Scientists piece together human ancestry

[tlongII]

I would advise against taking tlongII's approach, either you refute the argument, or counter the observation with a logical explanation of your own.... don't think for one second that blowing a bunch of hot air and insulting me will actually gain you any ground in the argument...

Of course you would. Apparently you are insulted easily.

[The Power Hour.]

Ok - I keep seeing proof that science can't explain things completely and thats not something I'm going to dispute.

The same science that told people for 100s of years it takes millions of years to produce stalac es? And yet many where found in underground tunnels made in the 50s that science?



or the same science that told people for 100s of years it takes millions of years to petrify something, and yet many scientist have found petrified Cowboy boots,hat,pickles,and even the trees from mt saint Helen's just a few years back, that science?

Or the same science from the 40s and 50s that claimed smoking tobacco was good for you, that science? You want to talk about asbestos and radiation? they both were at one time said to be good for you.


How about the science that can't make a leaf with all there Superior knowledge? Can't cure Cancer, and can't explain where all the bees have gone. And these are the same scientist that tell you what exactly went on 4 Billion years ago?

But where is the tangible proof of a creator?

Don't be in such a hurry to find out I am sure when you die you will meet him. Have you ever asked how hard to duplicate and how complex the human eye is?





Man is progressing more and more each century, we went from small one man plane to the space shuttle in 100 years, we went from early pioneers that used opium to cure TB and polio, to now being able to clone humans and animals in only 100 years. Soon we might be able to create our own solar system?

And after all you have been presented in life you still have the nerve think it all this came about came from space dust and monkeys ing?



You Darwin worshipers may the most ignorant species of any known solar system.

[z0sa]

there's no proof of anything.

Bull . There's imminent design all around you. Whether you choose to ignore that design (including labeling it's creation "by chance") is up to you.

[clambake]

all around us......witches, warlocks, invisible men.........and especially...demons.

[unibrow]

there's no proof of anything.
.

There is proof of assholes look in the mirror!

[Blake]

You're right... you just like insulting people because it gets you off...

That's worse... because it shows that you enjoy getting off of others. It exposes that insecurity complex of yours...

naw, I just enjoy a good debate........but when I can't get one, I enjoy putting people like you that brag about 10 degrees from MIT in their place.

That's not even my argument... I gave my opinion on Earth's age, but said that such a belief would have to be backed by a supernatural evidence trail for which we have no specific discovery tools... I then said that what was more important was acknowledging the that possibility of a Creator was plausible given our current findings...

yeah, you based your opinion on the age of the earth on "what we know of the sun"

I'm wondering why you are the only one to take the sun into account for the age of the earth.

Of course, you also said that the age of the universe is < 100,000 years.

That's such a copout and you know it...

If you are going to disregard real scientific evidence, please provide your own scientific findings.

I know what the scientists at my school say... and not all of them feel that way.

I know what they say too. Let me know if you want me to post what the other MIT scientist, Dr Gerald Shroeder has to say about the age of the universe.

But that right there is the problem, you and others feel that all academic scientists must abandon the belief in GOD... In your minds, their right to retain such beliefs, somehow voids them of their voice in such matters... that somehow their knowledge base disappears if they also believe in a Creator... that they have no basis to refute others' arguments because they have somehow been handicapped by a belief in GOD.

That line of reasoning is conveniently stupid.

your assumption that that is my line of reasoning is conveniently stupid.

I've never once said anywhere that I don't believe in God.

The only thing I've said over and over again is that you are an idiot, and you keep confirming that with every post.

That is your problem... I've said no such thing... In fact those scientists would be the first to corroborate what I just explained above... their conclusions may be different, based on their own experience... but ultimately they know that Science is incapable of giving them the answer they hope for... and why they continue to search for other explanations.

You said you have 10 degrees from MIT and that the universe is <100,000 years old.

It's a fact that it's billions of years old.

You didn't say it outright, but any idiot except for you can see that you are trying to imply that you are smarter than the average cosmic scientist.

I won't answer it because it is irrelevant to the flow of this argument. I can't help that you fail to see that...

we're off topic already, but don't let that stop you from not answering a simple question.

Some more 'hot air' I see....

I'm sure as soon as you get back, we'll see some more.

[Blake]

May be the best post you ever posted at ST!

Feel free to do so!

[Blake]

There is proof of assholes look in the mirror!

there is proof of lame trolls look at this thread!

[step up to the mike]

I know what they say too. Let me know if you want me to post what the other MIT scientist, Dr Gerald Shroeder has to say about the age of the universe.

MIT? Dude we would settle for GED.

[Last Comic Standing]

all around us......witches, warlocks, invisible men.........and especially...demons.

I take it you just came from the Free Quattro Razor topic

[Blake]

No... it is your opinion that my belief in GOD somehow voids all of my arguments. We won't get anywhere until you are able to discern the difference between my arguments and my explicitly stated theistic opinions.

No, your opinion that the universe is < 100,000 years old voids much of whatever credibility you think you have.

I'm still wondering why you won't give an explicit opinion on the Bible........which does have to do with this thread since many are contending 'young earth' theories based on the book of Genesis.

Put up or shut up... point out exactly what I've said that can't be backed by our current scientific knowledge base. I've been pretty clear on what my opinions are...

you've said that the earth and universe are only thousands of years old.

Put up or shut up.

I've stated that my belief in GOD is not derived from the data. Nonetheless our scant data on origins has beckoned many questions... many are inherently unanswerable and others still carry theological implications... Unlike you, I'm not afraid to admit that much...

great. So what's your opinion on the Bible?

I'm smart enough to know that no scientific observation can reach the level of absolute proof on the existence of GOD... but I'm OK with it... I also know that it bothers you to admit that the above statement also opens the door for the plausibility of GOD's existence. Apparently, you can't deal with this schism.

I'm ok knowing that science will never prove God's existence either.

Apparently you can't answer a simple question: "What's your opinion on the Bible?"

[MannyIsGod]

Either way, the Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined begining. And Science itself is incapable of finding any further clues... (for that matter we've only managed to find physical evidence of the Big Bang explosion 300,000 years after the event in question...)

Yeah no. The Big Bang theory may impose more questions, but your statement here is the exact statement every people has used to justify their use of a divinity to explain the unknown. The Big Bang theory no more implies a divine presence than a sunrise implied the existence of Apollo.

[Blake]

MIT? Dude we would settle for GED.

For you mouse, I'd settle for literacy.

[Blake]

Bull . There's imminent design all around you. Whether you choose to ignore that design (including labeling it's creation "by chance") is up to you.

really? Is that why believing in God is called "faith"?

you lose.

[step up to the mike]

For you mouse, I'd settle for literacy.

post something worth reading.

[Blake]

post something worth reading.

what do you want to learn today?

[Illuminati]

really? Is that why believing in God is called "faith"?

You don't have fath in Darwin's theories?

you lose.

this is all just a game to you isn't it?

[step up to the mike]

what do you want to learn today?

How a stubborn,bitter, naive God hating redneck like yourself has a girlfriend. start with that.

[Blake]

You don't have fath in Darwin's theories?

there are some flaws in Darwin's theories to be sure, but based on observations of microrganisms that adapt and "evolve" to their surroundings, I don't think macroevolution on some level is really that much of a stretch to believe in.

Unless you literally believe in the 7 day theory, do you really have a problem believing that God created the process called 'evolution'?

this is all just a game to you isn't it?

I'm on a personal quest for truth in the world, but this is definitely fun....

Does it really get much better than owning some dude that says he has 10 degrees from MIT? I'm not sure......

[Blake]

How a stubborn,bitter, naive God hating redneck like yourself has a girlfriend. start with that.

although I'm slightly stubborn, I'm not bitter, naive, God hating nor redneck.

I'm also apparently good looking enough for her.

[Daniel Plainview]

Blake 1
Jesus freaks 0

[Phenomanul]

No, your opinion that the universe is < 100,000 years old voids much of whatever credibility you think you have.

I'm still wondering why you won't give an explicit opinion on the Bible........which does have to do with this thread since many are contending 'young earth' theories based on the book of Genesis.

you've said that the earth and universe are only thousands of years old.

Put up or shut up.

You honestly can't tell the difference from what I said... fortunately it remains unchanged in this very thread... I said that for anyone to buy into my opinion that the earth was <100,000 years old we would have to find supernatural evidence... which obviously Science is incapable of obtaining...

I'm pretty sure I clearly stated it was only an opinion... and I'm also sure that I said I was OK with the age of Earth being 4.6 billion years or with the Universe being 13.6 billion years as long as we also acknowledged that the possibility that the Universe was Created was still a valid line of reasoning... Go back and look it up...

And yeah... I'll put up: Blake is a liar.

great. So what's your opinion on the Bible?

Why, so that you can use my biblical opinions to ridicule me? To be a Clambake redux? So that you can deceitfully suggest that I am trying to pass them off as my scientific arguments for this discussion??? No thank you. You've repeatedly demonstrated your inability to discern the difference between the two arenas, such wretched behavior is beyond reproof... and all because you can't admit that the uniqueness of this universe defies all probabilities.

I'm ok knowing that science will never prove God's existence either.

Well then we're getting somewhere... too bad you left it as a footnote, on an otherwise offensive post.


As for your vapid declaration that I stated I obtained 10 degrees from MIT... seriously dude what the ???

You lying piece of trash... NOW I know it really must bother you to have to hear the arguments from someone that knows what they're talking about... You can't be nearly as dismissive as you've always been... at least not without due cause. You can't shield your lack of comprehension by saying "well that's what the scientific community believes"...

Show me where I said I graduated with 10 degrees... and when you find it... I'll leave this place for good. I only brought it up because tlongII questioned my authority on such matters... If I was trying to brag about it... trust me, you would have known that fact long before this thread was created...

Your giddyness at taunting that figure, while attempting to portray me as some conceited jerk is quite unfounded... actually, it is founded... founded solely on your made up lie...

You've sunken to a new low... Your sniveling behavior is exposing you for what you really are....

All the while... you haven't presented anything remotely close to counter the observation that the staggering improbability of our Universe makes us wildly unique... just some "cut'n'paste" quote from one of the professors at M.I.T expounding on the Universe's age... Oooooh and I hear you're threatning me with another quote... please... get a clue.

....This is fun...

I'm glad you think so... Just be sure to keep the same at ude when whatever semblance of credibility you have is shredded to bits after I'm done exposing your blatant ignorance... Or do you forget having said that that the Sun doesn't expend any mass (hydrogen fuel)???

[Larry Dallas]

You all don't know Jack!!

[Blake]

You honestly can't tell the difference from what I said... fortunately it remains unchanged in this very thread... I said that for anyone to buy into my opinion that the earth was <100,000 years old we would have to find supernatural evidence... which obviously Science is incapable of obtaining...

I'm pretty sure I clearly stated it was only an opinion... and I'm also sure that I said I was OK with the age of Earth being 4.6 billion years or with the Universe being 13.6 billion years as long as we also acknowledged that the possibility that the Universe was Created was still a valid line of reasoning... Go back and look it up...

and I'm pretty sure I clearly stated that your opinion that the universe is <100,000 years old pretty much voids any credibility you think you have.

The universe is billions of years old. It has been proven as such. There is no "I'm ok with that fact as long as........blah blah....."

It's a fact. period.

And yeah... I'll put up: Blake is a liar.

yeah.....I'll put it back up: you're an idiot.

Why, so that you can use my biblical opinions to ridicule me? To be a Clambake redux? So that you can deceitfully suggest that I am trying to pass them off as my scientific arguments for this discussion??? No thank you. You've repeatedly demonstrated your inability to discern the difference between the two arenas, such wretched behavior is beyond reproof... and all because you can't admit that the uniqueness of this universe defies all probabilities.

Why would I ridicule you for your biblical opinions?

You are obviously insecure in your beliefs. You should get that checked out.

Well then we're getting somewhere... too bad you left it as a footnote, on an otherwise offensive post.

offensive post? how?

yeah I'll put up: You are lying.

As for your vapid declaration that I stated I obtained 10 degrees from MIT... seriously dude what the ???

I misquoted you on accident.

You said "

I've studied these topics extensively and can converse about them on any given level (having within the past 10 years attained multiple degrees at M.I.T. and having conversed on this very subject with world renown astronomers and physicists kind of gives me that leverage)... So if you don't understand what I'm talking about, do yourself a favor and read up on the subject before re-attempting to discredit my position... especially after that lackluster attempt to do just that with nothing but 'hot air'...

beh. 2 or 10......it doesn't change the fact that you were trying to throw around some intellectual weight by degree dropping.

you could have simply corrected me instead of calling me a liar. seriously, what the is wrong with you???

You lying piece of trash... NOW I know it really must bother you to have to hear the arguments from someone that knows what they're talking about... You can't be nearly as dismissive as you've always been... at least not without due cause. You can't shield your lack of comprehension by saying "well that's what the scientific community believes"...

wow. It must bother you that you are getting your ass handed to you by someone that doesn't have near the expertise you say you do.

Show me where I said I graduated with 10 degrees... and when you find it... I'll leave this place for good.

you said "multiple degrees over 10 years from MIT while hanging with a bunch of intellectual badasses. Please stay.

I only brought it up because tlongII questioned my authority on such matters... If I was trying to brag about it... trust me, you would have known that fact long before this thread was created...

It's obvious why you brought it up. You were trying to brag about it... trust me.

Your giddyness at taunting that figure, while attempting to portray me as some conceited jerk is quite unfounded... actually, it is founded... founded solely on your made up lie...

no, you portrayed yourself as some conceited jerk all on your own.

You've sunken to a new low... Your sniveling behavior is exposing you for what you really are....

you called me a liar and sniveling in one post. hooray for you.

All the while... you haven't presented anything remotely close to counter the observation that the staggering improbability of our Universe makes us wildly unique... just some "cut'n'paste" quote from one of the professors at M.I.T expounding on the Universe's age... Oooooh and I hear you're threatning me with another quote... please... get a clue.

you haven't presented anything to counter the fact that the earth and universe are billions of years old other than your multiple degreesfrom MIT .

Ooooohh I'm sensing another sniveling shot.

I'm glad you think so... Just be sure to keep the same at ude when whatever semblance of credibility you have is shredded to bits after I'm done exposing your blatant ignorance... Or do you forget having said that that the Sun doesn't expend any mass (hydrogen fuel)???

what exactly am I ignorant of? I thought I cleared up what I said about the Sun expending mass pretty thoroughly.

5th time: "in your opinion, is the Bible the spoken word of God?"

feel free to say "yes" or "no" or "I believe parts are, some aren't" or anything of the like.

You can go on these rants about how I'm a liar and brag about your connections at MIT, yet you can't answer one simple question?

seriously dude, what the ???

[911]

Blake 2


Phenomanul 3