Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/5/09 01:25 PM, Ericho wrote: Where did the figure 13.7 billion years come from anyway? I know carbon dating has shown evidence for things hundreds of millions of years old. The first cell is 4 billion years old. How do we know the Universe is older than four billion years old?

You just have to look at the universe beyond Earth. Cosmologists are still working to pinpoint the age of the universe by measuring the cosmic microwave background using satellite telescopes, and then comparing it to theoretical models.
Obviously, the figure 13.7bn years assumes a Big Bang cosmology. It's pretty much a case of calculating how a universe would evolve from the initial point, then comparing it to observations.

The 13.69±0.13 billion years figure was determined from measurements made by the WMAP space telescope.

At 1/5/09 01:25 PM, Ericho wrote: Where did the figure 13.7 billion years come from anyway?

This explains it all for you.

I know carbon dating has shown evidence for things hundreds of millions of years old.

No it doesn't. Carbon dating only goes as fat as about 50,000 years. You're talking about other dating methods but if you were going to make that claim you should've done homeowrk first.

The first cell is 4 billion years old. How do we know the Universe is older than four billion years old?

Because for that to be true just after the universe is created there's only 500 million years (because the earth is 4.5 billion years old) for all the suns, planets, solar systems to form.

And if the universe was 4 billion years old this shouldn't exist.

Geez, and they say gonig on the Internet is a waste of time.

It implies that homo sapiens as a species will inevitable be screwed over.

BBC's view on this

This may be only one view, but medicine and technology does come at a price, but without it, we'd be worse off than those during the middle ages...

I always thought it implied that, "you are not good enough!"

Which begs the question, "So who/what is?"

Thus, God.

At 1/12/09 04:10 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: I always thought it implied that, "you are not good enough!"

Which begs the question, "So who/what is?"

Thus, God.

Evolution is gradual change, for better or worse. Good enough for what, anyway?
Furthermore, I don't see any logical connection between a hypothetical being that's simply "good enough" and God.

Before Reading:
1st: I know ,i have 2 -_- posts
2nd: I have no links
But you CAN trust me

The evolution theory is already invalid, and there are some simple reasons: Animals we know aren't evolving (and im not saying :OMG MY DOG HAS WINGS!!!). I mean, thousands and thousands and (etc..) years and animals didn't change. Homo Sapiens hasn't changed neither. If animals evolve to adaptate to their environement, lots of them NEED to evolve.
SUMMARY: We know that Dinosaurs existed, and we know that there was an Homo Erectus before Homo Sapiens.
But that happened a LONG time ago. And looks like most animals didn't change even a bit.

PD:Sorry for my bad english, im still learning :D

At 1/12/09 06:42 PM, thetimeangel wrote: Before Reading:
1st: I know ,i have 2 -_- posts
2nd: I have no links
But you CAN trust me

you can trust me as well :)

The evolution theory is already invalid, and there are some simple reasons: Animals we know aren't evolving (and im not saying :OMG MY DOG HAS WINGS!!!). I mean, thousands and thousands and (etc..) years and animals didn't change. Homo Sapiens hasn't changed neither. If animals evolve to adaptate to their environement, lots of them NEED to evolve.

theres actualy lots of evidence for everything from humans to wolves evolving even within the last couple thousand years.

SUMMARY: We know that Dinosaurs existed, and we know that there was an Homo Erectus before Homo Sapiens.
But that happened a LONG time ago. And looks like most animals didn't change even a bit.

actualy most animals we know today didnt even exisit at the time of dinosuars

the only mamals around were small mice like creatures

PD:Sorry for my bad english, im still learning :D

its not your english im worried about >_>

At 1/12/09 06:42 PM, thetimeangel wrote: Before Reading:
1st: I know ,i have 2 -_- posts
2nd: I have no links
But you CAN trust me

No, I can't. At least try to back up your ridiculous statements if you want to say stuff that is blatantly false.

The evolution theory is already invalid, and there are some simple reasons: Animals we know aren't evolving (and im not saying :OMG MY DOG HAS WINGS!!!). I mean, thousands and thousands and (etc..) years and animals didn't change. Homo Sapiens hasn't changed neither. If animals evolve to adaptate to their environement, lots of them NEED to evolve.
SUMMARY: We know that Dinosaurs existed, and we know that there was an Homo Erectus before Homo Sapiens.
But that happened a LONG time ago. And looks like most animals didn't change even a bit.

Please do more research before trying to debate evolution. Read this, for example. Google "animal evolution" if you want more.

PD:Sorry for my bad english, im still learning :D

At 1/12/09 06:42 PM, thetimeangel wrote: SUMMARY: We know that Dinosaurs existed, and we know that there was an Homo Erectus before Homo Sapiens.
But that happened a LONG time ago. And looks like most animals didn't change even a bit.

PD:Sorry for my bad english, im still learning :D

It's not your English that needs work, it's your logic and knowledge of how evolution works that needs to be improved.

I have to agree, reading your post mr. angel, I believe you are ill-informed about evolution and the evolution theory. Still, this topic was here to discuss what evolution implies. I'd say that the discovery of genes and the discovery of how they work was probably facilitated by the logic of the evolution theory and what it implies.