Sorry dragonball05 those examples are fictitious. Thery wre just to say ones "like" this exist.
Like I said a lot are found by people at home with a telescope so they name them what ever they like when they report it. I think the majority do just have a code though.
I can't find the book with the names in at the moment and google is failing me. However I can assure you that "18610 Arthurdent" is a real asteroid.
Personally I would like to see some evidence for the theory of creationism, other than 'it said so in the Bible'.
I'd like to see you prove evolutionism first. I still haven't seen any proof for it, only unproven theories. Funny how most of the time, I only see evolutionists trying to disprove creationism in these threads.
Radiometric dating can just meausre the age of much older materials. Carbon dating is limited, whereas because of the vast half life of most radioactive materials, it can measure much older materials.
I agree with what Flippin3500 said in the thread named "How old is the Earth". God made a mature world. He didn't make seeds and eggs, He made trees and birds.
Oh for God's sake I'm starting to get pissed at the creationists who won't accept that they may be wrong. I'm so freaking glad that I'm agnostic right now. There are things that scientists are finding that are leading to proof of evolution. Evolution does not mean that God does not exist, just that God did not directly have influence in the creating of organisms. They are finding many missing links and things that are currently in the middle of evolution. There was a type of insect, a butterfly I believe, that a huge portion of the males were being killed by bacteria. In a few years, the percent of the population being male skyrocketed, which may have been a sign of a fast-paced evolution to escape extinction. There was something that they released in their bodies to resist the bacteria. There was also a fossil of a flat fish with an eye halfway to the same side as the other one. Missing link. Again evolution does not disprove God, it just tells how much involvement he had int he creation of organisms.
Man I hate arguing with moronic creationists so much. They just can't accept that they might be wrong. And what I said is that they're finding missing links leading to getting closer to the truth of evolution. And think about the disproving God part. My belief of the creation of Earth is a higher power starting the Big Bang and letting things unravel. Did I say God doesn't exist? No. Did I say he does exist? No. Agnosticity is the most reasonable belief. You're not a dumb ass who won't accept that they could be wrong. When the day comes that a theory is proved to be 100% correct, I will toss aside my belief and believe it, because it's correct. There is never going to be a day that every Creationist or Evolutionist will toss aside their beliefs because they're too headstrong and stubborn. People need to just chill out with their beliefs and leave room for error. I admitted that I was wrong about the Greek records in the How old is Earth thread, but found another thing proving that it is not 6000 years old. If you want to argue that Carbon Dating is inaccurate, where in the Bible does it say exactly how old the tablets are? Just shut up and chill out.
They are finding many missing links and things that are currently in the middle of evolution.
Where? So far, I have only heard of a few fakes. (like the thing with the pig's tooth)
In a few years, the percent of the population being male skyrocketed, which may have been a sign of a fast-paced evolution to escape extinction.
That is an example of microevolution (what most people call natural selection). The butterfly was still the same species of butterfly, they only had a slight change somewhere that allowed them to resist the bacteria.
There was also a fossil of a flat fish with an eye halfway to the same side as the other one. Missing link.
Mutation is another thing it might have been. Have you ever thought of the possibility that it was just a mutated flat fish?
Man I hate arguing with moronic creationists so much. They just can't accept that they might be wrong.
If I were as hot-tempered as some people around here(not mentioning any names), I would have said the same thing about evolutionists long before you joined the discussion.
Mutation is another thing it might have been. Have you ever thought of the possibility that it was just a mutated flat fish?
lol...no, it wasn't a mutated flat fish. It was a baby flat fish. They are born with their eyes on the opposite sides of their head. As they grow older, one eye moves to the other side.
