Hellbender

*Sighs and shakes head*

Now you're really reaching.

Because you are all full of crap, to put it bluntly. Maybe not to your liking, but it can for most other people Yes we can. The answer is nothing. *Sigh* And there is nothing any member or I can say that will make you think otherwise. Your mind is set. Ghosts are real, evolution explains nothing and god created everything as written in the bible, according to Herme3, and no persuasive arguments, logic or evidence is going to change your mind. Arguing with you is like mutliplying zeroes; you put some effort in and come out with essentially nothing.

Can't you read? Not all Christians are creationists. I recall you have said yourself that this is so. Please don't strawman.

He can be rather short and curmudeonly at times. But this is what I like about him.

If you don't know the answer to this already, you are one of the fortunate ones who have not partaken in herme3's "Too Much for Evolution thread". I suggest you check it out if you want a good laugh.

Excellent. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

All forms are transitional, but not all are considered transitional between major clades. These are the ones creationists assume we haven't found.

I agree. I was throwing around the idea in my head that we should post a sticky refuting the most common and downright bad creationist arguments, or maybe copy and sticky the article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense".

If I had the extra $200 to buy a digital camera I would. Seriously, it is a virtue to be able to admit when you are wrong about something. And your "Ghettysburgh ghost photos" are not? Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?

The only way this thread will truly die is if you sever its head!!!!! And we gave you a rational explanation (you need not be scientific about such mundane things, really) You are just so desperate to believe that it is ghosts that you are pretty much not listening to anything we say.

I am really good at this game, oddly enough. No one I know can beat me with Capt. Falcon.

People still play AVP2 over the net? Damn I gotta start, I love that game.

Hoyle is famous for his oversimplifications. He is the guy whos uses the airplane analogy, if memory serves.

Maybe we could be parthenogenic

Depending on what model of H. sapiens evolution you go by. There is one that says we evolved from archaics and spread to replace them, and another which states that we evolved in Africa, and moved to replace Archaics in other places. Not impossible, but given humankind's current state of controlling our environment, I don't see this happening anytime soon. There is no reason why some of us would eventually speciate, in other words. Yeah for a little while we did, and I bet there was some sharp competition between us that could have contributed to their (H. neandertalensis's) eventual extinction. Evolution doesn't usually take such drastic steps,and especially not with us.

I think the mistake is casting a guy like Tom Sizemore to play a scientist. In Alien, upon seeing the dead space jockey skeleton, Dallas says "Looks like its been dead a long time...fossilized. Looks like its growing out of the chair". Fossilization only occurs when the hard parts are buried in sediment which exchanges molecules with the "skeleton". But his character is the futuristic equvialent with a merchant marine, so I guess he might not have known. In "Resident Evil", the holographic girl says that "after you die your hair and nails continue to grow". AS far as I know, they grow very little after you die, and the illusion that they have grown more is the result of your skin "shrinking".

Dude, Dimitri dies in that game. Cool video game characters can't die

Actually, 48% of Americans believe in biblical creation, so in the general pUblic, creationism is much more popular. Luckily, the validity of theories aren't judged on how many people like them. I don't own a bible nor do I have one on hand, I will ask you if it specifically describes a sauropod, or if it describes another made-up dragon-like beast or something. While I could nitpick and say there was never any marine dinosaurs, but I know what you meant. Again, does the bible specifically describe something like a Kronosarus, or something more like a whale or large shark? And it has it merits in the latter for many people, so i don't see why people try so hard to find scientific accuracy in it. Please show me that it explicitly and correctly describes dinosaurs. I am interested. Actually astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists and biologists have proven that the bible has some incorrect information in it (if you happen to take it all literally). For instance, the earth is not flat, stars aren't nearby lights that occasionally fall to earth, a global flood is impossible and all life wasn't created in its current form in six days.

You mean historians agree. Its not impossible that a man that pretty much started a Jewish sect that turned into a major religion was once alive. I believe it and I am not a Christian. Because the authors of the bible never heard of dinosaurs because paeontology didn't yet exist.

I was told in high school bio to think of them as halfway between plants and animals, but that is good too.

The Arbiter from Halo 2. Elites are so cool, and he is the pinnacle of that fact.

Thats what I was wondering.

Theories are a big part of real science. I'm afraid biological evolution theory has been tested for over a century and has a lot of evidence behind it, which is something you would know if you just put down the Gish and pick up the Gould. Wrong again. It has been tested for over a century, and is demonstrated every time you go to the supermarket and buy things like seedless watermelons and turkeys so dumb and fat that they drown in heavy rain. You are half right. Creationism is a theory that can't be tested or demonstrated. It is taken on faith and that is not science. Evolution is a theory that can be and has been tested, numerous times, for over a century. You make it seem like "theory" is something someone dreamt up after being drunk all night. See, biological evolution a fact as well as a theory. You are probably wondering how something can be both. The notion that organisms change over time and all share a distant common ancestor happens to be a fact. The theory part is a way to explain this fact.The reason it remains a theory and isn't conclusively proven is becuase a theory is a work in progress, it always has to remain so to make room for new evidence.

Biological evolution not only fact, but a theory as well that explains the fact that organisms change and adapt over time. Evidences for evolution (I want to make it short) include: Observed adaptation: Species of plants and fruitflies have been observed changing and adapting to various pressures. Homologies: Species deemed related have similarites based on virtue of common descent. Palentological progression: The deeper the sediment the fossil is found in in, the "simpler" it is. Jury Rigging: Similar to homology, many organisms have anatomical features that show poor or careless "design", such as teeth in juvenile baleen whales which are later reabsorbed. Paleontological evidence: Paleontologists have discovered fossils that apparently indicate that organisms branch from common ancestors to exploit different modes of life. For instance there is a robust fossil record from early Lhasa Apso-sized Hyracotherium to modern Equus. There are many, many more very interesting examples. I suggest Talk.Origins for more. *crickets chirping*