Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.Because we started devoting more energy to our brains and their development. Even the strongest Neanderthals, for instance, were conquered by a species with superior cooperation and weapon skills.The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.
Then why did you de evolve from a strong hairy monkey?
You act like it developed overnight, it don't make no sense, in the animal kingdom the strongest gets the girls .
"That's funny some of us know all about C12,13 and 14""The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact."So, tell us how scientists know how much c14 was in the atmosphere several thousand years ago. Keep in mind that this dating method can only date objects 35,000 years of age or less. How do scientists know how much c14 was there? The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact.The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.No. He means the half life of elements that can be measured scientifically.
No, not an assumption. The amount of carbon-14 in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains constant. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. As long as the organism is alive, it will have the same amount of carbon-14. This is also a fact. Not one single instance of a variation from this has ever been demonstrated.
After the organism dies, the amount of carbon-14 is reduced thru decay. The rate of decay is uniform and steady. No variation in the rate or uniformity has ever been demonstrated.
You, of course, know nothing about C14 and just made that up on the spot.
That's funny some of us know all about C12,13 and 14 and how it pertains to C02 and Svante Arrhenius ....
Your idea that the physocally strongest always persist is simply 100% wrong. Nobody who knows anything about this topic would demand such a thing is true.Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.Because we started devoting more energy to our brains and their development. Even the strongest Neanderthals, for instance, were conquered by a species with superior cooperation and weapon skills.The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.
Then why did you de evolve from a strong hairy monkey?
You act like it developed overnight, it don't make no sense, in the animal kingdom the strongest gets the girls .
No now you are making stuff up to fit with your theory . Me thinks you watch to much big bang theory , you do know in the real world penny wouldn't give Lenard the time of day much less sleep with him or marry him
.
Bwahahaha super nerd alert!!!!Your idea that the physocally strongest always persist is simply 100% wrong. Nobody who knows anything about this topic would demand such a thing is true.Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.Because we started devoting more energy to our brains and their development. Even the strongest Neanderthals, for instance, were conquered by a species with superior cooperation and weapon skills.Then why did you de evolve from a strong hairy monkey?
You act like it developed overnight, it don't make no sense, in the animal kingdom the strongest gets the girls .
No now you are making stuff up to fit with your theory . Me thinks you watch to much big bang theory , you do know in the real world penny wouldn't give Lenard the time of day much less sleep with him or marry him
.
"That's funny some of us know all about C12,13 and 14""The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact."So, tell us how scientists know how much c14 was in the atmosphere several thousand years ago. Keep in mind that this dating method can only date objects 35,000 years of age or less. How do scientists know how much c14 was there? The only honest answer is that they can't. It's variable. always has been. Scientific fact.The only element that applies to is carbon 14. And they assume the amount of c14 in the environment has remained steady. Like I said, assumptions.
No, not an assumption. The amount of carbon-14 in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains constant. That is not an assumption. That is a fact. As long as the organism is alive, it will have the same amount of carbon-14. This is also a fact. Not one single instance of a variation from this has ever been demonstrated.
After the organism dies, the amount of carbon-14 is reduced thru decay. The rate of decay is uniform and steady. No variation in the rate or uniformity has ever been demonstrated.
You, of course, know nothing about C14 and just made that up on the spot.
That's funny some of us know all about C12,13 and 14 and how it pertains to C02 and Svante Arrhenius ....
Yes, we call these people the global community of research scientists. But they are all wrong, according to your team of experts. Okay.
And it's not always based on physical strength. And you are wrong anyway. Sometimes the females mate with less fit males, because this process is not perfect. Sometimes the selection process pushes species toward the ability to fill a niche, not conquer terroritory or other species.Bwahahaha super nerd alert!!!!Your idea that the physocally strongest always persist is simply 100% wrong. Nobody who knows anything about this topic would demand such a thing is true.Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.Because we started devoting more energy to our brains and their development. Even the strongest Neanderthals, for instance, were conquered by a species with superior cooperation and weapon skills.
You act like it developed overnight, it don't make no sense, in the animal kingdom the strongest gets the girls .
No now you are making stuff up to fit with your theory . Me thinks you watch to much big bang theory , you do know in the real world penny wouldn't give Lenard the time of day much less sleep with him or marry him
.
Once again child the female always picks the strongest mate...
The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.No, they aren't. Not at all.They are one and the same.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.
The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
No they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.No, they aren't. Not at all.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.
The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
They didnt form by random collisionsNo they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.They are both part of an unbroken chain of events. They are the same in the fact that they both deny the existence of a Creator. They rely on 'natural' processes. They are the same.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.
The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
Nobody says they did. They persisted and formed via selection. Selection is not random.They didnt form by random collisionsNo they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.
The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
We think that is exactly where life came from.They didnt form by random collisionsNo they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.There is absolutely no scientific evidence for a Creator. None. To claim that science denies the existence of a Creator is nonsense. The Theory of Evolution does not address any Creator in any way, pro or con.
The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
While the collisions which created all manner of complex, organic chemicals may have been random, the selection which operated on them was not.We think that is exactly where life came from.They didnt form by random collisionsNo they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.
The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
Bonus smirk ~ First life was not self-aware just like all single cell organisms today are not self aware.
Well yes, but evolutionary selection is a bit different. I would call original selection more of a physical process, rather than biological as we use it in an evolutionary sense.While the collisions which created all manner of complex, organic chemicals may have been random, the selection which operated on them was not.We think that is exactly where life came from.They didnt form by random collisionsNo they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
Bonus smirk ~ First life was not self-aware just like all single cell organisms today are not self aware.
It's not so different. The early pro-cells and structures were just physical systems, just like any organism today. we attach the term "natural" to "natural selection" out of convention (150-year old term), and to distinguish it from "artificial selection", that being intentional acts by humans. But even "artificial selection" is still "natural", because humans are products of nature themselves. It's all "selection", in the end. and it's not random.Well yes, but evolutionary selection is a bit different. I would call original selection more of a physical process, rather than biological as we use it in an evolutionary sense.While the collisions which created all manner of complex, organic chemicals may have been random, the selection which operated on them was not.We think that is exactly where life came from.They didnt form by random collisionsNo they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?
Bonus smirk ~ First life was not self-aware just like all single cell organisms today are not self aware.
Bwahahaha super nerd alert!!!!Your idea that the physocally strongest always persist is simply 100% wrong. Nobody who knows anything about this topic would demand such a thing is true.Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.Because we started devoting more energy to our brains and their development. Even the strongest Neanderthals, for instance, were conquered by a species with superior cooperation and weapon skills.
You act like it developed overnight, it don't make no sense, in the animal kingdom the strongest gets the girls .
No now you are making stuff up to fit with your theory . Me thinks you watch to much big bang theory , you do know in the real world penny wouldn't give Lenard the time of day much less sleep with him or marry him
.
Once again child the female always picks the strongest mate...
We think that is exactly where life came from.They didnt form by random collisionsNo they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?Then why are evolutionists always referring to abiogenesis, as if it was a fact? It used to be part of evolutionary theory. Then scientists realized that they were not likely to ever explain how it supposedly happened. So they disowned it. And there may not any direct scientific of a Creator, but the more we learn about the complexity of life, the more ridiculous evolution looks. And there is no scientific proof for evolution. It has not been witnessed to happen. No one knows how it could have happened or what it's driving mechanism is. Science has no answers. Only guesses. And, finally, evolution denies the existence of the Creator since it believes that everything is the result of "natural forces" Give me a break. Why don't you ask some evolutionists if they believe in a Creator.See how many say yes.
The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
Bonus smirk ~ First life was not self-aware just like all single cell organisms today are not self aware.
Bwahahaha super nerd alert!!!!Your idea that the physocally strongest always persist is simply 100% wrong. Nobody who knows anything about this topic would demand such a thing is true.Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.You act like it developed overnight, it don't make no sense, in the animal kingdom the strongest gets the girls .
No now you are making stuff up to fit with your theory . Me thinks you watch to much big bang theory , you do know in the real world penny wouldn't give Lenard the time of day much less sleep with him or marry him
.
Once again child the female always picks the strongest mate...
In many species, the fastest gets the girls. In some, the ones with the most colorful plumage get the the girl. So no, it is not always the strongest.
Bwahahaha super nerd alert!!!!Your idea that the physocally strongest always persist is simply 100% wrong. Nobody who knows anything about this topic would demand such a thing is true.Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.
No now you are making stuff up to fit with your theory . Me thinks you watch to much big bang theory , you do know in the real world penny wouldn't give Lenard the time of day much less sleep with him or marry him
.
Once again child the female always picks the strongest mate...
In many species, the fastest gets the girls. In some, the ones with the most colorful plumage get the the girl. So no, it is not always the strongest.
yea we all know weak ass peacocks like this one gets the girl
What does knowing have to do with posting on the USMB?We think that is exactly where life came from.They didnt form by random collisionsNo they wouldn't. What a ridiculous, arbitrary rule.The first cellular life would have to be self-aware. And if they are self aware and able to direct their growth, so is everything that is made from them, no?The Theory of Evolution started as a way to explain the diversity of species. Explaining how the first cellular life was formed is not part of that at all.
Bonus smirk ~ First life was not self-aware just like all single cell organisms today are not self aware.
How would you know?
Just admit you said something incorrect, for once. That's the thing about you deniers... you will say false thing after false thing. You are shown they are false. Then, it's like groundhog day, here you are , saying the same,, dumb, false things again.Bwahahaha super nerd alert!!!!Your idea that the physocally strongest always persist is simply 100% wrong. Nobody who knows anything about this topic would demand such a thing is true.Overnight? No, literally millions of years. And you are merely making up arbitrary rules, now. No, "the strongest" do not always get the girls. That is 100% incorrect.
No now you are making stuff up to fit with your theory . Me thinks you watch to much big bang theory , you do know in the real world penny wouldn't give Lenard the time of day much less sleep with him or marry him
.
Once again child the female always picks the strongest mate...
In many species, the fastest gets the girls. In some, the ones with the most colorful plumage get the the girl. So no, it is not always the strongest.
yea we all know weak ass peacocks like this one gets the girl
View attachment 149540
