What is TW's definition of racism?

[Kolar]

Asking for a clear example for evolution is ridiculous? Then why believe something that is ridiculous?

The theory is not ridiculous, the idea that we could in our species' life time observer evolution in full is.

You know whats even more ridiculous? One of the mainstream evolutionists, Dr. Carl Sagan, put the chance of evolution occuring at roughly 10^2,000,000,000.

That's a flawed idea that many fundamentalist bring up every now and then. The randomness or extremely unlikeliness of an event to occur should not be interpreted as the event will never or will likely not occur.

Now, I would put a 1, with a bunch of 0s, but I'd probably get banned if I put 2 billion zeros there.

Yes that's called Scientific Notation. If you passed high school or took anything related to the field of science you'd at least know of it. But yes just a lot of zeros... :cowboy:. It's nonsense to ignore the highly improbable when it appears to be the truth.

Oort cloud is an example of one of theses. A scientist just decided to say there is a big cloud which creates the most of the comets we see today. This is considered such a fact that NASA even supports this theory. Yet, this was simply created out by a scientist who has absolutely 0 proof of its existance, and wanted to make up something to support his evolutionary theory. "Again the idea is not that anyone is clinging to something they can't see." Yet that is exactly what happens here, and with every form of evolution except micro-evolution. The whole theory clings on things unseen and unproved.

I think I'll skip your little bullshit on evolution since you're too far gone but I'll answer your idiotic attack on the Oort cloud theory. It's clear that in our solar system history we have had many active comets and other objects, a majority of which would have been destroyed by Jupiter and our Sun (if you believe they're up there), due to the fact that both are enormous objects having a strong gravitational pull (if you believe in gravity). Because we can document and caluclate that a majority of these objects are not left from the formation of our solar system some 4 billion years ago they'd have to come from an outside source. Others things like mapping the trajectory of new comets and asteroids in relation to the belts near Mars and Pluto and possibly using satellite based and ground based tools to find a commonality in native Solar objects such as mass, material or direction could offer more evidence. Hopefully in the near future we will have the technology to view these objects if they exist, for now the theory must rely on indirect evidence. If there is another theory brought forward that doesn't say they just appeared out of thin air, it will be reviewed by the scientific community.

Your theory of evolution has not stood the test of time, as its existance is no more than 200 years old, and has never been solid once, meaning it is always and continually changing to fix its errors, even though the whole theory is one big error. Creationism isn't the attempt to attack evolution, but evolution is the attempt to attack creationism. Creationism didn't move evolution out of the schools, evolution moved creationism out of schools. The belief in creationism severally outlasts evolution in its length of existance.

And again that's the beauty of it. As we discover more about the natural world things are added to it, some things are removed. At this point I'd say we have a good understanding of evolution, the clear cut picture isn't there yet and likely never will be. If in that time another theory comes in and completely turns things another way well then we learned something, it isn't ignorance or close mindedness Blueblaze, it's about exploration and discovery and the pursuit of the truth. The length at which these ideas last is irrelevant, it only matters that they either stand up to the scientific method or not. By the test of time I meant peer review and survival in the scientific community. Science should be taught in the class room and as evolution and other theories have shown themselves to be closer to what the natural world exhibits and provides students with more critical thinking skills, it is what should be taught.



The rest is more crack pot shit, I knew a bible quote was coming. Evolution doesn't try to explain how the universe was created. In quantum physics and Cosmology M theory or 'Magic' theory attempts to explain how our universe came into being from a multi-universe environment.

[Ephemeral]

Evolution is fact.
Evolution is defined as 'things change', no one in their right mind could argue that things do not change. It has been proven over and over, humans have changed (gotten taller over the last thousand years) for example. Human change the animals and plants around us (through selective breeding we have evolved dogs, corn, etc.) And clearly animals and plants evolve on their own, adapting and improving the species as those individuals with superior attributes become more successful.

I believe in God, but I get frustrated at other believers who continue to fight with Science. The history of Religion vs. Science is ugly and stupid (both sides having ownership). It is VERY obvious that Religion saw Science as a threat. The reason is very clear, belief was tied to ‘God by gap’ (‘God by gap’ is when people did not understand something so therefore it must be Godly). So as Sciences advanced, Religion saw it as a threat. Note that this is true for every religion, not just Christianity. When early Greeks found dinosaur bones, they explained them away as ‘giants’ and God-like beings such as Zeus. The bible was written by humans who were very much caught up in this perspective. This is why the Church prosecuted people who said that the Sun was the center of our solar system.

Is it not time to drop the stupidity of ‘God by gap’ perspective and understand that it is not a threat to believe in sciences? Think of it this way; science are the ‘rules’ of our physical universe, religion is the meaning of our universe. Science will never explain the meaning of our lives, it only defines the physical laws we live under. Perhaps a better example is…
A person can learn all the ‘rules’ of a language. These ‘rules’ are things like spelling, grammar, sentence construction, and how to compose a poem. But by understanding these things can a person write a moving emotion poem? No. A meaningful poem is independent of simply knowing the rules of a language. This is how Science and Religion should co-exist.

[Subjugation]

The guy doesn't believe in science. Isn't that enough of a clue that he can't be reasoned with?

I'm honestly wondering why this thread hasn't been moved to UC or fired into space---it's not on topic anymore, and even if it was, it's been asked and answered 20x in the last 3 days anyway.

[Blueblaze]

Evolution is fact.
Evolution is defined as 'things change', no one in their right mind could argue that things do not change. It has been proven over and over, humans have changed (gotten taller over the last thousand years) for example.

Humans have getting taller does not prove that our living conditions and diets have gotten better, that doesn't prove evolution's existance.

Human change the animals and plants around us (through selective breeding we have evolved dogs, corn, etc.) And clearly animals and plants evolve on their own, adapting and improving the species as those individuals with superior attributes become more successful.

These changes you've noted are microevolution, which is a proven fact, they are not changes from a species to another species. Meaning, a dog never turns into a cat, nor does a tree into a horse, they change within the species in miniature ways. As far as breeding is concerned, thats not a biological evolutionary principle either, I believe when Noah took 2 of every kind of animal, he took 2 dogs which had all the characteristics of the dogs we see within them, and through breeding, those dog's offspring had the characteristics of their parents (not necessarily all, but some) which began the divisions in dogs. The only changes that are notable are mutations, but there has never been recorded one positive change to the genes of a species. When I'm refering to this change, I don't mean adaptation or natural selection, which do exist, but not nearly as strong as the evolutionist claim. Mutations exist, but the only ones that do exist are negative ones, where the organism is weakened or destroyed by this change. Positive changes don't exist, as everything tends to go into disorder and disruption, hence the laws of thermodynamics. Point being, there is not one solid proof for evolution, you can dig up bones and claim they are old, but you don't have one piece of evidence that a rocky soup turned into humans that we say today. You can't turn a non-living thing into something living, thats just an impossibility.

I believe in God, but I get frustrated at other believers who continue to fight with Science. The history of Religion vs. Science is ugly and stupid (both sides having ownership). It is VERY obvious that Religion saw Science as a threat. The reason is very clear, belief was tied to ‘God by gap’ (‘God by gap’ is when people did not understand something so therefore it must be Godly). So as Sciences advanced, Religion saw it as a threat. Note that this is true for every religion, not just Christianity. When early Greeks found dinosaur bones, they explained them away as ‘giants’ and God-like beings such as Zeus. The bible was written by humans who were very much caught up in this perspective. This is why the Church prosecuted people who said that the Sun was the center of our solar system.

Is it not time to drop the stupidity of ‘God by gap’ perspective and understand that it is not a threat to believe in sciences? Think of it this way; science are the ‘rules’ of our physical universe, religion is the meaning of our universe. Science will never explain the meaning of our lives, it only defines the physical laws we live under. Perhaps a better example is…
A person can learn all the ‘rules’ of a language. These ‘rules’ are things like spelling, grammar, sentence construction, and how to compose a poem. But by understanding these things can a person write a moving emotion poem? No. A meaningful poem is independent of simply knowing the rules of a language. This is how Science and Religion should co-exist.

The God of the Bible, the one true Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that God, nor the Bible agree or support this concept of evolutionary change. The Bible is very clear on Creation, that it happened in 6 literally days, a night and a day period of time. Genesis 1 gives the account of this creation, that in those days God created the universe out of nothing, and when He spoke the things into existence, they were there, it wasn't a million year process between days, but it was God speaking everything into creation. It is an absolute impossibility to say that real Christianity, without compromise, can co-exist with this 'Science'. This science of evolution is not even valid science, it's a religion just as much as Christianity. The reason why evolutionism is strongly opposed by any good Christian denomination, is because it is a religion that attacks the very foundation of Christianity. These principles of evolution attempt deny and destroy who the one true God is, and substitute Him with a humanistic religion. Christianity and Evolution cannot co-exist.

[Aquatiq]

Well, Merry Christmas, then.

[Asmodeus]

I don't mean to add more fuel to the fire and take this further away from the topic at hand, BUT.... Blueblaze, how do you explain the dinosaurs? We have carbon dating techniques that can tell us how old things are. These techniques have been tried, tested and proved that they do indeed work and aren't full of shit.

Also, in response to your response to my response: there is a difference between attacking someone because of their beliefs and attacking someone's beliefs. One is attacking the person, the other attacking the belief. We're trying to protect the person, not the belief.

[Jones]

haha someone actually said 'go and die in africa' thats like a big blinking red warning that this dude needs some serious absence from a 2d spaceship game

putting all this fancy science and religion aside, how about some comedic value so we can continue in useless crap.

who created god?

[Blueblaze]

I don't mean to add more fuel to the fire and take this further away from the topic at hand, BUT.... Blueblaze, how do you explain the dinosaurs? We have carbon dating techniques that can tell us how old things are. These techniques have been tried, tested and proved that they do indeed work and aren't full of shit.

Also, in response to your response to my response: there is a difference between attacking someone because of their beliefs and attacking someone's beliefs. One is attacking the person, the other attacking the belief. We're trying to protect the person, not the belief.

Carbon dating doesn't prove anything, as it is full of errors. There are several major problems with carbon dating. For starters, the earth's magnetic field has been declining constantly, and this can easily disrupt carbon dating figures, as we don't know if the rate of decline is constant throughout history (which if that was the case, then history disproves evolution, as the moon would be crushed into the earth if you took the current rate of the earth's magnetism and figured out the rate a billion or several million years ago.) Much like this, the earth is slowing down in its spin, at a constant rate, where I believe its something like where we lose 1 second in our calender year per year. Thats not a big deal if the earth is 7,000 years old, only a few minutes, but if the earth is billions of years old, then the earth would have to be spinning at huge levels of speed, which would literally throw everything off the planet. Anyway, back to carbon dating, the second problem is that recording half lives on a subject is only accurate about the first 4-5 times. The carbon dating is surely very inaccurate whenever your trying to date something you claim is a million years old. As well, carbon dating is just as good as the standard evolutionist set for it. Meaning, carbon dating gets dates that are both in the thousands and in the millions of years. Its just evolutionist's common knowledge to throw out young-earth datings, because it fits their theory. Thats not science, but thats a fanatical religion.

who created god?

No one, God has existed eternally, He has no end and no beginning.

Habakkuk 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

etc...

Aquatiq, Merry Christmas to you too :P

[Ewan]

Can you please explain to me, in your own words, how changes in the magnetic field of the earth can affect carbon dating?

Also, I chuckled at "the earth spinning so fast things get thrown off". I don't think it works like that

[Dack Falu]

The dinosaurs where obviously flung into space because the Earth was too fast.

[EnFlAmE]

Anyone who thinks the evolution theory is bullshit should concider playing in traffic blindfolded.

[Asmodeus]

Carbon dating doesn't prove anything, as it is full of errors. There are several major problems with carbon dating. For starters, the earth's magnetic field has been declining constantly, and this can easily disrupt carbon dating figures, as we don't know if the rate of decline is constant throughout history (which if that was the case, then history disproves evolution, as the moon would be crushed into the earth if you took the current rate of the earth's magnetism and figured out the rate a billion or several million years ago.) Much like this, the earth is slowing down in its spin, at a constant rate, where I believe its something like where we lose 1 second in our calender year per year. Thats not a big deal if the earth is 7,000 years old, only a few minutes, but if the earth is billions of years old, then the earth would have to be spinning at huge levels of speed, which would literally throw everything off the planet. Anyway, back to carbon dating, the second problem is that recording half lives on a subject is only accurate about the first 4-5 times. The carbon dating is surely very inaccurate whenever your trying to date something you claim is a million years old. As well, carbon dating is just as good as the standard evolutionist set for it. Meaning, carbon dating gets dates that are both in the thousands and in the millions of years. Its just evolutionist's common knowledge to throw out young-earth datings, because it fits their theory. Thats not science, but thats a fanatical religion.

You still haven't answered my question about the dinosaurs. (I don't mean to belittle you here but....) Here's some basic math for ya. The circumference of the Earth at the equator is about 25,000 miles. The Earth makes one complete rotation in about 24 hours. 25,000/24 is roughly about 1,000 miles per hour. That's how fast our Earth spins...and yet here we all are still on the Earth. Did you know Earth moves around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour? I don't know about you, but 1,000 miles per hour and 67,000 miles per hour is pretty damn fast if you ask me. Yet here we are...still orbiting our Sun. I guess maybe if we were to travel at 2,000 miles per hour instead that we'd all be falling off the earth, since 1,000 miles per hour doesn't seem fast enough. There's also our solar system moving around in the Milky Way Galaxy...the Milky Way Galaxy moving around other local galaxies. It's obvious the farther away we move out the faster we're traveling...all relative to something else. Ever spun around in one spot with a bucket of water? Ever notice what happens to the water? Do you know what your body spinning around would represent here?

Another thing, even with the Earth's spin slowing down...we aren't losing time, we're actually gaining time. All it's doing is adding longer days and longer months. Be it 7000 years or Billions of years old, the days have gotten longer...that's all there is to that.

Also...I too would like to know how the Earth's magnetic fields affect carbon dating. I don't believe I remember reading anything about that in my science books. Plus there's also the layers of rock in the Earth's crust that we can use to give approximate dates on other things and such, aside from carbon dating alone.

Also know that I believe in God.

Last time I go off-topic in this thread. I swear!

Back to being on-topic...directing this to everyone. Racism is racism, no matter how you look at it. If it wasn't there then there'd be no need for the racism rules. It's also all about context in which some of these words (some with double meanings) are used. Just don't be stupid and there won't be anyone from Staff bothering ya.

[Subjugation]

Cabron Dating:

[Dabram]

I think Bluebase is just a forum troll, who shouldn't be given any more attention.

[Pummel]

Carbon dating doesn't prove anything, as it is full of errors. There are several major problems with carbon dating. For starters, the earth's magnetic field has been declining constantly, and this can easily disrupt carbon dating figures, as we don't know if the rate of decline is constant throughout history (which if that was the case, then history disproves evolution, as the moon would be crushed into the earth if you took the current rate of the earth's magnetism and figured out the rate a billion or several million years ago.) Much like this, the earth is slowing down in its spin, at a constant rate, where I believe its something like where we lose 1 second in our calender year per year. Thats not a big deal if the earth is 7,000 years old, only a few minutes, but if the earth is billions of years old, then the earth would have to be spinning at huge levels of speed, which would literally throw everything off the planet. Anyway, back to carbon dating, the second problem is that recording half lives on a subject is only accurate about the first 4-5 times. The carbon dating is surely very inaccurate whenever your trying to date something you claim is a million years old. As well, carbon dating is just as good as the standard evolutionist set for it. Meaning, carbon dating gets dates that are both in the thousands and in the millions of years. Its just evolutionist's common knowledge to throw out young-earth datings, because it fits their theory. Thats not science, but thats a fanatical religion.



No one, God has existed eternally, He has no end and no beginning.

Habakkuk 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

etc...

Aquatiq, Merry Christmas to you too :P

All respect for you just vanished -- like the dinosaurs.