Jehova's WitnessesFollow

I might be way off, but isn't six thousand years, give or take a couple hundred, the lead up time to the modern religions?

Were people before that time not considered human?

What people? God placed them on the Earth at the start of all major religion. Before that, there was nobody.

No, you're fUcking retarded, you brainwashed little ******** Get the fUck off my stoop before I get the fUcking hose.




I've never really had a problem with any solicitor.

Nothing was said here.


Edited, Sep 27th 2010 7:03pm by ShadorVIII

It's usually the Baptists that believe that 6-day creation stuff.

Indulge us. I've not heard a scientific argument against evolution.

Argon-Potassium?

Any radioactive mineral can be used for dating of he fossil as well as the environment/formation it was found in.

Stuff below the fossil is likely older, stuff above it is younger and unconformities are a missing chunk of the timeline.

With a combination of techniques you can quite closely date very old fossils. With more modern organic relics carbon-14 dating is pretty spot-on.

I guess disputing dating methods has it's value, but it's not a scientific argument disputing evolution.

I guess what I'm curious about is what you believe is actual story behind the human and, why you don't believe that an evolutionary process shapes and changes reproducing things (the factual evidence against it)?

Oh god, another one of these. Please, by all means, save the forum space. If your arguments against evolution are anything like your argument about dating methods, I have a feeling they're better left unheard. Fourteen seconds on Google would have set you straight on that one.

/Yakov

In Allakhazam's Asylum, ***** throws Varus!

/endYakov

A century of research? You can't really expect a new species to diverge in a century. Well, I suppose you could if you really thought humanity is only 6000 years old.

As I suspected, you've quoted a few things out of context and filled in the blanks with nonsense.

First of all, the driving mechanism behind "micro" and "macro" evolution is the same. One is just a larger timescale. As for your points, the first one is absolute balderdash.. Plain and simple. The examples of observed speciation (some of which have been in the lab, some of which have been in the wild) begin at 5.0. To say that selective breeding projects have failed to produce anything stronger than the original product is beyond ridiculous. Bananas, corn, various different forms of cabbage (broccoli), all have been cultivated using selective breeding projects.

You go on to talk about Darwin's finches. It's been a long time since I've read Origin, but as far as I can remember, he didn't use the finches as an example of speciation, he used them as an example of natural selection causing change within a population. Even if he did try to use it as an example of speciation, the fact that a scientist got something wrong 150 years ago doesn't invalidate the theory. Scientific theories change to fit the evidence in the most complete manner possible.

Using terms like "many researchers" is terrible when trying to mount a scientific argument. The fossil record is FAR from complete, which is to be expected when you take into account the rare process that is fossilization. As for the quote, you're actually somewhat right here. Evolution when populations are homogenized is slow (and not all species are evolving at the same rate), speciation events (in which a population is isolated somehow, whether through niche or habitat) happen relatively quickly. That being said, check out the fossil lineages of the horse and the whale. Perhaps only horses and whales (and quite a few others which we have relatively large numbers of fossils) evolved, and everything else has remained the same?

And lastly, your closing points:
1. Yes. Every evolutionary scientist in the world is just a bitter atheist trying to push his views on society via false evidence and lies!
2. No, natural selection didn't produce everything. There's also sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.
3. I'd really like to see a source other than "many researchers" that says the fossil record is evidence AGAINST evolution...

Edited for link fail.

Edited, Sep 7th 2010 2:15pm by Quadkit