Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- Baskerville0
sorry to add to another pointless evolution debate but...
this program is on channel 4 soon and it looks good:
http://www.channel4sales.com/pro…
I can't imagine an american channel airing this program, funny how the debate about evolution is onlly really big in america.
Dawkins rules. I saw him talk when I was at school.
And before you say anything Discipler, he is approx six thousand times more intelligent than you. Hmm, maybe that relates to the 6000 years that the earth has been here.
- shilohous0
"I love how these threads end up just being emotional shouting by those who don't like to hear about the glaring flaws in Darwinism."
yeah, creationism is a completely flawless fact-based lie
- kyl30
I guess you could just push all that crap overboard.
- discipler0
not a sufficient answer, kuz. More problems...
Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.
Where are all the bodies?
Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the Earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.
Now the number of human fossils found is nothing like one would expect if this ‘Stone Age’ scenario were correct.
- flagellum0
Tick, tell me how detecting Specified Complexity in biological systems is religious?
Tell me how observing Irreducibly Complex machines in biochemistry, is religion?
Tell me how observing sequential digital code in the nucleotide chain on the spine of the DNA molecule is religion?
Tell me how observing and pointing out the massive gaps in Darwinian evolution is religion?
Because it sure seems like science to me.
- pascii0
if christ would read this...
- Baskerville0
btw the program is called "The root of all evil"
- JazX0
my point is that we never, ever say to the other side, "hey you have a good point" these days and there is something not good about that in my eye.
have to reboot
- paraselene0
which program is it that you can't imagine an american channel airing?
gay vicars? or tony blair, rock star?
- mrdobolina0
written iranian history goes back 7500 years at least, how does that jive with the bible?
- flagellum0
YEC scientists have some things to say about Radiometric dating:
- discipler0
kuzIII, welcome to my ignore list, you belligerent simpleton. :) You should have fun there, with version3 and pavlovs_dog.
- KuzII0
aye Baskerville, i saw that programme advertised last night, am looking forward to it.
do you think it's breech of copyright that i'm posting articles from the economist that are like a week old and you have to pay for?
they had a whole christmas special on evoultion, its really fascinating. i'll post the other articles at a later date
- mikotondria20
wouldnt said crap form a layer on the seafloor, producing coal, plutonium and Gandolf's cloak - or am I missing the point ?
- KuzIII0
"not a sufficient answer, kuz. More problems..."
lol, you're basing that on what??? your desire to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old? lol
and stop changing the subject. lol
how can you so fucking stupid to say shit like "if homo sapiens been around for 100,000 years then why has there only been recorded hisotory for 6000 years".
god your dumb, really, you should re-read what you say.
:)
- Mimio0
Discipler, it's not science to suggest that biological origins aren't natural. It's really simple.
- skt0
Shit, I thought you were talking about Gay Vicars.
- JazX0
Australia, petrified forest upright in strata older than it, etc. look at my posts above... ^
- paraselene0
ah, post cross.