Ewen Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 The Bible.... The Greatest Science Fiction Story Ever Told IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Girraffe, now thats quite an animal, he needs to pump blood all the way up to his high held head. Thats all very well, until he goes to drink water from the river, sending masses of blood to his brain, which would burst in seconds if he didnt have a sponge like substance at the top of his neck to prevent this. So over millions of years, which it would take to evolve suck a valve/sponge type arrangement, how did the go for a drink at the river without becoming extinct? 20ft long straws ?? I'm far too lazy to read through all that so I'll just suggest a solution to this bit. The girraffe's neck would have started off much shorter, and gradually grew as long as it is now over a very long space of time. Hence the 'valve' had plenty of time to develop alongside through natural selection. It makes me smile when I read that some people assume that one day a fish jumped out of the water and instantly developed legs, tools, and coca cola. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I'm far too lazy to read through all that so I'll just suggest a solution to this bit. The girraffe's neck would have started off much shorter, and gradually grew as long as it is now over a very long space of time. Hence the 'valve' had plenty of time to develop alongside through natural selection. It makes me smile when I read that some people assume that one day a fish jumped out of the water and instantly developed legs, tools, and coca cola. but why would its neck continue to grow ? I pity people who still believe in *evolution* in this day and age Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Yes you do it so well Charlotte, all those great posts in this thread, I cant wait for the next go back to the hair and nails section. I think you owe Charlotte an apology for that remark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I'd say that probably sums up my thinking aswell. Although I shouldn't really have an opinion on the whole thing as I don't have a pen*s. I wish sometimes I was taught to have a belief system, it would make things seems a lot nicer. Unfortunately I'm just a cynical person. hmm... my theory is if you try hard enough you could evolve and have a penis and then have an opinon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 hmm... my theory is if you try hard enough you could evolve and have a penis and then have an opinon Well if I 'believe' it will happen I'll be waiting a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well if I 'believe' it will happen I'll be waiting a long time. the funny thing is both evolution and creationism require a lot of faith I think we should all have a group hug make love not war:d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 i.e. 1 in 12, 680,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000!!!. Therefore EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE !! Using very conservative estimates, there are roughly 10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of supporting life. This is using mankind's idea of a life supporting planet, and extrapolating existing trends with regards to the number of galaxies, stars, planets etc. It guesses that one in every million planets is capable of supporting life. So personally I'd say that the chances of life not evolving on a single part of a single one of those ten billion planets is far greater than it not happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 but why would its neck continue to grow ? Because taller / stronger animals are generally more attractive to the opposite sex, so the ones with longer necks are more likely to breed and survive - so the genes are passed on time and time again and the neck keeps growing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt k Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 the funny thing is both evolution and creationism require a lot of faith I think we should all have a group hug make love not war:d Evolution happens everyday, a virus changes strains constantly to attack an immune system once a vaccine has been created, and what about Native Americans? Many were killed by Small pox and influenza as their immune systems had not developed antibodies to protect them, yet European's had "evolved" to cope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 And it came to pass, God created Habitat And he smiled upon the new age of interior furnishings For verily they were good and wholesome. The Dark Lord looked upon The Great Catalogue And did roar with evil disdain, and did bite his knuckles in jealous anger A Satanic curse he summoned up to plague mankind Its form demonic, its name Ikea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 A little while ago it was estimated that in a couple of hundred years (IIRC), natural blondes would be extinct. This was because of the sudden trend for dark haired girls to dye their hair blonde, so a lot of guys who prefer blonde girls were going after the 'fake' ones, and the blonde genes weren't being passed on as often. But that's all changed now because apparantly the new trend in the USA is for blonde girls to go brunette..... anyone who thinks we'll ever stop evolving has got their head in the sand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I'm far too lazy to read through all that so I'll just suggest a solution to this bit. The girraffe's neck would have started off much shorter, and gradually grew as long as it is now over a very long space of time. Hence the 'valve' had plenty of time to develop alongside through natural selection. So the legs kept growing and the neck too why?, lots of short animals are still around? and if so where are the short neck and leg fossils to support your claim? Using very conservative estimates, there are roughly 10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of supporting life. This is using mankind's idea of a life supporting planet, and extrapolating existing trends with regards to the number of galaxies, stars, planets etc. It guesses that one in every million planets is capable of supporting life. So personally I'd say that the chances of life not evolving on a single part of a single one of those ten billion planets is far greater than it not happening. How do you know that there are that many planets that can suppost life? they are all pretty baron, and the chances of the evolutionary process must also be considered, making that one in a million followed by one in12,680,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!. That just pushes the oddes further out a million times. Because taller / stronger animals are generally more attractive to the opposite sex, so the ones with longer necks are more likely to breed and survive - so the genes are passed on time and time again and the neck keeps growing. Do taller stronger animals have a more active sex life? I know a very tall and strong bird with an awfully long neck, she is a minger and nobody would mount her even with handle bars attached!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 So the legs kept growing and the neck too why?, lots of short animals are still around? and if so where are the short neck and leg fossils to support your claim? Because the genes keep getting passed on.... like inbreeding, it will keep becoming more and more prominent. Because they're different animals Some species favour strength, some favour height, and we favour money Fossils......I don't know, I'm not a scientist. How do you know that there are that many planets that can suppost life? they are all pretty baron, and the chances of the evolutionary process must also be considered, making that one in a million followed by one in12,680,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!. That just pushes the oddes further out a million times. How can more planets in the universe mean less chance of life? They are all pretty barren? I'll assume that you're going on your knowledge of having visited them all. And unless your friend is a girraffe I won't even bother replying to that bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 How do you know that there are that many planets that can suppost life? I googled it. Seems good to me (well it's not, but since this discussion seems to be based around things that no-one can actually prove, what the hell); 1) The number of galaxies. An estimated 50 billion galaxies are visible with modern telescopes and the total number in the universe must surely exceed this number by a huge factor, but we will be conservative and simply double it. That's 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. 2) The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions in each galaxy. Lets call it just 100 billion. That's 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy. 3)The number of stars in the universe. So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. Properly known as 10 sextillion. And that's a very conservative estimate. 4) The number of stars that have planetary systems. The original extra-solar system planet hunting technology dictated that a star needed to be to close to us for a planet to be detected, usually by the stars 'wobble'. Better technology that allows us to measure the dimming of a stars brightness when a planet crosses its disk has now revolutionised planet hunting and new planets are being discovered at an ever increasing rate. So far (August 2003) around 100 have been discovered so we have very little data to work on for this estimate. Even so, most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it's not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in: 10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate. 5) The number planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million. Simple division results in: 10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion! So in other words, that figure is assuming that only one in every million stars has a planet circling it, and only one in every millionth planet is capable of supporting life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathew Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 just a quicky here. evolution. i dont know what to think of it but people say its happend over millions of years. how long has man been living? maybe not long enough to see any major forms of evolution. but take into account, for example, sprinters. why do records get broken? because there are faster people being born. if they continue this way then in afew thousand years there will be some very fast people about. this may seem a silly opinion but its just a thought..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 just a quicky here. evolution. i dont know what to think of it but people say its happend over millions of years. how long has man been living? maybe not long enough to see any major forms of evolution. but take into account, for example, sprinters. why do records get broken? because there are faster people being born. if they continue this way then in afew thousand years there will be some very fast people about. this may seem a silly opinion but its just a thought..... That's not true. People aren't born faster. Here's a thing. Andre Agassi and Stephi Graf have had kids. Their kid won't automatically be good at tennis. It will, however, have picked up it's parent's physical attributes. It's likely it'll have fast twitch muscles, maybe it's mums long legs and undoubtedly the bald head of it's dad. With the right training it'll probably be good at tennis. Unless it decides it likes playing piano better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 The search for satan is on TV now ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I googled it. Seems good to me (well it's not, but since this discussion seems to be based around things that no-one can actually prove, what the hell); 1) The number of galaxies. An estimated 50 billion galaxies are visible with modern telescopes and the total number in the universe must surely exceed this number by a huge factor, but we will be conservative and simply double it. That's 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe. 2) The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions in each galaxy. Lets call it just 100 billion. That's 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy. 3)The number of stars in the universe. So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion. That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. Properly known as 10 sextillion. And that's a very conservative estimate. 4) The number of stars that have planetary systems. The original extra-solar system planet hunting technology dictated that a star needed to be to close to us for a planet to be detected, usually by the stars 'wobble'. Better technology that allows us to measure the dimming of a stars brightness when a planet crosses its disk has now revolutionised planet hunting and new planets are being discovered at an ever increasing rate. So far (August 2003) around 100 have been discovered so we have very little data to work on for this estimate. Even so, most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it's not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in: 10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate. 5) The number planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million. Simple division results in: 10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion! So in other words, that figure is assuming that only one in every million stars has a planet circling it, and only one in every millionth planet is capable of supporting life. You see thats where creation science is different to evolution. The word "assume" gets left out. Until we find life on other planets, I will work on the idea there is none. Astrologers pipe dream? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Keep going Chief. You make me laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Keep going Chief. You make me laugh. I have been in stiches at this thread since the start Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathew Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 That's not true. People aren't born faster. Here's a thing. Andre Agassi and Stephi Graf have had kids. Their kid won't automatically be good at tennis. missing my point. simple fact is that people are getting faster. not neccesarily sprinters kids etc records are broken in the future not in the past so there fore mankind is evolving in that way. yes?no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 missing my point. simple fact is that people are getting faster. not neccesarily sprinters kids etc records are broken in the future not in the past so there fore mankind is evolving in that way. yes?no? That's a kind evolution, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I have been in stiches at this thread since the start What is the one undeniable thing that makes you think you are right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 The word "assume" gets left out. Until we find life on other planets, I will work on the idea there is none. Astrologers pipe dream? So what I need to do now then, is state all my assumptions as undenyable fact - that should sort it. By the way I do believe in a higher power, just not the notion that "evolution is impossible" when it clearly isn't. It's the extreme views touted by people who haven't bothered to research either side accurately that annoys me (like stating catagorically that Darwin's theory of evolution is impossible, then asking how a giraffe developed a long neck or how sea mammals ended up on land). An ideal example of my views is the flood you mentioned.... perhaps it did happen (there's certainly some persuasive evidence to support that it did), but believing in that (and even that it was an act of god), doesn't automatically make evolution false, and the world several thousand years old. And Chief, kudos for fighting your corner without resorting to insults or "you're going to hell you spawn of satan" talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.