25% of Americans are idiots

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

That 112 mile crater on the Yucatan Peninsula is pretty good clue as to what happened to the dinosaurs. No matter where you go in the world, the geological record shows evidence of an asteroid strike.

Besides, weren't you talking about Genesis a few posts ago. Do you believe that dinosaurs in man walk the earth together? Do you believe that the Flinstones the documentary? There's a 59 million a year gap in the fossil record between the dinosaurs died and went first primates showed up.

I didn't ask you anything about Yucatan Pennisula or about Dinosaurs can you answer the question or admit you don't have an explanation- oh I can name about 20 other animals that clearly defy evolution.
However, there have been some credible evidence of fossils of dinosaur and human footprints that have baffled evolutionist.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

We don't see Chimps building cars, flying airplanes or teaching advanced calculus= why is that?

Chimpanzees don’t have sapience like humans do. Sapience and the ability to use tools separate us from the rest of the animals. There’s a reason why we’re called Homo Sapiens. Moose loose their antlers, but deer don't even though they are in the same family the same way humans and chimps are primates.



also, the Big Bang theory defies the law of Thermodynamics which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy.

The Big Bang does not violate the “Law of Thermodynamics”. I say that as a former A student in Physics. The fact that you referred to it as the “Law of Thermodynamics” is maddening enough. There are actually four laws. You've given the basic layman’s understanding that gets repeated over and over, then people use it in argument because they heard from someone else. I could go into more detail, but I’m not writing another term paper.


Also, if there were no "designer" tell me simply how did all the creatures learn how to survive?

They same way they do now. It’s called instinct. It the same reason babies suck their thumb and know how to suckle. Animals that don’t attack and eat humans will if hungry enough. Humans eat all sorts of thing they wouldn't normally eat when they don't want to die. It's called survival. I know they’ve shown that on Nat Geo Wild.


You ever watch National Geographic and see a Wilderbeast give birth? Wilderbeast, Gazelle's, Zebras can run in about 5 minutes after birth-yet the feline and canine family are helpless and dependent on their mom for months- how does the Gazelle that was born merely 5 minutes ago know to run when it sees a lion yet that same Gazelle will not run if an elephant, zebra or another herbivore approaches- is that design or evolution?


Evolution.


I have used the example of the Cheetah many times- compare a cheetah to a lion or any other member of the feline family- the Cheetah has the longest tail- that acts as a rudder when it's chasing prey and making sharp turns. The Cheetah is the only cat whose claws don't fully retract- which gives it traction when chasing prey. The Cheetah has oversized Nostrils and Lungs in order to take any huge amounts of Oxygen in order to maintain high speeds. The cheetah is the only cat in the feline family with a flexible curved spine- which it enables it to have great speed when sprinting- Now with all those attributes I just mentioned about the Cheetah- is it safe to say it was more than likely "Designed" that way or it just happened to evolve with all those attributes? Because if the Cheetah is built like a Lion- sorry that bulk is going to prevent him from running that fast- if the Cheetah had small lungs and small nostril- guess what lack of oxygen- big problem when running- if the Cheetah had a small tail or retractable claws- guess what it's prey would just make sharp turns and loose the Cheetah- clearly their is an intelligent designer amongst us.

It’s evolution. They all shared a common ancestor. All the big cats in Africa have spots, even lions on their underbelly. Over millions of years they bred, separated, and passed down their genes. Animals that are able to survive pass down their genes, animals that die don’t. We also have fossil records. Besides humans have an appendix, that doesn’t seem like an intelligent design. Intelligent Design is just a perversion of science axioms.


Bottom line there is just too many things in this world where the right things are needed at the right amount or right time for species to survive for all of this to be random.

You say that because you don’t understand the science behind it. You might as well say that reality is fake and we’re living in the Matrix. It goes directly to the point of my first post that when people don’t know something, they fill in the gaps with bad assumptions and superstition. "God done it" is not a suffcient answer to our ignorance of the Universe. An old man in the sky with magical powers in a city of gold is a bit much.

Where does instinct come from? Is it instilled in the brain encoding in a species DNA? If so how does a jellyfish know what to consume- Flash Alert- JellyBrains don't even have a brain- s are you saying it's still instinct? Your thumb in mouth is a bad analogy when comparing it to a newborn wilderbeast calf or a deer calf- again- the calf will stay put if an elephant, zebra, Cape buffalo approaches- all 3 large animals which the calf has never seen and is capable of damaging the calf it wants too- but the first time it sees a lion, hyena, leopard, or cheetah- which all are smaller than elephant, zebra, or cape buffaloe yet it takes off on cue and yet said this is all evolutionary instinct? Why doesn't the lion run as fast as the cheetah if they all descended from the same family? Couldn't the lion benefit from the cheetah's speed? all the predatory cats still have to sneak up on prey and chase it down so speed is crucial for survival- so your logic makes no sense and further more you missed my question on why is it so apparent that the Cheetah has the "design" for speed and the other cats do not- the lion, leopard, or jaguar does not have a flexible spine- the cheetah's claws don't retract- the only cat that claws don't retract- cheetah- advantage for gripping soil- Cheetah has the longest tail per body size in cat family which gives it huge advantage when making sharp turn- when other cats like leopard or lions chase a Gazelle- one quick turn by the Gazelle and it leaves the lion or leopard in the dust- however those quick turns don't work against the cheetah- it's tail acts as a rudder so it can maintain high speed and make quick turns without being knocked off balance. Why the oversized nostril and lungs on the cheetah? The cheetah is far smaller the lion but has bigger lungs and nostrils- why?
Roger- show me evidence that a small nosed, small lung, short tailed, retractable claws cheetah once roamed the earth and I will admit evolution is true- because by definition the cheetah once had to have had a ordinary tail, avg to small nose and nostril and just evolved those other traits? It's obvious the cheetah and many other animals were designed- end of story.

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Where does instinct come from? Is it instilled in the brain encoding in a species DNA? If so how does a jellyfish know what to consume- Flash Alert- JellyBrains don't even have a brain- s are you saying it's still instinct? Your thumb in mouth is a bad analogy when comparing it to a newborn wilderbeast calf or a deer calf- again- the calf will stay put if an elephant, zebra, Cape buffalo approaches- all 3 large animals which the calf has never seen and is capable of damaging the calf it wants too- but the first time it sees a lion, hyena, leopard, or cheetah- which all are smaller than elephant, zebra, or cape buffaloe yet it takes off on cue and yet said this is all evolutionary instinct? Why doesn't the lion run as fast as the cheetah if they all descended from the same family? Couldn't the lion benefit from the cheetah's speed? all the predatory cats still have to sneak up on prey and chase it down so speed is crucial for survival- so your logic makes no sense and further more you missed my question on why is it so apparent that the Cheetah has the "design" for speed and the other cats do not- the lion, leopard, or jaguar does not have a flexible spine- the cheetah's claws don't retract- the only cat that claws don't retract- cheetah- advantage for gripping soil- Cheetah has the longest tail per body size in cat family which gives it huge advantage when making sharp turn- when other cats like leopard or lions chase a Gazelle- one quick turn by the Gazelle and it leaves the lion or leopard in the dust- however those quick turns don't work against the cheetah- it's tail acts as a rudder so it can maintain high speed and make quick turns without being knocked off balance. Why the oversized nostril and lungs on the cheetah? The cheetah is far smaller the lion but has bigger lungs and nostrils- why?
Roger- show me evidence that a small nosed, small lung, short tailed, retractable claws cheetah once roamed the earth and I will admit evolution is true- because by definition the cheetah once had to have had a ordinary tail, avg to small nose and nostril and just evolved those other traits? It's obvious the cheetah and many other animals were designed- end of story.

You’re just throwing out words trying to sound intelligent by pretending to know what you are talking about. It’s like hearing people say they’ll lose weight if they don’t eat any fat. Your entire post is filled with your bad assumptions. The first thing you should do is look up the term circular reasoning. You know what; I’ll give you the definition then explain it to you.

Circular Reasoning (noun): A use of reason in which the premise depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"

Example from you:

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Roger- show me evidence that a small nosed, small lung, short tailed, retractable claws cheetah once roamed the earth and I will admit evolution is true- because by definition the cheetah once had to have had a ordinary tail, avg to small nose and nostril and just evolved those other traits? It's obvious the cheetah and many other animals were designed- end of story

LOL. "End of story". That's the same as people who type something silly, then type "fact". After it. "Angels had sex with people and gave birth to 10 foot people. Fact!"

The logical fallacy is that you ASSUME that a cheetah HAD to evolve from an animal like that. House cats and Cheetahs are both felines. I know that’s not apparent to you, but it is to most people that have eyes, or at least been to elementary. It’s the same way you can look at a wolf, coyote, fox, jackal, and a dog and know they are all canines. Well, maybe not you.

The funny part is, you think you’re going to disprove evolution on this message board. The debate has been settled and is only argued by fundies such as you.

On to your awful points:

Jellyfish consume anything that get in their way including cans, people, and even other jellyfish. Have you never been to the beach?

A baby sucking isn’t a bad analogy. Are you being serious? You honestly believe a newborn baby makes a conscious decision to suckle? You either don’t have a grasp of basic biology, or are just willfully ignorant. Baby mammals instinctively suckle. Side note, animals that suckle from their mother are called mammals. A female mammal has mammary glands, either breasts or teats to nourish their young.

You also don’t seem to know that Lions and Cheetah are both felines. I don’t even know where to begin with that one. The reason you’re having issues is because you can’t differentiate between animal families. Lion and Cheetahs are in the family Felidae. They’re both felines. It’s like saying an eagle and a falcon are both birds. If you can’t look at cats and know they’re cats, there’s isn’t much help for you. You seem to think a mountain lion must be some type of dog.

If you really wanted to learn about evolution, you would. Your feelings are hurt over your religion being called out. It’s easier for you to believe a diamond city in the sky filled with talking animals with eyes all over their body, than it is for you to believe in DNA and a fossils in a museum.

Something you should take the time to learn: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. A good mnemonics for you: Dumb Kids Playing Catch On Freeway Get Squashed.

[hungryhippo]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Where does instinct come from? Is it instilled in the brain encoding in a species DNA? If so how does a jellyfish know what to consume- Flash Alert- JellyBrains don't even have a brain- s are you saying it's still instinct? Your thumb in mouth is a bad analogy when comparing it to a newborn wilderbeast calf or a deer calf- again- the calf will stay put if an elephant, zebra, Cape buffalo approaches- all 3 large animals which the calf has never seen and is capable of damaging the calf it wants too- but the first time it sees a lion, hyena, leopard, or cheetah- which all are smaller than elephant, zebra, or cape buffaloe yet it takes off on cue and yet said this is all evolutionary instinct? Why doesn't the lion run as fast as the cheetah if they all descended from the same family? Couldn't the lion benefit from the cheetah's speed? all the predatory cats still have to sneak up on prey and chase it down so speed is crucial for survival- so your logic makes no sense and further more you missed my question on why is it so apparent that the Cheetah has the "design" for speed and the other cats do not- the lion, leopard, or jaguar does not have a flexible spine- the cheetah's claws don't retract- the only cat that claws don't retract- cheetah- advantage for gripping soil- Cheetah has the longest tail per body size in cat family which gives it huge advantage when making sharp turn- when other cats like leopard or lions chase a Gazelle- one quick turn by the Gazelle and it leaves the lion or leopard in the dust- however those quick turns don't work against the cheetah- it's tail acts as a rudder so it can maintain high speed and make quick turns without being knocked off balance. Why the oversized nostril and lungs on the cheetah? The cheetah is far smaller the lion but has bigger lungs and nostrils- why?
Roger- show me evidence that a small nosed, small lung, short tailed, retractable claws cheetah once roamed the earth and I will admit evolution is true- because by definition the cheetah once had to have had a ordinary tail, avg to small nose and nostril and just evolved those other traits? It's obvious the cheetah and many other animals were designed- end of story.

I am by no means an expert on this but a quick search will give you this...

Jelly Fish may not have a brain or a nervous system but have a nerve net that allows them to react to their enviroment. The nerve net is the simplest form of a nervous system in multicellular organisms.

This nerve net is thought to be one of the first use of neurons . JellyFish have been around for millions of years. They are pretty much the cock roaches of the sea and will consume anything.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

You’re just throwing out words trying to sound intelligent by pretending to know what you are talking about. It’s like hearing people say they’ll lose weight if they don’t eat any fat. Your entire post is filled with your bad assumptions. The first thing you should do is look up the term circular reasoning. You know what; I’ll give you the definition then explain it to you.

Circular Reasoning (noun): A use of reason in which the premise depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"

Example from you:


LOL. "End of story". That's the same as people who type something silly, then type "fact". After it. "Angels had sex with people and gave birth to 10 foot people. Fact!"

The logical fallacy is that you ASSUME that a cheetah HAD to evolve from an animal like that. House cats and Cheetahs are both felines. I know that’s not apparent to you, but it is to most people that have eyes, or at least been to elementary. It’s the same way you can look at a wolf, coyote, fox, jackal, and a dog and know they are all canines. Well, maybe not you.

The funny part is, you think you’re going to disprove evolution on this message board. The debate has been settled and is only argued by fundies such as you.

On to your awful points:

Jellyfish consume anything that get in their way including cans, people, and even other jellyfish. Have you never been to the beach?

A baby sucking isn’t a bad analogy. Are you being serious? You honestly believe a newborn baby makes a conscious decision to suckle? You either don’t have a grasp of basic biology, or are just willfully ignorant. Baby mammals instinctively suckle. Side note, animals that suckle from their mother are called mammals. A female mammal has mammary glands, either breasts or teats to nourish their young.

You also don’t seem to know that Lions and Cheetah are both felines. I don’t even know where to begin with that one. The reason you’re having issues is because you can’t differentiate between animal families. Lion and Cheetahs are in the family Felidae. They’re both felines. It’s like saying an eagle and a falcon are both birds. If you can’t look at cats and know they’re cats, there’s isn’t much help for you. You seem to think a mountain lion must be some type of dog.

If you really wanted to learn about evolution, you would. Your feelings are hurt over your religion being called out. It’s easier for you to believe a diamond city in the sky filled with talking animals with eyes all over their body, than it is for you to believe in DNA and a fossils in a museum.

Something you should take the time to learn: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. A good mnemonics for you: Dumb Kids Playing Catch On Freeway Get Squashed.

All you are doing is what pwood mention- evading the question. Am I lying when I stated that evolutionist have stated that the Giraffe developed it's long neck on the theory of survival of the fittest? Food was scarce and the giraffe started reaching for taller branches and hence over 100's of thousands of years their necks elongated as we know of them today? Where is a fossil of a short neck Giraffe? Why can't you explain why Giraffes haven't died off? The mimic octopus existence has shitted all over the theory of evolution? How in the hell would the mimic octopus evolve the ability to mimic anywhere between 5 and 8 different creatures- where it looks like a clone of another creature? Do you know how many parts that have to be working at the same time for that happen? The mimic octopus mimics the creatures body movement, shape, color and skin texture. It clearly lends to belief that these creatures were uniquely designed. You simply can't answer a simple question and merely try to change the subject.

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

All you are doing is what pwood mention- evading the question. Am I lying when I stated that evolutionist have stated that the Giraffe developed it's long neck on the theory of survival of the fittest? Food was scarce and the giraffe started reaching for taller branches and hence over 100's of thousands of years their necks elongated as we know of them today? Where is a fossil of a short neck Giraffe? Why can't you explain why Giraffes haven't died off? The mimic octopus existence has shitted all over the theory of evolution? How in the hell would the mimic octopus evolve the ability to mimic anywhere between 5 and 8 different creatures- where it looks like a clone of another creature? Do you know how many parts that have to be working at the same time for that happen? The mimic octopus mimics the creatures body movement, shape, color and skin texture. It clearly lends to belief that these creatures were uniquely designed. You simply can't answer a simple question and merely try to change the subject.

You have no reading comprehension. I addressed your points, you just don't have the aptitude to understand. If you can't look at a Lion and a Cheetah and tell that they're both cats, how can I possibly say something you'll understand. You claim to watch National Geographic. They have documentaries of the Big Cats of Africa which features, lions, cheetahs, and leopards. Even when something is spoon-fed to you, your brain can't grasp it. I GAVE you the the definition of circular reasoning and they you came back with more of it. Children are able to pick up the concepts you fail to understand.

BTW, Okapi are related to giraffes. You probably never heard of them. Scratch that, I know you've never heard of them.

[Guest060214]

I knew we were Martians!

Billions of years ago, the Earth's atmosphere was opaque and the planet's surface was a vast magma ocean devoid of life. This scenario, says Stanford University professor of geophysics Norman Sleep, was what the early Earth looked like just after a cataclysmic impact by a planet-size object that smashed into the infant Earth 4.5 billion years ago and formed the moon. The moon, once fully formed, which would have appeared much larger in the sky at the time, since it was closer to Earth
Hundreds of millions of years later, he added, the first forms of life appeared, possibly having hitched a ride on a rock from Mars. The scenario is one presented by Sleep at a recent Royal Society conference here called Origin of the Moon. A paper detailing Sleep’s study was submitted to the symposium volume.
Although many elements of the theory have been around for some time, Sleep's synthesis is "like putting together a jigsaw puzzle with some pieces already known and some that are speculative and have new aspects," said Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science who was not involved with Sleep's study.
One of these new aspects is how Earth cooled down to the temperatures necessary for life to evolve, following the — presumed — giant impact that formed the moon.
The processes Sleep discussed took place in the period called Hadean, about 4 billion to 4.5 billion years ago — before the first organisms came into being, and well before more complex life-forms, including dinosaurs, started roaming the Earth.
Back then, the Earth was nothing like the blue Earth we know today.
nstead, the entire Earth was hot and molten all the way to its inner core, a mixture of molten rock and liquid.
No life would have been able to survive these brutally high temperatures, which reached 2,000degrees Celsius (more than 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit). Liquid water had no chance to form.
The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," Stevenson said.
Beneath the clouds, a magma ocean swayed, with partially molten rock pushed around by tides, Sleep thinks.
These tides were due to the mutual attraction of the Earth and the moon, and were much stronger than those in today’s watery oceans, as the moon was sitting much, much closer to the Earth back then.
The tides constantly stirred the ocean, causing the mantle to lose heat, similar to stirring and blowing on a bowl of soup. But once released from the Earth's depths, the heat was trapped at the surface, held back by the thick, opaque primordial atmosphere.
The heat could only escape the planet (and cool it down) at so-called cloud-top temperature levels — where it would be as cold as on a modern high mountain summit. But for the first 10 million years, the temperatures were much, much higher, Sleep said.
The energy loss caused by the mutual attraction of the Earth and the moon was also making the moon gradually pull away. This made the tides progressively weaker, so the molten rock was being stirred less and less, and the Earth's mantle began to solidify in stages.
"While at the top of the Earth there was still partially molten slurry with a bit of liquid left, in the middle there was a mushy layer, but the deep mantle was becoming solid,” Sleep said. "Lava was probably still coming up and erupting and freezing at the top, and then falling back in large, kilometer-size pieces that were sinking into the Earth."
Slowly, the internal heat flow ceased to dominate the climate, and the temperatures at the surface began to drop, with the heat being able to escape the atmosphere at last.
The sweltering temperatures and trapped heat were not the only obstacles for life to appear, Sleep said.
Another issue was overabundance of carbon dioxide in the primordial atmosphere. Carbon dioxide doesn't dissolve in molten rock, so it was bound to bubble up from the magma ocean, creating a so-called runaway greenhouse effect, Sleep said.
For the Earth to become habitable, most of this carbon dioxide had to vanish.
Sleep said this happened when the tectonic plates began to move in the late Hadean, some 4.4 billion years ago. With the plates moving, the carbon dioxide began to enter the mantle in a process called subduction, when one tectonic plate moves under another and sinks into the mantle.
Liquid water oceans had already begun to condense around that time, and once the Earth cooled sufficiently and most of the carbon dioxide was safely tucked away in the mantle, life did finally appear, Sleep said, adding that chances are that this life arrived on Earth from Mars.
"We know life was present on Earth about 3.9 billion years ago, but Mars was probably habitable for a long time before the Earth," Sleep said. "So you had hundreds of millions of years when Mars was not a particularly unpleasant place, with liquid water. If life evolved on Mars, rocks get knocked off by asteroids all the time — so at some point, a rock from Mars could've come in, trying to hit us on the head."

And if conditions on Earth were just right for life to start, this Martian rock could've been the beginning of everything we know today.
But it’s still only an idea, yet a testable one. Unlike Earth, though, the ancient geological record exists on Mars, Sleep said. It is just hard to examine.


[citations]: Yahoo.com

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by Jarvis

I knew we were Martians!

Billions of years ago, the Earth's atmosphere was opaque and the planet's surface was a vast magma ocean devoid of life. This scenario, says Stanford University professor of geophysics Norman Sleep, was what the early Earth looked like just after a cataclysmic impact by a planet-size object that smashed into the infant Earth 4.5 billion years ago and formed the moon. The moon, once fully formed, which would have appeared much larger in the sky at the time, since it was closer to Earth
Hundreds of millions of years later, he added, the first forms of life appeared, possibly having hitched a ride on a rock from Mars. The scenario is one presented by Sleep at a recent Royal Society conference here called Origin of the Moon. A paper detailing Sleep’s study was submitted to the symposium volume.
Although many elements of the theory have been around for some time, Sleep's synthesis is "like putting together a jigsaw puzzle with some pieces already known and some that are speculative and have new aspects," said Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science who was not involved with Sleep's study.
One of these new aspects is how Earth cooled down to the temperatures necessary for life to evolve, following the — presumed — giant impact that formed the moon.
The processes Sleep discussed took place in the period called Hadean, about 4 billion to 4.5 billion years ago — before the first organisms came into being, and well before more complex life-forms, including dinosaurs, started roaming the Earth.
Back then, the Earth was nothing like the blue Earth we know today.
nstead, the entire Earth was hot and molten all the way to its inner core, a mixture of molten rock and liquid.
No life would have been able to survive these brutally high temperatures, which reached 2,000degrees Celsius (more than 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit). Liquid water had no chance to form.
The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," Stevenson said.
Beneath the clouds, a magma ocean swayed, with partially molten rock pushed around by tides, Sleep thinks.
These tides were due to the mutual attraction of the Earth and the moon, and were much stronger than those in today’s watery oceans, as the moon was sitting much, much closer to the Earth back then.
The tides constantly stirred the ocean, causing the mantle to lose heat, similar to stirring and blowing on a bowl of soup. But once released from the Earth's depths, the heat was trapped at the surface, held back by the thick, opaque primordial atmosphere.
The heat could only escape the planet (and cool it down) at so-called cloud-top temperature levels — where it would be as cold as on a modern high mountain summit. But for the first 10 million years, the temperatures were much, much higher, Sleep said.
The energy loss caused by the mutual attraction of the Earth and the moon was also making the moon gradually pull away. This made the tides progressively weaker, so the molten rock was being stirred less and less, and the Earth's mantle began to solidify in stages.
"While at the top of the Earth there was still partially molten slurry with a bit of liquid left, in the middle there was a mushy layer, but the deep mantle was becoming solid,” Sleep said. "Lava was probably still coming up and erupting and freezing at the top, and then falling back in large, kilometer-size pieces that were sinking into the Earth."
Slowly, the internal heat flow ceased to dominate the climate, and the temperatures at the surface began to drop, with the heat being able to escape the atmosphere at last.
The sweltering temperatures and trapped heat were not the only obstacles for life to appear, Sleep said.
Another issue was overabundance of carbon dioxide in the primordial atmosphere. Carbon dioxide doesn't dissolve in molten rock, so it was bound to bubble up from the magma ocean, creating a so-called runaway greenhouse effect, Sleep said.
For the Earth to become habitable, most of this carbon dioxide had to vanish.
Sleep said this happened when the tectonic plates began to move in the late Hadean, some 4.4 billion years ago. With the plates moving, the carbon dioxide began to enter the mantle in a process called subduction, when one tectonic plate moves under another and sinks into the mantle.
Liquid water oceans had already begun to condense around that time, and once the Earth cooled sufficiently and most of the carbon dioxide was safely tucked away in the mantle, life did finally appear, Sleep said, adding that chances are that this life arrived on Earth from Mars.
"We know life was present on Earth about 3.9 billion years ago, but Mars was probably habitable for a long time before the Earth," Sleep said. "So you had hundreds of millions of years when Mars was not a particularly unpleasant place, with liquid water. If life evolved on Mars, rocks get knocked off by asteroids all the time — so at some point, a rock from Mars could've come in, trying to hit us on the head."

And if conditions on Earth were just right for life to start, this Martian rock could've been the beginning of everything we know today.
But it’s still only an idea, yet a testable one. Unlike Earth, though, the ancient geological record exists on Mars, Sleep said. It is just hard to examine.


[citations]: Yahoo.com

Dr. Sleep is only giving his opinion. He even says that in the last line of the story you posted:

Originally Posted by Jarvis

But it’s still only an idea, yet a testable one. Unlike Earth, though, the ancient geological record exists on Mars, Sleep said. It is just hard to examine.
[citations]: Yahoo.com

He was just shooting the shit with other scientists as a "what if". He's not writing a paper for peer review or proposing a hypothesis. Are you honestly trying to claim that everyone in the science community believes this as fact based on what you've posted here?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

You have no reading comprehension. I addressed your points, you just don't have the aptitude to understand. If you can't look at a Lion and a Cheetah and tell that they're both cats, how can I possibly say something you'll understand. You claim to watch National Geographic. They have documentaries of the Big Cats of Africa which features, lions, cheetahs, and leopards. Even when something is spoon-fed to you, your brain can't grasp it. I GAVE you the the definition of circular reasoning and they you came back with more of it. Children are able to pick up the concepts you fail to understand.

BTW, Okapi are related to giraffes. You probably never heard of them. Scratch that, I know you've never heard of them.

Please tell me how your post of the Okapi is related to anything I said about the cheetah, mimic octopus, woodpecker, or the bombardier beetle? Go ahead and keep using the google function you will not find an answer on how those animals evolved their features. Many people confuse a cheetah with a leopard- one of them can run faster than any other land animal the other can hoist prey twice their size up a tree as easy as you and I can walk up some stairs. Why isn't it for the millionth time a Cheetah appears to everyone including Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles that it appears as if it were designed to excel in speed.
When did snakes "evolve" venom? Is it due to survival of the fittest? Because there are snakes that don't have venom? Was the anaconda always huge? Who told it that even though 99.9 percent of other snakes you are not going to "evolve" venom but just crush the fuck out of your prey?

I bet you still laugh when you read Genesis- you remember God's punishment for the snake? You know when he tells the serpent you will crawl on your belly and eat dust all your life? Is it interesting that scientist now believe that snakes once had limbs? http://news.discovery.com/animals/zo...ion-110207.htm
I know you have heard of the eastern coral snake which is venomous and the scarlet king snake which looks like it but isn't venomous- you know the old adage Red touches yellow, kills a fellow. Red touches black, friend of Jack.
So tell me why over all these years hasn't the scarlet king snake developed venom?

[hungryhippo]

More examples of evolution ...I doubt the doubters will read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism

[pwood]

Why didn't I think of Wikipedia
Thanks
I'm converted now

[pwood]

Hungryhippo
Just fucking around
Thanks for the read

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by hungryhippo

More examples of evolution ...I doubt the doubters will read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism

To me it's pretty self-explanatory. Denying it is just willful ignorance. Wikipedia even cites references so you can read the source material ourselves.

[Roger.Smith]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Please tell me how your post of the Okapi is related to anything I said about the cheetah, mimic octopus, woodpecker, or the bombardier beetle? Go ahead and keep using the google function you will not find an answer on how those animals evolved their features. Many people confuse a cheetah with a leopard- one of them can run faster than any other land animal the other can hoist prey twice their size up a tree as easy as you and I can walk up some stairs. Why isn't it for the millionth time a Cheetah appears to everyone including Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles that it appears as if it were designed to excel in speed.
When did snakes "evolve" venom? Is it due to survival of the fittest? Because there are snakes that don't have venom? Was the anaconda always huge? Who told it that even though 99.9 percent of other snakes you are not going to "evolve" venom but just crush the fuck out of your prey?

I bet you still laugh when you read Genesis- you remember God's punishment for the snake? You know when he tells the serpent you will crawl on your belly and eat dust all your life? Is it interesting that scientist now believe that snakes once had limbs? http://news.discovery.com/animals/zo...ion-110207.htm
I know you have heard of the eastern coral snake which is venomous and the scarlet king snake which looks like it but isn't venomous- you know the old adage Red touches yellow, kills a fellow. Red touches black, friend of Jack.
So tell me why over all these years hasn't the scarlet king snake developed venom?

I knew of Okapi before I Googled the pictures. I wouldn't have been able to do that if I didn't know what Okapi were to begin with.

I can't do for you over the Internet what the school system couldn't do in 12 years. Some people seek knowledge, others like yourself fight to hold on to archaic beliefs.

How can I take you seriously when you believe this:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/gen...6_gn03_01.html

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by hungryhippo

More examples of evolution ...I doubt the doubters will read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism

How does this prove evolution? You pair a 6ft 7" man with 6ft 5" woman and chances are the offspring will be tall. Place animal on an island with plenty of f chances are it will grow larger and produce offspring that are large- that is mere common sense. Isn't evident that in the U.S we are bigger on average than 100 years due to close proximity and availability of food?
Have you seen the result of A male Lion when it mates with a Female Tiger it produces a Liger which is nearly twice the size of the Lion and Tiger put together? You need to look at the definition of evolution. To say that humans are taller and heavier than humans during the days of Jesus doesn't prove evolution.
Tell me this- in the last 100 years we have been to the moon,created automobiles, internet, and other technological advances and wonders- if that was produced in just the past 100 years- according to evolutionist modern man has been on earth I have heard from 50,000 to 200,000- why is it that all of a sudden there's this huge explosion of human knowledge in just the past 100 years alone- why animal such as the crocodile that has been around 180 MILLION years is virtually unchanged? When will Crocs, elephants, and heck even chimpanzees going to start building cars, spaceships, etc- why only humans have this special gift? Appears to me they were designed by a creator and speaking of chimpazees our so called closes relative with 96% similarities is a bunch of bullshit- humans are vastly different from chimpanzees- compare a chimpazees voice box to humans- vastly different- the chimpanzees muscle toned- completely different- you can take the strongest guy working out of any gym in America loaded with steroids and the average chimpanzee is about 3 to 4 times stronger.