JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

Edited by Tempest26: 3/9/2015 10:26:48 PM
3
My paste and copy was an example of what U can find by just searching .... Just like wiki .... No credible information .... The bible is far more credible than anything you can find on the bible
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Oh dear

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Cameo Cream: 3/10/2015 1:20:43 AM
    UH OH!

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by The Cellar Door: 3/9/2015 10:36:04 PM
    [quote]My paste and copy was an example of what U can find by just searching .... Just like wiki .... No credible information .... The bible is far more credible than anything you can find on the bible[/quote] You might want to reword that... And no, there is an idea of credibility that we understand and has a logical contingency within a truth value, which would be scientific empiricism and not a famous piece of literature in this specific context. We [i]know[/i] things on a [i]scientific basis[/i] due to empiricism. We can observe things, we can test things, and we can derive the [i]actual falsity[/i] of a hypothesis from this. Based on [i]scientific empiricism[/i], evolution has been logically proven as true. If you are going to keep denying this scientific observation based on empiricism with religious sacraments, then you have no room to speak on the matter. If you can supply a negative claim with which it's premise is empirical evidence to deduce evolution as false, then I'll bite, but as far as that goes, I believe this conversation is over.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • If scientists think humans have been on the earth roughly 10,000 years, how do they explain such a low population 10,000 years later?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • *190,000 years. And many many factors play a roll in this, it's not like exponential population growth is exactly an easy task to perpetuate in a dispersedly populated desert land with a species that only lives for an average of 30-40 years which is so complex that without proper care, infertility, stillborns, and birth defect rates are very high.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • So scientists are willing to consider variations in the growth rate of a population but not the variation of Carbon 14 in our atmosphere... They put their variables where they want to make their equations match what they expect

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon