers, realize that the earth really is flat.

"Wherever you find people with a great reservoir of common sense," he says, "they don't believe idiotic things such as the earth spinning around the sun. Reasonable, intelligent people have always recognized that the earth is flat."

He pauses for a sip of coffee, his eyes sparkling with animation. At 56, Charles Johnson is a bearded, distinguished-looking man who drinks coffee seemingly by the gallon. He chain-smokes, hand-rolling cigarettes so skillfully that they seem factory made. Unlike the stereotypical prophet, he has a wry sense of humor and a booming laugh. Fond of plays on words, he consistently pronounces Nicolaus Koppernigk's Latinized surname as "co-pernicious."

The Flat Earth Society's presidency descended upon Charles Johnson in accord with the last wishes of its founder, Samuel Shenton, an Englishman who died in 1971. The society, which will round out a quarter-century next year, is a spiritual inheritor of the Universal Zetetic Society, which flourished in England in the last century.

Under Johnson's full-time presidency, the society's paid-up membership has grown from a few persons to a few hundred. Membership is open to anyone who is regarded as sincerely seeking the truth; prospective members must sign a statement agreeing never to defame the society. Part of the $10 annual dues pays for a subscription to the Flat Earth News, a marvelously outspoken four-page tabloid quarterly with an editorial style reminiscent of 19th-century rural journalism.

Johnson's office is barely controlled chaos. Books, papers, and files are everywhere; his desk is covered with correspondence. The flow of letters, still increasing, now runs around 2,000 a year, or a half-dozen every day. Some are properly addressed (Box 2533, Lancaster, CA 93534), but he receives any mail that reaches Lancaster with "flat-earth" on it. And such letters sometimes come from the far edges of the world (an expression which Johnson and his membership accept quite literally). Rummaging in a box on the floor, Johnson produces inquiries from Saudi Arabia, Iran, India.

"Everybody who writes gets an answer," he reports. "An application or whatever is called for. We serve our purpose in keeping it alive. Whosoever asks, receives." The "we" includes his wife, Marjory, who is a native of Australia. The Johnsons met by chance in 1959, when they both went into a San Francisco store to buy the same record, Acker Bilk's haunting "Stranger on the Shore." They discovered that they had more in common than their tastes in music. They're both vegetarians, for one thing, but the overriding interest is geography

"Marjory has always known that the earth is flat, too," says Charles Johnson. "As far as she knew, everybody in Australia knew it. She was rather shocked when she arrived here and found people speaking of Australia as being 'down under.' It really offended her. She would get in quite heated arguments with people who seemed to accuse her of coming from down under the world." Ultimately, Marjory Johnson swore in an affidavit that she had never hung by her feet in Australia.

As secretary of the Flat Earth Society, she assists in running it, and writes a regular column in the News. She has also helped her husband perform experiments to determine the earth's shape. If it is a sphere, the surface of a large body of water must be curved. The Johnsons have checked the surfaces of Lake Tahoe and the Salton Sea (a shallow salt lake in southern California near the Mexican border) without detecting any curvature.

Their home is a half-mile from the nearest neighbor. Friends drop by now and then, but their primary companions are a half-dozen dogs, several cats, a flock of chickens, and a myriad of sparrows roosting in a Joshua tree just outside the door. No electric-power line runs to the house, for which water must be carried up the hill. The physical isolation is the ultimate in privacy--but another kind of isolation proves to be less desirable.

"We're two witnesses against the whole world," observes Charles Johnson. "We've chosen that path, but it isolates us from everyone. We're not complaining; it has to be. But it does kind of get to you sometimes."

In spite of the loneliness and the frustrations, they press on. Charles Johnson claims that most of the people who shaped our modern world were flat-earthers, and some of them didn't have it easy, either.

You weren't aware that flat-earthers have played an important part in history? Well, conventional histories don't make that clear. But inasmuch as revisionist history is in vogue, Charles Johnson should be recognized as one of the leading practitioners.

"Moses was a flat-earther," he reveals. "The Flat Earth Society was founded in 1492 B.C., when Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt and gave them the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai."

Conventional biblical chronology dates the Ten Commandments to 1491 B.C., but it may be imprecise. Perhaps Johnson prefers 1492 for the symmetry. It was, after all, in 1492 A.D. that another famous flat-earther made history.

Have you heard the story about Columbus's problems with his crew? As some tell it, the crew nearly mutinied because they regarded the earth as flat, and feared they might sail off its edge.

"It was exactly the reverse," explains Johnson. "There was a dispute out on the ship, but it was because Columbus was a flat-earther. The others believed the earth to be a ball, and they just knew that they were falling over the edge and couldn't get back. Columbus had to put them in irons and beat them until he convinced them they weren't going over any curve, and they could return. He finally calmed them down."

Johnson believes that the ball business--though it goes back to the Greek philosophers--really got rolling after the Protestant Reformation.

"It's the Church of England that's taught that the world is a ball," he argues. "George Washington, on the other hand, was a flat-earther. He broke with England to get away from those superstitions." If Johnson is right, the American Revolution failed. No prominent American politician is known to have publicly endorsed the flat-earth theory in the past two centuries. Nevertheless, Johnson contends that this nearly happened right after World War II, not for the U.S. alone, but for the entire world. Consider the United Nations:

"Uncle Joe (Stalin), Churchill, and Roosevelt laid the master plan to bring in the New Age under the United Nations," Johnson discloses with confidence. "The world ruling power was to be right here in this country. After the war, the world would be declared flat and Roosevelt would be elected first president of the world. When the UN Charter was drafted in San Francisco, they took the flat-earth map as their symbol."

Why declare the world flat? Johnson responds that a prophesied condition for world government (Isaiah 60:20) is that the "sun shall no more go down." This could be fulfilled by admitting that sunrise and sunset are optical illusions. The UN did adopt for its official seal a world map identical with the one on Johnson's office wall. But Franklin Roosevelt died coincident with the UN's birth, and the other imminent events described by Johnson never came about.

What did happen, according to conventional historians, was that Russia and the U.S. began space programs. After the Russians sent up Sputnik in 1957, the space race was on in earnest. The high point came in 1969, when the U.S. landed men on the moon.

That, according to Johnson, is nonsense, because the moon landings were faked by Hollywood studios. He even names the man who wrote the scripts: the science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. But he acknowledges that the moon landings were at least partly successful.

"Until then," he says, "almost no one seriously considered the world a ball. The landings converted a few of them, but many are coming back now and getting off of it."

Perhaps the Space Shuttle is intended to bolster the beliefs of these backsliders. Whatever its purpose, Johnson is convinced that it is not intended to actually fly. Because it was built and tested almost in his back yard, he knows many people who worked on it. What they've told him about some aspects of its construction only reinforces his convictions.

"They moved it across the field," he sneers, "and it almost fell apart. All those little side pieces are on with epoxy, and half fell off!"

The Shuttle had other problems besides heat resistant tiles that wouldn't stick. For instance, when the testers tried to mount it on a 747 for its first piggy-back test flight, it wouldn't fit.

"Can you imagine that?" chortles Johnson. "Millions of dollars they spent, and it wouldn't fit! They had to call in a handyman to drill some new holes to make the thing fit. Then they took it up in the air--and some more of it fell to pieces."

If the Shuttle ever does orbit on its own, it's supposed to return to Edwards Air Force Base. To Johnson, that's appropriate enough.

"Do you know what they're doing at Edwards right now?" he asks. "'Buck Rogers in the 25th Century' is made right where they claim they're going to land the Shuttle. Edwards is strictly a science-fiction base now.

"Buck is a much better science program, considerably more authentic. In fact, I recommend that the government get out of the space business and turn the whole thing over to ABC, CBS, and NBC. The tv networks do a far superior job. They could actually pay the government for rights, and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a penny."

Flat Earth Society members are working actively to bring the Shuttle charade to an end. They hope to force the government to let the public in on what the power elite has known all along: the plane truth.

"When the United States declares the earth is flat," says Charles Johnson, "and we hope to be instrumental in making it do so, it will be the first nation in all recorded history to be known as a flat-earth nation.

"In the old days, people believed the earth was flat, because it's logical, but they didn't have a picture of the way it was, as we have today. Our concept of the world is new.

"Marjory and I are the avant garde. We're way ahead of the pack."

-- The end --

[Nick]

Lol stragiface and archeiron

[Jice Virago]

Yeah...it could happen.

Actually, it did. The fact that we are here talking about it proves it.

Shit explodes all the time, leaving in it's wake a planet full of incredibly complex checks and balances, gravity, animals, everything...

Since you are the dumbest cum dumster on the planet, I am not entirely suprised you have no grasp of the concept of the laws of probabilty. Statistically speaking, any outcome, no matter how remote the chance, becomes statistically likely as the number of chances approaches infinity. If you take 100 coins and flip them all over and over, eventually they will all come up heads at once. The universe, by both scientific and crispie deffinition, is infinite. Can you make the last batman leap of logic yourself or do you need someone to hold your hand again?

Some of you are very intelligent. It disappoints me to know that you stand firm in the belief that you can throw a bunch of clock parts in a bucket and shake the hell out of it and end up with a clock. Do you realize how complex we, our planet and our universe are?

The whole infinite chances thing pretty much shoots this argument down, but lets see which scenario is more likely. One (or more) worlds with favorable conditions randomly give rise to life, out of an infinite number of possible life bearing planets -OR- some mystical boogyman cranked out a world in 7 days and then left no evidence of this act, going as far to leave evidence that directly contradicts he/she/it making this world? Furthermore, we already know microbe life exists elsewhere in our own fucking solar system (or at least did at one time), so we have more than one example of life comming into being spontaneously.

This IS NOT coincidence. And by the way, it says something about your self esteem to adamantly argue that you are nothing but a hairless ape that started out as less than a slug.

Actually, it says something about your self esteem to adamantly claim some uber being made you out of dirt because your uncomfortable with the facts. Considering what part of the country you are from, I don't see how being related to other primates is an issue for you. It may be a step up from your actual relatives.

Oh, also, Carbon dating is complete bullshit, so don't even bring it up. The Mt. St. Helens area has fossils that register as 40 million years old too, Spock.

Source? Oh, nevermind, we all know its the creationist site you are quoting here. They were too stupid to realize that the carbon dating can only be done on the soil, not the fossil's themselves. I am certain the rest of their article is equally well researched. Perhaps its time for crispies to actually open their minds and read what they blindly flail against.

Evolution is nothing but retarded theories supported by circular references.

They are provable scientific facts, backed up by extensive research across many fields of science. Whats retarded is clinging to a 2000+ year old self contradicting book (thats been translated so many times even the crispiest crispie can't be sure what the fuck is in it) as a source of scientific information because you believe that some mystical boogyman, who you cannot even remotely prove exists, made everything. Ironically, it is your argument that is circular, since bible thumpers just love to use the bible to prove itself, the very deffinition of a circular argument.

Sorry, cum dumpster, I am not the insecure one here. I will give you a clue who is, though: Its the ranting drama queen who put up about a dozen glamour shots of themselves to garner more attention of themself on the board. The universe is an infinite place and full of possibilities that are infinite, because of its sheer scope. Your inability to wrap your little mind around that concept is hardly suprising, considering you can barely see past your own nose and not at all beyond the little shallow corner of the world you live in. We are an average rock planet orbitting an average star in an average part of a typical galaxy and we have life on two planets we know about already (possibly a third). Odds are there are more out there.

[Rivera Bladestrike]

Really Jice, she's a ridiculously stupid whore. I can't believe she actually posted that.

Next thing shes going to tell us is she has irrefutable evidence the easter bunny exists and we should have been smarter and believed.

[archeiron]

We do not the statistical likelihood of the gravitational, electromagnetic, electrostatic, weak atomic, and strong atomic coefficients being set to the values that we see after a "big bang" event. As a result, we cannot comment about the probability of our universe developing to this point.

There is an philisophical construct that says that universe developed the way it did according because otherwise we would not be here to witness it.

Setting all the variables at the moment of the "big bang" just right to produce the universe that we see would require a mind of seemingly limitless capacity for thought and processing. This would be a good event to attribute to God as it can easily be argued that something so precise and so complex that would be need to be setup absolutely perfectly to unfold the way it has would require His intervention.

Damn, I was drawn back in to this discussion.

[Voronwë]

i still refuse to believe Shaerra is actually a woman.

i think that he is a scary dude at an office who took pictures of some attractive woman at his place of employment and used those to cobble into his online persona.

[Xouqoa]

God created Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were monkeys.

Discuss.

[Voronwë]

they had 2 children who were men.

all of us are descendent from homofag love

discuss

[Fat]

That article is pretty full of holes the most glaring one is this:

In geology you have these things called plutonic intrusions. Essentially these are igneous rocks that have shot up from the mantle bisecting the sedimentary layers you speak of. Now in order for these intrusions to cut through the sedimentary rock that had been deposited the sedimentary rock had to be there first. This is a principle and because we can date igneous rocks within a few million years it allows us to date the sedimentary rocks relative to the intrusion.

The two men that really developed the rock record were named Murchison and Sedgewick. They were looking for a way to find easily find Carboniferous rocks (those that had coal in it) and their study mainly took place in Wales. Initially the principle of fossil succession was used to order the rock layers into periods, but now that we can date them its a moot point. Really the keystone fossils are now just used to easily recognize a rock layer that may be occuring somewhere else in the world.

So essentially that article was somewhat right when you considered the rock record being developed around the 19th century, but today it is more than misleading.

-Alfan

[masteen]

I AM NOT AN ANAL BABY!!!!1!!

[Rivera Bladestrike]

We do not the statistical likelihood of the gravitational, electromagnetic, electrostatic, weak atomic, and strong atomic coefficients being set to the values that we see after a "big bang" event. As a result, we cannot comment about the probability of our universe developing to this point.

There is an philisophical construct that says that universe developed the way it did according because otherwise we would not be here to witness it.

Setting all the variables at the moment of the "big bang" just right to produce the universe that we see would require a mind of seemingly limitless capacity for thought and processing. This would be a good event to attribute to God as it can easily be argued that something so precise and so complex that would be need to be setup absolutely perfectly to unfold the way it has would require His intervention.

Damn, I was drawn back in to this discussion.

Or it could have just "happend". I took a shit this morning, according to your statement that was God's intervention. The big bang could have happend limitless other ways, but it just happend, like my shit. If you believe what you wrote you'd have to believe in fate and that nothing is your decision.

[Chidoro]

Embrace your analness

[Jice Virago]

We do not the statistical likelihood of the gravitational, electromagnetic, electrostatic, weak atomic, and strong atomic coefficients being set to the values that we see after a "big bang" event. As a result, we cannot comment about the probability of our universe developing to this point.

Actually, we can. The big Bang Theory (or more specifically, the superstring based big crunch theory variant) states that the universe periodically contracts and reforms. This could have happened any number of times prior to this particular itteration of the universe. Our current ability to scientifically measure this (aside from observations of particles comming from the center of the known universe, which are limited indicators) is not advanced enough, but some day if we manage to not blow ourselves away, it will be. Also, physical aspects of the universe (like the gravitational constant and four forces coefficients) are not anogolous to settings on a toaster oven, they are cold ahrd facts about the universe. Universe man didn't type in a value for PI on his Microsoft Visual Universe Studio before hitting compile (though he has a pretty nice watch, I hear), it is a universal constant.

Furthermore, it is also entirely possible (and has been theorized) that the physical properties of the universe are NOT constant or uniform, but our presence has been so brief and minor, we have not been able to measure these aspects over a long enough period of time or distance. For example space near the flashpoint of the big bang might be different (due to the incomprehensable forces unleashed there) or the nature of quantum mechanics may have changed as the universe cooled and expanded, entropy even affecting the four core forces. These things will be proven (or revised in the face of new data) eventually, just as the curvature of space time was rescently proven by way of an orbital experiment involving atomic clocks. Just because we do not yet fully understand something does not imply that some magical being poofed it into existance.

[Shaerra]

i still refuse to believe Shaerra is actually a woman.

i think that he is a scary dude at an office who took pictures of some attractive woman at his place of employment and used those to cobble into his online persona.

You're good.

[archeiron]

We do not the statistical likelihood of the gravitational, electromagnetic, electrostatic, weak atomic, and strong atomic coefficients being set to the values that we see after a "big bang" event. As a result, we cannot comment about the probability of our universe developing to this point.

There is an philisophical construct that says that universe developed the way it did according because otherwise we would not be here to witness it.

Setting all the variables at the moment of the "big bang" just right to produce the universe that we see would require a mind of seemingly limitless capacity for thought and processing. This would be a good event to attribute to God as it can easily be argued that something so precise and so complex that would be need to be setup absolutely perfectly to unfold the way it has would require His intervention.

Damn, I was drawn back in to this discussion.

Or it could have just "happend". I took a shit this morning, according to your statement that was God's intervention. The big bang could have happend limitless other ways, but it just happend, like my shit. If you believe what you wrote you'd have to believe in fate and that nothing is your decision.

Actually, free will is not negated by this idea. God would have setup all the variables to let inanimate parts of the universe develop to produce organic life forms that would develop to produce beings with free will. His control over the initial variables would only need to have been to set up a sequence of complicated cause and effect events that drove the universe to this point. Intelligent beings that developed in that universe may or may not be constrained by the intial variables as strictly as inanimate material.

Your comment did not necessarily follow from mine.

As it happens, I am just discussing this philosophically using reasonable logical constructs. None of this has anything to do with my personal opinions.