C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by FatalStrike I still don't see it happening. Why would the humans cause the neanderthals to die out? It doesn't make sense. Same habitat, same diet - It does make sense IMHO. Dinosaurs lived for far longer than humans and it was a myriad of different races - altogether this creates a HUGE number of individuals, leaving us with many chances to find fossils. Also, a lot of the dino fossils we find are encapsulated in ash, mud or some other material that have made them very protected, and very hard to find. Our ancestors bone's were dug recently and they were far less in number than compared to the dinos. The fact that they had no big geological mishaps to protect them, and thus were laid open in an area subject to rapid erosion means they most were pulverized and scattered by the wind. Many dino fossils/species are still awaiting to be found, and some will not stand the test of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 I have no porblem with good discussion. That's why this place was built in the first place. However, I have a better solution then youy, Cjais. Everyone stop acting like nogs and discuss things seriously, debating each side with valid points. Anyway, carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Groovy Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar That is why we have MODs on the forums IMO. If those who are to clean up the mess (i.e. those who moderate this forum) judge that they will be spending too much time on any thread, they should just close it down, end of story. What cjais was complaining about was the lack of explanation. At least that's what I think. BTW: Is this post your personal opinion, your MOD opinion or both? I think I explained that I do not mod here, but for the record, my opinion reflects what I believe as both mod and forum user. Believe me I am interested in being a mod here as well, but that is not up to me. That is up to the big LF Gods of Olympus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 The only thing that is known for sure about evolution is that it should not be taught in schools. and that was said by an evolutionist. a frog turning into a prince instantly is a fairytale but a frog turning into a prince over millions of years is evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 a frog turning into a prince instantly is a fairytale but a frog turning into a prince over millions of years is evolution. That sounds pretty reasonable, no? In what context did this evolutionist say that it shouldn't be taught at schools? I'm curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian54 Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 If a shetland pony and a clidsedale and a donkey and a buch of other horses died in an avalanch and were burried for a thousand years, and by that time horses were extict, And some sientists dug them up they would see all the different varieties of horses and conclude that evolution can be proven because here is an example of all the different stages of horses. But in reality they all existed at the same time and didnt evolve. this is a story I was told at a confrence, it's not entirely accurate but it will have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 The only thing that is known for sure about evolution is that it should not be taught in schools. Why not? It is a proven fact (it is), at least much more proven (and likely) than for example beliving in God. Not that I am saying it is "wrong" to belive in God, personally I respect every persons belief. A lot of people gains comfort in their beliefs, and that is a good thing. But what annoys me quite a bit is the people that just say "the way I belive is EXACTLY the way it really is! If you belive ANYTHING else, then you are totally wrong and YOU WILL BE SLOWLY TORMENTED IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNETY!!!!!! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I am not saying it is any of you, I am just saying that those kind of people excists. Unfortunatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 14, 2002 Author Share Posted November 14, 2002 Originally posted by Mandolorian54 If a shetland pony and a clidsedale and a donkey and a buch of other horses died in an avalanch and were burried for a thousand years, and by that time horses were extict, And some sientists dug them up they would see all the different varieties of horses and conclude that evolution can be proven because here is an example of all the different stages of horses. But in reality they all existed at the same time and didnt evolve. However, through various dating means, you would see that all the horses lived and died at the same time, and because they were all found at the same place you'd say with a fair amount of reason that they weren't different stages of horses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 14, 2002 Share Posted November 14, 2002 I still don't see it happening. Why would the humans cause the neanderthals to die out? It doesn't make sense. It's like the job buisness. Here's tom, a Neanderthal. He does he work ok. Then, someone new comes in, Pete the Homo-Sapien-Sapien. Pete can do everything better than Tom can. Thus, tom get's fired(extinct). That's what happend. P.S. the reason why they have so much trouble finding human bones is because they didnt fall in tar pits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 P.S. the reason why they have so much trouble finding human bones is because they didnt fall in tar pits. Oh and that is the only way for a fossil to be made? There are other ways. It just needs to be covered from the elements of decay. So there is more. It is a proven fact (it is), at least much more proven (and likely) than for example beliving in God. It is still a theory. If it is to be teached in school it should be know that it is a theory. . I really would like to see where we called you guys names or "flamed" you... There was someone who started name calling which I thought was out of line. Anyways if you start the debate again here it will be off topic and get closed as well. So go back to debating if the thread should be closed or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elijah Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider There was someone who started name calling which I thought was out of line. Anyways if you start the debate again here it will be off topic and get closed as well. So go back to debating if the thread should be closed or not. I never saw any of the creationists doing the name calling... and i dont remember saying anything, if i did it was unintentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by ZDawg I never saw any of the creationists doing the name calling... and i dont remember saying anything, if i did it was unintentional. "Darwinism IS crap!! You darwinist's are full of ****. Let me tell you this...why do you believe in that crap? By doing so, you are just simply believing what other HUMANS have created as a belief. It's a blind path to follow. At least God has proven himself through miracles that have been recorded as a part of history. Check your history books...you will see. " I did flip out at Krillin though. Sorry bout that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 I think the hardest part of a debate is keeping your cool. If you blow it any point you make will often be useless even if they were good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 I never saw any of the creationists doing the name calling... and i dont remember saying anything, if i did it was unintentional I can't remember you doing any. There was one. I did flip out at Krillin though. Sorry bout that. It is ok. Just becareful in the future. As a sidenote, I think it speaks volumes that the flaming was one-sided. Most (if not all) of the immature name calling came from the creationist side of this debate, leaving me to question why they needed to resort to this. Don't judge us all from one person. I can't judge everyone from Denmark because one person was a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 "Why do you look at foot steps here to find out what they are like a mile from here?" That was what one Creationist said(I can't spell his name it is from some other country.). We can only know 100% that the world is at least 4,000-6,000 years old. Past that we can not say with 100%. We can try, but we can not be sure. We are looking at the present to find the past. Though something may be true(Like that dinosaurs lived) that does not mean each and everyone is true. Have you guys ever heard of fossil beds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted November 15, 2002 Author Share Posted November 15, 2002 First of all, it is not off topic to continue the discussion in this thread - read what I wrote in the first post - I'd like the name of the thread to change, but the mods apparently didn't see it. There were more than Krillin who "flamed" - I can look back if you want but it really is pointless. WhiteRaider, you cannot even be sure the world is 400 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by Cjais First of all, it is not off topic to continue the discussion in this thread - read what I wrote in the first post - I'd like the name of the thread to change, but the mods apparently didn't see it. There were more than Krillin who "flamed" - I can look back if you want but it really is pointless. WhiteRaider, you cannot even be sure the world is 400 years old. No,no. Krillian didnt flame,DarthYoda flamed, and I flamed Krillian because of a ignorant comment he made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 WhiteRaider, you cannot even be sure the world is 400 years old. And if you talk like that how do you know that it is 15 billion? And also do you know about fossil beds? Please at least anwser that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWhiteRaider Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 I read the old thread through from page one. Both sides flamed. Two small flames on the Creation. Two on the Darwinist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by FatalStrike Also I still do not believe life results from a mix of chemicals. I saw an article that they had figured it out but they only made amino acids. There is still no infomation that I have seen explaining what would cause these amino acids to suddenly grow a coating of some kind and come to life. The "coating" that you refer to will be created spontaneously: The lipids (certain aminic acids) that form the outer layer of the cell will spontaniously form into a ball: They have a hydrofile (mixable with water) end and a hydrophobe (shunning water) end, meaning that the configuration that has the least energy will be a ball. There's your cell membrane. Thanks for the correction cjais. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider It is still a theory. If it is to be teached in school it should be know that it is a theory. All science is theory. Any serious Science teacher should be more than willing to tell you that. The concept of accepting the models that are the least unlikely is at the heart of science. That means that science is never true, which is why it is so useful. That science is made of models cannot be stressed enough. That science is never true cannot be stressed enough. That science is the most powerful tool that Humanity has ever posessed cannot be stressed enough. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider I read the old thread through from page one. Both sides flamed. Two small flames on the Creation. Two on the Darwinist. Excuse me? The two flames on the Creation were as bad, if not worse than the Darwinist flames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider We can only know 100% that the world is at least 4,000-6,000 years old. Past that we can not say with 100%. We can try, but we can not be sure. We are looking at the present to find the past. Though something may be true(Like that dinosaurs lived) that does not mean each and everyone is true. We can never be sure (see above), but the existence of petrified dinosaurs means that the earth is millions of years old, simply because empirical evidence shows that petrification must require that kind of timespan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Carbon Dating I always wonder if the creationist scientists go to church... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted November 15, 2002 Share Posted November 15, 2002 Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider Have you guys ever heard of fossil beds? You are talking about places with large amounts of fossiles, right?. I heard about a fossile bed once where a colony of flying dinosaurs had been buried in tar. I did a search on http://www.sciam.com and it came up with two related articles. You ought to tjeck them out (the "Search" function is in the upper left corner, and pretty hard to spot at first sight IMO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.