TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

You aren't telling the truth. The evidence speaks for itself and it is very strong.'ex-Christian'. Oh, now I get you. An apostate who turned your back on God's Son. That explains everything.Well, I'll put it to you this way; The Lord answers my prayers quite often, even when I tell no one else what it is I am praying for. He is very good to me and my Christian companions. But skeptics like you have done nothing but resentment and bitter feelings towards me. So who do you think I am more likely to trust?

Again, shallow thinking. The tooth was not in question by the scientists who examined it. It was human.

No.

Even if that were true, it doesn't help you. What was a 65 million yr old dinosaur tooth doing encased in a 250 million yr old piece of coal?

Why should I dignify such things with an answer?

You're just giving opinions. So what?Let me give you a few things that are NOT opinions: [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/1SANDLE-PRINT.jpg[/thumb=300]The evolutionist attempt to refute this one is pitiful. It was found near the 9,500 ft elevation in western Utah. [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Jun14156.jpg[/thumb=300]The Ica pottery of South America. How did the ancients even know what such dinosaurs looked like unless they had seen them? [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Jun14158.jpg[/thumb=300]Then this: thats me examining what appears to be a human footprint stepping inside a dinosaur footprint in northern Arizona. [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/100_2920-1.jpg[/thumb=300]

I don't trust you nor your 'evidence'. I don't trust anything that evolutionists say on such subjects because I have seen them lie so many times.

I have studied this enough to know that this was not a fraud. You are stilly naive and you are still lying to yourself.

You mean like you just did?And when I do offer evidence, even outstanding historical evidence of natural phenomena, a la eclipses in conjuction with what was foretold and verified by historians...you treat it like rubbish.I don't care if you are an administrator you keep your opinions to yourself.

Raptorex:"Even the smallest schoolchild knows that Tyrannosaurus rex was king of the carnivores. It was giant, ate everything in its path, and ruled the earth for some 20 million years. But now scientists know that T. rex had a pocket-sized predecessor whose appearance is more cute than chilling. A report in the journal Science says that Raptorex kriegsteini existed 60 million years before T. rex with nearly identical physical features, but on a much smaller scale. Raptorex’s adult size was only about 8 feet long and 175 pounds. This discovery completely disrupts all former thinking about the evolution of tyrannosaurids. It was previously thought that their tiny upper limbs developed as a kind of evolutionary trade-off when their bodies grew to monster proportions. The Raptorex fossil proves that these features evolved millions of years before Tyrannosaurus rex evolved into the huge, terrifying predators that would be king until the final destruction of all of the dinosaurs." Puny Predator: T. Rex’s Diminutive 8-Foot-Long Ancestor | Gadgets, Science & Technology [thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/raptorex.jpg[/thumb=400]The evolutionist position is wrong yet again and the history books will have to be re-written once more. What will they do when they find the remains of a human inside the belly of a T-Rex? I am certain that day is coming. [thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/raptorex-and-t-rex-skulls.jpg[/thumb=400]<!--AB--><span class="szs f-link"><i>Edited by Calypsis4, <script>if (getCookie('UseUserTimeZone')) {printDateTime(1255294169000, 'US', '-', 4, 'AMPM');} else {document.write('10/11/09 4:49 PM');}</script>: additions</i></span><!--AE-->

Not it won't.Here's why: genetic entropy.Example, the drosophila house fly has been taken through thousands of generations with many and different variations...within the fly family. For instance, in the experiment on flies, out of 3,000 identified mutations for Drosophila melanogaster, none of them produced a more successful fruit fly...& even more, estimates of the rate of all mutations are of the order of 10^8 to 10^9 per nucleotide that is, per ‘letter’ per generation. Maynard Smith, J., 1989. Evolutionary Genetics, Oxford University Press, New York, p.61.As far as the outcome of mutations they were able to produce things like this: [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/mutant_fly.jpg[/thumb=300]and this: [thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/antp.jpg[/thumb=200]mutated antanae.But they could never produce anything like this: [thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/TJRA-Bee.jpg[/thumb=200]Neither nature nor even genetic engineering can produce such an effect. Had they proved that nature could do this or even if they could arrange the DNA code in drosophilas to produce such an organism there would be no debate over creation vs evolution. But the fact is they can't and nature won't cooperate.