Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth was created by God approximately 6000 years ago.

We all know that Young Earth Creationists do not accept the theory of evolution, or the scientific explanation of the formation of the universe. This thread is not for debate between science and religion. Rather, it is for debate between different religious points of view.

There are many alternative theories to Young Earth Creationism. In particular, there is Old Earth Creationism, which holds that the Earth and all life on it was created millions of years ago by God. Alternatively, there is the theory of Theistic Evolution, which holds that God created the Earth millions of years ago and has directed the path of evolution since then.

My question is addressed to Young Earth Creationists:

Can you give any positive reasons for believing in Young Earth Creationism rather than Old Earth Creationism or Theistic Evolution? What distinguishes your theory from these other theories?

The simple fact that evolution is a load of speculative crap based and therefore any theory based on it is equally crap.

Also the fact the Genesis doesn't allow for it unless you think humans evolved from dirt which in case you hadn't noticed is inanimate.

Ben

But the Bible is notorious for using metaphores. Perhaps when it talks of humans being made from dirt (or evolving from, however you want to look at it) it is actually referring to unicellular organisms inside the dirt.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

I could have told you that one. Except that's in conflict with the notion of God breathing life into Adam AFTER he was fully formed.

Also "dust you are to dust you will return" refering to Adam. You don't turn into organisms. You turn back into inanimate dust.

How does evolution explain that when somethings dies every cell instantaniously stops living? How does that make any sense? If we came from organic compounds why do we turn to dirt? How is it that countless cells instantly stop functioning? Aren't they self contained?

Ben

Not every cell instantly dies when the person dies. It's a gradual process, which is why doctors can surgically remove a hand from a dead person and transplant it onto a living person. The thing is, the rest of the cells in the body don't die until a while after the person conciously dies. It takes a while for them to stop functioning from lack of oxygen.

But "from dust to dust" is pretty easy to incorporate into evolution. In the beginning there was only dust, until amino acids in the dust and dirt started to combine and form unicellular organisms etc etc. When you die your body decomposes and returns to the Earth in the form of compost (what a nice thought).

And what is "life"? In the Bible, is life used to mean a heartbeat? Or breating? Or is it used to represent conciousness and self awareness? All through evolution, humans were like animals, relying on instinct to survive. However, when we evolved into neanderthals (or a little bit afterwards) we developed a concious awareness of ourselves and our surroundings. We developed imagination and creativity to make tools and paint pictures on cave walls.

Perhaps, in the Bible, life represents this concious awareness that only we humans seem to have (at least, as far as we know).

KalvinB,

Perhaps you might like to read the question before you jump in with your knee-jerk "evolution is crap" response. This thread is not about that.

How do you distinguish between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism? Old Earth Creationism still has God creating all life forms in their present states - no evolution is involved. The only difference is that God did it millions of years ago instead of 6000 years ago. My question, for the second time, is: why is Young Earth Creation a better theory than Old Earth Creation?

I'm in no way considered a young earths creationist. I beleive evolution and the thing tht earth is nothing significant in galactic measures. But here's my shot about this question. The answer is FEAR. these people are afraid tht they are not the most significant of all God's creations. Look it this way. For them God created the Earth. They are THE supreme life-form here. But if Earth was made millions of years ago, then to their creation God plays far less significant role. It is like God created evolution and it did the rest.

Why I think creationism is a stupid idea.
Why did God need to create this all false evidence. Fossils, dinosaurs, signs of ancient vulcanic activity, cultures older tht 6000 years[Egypt, Atlantis, some American indian cultures, India etc] Why all this crap. And also, we see the theoty of evolution prove itself in every aspect of it. How animals adopt to new enviroments and change their looks and inner organs according to it. How human body structure changes in zero gravity[new enviroment conditions].

summary............These people FEAR tht they are nothing so special, they are not the supreme life-form created by God. They are afraid to be only a small part of nature. It is a weakness.
And weakness is the first sign of evolution tht it is going to make a turn in another direction, of course if the weak are the majority.

Personally, I think humanity has a need to feel they are a "special case" when compared with the rest of the universe. I mean, for as long as history has been recorded, people have always tried to put us in the center of everything. For example, everyone thought the sun and everything else in the universe revolved around the Earth. Now we know we are nothing but a minescule little speck orbiting an average sun, which orbits an average galaxy, which is moving through space as all the other galaxies do.

To me, creationism is just another attempt at making us seem more special than we really are. But then again, I could be wrong, and creationism could indeed be right. But at this time, the evidence is pointing toward evolutionism, although as James R said, it can be incorporated into creationism. In that case, it would be a win-win situation for both sides.

Also the fact the Genesis doesn't allow for it unless you think humans evolved from dirt which in case you hadn't noticed is inanimate.

Know your book a little better. There are specific statements concerning the creation of man from ashes and dust. Not that it is in anyway specific on exactly how this was accomplished. It was a semi-good guess, though.

All the field of biology claims is that we are made of what we know we are made of: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. They have only taken steps to extrapolate the path these have taken. We can offer no origin theory because there most likely wasn't any tangable beginning. There are always intermediary steps, however. Biologists and anthropologists are only concerned with this particular piece. Any evidence of beginning will probably not be found.

On a side note I can proffer an interesting theory. I don't think life originated on this planet. At least we can assume that as the lowest, most versatile form of life, viruses would be the closest thing to a base lifeform. They can survive for prolonged periods in space, being exposed to radiation. They could easily make the system to system jump.

"They could easily make the system to system jump."
or from planet to planet.[mars]

and in ancient shumer writtings there is a link to the 10th planet around our sun. which was hit by meteor, thus forming the meteor belt between mars and jupiter.
It is interesting to examine those shumer scripts[stamps really].
They knew a lot more about astronomy than we did in 18th century. Consider examining Dugong tribe in Africa and ancient American tribes who built those large complexes in SA and CA.
You might want to read even one of Erich von Daniken's books. There are some stupid things, but a lot are more thn beleivable.
And you have heard of course about Atlantis. That ancient greek wrote tht it is in the middle of the ocean. People have looked through Atlantic and Pacific oceans but found nothing. But to name oceans like we do is an recent thing[14th century] actually we have one big ocean and the centre of it is Antartica. Did you know that ~ 10 000 years ago it was without ice cover. And how do you explain maps by Piery[misspelled it] Race, where there is Antartica showed without ice like it was 10 000 years ago. Tht it actually consists of two big islands and with a land strip connecting it to SA. We discovered it only in 60s with sattelite technology.

So here is my theory. Either we had a very advanced civilization which was destroyed when Antartica was covered with ice, or we had an actual alien visit, but not from some far away galactic, but from our own solar system, the 10th planet which was destroyed. Or maybe from Alpha Centauri or some other very close star system. No need for a God here, but godlike beings might be the answer.
Consider this little story.
In not so long future we have damaged our planet so much we need to leave it, or maybe overpopulation problems Or in this story an expedition ship to look for new places to inhabit. Ship goes to Alpha Centaury. We arrive, land on one of the moons orbiting around earth sized planet. Big is our suprise we discover a primitive specie, smth a little more thn animal[neanderthals]. Of course we do not turn around and go back. We land with smoke and terrible sound right in the middle of some ceremony or whatever. Those beings see our scafandrs, electric lights, vehicles who seem like monsters. GODS HAVE ARRIVED. We try to explain tht we are not gods[as their language should be primitive it wont be difficult to understand them and talk to them with voice synthesis]. But there is no use, they don't understand. So we build a colony, gather resources for the back trip[ think of it as an expedition not run for your lives mission]. Use local cheap workforce, by paiing them with simple things like lightbulbs[ancient egypt] or simple hower crafts[India]. Latter our mission is acomplished and we return to earth. Leaving planet[ maybe with plans for future return] and leaving the new religion we left. Beleif in GODS who came from SKY. When we return latter the civilization has extremely progressed and the Senate of Solar System decides to leave tht civilization alone and go inhabit another planet.

How was tht. Show me the holes and I will think of ways to close them.

"Know your book a little better. There are specific statements concerning the creation of man from ashes and dust. Not that it is in anyway specific on exactly how this was accomplished. It was a semi-good guess, though."

"And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:"

"He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes."

We turn to ash when burned and dust when left to nature. We don't turn into the things in dirt or dust but simply dust itself. You can't leave a human body to decompose in a sterile environment and then find amino acids. You find pure dust, dirt whatever.

Ben

We turn to ash when burned and dust when left to nature. We don't turn into the things in dirt or dust but simply dust itself. You can't leave a human body to decompose in a sterile environment and then find amino acids. You find pure dust, dirt whatever.

What is pure dust or dirt? How do you distinguish human dirt from other dirt? The amino acids are broken down. That does not mean they were not present. Mainly we are consumed as just another pile of necrotic tissue. Our cells are then integrated into their new matrix- decomposers. The remainder is plant food. Usually in humans this process is delayed by the pathetic little box and preservatives.

Your book tells that these will rise from the dead. If you believe in the literal interpretation of this idea then you will have many ugly green humanoids and skeletons on your hands. That does not sound like an exciting existence to me. In an interesting side note this particular belief has influenced the "to be" verb in the Spanish language. Instead of the permanent form of "es", they use "esta". So they are saying that a person is temporarily dead. If, however, I were to remark on the color of a person's hair I would remark in the permant form. Just another example of the crazy ideas that religion can proliferate.

*Originally posted by James R
Can you give any positive reasons for believing in Young Earth Creationism rather than Old Earth Creationism or Theistic Evolution? What distinguishes your theory from these other theories? *

1. Agrees with Bible. Literal evenings and mornings for days of creation.
2. Earth would be several thousand miles deep with bones with OEC or theistic evolution, or with Darwinian evolution.
3. Normal scientific theories assume speed of light is constant.
Radiometric dating, aside from random output, depends on constant c.

*Originally posted by avatar
Look it this way. For them God created the Earth. They are THE supreme life-form here. But if Earth was made millions of years ago, then to their creation God plays far less significant role. It is like God created evolution and it did the rest.*

That is exactly the point.
Evolution is anti-God.
That is the only reason it exists.
Evidence doesn't matter, which is why evolutionists don't have any.

*Why did God need to create this all false evidence. Fossils, dinosaurs, signs of ancient vulcanic activity, cultures older tht 6000 years*

Fossils, dinosaurs and ancient volcanic activity prove the flood.
They don't even come close to proving evolution.
Every piece of evidence found in archaeology has been faked to simulate evolution.
It proves creationism as is.
Look at Leakey's Lucy.
Piece of skull found at one location, with "her" knee joint found 2 miles away.
look at Nebraska Man.
Imagineered from one pig tooth.

*Originally posted by Xelios
But at this time, the evidence is pointing toward evolutionism*

What evidence?
Your schoolbooks claim plenty of evidence, but deliver none.
Whatever you do, don't read textbooks from different school jurisdictions.
They disagree.

*Originally posted by Teg
I don't think life originated on this planet.*

That doesn't help.
How did start where you say it started?

This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

how sweet:)

tony1,

<i>1. Agrees with Bible. Literal evenings and mornings for days of creation.</i>

OEC agrees with the bible, too, doesn't it, since the bible does not specify how long ago Creation happened?

<i>2. Earth would be several thousand miles deep with bones with OEC or theistic evolution, or with Darwinian evolution.</i>

What makes you think that?

<i>3. Normal scientific theories assume speed of light is constant.
Radiometric dating, aside from random output, depends on constant c.</i>

First: there is no such assumption. The constancy of the speed of light is continually being tested in lots of different ways. Second: Radiometric dating does not depend on the speed of light. Third: There are other ways to date things than radiometrically.

A question for you, tony1: Why do radiometrically determined dates agree with dates obtained by methods such as counting tree growth rings and counting layers of ice from ice cores in Antarctica? Do they depend on the speed of light too?

<i>Evolution is anti-God.</i>

No it's not.

<i>Fossils, dinosaurs and ancient volcanic activity prove the flood.
They don't even come close to proving evolution.</i>

You can't prove evolution. Or the Flood. But all available evidence points to evolution and there is no evidence for any global flood.

<i>Every piece of evidence found in archaeology has been faked to simulate evolution.</i>

That's a laughable claim. Do you know how many archaeologists there are?

<i>What evidence?</i>

I suggest you head on over to http://www.talkorigins.org for a start. Check it out!

*Originally posted by James R
OEC agrees with the bible, too, doesn't it, since the bible does not specify how long ago Creation happened?*

That must be a hitherto unknown variation of OEC.
Since one can add up the lifetimes of the people mentioned in the Bible, the variability can't be more than a few years, or even centuries, at most.

*What makes you think that?*

Let's start with just two flies, say.
Let's say that flies create a new generation every 3 months, and each generation is only ten additional flies.
In three billion years, the entire known universe would be nothing but highly compressed dead flies.
There is no point in arguing that they would have been eaten, since the universe would then be full of highly compressed digested flies.

Let's start with two cows.
Let's say there is a new generation every year and each generation is one new cow.
In one million years, etc...

*First: there is no such assumption. The constancy of the speed of light is continually being tested in lots of different ways. Second: Radiometric dating does not depend on the speed of light. Third: There are other ways to date things than radiometrically.*

1. OK
2. What radiometric dating does use is the ratio of something to c.
3. The normal scientific method is to determine the depth of a find.
The date is then determined by that depth.
The date of that depth is verified by the date of the find which was previously established.
That method is called the "circular method."

*A question for you, tony1: Why do radiometrically determined dates agree with dates obtained by methods such as counting tree growth rings and counting layers of ice from ice cores in Antarctica? Do they depend on the speed of light too?*

I see you are getting into the realm of measurement called "fudging the figures."
And, no they don't depend on c.
They depend heavily on discarding the anomalous figures, i.e. numbers with disagree with the ToE.

*<i>"Evolution is anti-God."
No it's not.</i>*

My bad.
The theory of evolution and evolutionists are anti-God.

*You can't prove evolution. Or the Flood. But all available evidence points to evolution and there is no evidence for any global flood.*

That seems like a peculiar statement.
The existence of fossils is prima facie evidence of a flood, not evolution.
If there were such a slow, gradual, lightning-fast process such as evolution, then all of the now-fossilized animals should have been eaten.
They weren't eaten, because they drowned in the flood.
Slow-moving stuff like clams and trilobites at the bottom, with cold-blooded reptiles next, warm-blooded mammals next and floating stuff like trees at the top all covered with silt.
Interestingly, that IS the fossil record, but only hardcore blindness fans would see that as evidence of evolution.
Evolution, where the evidence should be miles and miles of coprolites.

Interestingly, evolutionary science is replete with evidence of coprolites, however, it is far too fresh to actually prove evolution.

*That's a laughable claim. Do you know how many archaeologists there are?*

True archaelogists? Zero.

*<i>What evidence?

I suggest you head on over to h t t p://www.talkorigins.org for a start. Check it out! </i>*

Been there, done that.

That site appears to major on the minors.

No one bothers to deal with the majors.

If evolution is true then the earth should be about two hundred miles deep in solid fossilized coprolites.
Not to mention thousands of miles deep in bones from eaten animals.
Not to mention several billion miles deep in dead flies.

tony1,

Perhaps you'd get further if you started thinking a little bit.

<i>Since one can add up the lifetimes of the people mentioned in the Bible, the variability can't be more than a few years, or even centuries, at most.</i>

Does the bible cover all of history?

<i>Let's start with just two flies, say. Let's say that flies create a new generation every 3 months, and each generation is only ten additional flies. In three billion years, the entire known universe would be nothing but highly compressed dead flies. There is no point in arguing that they would have been eaten, since the universe would then be full of highly compressed digested flies.</i>

This is really bad reasoning, tony1. Either you are an idiot or you're deliberately trying to deceive people. When something is eaten, or otherwise decomposes, its substance is incorporated into the body or form of whatever ate it. A digested fly is no longer a fly. Its molecules have been redistributed. Some of them are in the air, some in the ground, some making up parts of the bodies of other creatures.

<i>3. The normal scientific method is to determine the depth of a find. The date is then determined by that depth. The date of that depth is verified by the date of the find which was previously established. That method is called the "circular method."</i>

Your understanding of dating methods is really lacking, too.

<i>The theory of evolution and evolutionists are anti-God.</i>

Wrong again. Many evolutionists are religious. The theory itself makes no mention of God.

<i>The existence of fossils is prima facie evidence of a flood, not evolution.</i>

Why are the fossils found in layers, tony1? Why don't we find cow fossils mixed in with the dinosaur fossils at the same level? That's what we'd expect in a flood.

<i>Slow-moving stuff like clams and trilobites at the bottom, with cold-blooded reptiles next, warm-blooded mammals next and floating stuff like trees at the top all covered with silt.</i>

Unfortunately (for you), that is not what is seen.

*Originally posted by James R
Perhaps you'd get further if you started thinking a little bit.
Does the bible cover all of history?*

Yes, although it may have left out a few details like the colour of the tablecloths in the Imperial Palace in Beijing in 1673.

*This is really bad reasoning, tony1. Either you are an idiot or you're deliberately trying to deceive people. When something is eaten, or otherwise decomposes, its substance is incorporated into the body or form of whatever ate it. A digested fly is no longer a fly. Its molecules have been redistributed. Some of them are in the air, some in the ground, some making up parts of the bodies of other creatures.*

Well, duh.
That accounts for one or two flies.
Try accounting for all the flies that would have existed during 4.6 billion years.
Or, is the theory of evolution exempting fly-eaters from taking a crap for 4.6 billion years?

*Your understanding of dating methods is really lacking, too.*

Easy to say.
However, since that is the method used, you should either increase your knowledge or come up with proof that the method in use is actually not in use.

*Wrong again. Many evolutionists are religious. The theory itself makes no mention of God.*

Aside from there being confused people all over the world who hold contradictory thoughts, the theory makes no mention of God because the theory is anti-God.

That should have been relatively obvious, one would think.
The ToE goes the atheists one better, that is all.
Where the atheist is stuck explaining how there could be a word denoting something which doesn't exist, the ToE doesn't even mention it, thus saving one line of argument.

*Why are the fossils found in layers, tony1? Why don't we find cow fossils mixed in with the dinosaur fossils at the same level? That's what we'd expect in a flood.*

No, we wouldn't.
Silt in any flood at all, including splashing a cup of water onto a pile of dirt, forms layers.
Cold-blooded animals would drown first, because they would become torpid sooner than warm-blooded animals.

*Unfortunately (for you), that is not what is seen. *

That is not what is seen in textbooks.
Have you ever thought of actually travelling around and looking for yourself?

It's a novel concept that few evolutionists think of.
Mind you, since most evos are atheists, God isn't blessing them either, so maybe they just can't afford to go outside.

The theory of evolution and evolutionists are anti-God.

Wrong again. Many evolutionists are religious. The theory itself makes no mention of God. Actually, he's right. But only if we undertake the notion of why he's right.

As you've probably noticed, Tony1 understands only one notion of God--that which reflects his preexisting psychology. As such, when we look into "Christian" objections to evolution, we find that evolution is not anti-God, but presents conditions which certain faithful cannot comprehend. They do not see how the Bible can be anything other than exactly true--exemplary behavioral deviations notwithstanding--and thus find evolution to be contradictory to what they believe their God has told them is true. Being that most of these people believe that theirs is the only god, they can only conclude that this conflict they perceive in their own theology applies to the Only God. It's not so much that they dullardly attribute evolution as being against every god, but that there is no "every god" for evolution to aim against. They're wrapped up in their own notion of what God is, and thus cannot see beyond their presuppositions.

In the end, Tony1 is right that evolution is anti-god; specifically, he has built a god that must necessarily be opposed by evolution. It's none of our faults that such a God is so narrow, limited, and weak. And it's none of our faults that the consciences such a God inspires display the same attributes.

Evolution is only opposed to Tony1's God because such a God is incapable of the living fundamentals. This God was not invented for Life. It was invented as a harbinger of Death. Look at the religion it spawns: they look forward to the end of the world.

And right there is another problem: if the ultimate goal is species eradication, then God is anti-evolution.

Seems to me the problems are with the Gods and the people who invent them.

The only reason I point this out is to let you know about how worried I am ... you're getting blue in the face, by the look of it. ;)

But, yeah ... God is one's constitutionally protected right to forfeit reality.

Is God for people or are people for God? We make God into whatever we want so we can live according to It.

Something like that.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

*Originally posted by tiassa
Actually, he's right. But only if we undertake the notion of why he's right.*

Thank yooooouuuuu, tiassa.
This is where you earn your pay, where you contribute to the debate the most.
I'm guessing, however, that you are going to attempt to prove that I'm right because I'm actually wrong.

*As you've probably noticed, Tony1 understands only one notion of God--that which reflects his preexisting psychology.*

This is an interesting digression, considering that psychiatrists have given up on you, and I don't need to go at all.
But, do go on.

*As such, when we look into "Christian" objections to evolution, we find that evolution is not anti-God, but presents conditions which certain faithful cannot comprehend.*

Interestingly, true, yet one must uncover why it is true.
It is true because the faithful cannot comprehend pure crap, such as the idea that no animal ever crapped for 4.6 billion years.

*They do not see how the Bible can be anything other than exactly true--exemplary behavioral deviations notwithstanding--and thus find evolution to be contradictory to what they believe their God has told them is true. Being that most of these people believe that theirs is the only god, they can only conclude that this conflict they perceive in their own theology applies to the Only God. It's not so much that they dullardly attribute evolution as being against every god, but that there is no "every god" for evolution to aim against.*

Another fine waft of marijuana smoke.
Evolution is against all of the gods, it's just that it actually serves the interest of one, namely, the god of this world.
That particular god, namely, Satan, works in the area of deception, so naturally, telling the truth is somewhat contrary to his interests.
Of course, since lying IS in his best interests, but not yours, he has selected the theory of evolution as one of his more serious efforts in the realm of deception.
It's his piece de resistance, so to speak.

*In the end, Tony1 is right that evolution is anti-god; specifically, he has built a god that must necessarily be opposed by evolution. It's none of our faults that such a God is so narrow, limited, and weak. And it's none of our faults that the consciences such a God inspires display the same attributes.*

Another little curl of pot smoke, but while there is somewhat of a point in there, it must be considered who's agent you are.
If you are representing the God you are denigrating then you are seriously unaware of your job description.
Thus, it can only be concluded that you are working for the god you are not denigrating.
Given that, it can only be concluded that you are full of crap, based on the fact that Satan is the "master" of deception.

*they look forward to the end of the world.*

That's just you.
You are stopping there; we look past it, but the reason you say we stop there is that you do.

*Is God for people or are people for God? We make God into whatever we want so we can live according to It.

Something like that.*

Yeah, you've done a fine job constructing a god made out of straw and pot smoke, and then "live" according to blasting it to smithereens.

It is true because the faithful cannot comprehend pure crap, such as the idea that no animal ever crapped for 4.6 billion yearsIf this is part of your theory of evolution, that no animal on the planet could defecate for 4.6 billion years, I think we see what the problem is. :rolleyes: This is an interesting digression, considering that psychiatrists have given up on you, and I don't need to go at all.
But, do go on.Is this really the best you can do? There's that good ol' Christian intellect again. If you have a point, please make it clear.Another fine waft of marijuana smoke.
Evolution is against all of the gods, it's just that it actually serves the interest of one, namely, the god of this world.
That particular god, namely, Satan, works in the area of deception, so naturally, telling the truth is somewhat contrary to his interests.
Of course, since lying IS in his best interests, but not yours, he has selected the theory of evolution as one of his more serious efforts in the realm of deception.
It's his piece de resistance, so to speak.Ah, once again you rely on that myth of myths, that horror of horrors, that unspeakable, unjustifiable, nonexistant excuse. Demonstrate the validity of the Devil in any theology and you can use that Devil for any excuse you want. But if you think some shadowy fiction that by description renders God Itself a fiction is a proper excuse for intellectual consideration, we see even further what the sacrificed intellect of Chrisitanity gets you. Ah, it must be comfortable to never have to put thought into anything. Christian in trouble? Just blame the Devil. :rolleyes: Another little curl of pot smoke, but while there is somewhat of a point in there, it must be considered who's agent you are.
If you are representing the God you are denigrating then you are seriously unaware of your job description.
Thus, it can only be concluded that you are working for the god you are not denigrating.
Given that, it can only be concluded that you are full of crap, based on the fact that Satan is the "master" of deception.Rhetoric? Not even. Fluff? I wouldn't want to insult my lint trap.

Once again, you write what you cannot comprehend to the Devil in hopes of making it go away? Try harder, Tony1 ... do better. :rolleyes:
That's just you.
You are stopping there; we look past it, but the reason you say we stop there is that you do.Hey, just because you believe that you can waste this life in greedy pursuit of what comes after your death does not mean you should be wishing death onto the whole of the human race. Stop working toward the end of humanity, or that's how Christianity will be seen. In fact, there's a good many of us who recognize the danger of Christian apocalyptics. Faith in your own greed is no reason to forfeit the living endeavor.Yeah, you've done a fine job constructing a god made out of straw and pot smoke, and then "live" according to blasting it to smithereens.What's this, Tony1? Another of your dismissals which you can't support? Why do you bother making such a hideous fool of yourself? Why, really, do you bother whining and reaching for sarcasm in lieu of better debate tools? Perhaps it's all your Christianity has prepared you for?

You wrote that evolution is against all gods: please document that.

In the meantime:I'm guessing, however, that you are going to attempt to prove that I'm right because I'm actually wrong. Well, as long as you recognize that you're wrong, we're in agreement. Tony1, the only way by which I can countenance evolution being anti-God is if I attempt to ascertain your definition of God, which, necessarily, is limited, is it not? Or should I ask about your own Saturnalia revelries? You're right if you limit your argument to pertain to the one and only God described in the Bible, despite Its myriad personalities. But you're quite correct as well when you say that you're wrong. Such as your statement that evolution is against all gods. On the one hand, I'd love to see you document it. On the other hand, I know for a fact that you cannot, since it's merely a fiction of your own chosen perspective.

Tilting windmills can be heroic, Tony1, but inventing windmills to tilt in lieu of giants is getting to be a hack routine for you, and one of cowardice besides. Have some pride, man, and represent your God well for once.

Try showing that your God provides knowledge, and not just spite.

--Tiassa :cool:

Tony's god is not christian god.
Tony's god is spitful and stupid.
Tony is his priest
He is trying to convert you
Scare you, everyone.
do not poison your mind with him tiassa.
ignore

*Originally posted by tiassa
If this is part of your theory of evolution, that no animal on the planet could defecate for 4.6 billion years, I think we see what the problem is.*

That starts off several trains of thought.
1. I may have to rethink that, since I have no doubt that you could crank out crap for 4.6 billion years.
2. It isn't my theory, so if you DO see the problem, then the theory is pretty much crap
3. Where is all the crap?

*Is this really the best you can do?*\

Hey. I'm working with the theory of evolution, what do you expect?
I've only got crap to work with.

*Christian in trouble? Just blame the Devil.*

What Christian?
It's the ToE burying itself in 4.6 billion years worth of missing crap.
Mind you, I think tiassa's got it, since he's trying to sneak it out in his posts.

*I wouldn't want to insult my lint trap.*

This is the best you can do for sarcasm?

*you write what you cannot comprehend to the Devil...*

"You" meant you.

*Faith in your own greed is no reason to forfeit the living endeavor.*

What living endeavor?
That corpse imitation you've got going?

*...in lieu of better debate tools?*

Would you grasp the significance of a better tool?

*You wrote that evolution is against all gods: please document that.*

OK
Originally posted by tony1 12-31-01 04:19 PM
Evolution is against all of the gods

*On the other hand, I know for a fact that you cannot, since it's merely a fiction of your own chosen perspective.*

You may actually be correct, since you are one who is being sucked in by the ToE among other things.
Score one for Satan, where you are concerned, unless you change your mind.

*Try showing that your God provides knowledge, and not just spite.*

I can see from the spite you spray, that you can't explain the 4.6 billion years of missing crap.
Actually, this spite smells a lot like the spite you were spraying when you couldn't explain Haldane's dilemma.

Actually, when those two are put together, the ToE looks like only a lobotomized pet rock could believe it.

*Originally posted by Avatar
He is trying to convert you *

Bless, Avatar, Bless.

Blessings are upon the head of the just: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.
(Proverbs 10:6, KJV).

Where is all the crap?

Anyone !!!antiquote!!! who has planted !!!antiquote!!! will tell you where !!!antiquote!!! the crap goes. All that !!!antiquote!!! is required is !!!antiquote!!! a simple understanding !!!antiquote!!! of life cycles. The plant eats the crap the animal eats the plant and ussually another animal eats that animal. Hopefully !!!antiquote!!! this explanation !!!antiquote!!! is simple enough !!!antiquote!!! for Tony1.

Now !!!antiquote!!! you will have to !!!antiquote!!! argue the merits of !!!antiquote!!! what I said or !!!antiquote!!! misquote me. Either way !!!antiquote!!! I will !!!antiquote!!! be pleased.

While I'm !!!antiquote!!! at it:

There was no description of dinosaurs in any form in your book, no mention of our true position in the universe (a fixed definition of the heavens [sky/space] as immutable). When will the omissions and falsehoods make it through that highly dense skull of yours.

With every post you increasing show your complete ignorance of science, tony1. Arrogance without knowledge is a sorry sight indeed.

<i>t accounts for one or two flies.</i>

That accounts for <i>all</i> the flies, actually.

Re: dating methods - study up, tony1, and then we can discuss it. At this stage talking to you is like talking to a three year old.

<i>Cold-blooded animals would drown first, because they would become torpid sooner than warm-blooded animals.</i>

I hate to be the one to break it to you, tony1, but dinosaurs were most likely warm blooded. Next argument, please!

<i>Have you ever thought of actually travelling around and looking for yourself?</i>

Ooh yes! Have you? Wake up, tony1, and look around you.

*Originally posted by Teg
Anyone !!!antiquote!!! who has planted !!!antiquote!!! will tell you where !!!antiquote!!! the crap goes. All that !!!antiquote!!! is required is !!!antiquote!!! a simple understanding !!!antiquote!!! of life cycles. The plant eats the crap the animal eats the plant and ussually another animal eats that animal. Hopefully !!!antiquote!!! this explanation !!!antiquote!!! is simple enough !!!antiquote!!! for Tony1*

Well, it IS a SIMPLE explanation, all right.
It is just simple enough for Teg, but tony1 thinks it is just simple-minded.
4.6 billion years of recycled crap would be thousands of miles deep.

WHERE IS IT?

*Now !!!antiquote!!! you will have to !!!antiquote!!! argue the merits of !!!antiquote!!! what I said or !!!antiquote!!! misquote me. Either way !!!antiquote!!! I will !!!antiquote!!! be pleased.*

No, you won't.
Where is the thousand-mile layer of recycled crap?????

*When will the omissions and falsehoods make it through that highly dense skull of yours. *

If there are any, they'll have to push out all the omissions and falsehoods just from your post alone, first.

*Originally posted by James R
That accounts for all the flies, actually.*

I knew you'd be dense enough to forget all the other animals.
Where is all their crap?
4.6 billion years' worth.

While you're at it, your explanation for thousands of miles of missing crap also has to account for Haldane's dilemma.

Sucker!
You got sucked by a fairy tale, and now it's too tough to admit it!!
Anyway, I think it is only fair to inform you that you will be spinning aimlessly for years on just those two, unless you just resort to the "Ridiculous!!!! *Snort* Just ridiculous!!!" argument.

After all, the scientific community is well known for the use of the RSJR argument, with variations.
Example of the calm, rational variation: "With every post you increasing show your complete ignorance of science,"

*I hate to be the one to break it to you, tony1, but dinosaurs were most likely warm blooded. Next argument, please! *

Not until you clean up all the crap from earlier arguments first.
Most likely means exactly nothing.
I've heard rumors of warm-blooded dinos right from the first time some whizkid unbeliever realized that cold-blooded reptiles would drown first.

The official explanation for the theory of warm-blooded dinos is they were warm-blooded because they would have drowned first if they were cold-blooded.

Can you prove warm blooded dinos via the scientific method?

*Ooh yes! Have you?*

I didn't mean travel around your kitchen.

What's with you people[tony]. Talk about all this crap. I start to feel like living in sewer.
So Earth by your definition is 6000 years old:D OK.
Then where is that 6000BC year old crap and all the crap tht was made after. 8000 years of crap. It's right here under. Why do you think that there should be layers of crap. Take a look of city archeology. Why do we dig up traces of medieval times some metres below the city ground level? It's all layers of dirt, crap, sand. Some is washed into ocean and seas, some stays here under your legs and forms new layers. Dinos are found at the level of their own crap and dirt. We are found[for instance homo eructus] at our own layer.
Alot of crap is used by plants as food.

So there is no need to look for crap mountins Tony, look under your feet.

Now may we end this stupid discussion of crap or there is smth else you don't understand.
BYE!

*Originally posted by Avatar
I start to feel like living in sewer. *

Move to a better place, or open the windows once or twice a year.

*Then where is that 6000BC year old crap and all the crap tht was made after. 8000 years of crap. It's right here under.*

It is.

*Why do you think that there should be layers of crap. Take a look of city archeology. Why do we dig up traces of medieval times some metres below the city ground level? It's all layers of dirt, crap, sand.*

Right.
Some metres after only 1000 years in a city.
4.6 million meters after 4.6 billion years.

mind tht we trash our planet a whole LOT MORE thn any animal specie and all combined could. Maybe after 4.5 billion years of human existance we will change our Earths diammeter, but I hope tht recicling will take care of tht

*Originally posted by Avatar
mind tht we trash our planet a whole LOT MORE thn any animal specie and all combined could.*

Pollution proves evolution?!?!?!?!?!?!

What are you on??

*Maybe after 4.5 billion years of human existance we will change our Earths diammeter, but I hope tht recicling will take care of tht *

Oh it will.
God's plan is to recycle the entire universe.
It won't matter what the diameter of the earth is.

I see you still don't get it.
4.6 billion years amounts to crap thousands of miles deep.

Try recycling a pile even 100 meters high.
You're living in complete dreamland.

"4.6 billion years amounts to crap thousands of miles deep.

Try recycling a pile even 100 meters high.
You're living in complete dreamland."



I have 4.6 billion of years to recycle it. And 4.6 billion of years to think of a new way of getting rid of trash other than recycling.

You're dreaming again.

You've got a missing pile 1.5 million meters deep, that is supposed to cover the earth.

No pile, no evolution.
Evolution is crap, literally.

If you can explain where the crap is, evolution is crap, but real crap.
If you can't, evolution is still crap.

|o|

I give up.
Does anyone see any logic in Tony's last post/statement.

Tony1That starts off several trains of thought.
1. I may have to rethink that, since I have no doubt that you could crank out crap for 4.6 billion years.
2. It isn't my theory, so if you DO see the problem, then the theory is pretty much crap
3. Where is all the crap? 1. Despite Western culture's addiction to insincerity, it has never considered such argumentation as yours valid. Are you capable of anything better?

2. Then why is it an argumentative point to begin with? Are you just trying to distract the topic? Why are you bringing up a theory that isn't yours that you haven't even bothered to look at for basic flaws? Are we running a little over your pace here?

3. Crap is biodegradable. Did you know that the ecosystem in bat guano actually runs thousands of species deep?

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=biodegrade
http://ei.cornell.edu/biodeg/ In nature, there is no waste because everything gets recycled. The waste products from one organism become the food for others, providing nutrients and energy while breaking down the waste organic matter. Some organic materials will break down much faster than others, but all will eventually decay. Did you not know about biodegradation? Or is this bit about crap just more of your crap?

:rolleyes:

Avatar

Briefly, no, there is no logic in his post. If I ask, What did you expect? please understand that I, too, hope for the best in and from people, but therein lies the issue: I think that is his best.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tony1,

Have you ever been to a farm and seen cows, tony1? Have you watched cow pats for a while (over a period of months, perhaps)? What happens to them? I'll tell you: things eat them. They break up. They break down. Nutrients go back to the soil and to other living things. Everything is recycled. Crap disappears. Not in an atomic sense, but in the sense that it is broken down to its constituent atoms and molecules and then built up into new structures again (mostly, but not exclusively, by life forms).

Try reading at least one science book some time in your life. You're like a little child, except far less willing to learn. When your arguments don't stand up you resort to name calling. I pity you, tony1.

<i>I've heard rumors of warm-blooded dinos right from the first time some whizkid unbeliever realized that cold-blooded reptiles would drown first.</i>

Check out the evidence, tony1. Your simplistic ideas are <b>way</b> off the mark. Subscribe to <i>Scientific American</i> or something. I can't explain everything for you. Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

*Originally posted by tiassa
1. Despite Western culture's addiction to insincerity, it has never considered such argumentation as yours valid.*

#1 wasn't an argument.
It was clearly labeled "train of thought."
Can you read?

*2. Then why is it an argumentative point to begin with? Are you just trying to distract the topic? Why are you bringing up a theory that isn't yours that you haven't even bothered to look at for basic flaws? Are we running a little over your pace here?*

No.
The train has left the station, and you're on the platform wondering when it'll arrive.
The ToE isn't mine, and it is full of crap.
If it isn't true then it is crap.
If it is true then there is a 4.6 million foot deep layer of crap lost on the planet somewhere.

*3. Crap is biodegradable.*

Where is the biodegraded detritus?
Or do you think biodegrade means magically vanish?

*Briefly, no, there is no logic in his post.*

Have you looked up what logic is yet, tiassa?
The last effort you put forth using "logic" was so laughable when you made mistake #1, yes, the first example of poor logic in every textbook!!
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that.

Have you read up enough to make at least mistake #2 next time?

*Originally posted by James R
Crap disappears.*

Yes, the magical disappearing crap.
You are tooooo funny, JR.

JR: O teacher, the dog ate my evidence for evolution, but evolution is still true, isn't it?
Teach: The dog ate a pile of crap 4.6 million feet deep?
JR: Yes, teacher, but it had help.

It sounds like you are a shoo-in for a career in comedy, JR.

Is that the best you can do, tony1?

hehehe!

*Originally posted by James R
Is that the best you can do, tony1?*

Hey, I'm working with the theory of evolution here.
Give me a break.

It's all hot air and fantasy, and you expect me to come up with good solid jokes?

I mean, look at the lame jokes you come up with...

1. disappearing crap mountains
2. "evidence" for evolution
3. "check it out" as though one can go thru school without having it rammed down one's throat
4. tiassa imitation
5. ultimately, the dog* ate my evidence, an oldie but a goodie

Like I said, comedy's the way to go.

*dog, along with some worms and bugs; I can toss a bone to you if you want.

Where is the biodegraded detritus?
Or do you think biodegrade means magically vanish? Depends on your definition of vanish. To pass from sight? Sure. To pass from existence? No. But it does change form enough times to become irrelevant. You're forgetting that food is fuel and is converted to energy. No, wait, you're not forgetting. You either don't realize how ridiculous you're being or else you're being ridiculous in order to distract yet another topic from making any progress.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Unless it all turned into a gas and escaped the atmosphere somehow, in which case said gas must be lighter than air, it should be piled up around here somewhere.

Or is that what air is? Gasified crap.

Ben

If it is true then there is a 4.6 million foot deep layer of crap lost on the planet somewhere.

It's not lost. I know where it is.

I *could* tell you... but that would spoil everything. :D

Step 1: The crap is released, and cools to the surrounding ambient temperature.
Step 2: Decomposers such as bacteria, fly larvae (maggots) and other organisms begin to consume the crap.
Step 3: When the crap is consumed by these organisms, it's energy is changed chemically into other forms including heat. This heat is used by the organism to sustain its bodily functions. Alas, the crap vanishes and is instead turned into other forms of chemical energy which is in turn transferred to the organism's cells and is transformed into energy that can be used to create new cells and heat the body etc.

And so, there would not be 4.6 million meters of crap, because most of it has been decomposed and transformed into other types of energy.

Damn, I just spoiled everything didn't I? :p

This is just a simple problem of limits. Food limits human growth, crap limits plant/food growth. Down the line each creature is increasingly less efficient. No more crap can be produced than the amount of food we can eat. No more food can be produced than the crap we create. If we are essentially made of crap, then how could there be a pile up of said crap. Think about how matter is neither created nor destroyed. The only thing going on is the loss of heat in the system. If anything there should be the question of how long our crap will last. Our survival is dependent on this the most important resource. Be thankful for crap, you owe your existance to it.

The only problem I see is that we are too successful. We dare not eat food from our own crap and so we syphon it out to plants to be consumed by herbivores. But what happens when we so outnumber the herbivores that they no longer produce sufficient crap for us to fertalize our fruits and vegitables? We already synthesize new crap to some degree, but will this be enough to suit our needs?

*Originally posted by tiassa
Depends on your definition of vanish. To pass from sight? Sure. To pass from existence? No. But it does change form enough times to become irrelevant.*

The shell game.
Yes, tiassa, when the cups move back and forth often enough, the pea actually disappears.
Riiiight.

Speaking of which, how about a friendly little game of 3-card monte?
I'll deal.

*You're forgetting that food is fuel and is converted to energy. No, wait, you're not forgetting.*

A shit-free tiassa?
"Shit, who me? Oh no, and my farts smell like lilacs."
Sure, tiassa, sure.

*You either don't realize how ridiculous you're being or else you're being ridiculous in order to distract yet another topic from making any progress.*

Ah, the old RJR argument.

*Originally posted by (Q)
It's not lost. I know where it is.
I *could* tell you... but that would spoil everything.*

The secret's already out.
tiassa's got it, and he's trying to sneak it out one post at a time.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Step 1: The crap is released, and cools to the surrounding ambient temperature. *

So far, so good.

*Step 2: Decomposers such as bacteria, fly larvae (maggots) and other organisms begin to consume the crap.*

So far, so good.

*Step 3: When the crap is consumed by these organisms, it's energy is changed chemically into other forms including heat. *

Of course, those organisms crap, too.
Ooops.

*This heat is used by the organism to sustain its bodily functions. Alas, the crap vanishes and is instead turned into other forms of chemical energy which is in turn transferred to the organism's cells and is transformed into energy that can be used to create new cells and heat the body etc.*

Abracadabra, the crap disappears.

*And so, there would not be 4.6 million meters of crap, because most of it has been decomposed and transformed into other types of energy.*

I only claimed 4.6 million feet.
Note the use of the term "most," as in "not all."
Even you have to admit the ToE has to explain a LOT of crap.

Well, if it's been transformed into energy, why is there still snow and ice on earth?
Composted crap only 3 feet deep is enough to keep any snow from forming on it.
4.6 million feet deep should be hot enough to melt lead, so where's all the extra heat?

*Damn, I just spoiled everything didn't I?*

Yeah, now you have two miracles to explain.
1. Where did 4.6 million feet of crap go?
2. Where is all the heat, you know, the "transformed energy?"

This getting better and better.
You'll soon see why the "smarter" evolutionists recommend that evolution is not robust enough to withstand debate.

*Originally posted by Teg
Think about how matter is neither created nor destroyed.*

OK, E=mc^2 has been repealed.

*We already synthesize new crap to some degree, but will this be enough to suit our needs?*

Synthetic crap is a good invention, all right.
We're running out of landfills, and the landfills we have are piled hundreds of feet high just over the last twenty years.

Now Teg has identified the true problem as a shortage of crap, and the solution is synthetic crap.

That's great, but this shortage of crap, is that something you extrapolate backwards in time, also?
It seems as though the problem afflicting the world, although not this forum, is actually a shortage of crap.
Thus, the missing 4.6 million foot high mountains of crap are missing because of a dire, worldwide shortage of crap?

Do you and tiassa share a bong by any chance?

Well tony, I'm going to attempt another discussion with you, even though I will probably regret it.

Of course, those organisms crap, too.
Ooops.
Yes, but they do not realease as much crap as they consume, as some of the crap's energy is used to heat their bodies and keep their cells alive. Still more is expended as waste energy and kinetic energy when the organism moves. So either way, you will end up with less crap than you started with.

Abracadabra, the crap disappears.
More correctly, it is transformed into other types of energy.
Well, if it's been transformed into energy, why is there still snow and ice on earth?
Composted crap only 3 feet deep is enough to keep any snow from forming on it.
4.6 million feet deep should be hot enough to melt lead, so where's all the extra heat?
I agree, if 4.6 million feet of crap were suddenly composted tomorrow, the world's oceans would likely vaporise. However, thankfully this is not the case.
This getting better and better.
You'll soon see why the "smarter" evolutionists recommend that evolution is not robust enough to withstand debate.
First of all, evolution could withstand any debate much better than religion could. Second, I am not an expert in evolution or biology, so it should be no surprise that I cannot hold up a debate about it as well as Darwin could.

But think about this tony, there are currently more than 6 billion people on the planet, every one of them generates waste heat into the environment constantly. And yet, we still get snow and ice. Why is it such a big surprise that the energy from decomposition is not melting the ice caps either?

OK, E=mc^2 has been repealed.

When and by whom? I already know the answer you will give. Something along the lines of "yes it has". You see except for the fact that you have said so, there is no evidence. Your logic is interesting in its lackings. Of course all I have is the consensus of minds. Of course I have only the same evidence that there is a sun.

We're running out of landfills, and the landfills we have are piled hundreds of feet high just over the last twenty years.

How sad it is that you know not the difference between crap and garbage. Waste of human eating is what I was talking about. You are reffering to trash. A distinction that shouldn't be expected of Tony1. I am sorry, I will go slower if it suits you. My name is T-E-G and c-r-a-p or p-o-o-p is sifted out by something called a desalinization plant. The water is then purified for normal use. Then the excess crap is compiled into a nutrient base for plant life. Now I know you skipped biology. Only person lacking of such basic knowledge could fail to understand such a simple concept.

Do you and tiassa share a bong by any chance?

I have never used any sort of illegal substance. Neither do I use alcohol or tobacco. I have also recently given up caffeine. I know you think it funny to say something completely untrue. Such is your nature that you are lacking thus.

tony1,

Since your argument has already been effectively refuted several times, there's no need to continue this. So, if you don't mind, I'll just sit back and laugh at you as you dig a deeper pit for yourself.

*Originally posted by Teg
When and by whom? I already know the answer you will give. Something along the lines of "yes it has". You see except for the fact that you have said so, there is no evidence. Your logic is interesting in its lackings.*

I said that because of your supremely convincing argument that matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

IOW, E still =mc^2, and you are wrong in your other argument.

*My name is T-E-G and c-r-a-p or p-o-o-p*

Okeedokee, Teg-and-crap.
You have no clue as to what a desalination plant is, do you?

*Waste of human eating is what I was talking about.*

Me, too, until you brought up the idea of synthetic crap.
That's when I realized that you would also have to account for all the garbage generated by 2 million years worth of humanoid living.

*Originally posted by James R
Since your argument has already been effectively refuted several times*

Effectively, as in "elementary school?"

Teacher: Class, what is true?
Class: Evolution is true, Teacher.
Teacher: That's correct, class, and what is an effective refutation, class?
Class: An effective refutation is to say that the opposing argument is not true.
Teacher: That's correct, class.

Do you ever plan to actually refute my argument?
Just saying you did doesn't actually fly, you know, JR.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Yes, but they do not realease as much crap as they consume, as some of the crap's energy is used to heat their bodies and keep their cells alive. Still more is expended as waste energy and kinetic energy when the organism moves. So either way, you will end up with less crap than you started with.*

Ok, where's the 3 million foot layer of digested crap, then?

*I agree, if 4.6 million feet of crap were suddenly composted tomorrow, the world's oceans would likely vaporise. However, thankfully this is not the case.*

It doesn't matter how fast it happens, you still have to account for the energy.
It doesn't disappear just because you have a clever answer.

*First of all, evolution could withstand any debate much better than religion could. Second, I am not an expert in evolution or biology, so it should be no surprise that I cannot hold up a debate about it as well as Darwin could.*

Why do some secular experts not recommend debating evolution?
They have recognized that the ToE is not defensible due to the many flaws.
Some experts can actually tell that the crap issue combined with Haldane's dilemma combined with no evidence of transitional forms spells death to evolution.
The reason they recommend not debating is that the point is not to prove evolution but to direct their energies to fooling people like you, who can't analyze the weaknesses of the ToE.

*But think about this tony, there are currently more than 6 billion people on the planet, every one of them generates waste heat into the environment constantly. And yet, we still get snow and ice. Why is it such a big surprise that the energy from decomposition is not melting the ice caps either? *

It IS melting the ice caps.
You have apparently not heard of global warming.

Ok, where's the 3 million foot layer of digested crap, then?
Probably decomposed by yet more organisms and used as nutrients for plants and fungi. Really tony, it's not that hard to understand.
It doesn't matter how fast it happens, you still have to account for the energy.
It doesn't disappear just because you have a clever answer.
The energy is diffused over great distances by many things. For example, some of the energy will go to plants and other animals. Some will help to keep the atmosphere warm. Some will dissipate into space. If you don't believe me, then why isn't the Earth hot enough to melt lead?
The reason they recommend not debating is that the point is not to prove evolution but to direct their energies to fooling people like you, who can't analyze the weaknesses of the ToE.
What??? Where did you come up with that hollow statement? I simply said I am not qualified enough to debate about evolution and biology. Clearly you are not either, but that is beside the point. There is no doubt, however, that debates are going on about evolution and other biological issues, and especially about the ToE.
It IS melting the ice caps.
You have apparently not heard of global warming.
You have apparently not heard of pollution, as that is what's causing global warming, not waste heat from humans. If you would like more information about what is causing global warming check out this site: http://pooh.chem.wm.edu/chemWWW/courses/chem105/projects/group1/page7.html
I said that because of your supremely convincing argument that matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

IOW, E still =mc^2, and you are wrong in your other argument.
I didn't see anything wrong with his arguement. Energy is not created or destroyed when a creature digests food, it is merely altered. The less than 100% efficiency comes from the fact that waste heat is released, which takes away from the energy of the food (or crap) the organism ate, which means it will produce less crap.

Xelious, why do you try to prove smth to tony. It is useless, you only waste your time. I have wasted enough of mine, enough.

I know :(

I just thought maybe this time he would listen to reason and proof, but again I was mistaken. I will wait for his reply and if it contains nothing new I will ignore it.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Probably decomposed by yet more organisms and used as nutrients for plants and fungi. Really tony, it's not that hard to understand.*

Yeah, I understand that you believe that it "disappeared."
By the same token, you argue that the transitional fossils direly needed to prove evolution have also "disappeared."
The energy from the decomposing crap "disappeared."

The ToE is still true, in spite of the "disappeared" evidence.

It seems as though, to you, the fact that there is no evidence actually proves that there is.

*The energy is diffused over great distances by many things. For example, some of the energy will go to plants and other animals. Some will help to keep the atmosphere warm. Some will dissipate into space. If you don't believe me, then why isn't the Earth hot enough to melt lead?*

Because, you idiot, there was no evolution.

*Where did you come up with that hollow statement? I simply said I am not qualified enough to debate about evolution and biology. Clearly you are not either, but that is beside the point. There is no doubt, however, that debates are going on about evolution and other biological issues, and especially about the ToE.*

The smarter evos generally state that people like you should not debate people like us about the ToE, because you will always lose.
The ToE is not defensible, and that is well known among the smarter evos.
There is no known evidence, and all of the calculations related to heat, quantity of evidence, quantity of matter which should exist but doesn't, and issues such as Haldane's dilemma kill the ToE.
The point is that the ToE is not a scientific issue, but a propaganda issue.
You're the sucker, and that is why the ToE exists.

*You have apparently not heard of pollution, as that is what's causing global warming, not waste heat from humans.*

So, pollution didn't exist for 2 million years of "humanoid" existence, and was only invented in the 20th century?

*The less than 100% efficiency comes from the fact that waste heat is released, which takes away from the energy of the food (or crap) the organism ate, which means it will produce less crap. *

"Less" crap means there is crap, which means that when you say "no" crap, you are lying.

I realize that for your teachers, arguments like disappearing crap, and energy that "dissipates" so well that it disappears, are the stuff good marks are made of.
But, if you can't think any more clearly than that, then the non-functional "ignore" is your only choice.