....how is it possible to explain something like 'light cones'(or even an aspect) which would take less than 3 minutes to read and be easily understood?
partly because of the possibility of truth and partly because the poor bastard got his beans, (wiped out by christians with extreme prejudice)like to see a group off humans who hasn't wiped out another for no real resonand do you blame the god or the people twisting the message.
....how is it possible to explain something like 'light cones'(or even an aspect) which would take less than 3 minutes to read and be easily understood?Assuming a person has a reading speed of 160 wpm that would mean that I would have to write 440 words in a single post. Fortunately not possible due to the 500 character limitAnd all three of these Religion's are horribly fractured. I wonder why that is?Provable science deals with fact's, not fallacies. Why would scientific method be applied to fairy tales?
Your getting confused with explanations again. Man your getting pwned so baaaaad....:rnr:
explain what part of dawinism is not fairy tail.
explain what part of dawinism is not fairy tail.scientific everdence is not the only type there is also historical.
http://forums.iconzarena.co.nz/showthread.php?t=7824&highlight=testIncompetent Design
OkayWhat is the point of this thread?Please keep your reply to a minimum of 500 words
? an example of historical evidence that's relevant to darwin. (evolution by the way has moved WAY past what darwin proposed)
mwahahaha.Ok i'm gonna guess something like: To start a flame war heavily disguised as intelligent debate between 'Evil Creationists' in the red corner and 'Reasonable Folks' in the blue corner. All for the amusement of Black Heart. Oh and there was something about the grand canyon.:007:
wrong page to look at after few beers, gonna assume you fullahs know your shit _b
Oboganamaism
there has also never been a known case of a gain in information leading to a change in a species.we have seen a change in species by lose of information.
cute 'theory' there has also never been a known case of a gain in informationleading to a change in a species.we have seen a change in species by lose of information.and by saying we are flawed as the creation means there is no intligent creator is not saying much about us as intligent creators.
What is the change in species due to a loss of information?My understanding is there isn't any change in species which is perfectly understandable considering the time it's meant to take.By the way, if evolution is a complete fallacy, that doesn't add anything to the credibility of creationism. As far as I am concerned they are both either incomplete or wrong. So I don't see why creationists are so intent on disproving it. Evolution does not tell us how life began and its quite likely it never will. Creationists seem to make it out to be a bigger threat (to their religion & beliefs) than it really is.
both judaists and muslims take thier books to be literal so why do christians getto pick and chose what they do and do not like/take literaly.
we have seen a change in species by lose of information.
At the center of the C-value enigma is the observation that genome size does not correlate with organismal complexity. For example, many plant species and some single-celled protists, have genomes much larger than humans.
The posts you make are a bigger threat to my sanity than you would be if you were tied up in my cupboard.
Yea just read what i posted. it's not what i meant.
