Creation vs. Evolution

[Joe Blow]

Originally posted by bhutocracy
hey guys.. closed system or not entropy isn't a uniform occurrance while the overall entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, local areas can decrease at the expense of an increase elsewhere..

and no.. the solarsystem is not a closed system.. from the mere fact that we can observe the light that has travelled here from other systems that should be obvious

this does not have to degrade into name calling..

I did call him a moron much earlier on in response to a moronic post of his. But if you examine the thread I think you'll discover who has been calling who names.

I was arguing the topic until our primate friend, drunkmonkey, started hurling abuse.

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by Joe Blow


And tell me, how does that make them qualified in biology or palentology?

And where was Morris' degree in Hydraulic Engineering from? Come on, tell us?

Neither of them are qualified in the appropriate fields which was my point. And they are fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of the old Testament so their agenda is quite clear.

So are you a Christian?

This proves that you have not read anything by Dr. Morris. His books deal in the flood and the Hydraulics behind a catastrphic event using water. Very good stuff. Hence the degree in HYdraulic Engineering FROM The University of Minnesota.

Out of curiosity, can you outline the theory of creationism?

[bhutocracy]

there are plenty of transitional forms... you have to pretty much not want to accept what you've asked for when you get lists like joe has provided... you asked for them.. you got a tiny fraction... "you can't then go.. oh well... yeah they look like transitional fossils... but... you know... theres lots of weird things out there..." and not look like you're trying to push the bar even further away after having that argument proven wrong.

[Joe Blow]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


This proves that you have not read anything by Dr. Morris. His books deal in the flood and the Hydraulics behind a catastrphic event using water. Very good stuff. Hence the degree in HYdraulic Engineering FROM The University of Minnesota.

Out of curiosity, can you outline the theory of creationism?

Errr... that the world was created by an intelligent designer and that all species are fixed and immutable. Oh, and that the fossil record was laid down by a catastrophic flood. How's that?

Now can you do the same for evolution?

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey



Lets talk science.

- A fossil is created by organic material being replaced by sediment. This must happen extremely fast and with tons and tons of sedimentary pressure. This is why you never see a fossil of pet Rover in the back yard. How can millions of animals in every part of the earth (even fossilized whales have been found in the mountains of California) be fossilized? The ONLY logical explanation is a great disaster which covered the WHOLE earth in a short period of time (i.e. the flood).

yes lets... theres not enough water in the whole solar system to cover the earth entirely... next..

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by bhutocracy
hey guys.. closed system or not entropy isn't a uniform occurrance while the overall entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, local areas can decrease at the expense of an increase elsewhere..

and no.. the solarsystem is not a closed system.. from the mere fact that we can observe the light that has travelled here from other systems that should be obvious

this does not have to degrade into name calling..

Good point. However, the laws of thermodynamics (especially when you throw entropy in the mix) can be applied to either side of the argument. We all know that left to itself, everything eventually decays. We all also know that life could not exist if that were true. So how is this applied? It can work for both sides of the argument and the debate of closed systems and open systems is arguable as well. In reality, there is no closed system because everything in the universe affects everything else. The key is energy and transference in quantity.

My argument is that a person cannot say that the creationist theory is not true because it just isn't no more than a person can say that the evolutionist theory is not true because they say it is not. Both have valid arguments. And both deserve study.

[Joe Blow]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


Good point. However, the laws of thermodynamics (especially when you throw entropy in the mix) can be applied to either side of the argument. We all know that left to itself, everything eventually decays. We all also know that life could not exist if that were true. So how is this applied? It can work for both sides of the argument and the debate of closed systems and open systems is arguable as well. In reality, there is no closed system because everything in the universe affects everything else. The key is energy and transference in quantity.

My argument is that a person cannot say that the creationist theory is not true because it just isn't no more than a person can say that the evolutionist theory is not true because they say it is not. Both have valid arguments. And both deserve study.

The universe is a closed system. Evolution on earth is possible because of the energy the sun provides in the form of heat and light. That is the bottom line. You are not making any sense monkey.And where is the outline of evolution I asked you for?

[Joe Blow]

Hey Bhutocracy, do you live in Brissie?

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey

How can anyone believe whole heartedly that evolution is reality when the facts just are not there? It is like believing in aliens because "there are just so many stars out there that there has to be other forms of life". A person can believe the sky is plaid if they want but it does not make it so.

the facts are everywhere.. overwhelmingly so... you have to try... REALLY, REALLY hard to bend and twist the evidence to make it not so.. no one disputes the FACT of evolution.. they quibble over the minor details..
the only people that don't are the ones more willing to believe that a big guy in the sky borrowed water from other galaxies or poofed some into existence to cover the earth.. go on about the 2nd law of thermodynamics when by their own logic a seed could never become a tree without god intervening and making it so.. rather than looking at these mundane and obvious things and going.. "oh yeah thats seems likely"
they these elaborate and untenable fabrications to work around obivous evidence... but they can't look at a half bird, half lizard and go .. "oh yeah.. looks like a transition to me" it reminds me of the scene in that horrible joan of arc movie where dustin hoffman is chastising "joan" about how she found that sword in the field...he goes through about five ways.. a swordfight that disarms a guy and his sword is thrown there.. a sword falling off it's holster from the back of a horse as a guy was riding through it.. a guy getting grumpy and just chucking his sword out.. all these mundane and very probable and obvious things and he says to her "out of all the hundreds of plausible explanations for a sword coming to be in a field you chose this one - " and theres music and a sword descends slowly from heaven in a splay of light to lay in the field.... its human nature to want to believe in these thingss..

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


Good point. However, the laws of thermodynamics (especially when you throw entropy in the mix) can be applied to either side of the argument. We all know that left to itself, everything eventually decays. We all also know that life could not exist if that were true. So how is this applied? It can work for both sides of the argument and the debate of closed systems and open systems is arguable as well. In reality, there is no closed system because everything in the universe affects everything else. The key is energy and transference in quantity.

My argument is that a person cannot say that the creationist theory is not true because it just isn't no more than a person can say that the evolutionist theory is not true because they say it is not. Both have valid arguments. And both deserve study.

i would never argue that there is no god.. or creationist theory is definately not true.. only that they are very highly unlikely.
personally i love reading creationist ideas.. i just think that evolution is entirely more tenable. by a factor of many, many times.

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by Joe Blow
Hey Bhutocracy, do you live in Brissie?

byron

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by bhutocracy
there are plenty of transitional forms... you have to pretty much not want to accept what you've asked for when you get lists like joe has provided... you asked for them.. you got a tiny fraction... "you can't then go.. oh well... yeah they look like transitional fossils... but... you know... theres lots of weird things out there..." and not look like you're trying to push the bar even further away after having that argument proven wrong.

I guess that the definition of transitional is subjective. Assuming the vastness of the fossil records there is a suprising lack of "incomplete" animals making the transition from one species to another. Finding the fossil of a monkey with a large and less sloping forhead to me does not prove a theory. Neither does a bird with teeth. No more than finding a mammal that lays eggs or a bird that has wings but cannot fly prove to me that they evolved from anything. It stands as a possiblity but not a fact.

[Joe Blow]

Originally posted by bhutocracy


byron

Close to Nimbin! Good stuff. I like Byron but don't get there often!

[bhutocracy]

on your last point on thermodynamics.. how does it contradict life? everything does eventually decay.... and EVERYTHING will most likely eventually die out in billions of years.. when theres no more energy left and what not..

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


I guess that the definition of transitional is subjective. Assuming the vastness of the fossil records there is a suprising lack of "incomplete" animals making the transition from one species to another. Finding the fossil of a monkey with a large and less sloping forhead to me does not prove a theory. Neither does a bird with teeth. No more than finding a mammal that lays eggs or a bird that has wings but cannot fly prove to me that they evolved from anything. It stands as a possiblity but not a fact.

but many many of these "possibilities" inexorably do point in one direction..

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by bhutocracy


the facts are everywhere.. overwhelmingly so... you have to try... REALLY, REALLY hard to bend and twist the evidence to make it not so.. no one disputes the FACT of evolution.. they quibble over the minor details..
the only people that don't are the ones more willing to believe that a big guy in the sky borrowed water from other galaxies or poofed some into existence to cover the earth.. go on about the 2nd law of thermodynamics when by their own logic a seed could never become a tree without god intervening and making it so.. rather than looking at these mundane and obvious things and going.. "oh yeah thats seems likely"
they these elaborate and untenable fabrications to work around obivous evidence... but they can't look at a half bird, half lizard and go .. "oh yeah.. looks like a transition to me" it reminds me of the scene in that horrible joan of arc movie where dustin hoffman is chastising "joan" about how she found that sword in the field...he goes through about five ways.. a swordfight that disarms a guy and his sword is thrown there.. a sword falling off it's holster from the back of a horse as a guy was riding through it.. a guy getting grumpy and just chucking his sword out.. all these mundane and very probable and obvious things and he says to her "out of all the hundreds of plausible explanations for a sword coming to be in a field you chose this one - " and theres music and a sword descends slowly from heaven in a splay of light to lay in the field.... its human nature to want to believe in these thingss..

Trust me when I say that the last thing that I want to believe is that there is some "big guy in the sky". I always am amazed (which is how I got involved in this debate) at how people associate creationism with religion. You are obviously not one of the people who do this. You stated that creationism is possible but highly unlikely. That is a statement worthy of kudos. I, however, am the exact opposite. I see evolution as highly unlikely. It is a debate worthy of study. I do not subsribe to the fact that if you give anything enough time then anything can happen. This may be fact but it will be unprovable for mankind unless we live for millions of years or create a time machine.

There is nothing which explains the fossil record itself other than a flood. Over millions of years the earth would have been overpopulated with humans. Radioactive dating is only applicable with the theory of uniformitarianism. And if that theory is correct then large prehistoric dinosaurs could not have lived. Dinosaurs would need huge amounts of lush vegetation and extreme tropical conditions worldwide. The earth is slowing down by approximately 1 second every ten months. That means that it was going faster in the past. If it was declining at the same rate then millions of years ago it was spinning so fast it could not support life. The salt in the oceans is increasing. Over millions of years it would be much more salty than the 3.6% it currently is. The earth's magnetic fiels is getting weaker...

There are a ton of things which are not properly addressed by evolution yet are addressed by creationism. I do dispute the FACT of evolution. I see the theory of creationism able to explain things scientifically more than the theory of evolution.

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by bhutocracy
on your last point on thermodynamics.. how does it contradict life? everything does eventually decay.... and EVERYTHING will most likely eventually die out in billions of years.. when theres no more energy left and what not..

It is all in the symantics of the closed system and entropy arguments. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased.

It all depends on how you use the word entropy and closed system. this has been a raging debate for years. See "The Mystery of Life's Origin" by Charles B. Thaxton.

[bhutocracy]

just wait.. we're neck and neck with that other post.. im not sure i want to do all the work (with you and joe) to get him a dvd player .. i don't want to sound too horrible to the guy that started it because normally i don't mind.. but that was a fire and run-away attempt to start a debate.. he hasn't even replied.. im being manipulated into getting him a dvd.... mate.. start a new thread (just so it's not me going after a dvd)

[bhutocracy]

then again sleazy has won about ten dvd's and he's replied all throughout that thread.. so this is probably longer by 20 posts... *sigh*..

[drunkmonkey]

no shit! Who was that masked man that started this post? I think we just got hit by a drive by attempt at a DVD! Wish I would have thought of it

bhutocracy, I have enjoyed your posts. I think I am going to go to bed but I think we should start our own post tomorrow and continue the discussion if you are game. Hell, we could even win a DVD ourselves. I am sure there are enough people on your side of this argument to keep me typing for three years.

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey


Trust me when I say that the last thing that I want to believe is that there is some "big guy in the sky". I always am amazed (which is how I got involved in this debate) at how people associate creationism with religion. You are obviously not one of the people who do this. You stated that creationism is possible but highly unlikely. That is a statement worthy of kudos. I, however, am the exact opposite. I see evolution as highly unlikely. It is a debate worthy of study. I do not subsribe to the fact that if you give anything enough time then anything can happen. This may be fact but it will be unprovable for mankind unless we live for millions of years or create a time machine.

There is nothing which explains the fossil record itself other than a flood. Over millions of years the earth would have been overpopulated with humans. Radioactive dating is only applicable with the theory of uniformitarianism. And if that theory is correct then large prehistoric dinosaurs could not have lived. Dinosaurs would need huge amounts of lush vegetation and extreme tropical conditions worldwide. The earth is slowing down by approximately 1 second every ten months. That means that it was going faster in the past. If it was declining at the same rate then millions of years ago it was spinning so fast it could not support life. The salt in the oceans is increasing. Over millions of years it would be much more salty than the 3.6% it currently is. The earth's magnetic fiels is getting weaker...

If it was declining at the same rate then millions of years ago it was spinning so fast it could not support life.

all big ifs..

the salt in the ocean is increasing cause 6 billion humans are bathing, drinking and cookng in the fresh stuff

the earths magnetic field fluctuates over time.. hell.. it's reversed polarity several times..

it's been around 2 million years and the earth IS OVERPOPULATED BY HUMANS!

i'll take your fossil record and flood thing to issue in a bit.. luckily i don't have paying client work for the next day or two, (otherwaise i wouldn't be here ) but i do have my own!

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey
no shit! Who was that masked man that started this post? I think we just got hit by a drive by attempt at a DVD! Wish I would have thought of it

bhutocracy, I have enjoyed your posts. I think I am going to go to bed but I think we should start our own post tomorrow and continue the discussion if you are game. Hell, we could even win a DVD ourselves. I am sure there are enough people on your side of this argument to keep me typing for three years.

as i have yours, yes we should.. LOL and vice versa!

[drunkmonkey]

Man, I can't go before replying. Shit, I might sober up by tomorrow and not be able to remember my response

Originally posted by bhutocracy


the salt in the ocean is increasing cause 6 billion humans are bathing, drinking and cookng in the fresh stuff

I am sure that adds to the salinity but the majority of it the salinity comes from erosion

the earths magnetic field fluctuates over time.. hell.. it's reversed polarity several times..

Exactly. So the theory of uniformitarianism is out the window. With it goes radioactive dating because the rate of decay of elements is HIGHLY dependent on the Earth's magnetic field. Not to mention the Sun's violet and ultrviolet rays.

it's been around 2 million years and the earth IS OVERPOPULATED BY HUMANS!

But mathematically,
if The population of the planet in 1985 was: 5 billion
in 1977: 4 billion
in 1900: 1 billion
in Jesus? day: 1/4 billion

Then over a few million years the popluation should be about 100,000 people per square inch!

I hope the dude that started this will at least let us come over and watch a movie or something

[tekart]

You know...I'm really impressed with the amount of debating going on in this thread and that the those who are doing the most debating are really in the wrong line of work.

I can see these three guys being 'Professors' at some state institution/college!

I mean, they're throwing out words like:

uniformitarianism
thermodynamics
closed system
enthropy
etc, etc.

and just when I was getting used to seeing words like:
"fuck"
'rude bitch'
"I got cheated by so-and-so"
"I fucked her!"

I hope this debate continues as I'm really looking forward to learning about creation & evolution from an unlikely source!
(Who would have ever guessed I would learn this shit on an 'ADULT" forum!)

Keep up the debate guys! PLEASE!

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey
Man, I can't go before replying. Shit, I might sober up by tomorrow and not be able to remember my response



But mathematically,
if The population of the planet in 1985 was: 5 billion
in 1977: 4 billion
in 1900: 1 billion
in Jesus? day: 1/4 billion

Then over a few million years the popluation should be about 100,000 people per square inch!

I hope the dude that started this will at least let us come over and watch a movie or something

mathematically that is called an EXPONENTIAL increase.. i'd almost make a graph for you.. using your dates you can see that a billion people were added in 8 years just recently but only 3/4 of a billion in almost 1900 before! there are around 6 billion people on the planet now..we've put on 5 billion in the past 100 years.. 5 3/4 in the last 2000. 2 million years ago which is roughly the age of the race we would have numbered in the thousands/tens of thousands... it's NOT a linear progression as those numbers prove it;s fairly obvious that as our ability to manipulate the enviroment increased and we stopped being nomadic our population very slowly but steadily grew.. with our technicalogical advancements and industrialisation.. and pure numbers the last century has seen us explode fivefold.. theres nothing in those figures that suggest we haven't been around 2 million years.. nothing in the slightest.. in fact working backwards they almost show how many people were around back then.. but of course that doesn't take environmental factors into account.. this isn't just numbers.. yes.. from this century on the numbers are exploding and population projections look incredible.. but's it's an obvious fact that it was a slow wind up to get to here. and that if ten years ago there was 5 billion..a hundred years ago there was a billion, 2000 years ago there was a 1/4 of a billion then 4000 years ago there was probably an 8th of a billion... 8000 a 16th.. 16000 a 32nd, 32000 a 64th, 64000 7 mill, 128k 3.5 mill, 256k 1.75mill, 500k 870,000, 1mill 400,000, 2 million years ago 200,000.. you see? EXPONENTIAL growth is slow at first then explodes.. and is of course governed by environment and ability of the species.. of course my numbers above are just rough.. but it's quicker than making a diagram

[drunkmonkey]

Shit, one more quicky. I did not see this post until just a minute ago.

Originally posted by bhutocracy


yes lets... theres not enough water in the whole solar system to cover the earth entirely... next..

"Just how much water is there on (and in) the Earth? Here are some numbers you can think about:

The total water supply of the world is 326 million cubic miles (a cubic mile is an imaginary cube (a square box) measuring one mile on each side). A cubic mile of water equals more than one trillion gallons.

About 3,100 cubic miles of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.

The 48 contiguous United States receives a total volume of about 4 cubic miles of precipitation each day.

Each day, 280 cubic miles of water evaporate or transpire into the atmosphere.

If all of the world's water was poured on the United States, it would cover the land to a depth of 90 miles.

Of the freshwater on Earth, much more is stored in the ground than is available in lakes and rivers. More than 2,000,000 cubic miles of fresh water is stored in the Earth, most within one-half mile of the surface. Contrast that with the 60,000 cubic miles of water stored as fresh water in lakes, inland seas, and rivers. But, if you really want to find fresh water, the most is stored in the 7,000,000 cubic miles of water found in glaciers and icecaps, mainly in the polar regions and in Greenland."

Information on this page is from "The Hydrologic Cycle (Pamphlet), U.S. Geological Survey, 1984"

accordingly, the square footage of the earth is: 57,268,900 square miles land and 139,668,500 square miles water. this gives approx. 197 million square miles. Easily covered by 326 million cubic miles.

Okay, I am seriously going to bed now. My head hurts

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey
I am sure that adds to the salinity but the majority of it the salinity comes from erosion

oh thanks.. i forgot the big one doh! the land clearing for farming and subsequent erosion.. not to mention the farming irrigation washing the salt out.. the biggest human contribution to salinity by a factor of many many times.. im very sure a lot of the salination has been human induced and therefore not a constant linear increase.. and hey if everyone died tomorrow from a disease and vegetation started claiming back land after a few thousand years if martians landed they'd look at the falling salt levels and go "hmmm i wonder if we can calculate off this?" most everything is in flux.. big, almost incomprehensible (but slowly dying) negative feedback loops that keep things balanced..

[bhutocracy]

Originally posted by drunkmonkey
Shit, one more quicky. I did not see this post until just a minute ago.




"Just how much water is there on (and in) the Earth? Here are some numbers you can think about:

The total water supply of the world is 326 million cubic miles (a cubic mile is an imaginary cube (a square box) measuring one mile on each side). A cubic mile of water equals more than one trillion gallons.

About 3,100 cubic miles of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.

The 48 contiguous United States receives a total volume of about 4 cubic miles of precipitation each day.

Each day, 280 cubic miles of water evaporate or transpire into the atmosphere.

If all of the world's water was poured on the United States, it would cover the land to a depth of 90 miles.

Of the freshwater on Earth, much more is stored in the ground than is available in lakes and rivers. More than 2,000,000 cubic miles of fresh water is stored in the Earth, most within one-half mile of the surface. Contrast that with the 60,000 cubic miles of water stored as fresh water in lakes, inland seas, and rivers. But, if you really want to find fresh water, the most is stored in the 7,000,000 cubic miles of water found in glaciers and icecaps, mainly in the polar regions and in Greenland."

Information on this page is from "The Hydrologic Cycle (Pamphlet), U.S. Geological Survey, 1984"

accordingly, the square footage of the earth is: 57,268,900 square miles land and 139,668,500 square miles water. this gives approx. 197 million square miles. Easily covered by 326 million cubic miles.

Okay, I am seriously going to bed now. My head hurts

yeah and how does the underground water get above ground? and close the door so it doesn't flow back? lol

[Rocky]

Revolution vs Cremation

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by bhutocracy


mathematically that is called an EXPONENTIAL increase.. i'd almost make a graph for you.. using your dates you can see that a billion people were added in 8 years just recently but only 3/4 of a billion in almost 1900 before! there are around 6 billion people on the planet now..we've put on 5 billion in the past 100 years.. 5 3/4 in the last 2000. 2 million years ago which is roughly the age of the race we would have numbered in the thousands/tens of thousands... it's NOT a linear progression as those numbers prove it;s fairly obvious that as our ability to manipulate the enviroment increased and we stopped being nomadic our population very slowly but steadily grew.. with our technicalogical advancements and industrialisation.. and pure numbers the last century has seen us explode fivefold.. theres nothing in those figures that suggest we haven't been around 2 million years.. nothing in the slightest.. in fact working backwards they almost show how many people were around back then.. but of course that doesn't take environmental factors into account.. this isn't just numbers.. yes.. from this century on the numbers are exploding and population projections look incredible.. but's it's an obvious fact that it was a slow wind up to get to here. and that if ten years ago there was 5 billion..a hundred years ago there was a billion, 2000 years ago there was a 1/4 of a billion then 4000 years ago there was probably an 8th of a billion... 8000 a 16th.. 16000 a 32nd, 32000 a 64th, 64000 7 mill, 128k 3.5 mill, 256k 1.75mill, 500k 870,000, 1mill 400,000, 2 million years ago 200,000.. you see? EXPONENTIAL growth is slow at first then explodes.. and is of course governed by environment and ability of the species.. of course my numbers above are just rough.. but it's quicker than making a diagram

Okay, dammit, I am not going to do any math right now. There are a number of equations that are used for population growth.
dN = rN
dt

or

A=4 e 0.019(25)= 4 e0.475 = 6.43 (approx.)

But no matter how you stack it up, the math does not show humans existing millions or even hundreds of thousands of years ago. Start off with two and exponentially increase and you reach 6 billion really damn quick. Of course this does not account plagues, infertility, etc., etc., but it is a long way from millions of years.

Damnit, can I get some sleep now

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by bhutocracy


yeah and how does the underground water get above ground? and close the door so it doesn't flow back? lol

Dr. Morris gives good theories in the book "The Genesis Flood". These eruptions of underground water had to be quite catastrophic and can also explain tectonic shifts and mountain formations. The heat and pressure brought about by a vapor canopy surrounding the earth (which gave the perfect environment for large plant eating dinosaurs) could cause massive disruptions with any fluids trapped under the earths crust. Between the canopy collapsing and the fluids under the earth erupting, theoretically there was plenty of water to cover the Earth. As far as it flowing back into the earth, much of it did. Much of it was also frozen at the polar caps by the sudden drastic change in temperature due to the lack of the vapor canopy.

[drunkmonkey]

Originally posted by bhutocracy


oh thanks.. i forgot the big one doh! the land clearing for farming and subsequent erosion.. not to mention the farming irrigation washing the salt out.. the biggest human contribution to salinity by a factor of many many times.. im very sure a lot of the salination has been human induced and therefore not a constant linear increase.. and hey if everyone died tomorrow from a disease and vegetation started claiming back land after a few thousand years if martians landed they'd look at the falling salt levels and go "hmmm i wonder if we can calculate off this?" most everything is in flux.. big, almost incomprehensible (but slowly dying) negative feedback loops that keep things balanced..

Excuse me if I do not respond to this right now. I have to get some sleep. Thoroughly enjoyed your posts, man. I will respond tomorrow.

I am going to sleep. I swear it.

[drunkmonkey]

One last thing though (again )

I am in complete agreement with your statement that everything is in flux. I laugh my ass off at the "scientific" statements that the earth has a hole in the ozone which is causing a "greenhouse" effect. Hell, I remember in the early 80's when they were warning us about a new "ice age". Humanity has only been taking measurements of any precision for a very limited time. It is hard to tell what earth was doing before we were measuring. And who is to say that there is even a pattern?

With that, I bid you adou. sleep time.

come here you fucking Mr. Sandman. I am going to make you my bitch.

[FiReC]

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/shapeoflife/

shit!!! we are all part sponge!!?!?!?

[DamnFineOnline]

Originally posted by bhutocracy


yes lets... theres not enough water in the whole solar system to cover the earth entirely... next..

I read somewhere that if all the polar ice caps melted that it would be possible for most, maybe all, of the earth to be covered.

[DamnFineOnline]

If evolution is the case, then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?

[ElvisManson]

Originally posted by DamnFineOnline
If evolution is the case, then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?

We ( big collective) are finding new species all the time...rain forests and Ocean depths for the most part.

If they are just appearing I don't know....though I doubt it....we ( collective again) are finding them.

[DamnFineOnline]

Originally posted by ElvisManson


We ( big collective) are finding new species all the time...rain forests and Ocean depths for the most part.

Yes but they are not recently evolved species, they are just creatures that live in such remote and/or unaccessable places that we were unable to study and find untill now.

[tekart]

Does anyone here have any thoughts/facts/theories as to whether it would be possible to determine just how long a species has been around...if say...we found a new type of animal either in the rain forests or at some of the deeper depths of the oceans?

[pornJester]

Originally posted by tekart
Does anyone here have any thoughts/facts/theories as to whether it would be possible to determine just how long a species has been around...if say...we found a new type of animal either in the rain forests or at some of the deeper depths of the oceans?

You'd probably have to find the remains of a bunch of the members of this species and start carbon dating...

[FiReC]

Originally posted by DamnFineOnline
If evolution is the case, then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?

didn't they find some three legged frogs in minnesota a fews years ago???

[DamnFineOnline]

Originally posted by FiReC


didn't they find some three legged frogs in minnesota a fews years ago???

three legged frogs?


I caught a 2 tailed fish at the power plant outside of town... It fought pretty fuckin hard with 2 tails...

[Fletch XXX]

Id like to believe we have progressed from some lower level of the chain, Id like to.

[Amputate Your Head]

Evolution.


anything else is a pipe dream.

[X37375787]

Blinky !!!!

[IMG]http://**********/pics/blinky.jpg[/IMG]

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by DamnFineOnline
If evolution is the case, then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?

Haha! Are you totally unaware of the time scales involved?

And how would you know whether it had just appeared vs. just having been discovered.

DUH!!!