They chose 24 hours because a 24 hour cycle (roughly) represented one day - one sun going up, and one sun setting. If it took the sun longer to go once around, they'd have changed accordingly.

MovieForums Extra
Basically, it is not possible (according to scientific methodology) to either bias or forge results, because they have to be replicable by other scientists, otherwise everyone would agree it's hogwash. The biases/interests/financial gains of one scientist might not be such of another in another part of the world. What is common between them is scientific method. And any claim that is made is published in the Nature magazine, which is a peer reviewed publication (or it could be some other similar peer-reviewed mag). So if what some scientist claimed was balloney, made up to make him more famous or get him rich, it would get blasted by his peers.

By the way, do you believe that ALL scientific experiments are foney out of the same reason?

"So basically, we're not CLAIMING to have all the answers or concrete proof - but we're telling others that they don't."

I have never heard anyone put it so well, other creationists (I use the term broadly) should make note of this example

MovieForums Extra

Hey Chris, that was the question actually...why set the hour to be the length that it was?? Why wasn't one hour what we percieve today as two? Then one day would only have twelve equal parts...

Oh I see what you mean. I forget why, but I do recall reading explanations for why time is the way it is. I don't believe it is just sort of random.

And no, I don't believe all science is tripe - what I really mean is that it needs to be taken with many, many grains of salt. We can't even agree on what consists of a healthy diet, and we're claiming we know that a rock is 60 million years old? Just doesn't seem reasonable.

Anyway, that's as well as I can describe it. Thanks for the kind words, though. Arguments like this force me to re-examine my beliefs.

MovieForums Extra

No probs You hit the nail on the head with that one! A lot of people whom I've met which were at my throat a thousand times worse than you () don't even know why they're doing it, they just sort of do it!! They'd say just about ANYTHING just for the sake of saying something in the hope of putting me down, you wouldn't believe (I think that if claiming the world was flat would help their argument, they'd say it)!! At least you have structured arguments

These sorts of discussions tend to become a bit heated, and yeah, they usually force people supporting both sides to re-evaluate themselves, but I guess that was the point in the first place!

In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
Originally posted by Zephyrus
Basically, it is not possible (according to scientific methodology) to either bias or forge results, because they have to be replicable by other scientists, otherwise everyone would agree it's hogwash.
I was going to bring that up eventually. If a scientist were to forge results they WOULD be found out and wouldn't have a career any more. I've never once heard of a scientist who faked results just to keep their funding which is why I never really understood why you(Chris) felt this way.
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

I'm not talking about faking results - but a lot of these things have people drawing conclusions on what MIGHT be, rather than what is. Hypothetical things.

Yes, I know. All I mean is that I think too many of these people set out looking for proof to support their non-Christian beliefs, if you see what I mean.

It's hard to avoid that kind of bias, but I think it effects things. I am not talking about total forgery - but you'd be surprised how you can "spin" some things.

Anyway, this has been interesting, but I'm going to try to post in this thread less. Very tiring. I might reply if someone catches my eye, and I won't just run away, because I'm the only person here to defend these ideals.

MovieForums Extra

LOL Chris ! This has been quite a discussion! Is it the longest one on the forum, I haven't checked?! You know what, I think we should change the title from Evolution to Chris vs. The World !!

In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
I just bought the 3rd and 5th installment of the Earth Chronicles today. I really wanted the first one, but it was misshelved and I couldn't find it.

In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
Its the series that Zeph mentioned earlier, the first book being called The 12th Planet. It is the translation and explaination of the ancient Summerian texts that tell of giant beings from another planet visiting them. I don't believe it is true, yet but it is a very intriguing idea.

MovieForums Extra

Hey OG, you definitely have to tell me what the book's like after reading it! I haven't seen it in any book store, jut heard about it recently...personally I thought it was a fascinating idea, and sure as hell it would explain a lot of things !!

MovieForums Extra
Just thought of something interesting...

Did you all know that we as the human race are all very related? Some people think there are differences between the caucasian/black/asian races (which of course is the basis for many racist theories), but these differences are so miniscule they can almost be ignored...

Our genetic potential as a species is really limited. This is attributed to our *near* extinction about 100,000 years ago where there was what was called a "bottleneck" effect in the population (akin to tipping a bottle full of marbles up-side down, only a few come out, the rest get stuck). It ould have been due to disease, famine, or whatever, but there was an estimated 10,000 humans left on the whole earth! Simply put, there is more genetic variance between, say, two elephants or dogs or even chimps, than there is between the entire human race...

So much for individuality

MovieForums Extra

Hehehe something funny just occured to me!

This discussion can be effectively termed an "evolutionary dead end" !!!!

How I love laughing at my own jokes, it's uncanny