BF2S Forums Science in Texas doomed.

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

Braddock wrote:

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

You do realize that there is such a thing as creation science and there are creationist scientists?

Hold on, can we get back to you trying to suggest Noah took dinosaurs on the ark?

He could have easily taken smaller dinosaurs, you know, babies? No one said he had to take huge grown dinosaurs.

Braddock wrote:

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Hold on, can we get back to you trying to suggest Noah took dinosaurs on the ark?

He could have easily taken smaller dinosaurs, you know, babies? No one said he had to take huge grown dinosaurs.

Then what the fuck wiped out the dinosaurs and why didn't it wipe everything else out?

Superior Mind wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

Because of the flood? You know, the flood that isnt just referred to in the bible but in many other ancient civilizations historical texts.

So how did Noah store the fish on his ark?  The reason I ask is that most salt water creatures cannot survive in fresh water, and vice versa.  That means if the flood was salt water, which is most likely, then all the fresh water creatures would have died, or vice versa.  How is it that we still have an abundance of species for both?

I have no doubt that there may have been a flood due to a tsunami or tidal wave, or whatever they call them in that part of the world, but the flood most certainly did not cover the entire planet.  If it had there would be geological proof of this.  This flood occurred in the too recent past for geologists to have not found substantial evidence of such a worldwide flood.

Oh, and while you're bashing science.  Lets play this little game.  Science can't explain how gravity works.  We can see its obvious effects, we can measure it, and can even calculate its effect on objects...but we still can't explain where it comes from or how it works.  So you're right, in that science can't explain everything.  Now, since science can't really prove anything, and we don't know how gravity works, why don't you go to the top of a very tall building and see if the one time YOU step off that building that gravity ceases to work in the manner in which science has described.

Also, nemisis, you big genius, dinosaurs were not around the 4000 or so years ago. They died out 65 MILLION years ago. I want you to disprove that a large meteor could not kill off most of the surface dwelling life on earth...come on prove it. Also, all of those historical texts tell of a flood, yes. And there is scientific evidence of a flood around then...in the Fertile Crescent area, where all of those texts come from, because the Fertile Crescent was all they knew as the world then.

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

If dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago why has dinosaur fossilized skin been found and dinsaur fossilized DNA? That wouldnt last 65 million years.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Fenris_GreyClaw wrote:

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

If dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago why has dinosaur fossilized skin been found and dinsaur fossilized DNA? That wouldnt last 65 million years.

It would if it's been fossilised...

Don't worry, he won't believe anything. He trusts god much more than he trusts his internet.

S.J.N.P.0717 wrote:

Haha you have complete fucking idiots running your state. Join California.

Last edited by _j5689_ (2007-07-26 08:59:05)

Bertster7 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

He still hasn't answered the question of have Noah engineered an ark that could hold millions of species on one vessel.

The Bible gives the size of the ark. It couldn't possibly hold one of every species, especially not including dinosaurs. Although isn't that the typical creationist response - they died out because they wouldn't fit on the ark

But of course the other response is that it's magic or God did it - which you can't really argue with rationally, because there is no rational response other than to laugh.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2007-07-26 09:02:35)

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

Braddock wrote:

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

You do realize that there is such a thing as creation science and there are creationist scientists?

Hold on, can we get back to you trying to suggest Noah took dinosaurs on the ark?

He could have easily taken smaller dinosaurs, you know, babies? No one said he had to take huge grown dinosaurs.

Superior Mind wrote:

Ha, he's offline, we won the debate. Viva la evolucion!

PureFodder wrote:

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Hold on, can we get back to you trying to suggest Noah took dinosaurs on the ark?

He could have easily taken smaller dinosaurs, you know, babies? No one said he had to take huge grown dinosaurs.

Well, the Ark would have to contain:
287,655 plants, including:
15,000 mosses,
13,025 ferns,
980 gymnosperms,
199,350 dicotyledons,
59,300 monocotyledons;
74,000-120,000 fungi;
10,000 lichens;
2,500,000 animals, including:
950,000 insects,
70,000 mollusks,
40,000 crustaceans,
130,200 others;
29,300 fish,
5,743 amphibians,
8,240 reptiles,
10,234 birds, (9799 extant as of 2006)
5,416 mammals.
However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:

5-10 million bacteria;
1.5 million fungi;

Plus anything that has to reproduce with another menber of it's species you have to then have two of them not just the one.

Then you have to add the dinosaurs and all extinct species to that list.

how long would it take to get all those species together?

How long would it take to load the damned boat?

Next consider all the food they would have to consume to survive a 30 day boat trip.
This is one un-fucking-believably big boat, made by one familly out of wood on a single hilltop!?

When the flood waters receded, what did everything eat? How did the penguins walk all the way to the poles?

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-26 09:25:14)

ReTox wrote:

[NeMe$i$.Dr4g0ncl4w] wrote:

topal63 wrote:

How old are you?

Typical response. You cant defend your belief so you stick with idiotic questions. Not impressed.

I'll bite.

From:

Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

Reads:

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate).  And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on).  In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.



Yep, creationism = /fail