Avian Gamers Network

_________________
*Teras Kasi Watcher
*Pistoleer
*Scout
*Medic

Cool Stuff, and I got to see two other rarities today. A total Lunar Eclipse and the Red Sox winning the World Series.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.

I didn't read the whole article yet, but the first few lines of it indicate that this is just one more reason to believe Evolution is simply theory which is full of holes. I absolutely deplore the fact that most people think that Evolution is a proven fact. Quite the opposite actually. With each year that goes by, more evidence is discovered that puts one more hole in the theory, and yet "scientists" continue to cling to its hopelessness.

I don't want to start a religious discussion here, so I'm not going to get into what I believe, but I will discuss scientific facts about this. As most of you who know me are aware, I'm a pretty analytical person. I simply cannot get around some of the facts about this that do not fit into this theory.

If you would like to discuss this further and deeper, send me a PM. Otherwise, lets keep this to science. (Though some would argue that Science is its own religion).

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Not sure how this puts holes in the theory of evolution, but it was certainly an interesting read.

I agree with Marrok.

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

It appears after reading this particular article more in depth, this particular find doesn't do a whole lot of damage to the theory of evolution itself, but it does change the view that Homo Erectus edged out the other variations of human life hundreds of thousands of years ago.

The biggest point I can make for my earlier statement is by asking the question, "What is Evolution based upon?" It certainly doesn't appear to be based on the Scientific Method. Origins must be approached objectively. Evolutionary scientists generally are not objective in this, as they base their findings on the supposition of Naturalism.

There are so many unanswered questions being ignored when listening to explainations of Evolutions. Notably the questions of, "Where is the connection between non-living matter, and the emergence of living matter?" There is no solid explanation for that in evolution. Also, "Where did the non-living matter come from?"

If someone can answer those questions with evidence supporting it, more power to them.

You also have the problem of what we call, "Irreducibly Complex Living Systems." What that is, is the fact that examples in nature (organisms, living systems, and organs of specimens.. i.e. the human eye) are simply too incredibly complex to support development by chance. Not only are they evolved once, but repeated many times throughout nature in COMPLETELY SEPERATE THREADS OF SUPPOSED EVOLUTION! Recurring miracles in other words. Impossibility in my opinion.

Anybody following me?

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

The question of "irreducible complexity" raises a very interesting question. How does a less-complex organism spontaneously change into something more complex?

I guess I'll tackle some of your points.

First, I am sure we can waste a lot of time arguing back and forth what is living matter and what isn't. There have been a lot of experiments done here on earth with the so-called primordial mixture of chemicals - simple molecules such as hydrogen cyanide, water etc. After being subjected to conditions presumed to exist on Earth 4 billion years ago, traces of complex moleculas such as amino acids and nucleosides were found. Those same molecules (hydrogen cyanide, water...) were also found in space. Some more complex combinations of these molecules were also found in space. To me, as a chemist, that is the beginning of life. But is it life? No, not yet. When then? Too long to write here...

I am sure you can find plenty of holes in the theory of evolution. Like, how did these simple molecules then combine into more compelx ones? What re the odds? Some of the stages of this process are known, some aren't. One of the main differences between science and religion is, that science does not claim to have all the answers. Questioning scientific theories is not only tolerated, it is encouraged. Science simply tries to provide a logical explanation. If you do not accept this explanation, you are more than welcome to question it. No threats of eternal damnation and burning in hell.

As for knowing all the answers, I guess that's a matter of your personality. To me, knowing that there is a great big unknown still waiting out there to be discovered, is exciting. To some, the security of an explanation outweighs its validity.

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

FANTASTIC! I absolutely LOVE discussing this kinda stuff, especially with one as informed as you are then.

Question concerning your chemicals then.... As you said, those chemicals combine and create more complex substances. But that leaves 2 questions. What happens before, and what happens after, that supports evolution.

I'll start with "before." As you stated, those molecules have been found out in space so therefore they must have been there millions of years ago. That in itself is questionable logic, but let's go with it for now. So the question becomes, how did those molecules get there?

Now for "after." After you have these molecules combine into more complex substances (which btw is atomic theory more than anything evolutional), how do those chemicals miraculously become life bearing? and eventually VERY complex organisms that act and think for themselves? You already stated that this question is not answered, but I think it's noteworthy to state again, because that, in my opinion invalidates the entire theory, and the Scientific Method supports that.



As I stated before, religion will not play a part in the discussion whatsoever, aside from my belief that a good part of evolution requires a good bit of faith to believe it. You have no need to fear condemnation from me.



I do not, nor will I ever state that I have all the answers. I am very aware that any answer I can supply can and will be challenged continually. The goal of my discussion is simply this: Evolution is a less viable solution to the question of origins than our educational systems would have us believe. Your statement that "security of an explanation outweighs its validity," I believe is to blame for this. We want so badly to explain where we came from, that we are willing to overlook reason and logic to do so.

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

I've always believed that evolution as a theory has far less holes in it than creationism. While this point can certainly be argued I also believe that creationism requires much more faith to believe than evolution. I think this will be my last comment because I don't know everyone well enough to discuss what can become sensitive topics for some.

_________________
"Chatfield, I think there's something wrong with our bloody ships." Admiral David Beatty, upon watching the battlecruiser Queen Mary explode at the battle of Jutland.

My name is Tobias Smith and I approved this post.

Probably smart. There are some here that get pretty bent out of shape when discussing these things. I for one, completely disagree with you, but I'm willing to leave it at that. We can always discuss it later if you want, on teamspeak or MSN, or by PMs. Fascinating discussion though nonetheless.

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

That is flawed logic. Lack of an answer to a question cannot invalidate a theory. Inability of explanation of a scientific fact does disprove a theory. We do not know what happens during various stages of the evolution. We lack data. That does not automatically mean that, once those data are found, they will not be explainable by the theory of the evolution. Nor does it mean that they will.

Scientific Method says that a theory can only be disproven, it can never be pronounced as Truth. Maybe your teachers did not stress this fact enough and you feel like evolution was crammed down your throat as truth. It is merely the currently accepted paradigm. The problem is, 90% of kids in school don't really care at that age and nobody, who truly understands these things in depth, is willing to explain it to a bunch of hormonally imbalanced disinterested teenagers for $30,000 a year.

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

In my point of view, the theory of evolution does not adequately explain the question, "where did we come from?" because of these gaps and unanswered questions. So therefore, it would seem that it is an incomplete theory at best. An incomplete theory would seem to be invalid in answering the problem, so then my logic is not flawed, as it is indeed invalidated.



If I recall, Scientific Method DOES say that a theory, if held widely enough without being discredited, can become scientific law. Is that not correct?

I absolutely agree that most of the population of high school students could give a rat's ass about the subject, but nevertheless, the subject is heavily confronted in 9th and 10th grade science books. My objection to this is that is not being objectively taught, on account of the fact that the subject of Origins is taught with a basis of an assumption called "methodological naturalism." This assumption states that Natural occurrances can be the only explanation for the Origin of life. Anything other than natural occurance is immediately rejected based on nothing more than this assumption.

Approaching ANY theory with the scientific method REQUIRES objectivity, and forbids ANY assumptions whatsoever, however absurd they may sound. If I were to say that Elvis is an eternal being and lived millions of years ago and created the earth, it cannot be thrown out simply out of an assumption that it sounds ridiculous. Evidence and facts must be presented in order to rule it out. THAT is the Scientific Method.

OBJECTIVITY MUST BE PRESERVED.

That being said, Intelligent Design is just as viable a solution, due to the total lack of contradictory evidence. Evidence that does not point to either Evolution or Intelligent Design exclusively must be thrown out of the subject completely, as it then becomes neutral. This complicates things enormously because most of the evidence for either side of the argument can apply to both theories.

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

vERY QUICKLY, CAUSE i DON'T HAVE TIME RIGHT NOW TO ANSWER EVERYTHING...

Damnit caps lock. Oh well.



Evolution describes how species evolved from single cell organisms very well. I does not claim to describe the origin of life. It might, but it does not, yet.




A scientific law can still be thrown out or augmented. Like Newton's Law of Gravity - it did not explain stuff close to speed of light and was augmented by Einstein. Or the Law of Preservation of Mass - it was proven wrong with the discovery that masss is lost in radioactive decay processes. It was augmented by Einstein as well. It was shown that mass equals energy and energy is preserved. Many other examples.

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

When you get a chance, please respond to this portion:



and I'll respond to your stuff...



That's correct, but most often when discussing theories of origin, naturalists combine the theory of evolution with Big Bang theory in order to connect the dots from start to finish. The same questions still go unanswered by a Naturalist philosophy.




Ok, that's my point actually. The theory of evolution has not been sufficiently augmented dispite the evidence that has been presented that would seem to call for a wide range of augmentations. Here is one example:

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Well, I am trying to avoid the discussion of creationism vs. evolution and stick to philospohy of science or theory of knowledge here. That's why I purposefully avoided the portions about creationism.

In that respect, evolution is the most widely accepted theory about the development of species. It is a fact, until proven otherwise. I guess it depends on your own crteria and beliefs, what disproves it. For me, you would need to find the remains of a man that came from before there were any apes. Or better even - before there were mammals.

Yes, evolution is the currently accepted paradigm, and those are extremely hard to shift. Remeber Copernicus and Galileo? They knew Earth was not the center of the world, but it was very hard for them to prove it regardless. It was the same for Darwin - the literal interpretation of Genesis stood in the way. Evolution is the current big boy on the block. If anyone can disprove it, more power to them. IMHO, it hasn't been done yet.

One more thing. The purpose of Science is not to prove the non-existence of God. It is simply to explain how things happen. To some people, that means disccovering in which way God moves, to other people seeing how many complex things work without the need of divine intervention removes the neccessity of God. To each their own.

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

I have not in the least resorted to religious dogma in this discussion. I rely on reason and science alone for my arguments. I implore you, do the same and defend your statements against the evidence I put on the table. For equality sake, I invite you as well, to put evidence of your own on the table, supporting your own arguments for this theory of evolution.



How is a theory ever fact until it is absolutely proven??? The two terms theory and fact are absolutely at odds with one another.



I'm going to take the time to refute this, as I feel I have very strong counter arguments for this point. However, I want to wait because the conversation needs to stay focused, and I would like your thoughts on some of the following points that I made earlier on that went unaddressed. I'll list them here:

- The fact of Irreducibly Complex Living Systems (ie. the human eye).
- The fact that evolutionists confront their theory with prenotioned assumptions (that only natural occurances can explain it and anything else is to be thrown out on that basis)
- Total lack of connecting forms in fossil records




I made no such statement. The purpose of Science is as you say to explain how things happen. I have stated reasons and evidence, scientific evidence, refuting the theory of evolution as being viable. These reasons indicate that EVOLUTION cannot be "how things happened," and so I call for the theory to be again reworked or thrown out and replaced with a more viable theory. Unless you can address the issues that I've laid out as well as the many more I have to bring, I think this request is quite reasonable.

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Well, it is a fact with which people trying to disprove it have to deal with. Just as Copernicus and Galileo had to deal with the geocentric view of the world, so must the creationists deal with the current paradigm of evolution. Evolution is the current head honcho, the Goliath. If creationism is the DAvid that will replace it - that remains to be seen. But the fighting ground does not need to be fair. The evidence on creationist part has to be so overwhelming as to not need an even fight.

I just tried to use some analogies to describe the scientific process here. Note that I am not trying to argue with specific evidence for or against evolution here or before. There are many other pages on the internet dealing with this, written by people more knowledgeable on the subject than both, you or me (and on both sides).



I know you didn't, I just wanted to clarify. A disclaimer of sorts, if you will.

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

_________________
"Loose with Dignity"
Robert
Second President, Avian Gamers

DDO - Cannith - AlistairItor - Rogue/Ranger (5/3) - Main
DDO - Cannith - Guijanitor - Paladin/Rogue (4/1)
DDO - Cannith - RicochetItor - Rogue (5)

So are you conceding that there are no explanations for the 3 points I listed above?

- The fact of Irreducibly Complex Living Systems (ie. the human eye).
- The fact that evolutionists confront their theory with prenotioned assumptions (that only natural occurances can explain it and anything else is to be thrown out on that basis)
- Total lack of connecting forms in fossil records

If so, I'd like to further my case, because apparently this theory is different from any other scientific theory ever devised in that it DOES apparently take overwhelming evidence against it to sway the faith of it's followers.

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Wow I started a barn burner!

_________________
*Teras Kasi Watcher
*Pistoleer
*Scout
*Medic

Quite the contrary. I just found your stance of the matter quite entrenched, despite a lot of information on the web that addresses your three points.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance




This is simply not true. There are a lot of religious scientists out there. Evidence is not destroyed. The fact of the matter is, that explaining occurences by simply "an act of a superior being" is far too easy and simplistic. It has been done for 1000 years in the middle ages. Nowadays, if a thing can be explained by natural occurances, it is.



Well, besides the whole plethora of dinosaurs with avian [sic!] pelvises and tha case of Archeopteryx, then various stages of man and various stages of development of many other animals, such as horse, elephant, cat, trilobites, etc. etc. , I guess there are still holes between some of those stages. If you want to nitpick, you can say that those holes can only be explained by a divine intervention. Or you can explain it by the fact that the fossils form only if the conditions are just right. Therefore animals that were not very numerous or that did not live close to places where anaerobic decomposition and sedimentation of stone onto the bones of the dead carcass was possible, would not show up in fossil records. Kinda like looking for a DeLorean or a specific model of Ferrari at a car junkyard.

Also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance


Yes, it takes overwhelming evidence against it. In that, it is no different from other scientific theories. Like I said, show me one fossil out of place. A mammal in devon, a man in jurassic and you have proven evolution wrong. One solid case is all it takes. Hasn't been done yet. The evidence presented against evolution is focusing on the details and being very nitpicky. Overturning theories take more than that. Ask Copernicus or Galileo. Ask Heisenberg and Schroedinger. Ask Einstein. All these people provided ovewhelming evidence to overturn the previous theories. Not just a few weaknesses of the predecessing theories.

Also, I simply did not wish to argue creationism vs. evolution. I stated this a number of times. The fact is, if I attack any of your creationist explanations the same way you attack evolution, I will infallably offend some people's religious views.

Finally, I have to say it's very bad form to declare my conceding those threee points after me saying many times that I do not wish to argue that part of the debate and after explaining my stance to you in a personal message.

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

In both those articles, the author consistantly refers to the term "natural selection" almost as if this process were a thinking entity. Instead of actually giving some sort of scientific explanation for how this miraculous occurance happens, the author instead attributes these happenings in nature to "natural selection," as if this is a thinking entity making the choice to advance certain species. I do not see this as a valid scientific explanation for the problem presented as Irreducibly Complex Living Systems.



First, I'd like to point out that these scientists you refer to as "religious scientists" should be more accurately described as "creation scientists." Religion need not play any part in it. Religion is a set of man-made rules and rituals that cannot be refuted by reason or science. These scientist are ones who open-mindedly look at the evidence and draw the conclusion that mankind, as well as the entire universe we live in cannot possibly be brought into existence by itself by random chance. The very notion is completely irrational, even without the evidence that supports otherwise. As I'm sure you've heard before, Einstein himself believed that to state that the universe is the result of a random event that somehow worked itself out on its own to its current state, is more ludicrous than stating that a printshop blew up one day and the result was a complete and orderly dictionary.



Yes, you have similarities that are carried over from species to species. But you STILL have ENORMOUS gaps in the fossil records where there should be BILLIONS of connecting forms between the various species. But the fact is, that you have complete forms of each species in the fossil records and not ONE SINGLE connecting fossil form with slight genetic mutations moving toward another complete species.



I'm not arguing religion here. I'm arguing scientific facts. It is evolution that is on trial. Religion plays no part in this. The facts are being looked at and nothing more. I've not once said, "because God says." or "I don't know how it happened, God just did it." It would be foolhardy for me to do so. All I'm saying is that the evidence, scientific evidence, does not support the claim that all species including mankind evolved from a single celled organism of the period of millions or billions of years.

One final piece of evidence I will lay out for you. Radioisotope Dating is completely inaccurate, and yet science continues to rely on it to validate the theory of evolution. It goes off the premise that Radioactive Decay is, and has been constant with little to no variance throughout history, across the board. It has been stated that without the belief that the earth is billions of years old, the theory of evolution crumbles, on account of the sheer length of time it would take for species to evolve. I give you this experiment, performed by a well known scientist who has discovered that Radioisotope Dating is inaccurate:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-376.htm

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

This story is now even getting video play on CCN's site. Looks like the hype is not dying, and the discovery is real...

_________________
*Teras Kasi Watcher
*Pistoleer
*Scout
*Medic

Here's a thought for y'all.

God created evolution.

I'm an evolutionary biologist. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Period.
I'm going to enter this debate, once I get home and can get more than 30 minutes on a computer.

The case for evolution is pretty straight-forward, and gaps in the fossil history has nothing to say for the theory of evolution per se, just for the theory of the evolutionary pathways. People tend to confuse the theory of evolution with the theory of the actual evolutionary pathways. Those are two different, albeit related fields.

When you understand paleontology and the process of how fossils are created, its quite easy to see why there are so many gaps in the fossil record. Its quite astonishing that we have found the number of fossils we have.

I'll be back with more later. I might also get into some of the current hypothesis of pre-biotic evolution if someone wants to dig into those. There are many of those, and some are pretty interesting.

_________________
Leno WeEda - Miner
Locin WeEda - Hauler/Trader

A summer on my knees in central wyoming looking for small black chips (fossilized mamalllian teeth) taught me that. They are very hard to find and fragile...

Yet, wouldn't you say there have been quite a few animals living on this rocksince "the dawn"? And for millions or years too.

I am sympathetic to both sides of this because of that. There should be less of them, but there should also be more. I make no sense.

_________________
*Teras Kasi Watcher
*Pistoleer
*Scout
*Medic

After Kyp's next post I may be joining you. Something tells me that my understanding of the subject is about to be revealed. Nevertheless, it's a fascinating subject of conversation, and I look forward to the insight of an expert.

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

You are entering this with a wrong premise. Natural selection is a fact, proven by many experiments. Survival of the fittest and all that. It is a part of evolution. The author referes to it as the driving force, not a thinking entity. Science has gone beyond talking in such philosophical terms to rather more quantitative data. Most creationist stuff I have read is very qualitative and relies on play of words and semantics, not numbers, equations and data. That's my main argument with it.




I said religious scientist on purpose, because there are many more scientists who believe in God and also trust in evolution, than are creationists. Contrary to what you might think, accepting evolution and believing in a superior being is not mutualy exclusive.

Also, the Einstein quote you are reffeing to is taken out of context. Eintein said that god doesn't depend on chance (or does not gamble or something along those lines), when he saw the work of Heisenberg and Schroedinger on quantum mechanics. If you ever had any quantum mechanics, you would know how probability plays into the physical world. At the smallest scale, very much depends on probability. Yet on a larger scale things average out and we have a pretty steady world. Einstein later accepted quantum mechanics and it is currently one of the basic theories in physics. Just goes to show you that you should not just look at scientists's statements, but rather at the end results and data and equations. Words can be played with, data not so much.



Like I said there are gaps. Look at the case of horse, where it's predecessors that were about 3 feet tall and had 5 fingers were found and traced throughout the ages, growing to its current size and the fingers joining into one big toe - the hoof. Sure, not all the species are explained in such great detail, because the fossil records are imperfect and they always will be. Look at my car analogy - looking for a DeLorean in a junkyard. DeLorean was a revolutionary car in many ways, yet as a model it failed. Some of its features were adopted by later cars, however. I view evolution in a similar way. It would be extremely hard for you to find a DeLorean in a car junkyard, however.



You cannot just discard a scientific theory, you need to provide a better one. Arguing creationism will undobtedly bring religion into the discussion.

Also, if evolution is on trial, don't you think the principle of innocent until proven guilty should apply? As far as I know, the jury is still out or it hasn't even been presented all the evidence. Until then, evolution stands. That's my only point - it is the current reality.



Umm, the jury is still out on that one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/rate_abandon_fantasies_henke.htm


Like I said, we can drag this argument waaaay too long. Both of us can find references on the web for either side of the argument. Since smarter people than us, who are actually paid to research this, cannot come to terms about it, I don't think we shall come to terms here.

Here is an index of creationist claims and the rebuttals:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I am sure you will find very long-winded rebuttals to these rebuttals. I don't have the time or the energy to go through all of them.

Hehe, I pass the torch to Kyp

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

The research continues

"However, local folk tales suggest the hominids may have still been living on Flores until the Dutch arrived in the 1500s."

Interesting...

This is some great conversation, very civil! I am very familiar with the creationist's theories and like a lot of them, but have real field experience with museums and love to play the sceptic. It's evident to me that both sides are holding on the proverbial tail of the elephant.

_________________
*Teras Kasi Watcher
*Pistoleer
*Scout
*Medic

Let's just state the following thoughts:


God started the "Big Bang", which started the creation of the universe.

God created everything, the concept of evolution, the big bang, everything, etc.

God always was, always is, and always will be. Think of him as an universal energy that will never stop existing.



Neither a scientific nor a religious explanation, can explain 100% the orgin of life.

You all can argue it all you want, and do it over and over, but it's all still theory, since none of it can be prooved 100%, even if one may be more convincing to some than the other.

So I think in conclusion to this whole entire conversation, it is safe to say that whether we were all created by some superbeing or some single cell, We are now, and that's all that matters.....in my opinion of course.

-Talon, just because someone comes up with an idea that you don't come up with, that doesn't mean that they're smarter than you. It just means that they may look at something a little differently, at a different perspective...

Don't doubt yourself...you'll be amazed with what you can come up with....

A perfect example would be Eienstien...he was good at Math and all that stuff...but sucked at alot of other things, English, poetry....you get my point....and even if he didn't suck at it....I'm just trying to make a point....and I'm sure you know and understand all of this allready, and that statement was just made without really thinking about it...but I just though I'd post a responce here because I was bored, and wanted to do so......so.................lol...........

Yeah I learned that one summer when I dug up my dads whole backyard. I was astonished that no dinosaur bones could be found. The books made it look so easy, not to mention my dad found lots of Indian arrow heads and paint rocks when he dug his garden. As a kid I figured if I would dig deeper than my dad I would find the mother load.

I remember thinking my parents were not very smart. Who would not want fossils and dinosaur bones? Why they spent all day cooking, cleaning, and watching TV when they could be unearthing real treasure.

A few months later I was empty handed, and no longer thought dinosaurs were all that great. The fact that dinosaurs were too good to live in Louisiana did not sit well with me.

Cyrus... I'm not sure, but I think I'm actually dumber for reading that.

_________________
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Notice Cyrus didn't say which summer!

Begins to wonder what Cyrus was really doing earlier this year when taking breaks from SWG.
Mr. Rex: Dinosaur Hunter!

LOL

6
six
1982
First grade
I was six years old

geesh, everyone is out to get me! *looks for target on back*

Honestly, It was at the early age of six that I changed my career path from Architect to Astronaut. All thanks to a very unproductive dig. Many of my mother’s dogwood trees died to bring you this information.

There's the spirit!

My mom's rhododendrons died, too. But that was because it was a pain in the ass to wind the lawnmower around them and they required special soil to grow...

_________________
Retired Weaponsmith

Double Post.

Rhododendrons

Annnyyywwayyy….

Evolution!