wtf?

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: nick1985
Without googling:

Look at the evidence from Olduvai Gorge (SP) In Eastern Africa. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence from fossils dug up there that show that that is where humanity began. Look up the "out of africa" model for human dispersion throughout the world. Complete skeletons have been recovered that are Tens of THOUSANDS of years old (but the world is only 3k years old, so how can that be? ).

Look up "australopithecus" (sp).

Bah, Ive gotta go to practice, ill be back later. hopefully by then you have read up on the findings on Eastern Africa!


Not bad for no googling eh?

Yeah, saved by the bell, eh?

Australopithecus is what you've given me so far. That's quite a massive collection. how could anyone question that?

As far as australopithecus, there have been numerous studies done on it by evolutionist scientists and there is at best no concensus even amongst them that this is anything by an extinct ape species skull or possibly not even a bipedal animal.

Who believes the world is 3K years old? We have more recorded history than that. You serious think people think the world is that young? Nice hole you're living in. I think even the most hard core creationists are going to go with something more like 30K.

I'm starting to get the sense that you'r like almost every creationism mocking individual...........intellectually insecure and bitter towards organized religeon for some reason.

Yes, I had to go for my run, but thanks for being a dickhead about it. :thumbsup:

Anyway, not bipedal? LOL, there is MASSIVE amounts of evidence that say they were bipedal. Just because there are SOME scientists that say otherwise doesnt mean its true. Hell, there are scientists that disagree with almost every mainstream belief. You could dig up scientists that disagree with the theory of gravity...

I dont know about 3k, but its something like 6k or so years that many HARDCORE bible thumpers believe. As far as being bitter towards religion...not really Im a practicing Catholic, but nice try to smear me at the end of your post. No need to resort to personal attacks.

Look. If you're going to suggest people believe something because there are "massive" amounts of evidence you need more than one questionable example.

Go look up the scientists who doubt australopithecus. It's not just one scientist they drug up from some backwater town.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: eos
Sitting in my lawn chair waiting for someone to reference: "Our ancestors are not apes!!!".

Speak for yourself... and pass me a banana.

:roll:

Bananas alone are evidence of God. They are contoured to fit our hands in a neat package for tidy consumption. You think it was just by accident that happened?

:laugh: You saw that clip too? Hilarious stuff.

That is one of the reasons I don't drive. To think people like that exist and are allowed to operate vehicles on the same road is...terrifying :Q Seriously.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: nick1985
Without googling:

Look at the evidence from Olduvai Gorge (SP) In Eastern Africa. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence from fossils dug up there that show that that is where humanity began. Look up the "out of africa" model for human dispersion throughout the world. Complete skeletons have been recovered that are Tens of THOUSANDS of years old (but the world is only 3k years old, so how can that be? ).

Look up "australopithecus" (sp).

Bah, Ive gotta go to practice, ill be back later. hopefully by then you have read up on the findings on Eastern Africa!


Not bad for no googling eh?

Yeah, saved by the bell, eh?

Australopithecus is what you've given me so far. That's quite a massive collection. how could anyone question that?

As far as australopithecus, there have been numerous studies done on it by evolutionist scientists and there is at best no concensus even amongst them that this is anything by an extinct ape species skull or possibly not even a bipedal animal.

Who believes the world is 3K years old? We have more recorded history than that. You serious think people think the world is that young? Nice hole you're living in. I think even the most hard core creationists are going to go with something more like 30K.

I'm starting to get the sense that you'r like almost every creationism mocking individual...........intellectually insecure and bitter towards organized religeon for some reason.

Yes, I had to go for my run, but thanks for being a dickhead about it. :thumbsup:

Anyway, not bipedal? LOL, there is MASSIVE amounts of evidence that say they were bipedal. Just because there are SOME scientists that say otherwise doesnt mean its true. Hell, there are scientists that disagree with almost every mainstream belief. You could dig up scientists that disagree with the theory of gravity...

I dont know about 3k, but its something like 6k or so years that many HARDCORE bible thumpers believe. As far as being bitter towards religion...not really Im a practicing Catholic, but nice try to smear me at the end of your post. No need to resort to personal attacks.

Look. If you're going to suggest people believe something because there are "massive" amounts of evidence you need more than one questionable example.

Go look up the scientists who doubt australopithecus. It's not just one scientist they drug up from some backwater town.

No, they also got a "doctor" of chinese history and an guy with a PHD in civil engineering! Take that evolution myth!

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Attempting to disprove the big bang theory OR ambiogenesis DOES NOT disprove or deduct from the credibility of the theory of evolution. It only makes you look foolish and ignorant, regardless of ANY of those theories being "the truth".

actually it does...

the theory of evolution depends on there being a single common ancestor from which all life evolved from. if abiogenesis were disproven, then the common ancestor couldnt exist, thereby negating the theory that the processes of evolution are the sole guiding forces which dictated the path from origin to now.


Life either started randomly or deliberately... if it cant be A, then it must be B.
if it was B, then design has already entered into the equation, which negates an assumption made first in the theory...and a fallacy exists.

wrong. in the primordial soup model, a few completely separate colonies of life could have began at completely different times on the opposite side of the planet. They may never have interacted until they were large enough to travel. Since we have no footprints of ambiogenesis, we have no evidence to even speculate with, and thus life could have began in multiple time periods, and we could thus have, say.. 4 ancestors.

So the anaology with the bolts was correct. You can get something living from inanimate objects. Amazing.

no, it's not. As someone else, chemical vs physical. Throwing a bunch of inanimate things together and leaving them alone, nothing will happen. You need chemical processes.

Are amino acids animated?

Also, is oxidation a chemical process?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Attempting to disprove the big bang theory OR ambiogenesis DOES NOT disprove or deduct from the credibility of the theory of evolution. It only makes you look foolish and ignorant, regardless of ANY of those theories being "the truth".

actually it does...

the theory of evolution depends on there being a single common ancestor from which all life evolved from. if abiogenesis were disproven, then the common ancestor couldnt exist, thereby negating the theory that the processes of evolution are the sole guiding forces which dictated the path from origin to now.


Life either started randomly or deliberately... if it cant be A, then it must be B.
if it was B, then design has already entered into the equation, which negates an assumption made first in the theory...and a fallacy exists.

wrong. in the primordial soup model, a few completely separate colonies of life could have began at completely different times on the opposite side of the planet. They may never have interacted until they were large enough to travel. Since we have no footprints of ambiogenesis, we have no evidence to even speculate with, and thus life could have began in multiple time periods, and we could thus have, say.. 4 ancestors.

So the anaology with the bolts was correct. You can get something living from inanimate objects. Amazing.

no, it's not. As someone else, chemical vs physical. Throwing a bunch of inanimate things together and leaving them alone, nothing will happen. You need chemical processes.

Are amino acids animated?

Also, is oxidation a chemical process?

Oxidation is a chemical process.

What do you mean by "animated" -- because in every real sense, we are just ongoing, extremely complex, chemical reactions.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Does anyone actually believe this creationism bullshit?

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Does anyone actually believe this creationism bullshit?

I see what you did there.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Does anyone actually believe this creationism bullshit?

I see what you did there.

I'd say he stirred the pot, but that was more like yelling "candy" and lobbing a fistful of sodium into the kiddie pool.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Does anyone actually believe this creationism bullshit?

I see what you did there.

I'd say he stirred the pot, but that was more like yelling "candy" and lobbing a fistful of sodium into the kiddie pool.

At least I still have you and Kirk Cameron on my side.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Does anyone actually believe this creationism bullshit?

Honestly? The idea that this was all designed is MUCH more compelling than the idea that it all magically happened. I stir shit in flasks all day. I put a lot of work into getting even the most trivial of reactions to work. To say that somehow, somewhere, conditions existed where life could be spawned, and further than that, THRIVE and replicate, is laughable. I want what those people are smoking.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: michaelsslave
well i was watching CNN late last night and during they show some reporter said that '53% of Americans believe in creationism' wtf

If true then it follows that 53% of Americans are idiots.

As if the other 47% are instantly intelligent even if most of them don't even understand the theory to begin with...

:laugh:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Does anyone actually believe this creationism bullshit?

Honestly? The idea that this was all designed is MUCH more compelling than the idea that it all magically happened. I stir shit in flasks all day. I put a lot of work into getting even the most trivial of reactions to work. To say that somehow, somewhere, conditions existed where life could be spawned, and further than that, THRIVE and replicate, is laughable. I want what those people are smoking.

So you dispute abiogenesis, not evolution? I may not agree with you, but you position is at least, not laughable like those trying to criticize evolution itself.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: uclaLabrat

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Does anyone actually believe this creationism bullshit?

Honestly? The idea that this was all designed is MUCH more compelling than the idea that it all magically happened. I stir shit in flasks all day. I put a lot of work into getting even the most trivial of reactions to work. To say that somehow, somewhere, conditions existed where life could be spawned, and further than that, THRIVE and replicate, is laughable. I want what those people are smoking.

Creationism.

The Belief that some guy came out of nowhere, and created everything by saying something.

Evolutionists

Believes that a bunch of random chemicals started to form together and started to progressively get more and more complicated, until cells formed.

Lets see which sounds better. Or Better yet, hold out under Occams Razor

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Creationism.

The Belief that an intelligent designer created the universe and, more specifically, man in his image.

Evolutionists

Believes that a bunch of random chemicals started to form together and started to progressively get more and more complicated, until cells formed.

Lets see which sounds better. Or Better yet, hold out under Occams Razor

 

[uclaLabrat]

Of course I support evolution, at least its basic tenets. We know bacteria can change, become drug resistant, etc. We can even measure that. I do not believe that under any conditions, life can just "happen". I think it's bigger than that. There are lots of examples, and since it'll be hard to remain focused on the argument, I'll keep it short, but I believe in things we can observe. That is the basic premise of science. Observe, interpret, extrapolate. The problem is that for a lot of people, the conclusions they reach from their "observations" are not supported by the data.

I do not believe that evolution and creationism are necessarily mutually exclusive, either.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: eos
Sitting in my lawn chair waiting for someone to reference: "Our ancestors are not apes!!!".

Speak for yourself... and pass me a banana.

:roll:

Bananas alone are evidence of God. They are contoured to fit our hands in a neat package for tidy consumption. You think it was just by accident that happened?

:laugh: You saw that clip too? Hilarious stuff.

That is one of the reasons I don't drive. To think people like that exist and are allowed to operate vehicles on the same road is...terrifying :Q Seriously.

It could be that bananas are the intelligent design of a trickster god what with the potential for peel induced pratfalls.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: nick1985
Without googling:

Look at the evidence from Olduvai Gorge (SP) In Eastern Africa. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence from fossils dug up there that show that that is where humanity began. Look up the "out of africa" model for human dispersion throughout the world. Complete skeletons have been recovered that are Tens of THOUSANDS of years old (but the world is only 3k years old, so how can that be? ).

Look up "australopithecus" (sp).

Bah, Ive gotta go to practice, ill be back later. hopefully by then you have read up on the findings on Eastern Africa!


Not bad for no googling eh?

Yeah, saved by the bell, eh?

Australopithecus is what you've given me so far. That's quite a massive collection. how could anyone question that?

As far as australopithecus, there have been numerous studies done on it by evolutionist scientists and there is at best no concensus even amongst them that this is anything by an extinct ape species skull or possibly not even a bipedal animal.

Who believes the world is 3K years old? We have more recorded history than that. You serious think people think the world is that young? Nice hole you're living in. I think even the most hard core creationists are going to go with something more like 30K.

I'm starting to get the sense that you'r like almost every creationism mocking individual...........intellectually insecure and bitter towards organized religeon for some reason.

Yes, I had to go for my run, but thanks for being a dickhead about it. :thumbsup:

Anyway, not bipedal? LOL, there is MASSIVE amounts of evidence that say they were bipedal. Just because there are SOME scientists that say otherwise doesnt mean its true. Hell, there are scientists that disagree with almost every mainstream belief. You could dig up scientists that disagree with the theory of gravity...

I dont know about 3k, but its something like 6k or so years that many HARDCORE bible thumpers believe. As far as being bitter towards religion...not really Im a practicing Catholic, but nice try to smear me at the end of your post. No need to resort to personal attacks.

Look. If you're going to suggest people believe something because there are "massive" amounts of evidence you need more than one questionable example.

Go look up the scientists who doubt australopithecus. It's not just one scientist they drug up from some backwater town.

You think australopithecus is just 1 example? Do you have any idea of the number of different species of australopithecus' there are? Have you every looked at the traits of them and how the progressed through the years? Bipedalism...larger brain...

Saying that australopithecus is "one questionable example" is insane. To deny the MULTIPLE species of australopithecus and to deny the traits seen in them look more and more like humans as they evolved is crazy considering the fossils are there for you to see.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: So
You can't see how ridiculous your oversimplifications are, can you?

Big Bang -> Soup of energy -> inflation -> soup of quarks -> cooling (more inflation) -> matter settling down into clouds -> clumping into galaxies with stars -> gen 1 stars dying -> exploding -> smaller gen 2 stars -> planets -> some with the right location / star for life -> some with life forming -> simple cells terraform the planet -> cells evolve sexual reproduction, increasing rate of change over simple DNA transliteration errors / free radical mutation -> simple amphibians -> modern life.

when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

Confusion:

Could you explain how the first cells could have survived without an energy source, I don't understand.

 

[maddogchen]

Sure I believe in Creationism.

Day 1 (in God days, no not a normal Earth day)
He set out to create something but couldn't figure out what. All it was is a giant ball of mass.
Fed up with that giant ball of mass that does nothing, he said "let there be light" and BANG the giant ball of mass exploded into the universe we have today. But it didn't quite work out correctly. Picture turning on a light bulb and it exploding. There was light for a brief second.

Day 2 (in God days, no not a normal Earth day)
This is kinda sucky, let me try something else. And he created Heaven. It was perfect! But what about the universe? How to go about improving it?

Day 3 (in God days, no not a normal Earth day)
He looked at all the floating balls of rock and decided some of them should grow some vegetation. But what to feed the vegetation to make it grow?

Day 4(in God days, no not a normal Earth day)
God created stars to give light to the universe. But mainly to give sunlight to the plants he has grown. He also made sure they had water to help them grow. Now we have light.

Day 5(in God days, no not a normal Earth day)
God created things to live in the waters and he watched as they evolved and travelled outside of the waters and onto land.

Day 6(in God days, no not a normal Human day)
God watched as unique groups of species evolved to become dominant animals on the planets and he blessed them with intelligent thinking. Thus God created man, klingon, vulcan, and others.

Day 7(in God days, no not a normal Human day)
God rested. He's still sleeping now. Thats why he doesn't answer your prayers. He's asleep. Also gods can oversleep too.

There, my version of creationism.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: So
You can't see how ridiculous your oversimplifications are, can you?

Big Bang -> Soup of energy -> inflation -> soup of quarks -> cooling (more inflation) -> matter settling down into clouds -> clumping into galaxies with stars -> gen 1 stars dying -> exploding -> smaller gen 2 stars -> planets -> some with the right location / star for life -> some with life forming -> simple cells terraform the planet -> cells evolve sexual reproduction, increasing rate of change over simple DNA transliteration errors / free radical mutation -> simple amphibians -> modern life.

when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

Confusion:

Could you explain how the first cells could have survived without an energy source, I don't understand.

Okay.

You know, the Sun did exist back then. And probably lightning, heat from lava.. etc.

And there is something called "self assembly" which can be paired with the word 'Spontaneous Reaction"

 

[So]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: So
You can't see how ridiculous your oversimplifications are, can you?

Big Bang -> Soup of energy -> inflation -> soup of quarks -> cooling (more inflation) -> matter settling down into clouds -> clumping into galaxies with stars -> gen 1 stars dying -> exploding -> smaller gen 2 stars -> planets -> some with the right location / star for life -> some with life forming -> simple cells terraform the planet -> cells evolve sexual reproduction, increasing rate of change over simple DNA transliteration errors / free radical mutation -> simple amphibians -> modern life.

when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

Confusion:

Could you explain how the first cells could have survived without an energy source, I don't understand.

Chemical energy? Endothermic reaction? Warmth drawn from surrounding water? IDK but there are plenty of plausible energy sources for a cell without all the modern machinery of cellular energy capture.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Chemical energy would be tough, likely an oxidation reaction which would degrade biomolecules. Endothermic reaction not likely, would require an increase in entropy, and as far as I'm aware, organizing a mass of molecules like that would give a DECREASE in entropy. Thermal energy? Possible, but not efficient.

 

[nick1985]

Click me

Good information on our ancestors dating back to 4.4 million years ago. But Im sure they dated all of them wrong since the earth is not that old. :roll:

 

[Gunslinger08]

The world will be so much better when people realize both ideas can co-exist.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: So
You can't see how ridiculous your oversimplifications are, can you?

Big Bang -> Soup of energy -> inflation -> soup of quarks -> cooling (more inflation) -> matter settling down into clouds -> clumping into galaxies with stars -> gen 1 stars dying -> exploding -> smaller gen 2 stars -> planets -> some with the right location / star for life -> some with life forming -> simple cells terraform the planet -> cells evolve sexual reproduction, increasing rate of change over simple DNA transliteration errors / free radical mutation -> simple amphibians -> modern life.

when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

Confusion:

Could you explain how the first cells could have survived without an energy source, I don't understand.

Okay.

You know, the Sun did exist back then. And probably lightning, heat from lava.. etc.

And there is something called "self assembly" which can be paired with the word 'Spontaneous Reaction"

But wouldn't those creatures have to have the genetic ability to process the energy source? I don't understand how they could have spawned from RNA with instant adaption to previously unknown environments.