Da Vinci Code

[Brooke]

I posted this back in the Easter thread.  Too lazy to retype it so here it is copy and pasted:

 

So how old is the earth? Like 4.5 BILLION years old? And recorded history? Maybe 32,000 years (if you're counting cave drawings). So lets see, we've got a human record for about 0.0007% of the life of the planet. I doubt cavemen were very in-tune to noticing evolutionary changes, so really we've only been looking for evidence of evolution for about 0.000003% of that time. Damn, we must have missed it! If you wanna do the math, that'd be like spending 0.93 seconds of a 90 year life span looking for something. I can't even find my car keys ONCE in 0.93 seconds, so I guess my car keys don't exsist either!

 

Glad to get a little extra mileage out of all that math I had to do during a long night shift...

519037[/snapback]

good maff

[PUSH THE THROTTLE]

Helldriver and Yfzut are either of you married?

[rocketboy]

make up your mind, is it this post or the other

 

quote".science has not explained muc hof anything on origins of man ,they explained plenty of theorys no doubt ." holeswe havent filled " is a major understatement IMO and really how much time does science need ? they supposedly have billions of years of things on earth to study,analyze,and probe so it should be an easy no brainer since this process happend billions of times over billions of years to illistrate their ideas and concepts of the origin of man ,yet we have not one true example of where an animal magically changes to another or a misisng link or why man cant create"

 

I guess we need a little more than .93 seconds, we are only just now getting the technology needed to prove the theriories. Remember science runs on facts not faith, so we cant just make shit up and say people are stupid, dumb, or going to hell cause they dont belive it.

519078[/snapback]

 

 

better read the three 6 mafia thread . the older yo u claim the earth is, the more examples youd easily have to prove evoultion .if this happend billions of times over billions of years we would see more half creatures than we would whole creatures by far and theres no such thing as half creatures and not one has ever been found ,that alone should be enough to call the bullshit police, but its all yo u people have to cling to is that evolution magicly happend from pond scum when it is mathematiclly more likely to win a one in a million lotto -one million times i n a row than to have our environment that even supports life or maybe yo u prefer tom cruise theorys on space invaders .

[helldriver]

cockboy, dosent it suck to be wrong all the time '

'

and you still havent explained how your god is right, and the thousand other religions are wrong

Edited May 22, 2006 by helldriver

[Brooke]

cockboy, dosent it suck to be wrong all the time '

'

and you still havent explained how your god is right, and the thousand other religions are wrong

519213[/snapback]

how are your two 'dark arts' idols right and every other religion wrong?

[helldriver]

im saying how can the religion he claims is the only one that is right, and a thoudand others are wrong

 

comprehend ?

 

those dark idoils as you say, just expose and go against the hyprocisy of the christian religion

Edited May 22, 2006 by helldriver

[Brooke]

im saying how can  the religion  he claims is  the only one that is right, and a thoudand others are wrong

 

comprehend ?

519215[/snapback]

yea and im saying how can youre beliefs be the only ones that are right and all others wrong?? comprendo???

[Brooke]

im saying how can  the religion  he claims is  the only one that is right, and a thoudand others are wrong

 

comprehend ?

 

those dark idoils as you say, just expose and go against the hyprocisy of the christian religion

519215[/snapback]

stop editing your fucking posts. no they dont just go agains the christian religion. they have their own sets of beliefs and rules and rituals.

[PUSH THE THROTTLE]

Helldriver are you married?

[rocketboy]

heres an interesting topic i found on apes ,man and evolution regarding science

 

Charles Darwin was a clever salesman--he wanted to sell his evolutionary theory and he wanted to promote himself as a great man of science. Very aware of the power of public opinion, he was careful not to shock the public sensibilities more than necessary. Thus, in his Origin of Species published in 1859 he advanced his theory that all species of plants and animals had descended by evolution from one or a few common ancestral cells. But he avoided the issue of human origins, only suggesting that the future would illuminate this question. some of his knowledgeable critics immediately warned of the plain implication of his theory, that man had an animal ancestry. Only after twelve years, when his reputation was secure, did he publish The Descent of Man in which he made man a product of evolution from ape-like ancestors. This was obviously the ultimate conclusion of his theory. If it is a fact, as virtually all science textbooks teach, it is surely the most significant fact of human history. For if the origin of the race was mere dust, its destiny likewise is nothing but dust. Has science proved it to be so. Let us survey the evidence.

 

Fossils provide the principle historical evidence offered for human evolution. It seems as if every year or some striking new fossil "hominid" hits the front pages. But like a blazing meteor, it soon is forgotten, only to have another soon replace it in the news. John Reader commented in the New Scientist (3/26/81), "Not many (if any) have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast." Thus, the Neanderthal people, their fossil remains first found in 1856, are now conceded to have been true human beings. Also they were not hunched over but walked as upright as we do. Furthermore, the Cro-Magnon people, essentially the same as us modern humans, are now known to have lived at the same time as the Neanderthalers.

 

In 1891 Eugene Dubois discovered the so-called Java Man skull. But he concealed for thirty years a true human skull of very large brain capacity found two years earlier. In 1936 he concluded that Java Man was actually the skull of a giant gibbon. Scientists today, however, continue to hold that fossils of this type, now called Homo erectus, were our ancestors. They cannot, however, prove that these fossils have any connection with an cultural artifacts or implements such as tools found in their vicinity.

 

The Piltdown fossil found in England in 1912 was shown in 1953 to be a cleverly contrived hoax. The greater part of the scientific world accepted the fraud for forty years. One of the men implicated in this fraud was Teilhard de Chardin. He later was involved as a fund-raiser for the investigation of the Peking Man or Sinanthropus fossils in China. Only drawings, photographs, and plaster casts were allowed out of China. Just two outside authorities were permitted to examine them, and they both raised very serious questions, doubting the connection of Sinanthropus to man. During World War II the fossils mysteriously disappeared, leaving no scientific evidence.

 

Since the 1920s prominent candidates for our ancestors have been coming to light in Africa. The principal type is called Australopithecus. A shining star since the early 1980s has been Australopithecus afarensis, the prime example of which was affectionately dubbed "Lucy." In just a few years Lucy suffered several criticism, however. Professors R. Susman and J. Stern of the State Univ. of New York at Stoneybrook commented that Lucy not only spent a lot of time in trees, but that she probably also nested in the trees and lived a lot like other monkeys. Even Dr. Donald Johanson, Lucy's finder, admitted, "There is little evidence that Australopithecines made and used tools." thus the stars rise and fall, and John Reader's gloomy assessment of the fossil man scene is again confirmed.

 

To establish evolutionary ancestors, a sequence of intermediate fossil types is necessary. The recently popular sequence is Australopithecus afarensis to Homo habilis to Homo erectus to Homo sapiens. Prof. S.J. Gould of Harvard University has pointed out, however, that there are substantial fossil gaps between these types. Therefore, evolution of one into the other cannot be proved. In addition, only the Homo sapiens fossils can be firmly related to evidence of culture and tools.

 

The currently hot evidence for human evolution comes from molecular biology. The DNA molecules or genes of different species are compared, and particular protein molecules are likewise compared. The more similar are the sequences of nucleotide units in the DNA molecules, and the more similar are the sequences of amino acid units in the protein molecules, the closer the evolutionary relationship is assumed to be. This type of evidence can be used to construct diagrams of assumed evolutionary history which looks like a tree, with root, trunk, branches, twigs and leaves at the ends of the branches. It does not, however, prove that the evolutionary history actually occurred.

 

There are problems with this theory of DNA and protein evolution, however. Different proteins sometimes give different results from each other and from DNA. For example, the cytochrome c molecule of man is identical to that of chimpanzee, but differs by one amino acid from that of the rhesus monkey. The comparison of carbonic anhydrase I molecules shows rhesus monkey considerably more distant from man, but chimp till quite close. In fact, it has been said that chimp DNA is as much as 99 percent similar to human DNA. But then it is reasonable to ask why there is so much difference between chimps and humans. It appears that DNA may not determine everything after all. One thing certain is that DNA comparisons do not prove evolution.

 

It should be pointed out that for computerized comparisons of DNA sequences from different species and of protein sequences from different species, the data often must be "massaged" in order to make things work out right. "Right" means in agreement with accepted evolutionary theories. Finally, it is important to remember that these comparisons of molecules are just like comparisons of anatomy in that they provide only circumstantial evidence for one or another conclusion. They do not prove any evolutionary history or relationships.

[Brooke]

Helldriver are you married?

519231[/snapback]

i doubt it. but he wouldnt even tell me how old he is.

im guessing hes twelve

[PUSH THE THROTTLE]

i doubt it. but he wouldnt even tell me how old he is.

im guessing hes twelve

519238[/snapback]

In the case he was I was curious to know where he got married and by who? What was the ceremony like? Does he commit adultery in order to defy the dangerous Christian faith?

[ellison445]

I think I will stay out of this one... Continue

[helldriver]

not marred, no chick can tame me

 

37 years old

 

ya see christanity 100 percent according to the bible does indded welcome adulty,,, and then they say its wrong

 

100 percent condradiction

 

if i were to be married , i will NOT be married by a servent of god

 

 

and i donr care about rules,, if your wife or girlfriend is gonna give up the pussy,,, im takin it

Edited May 22, 2006 by helldriver

[Brooke]

37 holy shit. im shocked!

 

no chick can tame you?