Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- discipler0
kelpie, I'm all about following the evidence wherever it may lead. and I'm not necessarily an Young Earth Creationist. It's just that the evidence, taken as a whole, leads away from NeoDarwinism.
- Nairn0
Just.
- Nairn0
Let.
- Nairn0
It.
- Nairn0
Die.
- Nairn0
Don't care..
- Nairn0
..if I..
- Nairn0
..Get a strike for..
- Nairn0
..ruining this thread.
- KuzIII0
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.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:19)OMG, You're not that stupid are you??? did you read my post???
look, you idiot
"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"
The neolithic revolution coincided with the end of the ice-age. it wasn't about mental capacity it was about certain environmental conditions that were met.
Look at the analogy i made you fucking idiot - look at the amazing technological advances that have been made in the last 200 years with the onset of the industrial revolution and the shift from feudal to capitalist societies. For 10,000 years the world changed little from an agrarian system based on feudalism to what we see today. Yet the cranial capacity of the homo sapien has changed very little. Does this mean, by your idiotic logic that men could not have existed until 200 years ago?
really, how stupid are you?
plus what about the point i made, this one:
"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"
don't be a dumbass dicklpler, your argument is stupid and holds no water. it only convinces monkeys and children.,
- Nairn0
thbbbt.
- KuzIII0
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.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:26)eugh, your a dumbass. It was the agricultural revolution that necessitated time keeping, the recording of the lunar calendar, etc.. to plant crops and bring in the harvest - it was all part of the same process.
plus, the world only came out of an ice age 10,000 years ago! you can't do agriculture on glaciers you dumb fuck!
- discipler0
not a sufficient answer, kuz. More problems...
Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.
Where are all the bodies?
Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the Earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.
Now the number of human fossils found is nothing like one would expect if this ‘Stone Age’ scenario were correct.
- discipler0
kuzIII, welcome to my ignore list, you belligerent simpleton. :) You should have fun there, with version3 and pavlovs_dog.
- KuzIII0
"not a sufficient answer, kuz. More problems..."
lol, you're basing that on what??? your desire to believe that the earth is only 6000 years old? lol
and stop changing the subject. lol
how can you so fucking stupid to say shit like "if homo sapiens been around for 100,000 years then why has there only been recorded hisotory for 6000 years".
god your dumb, really, you should re-read what you say.
:)
- ********0
KuzIII, as I predicted. I'm a regular Kelpernicus!!
:O
- KuzIII0
kuzIII, welcome to my ignore list, you belligerent simpleton. :) You should have fun there, with version3 and pavlovs_dog.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:42)you have succumbed to my superior debating skills.
- kelpie0
kelpie, I'm all about following the evidence wherever it may lead. and I'm not necessarily an Young Earth Creationist. It's just that the evidence, taken as a whole, leads away from NeoDarwinism.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:28)you chop and change your position on the young earth as it suits your arguements mate. You only follow eveidence where it uits you too, hence why anytime it doesn't you just focus on a few natural inconsistencies in technique and rubbish entire tracts of evidence. See carbon dating, see the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. See the fact that your arguement is based on gaps in knowledge while the other is based on compilation of knowledge. Your an anti-scientist. I wouldn't contest that at some point so far back we don't have a hope of finding any evidence either way it is indeed a *possibility* that a designer sparked the universe into life, but really, considering that it can never be either prooved or disprooved, what is the point?
- kelpie0
see I would have a perfect amount of respect for your position and beliefs if you were more consistent in their aplication and you didn't see mindlessly poo-pooing the vast majority of scientific reasoning and knowledge as evidence. Your views, imo, are backward and dangerous and our only future is indeed as compost if your people win.
- Nairn0
kuzIII, welcome to my ignore list, you belligerent simpleton. :) You should have fun there, with version3 and pavlovs_dog.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:42)Add me! Add me too!