The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

btw i would like some links proving that you are not a r-tard.

 

[ravendarat 10+ year member]

Hmmm, I stated my opinion on the bible and got mocked, ok I can handle that, its all good. As for the person who asked about links disproving the bible, lets try to be rational here, and if Im off base correct me in a civilized fashion, I completly welcome it. Many of the things written in the bible, to me at least, seem as though they can be disproved with common sense. Start with the whole reserrection thing, do you truly believe that someone can come back from the dead after being crucified, I sure dont. How about Jesus giving a blind man back his eye site by touching him, do you believe that one? Feeding a mass crowd with, what was it a fish and 2 loafs of bread or something to that effect? Doubt that one two. Its stories like this that make the bible extremely hard to believe in my opinion. There are two many things that are just impossible, and those stories destroy the bibles credibility as a factual book.

As someone else said, it would make sense that the reason why no one has written about evolution happening in the past is because they did not have the means in which to understand it. Its not something that you can sit and watch happen in a couple of weeks. Its only in the last 100 years or so that humans have developed the technology and theories such as carbon dating to back up evolution. Just because its, in the grand scheme of things, fairly new to us as a line of thinking, doesnt mean its incorrect. On that same note though, im also not saying that everything we know about evloution is 100% right either, its a work in progress

 

[UndercoverPunk 5,000+ posts]

That is correct based on what I know as well. My philosophy professor in college studied the Bible in it's original languages. There is no reference to any sort of fire and brimstone Hell actually existing in the original text. Several terms are used, including Sheol and Gehenna. The whole idea of Hell, as a place where sinners go and are punished for eternity, came about later on.
I don't want to really get in on the argument... but I don't think that it has to be one way or the other. Why not believe that God set up the Universe so that evolution was the means used to create man and other species? If you choose to believe in God that doesn't rule out evolution. The Bible was written so anyone could understand it, even if you are a devout believer you must understand that much -- some "nitty gritty" details may have simply been left out to make it understandable to the masses. Anyone here think that 2000 years ago people would understand DNA mutations?

Anyway... I'm out. These things always get nasty and/or go on forever in a circular fashion //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

I support this statement, while I'm not in 100% agreement, I like the direction this is going.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

Unfortunately that changed because people in general, are guilable.

Bwahahaha. No, they USED to be. Less and less people are falling for fairy tales every year.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Discuss in detail, Sorokin’s cyclical theory of social change. Include in this discussion the different types of cultural mentality.

Define and discuss functionalism and attempt to apply it to contemporary society.

Compare and contrast structural functionalism and conflict theory.

Discuss in detail, mills concept of the power elite.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

why would i read a book about a topic i disagree with?

To become more well rounded and try an understand more views in order to find the real truth. I don't believe in Chritianity, but grew up in a catholic school and have read the bible. Also you can't effectively argue against someones point, if you haven't even read someones point. your thought process is like wearing blinders and nothing good ever comes from that, but I would defend your right to say whatever garbage you want to though, so carry on.

 

[cone0 10+ year member]

What i said had nothing to do with your personal beliefs, again another r-tarded mistake on your part.
Nonetheless, faith, being a basic requirement of all religions, by definition is a belief not based on proof.

if it could be proven one way or another, it wouldn't be faith and it wouldn't be religion.

exactly requirement of religion....not of the bible itself

the bible has documented accuractely historical people, places and events doesn't prove it 100% but it goes towards its credibility...you can believe in the bible on that basis and not on the religious aspect

slamming it because it's outlandish proves you're the "r-tard"

 

[cone0 10+ year member]

btw i would like some links proving that you are not a r-tard.

I have a few but im waiting for links proving the bible is better used as a door stop

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

exactly requirement of religion....not of the bible itselfthe bible has documented accuractely historical people, places and events doesn't prove it 100% but it goes towards its credibility...you can believe in the bible on that basis and not on the religious aspect

slamming it because it's outlandish proves you're the "r-tard"

therein is found the basis for our contention. You wanted proof of historically inaccuracies instead of refutation of doctrine, without explicitly stating it.

Macro > Micro.

 

[AllStar1500bd 5,000+ posts]

Religion is an ignorant clusterfuck of lies and propaganda //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

Corrected.

exactly requirement of religion....not of the bible itselfthe bible has documented accuractely historical people, places and events doesn't prove it 100% but it goes towards its credibility...you can believe in the bible on that basis and not on the religious aspect

slamming it because it's outlandish proves you're the "r-tard"

Yep. This guy's officially an r-tard. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/*******.gif.a649d21efc0d1fd4890a6428166586c1.gif

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

wow, evolution deniers? you guys ****

 

[Buffalohed 10+ year member]

The most conservative estimate on the beginning of bacteria on the planet is 2.5 billion years ago, but let's pretend bacteria started when christians think god made the earth (lol), so 6000 years ago. Bacteria are known to double in population as fast as every 9.8 minutes. But let's pretend the first bacteria were slow bacteria and took 98 minutes to double in population. Let's also pretend that this slow reproducing bacteria is of the smallest variety of bacteria, only .5 micrometers long or 5 x 10^-7 meters (an electron is 10^-15 meters long).

So that gives us 3.217 x 10^7 doublings of bacteria population, or 2^32170000 (compared to the roughly 1250 doublings of human population in 2 million years).

Unfortunately my computer can't process how many bacteria that leaves us with. It is a lot more than the number of humans suggested in the first post though.

We have a problem though. The universe (let alone the earth) is only so big, and can only hold so many bacteria. There are an estimated 10^80 subatomic particles in our universe, total. If every inch of space in the universe was packed with subatomic particles, there would be room for less than 10^100 of them. But these subatomic particles are 10,000,000 times smaller than our smallest bacteria. So let's pretend that our tiny bacteria shrink to 1/10,000,000 their size, so that 10^100 of them will just barely fit into our entire universe.

Unfortunately, this only allows for 332 doublings of population (compared with the 32 million doublings that would occur in 6000 years). Well these doublings of population occur every 98 minutes, but for the sake of jesus science, let's say they occur every 980 minutes.

Uh oh. Those 332 doublings, enough to fill the entire universe brim to brim with unbelievably shrunken bacteria, would only take 225 days!

What does this tell us?

THE WORLD MUST BE LESS THAN 225 DAYS OLD, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE NUMBER OF SHRUNKEN BACTERIA THAT WOULD FIT INTO OUR UNIVERSE.

Christian logic at its finest. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/*******.gif.a649d21efc0d1fd4890a6428166586c1.gif

 

[UndercoverPunk 5,000+ posts]

The most conservative estimate on the beginning of bacteria on the planet is 2.5 billion years ago, but let's pretend bacteria started when christians think god made the earth (lol), so 6000 years ago. Bacteria are known to double in population as fast as every 9.8 minutes. But let's pretend the first bacteria were slow bacteria and took 98 minutes to double in population. Let's also pretend that this slow reproducing bacteria is of the smallest variety of bacteria, only .5 micrometers long or 5 x 10^-7 meters (an electron is 10^-15 meters long).
So that gives us 3.217 x 10^7 doublings of bacteria population, or 2^32170000 (compared to the roughly 1250 doublings of human population in 2 million years).

Unfortunately my computer can't process how many bacteria that leaves us with. It is a lot more than the number of humans suggested in the first post though.

We have a problem though. The universe (let alone the earth) is only so big, and can only hold so many bacteria. There are an estimated 10^80 subatomic particles in our universe, total. If every inch of space in the universe was packed with subatomic particles, there would be room for less than 10^100 of them. But these subatomic particles are 10,000,000 times smaller than our smallest bacteria. So let's pretend that our tiny bacteria shrink to 1/10,000,000 their size, so that 10^100 of them will just barely fit into our entire universe.

Unfortunately, this only allows for 332 doublings of population (compared with the 32 million doublings that would occur in 6000 years). Well these doublings of population occur every 98 minutes, but for the sake of jesus science, let's say they occur every 980 minutes.

Uh oh. Those 332 doublings, enough to fill the entire universe brim to brim with unbelievably shrunken bacteria, would only take 225 days!

What does this tell us?

THE WORLD MUST BE LESS THAN 225 DAYS OLD, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE NUMBER OF SHRUNKEN BACTERIA THAT WOULD FIT INTO OUR UNIVERSE.

Christian logic at its finest. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/*******.gif.a649d21efc0d1fd4890a6428166586c1.gif

What are you talking about, I don't see any LARGE, GAPING, UNAVOIDABLE, COMMON SENSE TYPE HOLES in that logic.

 

[wu36ca 10+ year member]

The most conservative estimate on the beginning of bacteria on the planet is 2.5 billion years ago, but let's pretend bacteria started when christians think god made the earth (lol), so 6000 years ago. Bacteria are known to double in population as fast as every 9.8 minutes. But let's pretend the first bacteria were slow bacteria and took 98 minutes to double in population. Let's also pretend that this slow reproducing bacteria is of the smallest variety of bacteria, only .5 micrometers long or 5 x 10^-7 meters (an electron is 10^-15 meters long).
So that gives us 3.217 x 10^7 doublings of bacteria population, or 2^32170000 (compared to the roughly 1250 doublings of human population in 2 million years).

Unfortunately my computer can't process how many bacteria that leaves us with. It is a lot more than the number of humans suggested in the first post though.

We have a problem though. The universe (let alone the earth) is only so big, and can only hold so many bacteria. There are an estimated 10^80 subatomic particles in our universe, total. If every inch of space in the universe was packed with subatomic particles, there would be room for less than 10^100 of them. But these subatomic particles are 10,000,000 times smaller than our smallest bacteria. So let's pretend that our tiny bacteria shrink to 1/10,000,000 their size, so that 10^100 of them will just barely fit into our entire universe.

Unfortunately, this only allows for 332 doublings of population (compared with the 32 million doublings that would occur in 6000 years). Well these doublings of population occur every 98 minutes, but for the sake of jesus science, let's say they occur every 980 minutes.

Uh oh. Those 332 doublings, enough to fill the entire universe brim to brim with unbelievably shrunken bacteria, would only take 225 days!

What does this tell us?

THE WORLD MUST BE LESS THAN 225 DAYS OLD, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE NUMBER OF SHRUNKEN BACTERIA THAT WOULD FIT INTO OUR UNIVERSE.

Christian logic at its finest. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/*******.gif.a649d21efc0d1fd4890a6428166586c1.gif

That made my head hurt //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[Buffalohed 10+ year member]

What are you talking about, I don't see any LARGE, GAPING, UNAVOIDABLE, COMMON SENSE TYPE HOLES in that logic.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rotflol.gif.b453361716769b8110ddefc85ff03cd2.gif