Godzillla vs the creator ( The evolution thread)

[poptart]

Oh, a half million years ago (or less), chimes in the great mvscal.
Yeah, just toss out a number and a passing insult and claim to be the smart guy.
What a douchebag.

The estimates on when 'man' supposedly appeared vary greatly depending on who's opinion your value.

Your estimate is noted. bwa...


Btw, nice edit, Bushy.

Pussy move if I've ever seen one.

Dude, you shamed yourself.

Take that back.


At any rate......

Inanimate in it's dormat state....?

Is it a seed or is it NOT...?

[Mister Bushice]

First of all - do you see any edit tags in my post? No, and your post followed by 20 minutes.

Secondly, if you lay that seed on a rock for 20 years, what will happen to it?

Answer? Nothing. It requires non living things to make it sprout. Without involvement by elements that have no life, it will be nothing.

Thus, we can observe the formation of life, and the growth of life which would not be possible without involvement by non living elements. Life from non-life. So it's not so impossible as you think.

I've also noticed you've become very adept at skirting all of the points you have no answers for to tackle the one or two you think you do, and you mix in scripture as a smoke screen, as if it represents some universal truth we all should just buy into. Nice dodge.

[poptart]

You expect folks to believe I used the quote function and deleted out your seed insertion, Bushy...?

Nice freaking try, liar.

I gave you a chance to come correct and you instead chose to lie some more.

Mr m0d, you edited your post after the fact.

Not only that, but what you added was entirely foolish.

You wanna play games and edit posts then I want no part of it.

You have no credibility.


I am out...............

[Mister Bushice]

You expect folks to believe I used the quote function and deleted out your seed insertion, Bushy...?

Nice freaking try, liar.

I gave you a chance to come correct and you instead chose to lie some more.

Mr m0d, you edited your post after the fact.

Hey Dopey, Nice TOPIC dodge, whining about some totally inconsequential post related thing. Good sign you have nothing.

I did NOT edit my post after you posted. If I had, it would have shown up as an edit by the software in my own post, time stamped. NO ONE can change that, not even the admins.

It took you 20-25 minutes to reply. Most like what happened was you C & P'ed my post WHILE I was still writing/editing it, and you took a long time posting, and I reposted before you did. Sometimes I hit submit instead of preview, usually I hit preview to check the UBB codes and layout because I leave off quote brackets frequently.

Whatever. As usual, you divert from the topic to something totally non related and stupid BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS.

And I'd also like to see an answer to the 6,000 year old earth theory, too, but I know we'll never get it from you, because it does not exist except in rambling scripture

Not only that, but what you added was entirely foolish.

We'll never know, because you're bitching about something entirely foolish.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

because it does not exist except in rambling scripture

That's hardly a respectable characterization of your future Constitution.

WAR ~ they can have my rights when 7 crusty, old Republican appointees pry them from my cold, dead fingers

[poptart]

Your explanation is plausible, Bushy, but very amusing.

You typed in oxygen, water, inorganic soil, and sun.



Came back a bit later and realized...."huh.....better have a seed if I want a tree to sprout."


Funny, that's roughly what God did.


Breath of life.

Life didn't come from non-life without it.


What's more amusing than your shell game is you crying about me DIVERTING from the topic.

That is a freaking RIOT.

Hey dopey, YOU split this thread off to start THIS topic.

And this is the SECOND topic you've chosen to start from the original topic, which was the .....


Dover decision


I'm not here to state the case for a 6,000 yr old earth.

[Mister Bushice]

Life didn't come from non-life without it.

without what?

What's more amusing than your shell game is you crying about me DIVERTING from the topic.

That is a freaking RIOT.

Hey dopey, YOU split this thread off to start THIS topic.

And this is the SECOND topic you've chosen to start from the original topic, which was the .....


Dover decision

actually, this thread is specifically about evolution vs. a creator and not the arguments related to a legal decision on ID in the classroom. They're two different things.

So this is not a diversion.

I'm not here to state the case for a 6,000 yr old earth.

But YOU claimed there was one so - put up or shut up.

[poptart]

Life didn't come from non-life without it.

without what?

Without God giving it.

God is the giver of life.

That's my BELIEF, just like your BELIEF is that life arose from ...... nothing, by itself.

That is at the heart of the evolution/creation, what is taught in school/what is not taught in school debate.

Again, I didn't start this thread, and I've also clearly stated that I'm not interested in a getting into a debate on earth age, which inevitably leads to link v. link debunking.
I've been that route a few times on the boards already and it's futile.

Earth age can not be proven.

Both young and old earth believers can find ample ammunition to support their beliefs.

[Mister Bushice]

Well Then - how old do YOU think the earth is?

and Why?

[Ang]

i hate to jump in on so long an argument, but it seems like that's not really the point here. the point seems to be if there is a spark from a creator or if things just happened randomly....

forgive the intrusion..was enjoying the discussion and thought you got really off track there. the whole age of the earth thing is way off the mark.

[Mister Bushice]

The "spark" is sort of a dead end, discussion wise I think. The pro god dudes think it was his magic finger that started the ball rolling, I'm saying it was a chemical reaction that is even now occurring elsewhere in the universe, and is being slowly unraveled here on earth in the study of evolution.



Not much wriggle room on that point on either side, so I decided to backtrack and call him out on his claim of a 6,000 year old earth. I want to see how he justifies the absence of any worldwide flood mention in egyptian culture during the time it supposedly occurred, and also how you can compress 10 times that many years of human remains, and however many more times that number of years of dinosaur and plant remains into that small a time frame.


Besides, it requires involvement of others to move forward, and I don't see much of that, martyreds non sequitors not withstanding

[Ang]

ok, let me get this straight here...

you, bushy...decided that the discussion was over about the spark and that now we are talking about the age of the earth...which by the way has nothing to do with the original argument...

nice!

[Truman]

Er, ‘Truman’ (though the following quote should be attributed to Bushice, who cannot resist asserting his “god-like” authority over each and every thread in this forum and effectively wrecked my initial response – oh, and now watch him sputter and spew that he didn’t do anything wrong) wrote:

Photosynthesis not withstanding.

Now, would that be adaptation to environment, or micro-evolution? Or are you looking macro evolution here…? Hmmm… Call me kookie, but I gotta think that God’s algae came equipped to survive our pre-historic oceans…

Bushy’s World!
Bushy’s World!
Party On!
Excellent!
(Circa 5,000,000,000,000 BC:)

Yo! Hey Eddie! Eddie! You hungry?

Eddie: Yeah, Morty, I’m starving… I haven’t had anything to eat in, oh, about a billion years…

Mort: Dude! I just got photoreceptors! I can change sunlight into food!

Eddie: How’d that happen?

Mort: I dunno… I was just floatin’ around in the ocean today – same’s everyday - and then boom! A whole shit-load of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon came together and made me some chlorophyll!

Eddie: Yeah, well, where did all that nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon come from? And how did all those elements align themselves to create chlorophyll?

Mort: That shit’s always been here, Eddie! The Nazi-Mod out front shoulda told you! Sucks to be you, Eddie! Be seeing you, pal – I gotta evolve!

:roll:

Would you care to expand on your li’l photosynthesis drive-by so I can make further sport of you, or are you through…?

In the name of 'Truman', Bushy, flexing his All-Powerful Mod-like (er, god-like?) muscles posted

Two things.

1. Genesis is just a book. It is not part of a confirmed how to manual for the human race.

2. In your belief system, Gods work can certainly be the formation of that star. However, the Scientific community also has an explanation for it that is just as valid, and even more so because it does not involve someone waving a magic wand.

1) Agreed. Genesis is not a “how-to” manual. It simply explains how we got here. Can I find your version at Amazon? BTW: Oh, and the how-to part begins with the book of Matthew. You can thank me later.

2) Musta missed the wand-waving part somewhere in the Bible. Care to post a scriptural reference, or are you content with plastering inanity? I repeat:

Before Bushy decided to fuck up his post, ‘Truman’ wrote:

Did it occur to you that perhaps modern day astronomers are observing God’s Work in the formulation of your new star?

Bushy unlettered-ly posted under the name of ‘Truman’ wrote:

…your faith has God turning his back on man after the first sin. After that corruption ensues, and fuck us all. Right?

Were I Islamic or Jewish I might see your point. But I’m not.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Er, that would be John 3:16, BTW

Not exactly “turning his back on man” in my Book, but if you say, tow-may-tow….

In ‘Truman’s’ name, Bushy ignorantly posted

I don't go for the flat “how can you have faith in something you can’t even see”, It's more of a "why do you lump all of the unexplanable into the "magic creators" lap and be satisfied with that as an explanation?

The same way that infidels lay the “unexplainable” in the laps of Science and remain… well, unsatisfied with the explanation….

Bushice, under the guise of ‘Truman' wrote:

That part is just a cop out to me. A crutch for the fearful at truly being alone in the universe.

And Science isn’t a crutch for the unbeliever? The infidel questions the universe, and what lies beyond. The Believer doesn’t. Man was made in God’s image. Bushy, I defy you to name another animal that hopes. Or possesses the attribute of faith.

I’ll wait.

On a secular note, Bushy…

Legislate from the Bench, much?

Just so I understand:

As long as I do not violate the rules of this forum, I can expect my opinions to stand as posted. Yet this did not occur in this thread.

Correct?

I’ll thank you in advance to keep your mitts off this and future posts in this forum.

[poptart]

Well Then - how old do YOU think the earth is?

and Why?

I don't know -- man appears to have been around for about 6,000 years.

First off, I believe the Bible. It is the Word of our God.

I'm going to give my answer in as brief a manner as possible and try to hit on the key points.

Evolution contradicts the Bible record of creation. Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis the Bible tells us that God created plants and animals to reproduce 'after their kinds.' A broad definition of 'kinds' would be species. The clear implication here is that all life did not have a common ancestor. Animals don't move 'up' into some other more 'advanced' animal.
Dogs are dogs, cats are cats, lizards are lizards, trees are trees, etc.

Jesus Christ quoted from Genesis as historically accurate and authoritative.

God finished his creation and declared it all 'very good.' (Gen 1:31)
Death and corruption entered the world ONLY after Satan deceived MAN and man sinned (Rom 5:12, ICor 15:21).
Evolution, on the other hand, has us believe that death and corruption has been going on for many millions of years.
Satan brought death, deception, corruption to the world, and he did that by deceiving MAN.
That deception continues today, all around us.

The Genesis record of creation is a straightforward historical record of actual events. It is clearly given that way in Scripture with no apology.
The book of Genesis tells us what God did on the six DAYS of creation. It is VERY important to note that the plural form of the word DAY (in Hebrew) is used over 700 times in the Old Testament, and not a single time does it mean anything other than a literal day.

Ok, so the Bible tells us of the creation. It is not hard to trace back the generations of man and see that it was in the neighborhood of 6,000 yrs ago.



I touched on some of the following in my first post of THIS thread, but I'll bring it again now.

The present rate of population increase in the world is around 2%, and the polulation is over 4 billion. The average rate would only have to be one half of one percent per year to produce the present world poplulation in 4,300 years. The average family size of 2 1/2 children per family would suffice to develop the present population in just the length of time since Noah, even with a average life-span of only about 40 years per person. The figures I've shown are actually extremely CONSERVATIVE.

On the other hand, the same very conservative rate of population growth (one fourth of the present 2.0%), if continued for a 200,000 years (a number of years mvscal might tell us 'man' has been around) would pack man onto about every available square foot of dry land on the entire planet......and very likely much MORE than that.

Further, if 'man' has been around as long as we are told (and 'sub-man' for a couple/few million before that there would be human remains littering the planet. They would be abundant everywhere, yet we find so few. Why?

Lastly, as I said in my first post in THIS thread, why did man sit around and do NOTHING for 200,000 years....?
Only in the last few thousand years has man DONE things, and really only since the industrial revolution has man shown great progress.
You're selling that he did NOTHING for 200,000 years...?
Man is a DOER, it's his nature to DO things, accomplish, move forward.
History clearly shows us that.
200,000 years of NOTHING..??
Sloooooow engine.


6,000 years fits about right.

[Mister Bushice]

ok, let me get this straight here...

you, bushy...decided that the discussion was over about the spark and that now we are talking about the age of the earth...which by the way has nothing to do with the original argument...

nice!

How about this...

Respond to the topic and quit complaining about the direction of the thread and maybe we can move on with it.

When all I get from poptart is "God did it", and no one else chimes in with anything more substantive, there's not much to work with.

Also, IMO the age of the earth IS tied to evolution.

a 6,000 year old earth pretty much eliminates any possibility of evolution, therefore I want to see some argument that gives any kind of proof that it could be possible.

I don't think it is, because I think we can see evolution all around us, and the genetic record backs that up.

[Gunslinger]

poptart:

Man did nothing for 200,000 of years, because he was still wondering why he expelled some form of something out of his ass all those years. THAT was considered a mystery.

It takes several breakthroughs to create a monumental breakthrough to have implications. Considering the human race only overcame the ability to understand that someone with a physical color difference isn't inferior in the last 40 years, I consider it an achievement we drive a burning contained engine to work. THAT! Is fucking primitive.

Information is the key to our species. As to your regards that other species on this planet never move up, will you agree with me that your very foundation of religion will be destroyed the moment another species of life is discovered on another planet?

Fucking retarded, but I read a book about Bears discovering fire once. Yeh, a fucking retarded read when you hear the concept. But the point of the story was, is that evolution hasn't stopped. Some species is going to make some kind of jump in understanding and humans are going to be stunned the moment they do.

Since, science is this discussion, then you will agree that the moment we discover life on another planet (unfortunately, I will never win this argument in my lifetime, because of life limitations), that your religion will have to cease to exist. GONE FOREVER!

For centuries religion has bashed everything science and tried to give it a religious meaning, by what is unknown. Eventually there will come a time when religion will be chucked, based on what science understands, and I want you to explain WHAT WILL BE THE DISCOVERY THAT WILL END YOUR GOD?

Scary, aint it?

[Ang]

Everyone is tied to their own beliefs. It's great to show it all out there, but no one changes anyone elses mind, and that's not a bad thing.

The deal is..most things don't really disagree with the other.

The fact that there is evolutionary change can involve a creator. The idea that a creator started everything does not rule out evolutionary change.

Now...if we get down to years and all that...someone needs to make some change on the cash register and keep numbers and that's when we all get fucked up...but if you can keep the tally at the end of the day that's fine with me :) Just don't expect anyone else to keep count with ya.

[Mister Bushice]

Er, ‘Truman’ (though the following quote should be attributed to Bushice, who cannot resist asserting his “god-like” authority over each and every thread in this forum and effectively wrecked my initial response – oh, and now watch him sputter and spew that he didn’t do anything wrong) wrote:

Nope. I fucked it up by hitting the wrong button. My bad, I'll try to sort through your funnah (or anger) and reply, though.

Now, would that be adaptation to environment, or micro-evolution? Or are you looking macro evolution here…? Hmmm… Call me kookie, but I gotta think that God’s algae came equipped to survive our pre-historic oceans…

micro vs macro. Does it matter? one is just a smaller version of the other, correct?
If a plant adapts to an environment by developing something to help it survive within that environment, or if a plant develops something that helps it survive in a completely different environment, thus becoming in essence a new thing, isn't that just a variation on a theme?

Would you care to expand on your li’l photosynthesis drive-by so I can make further sport of you, or are you through…?

What part? The part where matter is created from air, water and sunlight? Where an 80 foot tree that started out as an inert fibrous mass the size of a golfball, incapable of self starting, that grew to that size entirely out of elements that either have no substance or are unliving?

1) Agreed. Genesis is not a “how-to” manual. It simply explains how we got here. Can I find your version at Amazon?

Actually, I linked one of the articles above. Did you read it?

BTW: Oh, and the how-to part begins with the book of Matthew. You can thank me later.

I'm not talking about the moral aspect of the bible. That is evident. By how to I meant the creation of man.

You're not going to try and tell me the "God pulled out the rib and made a woman" story, are you?

2) Musta missed the wand-waving part somewhere in the Bible. Care to post a scriptural reference, or are you content with plastering inanity?

It was a figure of speech. When I saw "Bruce Almighty", it reminded me of the whole "In the beginning.... and on the seventh day he rested" idea. I was being a smart ass with the wand comment.

He probably just waved a concept or something, right? ;)

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Er, that would be John 3:16, BTW

Not exactly “turning his back on man” in my Book, but if you say, tow-may-tow….

First off, that quote is attributed to a human writer, not a god.

Second - where is this Son now? He was here 2,000 years ago, don't you think a reappearance might go a long way towards not only fixing the mess we have, but also reaffirm the "so loved the world" part?

I don't go for the flat “how can you have faith in something you can’t even see”, It's more of a "why do you lump all of the unexplanable into the "magic creators" lap and be satisfied with that as an explanation?

The same way that infidels lay the “unexplainable” in the laps of Science and remain… well, unsatisfied with the explanation….

Who is unsatisfied? What infidels are you referring to? Me?
As an Infidel I'm not only satisfied with some of the amazing things science has accomplished, I'm also aware we are only beginning to scratch the surface on it, and don't feel in the least bit perturbed by the fact there is a long way to go.

Unfortunately the "creator" never seems to reply with any concrete answers except for vague scripture that could be ( and has been ) interpreted many ways.

That part is just a cop out to me. A crutch for the fearful at truly being alone in the universe.

And Science isn’t a crutch for the unbeliever? The infidel questions the universe, and what lies beyond. The Believer doesn’t.

Science isn't a crutch. It is a means to an end. A way for man to understand the world around him. If every scientist and physician thought that way, heart transplants would not have occurred. Space travel would not have occurred. Drugs that save lives would not have been made.

If every man felt satisfied that the universe was made by God and therefore there was no need to try and understand it, we'd still be riding donkeys and I'd have my houseboy run this post over to your house on papyrus.

Man was made in God’s image. Bushy, I defy you to name another animal that hopes. Or possesses the attribute of faith.

That's really an unfair question, but I'd have to say my dog does, for one.

[Ang]

You may be onto something there. I can think of no evolutionary reason why dogs are so totally convinced that every time they see a human that something good is going to happen. That is faith if I ever saw it!

[Mister Bushice]

The present rate of population increase in the world is around 2%, and the polulation is over 4 billion. The average rate would only have to be one half of one percent per year to produce the present world poplulation in 4,300 years. The average family size of 2 1/2 children per family would suffice to develop the present population in just the length of time since Noah, even with a average life-span of only about 40 years per person. The figures I've shown are actually extremely CONSERVATIVE.

Actually, the North American Continent was largely unpopulated due to inaccessibility until well after the last ice age, and the only real way to get there was by walking through a harsh environment. The human population suffered from disease, starvation, accidents, animal attacks,plagues, and wasn't equipped to change much about that for centuries. Being nomadic also kept the population levels down. It wasn't until about 10,000 years ago that the first farming even began, the first cities sprang up, and with that, a more rapid increase in population, and ways to extend human life followed, but not for centuries, and not very well.

Life expectancies were less than forty years in most ancient cultures, and as young as 34 in some.

The Black Death in medieval Europe wiped out 50% of the population, and that wasn't the first plague. God got blamed for one in about 1320 BC, according to 1 Samuel. Sounded Bubonic to me:

"The Lord's hand was heavy upon the people of Ashdod and its vicinity; he brought devastation upon them and afflicted them with tumours. And rats appeared in their land, and death and destruction were throughout the city ... the Lord's hand was against that city, throwing it into a great panic. He afflicted the people of the city, both young and old, with an outbreak of tumours in the groin'.[/quote]

Lots of reasons the population is what it is.

More on your post later.

[poptart]

micro vs macro. Does it matter? one is just a smaller version of the other, correct?

It TOTALLY matters, and NO, one is not just a smaller version of the other.

Micro-evolution is a fact. It is observable and scientific. It is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. These changes occur WITHIN a given species.

Macro-evolution, on the other hand, would require evolution of living matter from non-living matter, because the animal in question would be altering itself into something that it was not already genetically designed to possibly have.
For example, a dog can 'micro-evolve' by growing thicker fur, because it is ALREADY genetically 'programmed' to grow hair. If the dog were to sprout a beak on its face that would be macro-evolution, because a dog is not genetically designed to have a beak on it's face.

Macro-evolution takes FAITH to believe because it has NEVER been observed.
NO evidence.
Again, it requires living coming from non-living.

[KatMode]

That's my BELIEF, just like your BELIEF is that life arose from ...... nothing, by itself.

poptart,

You say that Evolutionists believe that life arose from nothing, by itself. And that you believe a creator (God) created life.

My question to you is who created God?

God must have been created by someone or something... I mean he couldn't have been created from..... nothing, by itself... right? That would be the same line of thinking the Evolutionists have.

[poptart]

It's an interesting question, for sure.

Here's my answer to your question.......


Living things in our world must have a beginning and an ending.

This is observable and it is a fact.

Whether a 'designer' also needs to have a beginning and an ending is a different question completely.

You are attempting to put a 'designer' to the same standard as living things in our world, and he may or may not be playing by the same 'rules' as the things which he created.

It may or may not be a fact that a designer has a beginning and an ending. It is an unknown, scientifically speaking. However, we DO know for a fact that all living creation must have a beginning and an ending.

[poptart]

I don't have to because I'm not advocating that ID be taught in school as a science.

[Mister Bushice]

Further, if 'man' has been around as long as we are told (and 'sub-man' for a couple/few million before that there would be human remains littering the planet. They would be abundant everywhere, yet we find so few. Why?

First off it is your assumption that the population would increase exponentially from day one, and you're not taking into account the large number of natural disasters that could/did wipe out large segments of life on earth.

As for the remains, human and animal bones are only preserved under certain conditions. Any bones in sea water are no more. Also, animals would consume many of them, and I think you are overestimating the population.

You'll also notice there aren't a lot of animal remains around either, for the same reason.

And if they are finding some remains, that indicates that they existed during that time. The fact they are not finding a lot supports the fact the population was low.

If they found none, your theory would hold more water.

Lastly, as I said in my first post in THIS thread, why did man sit around and do NOTHING for 200,000 years....?
Only in the last few thousand years has man DONE things, and really only since the industrial revolution has man shown great progress.
You're selling that he did NOTHING for 200,000 years...?

It's not 200,000. Closer to, and less than 50,000. Lower forms of man, A.P., C.M) had all they could do to survive under harsh living conditions. There was little opportunity to invent the internet.

Man is a DOER, it's his nature to DO things, accomplish, move forward.
History clearly shows us that.
200,000 years of NOTHING..??
Sloooooow engine.

Tools would be a major accomplishment, considering that they had to be made using nothing but stone and wood. Level of intellect would have a lot to do with that, and again, micro evolution would take over there. Over time, intelligence would win out, and the odd genius would be born, as has been proven to be the case.


How can you possibly explain the fossil record within that time frame, and the almost complete lack of mention of these behemoth animals in nearly every ancient cultural record?

6,000 years to compress a span of millions of years of dinosaur bone discovery, with no support in the egyptian culture, or of primitive man cave paintings?

How do you explain that?

[Dinsdale]

Ok, whatever it is, it first of all doesn't pass the common sense test.

1. Using even the VERY most EXTREMELY conservative population growth rates, the number of folks who would be living on the earth now would be ........ standing room only on 'bout every square foot of dry land.

It's absurd. MILLIONS of years = MANY MANY people, even if the 'evolutionist' tries to argue for an OBSCENELY low pop. growth rate. So, where are all the dead bodies....? Where'd they go....?

2. Man has been around for millions of years...? Why did he sit on his thumb and accomplished diddly squat for 99.9999% of the time he's been on the planet....?


That's right, long enough to make the whole 'theory' completely absurd, sorry.

I would be in absolute shock, if this wasn't Pop trolling.

He's obviously trolling, since not one person on planet earth is this fucking stupid.

The again, maybe...bible-thumpers aren't noted for an ability to grasp the common sense that is science, so maybe he really is this stupid.

Where are all the dead bodies? Uhm, if they don't get fossilized, they kind of tend to disinigrate, like say...just about every other organic compound does over the course of a few eons. But there are SOME dead bodies around...the ones that the pesky old satanists/scientists carbon date. Really, it's true.

And as far as "not accomplishing much," maybe you should spend a little more time conmmitting that deadly sin of reading a science book. Maybe you should pay special attention the the term "mass extinction" when you see it. Once you break your commitment to retardation, you'll see that with modern technology, satan-worshippers ERRRR scientists can now actually place timelines on planet-wide catastrophies, and oddly enough...are you sitting down...what the geologists come up with for catastrophic events coincide EXACTLY with what the anthropologists have come up with for gaps in human developement. I know, it's pretty amazing stuff. Then again, it's not like technology works or anything...that's what THE INTERNET is for...discussing how those pesky scientists and tech geeks don't know shit.

You'll also note that the current period of human developement coincides with one of the longest stretches in Earth's (lengthy) history without a mass extiction...remakable, isn't it? Almost in a "common sense" sort of way.

And that trying to use science to dismiss science -- priceless.

Goodness, the thumpers' willingness to favor fable over fact is astounding. Maybe someday, they'll get up and stop dragging their knuckles and walk upright, and advance past the Stone Age.

[Mikey]

The present rate of population increase in the world is around 2%, and the polulation is over 4 billion. The average rate would only have to be one half of one percent per year to produce the present world poplulation in 4,300 years. The average family size of 2 1/2 children per family would suffice to develop the present population in just the length of time since Noah, even with a average life-span of only about 40 years per person. The figures I've shown are actually extremely CONSERVATIVE.

You really are a simpleton, aren't you?

Not even accounting for past wars, famines, diseases, natural catastrophes and other forms of massive die-offs, the current 1.4% rate of population increase (not 2%) is the highest rate of growth in recorded history.

The population increases (or decreases) as a function of society and the resources and infrastructure available to support it.

[poptart]

First off it is your assumption that the population would increase exponentially from day one, and you're not taking into account the large number of natural disasters that could/did wipe out large segments of life on earth.

If you notice, I DID account for that by scaling back the projected rate of population increase to less than 1/4 of what it is currently. Even if you scale it back MUCH further than THAT you would have a planet that has people living on top of people.

You'll also notice there aren't a lot of animal remains around either, for the same reason.

Animal remains are not found in great abundance because THEY have only been here 6,000 yrs also.

....., and the almost complete lack of mention of these behemoth animals in nearly every ancient cultural record?

I don't know that to be the case, and no, please don't start playing the 'link' game. We can both play it, and I'm not going to play.

6,000 years to compress a span of millions of years of dinosaur bone discovery, with no support in the egyptian culture, or of primitive man cave paintings?

Many 'ancient' people have 'dragon' legends. Primitive tribes in African and North America left cave 'drawings' representing dinosaurs.

[Dinsdale]

The population increases (or decreases) as a function of society and the resources and infrastructure available to support it.

So wait...as the human brain evolved, the inevitable, continuous advances in agriculture, architecture, and medicine, combined with a lack of catastrophic extinctions, created an exponential increase(which science has of course yet to prove that parabolic functions exist) in population growth?

C'mon, Mikey...get some common sense.

[KatMode]

Whether a 'designer' also needs to have a beginning and an ending is a different question completely.

You are attempting to put a 'designer' to the same standard as living things in our world, and he may or may not be playing by the same 'rules' as the things which he created.

It may or may not be a fact that a designer has a beginning and an ending. It is an unknown, scientifically speaking. However, we DO know for a fact that all living creation must have a beginning and an ending.

Fair enough.

[Mikey]

The population increases (or decreases) as a function of society and the resources and infrastructure available to support it.

So wait...as the human brain evolved, the inevitable, continuous advances in agriculture, architecture, and medicine, combined with a lack of catastrophic extinctions, created an exponential increase(which science has of course yet to prove that parabolic functions exist) in population growth?

C'mon, Mikey...get some common sense.

Actually, exponential and parabolic are not quite the same thing.

A parabolic function has the form y = x^2 (if you can imagine the ^ thingy meaning "raised to the following power).

An exponential function has the form Y = Co * e^kt
where Co is the starting value, k is a constant and t is time. Oh yeah, e is that weird number that comes up on your calculator when you press the "e" key...something like 2.178....going on into infinity without ever repeating. This is the model most used to estimate population growth because it accounts not only for births but deaths as well. The k constant can vary depending on a lot of factors and is used to fit the actual exponential growth data.

What poptart is ignorantly assuming (probably without having any idea about what he is ignorantly assuming) is that population growth will resemble compound interest, which takes the form

y = Co * (1 + r )^N
where r is the interest rate (or rate of increase) and N is the number of years. If you use Co = 2 (can't start to reproduce without an Adam and an Eve,right?), r = .005 and N = 4300 you get a population of about 4.1 billion.

So, pops is saying that every person born in the past 4300 years is still alive. Not surprising, considering.

[Mister Bushice]

First off it is your assumption that the population would increase exponentially from day one, and you're not taking into account the large number of natural disasters that could/did wipe out large segments of life on earth.

If you notice, I DID account for that by scaling back the projected rate of population increase to less than 1/4 of what it is currently. Even if you scale it back MUCH further than THAT you would have a planet that has people living on top of people.

But you are assuming population growth has been continous, when it obviously hasn't been that way even within the last millenium, when 50% of Europe was wiped out.

You'll also notice there aren't a lot of animal remains around either, for the same reason.

Animal remains are not found in great abundance because THEY have only been here 6,000 yrs also.

Except that some remains are clearly much older than 6,000 years, found in the same location that traceable cultures existed. You don't need carbon dating to see levels of archeological remains that are clearly separated by centuries in different strata.

6,000 years to compress a span of millions of years of dinosaur bone discovery, with no support in the egyptian culture, or of primitive man cave paintings?

Many 'ancient' people have 'dragon' legends. Primitive tribes in African and North America left cave 'drawings' representing dinosaurs.

Falling stars, lightning, alligators, kimodo dragons, lizards - so many natural phenomena that primitive man had no explanation for.

Please to explain why Noahs flood approximately 2400 years ago has no global archeological record, nor do egyptian heiroglyphics from that time make any mention of it?

[Dinsdale]

On a sidenote, I saw some shit that estimated that of all human beings to ever live on planet earth, 1 out of 5 are alive right now...crazy.

[Mikey]

Of all the human beings I've ever known, probably 1 out of 5 are alive today.

[BSmack]

Of all the human beings I've ever known, probably 1 out of 5 are alive today.

That's because you're very old.

[Dinsdale]

Please to explain why Noahs flood approximately 2400 years ago has no global archeological record, nor do egyptian heiroglyphics from that time make any mention of it?

Because geological records are junk science, even though you can see them with your own two eyes.

The only acceptable science is in the Bible...didn't you get the memo? Man has only been around for 5000-6000 years, even though we have crude literature dating back beyond that. The Sumarians never existed, a fact the Sumarians find most disturbing.

As a matter of fact, the ancient Egyptians never existed either, and there's no possible way that science can prove that the pyramids were ever built, and if they were, it was by an intelligent designer, since they're MUCH too complicated to be attributed to the engineering abilities of that era, which wasn't really an era, and actully never happened, but if it did, then it was too complicated to be pulled off by anyone except God, and since the Egyptians didn't worship the Christian God, they were obviously heathens, and therefore not enlightened, which means that God would never spot them a break, which proves beyond all doubt that there's no scientific evidence to show that there's pyramids in Egypt, and if there is, they were built by a Christian God, several thousand years before the intelligent designer designed the Christian God.

What are you, stupid or something? You need to pay more attention in schools in Kansas.

[Dinsdale]

I guess what I'm saying is --

Bible-thumpers...you've been had.

Sorry, but that's reality. I know this may bring your world crashing down around you, but get over it.

If you need further evidence, look in the mirror -- any time anyone doesn't agree with your stupidity ERRRR "theory of the origins of life," you lash out at others...every time, universally. So, to defend your religion against us heathens...you abandon the principles of your religion...hello?

Continue believing what you wish, and as an American I'll continue to support your right to believe what you wish, but leave the rest of us out of it, OK? And please try to reciprocate by being a good American and keeping your stupid fucking religion out of the schools that the rest of us pay for, as well. There's kind of a Constitutional Amendment that requires that, and no amount of bastardization on your part is going to rewrite the BoR, as much as legally mandating religion will make you feel like any less of a chump for falling for the same fairy tale your parents did.

[RadioFan]

Link for Dins

This would actually be pretty funny for most of us (outside of the devout Branson-detour taking fucktards) if it wasn't for the fact that people actually pay money to see this shit.




Among the many "facts" one can learn at the museum:

Were Dinosaurs on the Ark of Noah?

Yes. From a biblical standpoint, it is extremely clear that God created all land animals on day six of the creation week (dinosaurs are land animals), and that He gathered two (male and female) of each kind of land animal into the ark.

Did Dinosaurs Live with Man?

Evidence from fossilized footprints, ancient artwork, literature and fossils all strongly support the fact that dinosaurs and humans did co-exist

Personally, I'd feel a little cheated if there at least wasn't a nice long fire and brimstone sermon at the end of the musuem tour, or at least some dude with a bright suit and a bad hairjob offering to cast out any remaining demons of doubt that anyone may have about God's word on science, but that's just me.

[Mister Bushice]

What I wanna know is, if noah collected two of everything, how did he:

A: sail across the world for the komodo dragons

B: get them back to indonesia from mt ararat in Turkey when the waters receded.

C: Feed the carnivores and still have two of everything 6 months later.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

C: Feed the carnivores and still have two of everything 6 months later.

Atkins.

Just sayin'.