egafd.com

Ken Shabby wrote:

> How are those giraffes? One is clearly a goat, and the other's
> like a little horse.


The answer is that they aren't giraffes. The samotherium is not a giraffe, it's a proto-giraffe which lived millions of years ago. DNA tells us that it's almost identical to a giraffe, but nevertheless it's not a giraffe.

You're not completely wrong when you mention a goat, because DNA shows that giraffes and goats are related, although fairly distantly. You are wrong about the horse though - horses are a different line of evolution entirely. The order of animals which includes the giraffe includes deer, antelopes, goats and camels, but not horses.


> Just because somethings got four legs, a
> body, a neck and a head does not mean it's the same as a
> giraffe.

Indeed not. It's DNA which shows that the samotherium is an ancestor of the giraffe.

Who said satire was dead? You were being satirical, weren't you?

No, Andy. Actually I wasn't (I'm not THAT smart). It's just that I don't buy into that whole evolution bullshit. I think that scientists let their imaginations run away with them when they're trying to prove the un-provable.

I didn't want to start an argument. That wasn't my intent, I just saw the topic and I couldn't resist throwing my own 2 cents in. You've got your beliefs and I've got mine. And I'm not going to try to shove them down anyone's throat. In fact, I'm not even going to tell you what my beliefs are.

All I wanted to do, in my ranting-half drunk way, was just to show my dissent. It pisses me off when I turn on the television and there's someone there with a smug look on they're face, pressenting the theory of evolution as absolute fact. It's like the emperor's new clothes, and I just don't like being told what to believe. We're all told what to think too much these days.

JamesW, I really appreciate your taking the time out to pressent a reply that you've put so much thought into. But I think that there's so much more to life than just numbers. 2 million years, 5 million years, how do we really know? I mean carbon dating must be like any other machine or process, you need something to calibrate it on, something that you could use that you know exactly how old it is. I mean to test it, to see if the system of detection can, indeed, detect it. And where do you get that? I never seen a rock lying around with '200 million years old guaranteed' stamped on it.

Anyway, I probably didn't word all this as well as I could (I'm typing pretty fast here), but I've had my say. I'll shut up now and let someone else get a word in.

Darwinist propaganda...

No one knows the secret of life and there are only theories and beliefs. Take the Big Bang Theory for example. All I want to know is "who lit the fuse?"

Scientists like others can be political or corrupt...

Ken Shabby wrote:

> carbon dating must be like any other machine or process, you
> need something to calibrate it on, something that you could use
> that you know exactly how old it is. I mean to test it, to see
> if the system of detection can, indeed, detect it. And where do
> you get that? I never seen a rock lying around with '200
> million years old guaranteed' stamped on it.


Carbon dating doesn't work on rocks anyway, unless they're less than 50,000 years old.

Tree rings have been used to calibrate carbon dating, because a tree has a ring for every year, so it's easy to know exactly how old a tree is and therefore to verify if the carbon dating of it is accurate.

How old is the oldest tree on Earth!

eroticartist wrote:

> How old is the oldest tree on Earth!


4,789

I asked "How old is the oldest tree on Earth" and your answer is "4,789."

Funny because I thought that the "carboniferous period" during which coal was formed was millions of years ago?

Did you go to a special school?