Jump to content
270soft Forum

IQ 🅱oll  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your IQ?

  2. 2. Where did you take an IQ test?

    • Online (free)
    • Online (paid)
      0
    • School
    • Work
      0
    • Other


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

 

Correct, independent sustainability is not one of the seven recognized requirement of life, growth, reproduction (in a species with this ability through sex cells), heredity of traits (99% of the time chromosomatic, very important facet), homeostasis, metabolism, cellular structure, and reaction to stimuli.

Fire meets of four of those. :P

That was pointed in my science class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Fire meets of four of those. :P

That was pointed in my science class.

Well lucky we need to meet all seven 😛 .

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MRA said:

YOU are a fascist communist Islam-loving anti-christian state-sanctioned actor.

 

As a member of the conservative socialist progressive right, I support this totally logical statement

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MRA said:

Evolution is a scam. Evolutionists believe that if you put some worms on an island and return in a few million years you'll find people,elephants etc.

I've debunked evolution, the dogma of deniers

@WVProgressive @vcczar @Patine @ThePotatoWalrus

 

Even as a Christian i'm 99% sure that's not how evolution works, or what evolutionists believe

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MRA said:

Evolution is a scam. Evolutionists believe that if you put some worms on an island and return in a few million years you'll find people,elephants etc.

I've debunked evolution, the dogma of deniers

@WVProgressive @vcczar @Patine @ThePotatoWalrus

 

Well not humans and elephants but in millions of years they'd evolve to suit their environments. What do you think evolution is, exactly? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

Well not humans and elephants but in millions of years they'd evolve to suit their environments. What do you think evolution is, exactly? 

A naturalistic attempt at explaining life.

I don't see how one make the logical gap from adapts to environment to morphs into different species.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MRA said:

A naturalistic attempt at explaining life.

I don't see how one make the logical gap from adapts to environment to morphs into different species.

So you're saying that you believe in micro but not macro evolution?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MRA said:

Yes.

Well over millions and billions of years mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection, leads to macro evolution, it just takes time, you wouldn't be able to see it in your lifetime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Well over millions and billions of years mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection, leads to macro evolution, it just takes time, you wouldn't be able to see it in your lifetime.

Earth has only existed for 4.543 billion years during which for much of it's time it was inhospitable to life. Can you demonstrate that macroevolution while theoretically possible fits a reasonable timespan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MRA said:

Earth has only existed for 4.543 billion years during which for much of it's time it was inhospitable to life. Can you demonstrate that macroevolution while theoretically possible fits a reasonable timespan.

Earth has had life on it for 3.8 billion years (possible earlier) that is plenty of time for evolution to reach it's current point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Earth has had life on it for 3.8 billion years (possible earlier) that is plenty of time for evolution to reach it's current point. 

Once you source that I'll accept macroevolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

I'm willing to accept that

Though it must be noted that carbon dating isn't very reliable https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MRA said:

I'm willing to accept that

Though it must be noted that carbon dating isn't very reliable https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

He's mostly right. Carbon dating isn't 100% reliable but it is better than you probably think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

He's mostly right. Carbon dating isn't 100% reliable but it is better than you probably think.

I just heard someone say the dinasours died 4,200 years ago. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

I just heard someone say the dinasours died 4,200 years ago. 

The oldest Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian cuneiform trace from about that time. Why didn't they mention such impressive, gargantuan beasts at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

The oldest Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian cuneiform trace from about that time. Why didn't they mention such impressive, gargantuan beasts at all?

It was in a debate this guy had with a designer. I can't believe he didn't point that out. (I'll send you the link if you want @ThePotatoWalrus)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...