DescentBB

The earth is slowing down because of torqe applied by the moon, the moon used to spin so that both sides faced the earth but gradually the earth stoped its rotation. The moon used to be so close to earth that infact it was orignally part of the earth. It was produced from a colision between the early earth and another body in the system roughly the size of the moon.

Trylobites died in one of earths many mass extinctions about 245 million years ago. So far the end result of 99.9999+% of evolution is extinction. Maybe Trylobites can see through rocks because all that they are now IS rocks. They didnt survive because something killed them, along with another 90% of earths life. So far life on earth has been almost wiped out at least 5 times.

If you use your earth rotation and moon getting farther away its even worse then the sun shrinking because if you run it backwards you have billions of years before the moon collides with the earth, and the earth wont fly apart because the moon wasnt always there slowing it down.

then why is mine in a boot-print?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
2) They could see close to a mile in murky water, that beats any of today's cameras. They say they were simple unevolved life just because they were at the bottom of the strata.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in visible light!

Found my notebook
these are a few proofs from the earth

The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 10,000 years old.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly.

Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate gives only a few thousand years of accumulation.

The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175, 000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium here which would reduce the age more.)

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years (destroying all old fossils).

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.

Niagara Falls' erosion rate (approx. 2 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. (Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters receded through the soft sediments).

Incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years.

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate the mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed 80% of the mud out there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable time for the delta to form).

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.
Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to evolutionists.

The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have formed in about 4400 years.

The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.

The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
MD, is there actually a GPS unit on top of Everest? (Climbing it is not a trivial thing -- it's not like you could just get up and put one there in the morning.) That seems like a fairly important thing for you to establish. I don't happen to know either way -- do you know how they measure Everest?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lothar, GPS units are hand-held. They use telemetry from satelites in orbit (not just any satelite though) to calculate your location. They're getting so accurate now that they can plot your exact location within a couple feet of error.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
I could have gone into the fact that the Earth's rotation is slowing down</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prove it.

<font face="Arial" size="3"> or that the moon is getting further away</font>

Duh stupid, its orbit isn't perfectly circular. Same with the Earth's orbit around the sun.

<font face="Arial" size="3"> or the fact that all galaxys are getting further away</font>

*cough* Big Bang Theory *cough*

*Sigh* -- Note to self: Self, never try to work w/ people that want to stay dumb, esp. if they call themself a nerd as well ! Waste of time.

Personally, I find this http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html far more credible than extrapolating the age of the earth from the size of the Sahara desert or the saltiness of the oceans, but I guess you can find "evidence" to support whatever theory you wish.

The person who thought up evolution was as bigoted as you can get(Darwin's grandfather) Darwin was gay, he was the captains "special friend". So if you think I'm a wierdo look who you're listening too.

so far, nobody said that the evolutionary account was true. Everybody just says that you can't disprove by relying on pseudo-scientific half-facts and extrapolations.

Why do people call other people dumb without knowing anything for themselves? I think that is dumb. I could say that Grendel is dumb because he does not understand the evidence Meathead presents, yet I will be accused of flaming.

The point is, none of us know anything. We can go on forever like this and the thread will crash @ 14 pages.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
The person who thought up evolution was as bigoted as you can get(Darwin's grandfather) Darwin was gay, he was the captains "special friend". So if you think I'm a wierdo look who you're listening too.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm....so in other words you can't back yourself up so you just make **** up to insult the person that theorized evolution? Typical fundie tactic. Concession accepted.

Because of the nature of fusion, you really have to consider that it is the volume decreasing in direct proportion to time, and the radius change is a secondary effect. That said, I crunched some of the numbers given in this thread, using a couple of dates gotten from the geological timeline in National Geographic's Atlas of the World and some basic knowledge of geometry.

Volume of a sphere...
V = (4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>r^3

Using that equation, the derived radius of a sphere...
r = ((3V)/(4<font face="Symbol">p</font>))^(1/3)

The change in volume of a system...
<font face="Symbol">D</font>V = (4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>(<font face="Symbol">D</font>r)^3

Given values (rounding to two to three significant figures for sanity)...
Current solar radius: 870,000 miles = 4,350,000,000 feet
Oldest known fossils: today - 3,500,000,000 years = today - 3.07x10^13 hours
Formation of the earth: today - 4,600,000,000 years = today - 4.03x10^13 hours
Current rate of solar radius change: -5 feet per hour

Approximate volume of the sun currently...
V(current) = (4/3)(<font face="Symbol">p</font>)(870000mi*5000ft/mi)^3 = 3.45x10^29 (ft^3)
(For the mathematically challenged, we can also call this value "really ****ing huge".)

Now, calculate the rate at which the sun's volume is dropping...
<font face="Symbol">D</font>V/<font face="Symbol">D</font>t = (4/3)(<font face="Symbol">p</font>)(-5)^3 = -524 ((ft^3)/(hr))

I'm sure most of you can already see what's going to happen. The current volume of the sun is so huge that when you factor in 524 times either of the given time values, the change just rounds out and you get that the radius of the sun 4.6 billion years ago is approximately the same as it is today.

Just for the heck of it, how long ago would it have been if the sun ever did happen to consume Jupiter at one point or another?

Jupiter's orbital radius...
778,000,000,000 m = 2.33x10^12 ft

V(current) - <font face="Symbol">D</font>V/<font face="Symbol">D</font>t * t = V(then)

(4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>r(then)^3 = V(current) - <font face="Symbol">D</font>V/<font face="Symbol">D</font>t * t

t = (V(current) - (4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>r(then)^3)/(<font face="Symbol">D</font>V/<font face="Symbol">D</font>t)

t = ((4350000000) - (4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>(2.33x10^12)^3)/(-524) = today - 1.01x10^35 hr = 1.15x10^31 years ago, as in 11,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

Earth?
Orbital radius...
149,600,000,000 m = 449,000,000,000 ft.

t = ((4350000000) - (4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>(4.49x10^11)^3)/(-524) = 7.24x10^32 hr = 8.26x10^28 years ago

I'm not sure what the theorized age of the universe is according to anyone, but I'm pretty sure those numbers are large enough that we wouldn't have to worry about them conflicting with any other notions about when the solar system came into existance.

I'd like to thank my eighth grade Algebra teacher for giving me the mathematical tools necessary to make the above calculations.

As for stuff about the Mississippi River delta and Niagra Falls (and anything else about elements of the Earth's crust, really), you're neglecting a key point that those landmarks haven't existed for Earth's entire lifespan. Remember all that "tectonic plate" stuff you learned in elementary school? Earth's crust isn't completely rigid, so many aspects of the crust change over periods of thousands/millions of years. I don't doubt that the Mississippi river is under 30,000 years old, but that doesn't mean that the Earth is under 30,000 years old. Likewise with the Niagra Falls, much of the world's coastlines, mountain ranges, etc., etc., etc. Saying that because Niagra is less than 10,000 years old, the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is like saying the Appalachian mountains can't exist because the Rocky Mountains' erosion shows that they're younger. As theories go, you're using some pretty weak ones to back up your claims, Meathead.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
<b> Found my notebook
these are a few proofs from the earth

The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 10,000 years old.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly.

Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate gives only a few thousand years of accumulation.

The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175, 000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium here which would reduce the age more.)

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years (destroying all old fossils).

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.

Niagara Falls' erosion rate (approx. 2 feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. (Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters receded through the soft sediments).

Incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years.

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate the mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. (The Flood in Noah's day could have washed 80% of the mud out there in a few hours or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable time for the delta to form).

The slowing spin of the earth limits its age to less than the "billions of years" called for by the theory of evolution.
Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This embarrassing fact explains why the continental drift theory is vitally important to evolutionists.

The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have formed in about 4400 years.

The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily have been formed in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.

The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Aren't most of the arguments presented here assuming a closed system in steady state? The earth is neither a closed system nor in steady state.

all that math does is say that instead of burning up in the sun the earth would have been pulled in due to the increase in gravity caused by the increase in mass. by the way, if you look at the magnetic field, nothing would change that except massive additions of magnetic materials to the core, and to do that would probably split the planet in half

Meathead....did you even pay attention in any of your classes at all? You're not even backing your bull**** claims up! Back yourself up, or conceed and move on!

Earths magnetic field has swapped polarity several times in the past, it will do so again in the future, this is why it weakens.

Kind of like Meathead's argument as we disprove his bogus claims with simple algebra.

What increase in mass are you talking about?! The sun's RADIUS is the change you're talking about. Radius is completely independent of mass (ever hear of a little thing called density?) and is therefore independent of inter-body calculations.

I did kind of sleep through all my math classes :/
Although I did ace them all

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
The person who thought up evolution was as bigoted as you can get(Darwin's grandfather) Darwin was gay, he was the captains "special friend". So if you think I'm a wierdo look who you're listening too.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha.

"oh noes, better not listen to the fags!"

This is stupid, picky, and nobody cares, but for the life of me I can't restrain myself, so...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">
The change in volume of a system...
<font face="Symbol">D</font>V = (4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>(<font face="Symbol">D</font>r)^3
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...that just ain't so. Ya can't just stick deltas in the earlier equation. The change in volume depends both on the change in radius *and* the original radius. If a ping pong ball grows its diameter by an inch, it gains a lot less volume than if the earth were to grow its diameter by an inch!

You probably should have gotten a warning bell in your head, when your math told you that it would take 543 cubic feet of added material--which would just about fit in my bathroom--to make the sun's radius increase by 5 feet. Really, if you fill my bathroom with paint, do you think you could cover something the size of the sun, five feet thick all around? (Neglect that you don't know how big my bathroom is. I'd prefer you not fill it with paint, anyhow. )

Anyway, here's how to do it right:

<font face="Symbol">D</font>V = V₂ - V₁ = (4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>(r₂)³ - (4/3)<font face="Symbol">p</font>(r₁)³

Rewriting r₂ as r + <font face="Symbol">D</font>r, and simplifying a little, you get

<font face="Symbol">D</font>V = 4/3 <font face="Symbol">p</font> ( (r + <font face="Symbol">D</font>r)³ - r³)

Simplifying as much as possible, we end up with

<font face="Symbol">D</font>V = 4/3 <font face="Symbol">p</font> (3r²<font face="Symbol">D</font>r + 3r(<font face="Symbol">D</font>r)² + <font face="Symbol">D</font>r³)

And it ain't gettin' no simpler.

Sorry to rain on the parade there--I know, everybody hates it when mathematicians do that. It is nice to see people doing the math. There need to be more people in this world who do the math.

Sadly, the correct delta-V equation really changes your conclusion... for the sake of following through on the figures,

If the sun's radius has always shrunk at the constant rate of 5 feet per hour, its current radius is 6.96 x 10⁸ m, and Jupiter's orbit is at 7.8 x 10¹¹ m, then the sun has shrunk roughly 7.8 x 10¹¹ m since it reached Jupiter's orbit, which was 2.56 x 10¹² feet, which took it 5.1 x 10¹¹ hours, or about 500 million years. Which ain't long, geologically speaking. More alarmingly, the sun will shrink to nothing in about 50,000 years.

However, if we assume the sun is losing volume at a constant rate, then... the sun's 2.28 x 10⁹ feet in radius, so per hour these days it's losing (using the above equation for change in volume) 3.27 x 10²⁰ cubic feet of stuff per hour (wow!). In the days when it was the size of Jupiter's orbit, though, its volume was 7.0 x 10³⁷ cubic feet, which meant it took 2.14 x 10¹⁷ hours, or 2.5 x 10¹³ years to shrink this far. That's 25 trillion years. So evolutionary theory is probably safe there. However, we probably aren't. This calculation shows the sun will disappear in 1,700 years. Shorter than recorded history. Eeep.

The ICR people assume a constantly shrinking radius, not volume, for their calculation, so they would get the top figure, which (if it were good) would certainly be cause for concern. Constantly changing radius is a pretty darn odd assumption, though, when you think about it with reference to physical laws. Actually, I guess constantly changing volume is, too. But the whole thing's bogus anyway, so what the hey...

-Drak

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
<b> I did kind of sleep through all my math classes :/
Although I did ace them all</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh huh....given your lack of thought in your posts, why do I seriously doubt that? I mean, you can't even grasp basic science, and you expect us to buy the crap you post? You have even yet to back up a single post you have made in this thread with any "evidence" of any kind.

MD, you need to read the next post I wrote -- where I explained, from having worked as a land surveyor, that the little handheld GPS's aren't adequate for taking such measurements. Handheld GPS's give you resolution of something like 10 meters -- hardly adequate to measure a change of under an inch per year. Now, if you read the article I linked, you'll notice they actually ended up not taking GPS's back in '99 or so because the ones that gave adequate resolution were too heavy. It was only after the GPS's were redesigned that they were able to lug them up Everest, and even then it was not a trivial operation.

Meathead's pseudoscience is really weak. Don't become guilty of the same mistakes in your reasoning -- don't be careless; think things through.

I'm a graphic designer, not a physisist.
Don't be to hard on me

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
<b> I'm a graphic designer, not a physisist.
Don't be to hard on me</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then don't be condescending or make blank assertions and expect us to pick them up.

Going off the course of the current topic because I want to. [/warning]

Evolution will always, always remain a theory, and nothing more, since no experimentation can or will ever be performed on it, nor will it ever be observed under controlled conditions. It will never become a fact, never become a law, but will be eternally discussed and debated over to the end of time because both sides of the theory will never concede to the other for various, varying reasons. Many of which are listed here in this pointless, waste of a thread.

It's funny--the very humans that sprouted from 'evolution' can't even figure out how that happened, or reproduce it in a laboratory. So, in essence, evolution was a failure and a waste of time. Sucks for the universe.

Note to the Mods: This post contains my opinion and a comment relavant to this thread. Just because I don't spout off meaningless data abouw how big the sun is, or anything pertaining to numbers does not mean it should be deleted/edited.

Thanks for your time.

[Appended by your friendly neighborhood forum Nazi]
Don't be a ★■◆●, Sally. I'm not THAT bad!
[Thanks for your time girlies]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
<b> I'm a graphic designer, not a physisist.
Don't be to hard on me</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's "physicist" brainiac.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
<b> I'm a graphic designer, not a physisist.
Don't be to hard on me</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you wouldn't make such baseless arguements that a freaking CHILD could refute with ease, we wouldn't be so hard on you. This is stuff that is taught in late grade school - middle school! You know....stuff that should be general knowlege! To top it off, you never even TRIED to back up anything you said. You ignored every rebuttal on here and just posted more garbage as if anyone here would buy it. What you need is a schooling in how to properly debate.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by MD-2389:
This is stuff that is taught in late grade school - middle school! You know....stuff that should be general knowlege!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you can prove this theory, I might care. But, students these days are still fed meaningless reasons to believe in a mere theory.

In anticipation, I suppose you'll all ask me to prove Creation. Pointless, since I believe in neither. But, I can't. This doesn't give evolution a victory over creation because you still can't prove either. Stalemate.


The reason why or the process by which we came into existance will never be known. This statement will always remain exactly true because all theories will remain unproven for the simple fact that humans cannot recreate the creation of life according to the theory of evolution, let alone the circumstances or environment, REGARDLESS of the fact that all the basic 'building blocks of life' are still present in today's Earth. Prove this wrong.


"Oh, but it's more philisophical than scientific." This might be the case, but the truth of it is inescapable.

You're all fools for debating for ideas which have and will never have any proof whatsoever. Like I said, this thread will go on forever until no one cares anymore. What do I believe? I don't really care. I was born of my mother, and I'm here now. this is relavent to me. In a sense, I'm debating for apathy.

Thanks again for your time..

Viralphrame, you might consider it a technicality, but I find it a horrible miscontruement of your use of the term "Evolution." Evolution describes the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. Contrary to what you seem to have interpreted the term as, "evolution" does not describe the change of an individual over time, or even a single lineage of a DNA strand and how it reassorts its information over time. It's not as complex as people make it out to be and quite frankly, it makes perfect common sense.

In one common example, say you have a certain breed of a rabbit. One gene determines the color of the rabbit's coat. Among the many colors that the animal can have, some of them are really crappy, like... burnt orange, or neon blue, for the winter time when predators like to pounce on them. Since these individuals in the population of rabbits carry a certain gene for crappy colors, these individuals will be killed by predators. Accordingly, those individuals are now gone from the population (well, they're dead) and cannot pass on gene alleles for neon blue or burnt orange. As these unfortunate colored "eat me" signs die off, the population changes and soon, we only see certain colors of the rabbit as the rest died through a situational process that we call natural selection. The change in the characteristics of a population over time due to the characteristics (and their advantages and disadvantages) yielded by certain alleles is evolution. This was observed by Darwin. From this, we extrapolate a set of ideas and hypothetical events called the "Theory of Evolution."

I would hardly consider this process meaningless to students. It is one of many heights of scientific observation and is a perfect conceptual bridge into basic genetics.

Now, if you want to point the red flag at the Marsupial Soup idea, then fine, go ahead. While I personally believe in that theory, I can also see how it makes a lot of assumptions that could very well be false.

But please, don't butcher "evolution."

On a sidenote, Viralphrame: How can a theory ever be proven to be true? Till now i only have seen theories that can be disproved. Their value lies in the fact that they can make predictions about when and how these phenomena occur, that they provoke further insights and refinements to the theories, so that they can make better predictions on what will happen.
Only when the predictions of the theory do not hold for a certain range of phenomena, or a better theory comes up which predicts the same things more efficiently, using less sofisticated explanations can it be discarded. But you will never know whether a theory is true... that it is the only and complete description of some phenomenon.

Besides, too my knowledge, the basic idea of evolution (as described by Garfield) can be shown to work in computer simulations. Moreover, this idea has been used for farming for decades. Even before genetic engineering came up, plants have been exposed to (small dosages of) radiation, to enhance the probabilities of mutations coming up. Then these offsping-plants more desirable to the farmer have been used to spawn further generations...

In any way, i think it is silly to pit Creationism against Evolution. Both exist on utterly different levels of description. I'm not even sure whether Creationism can be seen as a theory in its own right (which is nothing bad). Which new phenomena does it predict? How can it be falsified (can''t you explain anything by invoking "God")? Which new insights does it provoke, which haven't been there before? What is its value for science?

Other than that, i believe you`re right in saying that we will never know for sure how we came into existance. And that is fine by me.

/me looks around for the missing link, well since I dont see Rican anywhere, guess that "THEORY" of evolution is shot to hell, just my .02$ prolly dont mean much

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


sry had to spout off, never have believed in evolution, it cant be proven, scientisist take what 100 years of recorded data maybe more, but no where near the billions that they claim and expound this theory which many of you have takin as Gospel law, Darwin goes to an Island that has animals he's never seen before and has an epiphany and comes up with his GUESS! you guys are as bad as what you claim I am for believing in creation YOU DONT KNOW!!!!! you have LIMITED data full of holes and yet you blindly follow it. man sounds like a familiar argument doesnt it, you will never have proof of EITHER side of the argument until either the second coming or you die and stand before God, so you just as well lock this thread because its a dead issue

on a side note, anyone know how to get ahold of one of the original books darwin wrote "Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection", because I heard that people kept tearing out the front page, and I want to know why.(I heard it was because of a very bigoted statement, but I want to find out for myself)

Cuda, you're viewpoint it woefully jaded.

You'd be surprized exactly how much data has been collected. Just ask any half-decent anthropologist and he'll be able to give you a pretty good idea of what happened and why.

Just read this book. It doesn't go into scientific detail (since any talk about that would probably just confuse laymen and possibly provide them with false notions to 'attack'), but it is a very good read about how human evolution took place, and more importantly why we are the way we are.

For example, he provides in the book a theory as to why humans have larger brains. It's not for thinking, mind you, but to provide more redundancy for when cells die off due to running long distances. Early humans were not able to kill prey off from a distance, or run faster than them, so they either had to scavenge or run them to exhaustion. Larger brains allowed longer running time without dying.

Of course, this is just a theory, but there is a large amount of evidence to back that up, namely that certain primitive cultures today still use that technicque to catch animals, and that the remains surrounding these particular protohumans still have simple tools, which suggests that the enlarged brain had to be an evolutionary advantage for a different reason.

Now it just seems silly to me to think that evolution is seen as this theory that's just 'out there' and 'full of holes' when you have thousands of scientists from many different backgrounds working for hundreds of years and you get this large suite of knowledge that you can just throw out the window because you don't happen to like what it may imply. Of course there are holes, but to argue that a whole theory can't be taken seriously because of limitations simply shows that you don't have a true understanding of how science works.

But that's just me.

all theorys are like spaceships, one hole and they need to be repaired or replaced.(They can also be as complicated) I'd probably believe Evolution if they could fix the holes.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
MD, you need to read the next post I wrote -- where I explained, from having worked as a land surveyor, that the little handheld GPS's aren't adequate for taking such measurements. Handheld GPS's give you resolution of something like 10 meters -- hardly adequate to measure a change of under an inch per year. Now, if you read the article I linked, you'll notice they actually ended up not taking GPS's back in '99 or so because the ones that gave adequate resolution were too heavy.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was under the impression that the older had a resolution or something along the lines of ~5 feet. Agreed, its not enough to measure something that changes height an inch per year, but since the units rely on satelite data, its really the fault of the sensors on the satelite (which can only read so much from looking at the Earth's surface from a 90 degree angle from our POV.).

<font face="Arial" size="3"> It was only after the GPS's were redesigned that they were able to lug them up Everest, and even then it was not a trivial operation.</font>

Climbing a mountain is never a trivial operation. That I never said. I only said that it is possible to measure the height of Everest with one. The article, and your post proved my point already.

<font face="Arial" size="3">While cartographers and surveyors debate whether the earth is capable of producing mountains taller than Everest's currently accepted 29,028 feet (a figure the GPS equipment showed to be slightly off), people living in the earthquake-prone region of the Himalayans might be interested for other reasons.</font>

Emphasis mine.

That particular unit they sent up there showed the height to be slightly off than what was already accepted as Everest's height. That could be taken in a couple different ways.

1. GPS' reading is correct and the accepted height for Everest is wrong.
2. The GPS' reading is off, and the accepted height is the correct one.
3. They're both wrong, and but the GPS put the scientists within a 'ballpark reading'.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by CUDA:
sry had to spout off, never have believed in evolution, it cant be proven, scientisist take what 100 years of recorded data maybe more, but no where near the billions that they claim and expound this theory which many of you have takin as Gospel law, Darwin goes to an Island that has animals he's never seen before and has an epiphany and comes up with his GUESS! you guys are as bad as what you claim I am for believing in creation YOU DONT KNOW!!!!! you have LIMITED data full of holes and yet you blindly follow it. man sounds like a familiar argument doesnt it, you will never have proof of EITHER side of the argument until either the second coming or you die and stand before God, so you just as well lock this thread because its a dead issue</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So....fossil records dating back millioss of years is what....utter nonsense? You do know how things are dated, right? You might want to do a little research on carbon dating. Very interesting stuff given that the half-life of carbon-14 is a constant value and can allow us to date fossils very accurately. Its even been used to solve murder cases as well as tell how old objects are. Its a proven method time and time again.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by CUDA:
<b> so you just as well lock this thread because its a dead issue
</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll be the judge on whether it's a dead issue or not.

I am a devout believer in God, Jesus, and everything else... but the bible is a book created by a human. And humans embellish things to make it look more interesting or awesome than it really is. God created the world we see today in DAYS! But a day in the life of God might be millions, or billions of years in human perception. The term CREATION might even be embellished. Say we were all stemmed from single celled organisms in a pool of amino acids. Was that organism not created by outside forces?

All of your statements, meathead, are based on the assumption that everything we see today is constant to things hundreds, thousands, or millions of years ago. Oil and gas pressure might be that large for 15000 years because.. guess what.. oil IS a renewable resource. It's organic remains am I correct? The sun might be losing 5 feet an hour... but who's to say that it's not gaining another 4.9 feet due to cosmic dust and diminishing returns of it's fuel? The only constant in the universe is that there are no constants. The situation changes based on the conditions involved. And unless you can PROVE something wrong, a hypothesis against a theory is like a feather in a gunfight. You won't win.

It's nice to know Rican has been reincarnated.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Viralphrame:
When you can prove this theory, I might care. But, students these days are still fed meaningless reasons to believe in a mere theory.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly meaningless since the theory of natural selection has already been proven time and time again. For example, take a chameleon's ability to change color. That is a trait it evolved to help it hide from predators. Just like a cheetah's ability to run at high rates of speed, or a zebra's stripes to allow it to blend into tall grass (same thing with tigers).

<font face="Arial" size="3"> The reason why or the process by which we came into existance will never be known. This statement will always remain exactly true because all theories will remain unproven for the simple fact that humans cannot recreate the creation of life according to the theory of evolution, let alone the circumstances or environment, REGARDLESS of the fact that all the basic 'building blocks of life' are still present in today's Earth. Prove this wrong.</b></font>

I agree that we will never truely know how we came to be. The 'puddle of goo' has long sense gone out of existance, so there would be no fossil record left behind. The only evidence we have that evolution has taken place is the millions of years of fossil records and what has been observed in the field.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
all theorys are like spaceships, one hole and they need to be repaired or replaced.(They can also be as complicated) I'd probably believe Evolution if they could fix the holes.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Edit for clarity: by holes I mean what we don't know, not what we know that doesn't fit.

Just because we don't know why gravity works doesn't mean that we don't know how it behaves.

Edit2 for the the people that don't understand science: of course if it doesn't fit the theory is going to change. That's the entire point of science! The quest for knowledge and all that good stuff. "Oh no something we discovered changed our theory a bit! Guess we were wrong about everything else!" No.