Dinosaurs on Mars?

[bocablkr]

While reading an report titled "NASA Rover Finds Surprising Evidence for Mars' Watery Past" I came upon the following quote - "Unless we find a dinosaur bed, we're not going to be able to [find signs of past life] in situ very easily," Craddock said. Instead, samples would need to be returned to an Earth lab for more study, he said.

It got me thinking, what if we did find evidence of dinosaurs existing on Mars. Not just any sort of life, but specifically dinosaurs. Would that change anyone's opinion on evolution?

[kerowo]

Why would it? I'm not aware of a lot of middle ground on the subject. You either believe it or don't, facts don't really come into play.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would it? I'm not aware of a lot of middle ground on the subject. You either believe it or don't, facts don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean - there are no facts for evolution?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would it? I'm not aware of a lot of middle ground on the subject. You either believe it or don't, facts don't really come into play.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean - there are no facts for evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I mean the people who don't believe in evolution generally don't disbelieve it because there isn't enough data to support it. They tend to disbelieve on religious grounds. While some will say the same thing about those who believe in it, more facts that support it won't make them believe in it less.

[bocablkr]

My thought process is that both the Earth and Mars probably had very similar conditions several billion years ago. The fact the similar life forms 'evolved' would in my mind be further proof of evolution. There is no mention of life on other planets, no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible. To have the same creature 'created' by God on two different planets without mention seems to offer less proof of a religious explanation.

[kerowo]

Wait, you mean actuall the "same" dinosaurs as on Earth? That would be like the Babblefish, so improbable as to be proof of God.

[vhawk01]

Yeah, if we found actual T-rexes and velociraptors on Mars, that would be a gigantic strike at the bedrock of evolution. It would also be really, really cool.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
While reading an report titled "NASA Rover Finds Surprising Evidence for Mars' Watery Past" I came upon the following quote - "Unless we find a dinosaur bed, we're not going to be able to [find signs of past life] in situ very easily," Craddock said. Instead, samples would need to be returned to an Earth lab for more study, he said.

It got me thinking, what if we did find evidence of dinosaurs existing on Mars. Not just any sort of life, but specifically dinosaurs. Would that change anyone's opinion on evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

They forgot to mention it in the bible, but they meant to say that if we find evidence of dinosaurs existing on Mars, then God just put it there to test us.

In any case, if there were dinosaurs on Mars, they would have got in there spaceships and visited us already. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While reading an report titled "NASA Rover Finds Surprising Evidence for Mars' Watery Past" I came upon the following quote - "Unless we find a dinosaur bed, we're not going to be able to [find signs of past life] in situ very easily," Craddock said. Instead, samples would need to be returned to an Earth lab for more study, he said.

It got me thinking, what if we did find evidence of dinosaurs existing on Mars. Not just any sort of life, but specifically dinosaurs. Would that change anyone's opinion on evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

They forgot to mention it in the bible, but they meant to say that if we find evidence of dinosaurs existing on Mars, then God just put it there to test us.

In any case, if there were dinosaurs on Mars, they would have got in there spaceships and visited us already. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No dice. Short little arms.

[Hopey]

If dinosaur fossils are found on Mars, it will be because God put them there to test our faith. Just like on Earth.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
If dinosaur fossils are found on Mars, it will be because God put them there to test our faith. Just like on Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, obviously maybe...

I like that they said dinosaur beds instead of fossil beds. Their PR's improving.

[PairTheBoard]

I wonder if monkeys are living inside the astroids.

PairTheBoard

[Max Raker]

People seem to think only the Bible or evolution can be right. Their are millions of other possibilities.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
People seem to think only the Bible or evolution can be right. Their are millions of other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. This is a really funny criticism. There are either infinite other possibilities, or really pretty much a handful. No idea how you can figure 'millions.'

[Inso0]

Why do people say dinosaur bones are put in the ground by god to test the faith of believers?

Seems to me you're making all sorts of assumptions about the possible relationships between dinosaurs and humans.

[kerowo]

Look up the dates when dinosaurs ruled the world, look up dates when humans were supposed to develop, look up the age of the Earth according to the most conservative creationists.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
Look up the dates when dinosaurs ruled the world, look up dates when humans were supposed to develop, look up the age of the Earth according to the most conservative creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol?

And how old do you think most "conservative creationists" think the Earth is?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look up the dates when dinosaurs ruled the world, look up dates when humans were supposed to develop, look up the age of the Earth according to the most conservative creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol?

And how old do you think most "conservative creationists" think the Earth is?

[/ QUOTE ]

"the"

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look up the dates when dinosaurs ruled the world, look up dates when humans were supposed to develop, look up the age of the Earth according to the most conservative creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol?

And how old do you think most "conservative creationists" think the Earth is?

[/ QUOTE ]

"the"

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote a great plastic space ranger:

You are a sad, sad little man.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look up the dates when dinosaurs ruled the world, look up dates when humans were supposed to develop, look up the age of the Earth according to the most conservative creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol?

And how old do you think most "conservative creationists" think the Earth is?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

6k years.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look up the dates when dinosaurs ruled the world, look up dates when humans were supposed to develop, look up the age of the Earth according to the most conservative creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol?

And how old do you think most "conservative creationists" think the Earth is?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

6k years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and the dino bones are there to test our faith why? Because they're believed to be 400 million years old?

Well the problem with that, is they're dated by the strata level they're found in, but the strata is dated by the bones that are found in it. Seems like a pretty goofy dating system to me.

[kerowo]

So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/

I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look up the dates when dinosaurs ruled the world, look up dates when humans were supposed to develop, look up the age of the Earth according to the most conservative creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol?

And how old do you think most "conservative creationists" think the Earth is?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

6k years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and the dino bones are there to test our faith why? Because they're believed to be 400 million years old?

Well the problem with that, is they're dated by the strata level they're found in, but the strata is dated by the bones that are found in it. Seems like a pretty goofy dating system to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Young Earth Creationists don't believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth to test our faith. In reality, they believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6000 years ago.

Happy now? Sorry for misrepresenting your beliefs.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Fine. Young Earth Creationists don't believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth to test our faith. In reality, they believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6000 years ago.

Happy now? Sorry for misrepresenting your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now explain to me why this is a problem without resorting to an MSpaint of people running in terror from a rampaging T-Rex.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fine. Young Earth Creationists don't believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth to test our faith. In reality, they believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6000 years ago.

Happy now? Sorry for misrepresenting your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now explain to me why this is a problem without resorting to an MSpaint of people running in terror from a rampaging T-Rex.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've convinced me. Obviously all of the dinosaurs drowned in the great flood. I guess they didn't fit on the Ark. Makes perfect sense. I can't believe I didn't see it before.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now explain to me why this is a problem without resorting to an MSpaint of people running in terror from a rampaging T-Rex.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've convinced me. Obviously all of the dinosaurs drowned in the great flood. I guess they didn't fit on the Ark. Makes perfect sense. I can't believe I didn't see it before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't dinosaurs fit on the ark?

What do you know about the ark that I don't?

Why can't you answer a relatively simple question without resorting to patronistic sarcasm?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look up the dates when dinosaurs ruled the world, look up dates when humans were supposed to develop, look up the age of the Earth according to the most conservative creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol?

And how old do you think most "conservative creationists" think the Earth is?

[/ QUOTE ]

"the"

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote a great plastic space ranger:

You are a sad, sad little man.

[/ QUOTE ]

because there's no meaningful difference between "the most conservative creationists" and "most conservative creationists"?

edited to say "creationists"

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't dinosaurs fit on the ark?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm wrong again. Obviously the ark was large enough to fit every species on Earth, including the dinosaurs. They must have sawed holes in the ceiling so that the Sauropods and Brachiosaurs could keep from bumping their heads.

So what do you believe happened to the dinosaurs once they left the Ark? I'm genuinely curious.

[ QUOTE ]

What do you know about the ark that I don't?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure I know exactly as much about the ark as you think you do.

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't you answer a relatively simple question without resorting to patronistic sarcasm?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard not to be patronizing when debating with bible literalists. The amount of self-delusion that is required to believe the things that you do is mind-boggling. To wilfully ignore multiple areas of scientific knowledge in order to believe what you do is a method of thinking that I cannot relate to.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fine. Young Earth Creationists don't believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth to test our faith. In reality, they believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6000 years ago.

Happy now? Sorry for misrepresenting your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now explain to me why this is a problem without resorting to an MSpaint of people running in terror from a rampaging T-Rex.

[/ QUOTE ]lol...this post is very funny on a number of levels. DUCY?

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/

I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to:

So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is.

The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is.

[recipro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/

I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to:

So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is.

The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he was mocking you not based on how radiocarbon dating is BS to him, but based on the fact that you can't carbon-date a 400 million year old object. Or even a 200,000 year old object.

[kerowo]

No, he supports dino's and human's living together later in the thread, he was mocking the idea that saying dino bones test faith because of their age is wrong. I wasn't aware of the limitations of carbon dating when I made the quip. It's still a better quip, the truth of it not withstanding. Which is the same reasoning YECs use...

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/

I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to:

So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is.

The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he was mocking you not based on how radiocarbon dating is BS to him, but based on the fact that you can't carbon-date a 400 million year old object. Or even a 200,000 year old object.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably you can use carbon dating to show that some things are >>6kyears old.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/

I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to:

So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is.

The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he was mocking you not based on how radiocarbon dating is BS to him, but based on the fact that you can't carbon-date a 400 million year old object. Or even a 200,000 year old object.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING DING!

We have a winner.

You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it is the carbon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't start to tell me you're going to carbon date 400 million year old dinosaur bones. =/

I'll pretend you didn't mention it and you can re-think your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, let's skip how the creationsists dismiss radiocarbon dating and change my quip to:

So it's not the bones that are put there to test our faith, it's the entire theory of geological columns that is.

The carbon quip is better and just as valid at pointing out how silly a young earth creationist theory is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he was mocking you not based on how radiocarbon dating is BS to him, but based on the fact that you can't carbon-date a 400 million year old object. Or even a 200,000 year old object.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING DING!

We have a winner.

You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many is a 'few?'

I'm interested in your "Science rules when its on my side" explanation for why the conventional 50,000 year upper limit (and thats conservative) is faulty.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't dinosaurs fit on the ark?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm wrong again. Obviously the ark was large enough to fit every species on Earth, including the dinosaurs. They must have sawed holes in the ceiling so that the Sauropods and Brachiosaurs could keep from bumping their heads.

So what do you believe happened to the dinosaurs once they left the Ark? I'm genuinely curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now why would anyone take a fully grown animal when an adolescent would do just fine? They're smaller, they require SIGNIFICANTLY less food, and they are more resistant to any number of ailments that older animals are not.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Evolutionist:

Can you please explain to me how a 45 ton, 90 foot long, 45 foot high Brachiosaurus can take in enough oxygen through nostrils the size of a modern day horse? Have you ever tried breathing for any length of time out of a straw only 2 mm in diameter?

Think about that, and you've got a much larger problem on your hands than fitting a dinosaur on a boat.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why can't you answer a relatively simple question without resorting to patronistic sarcasm?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard not to be patronizing when debating with bible literalists. The amount of self-delusion that is required to believe the things that you do is mind-boggling. To wilfully ignore multiple areas of scientific knowledge in order to believe what you do is a method of thinking that I cannot relate to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fully respect your opinion.

However, look at it from my point of view. You think I'm diluded to believe in a "God" who can create a universe by merely speaking it into existance. And yet the entire basis of your theory is that the first amino acids formed by accident in a puddle of runoff of some rocks that were rained on for a few billion years on a planet that materialized out of nothing. You have absolutely no proof for any of this, just as I have absolutely no proof that "God" exists.

The difference between our two religions is that yours is government subsidized by my tax dollars for the indoctrination of unsuspecting school children.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

DING DING!

We have a winner.

You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many is a 'few?'

I'm interested in your "Science rules when its on my side" explanation for why the conventional 50,000 year upper limit (and thats conservative) is faulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is not the enemy. Scientific zealots hell-bent on discrediting the bible no matter how ridiculous their claims are the enemy.

I rather enjoy science.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

DING DING!

We have a winner.

You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many is a 'few?'

I'm interested in your "Science rules when its on my side" explanation for why the conventional 50,000 year upper limit (and thats conservative) is faulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is not the enemy. Scientific zealots hell-bent on discrediting the bible no matter how ridiculous their claims are the enemy.

I rather enjoy science.

[/ QUOTE ]


So...you agree that a 'few' is 50 and that the Biblical account of a 6-10k year Earth is entirely incompatible with science? Since science isn't the enemy, after all.

[BillNye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fine. Young Earth Creationists don't believe that dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth to test our faith. In reality, they believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6000 years ago.

Happy now? Sorry for misrepresenting your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now explain to me why this is a problem without resorting to an MSpaint of people running in terror from a rampaging T-Rex.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've convinced me. Obviously all of the dinosaurs drowned in the great flood. I guess they didn't fit on the Ark. Makes perfect sense. I can't believe I didn't see it before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I read an interpretation that Dino's were on Noah's Ark. [serious]

I'd imagine it went down something like this...
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t307/Schnett1er/noahsark2.jpg

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

DING DING!

We have a winner.

You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many is a 'few?'

I'm interested in your "Science rules when its on my side" explanation for why the conventional 50,000 year upper limit (and thats conservative) is faulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is not the enemy. Scientific zealots hell-bent on discrediting the bible no matter how ridiculous their claims are the enemy.

I rather enjoy science.

[/ QUOTE ]


So...you agree that a 'few' is 50 and that the Biblical account of a 6-10k year Earth is entirely incompatible with science? Since science isn't the enemy, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume that I'm drunk on the 6k creationist kool-aid.

You can keep thinking that if it makes you feel better, but it's just not the case.

However, I DO think that it's ridiculous to not belive in a "God" but be willing believe that our planet is made of 18 billion year old stardust from when the universe "hatched" out of nothing and that human beings decended from fish who descended from random chemical compounds that organized themselves into the most complex mechanism on the planet, a cell, these compounds were of course formed from the runoff of wet rocks which apparently materialized from nowhere.


You can call me what you wish, but I just find it a little odd that I'M the diluded one.

[Inso0]

No one ever chimed in on this question of mine:



[ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain to me how a 45 ton, 90 foot long, 45 foot high Brachiosaurus can take in enough oxygen through nostrils the size of a modern day horse? Have you ever tried breathing for any length of time out of a straw only 2 mm in diameter?

Think about that, and you've got a much larger problem on your hands than fitting a dinosaur on a boat.

[/ QUOTE ]



No one wants to take a stab at it?

[BillNye]

[ QUOTE ]
No one ever chimed in on this question of mine:



[ QUOTE ]
Can you please explain to me how a 45 ton, 90 foot long, 45 foot high Brachiosaurus can take in enough oxygen through nostrils the size of a modern day horse? Have you ever tried breathing for any length of time out of a straw only 2 mm in diameter?

Think about that, and you've got a much larger problem on your hands than fitting a dinosaur on a boat.

[/ QUOTE ]



No one wants to take a stab at it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont get it, you dont believe that dinosaurs ever existed?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

DING DING!

We have a winner.

You cannot accurately carbon date anything more than a few thousand years old. And it has many weaknesses due to carbon "pollution" that is introduced in so many environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many is a 'few?'

I'm interested in your "Science rules when its on my side" explanation for why the conventional 50,000 year upper limit (and thats conservative) is faulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is not the enemy. Scientific zealots hell-bent on discrediting the bible no matter how ridiculous their claims are the enemy.

I rather enjoy science.

[/ QUOTE ]


So...you agree that a 'few' is 50 and that the Biblical account of a 6-10k year Earth is entirely incompatible with science? Since science isn't the enemy, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume that I'm drunk on the 6k creationist kool-aid.

You can keep thinking that if it makes you feel better, but it's just not the case.

However, I DO think that it's ridiculous to not belive in a "God" but be willing believe that our planet is made of 18 billion year old stardust from when the universe "hatched" out of nothing and that human beings decended from fish who descended from random chemical compounds that organized themselves into the most complex mechanism on the planet, a cell, these compounds were of course formed from the runoff of wet rocks which apparently materialized from nowhere.


You can call me what you wish, but I just find it a little odd that I'M the diluded one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop dancing. Do you think the Earth was created 6-10k years ago or not? You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

If you answer no to the previous question, are you one of these science zealots who is intent on disproving the Bible no matter how silly your position becomes? Why or why not?

[Inso0]

Yes.

But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k?

I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k?

I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I know this is the preferred tactic of your ilk, never put forth your own position, merely attack the position of others, keep them constantly on the defensive, and hope that through persistent attacks and constant nitpicking it will give the superficial appearance that you are making honest points and that the other person is struggling to support their side. I'm not interested in that, at least not right now.

[vhawk01]

I do have to thank you for your post, however, since your comment about your ancestors having tails caused me to go searching to learn more about human beings born with tails. Really interesting stuff!

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k?

I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I know this is the preferred tactic of your ilk, never put forth your own position, merely attack the position of others, keep them constantly on the defensive, and hope that through persistent attacks and constant nitpicking it will give the superficial appearance that you are making honest points and that the other person is struggling to support their side. I'm not interested in that, at least not right now.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol

2/10

[PairTheBoard]

Can somebody tell me what 2/10 means? Is it like a Doyle Brunson or something?

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Can somebody tell me what 2/10 means? Is it like a Doyle Brunson or something?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ranking my post. It doesn't make any sense, because I wasn't trying to be funny or anything, nor was I trying to be particularly profound. I just called him on the particular dishonest tactic he was using (and is continuing to use in the very post he is making fun of me for) and he decided to cop out. Its ok, I didn't expect much else. He will go to great lengths to avoid making any positive statements that could themselves be challenged...its the cowardly approach of the denier. Just review this thread: he was afraid of being lumped in with the YECs until I flat-out demanded he answer, and then when he did, he still hedged, and is now dancing around the point about carbon dating.

I don't mind that he thinks his tactics are legitimate, I'm just trying to demonstrate to others why they aren't. They are used all the time by all flavors of deniers, and you really need to know what to look for.

He's decent at it, but certainly no expert. I'd give him better than a 2/10, maybe more like a 4.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
He's decent at it, but certainly no expert. I'd give him better than a 2/10, maybe more like a 4.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. So he was ranking your post 2 out of a possible 10. I was afraid it was a new meme or something. Carry on.

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k?

I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I know this is the preferred tactic of your ilk, never put forth your own position, merely attack the position of others, keep them constantly on the defensive, and hope that through persistent attacks and constant nitpicking it will give the superficial appearance that you are making honest points and that the other person is struggling to support their side. I'm not interested in that, at least not right now.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol

2/10

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it about time you threatened to leave and not post here anymore because we were all too stupid?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k?

I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I know this is the preferred tactic of your ilk, never put forth your own position, merely attack the position of others, keep them constantly on the defensive, and hope that through persistent attacks and constant nitpicking it will give the superficial appearance that you are making honest points and that the other person is struggling to support their side. I'm not interested in that, at least not right now.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol

2/10

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it about time you threatened to leave and not post here anymore because we were all too stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone as seemingly intelligent as you are, you sure need to work on your comprehension.

Please point out where I said in SMP that I was going to stop posting here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

But I freely admit I do not feel quite as strongly about that topic as I do about my ancestors not having tails.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when you said you weren't drinking the 6kyo kool-aid, that was.....bluster? Or you just really didn't feel like addressing my question about the limits of carbon dating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I respond to this, can you show me some things that were carbon dated to 50000 years old? Or 25k?

I'm sure you can, but I'd like to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I know this is the preferred tactic of your ilk, never put forth your own position, merely attack the position of others, keep them constantly on the defensive, and hope that through persistent attacks and constant nitpicking it will give the superficial appearance that you are making honest points and that the other person is struggling to support their side. I'm not interested in that, at least not right now.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol

2/10

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it about time you threatened to leave and not post here anymore because we were all too stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone as seemingly intelligent as you are, you sure need to work on your comprehension.

Please point out where I said in SMP that I was going to stop posting here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is going to be a 2-part pwning so be patient.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable.

Macro is not.


Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to leave now.

I'll be honest... I really don't care enough to try and argue with you anymore. I don't feel like re-typing everything I've said on the subject elsewhere to fit the context of this thread. If you want, you can go look at my posts in OOT in the "scientific poll" thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can somebody tell me what 2/10 means? Is it like a Doyle Brunson or something?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I just called him on the particular dishonest tactic he was using (and is continuing to use in the very post he is making fun of me for) and he decided to cop out. He will go to great lengths to avoid making any positive statements that could themselves be challenged...its the cowardly approach of the denier.

I don't mind that he thinks his tactics are legitimate, I'm just trying to demonstrate to others why they aren't. They are used all the time by all flavors of deniers, and you really need to know what to look for.

[/ QUOTE ]



I'm going to make sure this next part stands out, because I've said this to you before and you still don't seem to get it.









[/ QUOTE ]
I am not trying to persuade anyone to my side of the fence. I never have. If you're looking for 100% scientific proof for Creation or the existance of "God", you will be sorely disappointed. These proofs do not exist.

I am merely pointing out that YOUR beliefs are nothing more than government funded religious indoctrination. Belief in Cosmic/Organic/Chemical/Macro Evolution was, is, and will remain to be a religion. Sadly, you clever little people are suceeding in passing your beliefs off as something more than that by hitching a ride on the coat tails of micro evolution which is undisputed fact. This is what I have a problem with.


[/ QUOTE ]








Why do I focus on pointing out the flaws in YOUR theory instead of providing proof for my own? Because I have absolutely no desire to change your thinking. If you want to think you evolved from wet rocks, that's your prerogative. I do, however, want you to stop teaching your religion in my public schools to unsuspecting heads full of mush and calling it scientific.

Which

it

is

not.



Are we good now?

[vhawk01]

LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[Ron Paul]

Has someone IP checked this guy for Skidooness and Skarkeytude?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
This is going to be a 2-part pwning so be patient.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable.

Macro is not.


Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Bold much?






[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to leave now.

I'll be honest... I really don't care enough to try and argue with you anymore. I don't feel like re-typing everything I've said on the subject elsewhere to fit the context of this thread. If you want, you can go look at my posts in OOT in the "scientific poll" thread.

[/ QUOTE ]


Context, my friend. Context.

I said that after something like 3 hours of constant posts back and forth. I was at the office at the time and did in fact leave. Nice try though.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is going to be a 2-part pwning so be patient.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable.

Macro is not.


Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Bold much?






[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to leave now.

I'll be honest... I really don't care enough to try and argue with you anymore. I don't feel like re-typing everything I've said on the subject elsewhere to fit the context of this thread. If you want, you can go look at my posts in OOT in the "scientific poll" thread.

[/ QUOTE ]


Context, my friend. Context.

I said that after something like 3 hours of constant posts back and forth. I was at the office at the time and did in fact leave. Nice try though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that was part 1 of the pwning. Now, part 2.

Where did I ever say anything about leaving SMP? By 'here' I simply meant this thread. Context, man. You've posted in a grand total of two threads in SMP, and both times you've fallen back on the escape route of threatening (and following through, so far) to leave the thread and not post anymore.

Satisfied?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is:


I have nothing more to say to you here. The onlookers can make up their own minds about your inconsequencial rebuttals.




How about that Brachiosaurus?

Still no one has an explanation?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is:


I have nothing more to say to you here. The onlookers can make up their own minds about your inconsequencial rebuttals.




How about that Brachiosaurus?

Still no one has an explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is one thing I want you to take away from this, it is an understanding of the difference between a theory and a fact. Can you please make at least one more post to assure me that you do, in fact, understand the distinction? And why claiming they should only be teaching facts and not theories in schools is a ludicrous position?


EDIT: And I can't help but take one more shot at you. For yet another time today, you've made a post that consists of almost nothing but "What about X? Can't anyone explain X?" as if this was some fell blow. You did it with the Inuits, you did it with carbon dating, I pointed out why this is a dishonest tactic, you MADE FUN OF ME for pointing that out, and then you continue to do it. Its pretty hilarious, to me at least. We'll have to let the 'onlookers' (LOL, I'm sure this is a well-attended gladitorial fight, here) decide on that one too, I guess.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is:


I have nothing more to say to you here. The onlookers can make up their own minds about your inconsequencial rebuttals.




How about that Brachiosaurus?

Still no one has an explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

How did that tiny brain drive that great big dinosaur? How did it get that big without much protein (being an herbivore)?

My neck gets tired after standing up for too long... how on earth did a brachiosaur do it? Furthermore, how do those giraffes do it?

I think vhawk is in med school. Even HE can't answer these simple questions.

Giraffes don't really exist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. No. I won't bother bolding anything, I'll just repeat for you, for at LEAST the second time, that you have absolutely no idea what the definitions of 'fact' and 'theory' are. And that is a HUGE impediment to your understanding and the furthering of your point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Please show me where I misused the word fact in my post.

Are you telling me Micro Evolution is not fact?

Seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm not sure. Microevolution with a capital M? Of course not, its a theory. Microevolution with a small m is a fact, yes. Ditto macroevolution and Macroevolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is:


I have nothing more to say to you here. The onlookers can make up their own minds about your inconsequencial rebuttals.




How about that Brachiosaurus?

Still no one has an explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]

How did that tiny brain drive that great big dinosaur? How did it get that big without much protein (being an herbivore)?

My neck gets tired after standing up for too long... how on earth did a brachiosaur do it? Furthermore, how do those giraffes do it?

I think vhawk is in med school. Even HE can't answer these simple questions.

Giraffes don't really exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Also, neuroanatomy doesn't exist either. And biochemistry only, like, 78% exists.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I am merely pointing out that YOUR beliefs are nothing more than government funded religious indoctrination. Belief in Cosmic/Organic/Chemical/Macro Evolution was, is, and will remain to be a religion. Sadly, you clever little people are suceeding in passing your beliefs off as something more than that by hitching a ride on the coat tails of micro evolution which is undisputed fact. This is what I have a problem with.


[/ QUOTE ]
I was taught evolution in school pretty much along the lines of "We see small changes occurring through a variety of flaws in the DNA copying process and we see natural selection operating. This results in organisms changing very slowly over time. We have a theory that this gradual change is enough to account for the plethora of different species we observe in nature. It's the best theory we have so far so we operate as if it was true."

What's wrong with that? We initially teach newtonian physics as true as well (even though we are very sure it isnt a correct model of the world). Once people delve further into physics, they encounter revised models which get closer and closer to how we think the world actually is. At the very forefront of physics there are a whole bunch of competing theories and nobody is very sure of which ones (if any) are actually right.

Evolution is the same. There are legitimate problems with explaining every facet of biology using the theory of evolution. That is normal with scientific theories - the experts will argue about the details. In the meantime, it's the best we have, so it's what we teach to kids. There are no other sciences where we wait til all the details are worked out before teaching it to children and presenting it as fact. Why should we hold evolution to such a high standard?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
How about that Brachiosaurus?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no paleontologist, but the fact that the brachiosaurus had tiny nostrils obviously proves that they did not exist.

I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE...WTF?!?!

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I was taught evolution in school pretty much along the lines of "We see small changes occurring through a variety of flaws in the DNA copying process and we see natural selection operating. This results in organisms changing very slowly over time. We have a theory that this gradual change is enough to account for the plethora of different species we observe in nature. It's the best theory we have so far so we operate as if it was true."

What's wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't mention the Lord Jesus Christ even once.

[kerowo]

Who cares about big dinos, why are there so many different bibles out there, and what are you Christians going to do about all those Bhudists?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Now why would anyone take a fully grown animal when an adolescent would do just fine? They're smaller, they require SIGNIFICANTLY less food, and they are more resistant to any number of ailments that older animals are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your theory is that the Ark was filled with dinosaur babies? Makes perfect sense to me.

So what happened to the dinosaurs once the waters receded? You still haven't explained this to me. Why did 99.9% of the dinosaurs die off 6000 or so years ago? Did they displease the lord in some way?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I do, however, want you to stop teaching your religion in my public schools to unsuspecting heads full of mush and calling it scientific.

Which

it

is

not.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where you are confused. You don't understand what science is, how it works, or what its goals are. It is the Working Assumption of Science that known laws of physics apply continuously in the past, present, and future. On this assumption great progess has been made in understanding how things work. Theories of science are based on this assumption and on empirical data. This is how Science came up with its theories about the history of life on Earth. That's why they are called scientific theories. Because they conform to the Working Assumptions of Science.

We teach Science in our Public schools because Science has a record of reliability in its practical application. Science has allowed us to go to the moon. Our entire high tech lifestyle depends on solutions provided us by science. It is well worth our tax dollars to teach it to our children. We make no distinction for science that might offend some religious beliefs. We just teach the science.

Religious Beliefs about supernatural forces or supernatural agency are not science and we don't have a reason to spend tax dollars teaching them in our public schools. Science does not disprove such Religious Beliefs. Science does not even speak to them. There is no reason why, when your kids get home from science class, you can't point this out to them and give your Religious instruction on Supernatural Agency to them at home.

PairTheBoard

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares about big dinos, why are there so many different bibles out there, and what are you Christians going to do about all those Bhudists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddhists go to hell. Just ask NotReady. Hell is filled with Nazis and Asians, as far as the eye can see. Gandhi is there, too. They deserve to burn for eternity for not following the proper god.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
was taught evolution in school pretty much along the lines of "We see small changes occurring through a variety of flaws in the DNA copying process and we see natural selection operating. This results in organisms changing very slowly over time. We have a theory that this gradual change is enough to account for the plethora of different species we observe in nature. It's the best theory we have so far so we operate as if it was true."

What's wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ] lol...I'm from suburban Atlanta...my high school evolution learning experience consisted of,
"well class, we're going to skip chapter 10 and move on to chapter 11."

Seriously, that's exactly what happened. (It just-so-happens my bio teacher was a fundamentalist Christian.)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Just ask NotReady. Hell is filled with Nazis and Asians, as far as the eye can see.

[/ QUOTE ]
O. M. G. SOOO Unfair. Do you have any idea how many people have lived and died in Africa?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
How about that Brachiosaurus?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is actually kind of creative of you. I assume you heard it somewhere else, but it is a pretty original 'argument'.

In answer to your question, what happens if you pinch YOUR nostrils closed with your hand? Do you die?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about that Brachiosaurus?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is actually kind of creative of you. I assume you heard it somewhere else, but it is a pretty original 'argument'.

In answer to your question, what happens if you pinch YOUR nostrils closed with your hand? Do you die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if I chase down a rabbit and try to kill it for food. No if I go to the fridge and make myself a salad.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just ask NotReady. Hell is filled with Nazis and Asians, as far as the eye can see.

[/ QUOTE ]
O. M. G. SOOO Unfair. Do you have any idea how many people have lived and died in Africa?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but the Christian missionaries have been very good at saving Africans' souls. I agree that the Africans who either rejected God or who never had contact with a missionary are burning in hell, but I'd be willing to wager that the Asians outnumber them by at least a 5 to 1 margin. Those pesky Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus just refuse to see the light!

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about that Brachiosaurus?


[/ QUOTE ]
This is actually kind of creative of you. I assume you heard it somewhere else, but it is a pretty original 'argument'.

In answer to your question, what happens if you pinch YOUR nostrils closed with your hand? Do you die?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if I chase down a rabbit and try to kill it for food. No if I go to the fridge and make myself a salad.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can breathe through my mouth!

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just ask NotReady. Hell is filled with Nazis and Asians, as far as the eye can see.

[/ QUOTE ]
O. M. G. SOOO Unfair. Do you have any idea how many people have lived and died in Africa?

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but the Christian missionaries have been very good at saving Africans' souls. I agree that the Africans who either rejected God or who never had contact with a missionary are burning in hell, but I'd be willing to wager that the Asians outnumber them by at least a 5 to 1 margin. Those pesky Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus just refuse to see the light!

[/ QUOTE ]

Posted this in the wrong thread yesterday. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImzFdHd70vU