|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 12/16/2002 : 02:11:12
|
This always fascinates me. These people can continue for years to spout the same nonsense, only to get their noses rubbed in it. Then, when there is a new finding, and they get around to addressing it, they spout the same old nonsense, again.
http://www.icr.org/headlines/chadskull.html
These people amaze me. Like the guy that wrote this little peice, these guys generally tend to be well educated in the sciences, but because of their belief systems, are able to ignore coomon sense. (And, I realize they sign a pledge of faith, effectively checking rational thought at the gate)
I've been following these guys since the early '80's, and have found a dire lack of legitamate field research, and a dirth of original ideas since the mid '70's ramblings of Henry Morris and Duane Gish.
Yet, they just keep on coming, like the Energizer Bunny on crank.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2002 : 04:03:00 [Permalink]
|
Yup. Same ol' tripe. But that ain't the scary part. I read somewhere that the ICR has, after a furious, legal battle, state accredation to award Master's Degrees  .
(Pic of Rana gishi)
f
{I took the liberty, filthy - PhDreamer} |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2003 : 23:24:10 [Permalink]
|
I asked a simple question to men with more educated than myself. I said the petrified trees only lived for 2000 years, I didn't specify their age. I am being respectful and could ramble on and on about things you wish not to hear about.
Just because learned men, like your selves, believe in evolution doesn't mean it's right. Let's look at some evidence I have and as men, not insulting grown men with computer games, we will come to great answers.
It is very interesting though that trees alive on the earth today, age no more than 4000 years. Some of the oldest of course. You would think (if the earth was several million years old) you could find me a tree older than that, say 10,000 years, or maybe one that was petrified (millions of years ago, of course) and 5000 years old. It seams as though the petrified ones only lived 2000 years. Who can explain the trees (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand) that cut upright, though millions of years of strata, not just in a small area, but over thousands of kilometers. Now if this type of petrification happens all over the earth. The tree would rot.
One example was a petrified tree that lived only 2000 years, blown backwards up hill. Obviously showning a tremendous blast came from below the tree. If you can't find me a tree older than 4000 years and a petrified tree that lived for no more than 2000 years(but was petrified millions of years ago, of course), then I can not, by will of reason, believe in the theroy of evolution.
How come when you date a recently dead entity. It's age comes up as thousands of years (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand)or you age different parts and they all come up different?
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2003 : 23:51:41 [Permalink]
|
| Same ol' tripe, indeed. It's the "trees alive on the earth today, age no more than 4000 years" thing again. |
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 01:45:52 [Permalink]
|
Hi verlch!
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Just because learned men, like your selves, believe in evolution doesn't mean it's right. Let's look at some evidence I have and as men, not insulting grown men with computer games, we will come to great answers.
Are you ready to look at the evidence? In that case you will be welcome here. If not your talk about education and maturity won't help you. Let's see.
quote:
It is very interesting though that trees alive on the earth today, age no more than 4000 years. Some of the oldest of course. You would think (if the earth was several million years old) you could find me a tree older than that, say 10,000 years, or maybe one that was petrified (millions of years ago, of course) and 5000 years old. It seams as though the petrified ones only lived 2000 years. Who can explain the trees (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand) that cut upright, though millions of years of strata, not just in a small area, but over thousands of kilometers. Now if this type of petrification happens all over the earth. The tree would rot.
One example was a petrified tree that lived only 2000 years, blown backwards up hill. Obviously showning a tremendous blast came from below the tree.
This is not really a good argument. We have solid evidence that there have been trees living during the last 11000 years (ring dating). These trees show absolutely no evidence of a global flood. If all trees live for less than 4000 years and most for less than 2000, so what? Most (all?) animals live for much shorter times.
quote:
If you can't find me a tree older than 4000 years and a petrified tree that lived for no more than 2000 years(but was petrified millions of years ago, of course), then I can not, by will of reason, believe in the theroy of evolution.
Quite a give away. Looks like you are not so open minded after all.
quote:
How come when you date a recently dead entity. It's age comes up as thousands of years (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand)or you age different parts and they all come up different?
Old creationist garbage. Organism that take up carbon from different sources. This is a known fact, and creatures like molluscs that consumes "old" carbon give false results. (C14 is created in the atmosphere.)
As for the different parts crap, I guess this is the false mammoth claim Hovind made.
Looks like you have been fooled by the dishonesty of the creationists. Don't worry, they are experienced liars, but you have some reading to do.
http://www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start.
Good Luck!
(edited for change of wording) |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
| Edited by - Starman on 01/22/2003 05:33:30 |
|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2003 : 05:22:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is very interesting though that trees alive on the earth today, age no more than 4000 years. Some of the oldest of course. You would think (if the earth was several million years old) you could find me a tree older than that, say 10,000 years, or maybe one that was petrified (millions of years ago, of course) and 5000 years old. It seams as though the petrified ones only lived 2000 years.
If earth has been created before 1850 A.D., then why don't we find any people living that were born before? Why are there no fossils of people older than 100 years?
Thus I think you should agree that earth was created in 1850.
quote:
Who can explain the trees (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand) that cut upright, though millions of years of strata, not just in a small area, but over thousands of kilometers. Now if this type of petrification happens all over the earth. The tree would rot.
Do you know what an avalanche is? Do you know what happens in a swampland within a hundred years?
quote:
How come when you date a recently dead entity. It's age comes up as thousands of years (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand)or you age different parts and they all come up different?
Talking about any specific case? Or just something you heard by rumours?
You know Erich von Daeniken - his arguments are at least logically correct. |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2003 : 09:20:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I asked a simple question to men with more educated than myself. I said the petrified trees only lived for 2000 years, I didn't specify their age. I am being respectful and could ramble on and on about things you wish not to hear about.
I personally don't mind if you ramble on and on about things you think I do not wish to hear about. I only find it annoying that when a creationist argument is clearly shown to be flawed, the creationists tend to just go on repeating it ad nauseam.
quote:
Just because learned men, like your selves, believe in evolution doesn't mean it's right.
I don't believe in evolution in the way that Creationists believe in God. I accept evolution as the best explanation for the observed facts. Creationists like to characterize evolution as just another belief system so they can claim it is a matter of theology rather than science. This is a straw man.
quote:
Let's look at some evidence I have and as men, not insulting grown men with computer games, we will come to great answers.
By all means, lets look at some evidence. Evidence is what science is built on. But it's still a loaded statement. The reference to computer games is, I assume, an attack of Dawkins's use of computer simulations. Computer simulations have been used in everything from modeling the structures of molecules to modeling weather patterns. Are you trying to argue that all computer simulations are an invalid? If not, you will have to show why Dawkins's model specifically is invalid. Otherwise this is just a mischaracterization of Dawkins's argument and another straw man.
quote:
It is very interesting though that trees alive on the earth today, age no more than 4000 years. Some of the oldest of course. You would think (if the earth was several million years old) you could find me a tree older than that, say 10,000 years, or maybe one that was petrified (millions of years ago, of course) and 5000 years old. It seams as though the petrified ones only lived 2000 years.
The fact that there are trees 4000 years old is mind boggling. Most trees live only a few hundred years tops. The only ones coming any where near 4000 year are a single species in a harsh and limited environment (the bristle cone pines). Given that very few trees live any where close to 2000, much less 4000 years, and given that very few trees actually become petrified (most just rot), why would you consider it likely that we would find fossil tress that lived 5000 years?
quote:
Who can explain the trees (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand) that cut upright, though millions of years of strata, not just in a small area, but over thousands of kilometers. Now if this type of petrification happens all over the earth. The tree would rot.
Here's one explanation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
Enjoy. :)
quote:
One example was a petrified tree that lived only 2000 years, blown backwards up hill. Obviously showning a tremendous blast came from below the tree.
And? A lot of things could blow a tree uphill. A hurricane or tornado, a volcanic blast, and aerial meteor explosion (like the Tunguska blast). A localized flood could even do it. What does that prove?
quote:
If you can't find me a tree older than 4000 years and a petrified tree that lived for no more than 2000 years(but was petrified millions of years ago, of course), then I can not, by will of reason, believe in the theroy of evolution.
So, your are saying that if we can not find you a 5000 year old tree, you will simply ignore all the evidence supporting evolution? And yet you accept the claim that Jesus was nailed to a cross, died, and rose again from the dead in spite of the total lack of physical evidence to support the assertion. Very curious.
quote:
How come when you date a recently dead entity. It's age comes up as thousands of years (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand)or you age different parts and they all come up different?
Human error? Bad sampling? Bad assumptions (e.g. a was found near b so it must be part of b)? Badly followed dating procedures? Take your pick. Human error is a constant in science and one of the main reasons peer review and replication of results are considered to be such a basic component of scientific research.
|
| Edited by - Espritch on 01/23/2003 09:26:39 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2003 : 09:25:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Espritch
[brI don't believe in evolution in the way that Creationists believe in God. I accept evolution as the best explanation for the observed facts. Creationists like to characterize evolution as just another belief system so they can claim it is a matter of theology rather than science. This is a straw man.
An ironic one, at that. Kinda like a religionist saying, "Evolution is just a belief, like a religion, therefore it's silly!"
 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2003 : 21:38:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Hi verlch!
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Just because learned men, like your selves, believe in evolution doesn't mean it's right. Let's look at some evidence I have and as men, not insulting grown men with computer games, we will come to great answers.
Are you ready to look at the evidence? In that case you will be welcome here. If not your talk about education and maturity won't help you. Let's see.
quote:
It is very interesting though that trees alive on the earth today, age no more than 4000 years. Some of the oldest of course. You would think (if the earth was several million years old) you could find me a tree older than that, say 10,000 years, or maybe one that was petrified (millions of years ago, of course) and 5000 years old. It seams as though the petrified ones only lived 2000 years. Who can explain the trees (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand) that cut upright, though millions of years of strata, not just in a small area, but over thousands of kilometers. Now if this type of petrification happens all over the earth. The tree would rot.
One example was a petrified tree that lived only 2000 years, blown backwards up hill. Obviously showning a tremendous blast came from below the tree.
This is not really a good argument. We have solid evidence that there have been trees living during the last 11000 years (ring dating). These trees show absolutely no evidence of a global flood. If all trees live for less than 4000 years and most for less than 2000, so what? Most (all?) animals live for much shorter times.
quote:
If you can't find me a tree older than 4000 years and a petrified tree that lived for no more than 2000 years(but was petrified millions of years ago, of course), then I can not, by will of reason, believe in the theroy of evolution.
Quite a give away. Looks like you are not so open minded after all.
quote:
How come when you date a recently dead entity. It's age comes up as thousands of years (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand)or you age different parts and they all come up different?
Old creationist garbage. Organism that take up carbon from different sources. This is a known fact, and creatures like molluscs that consumes "old" carbon give false results. (C14 is created in the atmosphere.)
As for the different parts crap, I guess this is the false mammoth claim Hovind made.
Looks like you have been fooled by the dishonesty of the creationists. Don't worry, they are experienced liars, but you have some reading to do.
http://www.talkorigins.org is a good place to start.
Good Luck!
(edited for change of wording)
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2003 : 21:47:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Hi verlch!
[quote]Originally posted by verlch
Just because learned men, like your selves, believe in evolution doesn't mean it's right. Let's look at some evidence I have and as men, not insulting grown men with computer games, we will come to great answers.
Are you ready to look at the evidence? In that case you will be welcome here. If not your talk about education and maturity won't help you. Let's see.
[quote]
It is very interesting though that trees alive on the earth today, age no more than 4000 years. Some of the oldest of course. You would think (if the earth was several million years old) you could find me a tree older than that, say 10,000 years, or maybe one that was petrified (millions of years ago, of course) and 5000 years old. It seams as though the petrified ones only lived 2000 years. Who can explain the trees (I apoligize for not reading all the threads, and as educated men, such as yourselfs, can surely understand) that cut upright, though millions of years of strata, not just in a small area, but over thousands of kilometers. Now if this type of petrification happens all over the earth. The tree would rot.
What I am saying is there are pleanty of trees that live large amounts of years. It just so happens that all the petrified trees are the "same" age and younger. Suggesting a world wide calmity such as the "flood". Oh no can't be, that would suggestd a creator such as "God". Powerful enough to wipe us from the face of the earth. Can't let that happen now can we?
I'm sure you all would like to live as you please without God's will to follow, but maybe the pharoh's will have a change of heart someday. Or maybe it's cooler not to think about it. It makes me think really highly of myself that we came from monkies. Gramma and grandpa monkie face. Oh wait and we are related to fishes too. Wow incredible, so I see, elephants came from fish too. Wow now I'm confused and that was 1 Trillion years ago right? Gottcha!!! Wow I'm a believer. All this monkie love, has got me seeing monkies!!!! Since there is all those half fish half elephant monkies walking around, sign me up baby, cause now I'm really comfused, the "mutant" that I am. Chaos in the flesh. Silley humans, when will your breed mute itself. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2003 : 21:49:46 [Permalink]
|
| I'm sure you all would like to live as you please without God's will to follow, but maybe the pharoh's will have a change of heart someday. Or maybe it's cooler not to think about it. It makes me think really highly of myself that we came from monkies. Gramma and grandpa monkie face. Oh wait and we are related to fishes too. Wow incredible, so I see, elephants came from fish too. Wow now I'm confused and that was 1 Trillion years ago right? Gottcha!!! Wow I'm a believer. All this monkie love, has got me seeing monkies!!!! Since there is all those half fish half elephant monkies walking around, sign me up baby, cause now I'm really confused, the "mutant" that I am. Chaos in the flesh. Silley humans, when will your breed mute itself. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2003 : 22:40:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
I'm sure you all would like to live as you please without God's will to follow, but maybe the pharoh's will have a change of heart someday. Or maybe it's cooler not to think about it. It makes me think really highly of myself that we came from monkies. Gramma and grandpa monkie face. Oh wait and we are related to fishes too. Wow incredible, so I see, elephants came from fish too. Wow now I'm confused and that was 1 Trillion years ago right? Gottcha!!! Wow I'm a believer. All this monkie love, has got me seeing monkies!!!! Since there is all those half fish half elephant monkies walking around, sign me up baby, cause now I'm really confused, the "mutant" that I am. Chaos in the flesh. Silley humans, when will your breed mute itself.
What does this mean???? I have no idea with the terrible spelling and grammar.
Don't let 'em suck you in guys. You just can't win!!! |
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
|
|
|
WindupAtheist
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2003 : 00:26:16 [Permalink]
|
| Are you retarded? You were just given an example of a LIVING organism FAR older than 5000 years. Go read the link. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2003 : 08:52:43 [Permalink]
|
verlch, I hate to be critical (yeah, right!), but you're gibbering, bro. Obviously, you haven't persued the excellent and well-researched links given you (I can come up with a few more). I strongly reccommend that you do so.
Now, neither I nor any of us here much care what belief system, or lack there`of, you choose to follow. But you must not let that belief blind you to facts, often discovered by a lifetime of hard work and study. If you do, you are cheating yourself.
Do sit down and study, get your evidence together, then come talk to us.
Edited to add: From my reading, the ancient creosote bush(s) are actually a series of clones. Which amounts to the same thing as far as a global flood is concerned.
Like the bristlecone, creosote bushes grow in harsh, dry, indeed impovershed condiditons. I guess you've got to be tough and resourceful if you're going to survive to extreme age, clone or otherwise.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/14/2003 09:10:46 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
