Yep, unproven. Like everything about the evolution theories.

First of I want to question the "natural selection" which means that in the long run the best adapted species are the ones that survive. However, I think that the strongest do not survive but the ones who are at the righ place at the right time do, why is this never mentioned? Ppl brag so much about how the world could easily be created by nothing but doesnt even mention this when they talk about the natural selection.

The carbon 14 method of dating: No evidence that is works AND it's said to ONLY work on EXTREMELY OLD objects... hmm... nothing suspicous there. Another example of its greatness is that scientists has dated the earth to be 4 billion years old but stars to be 16 billion.

"We have fossils"
Me: What is a fossil?
Answear: Nothing more than STONE.

Then we come scenarios which is impssible to explain withouth a God. For instance: DNA cannot be created without protein, RNA not be created without DNA and protein not created without RNA - what came first?

withouth sounds gay it should be without not withouth

All you're doing is ranting and insulting things that you THINK are wrong.
You have yet to present any evidence of any kind of them actually being wrong.
Your knowledge on this subject seems to be very poor.

Quote from Shensurei

All you're doing is ranting and insulting things that you THINK are wrong.
You have yet to present any evidence of any kind of them actually being wrong.
Your knowledge on this subject seems to be very poor.

Which is the exact same thing as religeon :)

Oh good, more ignorance. This is always a fucking joy.

Quote from not bad

First of I want to question the "natural selection" which means that in the long run the best adapted species are the ones that survive. However, I think that the strongest do not survive but the ones who are at the righ place at the right time do

Yeah, it's called a population bottleneck. Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it's "never mentioned". And you're an idiot if you honestly think "the strongest do not survive", that makes no sense when "strongest" is defined as "most likely to survive" in this context.

The carbon 14 method of dating: No evidence that is works AND it's said to ONLY work on EXTREMELY OLD objects... hmm... nothing suspicous there. Another example of its greatness is that scientists has dated the earth to be 4 billion years old but stars to be 16 billion.

..what?

First of all it only works for objects about 60,000 years old, so no it doesn't work only on "extremely old" objects.

Second of all we have plenty of evidence that it works, I don't know where you get the idea that it doesn't.

Third, the age of the earth was not done through carbon dating.

Fourth, the age of the universe isn't even 16 billions years old. The oldest star we've discovered is around 13 billion years old. They are not all the same age and we don't date those by carbon dating either, that's impossible. That has nothing to do with the age of the earth either, I have no idea what you're getting at.

"We have fossils"
Me: What is a fossil?
Answear: Nothing more than STONE.

You have to be kidding me. Here's a petrified pine cone from the Jurassic era. There's plenty of other fossils that aren't just imprints in stone, have you even researched these "unproven atheistic theories"?

Then we come scenarios which is impssible to explain withouth a God. For instance: DNA cannot be created without RNA, RNA not be created without protein and protein not created without DNA - what came first?

RNA and DNA are both made up of nucleotides, which are formed by enzymes, not proteins. Proteins are created by ribosomes and the process is guided by mRNA, not DNA.

The explanation is not impossible without a god and you don't seem to have a good understanding of what you're talking about. You remind me of iRakodai, I wouldn't be surprised if you're the same person. Give up on our evolution debate?

I ran an IP check just in case, but I think this guy might actually be worse than iRakodai.


I think the only thing I have to add to Exilement's post is that we don't think the Earth existed from the very start of the universe. That much should be fairly obvious.

Since he edited it

RNA not be created without DNA

Yes it can, lol, DNA has nothing to do with creating RNA.

what about all the unproven religious theorys? like some mystical man in the sky got bored in his vast amount of nothingness, so he created light (not the sun) and life as we know it! and blah blah blah

religious people sure hate to think evolution is real, even when presented with mass amounts of fucking evidence, yet they'll not even bat an eye at the ridiculousness of their own beliefs that are based on a book made by a bunch of crazy old sand niggers in the middle east thousands of years ago

Quote from not bad

"We have fossils"
Me: What is a fossil?
Answear: Nothing more than STONE.

my sides

Being an Atheist and supporting well-respected scientific theories are mutually exclusive.

^ that too
theres religious people who believe in evolution
just that they believe it was part of his divine plan or some shit

If our theories- big bang and others- are considered bullshit by someone- I ask said person this.

Would you rather believe in a bullshit theory that forces you to live by true human morals- like no murdering et cetera, with weekly or daily worship sessions to a bullshit deity, Praise the bullshit idea or the earth's age and praise the non-exsistance of evolution, and keep science limited to a point where it may not conflict with religious ideals, and be told by it to spend your life in a way that ensures your passage to bullshit heaven and not bullshit hell?

OR!

Would you rather believe in a bullshit theory that the big bang happened and that genetic mutations happened over time, leading to bullshit evolution and humans and monkeys having bullshit common ancestors. With us having our children learning all there is to learn- making each one into their potential being- letting them find out morals and other ideals for themselves, deciding why and why not to do things that are plainly too basic for an adult to need to be constantly reminded as if they lived in the dark ages. With a bullshit thought process that we can do anything- and there is nothing in our way and anyone's idea could be right or wrong as long as someone proves it, an idea that theories are always being proved right and wrong- and that the human race should strive to be as advanced as it's citizens can dream their bullshit- to go into space and unlock the mysteries of the universe. And even find other bullshit life.

Pick?
@Patt

\/ Off topic

if you put "@Patt" after another one of your posts I'll stab you in the calves with a knife.
@Cappy

Yeah, it's called a population bottleneck. Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it's "never mentioned". And you're an idiot if you honestly think "the strongest do not survive", that makes no sense when "strongest" is defined as "most likely to survive" in this context.

"A population bottleneck (or genetic bottleneck) is an evolutionary event in which a significant percentage of a population or species is killed or otherwise prevented from reproducing." - Wikipedia. Not really what I ment. What I wanted to say is that the ones who are "lucky" enough are the ones who survive.

..what?

First of all it only works for objects about 60,000 years old, so no it doesn't work only on "extremely old" objects.

Second of all we have plenty of evidence that it works, I don't know where you get the idea that it doesn't.

Third, the age of the earth was not done through carbon dating.

Fourth, the age of the universe isn't even 16 billions years old. The oldest star we've discovered is around 13 billion years old. They are not all the same age and we don't date those by carbon dating either, that's impossible. That has nothing to do with the age of the earth either, I have no idea what you're getting at.

It's good to know that you are 60000 years old and doesnt think thats much. Second argument: "You are wrong." ?? Lets hear more about that. Third argument: probably true, doesent really matter.
Fourth argument: Ofcourse I know you cant and DONT measure a star with carbon dating! My point is however that the earth cant be 4 billion years old while a star, according at least to your own text 13 billion.

You have to be kidding me. Here's a petrified pine cone from the Jurassic era. There's plenty of other fossils that aren't just imprints in stone, have you even researched these "unproven atheistic theories"?

I never mentioned inprints in stone, petrified = stone.

RNA and DNA are both made up of nucleotides, which are formed by enzymes, not proteins. Proteins are created by ribosomes and the process is guided by mRNA, not DNA.

The explanation is not impossible without a god and you don't seem to have a good understanding of what you're talking about. You remind me of iRakodai, I wouldn't be surprised if you're the same person. Give up on our evolution debate?

I kinda messed up the explanation of the process between DNA, RNA and protein. However it is true that RNA is needed for the process of making the amino acids wich is needed to make DNA and it is protein, here is the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid