The BFFC boards will be changing soon. Take a look at the brand-new pages and start using the new version now. You can also contact us with any feedback or requests.
Message Boards - Boba Fett Fan Club → Fans → Do you believe in God or evolution?
wow, okay
very interesting, thanks for posting the article
and i have no idea how that could have happened
Well, if the creationist theory was true, this is possible. That T-rex would have died sometime in the last six-thousand years or so, and it is possible for a red blood cell to last a little while like that. So, a little bit to support that theory.
Any other comments, questions, or anything?
Not nessisarily. That was the specimen I was referring to you know, and they don't list red blood cells being a part of what was uncovered. You're confusing it with the blood vessles they did find (which is where you'd find red and white blood cells. But again, it didn't mention the blood cells being preserved). And mind you, this might not be a unique find. Generally, fossils are never treated in this manner. They're a lot more rare then people think so every attempt is made to preserve them. But in this case that wasn't possible, so after they had to cut the fossilized leg in two, there wasn't any harm of cutting it even more. And thats when they discovered the soft tissue.
Read the first words in the first link again: "Actual red blood cells in a Tyrannosaurus Rex?" That was the first sentence! How could you miss that?
I don't trust that first link. Its biased to your view, so of course it has the information you want it to say. National Geographic is not biased. They do not lean towards one way or they other. They only tell it how it is. And they didn't mention spefically red blood cells. Yes, soft tissue was preserved. Yes, blood vessiles were among the preserved tissue. But it did not mention actual blood cells. Just that the fossil contained the tissues for bone formation.
My view??? lol, it's biased to the creationist's view, and the other one is biased to the evolutionist's view, or did you not read my posts?
And EVERYBODY knows that National Geographic always leans toward evolution. That's the way they do. There's absolutley NO non-biased guys on this issue. Have you EVER heard National Geographic present creation as fact? Of course not! Have you ever heard them present evolution as fact? Of course! We've already decided that they are BOTH scientific theories, and everybody picks one, or the other. Both creation and evolution are theories.
I doubt that they have ever said evolution is a fact. The may have talked about it as such because there is more proof.
I believe in Fettism, wherein the Universe was created in only 3 days because the almighty Boba Fett needed a bigger hunting ground. It's sweepin the nation, keep an eye out for our advertisements.
I believe in Fettism, wherein the Universe was created in only 3 days because the almighty Boba Fett needed a bigger hunting ground. It's sweepin the nation, keep an eye out for our advertisements.
Lol, screw evolution, fettism is what im about. 
I second that motion!
topic closed as far as im concerned
You're not even listening to me. T_T People are not one or the other either. There are some people who are both, you know. You're awfully closed minded. You don't listen to, you just scream your opinion, but have thus far have only produced one (rather weak) thing to try and prove your point.
LOL, if was screaming you'd know it. I won't even begin to point out your "closed-mindedness. As for God and evolution co-existing, I just don't see that being reasonable! Here's that religious site's take on that:
Draco, you say that there's more proof for evolution, but could you please give me some? Remember that there's that guy who will give $100,000 to the first guy who has proof for evolution. And National Geographic has presented evolution as fact. Here's several links. Notice how they say "freeing it from a 65-million-year-old rock tomb." They failed to say anything like "may", or might, or anything like that.
And here they say "a new dinosaur species dating back 90 million years," they presented it as total fact, as if it were science!(Remember, BOTH creation, and evolution are just theories!
Look at this one, I quote, "Preliminary studies of the 67-million-year-old hadrosaur,". Never a question as to the "fact" of evolution is there?
There, that's just three articles that present evolution as fact! Want more? I found about a million of 'em!
They say those dates because they likely used carbon dating or a similar method. If they do this, and get an estiment of the time, why should the put "might," or "may be."
The first link is at times biased to the point of withholding information. While talking about dinsaur ages, they say scientists guessed, when in reality, they use carbon dating. While talking about life elswhere, they do not mention that we have possibly found bacteria fossils on Mars. Also, part of their evidence for life only existing here assumes that all life in the universe has a radio reciever.
Although, in all fairness, I have not read through the entire site.
Exactly! Oops I spammed with a one word...sorry.
There is very much a thing as beliving as both theorys. Some people belive the universe spontainiously appeared. Some people belived God did it all. And some belive God made the universe, but largely let everything happen naturally. Is that hard to belive?
And how can you say Dinosaurs have only been dead a few thousand years, when its been many millions? Its not a guess either: You can test organic material with carbon dating, because carbon has a very long half-life. For even older fossils, there are simmilar methods of dating that involve other chemicals (that I can't think of at the moment.,...) that have even longer half-lives. Its not accurate to the exact DAY, but its really exact. Life has been on this planet for a very long time, and all living creatures, extinct or still living, evolved from the very first life forms; microscopic bacteriums.
draco, you're not doubting carbon dating are you? because it's very accurate as a matter of fact.
and for that "And some believe God made the universe, but largely let everything happen naturally" is the religious view known as Deism.
also, religion still fails. evolution does have more proof than creation, here's a simple reason:
the bible has been re-written who knows how many times? it's all rewrites in order to fit other people's point of views, so there is no one single point of view that we can believe is to be more correct than others, where evolution really basically still follows everything that Darwin and whoever the guy is who came up with the evolution theory, because it's so simple. and they basically have proven that the Big Bang was indeed real thanks to the large hadron collider.
I was saying that the people who run that site ignored carbon dating.
I should probably link my term paper on here to help give some facts to you guys... It was called "Evolution or Creationism? The Debate for How the World Began", I turned it in last semester. Anyone interested?
I was saying that the people who run that site ignored carbon dating.
ah, okay.
I should probably link my term paper on here to help give some facts to you guys... It was called "Evolution or Creationism? The Debate for How the World Began", I turned it in last semester. Anyone interested?
yes.
LOL! Everybody I know at home think I'm mentally ill...I have no idea why... 
hehehehe...
As for that site ignoring carbon dating? Here's a link.
Hadron Collider?
Creation, (intelligent Design) and the Bible are very close. But you can separate them Fett_II. And Darwin observed MICRO evolution(which is completly scientific), but then he went to extremes, and streched his imagination to MACRO evolution. At first he said there would be MILLIONS of missing links. But they never found any, did they? Show me a missing link guys!
And by the way, none of you guys ever answered my post about how you're "current human evolution" would make short people inferior to tall. Or about the people getting shorter? You never answered...
i think someone answered you,
and i have a friend who could pass as a missing link...
I never said short people are inferior to tall.... I said that as a whole, the human race is getting taller.
The earth has changed drastically within the millions of years life has been on this planet. We only find fossils when the earth erodes on the surface enough to that point in time to where the animal or plant died. Finding fossils just isn't that easy, even when you know where to look. And, the majority of this planet is water. Who knows what sort of fossils are underneath the oceans! After all, the first life was ocean life. We only find aquatic fossils when the sea dries up in certain part and becomes land. Perhaps also, there are fossils of land life underneath the sea, which in the past, was dry land.
Asian people aren't getting taller as a whole! And some families are getting shorter.
And you leave out the possiblity of disaster! What if a flood like the one in the Bible happened? Wouldn't all the fossils be scattered all over the place? If there was such a flood, what would we find??? "Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers. All over the earth." And what do we find??? "Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers. All over the earth." Sediment would have settled into rock layers, so having that, wouldn't prove evolution.
Asian people aren't getting taller as a whole! And some families are getting shorter.
And you leave out the possiblity of disaster! What if a flood like the one in the Bible happened? Wouldn't all the fossils be scattered all over the place? If there was such a flood, what would we find??? "Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers. All over the earth." And what do we find??? "Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers. All over the earth." Sediment would have settled into rock layers, so having that, wouldn't prove evolution.
That's a good point...that would explain alot. Since they find fossils where there once was ocean, wouldn't a world-wide flood come to mind? And wouldn't world-wide floods mean the world being covered by ocean? Also, people say that aqautic creatures came first. Those and creatures of the air were created first according to the Bible. Even though the Bible has been re-written many times, the parts that were re-written were mostly the same thing, and most of the Bible is still what it once was.
But I'm beginning to find this argument...unhealthy. We aren't just stating our views, we're trying to force them onto others... 
Message Boards - Boba Fett Fan Club → Fans → Do you believe in God or evolution?
Generated in 0.105 seconds (97% PHP - 3% DB) with 8 queries
17,052 BFFC members
93,470 board posts
3,932 board topics
2,399 customized avatars
10,826,302 profile views
1,254 profile follows
Menu
Account
