Moderator: Community Team
WL_southerner wrote:by dna mapping,plus they have a neantheal man body in the london natrual history museum that was found in hard peat in somerset
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Wisse wrote:jay_a2j wrote:First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.
Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.
Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.
Where did it come from?
The ONLY answer is someting or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).
There must be a God.
Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).
ever heard of vulcanoes? thats the thign that maked all the things live, so you say god is a vulcano?
jay_a2j wrote:Last I knew it was called the theory of evolution...not the fact of evolution.
WL_southerner wrote:well oxford uni has a open public web site all so check out cambridge uni bristol uni another good site to look at
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
AlgyTaylor wrote:jay_a2j wrote:Last I knew it was called the theory of evolution...not the fact of evolution.
hahaha ..... I wonder if you believe in the THEORY of Gravity or not.[note a slight tone of sarcasm]
Honestly dude, just READ "The Origin of Species". I read it as a mild sceptic, tried to poke holes in it ... impossible. The evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Honestly. The 'problems' that you find in his theory? Pretty much all of them are answered in that book by Darwin himself.
It's a theory only in name, as such a theory can't be proved beyond all doubt. But it's certainly the most complete theory available, and it's certainly been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
heavycola wrote: Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
jay_a2j wrote:heavycola wrote: Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.
ROFL! Oh yeah, we are nut jobs. Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang". Yeah, give me a straitjacket and throw me in a padded cell.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang".
WL_southerner wrote:take a look at prof barns works he was into species migration, i meet him in 1975 in antarctica, he now retired but alot off things he said is now begining to be prov right
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
jay_a2j wrote:heavycola wrote: Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.
ROFL! Oh yeah, we are nut jobs. Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang". Yeah, give me a straitjacket and throw me in a padded cell.
unriggable wrote:jay_a2j wrote:heavycola wrote: Creationists are, by definition, not rational people.
ROFL! Oh yeah, we are nut jobs. Like the Earth coming from some eternal ooze is "rational". Or that aliens started life of Earth as an experiment. Or some gases with no known origin created a "big bang". Yeah, give me a straitjacket and throw me in a padded cell.
Oh, that's too complicated, it all just "happened". Well, tell me, where did your god come from? "He's always been there" is not a valid answer as you don't accept it.
Also, whoever said the universe is decaying is an idiot. Aspects of the universe die, and from those new suns and planets are formed.
Jolly Roger wrote:If redshift is the only way to confirm that galaxies are moving away from each other, how do you confirm that redshift is indicative of the movement? Is there anything to corroborate Hubble's story? The site says that redshift appeared to be larger for faint, presumably further galaxies. This hardly seems conclusive.
In addition, unless Hubble planned to revive the "Earth is the centre of the universe" philosophy, shouldn't the planets on one side the Earth be moving slower than us (having had a lower initial big bang velocity) while those on the other side move faster? If so, the Hubble constant should not be constant since a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on one side should be travelling more slowly than a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on the other side or vice versa.
Jolly Roger wrote:If redshift is the only way to confirm that galaxies are moving away from each other, how do you confirm that redshift is indicative of the movement? Is there anything to corroborate Hubble's story? The site says that redshift appeared to be larger for faint, presumably further galaxies. This hardly seems conclusive.
In addition, unless Hubble planned to revive the "Earth is the centre of the universe" philosophy, shouldn't the planets on one side the Earth be moving slower than us (having had a lower initial big bang velocity) while those on the other side move faster? If so, the Hubble constant should not be constant since a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on one side should be travelling more slowly than a galaxie one megaparsec away from us on the other side or vice versa.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users