w00000www....it's huge!
12-08-2010, 07:02 PM
#23
Launching!
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Denton, TX
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that whole statment boarded logic.
1. so your way of thinking IS true....got it.
2. carrots, wild lettuce and some dude named good ol' joe = evolution is wrong.
3. yep thats definitely misinformation. tiger = panthera tigris from the falidae family. there are only 2 species of tigers left: siberian and bengal. there used to be five species. and before those five were even more species of saber toothed cats from the same family of cats that tigers can be genetically traced back to. lions = panthera leo. a close relative of the of the tiger, also in the falidae family. today there is only one main specie of lion. in recent history there were 3 known species of lion. and before that tiger's and lions shared a common ancestor in the cave lion(panthera leo atrox). which consisted of a few different species(atrox, fossilis, spelaea). most modern big cats(falidae) can be traced back to this common ancestor.
5. lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!
1. so your way of thinking IS true....got it.
2. carrots, wild lettuce and some dude named good ol' joe = evolution is wrong.
3. yep thats definitely misinformation. tiger = panthera tigris from the falidae family. there are only 2 species of tigers left: siberian and bengal. there used to be five species. and before those five were even more species of saber toothed cats from the same family of cats that tigers can be genetically traced back to. lions = panthera leo. a close relative of the of the tiger, also in the falidae family. today there is only one main specie of lion. in recent history there were 3 known species of lion. and before that tiger's and lions shared a common ancestor in the cave lion(panthera leo atrox). which consisted of a few different species(atrox, fossilis, spelaea). most modern big cats(falidae) can be traced back to this common ancestor.
5. lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!
Brian is right tho... We weren't always omnivors. Actually, growing/collecting and eating vegetables and fruits was learned pretty late in human existence. And without the plants in our diet, we would have severely suffered. You can't live off of JUST meat, just like you can't live off of JUST plants. I'm not saying that neanderthols didn't eat an apple when they saw it or eat pieces of grass when there was no food to be found, but it was never a major part of our diets.
Weather or not evolution is real is an interesting debate anyhow, but science has proven that you can't deny that animals (and humans) have changed over time. Not saying that we all came from fish in the oceans, but the famous fossils of "lucy" are a much different human than what we are today. And we're obviously of the same ancestory...
12-10-2010, 06:25 AM
#24
My point is life comes from life. Scientists investigate the laws of nature. The very existence of law and order in the universe points to a source or lawgiver. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past.
Evolutionists often point out that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of genetic material. Yet humans have 23 sets of chromosomes and chimps have 24. For two animals to mate, their chromosomes must match or "zip together." The proposed divergence of chimps and humans from a common ancestor is said to have occurred after sexual reproduction began. If the theory of evolution is true, an animal must have been born at some time in the past with a different number of chromosomes than its parents. Unless that animal was able to mate, it would have no adaptive advantage. Therefore, if evolution as proposed is true, two animals must have experienced the same change in the number of chromosomes in the same geographic location during the same generation. Although "coincidences" such as this have not been observed in nature, they must have happened thousands of times in the course of history if natural evolution is to account for what exists today.
The ability to fly supposedly evolved spontaneously by chance at least four times: for insects, birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles. Yet intelligent man did not figure out the principles of flight until the past century.
A single cell is far more complicated than any machine intelligent man has invented. A typical cell contains ten million million atoms (quadrillion). To reconstruct a model of a cell, atom by atom, one atom per second, would take about ten million years to finish. To get a cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. Even if that happened, would it be alive? A dead body (or a dead cell) has all of the proper proteins, enzymes, the cell wall, and the DNA design in one place, yet it is not alive.
Science itself has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life comes only from life (law of biogenesis). Things do not improve naturally as a matter of course (second law of thermodynamics). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically.
http://www.susancanthony.com/aboutsusan/evolution.html
.............................PWNT!
Evolutionists often point out that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of genetic material. Yet humans have 23 sets of chromosomes and chimps have 24. For two animals to mate, their chromosomes must match or "zip together." The proposed divergence of chimps and humans from a common ancestor is said to have occurred after sexual reproduction began. If the theory of evolution is true, an animal must have been born at some time in the past with a different number of chromosomes than its parents. Unless that animal was able to mate, it would have no adaptive advantage. Therefore, if evolution as proposed is true, two animals must have experienced the same change in the number of chromosomes in the same geographic location during the same generation. Although "coincidences" such as this have not been observed in nature, they must have happened thousands of times in the course of history if natural evolution is to account for what exists today.
The ability to fly supposedly evolved spontaneously by chance at least four times: for insects, birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles. Yet intelligent man did not figure out the principles of flight until the past century.
A single cell is far more complicated than any machine intelligent man has invented. A typical cell contains ten million million atoms (quadrillion). To reconstruct a model of a cell, atom by atom, one atom per second, would take about ten million years to finish. To get a cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. Even if that happened, would it be alive? A dead body (or a dead cell) has all of the proper proteins, enzymes, the cell wall, and the DNA design in one place, yet it is not alive.
Science itself has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life comes only from life (law of biogenesis). Things do not improve naturally as a matter of course (second law of thermodynamics). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically.
http://www.susancanthony.com/aboutsusan/evolution.html
.............................PWNT!
Last edited by jc98ss; 12-10-2010 at 11:11 PM.
12-10-2010, 10:17 AM
#26
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (96)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, Tejas
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that whole statment boarded logic.
1. so your way of thinking IS true....got it.
2. carrots, wild lettuce and some dude named good ol' joe = evolution is wrong.
3. yep thats definitely misinformation. tiger = panthera tigris from the falidae family. there are only 2 species of tigers left: siberian and bengal. there used to be five species. and before those five were even more species of saber toothed cats from the same family of cats that tigers can be genetically traced back to. lions = panthera leo. a close relative of the of the tiger, also in the falidae family. today there is only one main specie of lion. in recent history there were 3 known species of lion. and before that tiger's and lions shared a common ancestor in the cave lion(panthera leo atrox). which consisted of a few different species(atrox, fossilis, spelaea). most modern big cats(falidae) can be traced back to this common ancestor.
5. lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!
1. so your way of thinking IS true....got it.
2. carrots, wild lettuce and some dude named good ol' joe = evolution is wrong.
3. yep thats definitely misinformation. tiger = panthera tigris from the falidae family. there are only 2 species of tigers left: siberian and bengal. there used to be five species. and before those five were even more species of saber toothed cats from the same family of cats that tigers can be genetically traced back to. lions = panthera leo. a close relative of the of the tiger, also in the falidae family. today there is only one main specie of lion. in recent history there were 3 known species of lion. and before that tiger's and lions shared a common ancestor in the cave lion(panthera leo atrox). which consisted of a few different species(atrox, fossilis, spelaea). most modern big cats(falidae) can be traced back to this common ancestor.
5. lions and tigers and bears, OH MY!
Capitalization and punctuation is a pet-peeve of mine. Mira, mira, muy chingon! I know how to use wikipedia.
The fish bit my bait tho. I can tell they also licked it cause it was wet. 
12-11-2010, 02:39 AM
#31
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (96)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, Tejas
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I usually go Sunday mornings around 7am with my cousin n a couple friends. I might be going this Sunday too. We usually set up camp at E.B. Robertson Park off i-30 and Dalrock/Cooke. Sometimes we go to this little park on the Heath side by Scenic Dr and Hubbard Dr. Havent really been to other places tho. My friend got me hooked on fishing. We even went this one time that it was cold, windy, and raining lol We used rain coats and a big tent thing that i have.
