[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"]

of course its about the topic at hand. i'll even quote it.

"Fossil evidence shows that there were modern humans in Africa by 130,000 years ago. Around 50,000 years ago, whether because of a sudden genetic modification, or simply the accumulation of skills over a period of 70,000 years, humans began to migrate out of Africa. Whether there were earlier, smaller, waves of migrations remains a matter of debate."

The oldest human was found in Africa and it even says that humans migrated out of Africa.

tycoonmike

I think I'll quote the article as well, its title:

First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago

Australia, not Africa. The article is about how the earliest dated human in Australia has been dated to 50,000 years ago. The article uses this example to provide evidence for the "out-of-Africa" theory, but in no way is the article solely about said theory. And even if it was, the article says that humans may have migrated out of Africa, it doesn't say that they did. The "out-of-Africa" theory is exactly that, a theory, something that, by its very nature is not proof. Heaven forbid some other archeological dig turns up an earlier human specimen in the Americas, or Asia, or Europe, or Australia, or even Antartica (sp?).

thats when the first humans reached australia. the oldest human fossils were 150,000 years old and in ethiopia. PWNED AGAIN!!!

Evidently, someone doesn't understand my post. I'll simplify:

Theory = a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact (www.dictionary.com)

Proof = evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth (same website)

Fact = something that actually exists; reality; truth (same website)

Proof = Fact

Theory =/= Proof

Theory =/= Fact

If you want to continue owning yourself, go ahead, because I won't stop it. I just hope you come to your senses before you start spouting deliberate fallacies.

Another bio noob. it states that the fossils are 150,000 years old. how is this a theory???? is it a theory that the fossils exist? or perhaps you are implying that the element of carbon is a theory? 

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]okay so then why did u ask if they had to be black people? Silver_Dragon17

Why can only black people change to their climate? Why not white people?

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]okay so then why did u ask if they had to be black people? killtactics

Why can only black people change to their climate? Why not white people?

Correct but like I said it was because of genetic mutations. 

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"]

of course its about the topic at hand. i'll even quote it.

"Fossil evidence shows that there were modern humans in Africa by 130,000 years ago. Around 50,000 years ago, whether because of a sudden genetic modification, or simply the accumulation of skills over a period of 70,000 years, humans began to migrate out of Africa. Whether there were earlier, smaller, waves of migrations remains a matter of debate."

The oldest human was found in Africa and it even says that humans migrated out of Africa.

Zero5000X

I think I'll quote the article as well, its title:

First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago

Australia, not Africa. The article is about how the earliest dated human in Australia has been dated to 50,000 years ago. The article uses this example to provide evidence for the "out-of-Africa" theory, but in no way is the article solely about said theory. And even if it was, the article says that humans may have migrated out of Africa, it doesn't say that they did. The "out-of-Africa" theory is exactly that, a theory, something that, by its very nature is not proof. Heaven forbid some other archeological dig turns up an earlier human specimen in the Americas, or Asia, or Europe, or Australia, or even Antartica (sp?).

thats when the first humans reached australia. the oldest human fossils were 150,000 years old and in ethiopia. PWNED AGAIN!!!

Evidently, someone doesn't understand my post. I'll simplify:

Theory = a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact (www.dictionary.com)

Proof = evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth (same website)

Fact = something that actually exists; reality; truth (same website)

Proof = Fact

Theory =/= Proof

Theory =/= Fact

If you want to continue owning yourself, go ahead, because I won't stop it. I just hope you come to your senses before you start spouting deliberate fallacies.

Another bio noob. it states that the fossils are 150,000 years old. how is this a theory???? is it a theory that the fossils exist? or perhaps you are implying that the element of carbon is a theory?

I am not denying the fact that the bones found in Africa are 150,000 years old. I am refuting your idea that theory equals fact. Didn't you notice how the article you provided used the word "THEORY" when describing the "out-of-Africa" theory? Or perhaps you were too blinded by your arrogance to recognize that. Either way, theory does not equate fact. The bones that were discovered in Africa may be 150,000 years old, but for all you know, tomorrow archeologists will find human bones in someplace like Europe that date back to 200,000 years ago, providing evidence against your THEORY.

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"]

of course its about the topic at hand. i'll even quote it.

"Fossil evidence shows that there were modern humans in Africa by 130,000 years ago. Around 50,000 years ago, whether because of a sudden genetic modification, or simply the accumulation of skills over a period of 70,000 years, humans began to migrate out of Africa. Whether there were earlier, smaller, waves of migrations remains a matter of debate."

The oldest human was found in Africa and it even says that humans migrated out of Africa.

tycoonmike

I think I'll quote the article as well, its title:

First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago

Australia, not Africa. The article is about how the earliest dated human in Australia has been dated to 50,000 years ago. The article uses this example to provide evidence for the "out-of-Africa" theory, but in no way is the article solely about said theory. And even if it was, the article says that humans may have migrated out of Africa, it doesn't say that they did. The "out-of-Africa" theory is exactly that, a theory, something that, by its very nature is not proof. Heaven forbid some other archeological dig turns up an earlier human specimen in the Americas, or Asia, or Europe, or Australia, or even Antartica (sp?).

thats when the first humans reached australia. the oldest human fossils were 150,000 years old and in ethiopia. PWNED AGAIN!!!

Evidently, someone doesn't understand my post. I'll simplify:

Theory = a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact (www.dictionary.com)

Proof = evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth (same website)

Fact = something that actually exists; reality; truth (same website)

Proof = Fact

Theory =/= Proof

Theory =/= Fact

If you want to continue owning yourself, go ahead, because I won't stop it. I just hope you come to your senses before you start spouting deliberate fallacies.

Another bio noob. it states that the fossils are 150,000 years old. how is this a theory???? is it a theory that the fossils exist? or perhaps you are implying that the element of carbon is a theory?

I am not denying the fact that the bones found in Africa are 150,000 years old. I am refuting your idea that theory equals fact. Didn't you notice how the article you provided used the word "THEORY" when describing the "out-of-Africa" theory? Or perhaps you were too blinded by your arrogance to recognize that. Either way, theory does not equate fact. The bones that were discovered in Africa may be 150,000 years old, but for all you know, tomorrow archeologists will find human bones in someplace like Europe that date back to 200,000 years ago, providing evidence against your THEORY.

You seem like a racist. You don't want to admit to the fact that black people came before white people and all other peoples for that matter. For the record I'm white.  

You seem like a racist. You don't want to admit to the fact that black people came before white people and all other peoples for that matter. For the record I'm white.

Zero5000X

Are you bloody kidding me? What the hell does me heaping disreputability on your claims have anything to do with racism? My claims have absolutely nothing to do with racism, they have to do with the difference between fact and theory, which you evidently do not understand.

As per one of your previous posts, it seems that you can't admit when you're wrong, either. 

And if I may mimic your style of debate, never use an ad hominem argument against me, you debating noob.

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"]

of course its about the topic at hand. i'll even quote it.

"Fossil evidence shows that there were modern humans in Africa by 130,000 years ago. Around 50,000 years ago, whether because of a sudden genetic modification, or simply the accumulation of skills over a period of 70,000 years, humans began to migrate out of Africa. Whether there were earlier, smaller, waves of migrations remains a matter of debate."

The oldest human was found in Africa and it even says that humans migrated out of Africa.

tycoonmike

I think I'll quote the article as well, its title:

First Humans in Australia Dated to 50,000 Years Ago

Australia, not Africa. The article is about how the earliest dated human in Australia has been dated to 50,000 years ago. The article uses this example to provide evidence for the "out-of-Africa" theory, but in no way is the article solely about said theory. And even if it was, the article says that humans may have migrated out of Africa, it doesn't say that they did. The "out-of-Africa" theory is exactly that, a theory, something that, by its very nature is not proof. Heaven forbid some other archeological dig turns up an earlier human specimen in the Americas, or Asia, or Europe, or Australia, or even Antartica (sp?).

thats when the first humans reached australia. the oldest human fossils were 150,000 years old and in ethiopia. PWNED AGAIN!!!

Evidently, someone doesn't understand my post. I'll simplify:

Theory = a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact (www.dictionary.com)

Proof = evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth (same website)

Fact = something that actually exists; reality; truth (same website)

Proof = Fact

Theory =/= Proof

Theory =/= Fact

If you want to continue owning yourself, go ahead, because I won't stop it. I just hope you come to your senses before you start spouting deliberate fallacies.

Another bio noob. it states that the fossils are 150,000 years old. how is this a theory???? is it a theory that the fossils exist? or perhaps you are implying that the element of carbon is a theory?

I am not denying the fact that the bones found in Africa are 150,000 years old. I am refuting your idea that theory equals fact. Didn't you notice how the article you provided used the word "THEORY" when describing the "out-of-Africa" theory? Or perhaps you were too blinded by your arrogance to recognize that. Either way, theory does not equate fact. The bones that were discovered in Africa may be 150,000 years old, but for all you know, tomorrow archeologists will find human bones in someplace like Europe that date back to 200,000 years ago, providing evidence against your THEORY.

You seem like a racist. You don't want to admit to the fact that black people came before white people and all other peoples for that matter. For the record I'm white.

Are you bloody kidding me? What the hell does me heaping disreputability on your claims have anything to do with racism? My claims have absolutely nothing to do with racism, they have to do with the difference between fact and theory, which you evidently do not understand.

And if I may mimic your style of debate, never use an ad hominem argument against me, you debating noob.

I never said it wasn't a theory. you're putting words in my mouth. I just said that the first people were from Africa. The PWNAGE just keeps going on and on. 

I never said it wasn't a theory. you're putting words in my mouth. I just said that the first people were from Africa. The PWNAGE just keeps going on and on.

Zero5000X

Once again, that is just a theory. As far we know, the first humans came from Africa. As I had just stated, for all you know, some archeological dig somewhere on Earth other than Africa will show human bones from an earlier time than those found in Africa. I am not putting words in your mouth, if anything you're shoving them back into it yourself. Apparently you can't seem to understand that you are beat. Until you can undeniably prove that humans were created/evolved in Africa, all that is is a theory.

This is getting tedious and boring so I bid you farewell. Perhaps you will think twice when trying to match wits with someone possesing a genius level IQ.Zero5000X

HA! What the hell does a genious level IQ have to do with anything? This only further proves your ignorace and your arrogance.

And just for the record, I also have a genious level IQ, thus rendering your point moot. 

This is getting tedious and boring so I bid you farewell. Perhaps you will think twice when trying to match wits with someone possesing a genius level IQ.Zero5000X

I didn't have any trouble....but I'm not going to brag about my IQ.  Suffice to say I made points and you....didn't.

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]This is getting tedious and boring so I bid you farewell. Perhaps you will think twice when trying to match wits with someone possesing a genius level IQ.tycoonmike

HA! What the hell does a genious level IQ have to do with anything? This only further proves your ignorace and your arrogance.

And just for the record, I also have a genious level IQ, thus rendering your point moot.

TYCOON MIKE GOT OWNED HAHAHAHA. Just kidding

 Actually, mike your posts were well thought out and he couldn't really say anything productive to what you said. *claps* And claps for basic too :D

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"]

Between 6-12k years old? LMFAO the earth is BILLIONS of years old. LMFAO

Silver_Dragon17

Since you refuse to post with respect and decency (Read my blog, second or third post) I do not think I want to continue our discussion.

There is no proof that the Earth is billions of years old.

Good day/night.

OMG YOU HAVE TO BE THE BIGGEST SCIENCE NOOB IVE EVER MET!!! YOUR LIKE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE FROM THAT DOCUMENTARY JESUS CAMP ARENT YOU? DO YOU LOVE GEAROGE BUSH AND BOW TO A CUT OUT OF HIM? 

No.........and I'm only 17. Don't expect me to know a ton of science. But I do know there is no proof of the Earth being billions of years old. And you have yet to post any proof.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]This is getting tedious and boring so I bid you farewell. Perhaps you will think twice when trying to match wits with someone possesing a genius level IQ.tycoonmike

HA! What the hell does a genious level IQ have to do with anything? This only further proves your ignorace and your arrogance.

And just for the record, I also have a genious level IQ, thus rendering your point moot.

You are going to believe what you want and I don't particularly care, but I'm just going to say one more thing. You called me arrogant. Why shouldn't I be arrogant? With a genious level IQ as previously stated, the face of a botticelli angel, the body of a Greek god, and one of the best jobs imagineable why shouldn't I be arrogant? Tell me this please.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]This is getting tedious and boring so I bid you farewell. Perhaps you will think twice when trying to match wits with someone possesing a genius level IQ.Zero5000X

HA! What the hell does a genious level IQ have to do with anything? This only further proves your ignorace and your arrogance.

And just for the record, I also have a genious level IQ, thus rendering your point moot.

You are going to believe what you want and I don't particularly care, but I'm just going to say one more thing. You called me arrogant. Why shouldn't I be arrogant? With a genious level IQ as previously stated, the face of a botticelli angel, the body of a Greek god, and one of the best jobs imagineable why shouldn't I be arrogant? Tell me this please.

Because being arrogant proves that you will never be an adult. You may look like an adult, you may sound like an adult, you may even act like an adult, but all your "adulthood" will be is a shell, to hide your child-like mind. Intelligence and beauty do not make you virtuous. If anything, they make you blind to your own shortcomings, as proven by your debate in this thread. With all due respect, for all your intelligence, you can't debate for s***. 

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]This is getting tedious and boring so I bid you farewell. Perhaps you will think twice when trying to match wits with someone possesing a genius level IQ.tycoonmike

HA! What the hell does a genious level IQ have to do with anything? This only further proves your ignorace and your arrogance.

And just for the record, I also have a genious level IQ, thus rendering your point moot.

You are going to believe what you want and I don't particularly care, but I'm just going to say one more thing. You called me arrogant. Why shouldn't I be arrogant? With a genious level IQ as previously stated, the face of a botticelli angel, the body of a Greek god, and one of the best jobs imagineable why shouldn't I be arrogant? Tell me this please.

Because being arrogant proves that you will never be an adult. You may look like an adult, you may sound like an adult, you may even act like an adult, but all your "adulthood" will be is a shell, to hide your child-like mind. Intelligence and beauty do not make you virtuous. If anything, they make you blind to your own shortcomings, as proven by your debate in this thread. With all due respect, for all your intelligence, you can't debate for s***.

I know I said that was my last post but after seeing yours I have to reply. I don't understand why you say  I can't debate when I kept proving your points wrong. You indicate I'm immature but than you try to put as many articulate words into your posts as possible which leads me to believe that you are immature. That is most likely not how you normally talk especially on a thread so I'm guessing you are just doing it to impress people. Beauty and intelligence are everything in this world. Together they make your life undescribably easy and wonderful. Being virtuous means very little in the long run. 

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]This is getting tedious and boring so I bid you farewell. Perhaps you will think twice when trying to match wits with someone possesing a genius level IQ.Zero5000X

HA! What the hell does a genious level IQ have to do with anything? This only further proves your ignorace and your arrogance.

And just for the record, I also have a genious level IQ, thus rendering your point moot.

You are going to believe what you want and I don't particularly care, but I'm just going to say one more thing. You called me arrogant. Why shouldn't I be arrogant? With a genious level IQ as previously stated, the face of a botticelli angel, the body of a Greek god, and one of the best jobs imagineable why shouldn't I be arrogant? Tell me this please.

Because being arrogant proves that you will never be an adult. You may look like an adult, you may sound like an adult, you may even act like an adult, but all your "adulthood" will be is a shell, to hide your child-like mind. Intelligence and beauty do not make you virtuous. If anything, they make you blind to your own shortcomings, as proven by your debate in this thread. With all due respect, for all your intelligence, you can't debate for s***.

I know I said that was my last post but after seeing yours I have to reply. I don't understand why you say I can't debate when I kept proving your points wrong. You indicate I'm immature but than you try to put as many articulate words into your posts as possible which leads me to believe that you are immature. That is most likely not how you normally talk especially on a thread so I'm guessing you are just doing it to impress people. Beauty and intelligence are everything in this world. Together they make your life undescribably easy and wonderful. Being virtuous means very little in the long run.

You haven't once proven me wrong, because you either avoid direct confrontation or you try to use an ad hominem argument for proof instead of addressing my points. You have not provided proof to say that those bones in Africa are of the oldest member of homo sapien, you have merely provided proof that those bones in Africa MAY BE the oldest specimen of homo sapien. 

The nice thing is I have provided evidence as to why you are immature whereas you have, yet again, decided not to do so. How can I trust a word you are saying if you refuse to provide any sort of evidence to back up your claims?

You would be wrong. I always speak frankly whenever I post on here. If I have to post something that someone may find insulting, however, I always say "with all due respect" to show my intention to keep the debate clean of any posts that may be solely spam.

No, beauty and intelligence give you a shallow existance. If you have to rely on beauty and intelligence instead of integrity and compassion, then you will never be able to make any serious friendships or relationships. What is life, after all, without companions? 

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="Zero5000X"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Zero5000X"]This is getting tedious and boring so I bid you farewell. Perhaps you will think twice when trying to match wits with someone possesing a genius level IQ.tycoonmike

HA! What the hell does a genious level IQ have to do with anything? This only further proves your ignorace and your arrogance.

And just for the record, I also have a genious level IQ, thus rendering your point moot.

You are going to believe what you want and I don't particularly care, but I'm just going to say one more thing. You called me arrogant. Why shouldn't I be arrogant? With a genious level IQ as previously stated, the face of a botticelli angel, the body of a Greek god, and one of the best jobs imagineable why shouldn't I be arrogant? Tell me this please.

Because being arrogant proves that you will never be an adult. You may look like an adult, you may sound like an adult, you may even act like an adult, but all your "adulthood" will be is a shell, to hide your child-like mind. Intelligence and beauty do not make you virtuous. If anything, they make you blind to your own shortcomings, as proven by your debate in this thread. With all due respect, for all your intelligence, you can't debate for s***.

I know I said that was my last post but after seeing yours I have to reply. I don't understand why you say I can't debate when I kept proving your points wrong. You indicate I'm immature but than you try to put as many articulate words into your posts as possible which leads me to believe that you are immature. That is most likely not how you normally talk especially on a thread so I'm guessing you are just doing it to impress people. Beauty and intelligence are everything in this world. Together they make your life undescribably easy and wonderful. Being virtuous means very little in the long run.

You haven't once proven me wrong, because you either avoid direct confrontation or you try to use an ad hominem argument for proof instead of addressing my points. You have not provided proof to say that those bones in Africa are of the oldest member of homo sapien, you have merely provided proof that those bones in Africa MAY BE the oldest specimen of homo sapien.

The nice thing is I have provided evidence as to why you are immature whereas you have, yet again, decided not to do so. How can I trust a word you are saying if you refuse to provide any sort of evidence to back up your claims?

You would be wrong. I always speak frankly whenever I post on here. If I have to post something that someone may find insulting, however, I always say "with all due respect" to show my intention to keep the debate clean of any posts that may be solely spam.

No, beauty and intelligence give you a shallow existance. If you have to rely on beauty and intelligence instead of integrity and compassion, then you will never be able to make any serious friendships or relationships. What is life, after all, without companions?

You have not provided any evidence to back up your claims. Also, companionship is easy to find and beauty does get you far in life. I'll use an example. Johnny Depp used to go to church high and drunk. He had done almost every drug imagineable by the time he was 14. Would you describe these as moral behaviors? He is now one of Hollywood's top actors. Of course he is a great actor but so are many other people. The reason he is so popular and got so far is because he is very good looking. He also has a wife and two kids so he has companionship. Beauty can get you far in life even with inmoral and unvirtuous behavior. 

You haven't once proven me wrong, because you either avoid direct confrontation or you try to use an ad hominem argument for proof instead of addressing my points. You have not provided proof to say that those bones in Africa are of the oldest member of homo sapien, you have merely provided proof that those bones in Africa MAY BE the oldest specimen of homo sapien.tycoonmike

Well duhh. we only know what we know. from what we know the first people originated from Africa. 

[QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="monco59"][QUOTE="cory4513"][QUOTE="monco59"][QUOTE="turgore"][QUOTE="monco59"]

[QUOTE="99RanchMarket"]i think monco is stereo typing on the stoning thing... cuz muslims are actually really peaceful. i like them. i have a few muslim friends and are way cooler than some christians i know :Dmonco59

You misunderstood me. I'm not implying that all Muslims are violent, but the majority clearly are. Why else would the same crazy leaders who call for these stonings still be in power? Islam itself may be a peaceful religion, but Muslims who practice it are anything but. What else accounts for all the terrorist strikes, murders, kidnappings and such?

no pakistan isnt in the middle east

It's only like that in the middle east. I have muslim friends and they certainly won't blow stuff up and a matter of fact they are nice people. Anyway I don't really have a religion so i don't care ( i believe god=universe)

Agreed, but the majority of Muslims live in the Middle East, which is my point. I'm in no way saying ALL Muslims are like that.

You sir are wrong . Indonesia has more muslims than anu other country in the world, Second is Pakistan. The US has more muslims than Qatar

Yes, Indonesia has more than any ONE country put together, but I'm speaking of an entire region. And Pakistan is in the Middle East ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Muslim_World.png

I think that pretty much shows that there is a heavy concentration of Muslims in the Middle East.

Pakistan isnt in the middle east

Yes it is. Wikipedia clearly states Pakistan belongs into the Greater Middle East. Look it up!

Im form pakistan, and we are not in the middle easr 

While there is nothing wrong with the OT, I am closing this down since the discussion has degenerated into a flamefest.