The Earth cant be billions of years old...

reply to post by kagutuchi

Yes, I'm replying to you. I would like to read your source.

Then you would have to come to my lovely little town i live in and read my biology book.

Originally posted by idle_rocker
Where did you get that answer. Do have a source?

Thats a well known fact in the scientific world, if you bothered to do some research yourself you would have already known it

Aww, thank you for your support OzWeatherman

Well if you can't post a source, nevermind. My words are wel-documented in the link above.

*Shrugs* Just because i can't post a source doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it's just in the form of a scientifically acurate, written book, which i obviously can't post here. The fact that it's in a school book proves that it's a better source than some thing found on the internet.

reply to post by idle_rocker


Ok, heres a couple of sources for you

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

I have to disagree. School books are usually outdated the minute they go to print. Wikipedia is not an accurate or reliable source and is not accepted by universities. Sorry, but I need better.

Originally posted by AD5673
Do you understand what im saying? If humans have been around for a million years then there would be more than just about 10 billion as there is now! There would be 100 billion of us maybe!

what you dont understand is that for the last hundreds (maybe thousands) of years the earths population has been either steady or slightly rising, until recently beginning of 1800's the worlds population boosted exponentially, mainly because of breakthroughs in sanitation, which led to higher life expectancy

I can see that nothing we do, or try to do, will please you, and you will reject every effort, so there is no point in trying. if you wish to believe the lies you have been told, then go right ahead.

reply to post by idle_rocker


Sorry double post

[edit on 9/2/2008 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by idle_rocker


Check the references for the wiki articles. You will find one of them is from the Oxford University press......last time I checked it was a university, and a pretty damn good one I might add

reply to post by kagutuchi


I'm not trying to make you please ME. I'm already pleased. I have done my work and studied. As far as Oxford Press contributing to Wikipedia, there are good sources there as well as bad. That's why it's not accepted as a reference in University studies.

That made no sense love...

Originally posted by thestatue
sorry dude you must have a lot of faith to believe all that i just cant think in my head how all that really could happen but you and everyone who believes that is the case clearly has a huge amount of faith but in reality it is just a security blanket there was never a bunch of Goo and bacteria then it all came to this day where some guy invented this computer and all this no no the world and life if a lot more complicated

It's a shame your God didn't also create punctuation as well.... Would have been a nice touch.

Bottom line is, Evolution is simple to understand if you actually had the IQ to look into it. DNA is constantly mutating, most of the time to the detriment of the organism, but sometimes, that mutation confers and advantage over other organisms in the Ecosphere where it resides.

This advantage could be that it is bigger, or stronger, or even smaller and weaker. It could smell better to potential mates, or it could be faster than it's predators.

Whatever the mutation did to the organism, if it is beneficial then it stands to reason that the organism is able to also breed better than it's peers because it is most likely able to live longer and attract better or more mates during it's time on earth.

This in turn leads to more offspring who also carry the mutation, passing on the benefits the parent had.

It's so unbelievably simple to understand, it bothers me greatly when fellow human beings fail to use an ounce of the brain they have and place their faith in stories written by illiterate goat herders from thousands of years ago.

Originally posted by idle_rocker
reply to post by kagutuchi

 

I'm not trying to make you please ME. I'm already pleased. I have done my work and studied. As far as Oxford Press contributing to Wikipedia, there are good sources there as well as bad. That's why it's not accepted as a reference in University studies.

Disregarding Wiki is as dumb as disregarding any other book or website, if fact it's dumber.

Wiki articles now have to be approved by SME's. Also, they list their sources and are often, the bulk of the text is lifted straight from academic sources. Univerisity's may not accept it as reference, but they will accept the references that the article list's. Try to read a bit more and use your noggin.
.

You guys need to seriously catch up. Astrophysicists, and I'm talking secular scientists and have discovered a whole host of things in the past couple years. Read the link!

Originally posted by idle_rocker
You guys need to seriously catch up. Astrophysicists, and I'm talking secular scientists and have discovered a whole host of things in the past couple years. Read the link!

Dude, there's a squillion separate articles on that site and I don't have the time to go through them all (It's 0520 and I'm at work...) to see how the bible basher's have deliberately misinterpreted them. Care to point out the choice bits?

I'll be glad to do that when I'm not just about to go to bed. Keep it in mind and read it with an open mind when you have time. Things ain't over til they're over. Stuff is being realised all the time that changes our thinking. The writers of that website are all very intelligent PHD's in astrophysics and biology. The regligion turn off is a cop out. Why are those of us who are religious always being accused of being closed-minded when the shoe also fits the other foot? When you come down to it, everyone's foot is the same size.

Everybody has their own internal belief systems. You have to be open to change those belieft systems to learn something new.

it's our own choice to open up to new ideas, or stick to the old ones we know and cherish, because we believe that they are right.
I have another question...If this is a scientific breakthrough, then how come it was never on the news? if it's really that important and WAS supported by a lot of evidence, then it would have been.