why would God create a gelatinous sloth of a creature such as yourself? you mustve evolved from the ralphie may/eric esch phylum
dsimon writes: Actually Neil Joe is right.... In his case indeed there is no evolution of the grey area part of the cerebral cortex. JOe is an atavistic halfwit who had to go to night school to learn how to grow a thumb. He does not actually read the Bible, he is inspired by it through diffusion. Why read the big words when you can have the.... the diffusion that Jesus gives so gratiously to Joe? :eeeek:
Not before you graced the board with many "intellectual" long winded posts about how the earth is 6,000 years old. How much of a fucking retard would you have to be to do this? You were actively presenting idiotic and plain DUMB arguments in your usual "I am the most intelligent guy here" attitude. THATS embarrassing. I mean, it's not even too long ago that you were acting all high and mighty presenting the arguments of a retard ::
Yeah... But you're still a shit smelling, broken "banjo" having, only contribution to boxing analysis being Junior witter's next "liquidation" offering, Bankrupt Bastard! ::
Nice bump...but... ...you're still a shit smelling, broken "banjo" having, Junior Witter's EXPOSED ass sniffing, Bankrupt Bastard! ::<!-- / message -->
I'd rather be that than to think the earth is 20,000 years old. But then again, you are the most intelligent guy here and "unbeaten" in any debates. :atu:
If the earth is billions of years old and Man is millions of years old, then why can't we find evidence of civilization older than 6,000 years old?:nono:
Guys don't get it twisted. This Attraction is only bumping this thread to draw attaention away from the fact that he's a BANKRUPT BASTARD!::
And I suppose math topics like "Group Theory" and "Ring Theory" are so named because they also haven't been proven? Keep eatin' those cubes
Let's not pretend it is like a weak theory anyone could make up. Evolution has been tested for almost 150 years and no experiment or observation has contradicted the general outlines of it. When you have more than one science backing it up, odds are it is pretty solid.
That's because the "theory" so broad that it covers up all types of holes. Why aren't we evolving then? We are more self destructive than ever. Why did we "stop evolving"? If mankind has been on earth over a million years, as the evolutionists tell us, then why do the records of their activity only go back a few thousand years. The evidence agrees with the Bible account, not with the evolutionists. Evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts. CONTENT: How Far Back do the Records Go? - 2 Languages - Ancient languages never back beyond c. 3000 B.C., and radiate outward from Mesopotamia Ancient Historical Records - The oldest dates go back to about 3000 B.C. The Oldest People - They do not go back before c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia Conclusion - Man, whom the evolutionists claim to have come into existence over a million years ago, is said to have "stopped evolving" 100,000 years ago. Why then do we not have at least 100,000 years of civilizations, cities, and human remains?
Everything is evolving, you are very ignorant, allow me to copy and paste in the off chance you might read. Well, everyone knows that evolution, in a sense, is change over time. But what few people understand is how straightforward the nature of this change is. It's important to understand, first of all, that individuals don't evolve. I'm not evolving into something else, and my dog isn't evolving into something else. I'm going to remain a human being, he's going to remain a dog. That's the way things are going to work. What changes over time are populations of individuals, for very straightforward reasons. Number one, every species shows variation among individual members of that population. Number two, individuals in a population show what biologists call differential reproductive success. Some individuals leave more offspring than others. Some people have no children; some people have big families. Finally, one of the factors that influences differential reproductive success is how well-suited individuals are to the present environment in which they find themselves—how good they are at obtaining food, defending themselves against their enemies, resisting disease, and finding and meeting a member of the opposite sex and raising offspring. All these things matter. What Darwin appreciated is that nature herself selects from variants in the population for those that are best able to succeed in this race for differential reproductive success. Over time, and given a steady input of new variation into the population, that can change the average characteristics of a species, and it can split one species into two. Those species, those two groups, can then go on changing in different directions. That's what leads to the formation of yet more new species. Nature herself automatically selects for favorable variations, and this is the driving engine of evolutionary change. That, in a nutshell, is what evolution is. It's important to appreciate that all historical records are necessarily incomplete. We don't have complete data for any historical process. I've tried to trace my own ancestry, and after about four generations, we lose bits and pieces of it. I don't think that means I don't have any ancestry. I think it means that some of the evidence is missing. The same is true for the study of history. We know, for example, when and where the Battle of Gettysburg took place in the Civil War. We know the opposing generals on both sides. But we don't know exactly what every soldier, by name, was doing at every moment during the Battle of Gettysburg. That doesn't mean Gettysburg didn't take place. It doesn't mean that the Union forces didn't win. It simply means we have more to learn about that battle. The same is true for the fossil record. We have an enormous amount of information as to what life was like in the past. That information tells us that life changed, that it changed in a particular pattern, and that the history of change is complete, with one example after another of descent with modification, an ancestor-descendant relationship between organisms. And in a few lucky cases, we can trace almost step by step the evolution of key organisms in the history of life. One of the great mischaracterizations of evolution is that it's driven by random chance, that things just happen. People like to say, "I don't like to believe that I'm just an accident." Well, you're not. What evolution says is that the variation that crops up in a species is indeed unpredictable. We can't be sure what will happen next. But that doesn't mean it's random. To me, the word "random" means anything can happen. But the reality is that evolutionary change is restricted. It's restricted by the laws of physics and chemistry. It's restricted by the nature of molecular biology. It's restricted by the constraints of developmental biology during development. Most importantly, evolutionary change is governed by natural selection, and natural selection is not a random process at all. Natural selection selects for successful phenotypes, for successful combinations of characteristics that actually work, and that's not random at all.
(AP) <!-- sphereit start -->Bones discovered nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia now appear to be the oldest known fossils of modern-looking humans, says an analysis that suggests they come from around the dawn of the species. Researchers determined that the specimens are around 195,000 years old. Previously, the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian skulls dated to about 160,000 years ago. Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the fossil record more in line with that, said John Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an author of the study.
:: I think OJ used the same defense despite the DNA evidence. Yeah, that's how science works, they determine things by how they "look" in appearance :laughing:
Proving how silly you sound? Because that is your opinion I was sarcastically making fun of. First your argument is : There are no humans older than 6000 years. I'm pretty sure you actually make fun of I and I too :doh: Time for Joe to do the twist.....
