Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- discipler0
Interesting points about the Geologic Column, here...
- discipler0
haha
- ********0
you guys are talking about rocks, right?
:)
- ********0
And we can last all night!
http://mineral.galleries.com/min…
that's right folks, step right up, get your GeoDorkJokes here
FREE!!
- ********0
you guys are talking about rocks, right?
:)
TheTick
(Jan 5 06, 12:33)yes and undelose extinction
;)
- ********0
Fuck religion! and all their bibles for that matter! It's for people who can't think independently.
- ********0
what in god's name
(get it. that post is double funny)
- ********0
- KuzII0
And are you suggesting that for 150,000 years the homo sapien species experienced total social and technological stasis? That in only 6,000 years of recorded history, in an evolutionary instant, we went from scraping on stone to sending astronauts to the moon?
Doesn't add up.
discipler
(Jan 5 06, 10:26)see, now that just demonstrates your lack of intelligence and ability to think properly. check dis from the economist:
"The killer application that led to humanity's rise is easy to identify. It is agriculture. When the glaciers began to melt and the climate to improve, several groups learned how to grow crops and domesticate animals. Once they had done that, there was no going back. Agriculture enabled man to shape his environment in a way no species had done before.
In truth, agriculture turned out to be a Faustian bargain. Both modern and fossil evidence suggests that hunter-gatherers led longer, healthier and more leisured lives than did farmers until less than a century ago. But farmers have numbers on their side. And numbers beget numbers, which in turn beget cities. The path from Catalhoyuk in Anatolia, the oldest known town, to the streets of Manhattan is but a short one, and the lives of people today, no matter how urbane and civilised, are shaped in large measure by the necessities of their evolutionary past."
So you see, it was the agricultural revolution that occurred when the environment was just right at the dawning of the ice age, that the neolithic revolution occurred in some societies, that led to vast and fast changes.
you could also say, using your stupid logic, that for 6,000 years little changed techonologically, with humans still using primitive farming techniques, until in about mid 18th century, the Industrial revolution suddenly paved the way for the man on the moon. Now you can frame that as incredulous if you want to, but we all know that that is exactly what happened. The last 200 years have seen phenmoneal changes due to the spark of an isolated event in Britain. Does that, by your logic, mean that the homo sapien species could only have existed on this earth from the 1760s onwards, at the dawn of the industrial revolution? Clearly you are being stupid with such stupid arguments you stupid stupid man.
plus you are undersestimating the potential of pre-neolitihic man who produced vastly complicated and sophisticated tools, as well as art and music. you should also note that there are societies out there who practice a prehistoric form of hunting-gathering, and have not seen it necessary to adapt to the agricultural methods of 7-10,000 years ago, or the industrial methods of 200 years ago.
ipso facto.
- kelpie0
morning KOna, who you keeping?
please let this one die mate, please please please :'(
- Pak-Man0
And are you suggesting that for 150,000 years the homo sapien species experienced total social and technological stasis? That in only 6,000 years of recorded history, in an evolutionary instant, we went from scraping on stone to sending astronauts to the moon?
Doesn't add up.
discipler
(Jan 5 06, 10:26)see, now that just demonstrates your lack of intelligence and ability to think properly. check dis from the economist:
"The killer application that led to humanity's rise is easy to identify. It is agriculture. When the glaciers began to melt and the climate to improve, several groups learned how to grow crops and domesticate animals. Once they had done that, there was no going back. Agriculture enabled man to shape his environment in a way no species had done before.
In truth, agriculture turned out to be a Faustian bargain. Both modern and fossil evidence suggests that hunter-gatherers led longer, healthier and more leisured lives than did farmers until less than a century ago. But farmers have numbers on their side. And numbers beget numbers, which in turn beget cities. The path from Catalhoyuk in Anatolia, the oldest known town, to the streets of Manhattan is but a short one, and the lives of people today, no matter how urbane and civilised, are shaped in large measure by the necessities of their evolutionary past."
So you see, it was the agricultural revolution that occurred when the environment was just right at the dawning of the ice age, that the neolithic revolution occurred in some societies, that led to vast and fast changes.
you could also say, using your stupid logic, that for 6,000 years little changed techonologically, with humans still using primitive farming techniques, until in about mid 18th century, the Industrial revolution suddenly paved the way for the man on the moon. Now you can frame that as incredulous if you want to, but we all know that that is exactly what happened. The last 200 years have seen phenmoneal changes due to the spark of an isolated event in Britain. Does that, by your logic, mean that the homo sapien species could only have existed on this earth from the 1760s onwards, at the dawn of the industrial revolution? Clearly you are being stupid with such stupid arguments you stupid stupid man.
plus you are undersestimating the potential of pre-neolitihic man who produced vastly complicated and sophisticated tools, as well as art and music. you should also note that there are societies out there who practice a prehistoric form of hunting-gathering, and have not seen it necessary to adapt to the agricultural methods of 7-10,000 years ago, or the industrial methods of 200 years ago.
ipso facto.
KuzII
(Jan 6 06, 03:49)
- kelpie0
morning KOna, who you keeping?
please let this one die mate, please please please :'(
kelpie
(Jan 6 06, 03:51)ok, sorry, it wasn't you...
- Nairn0
please let this one die mate, please please please :'(
kelpie
(Jan 6 06, 03:51)"x infinity", said in a childhish voice - but really, really meaning it.
Whoever asked whether discipler was a plant for the Discovery institute has my vote - I've thought this for a while. Discipler, much like my self, has no useful place on NT and should be banned.
I'd happily sacrifice my NT identity forever more for the greater good.
- KuzIII0
i lost all my salient points and quotes from the economist!
- Nairn0
'my' salient points?
You going to cut off the cover of the current issue and hang it on your wall, kuz?
;)
- KuzIII0
cheeky munky! i'm well smart... as well you know!
- ********0
And are you suggesting that for 150,000 years the homo sapien species experienced total social and technological stasis? That in only 6,000 years of recorded history, in an evolutionary instant, we went from scraping on stone to sending astronauts to the moon?
Doesn't add up.
discipler
(Jan 5 06, 10:26)
----------------------
Did he really say that? I have him on ignore...wow..OK...so now I know he's as ignorant about history as well as science - and sociology ..yup - sounds like he's on the White House payroll alright..
- discipler0
Makes for a good bedtime tale, but lacks empirical evidence. This is what they've been telling us for some time now. They begin by presupposing Darwinism and then are forced to explain timeframes and social/technological advancement within that framework. The problem is, if homo sapien possessed the full cognitive potential that he does today, it is rediculous to posit that he existed for over 100,000 years with essentially no progression except for primitive tool construction. Learning to harvest crops simply does not account for the degree of advancement in such a short period of time nor the degree of stasis prior to the boom.
It's a narritive. Calling me "stupid" won't change this. ;)
- kelpie0
Makes for a good bedtime tale, but lacks empirical evidence. This is what they've been telling us for some time now. They begin by presupposing Darwinism and then are forced to explain timeframes and social/technological advancement within that framework.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:19)you always slag off that "pre-suppose" thing, yet you pre-suppose an allmighty creator and fit everything into your dogmatic 6000 yr timeframe. dafty.
and do you actualy know anything about the history of the earth you didn't read in a bible or on an ID website?
- discipler0
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings,
and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to
record history? And is it probable that none should discover that plants grow from seeds.