|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 9, 2009 16:40:28 GMT -5
So are we all agreed evolution is correct? Its perfectly logical... Although, the bad thing is, only 1/4 of the population think it is correct, which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Mar 9, 2009 17:21:17 GMT -5
The other 3/4 are huge Dan Quayle fans
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 9, 2009 17:30:20 GMT -5
Who?
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Mar 9, 2009 17:42:14 GMT -5
Dan Quayle? The dumbest VP ever knwon to mankind?
|
|
wizard
Superior Being
{S=0}[M:-593]
50%
Posts: 399
|
Post by wizard on Mar 9, 2009 20:36:58 GMT -5
vice president or celebrity?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Mar 10, 2009 6:37:07 GMT -5
WHat a terrible question. Vice Presidents are actually intelligent.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 10, 2009 10:25:21 GMT -5
Are they?Anyway peoples, dont forget to vote on the poll.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Mar 10, 2009 15:05:57 GMT -5
WHat a terrible question. Vice Presidents are actually intelligent. Tell that to Dan Quayle. He couldn't spell potato.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 10, 2009 17:33:43 GMT -5
And what have potatos got to do with Evolution? Quite a lot, come to think of it....
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Mar 11, 2009 14:39:32 GMT -5
Monkeys evolved from potatoes!
.D
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 11, 2009 15:06:16 GMT -5
No they didn't, although i can sense the sarcasm. They evolved from smaller land mammals.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 11, 2009 15:09:22 GMT -5
...which evolved from something else which evolved from something else...etc...which evolved from the protocell (first cell, a "prototype" cell), which formed as a result of the primordial "soup" and certain reactions in pre-life Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Mar 11, 2009 15:17:42 GMT -5
actually, since this is star generation 3, I think that microbes have been evolving since the first generation, and intersected our planet via comet.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 11, 2009 15:52:07 GMT -5
So we are all aleins? If there are aliens, there has to be someone who calls people aliens, so theoretically, we are not alien.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 11, 2009 16:53:28 GMT -5
Relative to our point of view, we are not aliens. Relative to a non-Earthling's point of view or relative to the point of view of a native of Earth, we are aliens.
Everything is relative except for the speed of light in a vacuum!
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 11, 2009 18:35:01 GMT -5
The speed of light in a vacuum... relative to what? The wall? The planet? The Earth? An object in the vacuum traveling near the speed of light?
Anyway, "creationism" does not explain a lot of scientific evidence. It does not explain, say, the fact that dinosaurs are only found below a certain time period, and there are no large mammal fossils from before their extinction... Creationism would require all the creatures that have ever existed to have been created at one time, and some die off. The lack of large mammal fossils from that timezone shows that large mammals were not there from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 11, 2009 19:40:09 GMT -5
The speed of light in a vacuum... relative to what? The wall? The planet? The Earth? An object in the vacuum traveling near the speed of light? Anyway, "creationism" does not explain a lot of scientific evidence. It does not explain, say, the fact that dinosaurs are only found below a certain time period, and there are no large mammal fossils from before their extinction... Creationism would require all the creatures that have ever existed to have been created at one time, and some die off. The lack of large mammal fossils from that timezone shows that large mammals were not there from the beginning. Assuming a religious text was interpreted literally. If not, then creationism doesn't necessarily imply that everything was made at one instant in time...
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Master on Mar 12, 2009 3:07:16 GMT -5
so did god hypothetically make the skies, metaphorically made land, panthetically made... in 7 days? I think when the bible was created, it was at first meant to be interpreted literally...
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Mar 12, 2009 15:10:43 GMT -5
actually, the speedf of light in a vaccum IS prone to gravity, friction, even intertia. It is not relative (of course, all speeds are constant in a vacuum!)
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Mar 12, 2009 15:22:06 GMT -5
Your friction thing wouldn't exist in a vacuum...there's a reason it says "in a vacuum." Inertia would be the very reason why the speed of light in a vacuum WOULD be constant. Inertia is the tendency of masses to resist a change in velocity, whether that velocity be 0 or non-zero. And of course things are relative: relative to the floor of the moving train, a passenger on that same floor has a velocity of 0ms -1; relative to a railroad tie, the man on the moving train floor is going 250ms -1. Relative to the man on the moving train floor, the railroad tie has a velocity of -250ms -1.
|
|