Ever hear of forensics? Paleontology? Archeology? Are you an idiot by birth or practice?

Both, actually. I try to keep practicing my natural causes-facepalming-phrases.

does that mean you should just say "Well the alien theory explains what happens, why it happens, and in some detail, how it happens, so lets go with it"?

That is smarter than assuming that aliens do exist. We (I mean, as in us, not the government) don't know that aliens exist, do we? Did I catch you right?

A christian blog. Are you trying to kill us? No thanks, your ignorance is enough for right now.

You've always killed me because I wouldn't give you a 'scientists answer'.  This guy is a professor in PHYSICS!!! That's probably pretty bad, isn't it? Anyhoo, he said that it is probably that the atmosphere or the flood could make it seem that the earth is really old. I will point out a few things:

...Some have pointed out that if the ratio was different when the earth was created six thousand years ago, either because the atmosphere was very different (perhaps because of a canopy of water) or the incidence of cosmic rays was different, then carbon dating results could be skewed. ...

And

...So now something has to be wrong with an independent dating method. Maybe the flood had something to do with it. And note there is now another level of “conspiracy” here: not only must the correct assumption be whatever it has to be to restore a young earth, but what ever skewed the assumption for uranium/thorium dating insidiously left it in agreement with Carbon dating. ...

your ignorance is enough for right now.

Are you saying that you like me?!?!?!???? :DD

A christian blog. Are you trying to kill us? No thanks, your ignorance is enough for right now.

Actually you might want to read that. That particular post shown argues an old Earth which would support the theory of evolution.

I don't think this is a place for one sided debates. Though given you feel that your side is under represented my guess is you likely think it is.

Once I made a thread that only Christians debated in, on predestination. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that atheists believe in predestination.

I agree with you there.

I love how you twist what I'm saying and agree.

Actually science deals with the natural world as a whole.

That's what I meant - all three religions deal with the real earth.

Evolution makes no such claims of how life began. I suppose you could say in a way it covers how we got here. I doesn't cover who we are so much as what we are.

Call that my ignorance and let's move on.

Don't make me break out the links you clearly never bother to read or listen to.

Nope. I didn't. You know why? They probly all said that Christianity doesn't have any evidence and left it at that. You can't prove that there is no evidence. Besides, it's a religion.

Actually you might want to read that. That particular post shown argues an old Earth which would support the theory of evolution.

Someone read my link!!! This made me happy. From now on, I will read every link you give me just so long as it's not over two pages in length.

Look, religions are based on faith, having little to no credible evidence to back up any claims they make. Scientific theories and laws are based on cold, hard fact - they are provable/demonstrable. We have proof of Evolution, it is NOT a religion, it requires no faith.

Cowmaster1!! I have not seen you in forever.

I know, i thought i'd check up on here beeing as i havent been on for a few months.  I like how my meer mention of evolution sparked a debate on it, however short it went >:) tricky little me :P

not to get off topic, but i feel i havent explained why.  Mainly, Darwin observed microevolution when studying the finches.  He then used his observation of microevolution and said that marcoevolution occured.  If marcoevolution were true, we would find fossils to be slowly changing over time, but there are large gaps in fossil records between species that are believed to evolutions of the others.  Due to that gap, marcoevolution can't have happened...... etc. etc.

swing away

Both, actually. I try to keep practicing my natural causes-facepalming-phrases.

...What?

That is smarter than assuming that aliens do exist. We (I mean, as in us, not the government) don't know that aliens exist, do we? Did I catch you right?

No, not at all, if I catch you correctly. What I am saying is, that with your "logic", when the event occurred at Roswell, you would have to believe that aliens had landed, rather than using a more logical solution like "A human vehicle crashed" or even simply "I don't know what happened".

You've always killed me because I wouldn't give you a 'scientists answer'. 

I don't want a "Scientist's answer", I want a scientific answer.

This guy is a professor in PHYSICS!!!

Wow physics! That gives him absolutely no credibility in the subject of biology, paleontology, archeology, or even theology!!1!!. Why is it that physicist seem to think that they are the master of all science? If he was trying to disprove the theory of gravity, then his physics degree would be worth something, but not in the field of biology, where I assume he is attempting to talk about.

That's probably pretty bad, isn't it?

If he talks about physics, it gives him some credibility. Otherwise, he doesn't have any more credibility than a professor in math, technology, or even just a plumber. Or any other guy you meet on the street.

Anyhoo, he said that it is probably that the atmosphere or the flood could make it seem that the earth is really old. I will point out a few things:

No, no it couldn't...

    ...Some have pointed out that if the ratio was different when the earth was created six thousand years ago, either because the atmosphere was very different (perhaps because of a canopy of water) or the incidence of cosmic rays was different, then carbon dating results could be skewed. ...

Bull****. A canopy of water? How would that be possible? Just a huge wave of water, larger than the earth, orbiting around a volcanic earth? Earth was created millions of years ago, not that bull**** number. The atmosphere was, of course, much different when the earth was created, but that is pretty much irrelevant. And what are cosmic rays anyway?

So now something has to be wrong with an independent dating method.

This is wrong right here.

Maybe the flood had something to do with it. And note there is now another level of �conspiracy� here: not only must the correct assumption be whatever it has to be to restore a young earth, but what ever skewed the assumption for uranium/thorium dating insidiously left it in agreement with Carbon dating. ...

Bull****, based off a bull**** claim based on a bull**** story. This doesn't diverse anything else but the word bull****.

Are you saying that you like me?!?!?!???? :DD

I am saying you already broke my stupidity metor, why would I go to a bull**** link?

That's what I meant - all three religions deal with the real earth.

You only named two religions. As pointed out evolution is not a religion.

Nope. I didn't. You know why? They probly all said that Christianity doesn't have any evidence and left it at that. You can't prove that there is no evidence. Besides, it's a religion.

"You can't prove that there is no evidence." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

We have proof of Evolution

Just mircoevolution.  Marcoevolution is a theory.

Look, religions are based on faith, having little to no credible evidence to back up any claims they make. Scientific theories and laws are based on cold, hard fact - they are provable/demonstrable. We have proof of Evolution, it is NOT a religion, it requires no faith.

You can't prove that turtles always will have four legs and one head in this current age (<- so Evolution does not count). There have been a bunch (okay, a few) of two headed turtles in the news lately.

No, not at all, if I catch you correctly. What I am saying is, that with your "logic", when the event occurred at Roswell, you would have to believe that aliens had landed, rather than using a more logical solution like "A human vehicle crashed" or even simply "I don't know what happened".

Are you saying that the US never tested flying vehicles before telling it to the public?

Bull****. A canopy of water? How would that be possible? Just a huge wave of water, larger than the earth, orbiting around a volcanic earth? Earth was created millions of years ago, not that bull**** number. The atmosphere was, of course, much different when the earth was created, but that is pretty much irrelevant. And what are cosmic rays anyway?

Have you read Genesis 1? It talks about making the sky and the ground, water from water. Yeah.

I am saying you already broke my stupidity metor, why would I go to a bull**** link?

Ouch. I made you angry. Basically, if you don't want to read my links or sources, don't post links or sources yourself. You'd waste both of our time.

Just mircoevolution.  Marcoevolution is a theory.

Macroevelution is microevelution happening many times... Mage, do you have a video or something to clarify terms like normal?

You can't prove that turtles always will have four legs and one head in this current age (<- so Evolution does not count). There have been a bunch (okay, a few) of two headed turtles in the news lately.

Because having more legs would be ineffective, having two heads is ineffective (As we know from the two headed turtles, it decreases the chances for survival rather than increasing it), and a turtle having less legs is ineffective. A turtle with any of those traits dies and doesn't pass on it's genes. A better show of evolution would be taking the large turtle fossils and comparing them to it's small turtle relatives that you find today.

Are you saying that the US never tested flying vehicles before telling it to the public?

No. What I am saying is that just because you don't know it is a stealth plane, does not mean you can say "It was an alien!!1!shift1" as you seem to think you can.

Have you read Genesis 1? It talks about making the sky and the ground, water from water. Yeah.

Your being irrelevant again, I am asking for science. You already owe me a new bull**** meter, now bring in the facts. There is no water canopy ever enveloping earth. The earth is millions of years old.

Ouch. I made you angry. Basically, if you don't want to read my links or sources, don't post links or sources yourself. You'd waste both of our time.

I like it when you post links, but not to bozo the clown. You have to bring a legitimate, relevant, source who has some authority of what he is talking about.