NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep, thats right, you heard me.

Many of you religionmongers have been arguing that there is no proof for, to, or against Creationalism. Others have argued that although you cannot necessarily prove that God/creationalism exists, you cannot prove that the evolutionary theory is true either.

I view this as totally flawed.

There are multitudes of arguments against Creationalism. One of them is simple, carbon dating. Creationalism usually asserts that the world was created around 10,000 years ago (sometimes slightly more) by God. Can any of the Creationalists here tell me why then does this reliable technology called carbon dating, date many things (dinosaurs being the best example) way before your date of around 10,000 years ago? Dinosaurs, for example, are believed to have gone extinct millions of years before the "10,000" that Creationalists believe the earth was created.

Okay, so lets suppose you think that carbon dating is flawed or maybe that the earth was created millions of years ago by God. So tell me, why do we find fossils of things (animals, humans, et cetera) that clearly show adaptation and evolution? Scientists are constantly finding 'new' human species that clearly show the evolutionary process. They find a humanoid that looks very similarly to an ape, but stands on two legs. Next, there is a humanoid with a little straighter back, bigger head (with bigger brain), and taller. After that they (the scientists) find another humanoid that starts looking more like a modern day person than an ape.

Furthermore, if God created us, wouldn't we all be one race? Each human race (White, Black, Aboriginie, et cetera) has best adapted itself to its own enviroment, if you put a White person in Africa running around in a loincloth, s/he will surely get burned. But Black people have survived this for thousands of years... but if you put a Black person in, say, Norway, he will surely freeze to death in the winters, even if he does wear thick fur coats. With modern technology (sun lotion and more clothes to protect the skin from sunlight and buildings with heater systems and warmer coats) these two races can exchange places, but in a earlier time this would have been nearly impossible.

Taking this to another level, the reason I believe we have different races is because of isolation. The Blacks were isolated in Africa; the Whites in Europe; the Semites in the Middle East; "Asians" (i.e. East Asians, or "Orientals" if you wish) in Eastern Asia; the Aryans (this was an actual racial group) in Persia, Central Asia, and India; and lastly the "Aboriginie" people, who lived in Australia and the Americas, but don't confuse the two, there are differences between the Australian Aboriginies and the American Aboriginies (who are often called Native Americans) but they often have been lumped together by mistake, but I will use the term Aboriginie, simply for the reason of a need for a better word. So, I've talked a whole shit load, but what does this mean? The reason Whites are White, Blacks are Black, "Asians" or Asians, and Aboriginies are Aboriginies is because each race has been isolated on their continent for a long time, giving them a different look as they each evolved just a little bit differently from one another. If God created us, then we'd all be one color/race (that would really suck, Asian chicks are HOTT, lol), not many different colors/races!

The same can be seen with animals (humans are animals, but by animals I mean non-human animals). Different animals seperated by different continents, have always evolved just a little bit differently from one another. Take for example, the dog. No, not Spot or Buddy, but the primitive dog, forced to search for its own food. In much of Eurasia you find the wolf, but in Australia you find another varient of this animal, the dingo, who has different fur color and is adapted more for it's climate (Eurasia - mostly cold and harsh, Australia - Warm, but harsh in a different way). There also was another kind of canine in Australia, who had stripes on its back like a tiger, which is now extinct , but unfortunately, the name of this canine species has slipped my mind, so if there are an Aussies here, please help me remember (because this could help me further my argument):) .

Anyways, here I have presented to you some examples that prove that the evolutionary theory must be true (of course, in a few hundered years we might come up with a better theory, but that theory will most certainly contain most, if not all, of the evolutionary theory, in it).

What do you have to say Creationalists?

P.S. The race and canine theory could also be an argument against IDers, why would God create seperate races and seperate species of dogs?

P.P.S. Please do not take this in a racist way, there are differences in the human races, but they aren't enough to make one superior to another, just a little bit different (skin color, hair, eyes).

Grabs popcorn and settles in for the show. (personally I am an evolutionist abiogenisist atheist)

Now we want a good clean fight,
no slandering, no flames, no fundies
I Make myself laugh sometimes

*Crunch Crunch Passes popcorn

P.S. The race and canine theory could also be an argument against IDers, why would God create seperate races and seperate species of dogs?
Dunno... perhaps he was just really bored? :D


(jk... he would have to exist in the first place to be bored)

Puddytat made a good point, please no flames, flame wars or anything. Rest assured, I WILL beat you in a flame war, I've been hanging around some of the most vile web forums on Earth, lol.

Try to stick mainly to intellectual discussion.

Dunno... perhaps he was just really bored? :D


(jk... he would have to exist in the first place to be bored)

Haha, I was under the impression that God was really serious and never was bored, but... :p

Grabs popcorn and settles in for the show. (personally I am an evolutionist abiogenisist atheist) More sensible to sit on the fence than to believe in abiogenesis… there is no conclusive proof for it.
Dunno... perhaps he was just really bored?


(jk... he would have to exist in the first place to be bored!) I'd be bored if I didn't exist.

More sensible to sit on the fence than to believe in abiogenesis… there is no conclusive proof for it.
I'd be bored if I didn't exist.

Well I am more likely to believe in the starseed theory for life on earth than the existance of any Deity, so being a extreme atheist (as dubbed here) abiogenisis would be the logical extension for myself.

and on the 7th day man created God because there was bugger all to argue about in the pub.

*Joins Puddytat with a Tub of Typhoon Popcorn and some cokes.*
Puddytat made a good point, please no flames, flame wars or anything. Rest assured, I WILL beat you in a flame war, I've been hanging around some of the most vile web forums on Earth, lol.

Try to stick mainly to intellectual discussion.nah, if it does go into a flame war, my money is on the mods winning it.:D

Oh and HE could've created many species of many animals including the varying differences in Humans to give Athiests and Scientists something to do.

There also was another kind of canine in Australia, who had stripes on its back like a tiger, which is now extinct , but unfortunately, the name of this canine species has slipped my mind, so if there are an Aussies here, please help me remember (because this could help me further my argument)
Tasmanian Wolf, I believe, though I could be wrong (it's unlikely, but it happens occasionally).
And I agree with pretty much everything you have to say. However. Playing Devil's advocate for a second, would it not be possible to claim that God wouldn't necessarily create humans all the same, and realise the need for different characteristics in different parts of the world, and therefore provide those in Africa with black skin, those in Europe with white, etc, etc?

More sensible to sit on the fence than to believe in abiogenesis… there is no conclusive proof for it.
I'm not sure what an "abiogenesis" is, but I'll guess you're trying to say "Aboriginies," which is a term used by Europeans to describe Australian Natives and American Natives, as opposed to the White settlers.

I'd be bored if I didn't exist.
You didn't present any intellectual ideas or scientific theory in this post, just like most Creationalists.

I really hope you were just joking around, because if you weren't, you made a fool of yourself.

I'm not sure what an "abiogenesis" is, but I'll guess you're trying to say "Aboriginies," which is a term used by Europeans to describe Australian Natives and American Natives, as opposed to the White settlers. No, abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis).

You didn't present any intellectual ideas or scientific theory in this post, just like most Creationalists.

I really hope you were just joking around, because if you weren't, you made a fool of yourself. I didn't really find anything to disagree with, so any ideas I presented would have been parroting you.

No, abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis).

I didn't really find anything to disagree with, so any ideas I presented would have been parroting you.
How did I know before moving the cursor over the link that it would be a wiki?

I'd be bored if I didn't exist.
No you wouldn't.

Existence is a pre-requisite to boredom. To all emotions, in fact.
No existence = no emotions.

So you wouldn't be bored if you didn't exist.

Playing Devil's advocate for a second, would it not be possible to claim that God wouldn't necessarily create humans all the same, and realise the need for different characteristics in different parts of the world, and therefore provide those in Africa with black skin, those in Europe with white, etc, etc?

Then again, wouldn't it be more effective to create a humanoid able to handle every enviroment effectively?

I guess that from the point of a Creationalist/IDist, you aren't supposed to question God, he has his ways, but seriously folks...

P.S. BTW, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Tasmanian Wolf, but I might be wrong. Thanks for your in put anyways.

Playing Devil's advocate for a second, would it not be possible to claim that God wouldn't necessarily create humans all the same, and realise the need for different characteristics in different parts of the world, and therefore provide those in Africa with black skin, those in Europe with white, etc, etc?

Again, just playing along, yes that would be possible - but why would an all-knowing, loving god put people in hard-to-survive conditions in the first place? When you've got the Med. basin and the middle east, why put people at the arse end of nowhere in marginal living conditions, living right on the edge of subsistence?

As much as you're right, there is an explaination for different races in the bible (to the best of my knoweledge, I've never actually sat down and read the thing). It starts off with Man trying to reach god with the Tower of Babel, god then gets super pissed at eveyone and splits them all up, different continents, languages, skin colours etc, making sure that man could never co-operate to such an extent ever again. Please correct my knoweledge of the bible if I'm wrong.

As much as you're right, there is an explaination for different races in the bible (to the best of my knoweledge, I've never actually sat down and read the thing). It starts off with Man trying to reach god with the Tower of Babel, god then gets super pissed at eveyone and splits them all up, different continents, languages, skin colours etc, making sure that man could never co-operate to such an extent ever again. Please correct my knoweledge of the bible if I'm wrong.
Also the idea of the 3 sons of Noah, I think? Or was that an apocrapha? (sp.?)

How did I know before moving the cursor over the link that it would be a wiki? Because finding anything objective about the origins of life on the internet is damned near impossible, and in this case wikipedia is probably (sadly) more objective than most things you'd get on the first page.

Elgesh']Again, just playing along, yes that would be possible - but why would an all-knowing, loving god put people in hard-to-survive conditions in the first place? When you've got the Med. basin and the middle east, why put people at the arse end of nowhere in marginal living conditions, living right on the edge of subsistence?
Ok, maybe he put them around the Med. in the first place, maybe some in N. America and other hospitable places. But, because he knows (having created them) that they would want to bugger off and explore into other places (possibly with the theory "if it's nice here, it must be nice everywhere else"), so he decided, rather than let his creations burn/freeze to death, he would give them a helping hand.

Forgive me for a fairly poor argument, but I've never bothered with these threads before, and I'm making it up as I go along.

well for startes just to make 1 thing cleari am not a creationist, and i do believe that natural selection is the driving force behind biological development. however, i have some beefs so ill just tackle them 1 by 1.

YMany of you religionmongers have been arguing that there is no proof for, to, or against Creationalism. Others have argued that although you cannot necessarily prove that God/creationalism exists, you cannot prove that the evolutionary theory is true either.
I view this as totally flawed.
not hard to prove you wrong here, if it were provable, using easily identifiable facts and axioms we can all agree with, then there would not be a debate.

There are multitudes of arguments against Creationalism. One of them is simple, carbon dating. Creationalism usually asserts that the world was created around 10,000 years ago (sometimes slightly more) by God. Can any of the Creationalists here tell me why then does this reliable technology called carbon dating, date many things (dinosaurs being the best example) way before your date of around 10,000 years ago? Dinosaurs, for example, are believed to have gone extinct millions of years before the "10,000" that Creationalists believe the earth was created.
first off carbon dating is not reliable, and anyone who understands it to any degree will tell you there is a minimun 10% (yes 10%) innaccuracy to it. to counter this point, creationists use a similar argument in nature, which is about as solid. look at the salinity of the oceans, and say you started with fresh water in them (oceans get saltier as time goes by), then at the current rates of salination, the date of creation would be much nearer 10,000 years ago, than 6 billion years ago. this data is simply not reliable either way, leaves too many open questions, and i certainly wouldnt even consider using either in any sort of 'proof'.

Okay, so lets suppose you think that carbon dating is flawed or maybe that the earth was created millions of years ago by God. So tell me, why do we find fossils of things (animals, humans, et cetera) that clearly show adaptation and evolution? Scientists are constantly finding 'new' human species that clearly show the evolutionary process. They find a humanoid that looks very similarly to an ape, but stands on two legs. Next, there is a humanoid with a little straighter back, bigger head (with bigger brain), and taller. After that they (the scientists) find another humanoid that starts looking more like a modern day person than an ape.
fossil evidence is also at best a mixed blessing for evolutionists, as there are all kinds of animals and plants that have no ancestors or relatives that look, act, or even smell like them. again, im not a creationist, however this is not relevant to any attempt at a 'proof' either. examples of creatures that 'defy evolution' would include the mylodon (extinct around 1700 in s america, kind of like a....kangarou, bear, dog is the best i can do).


Furthermore, if God created us, wouldn't we all be one race? Each human race (White, Black, Aboriginie, et cetera) has best adapted itself to its own enviroment, if you put a White person in Africa running around in a loincloth, s/he will surely get burned. But Black people have survived this for thousands of years... but if you put a Black person in, say, Norway, he will surely freeze to death in the winters, even if he does wear thick fur coats. With modern technology (sun lotion and more clothes to protect the skin from sunlight and buildings with heater systems and warmer coats) these two races can exchange places, but in a earlier time this would have been nearly impossible.black people freeze to death in norway....interesting.:rolleyes:
to be honest, i agree different races are a product of natural selection, as well as several other factors, however, your claim that white people couldnt be near the equator without sunlotion, and black people couldnt move north before heaters is simply untrue. regardless you have not proven that this is not possible with creationism, and only provide (weak) arguments why it is possible iwth evolution

Taking this to another level, the reason I believe we have different races is because of isolation. The Blacks were isolated in Africa; the Whites in Europe; the Semites in the Middle East; "Asians" (i.e. East Asians, or "Orientals" if you wish) in Eastern Asia; the Aryans (this was an actual racial group) in Persia, Central Asia, and India; and lastly the "Aboriginie" people, who lived in Australia and the Americas, but don't confuse the two, there are differences between the Australian Aboriginies and the American Aboriginies (who are often called Native Americans) but they often have been lumped together by mistake, but I will use the term Aboriginie, simply for the reason of a need for a better word. So, I've talked a whole shit load, but what does this mean? The reason Whites are White, Blacks are Black, "Asians" or Asians, and Aboriginies are Aboriginies is because each race has been isolated on their continent for a long time, giving them a different look as they each evolved just a little bit differently from one another. If God created us, then we'd all be one color/race (that would really suck, Asian chicks are HOTT, lol), not many different colors/races!.
really aborigines are different from native america?? aryans as a race wow!:rolleyes: , ive already refuted the value of this 'evidence' in my last refutation.

The same can be seen with animals (humans are animals, but by animals I mean non-human animals). Different animals seperated by different continents, have always evolved just a little bit differently from one another. Take for example, the dog. No, not Spot or Buddy, but the primitive dog, forced to search for its own food. In much of Eurasia you find the wolf, but in Australia you find another varient of this animal, the dingo, who has different fur color and is adapted more for it's climate (Eurasia - mostly cold and harsh, Australia - Warm, but harsh in a different way). There also was another kind of canine in Australia, who had stripes on its back like a tiger, which is now extinct , but unfortunately, the name of this canine species has slipped my mind, so if there are an Aussies here, please help me remember (because this could help me further my argument):) .
you have no idea the difference between a wolf and a dog?...nough said:rolleyes:


Anyways, here I have presented to you some examples that prove that the evolutionary theory must be true (of course, in a few hundered years we might come up with a better theory, but that theory will most certainly contain most, if not all, of the evolutionary theory, in it)..
youve proven evolution theory? quick to the phones!....seriously...what?


What do you have to say Creationalists?
P.S. The race and canine theory could also be an argument against IDers, why would God create seperate races and seperate species of dogs?
P.P.S. Please do not take this in a racist way, there are differences in the human races, but they aren't enough to make one superior to another, just a little bit different (skin color, hair, eyes).
again not creationist.....i just dont like incorrect, poor, innacurate, useless information go unnoticed, and although i agree 100% you need to spend a little more time hitting the books......
in summation :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Can any of the Creationalists here tell me why then does this reliable technology called carbon dating, date many things (dinosaurs being the best example) way before your date of around 10,000 years ago? Dinosaurs, for example, are believed to have gone extinct millions of years before the "10,000" that Creationalists believe the earth was created.


That is kinda funny that you call carbon dating reliable. Yes, today carbon dating is becoming more reliable, however the age estimates that you mentioned (millions of years old) was done by the older forms of carbon dating. You should read what THIS (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html) page has to say about carbon dating; it is quite informative. Below is an excerpt from that page (however I still suggest you read the entire article:

The earlier C-14 measurements were done by counting the rare disintegrations of C-14 atoms, which can sometimes be confused with other disintegrations in the older equipment. The new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected the least small amounts of C-14 in every organic specimen - even in materials claimed to be millions of years old, like coal. If specimen were really millions of years old, virtually no C-14 would remain in them.

Some time ago eleven human skeletons, remains of the earliest humans in the western hemisphere, were dated by this new `accelerator mass spectrometer' technique to about 5000 radiocarbon years or less. [R.E.Taylor, `Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for the North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry', American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No.1, 1985, pp. 136-140]

My prediction is that if more evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain C-14, a major scientific revolution will occur, and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete. On the same grounds, human and dinosaur bones which have retained enough carbon to be tested by this precise method will be shown to be relatively young provided they are done in blind tests. That means samples are used not identified by where they came from.

Then again, wouldn't it be more effective to create a humanoid able to handle every enviroment effectively?

I guess that from the point of a Creationalist/IDist, you aren't supposed to question God, he has his ways, but seriously folks...

P.S. BTW, I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Tasmanian Wolf, but I might be wrong. Thanks for your in put anyways.
But how would you ensure a person could survive the baking heat of Africa, the frozen wastes of Siberia, the tropical humidity of the rainforests, etc, etc. Variations in hair and skin colour are the ways in which humans have adapted to different environments, and for someone to be able to handle every environment, they'd have to be a combination of everything.

Was it the Thylacine? That's the proper name for the Tasmanian Wolf (from Thylacinus cynocephalus).

No offense, but that arguement is frighteningly absurd. I was going to ask how old you were, but after looking at your profile, it seems my guess was right on the mark.

I'm sure it may be possible that you may mean well - but you may want to spend your time reading books and doing actual research if you are interested in the subject of evolution. I doubt you will learn anything by arguing with people on this forum. But if you do a few years of research, you actually might learn something a bit more useful.

Well I am more likely to believe in the starseed theory for life on earth than the existance of any Deity, so being a extreme atheist (as dubbed here) abiogenisis would be the logical extension for myself.[/SIZE]
Same here! :D
Long live the starseed theory! We demand to be a group for ourselves and don't want to be lumped together with these loony creationists! :D

Well I am more likely to believe in the starseed theory for life on earth than the existance of any Deity, so being a extreme atheist (as dubbed here) abiogenisis would be the logical extension for myself. So, you're not sure about either of them, so you pick the one which is slightly more likely?

Not scientific at all, sir, not at all.

So, you're not sure about either of them, so you pick the one which is slightly more likely?

Not scientific at all, sir, not at all.
And since when has science been involved in any debate about evolution and creationism?

No offense, but that arguement is frighteningly absurd. I was going to ask how old you were, but after looking at your profile, it seems my guess was right on the mark.

I'm sure it may be possible that you may mean well - but you may want to spend your time reading books and doing actual research if you are interested in the subject of evolution. I doubt you will learn anything by arguing with people on this forum. But if you do a few years of research, you actually might learn something a bit more useful.
good catch...note his interests as 'facsism'....guess whats coming......:rolleyes:

And since when has science been involved in any debate about evolution and creationism? In ivory towers in a land far, far away.

No offense, but that arguement is frighteningly absurd. I was going to ask how old you were, but after looking at your profile, it seems my guess was right on the mark.

I'm sure it may be possible that you may mean well - but you may want to spend your time reading books and doing actual research if you are interested in the subject of evolution. I doubt you will learn anything by arguing with people on this forum. But if you do a few years of research, you actually might learn something a bit more useful.
whom was this well written rebuttal aimed at, may I ask.


oh and want some popcorn? Puddytat also has some.

The stripy dog thing is called the Tasmanian Tiger. That's why I'm always in two minds about whether to call them felines or not. But it doesn't matter anyway, we've already killed them all.

whom was this well written rebuttal aimed at, may I ask.


oh and want some popcorn? Puddytat also has some.
Oooh, I'll have some. I've made my (half-arsed) contribution, so I might as well enjoy the fallout. Is it sweet or salty?

As it is early in this thread, I will just take the opportunity to point out that an evolutionary theory is one that evolves, and while the Theory of Evolution is evolutionary, it is still a mis-nomer to label it "the" Evolutionary Theory (and no, giving it upper case letters doesn't make it more important).

As it is early in this thread, I will just take the opportunity to point out that an evolutionary theory is one that evolves, and while the Theory of Evolution is evolutionary, it is still a mis-nomer to label it "the" Evolutionary Theory (and no, giving it upper case letters doesn't make it more important).
lol

Ok, maybe he put them around the Med. in the first place, maybe some in N. America and other hospitable places. But, because he knows (having created them) that they would want to bugger off and explore into other places (possibly with the theory "if it's nice here, it must be nice everywhere else"), so he decided, rather than let his creations burn/freeze to death, he would give them a helping hand.

Forgive me for a fairly poor argument, but I've never bothered with these threads before, and I'm making it up as I go along.

OK, allow they start there and wander off - unless he denies them free will, he can't dictate 'racial' characteristics to some and not others; he's not dictating who'll wander off in each direction, so can't 'preprepare' them for the climte they'll eventually reach.

The most he can do to 'preprepare' them is to make them adaptable enough that they'll adapt to a wide variety of environments... hmm... sounds rather like evolution to me! And given that the origin of life doesn't need a dive hand cranking, you don't actually require god in all this...

Again, all just in sport :)

As it is early in this thread, I will just take the opportunity to point out that an evolutionary theory is one that evolves, and while the Theory of Evolution is evolutionary, it is still a mis-nomer to label it "the" Evolutionary Theory (and no, giving it upper case letters doesn't make it more important).
Capital Letters Make Everything More Important. And, I Find, Harder To Read.

Oooh, I'll have some. I've made my (half-arsed) contribution, so I might as well enjoy the fallout. Is it sweet or salty?
Typhoon Popcorn
Popcorn mixed with
Rice Crackers (slightly salty)
Butter
Furikake (slightly Salty)
and Sour Cream powder.

Elgesh']OK, allow they start there and wander off - unless he denies them free will, he can't dictate 'racial' characteristics to some and not others; he's not dictating who'll wander off in each direction, so can't 'preprepare' them for the climte they'll eventually reach.

The most he can do to 'preprepare' them is to make them adaptable enough that they'll adapt to a wide variety of environments... hmm... sounds rather like evolution to me! And given that the origin of life doesn't need a dive hand cranking, you don't actually require god in all this...

Again, all just in sport :)
Ok, I'm beat. I'll leave it to the real crazy religious nuts to argue further. :D

My argument against the argument I put forward (that makes sense doesn't it?) is that God put the first humans (Adam and Eve) in the Garden of Eden (which I think is meant to be somewhere in Iraq?). How the hell are you meant to get genetic diversity from just two people? Ah, wait. Inbreeding! :p

Typhoon Popcorn
Popcorn mixed with
Rice Crackers (slightly salty)
Butter
Furikake (slightly Salty)
and Sour Cream powder.
Don't like salty...what's Puddytat got?

Elgesh']OK, allow they start there and wander off - unless he denies them free will, he can't dictate 'racial' characteristics to some and not others; he's not dictating who'll wander off in each direction, so can't 'preprepare' them for the climte they'll eventually reach.

The most he can do to 'preprepare' them is to make them adaptable enough that they'll adapt to a wide variety of environments... hmm... sounds rather like evolution to me! And given that the origin of life doesn't need a dive hand cranking, you don't actually require god in all this...

Again, all just in sport :)and in the spirit of sport, ;)
just because Man is evolving, doesn't mean that there is no God to start the process.

that's like saying because the ingrediants work together without interferrence, does that mean there is no baker for the cake?


mmmm... cake.... *runs to the kitchen*

Oooh, I'll have some. I've made my (half-arsed) contribution, so I might as well enjoy the fallout. Is it sweet or salty?
I really hope it's sweet! Salty popcorn is just gross! :mad:
If there *was* a god, he wouldn't have allowed people to salt popcorn!

and in the spirit of sport, ;)
just because Man is evolving, doesn't mean that there is no God to start the process.

that's like saying because the ingrediants work together without interferrence, does that mean there is no baker for the cake?


mmmm... cake.... *runs to the kitchen*

True, of course you can come up with a system that has a divine baker. It wouldn't have any evidence beyond a feeling to back it up, but you could!

The origin of life is a seperate - but associated - debate from evolution/creationism, so I won't go into in in too much detail, but:

"Scientists create a virus that reproduces" http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm

Creating Life Out of Plasma - "the complexity and organization required for life may appear more readily than assumed...in a few microseconds." http://atheism.about.com/b/a/028361.htm

"What came before DNA?...RNA could be the answer...Szostak hopes to transform chemicals into a single-celled organism that will grow, divide, and evolve...“The number of steps that might be real potential roadblocks has declined almost to zero.”" http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before_DNA.html

Looks like some're close to answering/heavy theorising 'how life started'? God not needed for it!

Elgesh']Looks like some're close to answering/heavy theorising 'how life started'? God not needed for it! But aren't all these experiments jump-started by scientists?

Elgesh']Looks like some're close to answering/heavy theorising 'how life started'? God not needed for it!
Haven't read those articles, but I will.
In response to 'God not needed for it', just because he's not needed, doesn't mean he didn't start it.

So, you're not sure about either of them, so you pick the one which is slightly more likely?

Not scientific at all, sir, not at all.

Even if I accepted the starseed theory (that life originated from an extra terrestrial source from simple plant/animal) that would still stand within in my Atheist viewpoint, and without a God there would be no Creationist viewpoint.

As I believe that there is no god even life from an outsystem source would still originally have been abiogenetic in origin, I however believe that given the vast differences in planetary atmospheres in our own (not even taking into acount the 10^thats a big number planets in our galaxy) it would be more like that abiogenesis occured terrestrially. and no matter how much you throw the maths at it I still find it more likely that life occured by acident then the existance of god(s)

Haven't read those articles, but I will.
In response to 'God not needed for it', just because he's not needed, doesn't mean he didn't start it.

No, exactly - it's left up to you to decide if there's a god or not behind it all; you don't _need_ one, but there's enough room to have one if you want.

At the moment, obviously, I lean towards 'no-god', but I've felt the other way as well in the past, and doubtless will in the future; no sense in being too dogmatic about something you can't definitively prove!

As much as you're right, there is an explaination for different races in the bible (to the best of my knoweledge, I've never actually sat down and read the thing). It starts off with Man trying to reach god with the Tower of Babel, god then gets super pissed at eveyone and splits them all up, different continents, languages, skin colours etc, making sure that man could never co-operate to such an extent ever again. Please correct my knoweledge of the bible if I'm wrong.
But that is not an explanation for how they became races while still descended from one man.

EDIT: This was addressed already; nevermind.

Elgesh']No, exactly - it's left up to you to decide if there's a god or not behind it all; you don't _need_ one, but there's enough room to have one if you want.

At the moment, obviously, I lean towards 'no-god', but I've felt the other way as well in the past, and doubtless will in the future; no sense in being too dogmatic about something you can't definitively prove!
I lean towards 'no-god' too, as I've already said, but I can't imagine myself leaning the other way. Not because I believe there is no god (I'm agnostic), but because I find the idea of an all-powerful being slightly scary.

Furikake (slightly Salty)
...as opposed to non-furry cake. ;)

...as opposed to non-furry cake. ;)

Is furikake related to Fur Pie

Is furikake related to Fur Pie
it's a Japanese seasoning.

sometimes used in cooking, but mostly on rice.

I lean towards 'no-god' too, as I've already said, but I can't imagine myself leaning the other way. Not because I believe there is no god (I'm agnostic), but because I find the idea of an all-powerful being slightly scary.

Only 'slightly'?! I find it terrifying!!:D Nonethless, I often believe; Believe, even :p After all, he's all-loving as well as all-powerful though, remember - if he exists!

first off carbon dating is not reliable, and anyone who understands it to any degree will tell you there is a minimun 10% (yes 10%) innaccuracy to it. to counter this point, creationists use a similar argument in nature, which is about as solid. look at the salinity of the oceans, and say you started with fresh water in them (oceans get saltier as time goes by), then at the current rates of salination, the date of creation would be much nearer 10,000 years ago, than 6 billion years ago. this data is simply not reliable either way, leaves too many open questions, and i certainly wouldnt even consider using either in any sort of 'proof'.

Thing is that carbon dating even if it is off by 10% would still have a limit over 50.000 years. Upper limit is technically twenty times half life of C-14 (0.0001% of original C-14 left), reality places this lower due to outside interference when trying to count the decay of C-14.
The salinity coment is based on a badly mangled interpretation of a table containing the residency times of certain minerals. If you look at the whole table on which this argument is based you get 100 years (aluminum) at the lower end and several hundred million years (sodium) at the other end.


fossil evidence is also at best a mixed blessing for evolutionists, as there are all kinds of animals and plants that have no ancestors or relatives that look, act, or even smell like them. again, im not a creationist, however this is not relevant to any attempt at a 'proof' either. examples of creatures that 'defy evolution' would include the mylodon (extinct around 1700 in s america, kind of like a....kangarou, bear, dog is the best i can do).

Could you hand me a link to this one, the extinct around 1700s that is. The Mylodon was a ground sloth and IIRC should have been extinct before the last ice age ended.

youve proven evolution theory? quick to the phones!....seriously...what?

What definition of proof are you using?
If you are using the usual definition used with science you might want to follow your own advice and spend more time with books since according to that definition evolution has been proven.
A good list can be found on talkorigins.

Elgesh']Only 'slightly'?! I find it terrifying!!:D Nonethless, I often believe; Believe, even :p After all, he's all-loving as well as all-powerful though, remember - if he exists!
I find it reassuring. because he is forgiving as well and he does look out for me.

I find it reassuring. because he is forgiving as well and he does look out for me.
er... good for you...? :) Sorry, I wanted to reply and not ignore you, but I can't think what to say in response to that!

I lean towards 'no-god' too, as I've already said, but I can't imagine myself leaning the other way. Not because I believe there is no god (I'm agnostic), but because I find the idea of an all-powerful being slightly scary.
If it makes you feel better, he doesn't have to be all-powerful. That's just one version (one image) of god.

Elgesh']Only 'slightly'?! I find it terrifying!!:D Nonethless, I often believe; Believe, even :p After all, he's all-loving as well as all-powerful though, remember - if he exists!
Pfft, compared to some things my mind comes up with, the possibility of there being an all-powerful being that created the universe is a walk in the park on a sunny afternoon.

Elgesh']er... good for you...? :) Sorry, I wanted to reply and not ignore you, but I can't think what to say in response to that!
no response needed... thanks anyway.

Pfft, compared to some things my mind comes up with, the possibility of there being an all-powerful being that created the universe is a walk in the park on a sunny afternoon.

Oh, not the possibility, the _certainty_. Sorry, should have made that clear, only applies when the believing kicks in :)

Yep, thats right, you heard me.

Many of you religionmongers have been arguing that there is no proof for, to, or against Creationalism. Others have argued that although you cannot necessarily prove that God/creationalism exists, you cannot prove that the evolutionary theory is true either.

I view this as totally flawed.



Religionmongers.....that's going a bit far isn't it? Did you want a flame war?


There are multitudes of arguments against Creationalism. One of them is simple, carbon dating. Creationalism usually asserts that the world was created around 10,000 years ago (sometimes slightly more) by God. Can any of the Creationalists here tell me why then does this reliable technology called carbon dating, date many things (dinosaurs being the best example) way before your date of around 10,000 years ago? Dinosaurs, for example, are believed to have gone extinct millions of years before the "10,000" that Creationalists believe the earth was created.


Creationism comes in many forms, not all of which are strictly held to less than 10 000 years. And for those that do have such a timeline, it isn't a major part of the explanation.


I understand that C14 carbon has a half life of 6, 000 years, which means that this form of radioactive dating is not useful for things older than 10 000 years. Plus, C14 decay is thought to be affected by such things as magnetism. Since we know that the magnetism in the earth has been changing, mostly decaying, one might speculate that such dates should have a large amount of error associated. Therefore, one could hardly describe it as reliable. I don't know of any scientist who uses a date based on only one form of radioactive dating. Where possible, they try to use three or four different radioactive methods.


Okay, so lets suppose you think that carbon dating is flawed or maybe that the earth was created millions of years ago by God. So tell me, why do we find fossils of things (animals, humans, et cetera) that clearly show adaptation and evolution? Scientists are constantly finding 'new' human species that clearly show the evolutionary process. They find a humanoid that looks very similarly to an ape, but stands on two legs. Next, there is a humanoid with a little straighter back, bigger head (with bigger brain), and taller. After that they (the scientists) find another humanoid that starts looking more like a modern day person than an ape.


The fossils do not show evolution. They show remnants of life forms, both of those which have ceased to exist, and those that still do today. It is mere speculation that connects the fossil forms in some sort of ancestral tree. Adaptation is a process that is mostly understood. But it does not prove that humans evolved from bacteria, but simply that life is capable of adjusting to it's environment, and passing on those adjustments to the next generation. It's only speculation that such adjustments can account for the evolution of bacteria to humans.

While the speculation over the fossil forms does fit (at least in some ways) to the idea of evolution, this is hardly proof, considering that creationists also expect that these fossil forms are present.


Furthermore, if God created us, wouldn't we all be one race? Each human race (White, Black, Aboriginie, et cetera) has best adapted itself to its own enviroment, if you put a White person in Africa running around in a loincloth, s/he will surely get burned. But Black people have survived this for thousands of years... but if you put a Black person in, say, Norway, he will surely freeze to death in the winters, even if he does wear thick fur coats. With modern technology (sun lotion and more clothes to protect the skin from sunlight and buildings with heater systems and warmer coats) these two races can exchange places, but in a earlier time this would have been nearly impossible.


We are one 'race', in the sense that one human from any tribe can breed with another human of the opposite sex from any other tribe. The various colours and shapes and other minor differences among humans is caused by adaptations to the environments (melanin levels have been shown to be more strongly correlated to infections than to sunlight, although sunlight levels do play a role) and population genetics (where populations are genetically isolated, and tend to produce particular characteristics). This in no wise contradicts creationist theories.


Taking this to another level, the reason I believe we have different races is because of isolation. The Blacks were isolated in Africa; the Whites in Europe; the Semites in the Middle East; "Asians" (i.e. East Asians, or "Orientals" if you wish) in Eastern Asia; the Aryans (this was an actual racial group) in Persia, Central Asia, and India; and lastly the "Aboriginie" people, who lived in Australia and the Americas, but don't confuse the two, there are differences between the Australian Aboriginies and the American Aboriginies (who are often called Native Americans) but they often have been lumped together by mistake, but I will use the term Aboriginie, simply for the reason of a need for a better word. So, I've talked a whole shit load, but what does this mean? The reason Whites are White, Blacks are Black, "Asians" or Asians, and Aboriginies are Aboriginies is because each race has been isolated on their continent for a long time, giving them a different look as they each evolved just a little bit differently from one another. If God created us, then we'd all be one color/race (that would really suck, Asian chicks are HOTT, lol), not many different colors/races!


I think you really need to know a little more about creationism before you can criticise it. Futhermore, it's not really known how much time is needed for the minor differences (e.g. skin colour) to develop. Hardly an argument against creation.


The same can be seen with animals (humans are animals, but by animals I mean non-human animals). Different animals seperated by different continents, have always evolved just a little bit differently from one another. Take for example, the dog. No, not Spot or Buddy, but the primitive dog, forced to search for its own food. In much of Eurasia you find the wolf, but in Australia you find another varient of this animal, the dingo, who has different fur color and is adapted more for it's climate (Eurasia - mostly cold and harsh, Australia - Warm, but harsh in a different way). There also was another kind of canine in Australia, who had stripes on its back like a tiger, which is now extinct , but unfortunately, the name of this canine species has slipped my mind, so if there are an Aussies here, please help me remember (because this could help me further my argument):) .


The Eurasian wolf and the Tasmanian Tiger are possibly variants from the same species. What would have been an interesting experiment would be to mate them, and observe the offspring. There have been reports of tigers and lion breeding while in captivity. This would suggest common ancestry, but not contradicting creationism (or evolutionism as far as I know).


Anyways, here I have presented to you some examples that prove that the evolutionary theory must be true (of course, in a few hundered years we might come up with a better theory, but that theory will most certainly contain most, if not all, of the evolutionary theory, in it).

What do you have to say Creationalists?


I suggest you do a little more reading. And they are called Creationists, not Creationalists.


P.S. The race and canine theory could also be an argument against IDers, why would God create seperate races and seperate species of dogs?


Why indeed? Why not? If you are trying to argue over the motives of God, you are no longer in science.

If the question is, 'why do we see separate species of dogs'?, the answer is that the dog is a single species, composed of many races. That each race can interbreed (provided those with shorter legs can be given a 'helping hand') suggests that they are a single species. Thus God did not create the various doggy races, as you should jolly well know. The races were selected by humans.

not hard to prove you wrong here, if it were provable, using easily identifiable facts and axioms we can all agree with, then there would not be a debate.

I just proved it in the thread I wrote... Besides godmongers constantly use things like "Oh well God [make something up here]..."

first off carbon dating is not reliable, and anyone who understands it to any degree will tell you there is a minimun 10% (yes 10%) innaccuracy to it.

10% unreliability you say... First of all, if possible, give me a quote and/or a source from someone who "understands it to any degree," and no, it can't be you or your family. Secondly, there is a overwhelming number of fossils, so even if, say, 45% of them were carbon dated wrong, then still, there would be enough evidence to prove the "10,000" wrong.

to counter this point, creationists use a similar argument in nature, which is about as solid.

No it isn't. :rolleyes:

look at the salinity of the oceans, and say you started with fresh water in them (oceans get saltier as time goes by), then at the current rates of salination, the date of creation would be much nearer 10,000 years ago, than 6 billion years ago.

Before I debate this, are you in Middle School or High School by any chance, or are you in College or out of school?

*whips out Earth Science book*

Have you ever learned of this magical idea called the "Water Cycle?" Although the oceans probably do get saltier, that is probably because of evaporation (amazing isn't it). Later, this water that evaporates, returns to the earth in the form of precipitation (I hope you can handle this new information). So it probably gets saltier and then back, saltier, back, et cetera, et cetera.

Wait... Let's say that you are right, and that the oceans do get saltier. According to you,"then at the current rates of salination, the date of creation would be much nearer 10,000 years ago, than 6 billion years ago." Don't you think that "at the current rates of salination" is a bad example? Because at the current rate that the ozone layer is depleted, we all would have died long ago because of burns and cancer from the sun. At the current rate of pollution, we would've choked to death on smog a long time ago or there would be no ice caps, or snow or ice at all, because of the Greenhouse Effect.

Obviously, if you take into account how much the enviroment has been changed in modern times, "at the current rates" means nothing about before the industrial revolution.

this data is simply not reliable either way, leaves too many open questions, and i certainly wouldnt even consider using either in any sort of 'proof'.

Maybe because you don't know anything except for government/religious propaganda pounded into your head?

fossil evidence is also at best a mixed blessing for evolutionists

Nothing in nature is a "mixed blessing," there are accidents and coincidents in nature, but nothing that is on the scale that Mother Nature is, is a "mixed blessing."

there are all kinds of animals and plants that have no ancestors or relatives that look, act, or even smell like them.

Hmmm... There are two things to this:

Adaptation - Animals in the same region or multiple regions similar in climate to eachother might have to adapt, and look, act, or smell like eachother to be able to survive (hunting food, for example, you wouldn't want to smell strongly in a place with little scents, so you could sneak up on your prey)
All animals are in a way related, however distantly, to eachother, especially ones that are very similar to eachother.


again, im not a creationist, however this is not relevant to any attempt at a 'proof' either. examples of creatures that 'defy evolution' would include the mylodon (extinct around 1700 in s america, kind of like a....kangarou, bear, dog is the best i can do).

Oh no, this totally defies evolution :rollseyes:. Only because there are a few creatures who evolved into something similar to another creature (or a number of creatures in this case), doesn't mean that this rule applies for every single critter that ever existed on the planet.:rolleyes:


black people freeze to death in norway....interesting.:rolleyes:

No, they wouldn't, but it would be much harder for a Black person to survive in Norway then a White person because of the climate. Remember, I'm talking about no modern day coats, or heating systems.

I will view this as "reverse racism," a case where you favor blacks over whites only because of their troubled history.

*tisk tisk* How unproffessional. *tisk tisk*

to be honest, i agree different races are a product of natural selection, as well as several other factors, however, your claim that white people couldnt be near the equator without sunlotion, and black people couldnt move north before heaters is simply untrue.

I think we have Einstein here guys :rolleyes:. Both Blacks and Whites would be able to survive... But more difficulty would be involved. In case you haven't noticed, more pure white people (there is no such thing as totally pure) burn easier than less pure white people. A purer white has blonde/red hair, blue/green eyes, and very fair skin. Of course, you can have blonde hair and blue eyes yet be very tanned, this is also an example of racial impuritism.

you have not proven that this is not possible with creationism, and only provide (weak) arguments why it is possible iwth evolution

My arguments for why it is possible for evolution are rather strong, and I have given substantial arguments in my following posts why it is not possible with creationalism.


really aborigines are different from native america?? aryans as a race wow!:rolleyes: , ive already refuted the value of this 'evidence' in my last refutation.

Yes, you are an idiot, just as I suspected.

FYI: Iran is translated into "Arya" which means Aryan.
FYI: It is widely known by historians that a group called the Aryans invaded the Indian subcontinent thousands of years ago from Central Asia. If you want me to, I will quote directly out of several history books.
FYI:

you have no idea the difference between a wolf and a dog?...nough said:rolleyes:

Next time read everything I write, I said a dog is domesticated, a wolf is more primitive, wild. I use the term "dog" for a shorter, faster, and more idiot friendly version of "canine."

Seemingly, my idiot-friendly version of "canine" hasn't worked, at least on you.

Oh, and yes, "nough said," stop making a fool of yourself.

youve proven evolution theory? quick to the phones!....seriously...what?

I've proven it better than most people, and certainly beyond your mental capacity.

again not creationist.....i just dont like incorrect, poor, innacurate, useless information go unnoticed, and although i agree 100% you need to spend a little more time hitting the books......
in summation :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If you don't like innacurate, poor, incorrect, useless information you would never have posted this in the first place. :rolleyes:

Me hitting books? Son, at your level of small intelect, and your need to degrade me to prove a point, it is you that needs to hit the books more.

The only reason I was degrading you (although in small, subtle ways) throughout this post is in retaliation, not to try to be cool or prove a stupid little point.

You claim to be a evolutionist?!?!? BAH! You are a Creationalist at heart!

thx for the reply/input whallop i appreciate it.
Thing is that carbon dating even if it is off by 10% would still have a limit over 50.000 years. Upper limit is technically twenty times half life of C-14 (0.0001% of original C-14 left), reality places this lower due to outside interference when trying to count the decay of C-14.
The salinity coment is based on a badly mangled interpretation of a table containing the residency times of certain minerals. If you look at the whole table on which this argument is based you get 100 years (aluminum) at the lower end and several hundred million years (sodium) at the other end.
again, this isnt my argument, my point was that its about as valid as carbon dating proving evolution....thx for the info thats quite interesting, and ill probably spend more time looking into it.

Could you hand me a link to this one, the extinct around 1700s that is. The Mylodon was a ground sloth and IIRC should have been extinct before the last ice age ended..
ill see if i can find one for you, off my bookshelf ive got an ez literary reference:
1421:the year china discovered the world, menzies,gavin, 2003. pages 151-152: juist a brief summary thats fairly simple. a map called the piri reis map dating from around 1428-1440 based on chinese maps of south america (these maps would have been charted on zhou man's/hong bao's voyages from 1421-1423, long story) depicts several animals in their location in and just north of tierra del fuego including huemil,guanacos, mountain lions, man, and the mylodon, all (well except for the mylodon) in the same places they are abundant and can be found today. in 1834 darwin found the skeleton of a mylodon on the beach at bahia blanca, near where it was drawn on the map. if youd like me to find an internet source for you just let me know, it might take a bit of digging but shouldnt be too hard.



What definition of proof are you using?
If you are using the usual definition used with science you might want to follow your own advice and spend more time with books since according to that definition evolution has been proven.
A good list can be found on talkorigins.
well the creator of the thead said that he had proven evolution was supreme and creationism was debunked...and i hardly could consider that a proof....thats all

good catch...note his interests as 'facsism'....guess whats coming......:rolleyes:

It's for my nation, not my own political views.:rolleyes:

again, this isnt my argument, my point was that its about as valid as carbon dating proving evolution....thx for the info thats quite interesting, and ill probably spend more time looking into it.
Carbon dating is used to date things; it is not used to prove evolution.

Re the 10%... carbon dating is just one method of dating things. Whatever its inaccuracy, multiple methods corroborate the dating.

Okay, I agree that carbon dating is unreliable, past a few thousand years (sorry, didn't know that), but then why would humans be different races, and why would there be different kinds of canines?

Also, about the humanoids, did you guys ever see the news about how fossils of ancient migit humans were found on some Indonesian island?

They evidently evolved on their own to turn out smaller (forget why though).

Also, about the humanoids, did you guys ever see the news about how fossils of ancient migit humans were found on some Indonesian island?

They evidently evolved on their own to turn out smaller (forget why though).
BBC link to the story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3948165.stm)
Says that it was because of the isolation the island they were on afforded them, and the scarcity of resources on the island.

thx for the reply/input whallop i appreciate it.

again, this isnt my argument, my point was that its about as valid as carbon dating proving evolution....thx for the info thats quite interesting, and ill probably spend more time looking into it.

Ah misread your point then. You are correct that carbon dating does not prove evolution on it's own. It is just a tool to identify dates.

ill see if i can find one for you, off my bookshelf ive got an ez literary reference:
1421:the year china discovered the world, menzies,gavin, 2003. pages 151-152: juist a brief summary thats fairly simple. a map called the piri reis map dating from around 1428-1440 based on chinese maps of south america (these maps would have been charted on zhou man's/hong bao's voyages from 1421-1423, long story) depicts several animals in their location in and just north of tierra del fuego including huemil,guanacos, mountain lions, man, and the mylodon, all (well except for the mylodon) in the same places they are abundant and can be found today. in 1834 darwin found the skeleton of a mylodon on the beach at bahia blanca, near where it was drawn on the map. if youd like me to find an internet source for you just let me know, it might take a bit of digging but shouldnt be too hard.

I'll dig around on this one. Could be there is more then one species in the genus. My first guess is that what was seen on the Chinese map was a modern sloth, perhaps moving to another tree overland (but that is my first guess).


well the creator of the thead said that he had proven evolution was supreme and creationism was debunked...and i hardly could consider that a proof....thats all
In that case, scratch your name from my comment and insert Aelmoors name.

Many of you seem to try to take my argument apart by attacking me personally, that I am a High School student, my "interest in Fascism" (it's for NS, as I've stated before), et cetera.

Yet, even though all of you have attacked me personally, which, by the way, is very unproffessional and something only fatcat politicians do, none of you can provide any real evidence countering what I have said.

Sure, a peck here, a peck there, carbon dating doesn't work past X years, whatever, but none of you has successfully taken apart my "race" theory.

I find it quite sad that most of you here cannot do or say anything except personally insult me... Are you too dumb by any chance?

I appreciate all of the serious comments, all of those who actually presented something worthwhile (i.e. carbon dating doesn't work past X years) but one of you (especially) refuting me had to personally attack me for lack of any evidence (Free Misesians).

So, come back when you actually have some intellectual input to improve this debate.

One more thing, maybe I have misworded, but I did not mean to "prove" Evolutionary Theory. I simply provided enough substantial arguments/thought/evidence that showed the many flaws in Creationism and Intelligent Design.

This issue should be addressed not from the prospective of benign philisophical discussion, but rather from an educational point of view. Should creationism be taught in school, moreover, should schools in the American Mid-West be picketed by Christian fundamentalists for teaching the theory of evolution? The real issue is whether we support science, meaning do we heed to imperical evidence, or do we destroy the dimishing line between church and state by teaching impressionable school children that all jews, arabs and indians are going to hell for not believing in the right God?

I just proved it in the thread I wrote... Besides godmongers constantly use things like "Oh well God [make something up here]..."
im gonna start off with a nietzsche quote because i have no interest in a flame war, and gain nothing from calling you names : 'as soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments!'



10% unreliability you say... First of all, if possible, give me a quote and/or a source from someone who "understands it to any degree," and no, it can't be you or your family. Secondly, there is a overwhelming number of fossils, so even if, say, 45% of them were carbon dated wrong, then still, there would be enough evidence to prove the "10,000" wrong.]this isnt a hard one, im not going to give a source because it is common knowledge, but i will explain to you how it works, if you wish to do more research you should have no problem finding it. however i will retract my 10% statement and replace it with 5% because i can prove this in the next 20 seconds without sources or effort of any sort whatsoever.
there are 2 measurments used in carbon dating, these are known as either cambridge or libby halflifes. libby was the first one used and used is more innacurate, yet most labs still use it today for consistency, all data you encounter will likely either be calculated using the libby halflife or state otherwise. a libby halflife is worth significantly less than a cimbridge half life, and when you calculate the difference in them, inlcuding the uncertanty (its something like 5740plusorminus40years for cambridge, as i said look it up) you get something like 4.1 %. we havnt even touched on the many other problems with carbon dating, and im quite satisfied with whallops respone which is as follows
'Thing is that carbon dating even if it is off by 10% would still have a limit over 50.000 years. Upper limit is technically twenty times half life of C-14 (0.0001% of original C-14 left), reality places this lower due to outside interference when trying to count the decay of C-14.'


Before I debate this, are you in Middle School or High School by any chance, or are you in College or out of school?
no,no,no,yes. your 14, young immature, i get it you wanna start i ruccus...i probably did when i was 14.

Have you ever learned of this magical idea called the "Water Cycle?" Although the oceans probably do get saltier, that is probably because of evaporation (amazing isn't it). Later, this water that evaporates, returns to the earth in the form of precipitation (I hope you can handle this new information). So it probably gets saltier and then back, saltier, back, et cetera, et cetera.

Wait... Let's say that you are right, and that the oceans do get saltier. According to you,"then at the current rates of salination, the date of creation would be much nearer 10,000 years ago, than 6 billion years ago." Don't you think that "at the current rates of salination" is a bad example? Because at the current rate that the ozone layer is depleted, we all would have died long ago because of burns and cancer from the sun. At the current rate of pollution, we would've choked to death on smog a long time ago or there would be no ice caps, or snow or ice at all, because of the Greenhouse Effect.again i was not supporting this point of view, simply saying that creationists common counter point to carbon dating is ocean salinity. again i will refer you to whallops answer which i find more than satisfactory
"The salinity coment is based on a badly mangled interpretation of a table containing the residency times of certain minerals. If you look at the whole table on which this argument is based you get 100 years (aluminum) at the lower end and several hundred million years (sodium) at the other end."
never said i agreed with the argument, and quite frankly havnt really researched it, regardless, i see it in the same way as carbon dating, too innacurate and controversial to be worth mentioning in such a debate.

Obviously, if you take into account how much the enviroment has been changed in modern times, "at the current rates" means nothing about before the industrial revolution.
again, its not my theory or idea....i just threw it out there to show you how i feel about carbon dating.



Maybe because you don't know anything except for government/religious propaganda pounded into your head?
this is probably the most misfounded and naive statement youve dished out:
if youll note my sn, its based on lv mises, of whom im a regular reader, if you have any idea who that is, youll know im not into what the government of canada tells me, im also the most...irreligious person youll ever know, im not agnostic, im not even athiest, in that i see no need to refute an idea i see no evidence for.




Nothing in nature is a "mixed blessing," there are accidents and coincidents in nature, but nothing that is on the scale that Mother Nature is, is a "mixed blessing."
what im saying is that fossil evidence does not 'prove' evolution happens, and you will find just as many animals with no seeming links to other animals (except lungs) as you will close links.




Hmmm... There are two things to this:

Adaptation - Animals in the same region or multiple regions similar in climate to eachother might have to adapt, and look, act, or smell like eachother to be able to survive (hunting food, for example, you wouldn't want to smell strongly in a place with little scents, so you could sneak up on your prey)
All animals are in a way related, however distantly, to eachother, especially ones that are very similar to eachother.
."
again you seem to have missed im not a creationist, i understand very well how natural selection works, but you wont find that fossil evidence inherently supports it.

No, they wouldn't, but it would be much harder for a Black person to survive in Norway then a White person because of the climate. Remember, I'm talking about no modern day coats, or heating systems

I will view this as "reverse racism," a case where you favor blacks over whites only because of their troubled history.

*tisk tisk* How unproffessional. *tisk tisk*
what are you talking about?



I think we have Einstein here guys :rolleyes:. Both Blacks and Whites would be able to survive... But more difficulty would be involved. In case you haven't noticed, more pure white people (there is no such thing as totally pure) burn easier than less pure white people. A purer white has blonde/red hair, blue/green eyes, and very fair skin. Of course, you can have blonde hair and blue eyes yet be very tanned, this is also an example of racial impuritism.
im well aware of this, and agree entirely, you missed my point, that youve pointed out where evolution could have created this, but have failed to point out why creationism couldnt have.



My arguments for why it is possible for evolution are rather strong, and I have given substantial arguments in my following posts why it is not possible with creationalism.
Yes, you are an idiot, just as I suspected..
14, want a fight, i get it, anymore rude comments like this and ill simply cease to respond... i dont know about you but i like a good debate, and love to be proven wrong because then im constantyl advancing.... if your genuinly in this for better understanding or even just to try to prove creationists wrong, then you shouldnt have need for such immaturity

FYI: Iran is translated into "Arya" which means Aryan.
FYI: It is widely known by historians that a group called the Aryans invaded the Indian subcontinent thousands of years ago from Central Asia. If you want me to, I will quote directly out of several history books...
haha this parts my favorite cuz i was being sarcastic and you took it seriously, you stated it as a little known fact that was supposed to blow my mind, and i laughed my ass off when i read it.

Next time read everything I write, I said a dog is domesticated, a wolf is more primitive, wild. I use the term "dog" for a shorter, faster, and more idiot friendly version of "canine."
my mistake must of missed it, srry.


Oh, and yes, "nough said," stop making a fool of yourself.

I've proven it better than most people, and certainly beyond your mental capacity.

If you don't like innacurate, poor, incorrect, useless information you would never have posted this in the first place. :rolleyes:

Me hitting books? Son, at your level of small intelect, and your need to degrade me to prove a point, it is you that needs to hit the books more.

The only reason I was degrading you (although in small, subtle ways) throughout this post is in retaliation, not to try to be cool or prove a stupid little point.

You claim to be a evolutionist?!?!? BAH! You are a Creationalist at heart!
again if you werent in it for a fight, why the complete lack of composure, why the childishness. im clearly not a creationalist, i just dont like ignorant and arrogant arguments.

One more thing, maybe I have misworded, but I did not mean to "prove" Evolutionary Theory. I simply provided enough substantial arguments/thought/evidence that showed the many flaws in Creationism and Intelligent Design.
srry for the misunderstanding then, i woulda been a little less harsh had i known you were just looking for a healthy debate, however 'your all too dumb to understand and refute the issues, and just flame me personally' is simply immature

Okay, I agree that carbon dating is unreliable, past a few thousand years (sorry, didn't know that), but then why would humans be different races, and why would there be different kinds of canines?

Dating is not so much unreliable as that you need to know that after 10.000 years an uncertainty of +-5% (very rough number) the measured age needs to be taken into account (before that there are several options on seeing how much C-14 there was in the air, tree rings for example, improving accuracy).

Biologically speaking there is currently only one race of humans (homo sapiens). The differences in skin color and such are no more drastic then hair color (broad generalization).
The genus Homo contains about 10 to 15 (would have to look exact number up) species all except Homo Sapiens being extinct.

For canids there are several species in the genus Canis and around 20 subspecies in Canis Lupus. I'm going to assume you meant why are there so many variations of the domestic dog. Selective breeding.

Also, about the humanoids, did you guys ever see the news about how fossils of ancient migit humans were found on some Indonesian island?

They evidently evolved on their own to turn out smaller (forget why though).
Most likely due to a process called island dwarfing (it is more advantagous to be smaller then human size on an island like they were on so over time their height reduced).

Evolutionary theory or ANY other part of science is in no way against what the Bible says... Problem is that it is against the thoughts of churches(why I do not support any of them, they add stuff of their own and cause pointless arguments like this)... Evolution, and even Big Bang fit well with Bible itself. (god said boom -> big bang -> the rest is researching HOW he got the world to its current state would be one way of seeing things in addition to the fact that the creation is a moral story, not an explanation.)

I'll dig around on this one. Could be there is more then one species in the genus. My first guess is that what was seen on the Chinese map was a modern sloth, perhaps moving to another tree overland (but that is my first guess).

.
im quite confident on this one, as mylodon fossils are found throughout the region, and the one that darwin came accross (didnt have to dig for it, just layin on the beach) was definatly a mylodon. heres a few more accurate details: when darwin came accross the skeleton in 1834 there was oil still present on remnants of attached flesh (eg relativly recent demise). the bones were then sent to richard owen at london college of surgeons, where it was reconstructed.

the mylodon was a giant slug weiging around 200kg kind of like a giant man with a dogs head, uses its legs and tail as a tripod. for food it would knock down small trees, and strip the branches of fruit. pantagonian natives grazed them in the summer, apparently their meat was bland.........im convinced

I'm truly astounded that people think Creationism is a scientific theory of any kind. It's a myth. Not such a bad myth, either. It has all the right ingredients for a nice creation myth.

Just because, from a scientific standpoint, something else happened doesn't mean that the myth is any less true. As a myth, it's true if you choose to believe it's true, but this doesn't mean you can't also accept that scientific theory is also valid (not "true" because it isn't proven fact, and it isn't a myth.)

My religion has multiple (and conflicting) creation myths. I sometimes accept my favourite (with Ptah!) as true, sometimes I accept them all to be true, despite their conflicts and sometimes I don't really think about them at all. If I'm in a conversation about the creation of the world, I'll usually put one of the myths on (like a coat) and discuss from the position of that myth being true. To me, it/they're true, in the mythical and spiritual sense. From a secular, scientific viewpoint I'm happy to acknowledge the current scientific theory/theories.

One is religion, one is science. They aren't the same thing. What is so difficult for some people to accept about that?

More sensible to sit on the fence than to believe in abiogenesis… there is no conclusive proof for it.

Of course there is. The Miller-Urey and Fox experiments, primarily. It's been proved that amino acids can come from ambient gases and lightning, proteins can spontaneously form from those, and that protocells can be naturally generated from those proteins. The separation between protocells and prokaryotes is a few hundred million years of development.

What there's no proof for is biogenesis Pasteur's experiments were extremely narrow, covered only present Earth conditions, already-existing Earth bacteria, normal present-day atmosphere, etc., and in fact proved nothing.

I'd be bored if I didn't exist.

How illogical....

We have no proof (nor could we) that carbon dating works long term. For all we know it starts going crazy and gets all wrong after a couple hundred years.

God created the world longer than 10 000 years ago.

We find fossils layered like that because of how the flood went in Noah's time. Higher organisms were able to escape longer and get to higher ground and so their fossils are found higher than lower forms of life.

As to both the skin and exostance of differnt humanoids, God made Adam and Eve who then evolved into many different types of humanoids, including homo sapiens sapiens with varying skin colors (carzy racist creationsit would here say something about how adam and eve themselves were white so the non-whites are inferior[even though no white people would ever have lived where the garden was supposed to be{eastern central africa}])

(PS I wouldn't say that early humans were "isolated" so muchas they just took long enough to get where they were going that their skin pigmentation changed)

Same kinda thing with animals, god made many different kinds, some kinds changed, and when the flood came, the not modern ones drowned first and so were burried lower.

Particular families of animals lived on different parts of pangea and when that split they were the only inhabitants of the continent (somehow humans were around at this time and wheter or not they were supposed to have left africa before or after the spilt I am unsure)




The problem with all these arguments is that they are unscientific as they cannot be proved incorrect (you give proof that something didn't happen they way creationists think it did and they can jstu fabricate a reason why this is) I think the creationists (whom I am not one of) are crazy enough to beleive their wild theories in face of all the logical and scientific evidence against them, crazy enough to make shoz up to verify their theories, crazy enoough to try to force their theories on less crazy people, that they should jsut be left alone, or even seperated from the general population, like an idea quarentine (but thats just not a healthy suggestion for any problem in any society)

Yep, thats right, you heard me.

Many of you religionmongers have been arguing that there is no proof for, to, or against Creationalism. Others have argued that although you cannot necessarily prove that God/creationalism exists, you cannot prove that the evolutionary theory is true either.

I view this as totally flawed.

There are multitudes of arguments against Creationalism. One of them is simple, carbon dating. Creationalism usually asserts that the world was created around 10,000 years ago (sometimes slightly more) by God. Can any of the Creationalists here tell me why then does this reliable technology called carbon dating, date many things (dinosaurs being the best example) way before your date of around 10,000 years ago? Dinosaurs, for example, are believed to have gone extinct millions of years before the "10,000" that Creationalists believe the earth was created.

Okay, so lets suppose you think that carbon dating is flawed or maybe that the earth was created millions of years ago by God. So tell me, why do we find fossils of things (animals, humans, et cetera) that clearly show adaptation and evolution? Scientists are constantly finding 'new' human species that clearly show the evolutionary process. They find a humanoid that looks very similarly to an ape, but stands on two legs. Next, there is a humanoid with a little straighter back, bigger head (with bigger brain), and taller. After that they (the scientists) find another humanoid that starts looking more like a modern day person than an ape.

Furthermore, if God created us, wouldn't we all be one race? Each human race (White, Black, Aboriginie, et cetera) has best adapted itself to its own enviroment, if you put a White person in Africa running around in a loincloth, s/he will surely get burned. But Black people have survived this for thousands of years... but if you put a Black person in, say, Norway, he will surely freeze to death in the winters, even if he does wear thick fur coats. With modern technology (sun lotion and more clothes to protect the skin from sunlight and buildings with heater systems and warmer coats) these two races can exchange places, but in a earlier time this would have been nearly impossible.

Taking this to another level, the reason I believe we have different races is because of isolation. The Blacks were isolated in Africa; the Whites in Europe; the Semites in the Middle East; "Asians" (i.e. East Asians, or "Orientals" if you wish) in Eastern Asia; the Aryans (this was an actual racial group) in Persia, Central Asia, and India; and lastly the "Aboriginie" people, who lived in Australia and the Americas, but don't confuse the two, there are differences between the Australian Aboriginies and the American Aboriginies (who are often called Native Americans) but they often have been lumped together by mistake, but I will use the term Aboriginie, simply for the reason of a need for a better word. So, I've talked a whole shit load, but what does this mean? The reason Whites are White, Blacks are Black, "Asians" or Asians, and Aboriginies are Aboriginies is because each race has been isolated on their continent for a long time, giving them a different look as they each evolved just a little bit differently from one another. If God created us, then we'd all be one color/race (that would really suck, Asian chicks are HOTT, lol), not many different colors/races!

The same can be seen with animals (humans are animals, but by animals I mean non-human animals). Different animals seperated by different continents, have always evolved just a little bit differently from one another. Take for example, the dog. No, not Spot or Buddy, but the primitive dog, forced to search for its own food. In much of Eurasia you find the wolf, but in Australia you find another varient of this animal, the dingo, who has different fur color and is adapted more for it's climate (Eurasia - mostly cold and harsh, Australia - Warm, but harsh in a different way). There also was another kind of canine in Australia, who had stripes on its back like a tiger, which is now extinct , but unfortunately, the name of this canine species has slipped my mind, so if there are an Aussies here, please help me remember (because this could help me further my argument):) .

Anyways, here I have presented to you some examples that prove that the evolutionary theory must be true (of course, in a few hundered years we might come up with a better theory, but that theory will most certainly contain most, if not all, of the evolutionary theory, in it).

What do you have to say Creationalists?

P.S. The race and canine theory could also be an argument against IDers, why would God create seperate races and seperate species of dogs?

P.P.S. Please do not take this in a racist way, there are differences in the human races, but they aren't enough to make one superior to another, just a little bit different (skin color, hair, eyes).
*bump*ies

That is kinda funny that you call carbon dating reliable. Yes, today carbon dating is becoming more reliable, however the age estimates that you mentioned (millions of years old) was done by the older forms of carbon dating. You should read what THIS (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html) page has to say about carbon dating; it is quite informative. Below is an excerpt from that page (however I still suggest you read the entire article:
Back to the board for you. The attackers of c14 radioisotopic dating are throwing wild swings at ghosts. I guess that's to be expected from people propagating a myth that keeps being adjusted over the course of 2000 years from a third-party oral tradition source, especially one that's as well tempered as the Old Testament makes its "lord" out to be.

*ahem*

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/modern/half-life/

potassium-argon dating
Potassium-argon dating is used to determine the age of igneous rocks based on the ratio of an unstable isotope of potassium to that of argon. Potassium is a common element found in many minerals. The isotopic distribution of potassium on the earth is approximately 93% 39K and 7% 41K. Since these values are only approximate, the total percent abundance of these two isotopes is not 100%, but 99.9883%. The remaining 0.0117% is 40K -- an unstable isotope with a half life of 1.26 × 109 years (1.26 billion years). Potassium 40 has three decay modes: beta decay, positron emission, and electron capture.

When 40K undergoes beta decay it transmutes into 40Ca -- the most abundant isotope of calcium. Since calcium is also very common in minerals, it is not possible to distinguish the 40Ca produced from the decay of 40K from the 40Ca present when the rock was formed. However, when 40K undergoes positron emission or electron capture it transmutes into 40Ar. Argon is an inert substance, which means that it basically will not combine chemically with other elements. It is also a gas over an extremely wide range of temperatures, which means that any 40Ar would escape while the rock was molten like carbon dioxide escaping from a glass of soda. After solidification, those 40Ar nuclei that appeared as a result of radioactive decay would be trapped by the crystal structure and accumulate as the mineral aged.

-
There are several other dating techniques that rely on the principle of exponential decay and half-life. Each has its own range of validity.

lead-210
The most common isotope of uranium (238U) decays via a series of fifteen intermediate radioactive daughters and eventually ends up as a stable isotope of lead (206Pb). One of the intermediate daughters is the radioactive gas radon (222Rn). A miniscule fraction of the radon formed underground is able to rise up through cracks and pores in the earth's surface to escape into the atmosphere. Once there it decays though a series of very short-lived daughters into an unstable isotope of lead (210Pb). Radon is a gas, but lead is a solid and within ten days of its creation it precipitates out of the atmosphere. On glaciers, where the snowfall of one year is covered over with the snowfall of the next, or at the bottom of a lake or ocean, where the sediments of one year are covered over with the sediments of the next, this radioactive lead will accumulate in layers. The fresher the layer, the more radioactive lead it contains. The older the layer, the more stable lead it contains. The ratio of 210Pb:206Pb can thus be used as a kind of clock to determine the age of lake and ocean sediments or glacial ice. Lead 210 has a relatively short half-life of 22.3 years. The amount of 210Pb remaining in most samples is statistically insignificant after about seven half-lives. Thus, this technique cannot be used to date materials older than 150 years.
uranium series disequilibrium
This method is used to determine the time of burial for objects which absorb uranium such as bone, teeth, coral, and shells (including egg shells). Two isotopes can be used in this method: the extremely rare 234U, which decays into 230Th, and the slightly less rare 235U, which decays into 231Pa. A calcium-rich item such as a bone buried in wet sediment will absorb the parent uranium isotopes more readily than it will absorb the daughter thorium and protactinium isotopes. (Thorium and protactinium are insoluble in water.) Being rich in uranium and low in thorium and protactinium, the item will then have an isotopic ratio of parent to daughter isotopes different from the surrounding sediments -- a condition known as disequilibrium. As the item ages, normal decay processes continue and the degree of disequilibrium decreases. The isotopic ratios of 234U:230Th and 235U:231Pa in the item will become ever more similar to those of the surrounding sediment. This is a tricky method to use, however, as the time over which the calcium-rich material absorbs uranium has to be relatively brief and singular (that is, it should happen once and only once in the history of the object). The dating range using this technique is from 1 to 500,000 years (400,000?).

and of course,
Radiocarbon dating is used to determine the age of previously living things based on the abundance of an unstable isotope of carbon. The isotopic distribution of carbon on the earth is roughly 99% carbon 12 (with 6 protons and 6 neutrons) and 1% carbon 13 (with 6 protons and 7 neutrons). These isotopes are stable, which is why they are with us today, but unstable isotopes are also present in minute amounts. About one carbon atom in a trillion (1012) contains a radioactive nucleus with 6 protons and 8 neutrons -- carbon 14. This rare, unstable isotope is produced in the upper atmosphere from ordinary nitrogen 14.

In earth's upper atmosphere, on the edge of what is commonly called outer space, light atomic nuclei from unknown sources outside of our solar system traveling at speeds approaching the speed of light called cosmic rays rain down continuously. These highly energetic nuclear bullets wreak havoc on the atoms in the upper atmosphere: tearing electrons from their orbitals and setting them free, knocking neutrons and protons from the tight confines of the nucleus and setting them free, generating x-rays and gamma rays as they decelerate, and creating exotic particles like muons and pions directly from their excessive kinetic energy. These secondary cosmic rays are also highly energetic and will ionize atoms, transmute nuclei, and generate x-rays themselves. A secondary cosmic ray neutron of sufficient energy striking a common nitrogen 14 nucleus can force it to eject a proton.



This is the process by which all of the carbon 14 on the earth is produced. (Produced naturally to be more precise. More on that later.)

All organic material contains carbon. (By definition, organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds.) Plants absorb 14C like they absorb other isotopes of carbon -- through the respiration of carbon dioxide -- and then use this carbon to produce sugars, fats, proteins, and vitamins. Bacteria, fungi, and animals eat these plants and each other. In this way, atmospheric carbon is distributed throughout the web of life until every living thing has the same ratio of 14C:12C as the atmosphere. (Well, nearly the same ratio. Plants and animals tend to favor lighter nuclei just a bit. Serious technicians know how to compensate for this preference when dating samples.)

With a half life of 5730 years, 14C decays by beta emission back into the 14N from which it originated.



Since living creatures are constantly swapping atoms with their environment, the abundance of 14C within them remains fixed. After death, however, no new radioactive carbon comes along to replenish that which has decayed and the abundance of 14C decreases. The ratio of 14C:12C in a piece of living organic matter will be the same as it is in the atmosphere but larger than in a piece of dead organic material. A timber found in a home built 5730 years ago (one half life) would have half the 14C:12C ratio that a person living today would. A discarded oyster shell from someone's dinner eaten 11,460 years ago (two half lives) would have one quarter the 14C:12C ratio that a cotton shirt worn today would. A tusk from a mammoth that died 17,190 years ago (three half lives) would have one eighth the 14C:12C ratio that a cardboard box manufactured today would. And so on. Death starts the stopwatch. Science can read it.

Radiocarbon Dating of a Hypothetical Organic Sample
age (half-lives) age (years) 14C (atoms) 12C (atoms) 14C:12C (ppt)*
0 0 128 128 × 1012 1/TD>
1 5,730 64 128 × 1012 0.5
2 11,460 32 128 × 1012 0.25
3 17,190 16 128 × 1012 0.125
4 22,920 8 128 × 1012 0.0625
5 28,650 4 128 × 1012 0.03125
6 34,380 2 128 × 1012 0.015625
7 40,110 1 128 × 1012 0.0078125
* In the United States and a few other countries 1012 is called a trillion. Thus, concentrations of 14C are often stated as parts per trillion (ppt).


Calculations of this sort are based on the assumption that the ratio of 14C:12C in the earth's atmosphere has remained constant. As a first approximation one can assume this, but more accurate results must take into account fluctuations in the intensity of the cosmic rays entering the earth's upper atmosphere. These deviations were determined from the comparative dating of ancient tree rings (a field called dendrochronology) and the results were then compiled into a calibration curve. Current calibration curves go back as far as 26,000 years ago. The range of radiocarbon dating extends back to about 50,000 years. For items older than this, there isn't enough undecayed 14C left to measure the ratio reliably.

Beginning in the late 1950s, considerable amounts of anthropogenic (human-produced) 14C have been added to the atmosphere; mostly as a result of nuclear weapons testing. This activity reached its peak in the early 1960s when an atmospheric blast occurred somewhere on earth every two to three days. Nuclear bombs generate large numbers of high energy neutrons, which can in turn transmute nitrogen 14 nuclei into carbon 14 nuclei in exactly the same way as naturally occurring secondary cosmic rays. By 1965, atmospheric 14C concentrations were double their pre "atomic age" values. Radiocarbon dating in the future will have to include adjustments for these manmade deviations.

There also was another kind of canine in Australia, who had stripes on its back like a tiger, which is now extinct , but unfortunately, the name of this canine species has slipped my mind, so if there are an Aussies here, please help me remember (because this could help me further my argument):) .

The Tasmanian Wolf is a marsupial, and therefore NOT a canine of any sort.

Is furikake related to Fur Pie
Sorta, it's cousin to bukkake.

The Tasmanian Wolf is a marsupial, and therefore NOT a canine of any sort.

Crap, now I have to rewrite the "Tasmanian Wolf Ninja" character class in my "Rise of the Weredingos: The 'Howling" Roleplaying Game".

Crap, now I have to rewrite the "Tasmanian Wolf Ninja" character class in my "Rise of the Weredingos: The 'Howling" Roleplaying Game".
Yep, I just knew it.

Many of you religionmongers have been arguing that there is no proof for, to, or against Creationalism. Others have argued that although you cannot necessarily prove that God/creationalism exists, you cannot prove that the evolutionary theory is true either.

I am going to use the students parallel again ;)

Assume we have two students, student A and student B.

Student A sits and passes every exam he takes. He doesn't always get an A, and some Cs definately suggest somewhat more study would not be unwise - but he passes. The few times he didn't he succesfully objected, showing that the insufficient mark was in fact a grading error made by the teacher.

Student B never shows up whenever there is an exam. However, he does have the image of being bright with his fellow students and teachers.

There is now a debate which of them is the best student. The teachers are divided in 4 main groups, with a few outside opinions.

Group 1 states that student A is far from perfect, pointing at his Cs. Some even point at his Fs, ignoring that those were later shown to be incorrect grades. They argue that since student B has not made any of those errors he is clearly superior. After all, if he had done those tests he might have gotten straight A's !

Group 2 states that they cannot judge which of the two is better, since they have nothing objective to judge B with. They therefor argue to call it a draw: both students are equally good and deserve the same credit.

Group 3 states that they cannot judge which of the two is better, since they have nothing objective to judge B with. They therefor argue to simply disqualify B from the contest since he did not play.

Group 4 states that since B did not participate in those tests he is clearly incapable of getting anything higher than an F. He should therefor be expelled from the school, never to be mentioned there again.

Which group do you agree most with ?

Group 3 states that they cannot judge which of the two is better, since they have nothing objective to judge B with. They therefor argue to simply disqualify B from the contest since he did not play.


I like this one. And also, the really hot female teacher is having a torrid, forbidden love affair with one of the really hot female 18-year old students.

I like this one. And also, the really hot female teacher is having a torrid, forbidden love affair with one of the really hot female 18-year old students.
So i haven't YET seen a bad pic of Debra LaFave.
Any good sites to further my examination?

?
?
?
?

im quite confident on this one, as mylodon fossils are found throughout the region, and the one that darwin came accross (didnt have to dig for it, just layin on the beach) was definatly a mylodon. heres a few more accurate details: when darwin came accross the skeleton in 1834 there was oil still present on remnants of attached flesh (eg relativly recent demise). the bones were then sent to richard owen at london college of surgeons, where it was reconstructed.

the mylodon was a giant slug weiging around 200kg kind of like a giant man with a dogs head, uses its legs and tail as a tripod. for food it would knock down small trees, and strip the branches of fruit. pantagonian natives grazed them in the summer, apparently their meat was bland.........im convinced

Oh that one. He describes it in The Voyage of the Beagle (http://www.bartleby.com/29/) chapter 5 and I believe again in chapter 7.
The Mylodon is a sloth (go here (http://www.sloth-world.org/) then on the nav bar genera then in the window Mylodon).
Haven't been able to find a decent link to what it ate. But main diet was roots & grasses, supplemented with material it could eat from trees.
And now for the real problem. The part of the old riverbed in which Darwin found the contained at that same place 6 other species that have gone extinct during the last ice age (ranging from a species of giant armadillo to a species of horse).
The fleshy remainder does not necessarily indicate that it died recently. Specific circumstances can preserve them for quite long (see the humans remains found in bogs), haven't been able to find anything on the ground conditions so can't comment on that more then that.